Template talk:SubjectCategoryNotrans

Can we rethink how we design these templates? I am not a fan of this technique where you have hundreds of different parameters each with a specific non-intuitive and obscurely esoteric meaning. It would be nice if were easy to use once more. Unless the intention is to deliberately make it difficult for noobs to get their heads round, thereby leaving free rein for Younicksx boffin to do what they want. --prime mover (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2017 (EST)


 * So exactly how do you propose to use it then? Template:SubjectCategoryNodef is already in use for suppressing the link to the associated definitions category. "tc" refers to "transclusion", pretty standard MediaWiki speak to my knowledge.
 * Actually the current implementation improves on the one before, because now everything can be done using Template:SubjectCategory, and the other two flavours (Nodef and Notc) are just for typing convenience. Before, separate but almost identical implementations were used. I prefer the current situation over the old one, although I agree that "Notc" is not my brightest moment. OTOH, that's why the template page explains what it does.
 * Improvement suggestions always welcome. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2017 (EST)


 * Oh okay, "notc" is standard MediaWiki, is it? Ugly and non-intuitive. "Notrans" would make better sense.


 * All very well having a comment explaining what it does in its header, but until you know what to look for, it's not clear what you want.


 * In retrospect perhaps it would have been better to call SubjectCategoryNodef something like SubjectCategoryNodefLink but then that will probably fall foul of the MediaWiki police as well. --prime mover (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2017 (EST)
 * I'm not saying that all makes sense. I'm just explaining the rationale. That the rationale is perfectly arguable to be faulty does not render the explanation worthless. Instead it is the first step to the conclusion that something better is necessary, of which I have now been convinced.
 * "Notrans" makes sense; I'll do it soon. I'll also rename the argument from "notc" to "notrans" while at it. "NodefsLink" would also make sense. However, the latter is a lot of work. I propose to not do the lot of work.
 * Also, there is a link to both Notc (to be Notrans) and Nodef from Template:SubjectCategory which should make them easier to find (as the "why does this template not do what I want" leads to a link to a template that does).
 * Finally, after all these years, you ought to know better than accusing me of policing around just for the sake of it. It's just soliciting unnecessary confrontation and distracts from the matter at hand which we're trying to improve bit by bit, every day. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2017 (EST)


 * Notrans is better IMO because it's clearer what it means. Clarity is better than brevity. IMO.


 * What I am concerned about is the danger of "convention" from other sites and other disciplines being used as standard. A practice which is used on one site might not necessarily be appropriate for another. On we do all sorts of things differently from other sites (and, yes, some stuff we do the same) -- and IMO it amy not be a good thing for people who are familiar with other sites to expect this site to match their own favourite (and to then change everything about this one so it does). That's like an American coming to Britain and changing all our spellings and laws to match theirs. --prime mover (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2017 (EST)