Template talk:SDlink

Redundant?
Although this may at its time of creation served a purpose, it simply no longer appears to. Example:

This:

Produces:

The claim that fixes a problem with the use of numbered params appears presently erroneous. I honestly can't fathom why, if this ever actually served its claimed purpose, it was created instead of applying those changes to annotated link. Having two functionally identical templates to maintain inline renders this copy either redundant or a nuisance, and if they're not going to maintained inline with each other, the purpose of this needs to be distinct and made clear. It's pretty much a speedy delete to be frank, but we can talk about it if that will be productive.

I suggest deletion over redirect since there will be minimal required preparation (it's currently hardly used). as the creator, if you agree that this is not serving a purpose, you can blank it and request speedy delete after its transclusions are switched to. I have added a note on the talk page of that this discussion has been started. 05:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I completely misread and misunderstood this template's purpose; although there is indeed a problem, it should be fixed in instead of making and maintaining this. 23:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The bug is in Template parameter value rather than in annotated link itself — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 12:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand that. I initially misunderstood the intention of your template.  14:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)