FANDOM


Import/ExportEdit

How should SPW be treated when imported or exported to other wikias? I would really rather encourage that rather than discourage importing/exporting. --Yoshord 02:29, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

What you have now works for me. --Yoshord 04:50, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Starter Wiki Edit

Is there anyone in charge of the starter wiki, responsible for responsible reviewing what we are doing here for updating/inclusion? --  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   07:21, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Wikia staff. From what I can tell, as with the Help wiki, Wikia is relying on the Special:Contact line of communication to initiate moving such things as draft help pages and Templates wiki templates here to any shared space. They don't really monitor anything beyond w:Forum:Community Central Forum from what I can tell. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7:07 PM PST 15 Aug 2010

Is newer Edit

Should this not also set a (different) maintenance category? --  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   18:49, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Categorization Edit

The reason the categories were not appearing on main template pages had nothing to do with the noincluding the documentation, or whatever you thought by the noinclude comment in the history. It was because the job queue is broken or slow or something. Special:Statistics says it is at 300-something and has not gone down at any Wikia wiki I've looked at for more than a week. A null-edit I did on Template:=) allowed it to show up on Category:Not_on_Starter_Pages_Wikia, and it has not disappeared yet despite this template being changed to not allow that. The only reason the doc pages are appearing is because they are the ones that are being edited to add {{SPW}}.

Unless you meant something else, I have no idea what you could mean.

Anyway, if you were to limit the category to either the main page or the doc page, which is a good idea, I'd rather it locked to the main page. --Yoshord 23:07, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to how the template's documentation specifically advised transcluding the template in <noinclude/> tags, which prevents it from displaying in any capacity on the main template pages. I would much prefer it be allowed to display in both templates and their documentation (and if it is, I can easily limit the category to being added only to templates themselves), but for now, I've simply changed the template wo that it doesn't display anything or categorize on template pages. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 02:13, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
What ever you did, you now have incorrectly bunched all the is newer in with the not at alls! --  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   02:29, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not seeing what you're talking about... Can you link to a particular example? ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 03:19, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
I had tiredly mistaken some of the infoboxes. --  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   19:33, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Bug Edit

Why does this template require me to pass the template name when it seems to know it already? I keep getting an error when I use {{SPW|is not on}}. When I do what is suggested, nothing displays. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7:42 PM PST 14 Aug 2010

