Should this template be deleted?
This template has proposed to delete (without any discussions). The proposal says this template is hard to use because a term "role" is also used in API.
But this template is already used in many place and it looks that there is no confusing. I think this template is useful to organize the format of role name even if role pages won't be created nor named as "Role:XXX".
So I propose to remove the delete proposal. --Mfuji (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- It has been used, but then removed from pages. To make it really usable I just deleted the (unneeded) translated label "role:" and kept the formatting, consistent when the formatting used by Template:Tag, Template:TagKey and Template:TagValue.
- It's true that roles should be directly linkable by their name instead of locating the relation types using them: even if this link is just a redirect to the appropriate relation type defining it (but some roles are universal between multiple relation types, such as "inner" and "outer" used for type=multipolygon, type=boundary; some roles are similar but with differences in some relation types (such as forward/backward) soem are specific to boundaries (such as "admin_centre"). Given that there's not a lot of documented roles, we could have a single page "Role" of link to a section of the page about relations in general that would list most of them. — Verdy_p (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)