Template talk:Inuse

From LGPedia
Revision as of 03:39, 28 February 2007 by Renegade (Talk | contribs) (crude...but it works.)

Jump to: navigation, search


This is a small thing, but this page is in Category:Articles actively undergoing a major edit. Unless this template is currently undergoing a major edit, it shouldn't be in that category.--Jonpro 14:58, 27 February 2007 (CST)

uhhh, interesting... I hadn't noticed. Well, I think it's just happening because the templates are being used to demonstrate. That can be fixed. OwenIsCool 15:46, 27 February 2007 (CST)
pffft... I had every intention of fixing it... but when I looked at the code I didn't see what I had expected to see. Oh well... OwenIsCool 15:48, 27 February 2007 (CST)
The problem is that the template includes another template which includes the original template. The category-tag is marked correctly as "include only", but the page then includes Template:Inuse/doc, which in turn includes Template:Inuse for demonstration purposes - and since, on include, Inuse does include the category, both pages logically get categorized.
In other words: The template behaves exactly as it should do, and there's no way (and no reason) to fix that. Except, of course, removing the examples from the documentation.
Renegade 18:17, 27 February 2007 (CST)
Actually, it's a fast and easy fix. and exactly the sort of thing that the "Subst:" function exists for.--JayHenry 19:24, 27 February 2007 (CST)
Alright, all taken care of. Thanks for catching that, Jonpro.--JayHenry 19:26, 27 February 2007 (CST)
And, while I'm here, to address Renegade's point there's a good and very obvious reason to fix it. The category is for "Articles actively undergoing a major edit" and clearly the Inuse template is not actively undergoing a major edit.--JayHenry 19:28, 27 February 2007 (CST)
You misunderstood me there...when I said there was no reason to fix it, I ment that the template actually was correctly coded and behaved exactly as it should. Its behavior was just inconvenient in this particular situation.
I didn't consider Subst: simply because it's something different...it's equivalent to hard-coding the boxes into the "doc" page, meaning they'll have to be updated by hand (or removed and re-subst'd) if the template changes. It's basically a totally different way of designing the doc page. (Static vs. dynamic.)
...buuuut, since I won't be the one having to update that page, I'll just acknowledge the issue is solved and mess with the next page :D *scans recent changes for a victim*
Renegade 21:39, 27 February 2007 (CST)