Template talk:format

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Current revision as of 06:18, 3 February 2023

[edit] Purpose?

This seems to be taken from the english wikipedia, and it hasn't been used for anything. I'm not one to say this often, but: is it necessary? --Stux 03:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Keep?

I don't see any reason why this template is needed. It isn't used at all and, like Stux said above, it seems to just be copied from the Wikipedia template. Homestar-Winner (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm neutral, leaning towards delete. The template page itself could use a lot less blatant plagiarism. I blame it's non-existent use on lack of awareness, but even then I can't think of any use for it. Especially since it doesn't display links the foreground color. Now if it did that, it'd be worth keeping. Maybe an !important in the style attribute would do it? —Soiled Bargains ^(talk|ctrb) 02:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Delete format template

I don't see the purpose of the format version of this template. I think changes like this obfuscate the code by hiding everything behind vertical pipes and single letters, making it harder to come back later and figure out what it does. The plain tags are way easier to understand. What's the selling point here? — It's dot com 04:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

As the creator of the template I would disagree with the "easier to understand" argument. Well, it was the reason why I adapted the template so I'm a little biased. I generally find CSS tags harder to parse in my head than wiki code, especially when the two are mixed together. Having become more accustomed to templates (and their vertical pipes) I didn't think the abstraction is that big of a hurdle: commonly used tags for font size, shadow and padding were abstracted into shorter names, while (like its originating template) color and background color use the first two default parameters. I reasoned that the compactness would make it easier to read the source as well as write new fancy text.

I also waited almost a week before making changes beyond the first set from the link above, but no one had said anything until now. I was a bit taken aback by the sudden push-back. --Stux 04:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The abstraction is easier only if you actually know the template. Otherwise it's a layer you have to get past. I don't think it makes it easier to read in the code. All that said, I think my main problem is that the little bit of shortening aside, it doesn't really simplify anything. It's just a collection of one-for-one substitutions. As for the timing, I've been thinking about it ever since the format version was made and it just happened that something pushed me to bring it up now. — It's dot com 06:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)