Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Seed"

From Countdown
(changed again)
Line 5: Line 5:
 
I therefore propose that we standardise on not auto-linking contestants' names in templates.  Any objections? -- [[User:Smjg|smjg]] 14:55, 1 October 2010 (BST)
 
I therefore propose that we standardise on not auto-linking contestants' names in templates.  Any objections? -- [[User:Smjg|smjg]] 14:55, 1 October 2010 (BST)
 
:Since you probably have the best knowledge of templates out of those who use them regularly, I go along with your recommendations, Stewart.--[[Special:Contributions/92.25.180.231|Drawoh]] 15:50, 1 October 2010 (BST)
 
:Since you probably have the best knowledge of templates out of those who use them regularly, I go along with your recommendations, Stewart.--[[Special:Contributions/92.25.180.231|Drawoh]] 15:50, 1 October 2010 (BST)
 +
 +
:: And it's been reverted again.  Still, let's see if we can get anyone else's opinion on the matter. -- [[User:Smjg|smjg]] 17:07, 1 October 2010 (BST)

Revision as of 16:07, 1 October 2010

There seems to be some edit warring going on. First, it didn't link the contestants by itself. Then it did; it was following this change that I added a 5th parameter to be a series winner flag, thereby saving the clutter that is Oliver Garner{{!!}}'''Oliver Garner'''. Now it's been changed back.

Whatever we do, ISTM we could do with more consistency in whether templates auto-link or not. The various progress table templates do at the moment. {{ep}} doesn't, but that makes sense as it means we can avoid repeated links. And I've just realised that if we make it so that {{pc}} and therefore the progress tables don't auto-link, we can deal better with such oddball cases as Series 2.

I therefore propose that we standardise on not auto-linking contestants' names in templates. Any objections? -- smjg 14:55, 1 October 2010 (BST)

Since you probably have the best knowledge of templates out of those who use them regularly, I go along with your recommendations, Stewart.--Drawoh 15:50, 1 October 2010 (BST)
And it's been reverted again. Still, let's see if we can get anyone else's opinion on the matter. -- smjg 17:07, 1 October 2010 (BST)