The Forums

The Forums (
-   Wiki Forum (
-   -   Template:Text_SDObjectOrientedScannersTable updated (

QDP2012 08-25-2017 10:32 PM

Template:Text_SDObjectOrientedScannersTable updated
Good evening Wiki-editors,

Earlier, another Wiki editor used "Template:Text_SDObjectOrientedScannersTable" as the starting point for "Template:Text_SDObjectOrientedScannersTableWOCave ats" and "Template:Text_SDObjectOrientedScannersTableWithCa veats" which were created as additional stand-alone templates with lists that duplicated the original template's lists, but with or without the foot-notes accordingly.

Since the original template was created for the purpose of avoiding both duplication of lists and the difficult maintenance they can create, "Template:Text_SDObjectOrientedScannersTable" was just updated, and now has two optional parameters, "HideNotes" and "TWidth" that provide the option of hiding the foot-notes, etc.

"HideNotes" is a parameter that simply wraps all of the notes and footnote-numbers that are to be hidden, leaving a cleaner looking table without the list of notes below it. When called with no value, it hides the unwanted text.

"TWidth" is a parameter that allows a Wiki-editor to override the default table-width value as needed case-by-case.

As seen in "Template:Text_SDObjectOrientedScannersTableWOCave ats". It is called in the following manner (example sets 35% width) :

{{Text SDObjectOrientedScannersTable|HideNotes=|TWidth=35%}} <!-- % is the code for the percent sign; result is value of 35% -->
(In the above code sample, the percent signs should be seen as "& # 3 7 ;" (without spaces), but the parser converted it to the percent sign.)

At this point, "Template:Text_SDObjectOrientedScannersTableWithCa veats" is a duplicate of the original template, and serves no additional purpose. It will/should be blanked and deleted because of redundancy.

"Template:Text_SDObjectOrientedScannersTableWOCave ats" has been updated so that it calls the original template using the new parameters to hide the notes and narrow the table's width. This template, could be preserved for convenient calling, or deleted if there is only one instance when the notes need to be hidden. Someone else will need to decide that.

Please post comments/questions.

Hope this helps,

ka3jjz 08-27-2017 9:16 AM

I think this is yet another case of something being over-thought. The reason for the existence of this template, and it's brother that lists the OO scanners that don't use a SD card, is to provide a quick and easy model cross ref between all 3 of the scanner distributors, who insisted on rebadging each and every one of them. There is no easy way to cross ref these and keep them all straight, particularly so for the newcomers.

While I agree you could make a category out of these, the descriptions are also necessary to understand the various differences in the SD driven radios. In a category, this is not immediately obvious unless you click on the category name, something a newcomer may not know to do. Unfortunately Whistler has thrown yet another wrench in the works with their upgrade campaign, that does not apply to every one of the SD driven OO scanners (it doesn't work with the PSR-700, for example). So once again, yet another detail needs to be explained.

Without these templates, it would be very confusing, and misleading, to find out whether an article actually applies to the SD driven or the non-SD driven scanners. This way anyone can see which articles apply to which OO scanners simply by using the 'What Links Here' toolbox link. .And as each article is developed for these scanners - for the non-SD driven card ones, and the ones that have it - the template becomes a unique identifier for each type of scanner. A user can easily see which articles apply to the non-SD and which apply to the SD driven scanners at a glance.

While I agree that hiding the various notes makes the template cleaner, it also hides important details as well as now making maintenance a little more difficult should Whistler come out with yet another SD driven scanner. It simply over-complicates things unnecessarily.

My 2 pfennig...Mike

W9BU 08-27-2017 11:36 AM


Originally Posted by ka3jjz (Post 2810555)
I think this is yet another case of something being over-thought.

In general, I agree with this sentiment. If we make the Wiki too complicated and challenging to edit, I think we risk losing user contributions to the Wiki.

QDP2012 08-27-2017 1:04 PM

All three templates have been reverted to prior-state
Please note: Each of the three templates has been reverted back to its state prior to my above changes.

I understand each of the points mentioned above, and considered them before adjusting the templates. As stated in my initial post, the motive for the change was to get list-maintenance in one place, an idea that has been promoted by others here many times.

I also understand the value of the "What Links here" feature, which is why I did not blank the "...WithCaveats" template immediately following my post above, and because others might choose to use it for that benefit.

I think categories are not part of this specific conversation.

Since the Wiki-admins believe that it is better in this case to maintain identical lists in separate templates, I just reverted the changes.

I suggest though that the two templates that list the footnotes are redundant, and one should be blanked and deleted.

Sorry for any confusion.

Hope this helps,

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger