Talk:Franz Sieber

Inline templates
@Rkitko - You and Hesperian voted for the deletion of botanist-inline2 and now are in the process of deleting botanist-inline. This means that you have made it impossible to include a template in the text. Now it belatedly occurs to you that an inline piece of text detailing the author abbreviation will not automatically generate the category which you feel is necessary - well, now the category will have to be added manually. Rotational (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sir, it didn't belatedly occur to me; I've known the template transcludes a category with the rest of the wording. And no, it's not impossible to include a template in the text. botanist still exists. Also, to clarify, I am not "in the process of deleting botanist-inline" - I haven't even published my support for the deletion at the discussion. I do believe that the use of the inline botanist template didn't have enough discussion before implementation. If you believe botanist is inferior, propose changes rather than attempting to circumvent discussion by creating templates which have no consensus for use. Personally, I still prefer the botanist template as is, though I might be open to a well-reasoned argument for why the template should be dropped in favor of including the information in the lead. It's still unclear what many other botany folks think regarding that. --Rkitko (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course botanist exists. The problem is that it would look damned queer used inline. I made that quite clear in my objection to the deleting of the inline versions. Rotational (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

now the category will have to be added manually. Yeah. So what? Hesperian 23:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)