Thread:Byfield/@comment-1387629-20120422152858/@comment-220364-20120422171706

(moving this here since chat seems to have bogged down and I need to log) Let me see if I've got the issues straight: Does that about cover it?
 * 1) Adding the categories via template in editable fields in another template.
 * 2) the "bare" parameter
 * 3) and the "name" parameter

'(Midoki24 from chat): The last two are the same issue but essentially yes that covers it.

OK... I guess the problem I've got with first is that the power, skill, and weakness category templates were more or less already in place an in use before I started working with them.

'(Midoki24 from chat): They were here but they aren't in use and I actively advocate against them.

Then Midoki, I'd prefer to see the admins get together and determine if those templates be removed or not in a timely manner.

I understand it is within your purview as a group to decide how material is added, structure, and presented on here, but this is something that, as best I can tell, has been around for years and was at least partially designed by an admin.

I'd rather know if this is the consensus of the admins to stop using this method or not. As an editor here I'd go with either based on the group stance, I just don't want to wind up waiting doing neither - using the format or working to remove it - for a long period of time.

As for the two parameters. If the templates are to be used they can be fixed/removed:
 * "bare" was added to deal with the ":" when additional text is present since the templates had/have the colon as part of them. It would be just as simple to remove the colon or have it conditional on a blank parameter holing text.
 * "character" was an attempt to make sure templated boilerplate-ish text flowed smoothly with an article. If generic text is OK, the parameter isn't needed.