Okay I figured out part of the problem, the SPW template only displays its message text when you go directly to the doc page which is dumb, since if the doc page is transcluded to the template page you have very little reason to look at it directly. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7:46 PM PST 14 Aug 2010
You have a couple of questions here, so bear with me while I answer each one separately:
  1. This template requires a template's name to be explicitly passed because we can't know what name a particular wiki will copy one of the templates under - requiring the name to be added here, and to match the template's name here, means any reusers don't have to worry about noting the template's original name if they choose to rename it for some reason; they can simply copy the template to any arbitrary name and the link back to the version here will always work and always point to the correct template, unless the template here gets renamed or deleted for some reason (which is generally unlikely).
  2. As I said in the above section, the template displaying only on the documentation subpage was originally advised in its documentation, and I chose to preserve this decision in my updates, not knowing what the original reasoning behind it was. Personally, I would like it if the template were allowed to display on templates as well, and it would make the code slightly simpler as well.
Hopefully this answers your questions; if you still don't understand or see the point, please ask again. =) ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 03:08, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
Points less. {{SPW}} should be removed when copied to other wikis. it should sole be used on this wiki to help with the updating of starter, it pointless on other wiki. as such it makes this wiki hared to maintain to require it. --  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   19:31, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Even if we agreed that it should be removed on copying templates to other wikis, we have no way of really enforcing it - we could purposely make the output fugly or simply not display anything on other wikis, but this template offers us a unique opportunity, allowing us to advertise this wiki more. In addition, it serves as attribution for the source of the templates it is on, something required by the Creative Commons license Wikia uses. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:17, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
As an example for number one, note Template:Ambox_2, which if copied would most likely be renamed to Template:Ambox on that wiki. It did not make sense to me until it was explained either.
I think it had something to do with how {{BASEPAGENAME}} was being used when the <noinclude/> was added to the page, and there seemed to be some flipping around with {{BASEPAGENAME}} and {{FULLPAGENAME}}, noting that one only worked on /doc sub pages while the other only worked on main pages, without considering {{#ifeq: {{#titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|1|-1}} | doc | {{BASEPAGENAME}} | {{FULLPAGENAME}} }} to use each in the situation where that one worked. I could be wrong, but that seems to be the vibe I'm getting. --Yoshord 04:50, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
I've notified Robin Patterson of this discussion and invited them to clarify their reasoning behind the decision to limit this template to /doc subpages. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:00, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
I thought the whole point of this template was to tell Templates wiki editors and those who want to copy the template to another wiki whether or not the template is on starter, not on starter, or different from starter's version. Knowing the template's name isn't important because the message is all that's needed. The explicit template name should be optional.
I also want to re-iterate that despite what the SPW/doc says, the template message should show on the template page regardless of whether it is actually put on the doc page code. The reason for putting it in the doc page code is so users can copy the template code without getting the SPW template.
The whole way the SPW template is being used and what it is for needs to be re-thought, if the current functionality is how it's going to work. In its current state, I'm going to remove it from the templates I created, because it is only marginally useful and can cause confusion. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9:59 AM PST 15 Aug 2010
That was its original purpose, yes, but if I recall from discussion surrounding its creation, it was always intended to be used in some form on other wikis reusing templates from here. Even if we end up removing that functionality, though (which I would advise against for several reasons), specifying the name would still be necessary because, again, the template's core function relies on the name being correct, which we cannot guarantee in reuse.
I have asked Robin Patterson to drop by and explain their reasoning; hopefully they'll say it was for technical considerations, which means the template will quickly be updated to display on templates and their /doc pages.
I don't see how it might cause confusion, beyond the fact that it has different behavior when used on this wiki and when used on other wikis; this is something I'm going to document momentarily. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:00, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
The transcluded SPW/doc gives a template loop error when viewed on {{SPW}}. I don't plan to use this template until there is agreement that it should display a message on the template page where it has been added to the corresponding /doc page. I think it just adds confusion if a user only sees it when going to the /doc page directly. I still don't agree that the core function of the SPW template requires passing the name of the template it is used with. A message without a link should be sufficient. The assertion that having a link is part of the core function of the SPW template doesn't seem to be supported by any arguments. It is merely an assertion, that I can tell. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7:03 PM PST 15 Aug 2010
The template loop is my fault; it looked fine on the /doc page itself, but I'll see if I can find a way to fix it (<noinclude/> was my first thought, but that would prevent it from displaying on the template itself).
As for the link, I would like to point out that {{SPW}} has linked to the Starter Pages Wikia since it was created, and linking to the exact template was added two edits and a little less than four days later. With how it was used, even then, it being copied to other wikis was bound to happen, and once again, we have no way of stopping those other wikis from using a different name, in which case the link would *still* end up pointing to the wrong page. Consider for example {{Album}} - it is entirely plausible that a reuser would rename it to "Infobox Album" or "Infobox album"; in either case, the link gets broken and the template's purpose is ultimately defeated. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:17, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
I fixed the loop; the solution turned out to be much simpler than I first thought. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:15, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

"being limited to template documentation pages" Edit

The above was not my idea. An early edit of mine did change something to BASEPAGENAME so that it COULD be used on /doc pages without alteration. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 03:49, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Good to know. And based on this admission, I have changed the SPW template so that if it is placed on the /doc page of a template, it will show up on the the template page that has the /doc page transcluded into it. I still don't like the need for supplying the template name, but I can live with it.
This change means {{SPW}} is not limited to only displaying on template documentation pages directly. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9:40 PM PST 15 Aug 2010
Do you know whose idea it was? I have no problem adjusting the template at this point to display wherever, but I'm still curious. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:19, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
I would hazard to guess the point was to hide it from casual view as it was only meant to be useful to @fandom involved with the starter wiki for maintenance reasons. Though those looking for stuff to snag might find it useful too. So making it more useful, so could be treat much like {{underconstruction}} might be for the best --  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   00:57, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Copying to other wikisEdit

In case you later think to ask: the idea that {{SPW}} might be copied to other wikis along with the template it's on had not occurred to me but seems like an OK idea. Better, however, for a fully satisfactory version of each template developed here to go onto Starter (without {{SPW}} of course) so that all new wikis get it thereafter and older ones can have either that version, or the latest version from here if there is a newer one, copied manually to them. If a version from here is copied to anywhere but Starter, the presence of {{SPW}} on its /doc page (showing on the template page along with the rest of the documentation) can't do any harm and may do some good. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 03:49, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of stuff that would be good on Starter (like a number of newer versions of templates already on it), but there seems to be some pretty major impetus to getting anything there updated, and getting the *right* content on Starter would require a reasonable amount of dialog explaining reasoning as well as laying out methodology. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:21, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Allow 2= as well as name=? Edit

Is there a reason for requiring name= rather than just 2= or both? -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9:53 PM PST 15 Aug 2010

I think it should be removed entirely, but if it going to be keep it MUST be updated too uses {{{2|{{{name|{{NAMESPACE}}:{{BASENAME}}}}}}}} --  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   19:31, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
I believe I have explained my reasoning for the parameter itself well enough by now; you're being intentionally ignorant if you still insist that you don't see the point to it. As for the name, I prefer to steer away from mandatory, unnamed parameters following optional unnamed parameters, since there's less of an incentive to remember that you have to refer to the mandatory parameter with a number when not using the optional parameter - that is, {{SPW|status|Name}} is good and all, but how many people would remember that they have to specify {{SPW|2=Name}}? Giving the parameter a name ensures people always have to think about how it is used, and the template complains quite visibly when it is given input it doesn't like (it even tells you what it's expecting!), so there's no excuse for getting it wrong or not remembering how to use it. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:26, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
As you pointed there is NOTHING we can do to prevent a broken link, couple with the fact the parameter makes it HARDER to use as more case to remove it than make pointless fixes. IF you want to advetise the wiki and as per the extstion on copying promote the use of {{Wikitemplates}} --  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   22:11, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Bug with subpage templates Edit

I tried to use {{SPW}} on Template:T2/piece/doc and the link doesn't work correctly. I'd fix it myself, but I find SPW overly complicated and would rather not. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9:56 PM PST 15 Aug 2010

I'll have a look, though I have to ask why {{T2}} hasn't been updated to not need a /piece, as {{T}} itself was several months ago. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:27, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:02, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
T2 was made awhile ago. I'll upgrade it. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 6:11 PM PST 18 Aug 2010

((Ambox))? Edit

Should this template use {{Ambox}} here? ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:03, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Please use Template:Notice and not Template:Ambox. Ambox requires added CSS. ---Timeshifter (talk) 22:25, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
The template doesn't use either (and it won't). To reduce dependencies as much as possible, all necessary styles are hardcoded via inline CSS, with appropriate classes used so that reusing wikis with the necessary global styles can simply remove the inline styles at their discretion.
In the long run, though, it really doesn't matter, since this and one or two other related templates are ultimately going to be replaced with a single template that does (should do) all their jobs and then some. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 02:02, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

Renamed issue Edit

As per the concern about the link break with renaming. firstly people don't tend to rename templates because they are worried about why thy need them breaking if the did. Those that one simpler name simply make redirect with the new name point to the template. So the only ones who would be looking at actually renaming it are exactly the people who know what they are doing, the very people who will follow direction are REMOVE the template, replace it with {{Wikitemplates}} if they want a link at all. --  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   22:20, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

