Template talk:For

Deletion request
According to this revision by, this template should be deleted as being redundant because of Template:For and Template:See also. First of all, such templates should be categorized or somehow documented somewhere because noone but the creator knew those templates existed (as evidenced by the small number of pages they were used in). Now that I created this template, it's clear that it has superior functionality compared to Template:For. As such, both templates should have the same code and one redirect to the other. The question is: Which name is better suited to appear in the template category for users to quickly understand what it does? My vote is for "About". &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 11:46, November 14, 2018 (EST)
 * This template has documentation, I'd rather keep this one. -- &rArr; Cru121 (Contribs • Message • Email ) 12:39, November 14, 2018 (EST)
 * If they're going to be merged, you always merge the newer template into the older one for backwards compatibility with history pages. It doesn't mean you can't update the older template, but it needs to be the older one or things start breaking.  &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 08:22, November 15, 2018 (EST)
 * Done. Made the other template use this template and changed 2 pages that had a 3rd parameter. Added documentation and placed it under a category. &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 09:05, November 15, 2018 (EST)


 * ✅ &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 09:56, November 21, 2018 (EST)
 * There wasn't a request to merge anything. As I said above, I made "For" template use the "About" template and things were smooth. What you did broke the pages that were using the "For" template as they had different parameters. &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 12:46, November 21, 2018 (EST)
 * You requested the merge - "As such, both templates should have the same code and one redirect to the other." - and I carried it out. Alternatively, we can simply go back to deleting the newer, redundant template.  I don't care either way, we don't need two templates for this simple thing.  &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 20:57, November 21, 2018 (EST)
 * Well, now we do have 2 templates for this simple thing and they are going to remain in the wiki database even if you delete them. So there is really no reason to do so. Next time the existing template should be more visible so this thing doesn't happen. I had no way of finding the other template as it had no category, nowhere noted (except 10 random pages) and its name had no resemblance to the template About from wikipedia, which I wanted to use. &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 22:30, November 21, 2018 (EST)
 * Rolled back. It can be a redirect.  If you don't like the code you set up on this template, fix it.  There's really no reason to add more redundancy to the wiki for such a simple template, so let's keep it with just one template, like you requested.  Thanks.  &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 10:52, November 24, 2018 (EST)
 * You continue leaving this template in a broken state despite me fixing everything. The only thing I can do is roll back your edits once again, which I'm no longer interested in doing. If the other administrators are fine with you leaving the current pages that use this template and the future pages that will use it in a broken state, then I really can't go against madness with power. &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 16:34, November 24, 2018 (EST)
 * I don't see anything broken. If there is something broken, fix it without rolling back all the changes and having two redundant templates.  Choice is yours.  &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 19:28, November 24, 2018 (EST)