Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:TFD)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Deletion
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the WikiProject Deletion, a collaborative effort dedicated to improving Wikipedia in toto in the area of deletion. We advocate the responsible use of deletion policy, not the deletion of articles. If you would like to help, consider participating at WikiProject Deletion.
 
WikiProject Templates
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Templates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Templates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 

Query regarding the use of Twinkle for TfD/TfMs[edit]

A question has been raised in a pending TfD merge discussion regarding the use of the Twinkle auto-editor for formatting TfD discussions. I am curious how many other regular TfD participants use Twinkle to nominate templates for discussion, and would like to hear feedback from other regular TfD participants. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I use Twinkle, and try to correct for its problems as I am aware of them. Sometimes I forget one of them, and others correct me:
  1. It has no option to add |type=sidebar, which is often called by its alias |type=infobox, (or |type=tiny. I think |type=inline is supported.)
  2. It adds extra whitespace to the transclusions, which can be serious enough to break transclusions of previously working templates. Delete !votes have been based on such breakage, without knowing it was caused by Twinkle. (Sometimes manual tagging has the same problem, but not consistently, as with Twinkle.)
  3. It does not notify the creators of both templates in a merge discussion.
  4. It does not notify WikiProjects, though I'm not sure that is its responsibility. (It would be convenient, though.)
  5. Also adding one I forgot, brought up below, protected edit requests or notification that a protected template wasn't tagged. —PC-XT+ 22:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
We could evaluate the usage by counting the Twinkle edits listed in log page histories and comparing with the total number of discussions started... PC-XT (talk) 10:02, February 18, 2015 Signature added manually. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC) I fixed the typo where it said |sidebar= instead of |type=sidebar. Sorry about that. I also added type=tiny, and note about type=inline. —PC-XT+ 22:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC) 21:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your response, PC. I don't use Twinkle and was unaware of this issue until recently. Is there some way to track TfD nominators who are using Twinkle (and other auto-editors)? In order to ensure proper notice of TfD/TfMs is being provided to template creators, it would seem that we have some work to do. I would also propose that we revise the TfD and TfM instructions to clarify this -- some editors apparently dispute whether it is required to notify the creators of both templates in a proposed TfD merge. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Ah, sorry I messed up the formatting, above. Manual nominations can also have problems, but Twinkle's problems are more consistent. Notifying editors seems to be a bit of a gray area for even manual nominations. Twinkle, and most other tools, usually identify themselves in the edit summary when adding a nomination to the log, but that can be turned off. (You can check a user's twinkleoptions.js to see if that is the case, but they still may not necessarily use it for nominations. I don't always use Twinkle, myself.) The log page's history is the best way to check that I know, as Twinkle gives a fairly consistent edit summary, even if its identification is changed: "Adding Template:Example. " followed by the identification. I don't know as much about other tools used in nominations, but they generally identify themselves. —PC-XT+ 15:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    • For example, today's log so far has a manual entry that was fixed by a bot, and two Twinkle nominations. Maybe a bot could check the nominations for some of these Twinkle corrections and flag them if not fix them? Manual nominations could be checked, as well. —PC-XT+ 16:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pardon my ignorance, PC-XT, but what distinguishes a Twinkle-performed TfD nomination from one performed manually? I see no obvious difference. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It says "TW" in the edit summary. Alakzi (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, now that I know what I'm looking for, I see it. Thanks, Alakzi. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Right, that's the identification. It can be changed to say "using Twinkle" or something else, usually to be clearer, but is TW by default. —PC-XT+ 13:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
If you're referring to me, then yes, I do assert there's no requirement because the instructions are defective. I've stated numerous times that there ought to be a specific instruction to notify the creator of the other template. You now also know that Twinkle follows the defective instructions (which were written for the case of deletion and insufficiently modified for merging) and fails to notify the second creator. I am in full agreement with the value of notifying both template creators in these cases, but you seem more concerned with using your own interpretations to attack other editors than actually doing any work to solve problems. We need to ask for an update to Twinkle's behaviour so that it notifies the second creator when used to nominate for a merger.
In the meantime I've made an edit to the instructions that I think makes them say what we all want them to. Please feel free to improve on that if you can. I've also added a note warning Twinkle users that it doesn't notify the second creator in a merger nomination. --RexxS (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Rexx, for making the clarifying change to the TfD/TfM instructions; it certainly leaves little room for doubt. If someone reverts your change, or modifies it to obscure the intended meaning, I will finish the RfC that I was already preparing to implement a similar TfD/TfM requirement. As for your other assertion, I'm really not "more concerned with using [my] own interpretations to attack other editors than actually doing any work to solve problems," which is why I brought the issue to this, the appropriate guideline talk page for discussion. I urge you to (1) assume good faith per WP:AGF, and (2) dial down your rhetoric, which on this and several other occasions has come dangerously close to engaging in personal attacks per WP:NPA. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. But I don't need any lectures from you about attacking other editors as you need to get the plank out of your eye before commenting on the motes in others'. Your protestations simply don't match your actions. Fix that first. --RexxS (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