I considered using another template for this purpose, but rejected it - currently, if someone wants to use {{Documentation}} from here, they already have to copy Template:Documentation, Template:Documentation/doc, Template:Documentation/preload, Template:SPW, and Template:SPW/doc - that's five pages already, and it probably isn't even the main thing they're here for! This is the same reason I haven't ported wikipedia:Template:Documentation subpage to here.
As for template renaming, you would be very surprised what people will do when given the opportunity, even if they have no idea what they're doing or what consequences it may have. Therefore, while we cannot prevent them from renaming templates and possibly getting themselves in a lot of trouble for doing so, we can ensure that the copied template will *always* point back to the source (unless they also decide to start mucking around in the template code, in which case there really is nothing we can do). ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 23:07, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
{{Documentation}} should NOT require SPW. DO NOT iterate it! SPW should ideal be in the same <noinclude/> tag for easy removeal NOT part of documentation which DOESN'T need to be ported because it part of the starter. What the instructions should say say is replace {{SPW}} with {{Wikitemplates}} SPW should NEVER be ported! it not meant for any wiki BUT this one. you the one make a SIMPLE template unwieldy complicated. At this point I'm almost to the point of join Fandyllic in simple ignore it in the first place... Which make it even more pointless to use if the editors he aren't going to use it, for it usefulness comes solely from it being on all of them (once the Job Queue gets fixed) --  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   23:33, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
What more using {{#ifeq:{{SITENAME}}|Wikia Templates|{{SPW|status}}|{{Wikitemplates|Template:{{subst:PAGENAME}}}} will solve ALL these issue. and they it will sove the RENAME issue , they can port the template we want them to, and it doesn't matter if then never port SPW, and will never have a broken link unless we break them. --  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   00:24, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Also as was just reminded by Fandyllic's question, {{Wikitemplates}} is technically REQUIRED to forfill the CC-BY-SA licensing requirements this wiki us under, and does not do this, not is it ment to. which is a major point is pushing for that templates to ported over SPW --  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   05:52, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
The simple fact that {{SPW}} is used here means there will be people who copy it instead of {{Wikitemplates}}, regardless of what we tell them to do or how the templates are used. Having separate templates to be used here versus on other wikis is ultimately only more confusing and complicated than doing both functions in the same template. I would suggest instead merging the two templates together (and possibly tweaking the name somewhat). Code complexity generally isn't a good idea, but it is almost always preferable to template proliferation, particularly when reuse is a core issue. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 23:15, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
That argument for getting rid of SPW not merging them as SPW is USELESS anywhere but here. BUT the if statement and the substituted coded in {{SPWapply}} will result is SPW will not break if it failed to be ported. While promoted the other template for those that you worried about being to lazy to follow instructions and to inexperienced to look at the code and see the instructions. and results in no broken links. --  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   00:24, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Everything I've said in this discussion, and all the functionality I've added to SPW, comes directly from extensive experience in porting templates and related content between wikis. I'm going to tell you again, one template for here and another template for other wikis will not work, because people in general cannot follow instructions. SPW and Wikitemplates both serve very important functions, and it would ultimately be pointless to delete or stop using either of them. However, leaving them separate and expecting reusers to follow instructions on which one to copy (and much less to actually look at the code and figure it out themselves) will not work. It will only result in confusion and reduced copying from here to other wikis. The best solution is to either combine the templates, or to not use either of them; there is no third viable option, there is no arguing around it, and burying your head in the sand and putting your faith in the motivation and technical skills of reusers simply will not work. I have tried to patiently explain this to you again and again, and you don't seem to want to get it, so hopefully lots of bold and underlined text will finally get your attention. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 01:12, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
And you're burying you head in the sand that SPW has any use out side of this wiki, where as Wikitemplates follows the conversions established by {{wikipedia}} which has already been accepted as part of the start wiki. My code will NOT require SPW being copied AT all. and the point is with out the technical skill you saying not to count on they wount eve know SPW need to be ported at all! I'm agaist the murgin is because SPW fuction is unnecessary (anywhere but possibly here) and has would have to track TWO separate links. So either use my solution or NOT to use SPW AT ALL. but SPW has funtion HERE. putin it function in wikitemplates goes against, AND would added currently 3 differ categories to wikis that has no need for them which would encourage people NOT following proper license requirements. --  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   02:42, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
I'm NOT saying SPW has any use outside of this wiki, within its originally intended purpose. I'm saying people will - *will* - copy it if they see it used here, especially if it is used on *every* template, as it is intended to be used - some of them will do this, even seeing that it is not needed on their own wiki, even if this fact is pointed out to them! I am also saying that we should merge SPW and Wikitemplates together, into a more general-purpose template, to use this tendency to our advantage. You can talk about following conventions and avoiding "unnecessary" functionality until you're blue in the face, but you cannot change how people behave with wishful thinking and an over-elaborate system of templates - it has NEVER worked before, and it will NEVER work in the future. And I fail to see what your concern with the categories is; even in the current version of SPW, they are buried under several layers of #ifeqs preventing them from ever seeing the light of day on any wiki but this one.
I would *love* if we lived in an ideal world in which everyone read and followed instructions given to them, unless they knew enough about what they were doing to be able to ignore the instructions and fix any resulting problems themselves; then I would have been the one to propose your system, and I would be the one ardently arguing in its favor. However, we do not live in an ideal world, or anything even resembling an ideal world, so we must work around what we have, and a single template, adjusting its behavior depending on location, is the best and only viable workaround we currently have. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 04:23, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Again the functionality is not only Unwanted in the merger, but unnecessary! Again my solution it doesn't matter if the copy SPW or not, template Edit it or not to following directions. the SPW functionality will not in not who up UNLESS for some reason the change their sitename to "Templates Wiki".
  • SPW category never show up anywhere but here
  • There is never a broken link unless WE rename our copy.
  • SPW's visibility problems are render mute
  • It Follows convention.
  • It's clearly documented so if they want to removed it on their own wiki, the can if not it doesn't hurt anything on their wiki if they never copy SPW, and only get a REDLINK if the break the CC-BY-SA requirements by no copping the temply they are instructed they need.
  • even if they copy SPW which is not necessary, not encouraged, it will not do anything for them Without making SPW more difficultly to use HERE.
--  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   05:06, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I think {{Wikitemplates}} is less useful than {{SPW}}. {{Wikitemplates}} really should only be used when copying templates between Wikia wiks that explicitly have removed themselves from the CC-by-SA and that's not many. Wikia editors of CC-by-SA wikis (most of them) are free to copy Templates wiki templates to their wikis without need for attribution.
{{SPW}} on the other hand is definitely useful on Templates wiki for giving editors who are thinking of copying a template an idea of whether it might already be on their wiki or maybe newer. The argument that a template should not be used because it only has usefulness on a particular wiki where it is used is specious. Many, many important templates are only useful on one wiki. If you would like examples, w:c:wow:Template:Tooltip comes to mind. It is widely used and only works on WoWWiki.
From what I can tell, editors should just be instructed to remove {{SPW}} after they copy templates from here.
Lastly, perhaps it's how you write English, Roguebfl, but I don't understand most of your points. They seem fragmentary and unsupported.
-- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:45 PM PST 18 Aug 2010
You are wrong about {{Wikitemplates}} not need on CC-BY-SA wikis, just like {{Wikipedia}} is also needed, That only covers "ShareAlike" apart of the licenses. this link to the article history of those templates is required to cover the "Attribution" portion. I never say SPW is not useful on this wiki. But that useful ends with this wiki. Here by SPW they will know if they know when the copy it with is newer that their copy or not already. It point is with to look at the template is useful. The argument is threat SPW but be overly complicated and harder to use on this wiki, JUST because people might port it with out thinking. Not weather it should be used here. But it gotten to the point I would rather have it not used at all than for it to ruining THIS wiki's usefulness by it current mess as people will then because it is to be everywhere here will judge everything meaning this wiki will be ignored and people will just grab the Wikipedia ones dismiss this as useless.
So yes they should be instructed to remove it, That is half the point of what {{subst:SPWapply|status}} adds to the temple. And Based on that SPW can be changes so it both easier to use only need 1 parameters AND be greatly reduced in sized especially if we do use {{Ambox}} as we no longer need to worry about ease of porting. And get of visibility code and and move it from the doc page and simply put it in the noinclude tags with {{Documentation}}, again SPWapply will make it simpler. I am more than willing to do the rewrite, But i don't want to do it unilaterally.
As for my english it probably a side effect of my dysgraphia. I'm aware it makes me harder to understand in the written medium, so I take no offense to any requests of clarification. So feel free to tell me what you did not understand and I'm willing to try again. --  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   08:14, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

SPW is an awkward template and assumes a /doc page Edit

This template doesn't work right if you don't have a /doc page. A /doc page should not be required for a template. The workaround is to explicitly put the template name for the |name= parameter (or use some crazy, unnecessary subst stuff). The docs for this template should have usage for templates without doc pages. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 29 Dec 2012 12:17 PM Pacific

Back when I was actually working on them, I intended this template to be replaced by {{Template metadata}}, or something like that. I'll have to try to find some time to revisit this whole thing and see what else needs done before that can happen, and before {{Template metadata}} is in a deployable state; I don't think there's too much more to go. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 08:51, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

under construction? Edit

From what I can see this template hasn't been edited in over a year and doesn't have any outstanding bugs so why is still marked as under construction? The only thing I can see being left to do is choose a name that works better with its dual use and rename the template. Miiohau (talk) 01:24, September 29, 2016 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as mine; that tag was added in 2010 without any real, clear explanation of what would be required for its removal. As you've noted, this template is basically "done" as far as its own functionality is concerned. That being said, it was a long-term plan of mine to replace this template with {{Template metadata}} eventually, but I've never gotten around to finishing that template, and it shouldn't affect whether this template is considered to still be under construction or not. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 16:34, September 30, 2016 (UTC)

Getting rid of calls to this template Edit

Let's face it... Nobody's going to copy this template to their wiki. And if they do, they shouldn't, because it does not convey information relevant to wikis other than this own. And if they don't, as they won't, then they will get a gross redlink if they try to copy the template documentation from this wiki to their wiki - this is part of my overall discussion at Forum:Dual_template_documentation.

The functions of this template should be a parameter of Template:Documentation. {{Documentation|SPW=no}} would render exactly the same as {{Documentation}} if it were copied to a user's wiki, because a non-existent parameter is inconsequential. And that same parameter can entirely meet the needs of this template. Henstepl (talk) 03:29, August 22, 2017 (UTC)

With modification to Template:Documentation, this template is ready to be removed en masse from this wiki, saving every user of these templates a small headache. Henstepl (talk) 05:38, December 4, 2017 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.