No, Rexx, I really don't need to get the biblical log/plank/board out of my eye, as demonstrated by my engaging in appropriate talk page discussion here of an ongoing problem. We both know what your comments to me are about: your frustration with the various issues I have previously raised about the conduct of another editor whom you feel compelled to defend. If you want to defend that editor, I suggest you do so in the appropriate forum, and spend less time accusing me of imagined wrongs everywhere else. There have been recurring problems regarding TfD/TfM notices; I raised the issue here. There were no attacks in this thread, other than your comments immediately above, and frankly, that schtick is starting to get a little old. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't talk bollocks, Dirtlawyer. You might think your passive-aggressive behaviour behaviour is clever - "some editors apparently dispute whether it is required to notify the creators of both templates in a proposed TfD merge" - but I've been around the block enough times to recognise your kind. We both know damn well there's nothing apparent about my telling you that the problem lay in the instructions and Twinkle, not Andy, so there's no point in trying to be cute about it. You've spent far more time engaged in attacking Andy than in supplying the missing notification or clarifying the instructions - both of which I have done. You give the impression of preferring a lack of notification and unclear instructions, just to use as a stick to beat other editors with. --RexxS (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Rexx, and please don't talk "bollocks" to me. If you want to interrupt an otherwise productive thread where issues are being resolved, then keep doing what you're doing. If you want to attack me, and keep accusing me of imagined slights, please feel free to move your "bollocks" to my talk page so we don't have to disturb other discussion participants. As for Andy, he's been aware of the Twinkle problem for some time; if you doubt me, then ask him -- and then review the links I provided to you previously where he deleted my request to notify template creators and told me to do it myself. As for your accusation that I prefer "a lack of notification and unclear instructions," you clearly misunderstand and misconstrue the obvious reasons why I started this thread. But if you want to keep attacking me, feel free to take it to ANI -- and remember to ask for their reaction to your comments above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
You might have a point if you were actually doing anything to resolve issues, rather than snarking at the folks like me who are fixing them. Care to explain why you went to Andy's page to demand he notify Dudemanfellabra, rather than simply notifying him yourself, if you were not more interested in the confrontation than in collaboration? I ended up making that notification, while you seized what you though was a procedural irregularity to try to wiki-lawyer a close to the TfD. That was after promising and failing to supply a list of "other similar templates", which now starts to look like an excuse to delay the TfD even further. Your words ring too hollow when set against your actions for me to offer you any assumption of good faith. If you can't stomach being told the truth about yourself, you can always get a second opinion at ANI. --RexxS (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Dirtlawyer, if you're going to respond, please do it on Rexx's talk page. Alakzi (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I will respond elsewhere, Alakzi. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I intend to fix points 1 to 3 in Twinkle, and submit a pull request, but my energy and free time to do coding for MediaWiki projects is limited, as are my knowledge of the coding conventions and code base of the tool. If there are more issues with twinkle for TfD, I'd love to hear them before I get working on it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Martijn. This has been a recurring issue, and it needs to be remedied, both in terms of the TfD/TfM instructions, and any auto-editor that perpetuates the notice problem. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Re. the first point: the parameter is actually called 'type' and it takes one of the following display options: sidebar; inline; tiny. A dropdown would do nicely. Alakzi (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
An additional point I'd like to check, does Twinkle make an editprotected request on the talk page for protected pages. I don't think so, but I think (and would like feedback on if) it should. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: Valid values for |type= are template, tiny, inline, sidebar, disabled (plus box and infobox which are aliases for sidebar). In the case of sidebar (and its two aliases), you can also specify a |width= parameter to suit very wide or very narrow boxes, the default width being 27em. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. template is the default, I presume? Alakzi (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
No, normally the TFM message looks different in template namespace (such as the template itself, the doc page, sandbox and testcases) compared to how it looks on other pages (articles, help pages, talk pages etc.). Setting |type=template forces the message seen outside template space to be the same as the one seen on the template itself. The default behaviour, which is with |type= omitted or left blank, is different again. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah I see, thank you. Would we want to support all of the values in Twinkle? Alakzi (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Probably only tiny, inline, sidebar and blank. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The nicest behaviour to me seems to be a dropdown with the values "full width", selected by default, and giving the default behaviour, "sidebar", selected by default if the template name contains the text "sidebar" or "infobox", and the other two three never selected by default. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Oldest holding cell inmate[edit]

The oldest entry in the holding cell is:

Which was closed almost two and half years ago. Surely we can put this to bed, now? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for inquiring, Andy. The merge effort is being coached by Frietjes, who has built a cooperative relationship with WP:NFL and WP:CFB. She has already made preliminary modifications of the coach infobox to facilitate the merge, but there will likely be significant changes to the template based on the input of WP:NFL members before the merge is completed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
THank you. Please provide a link(s) to the relavant discussion(s). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Please see Frietjes' talk page; there is also a preliminary discussion of required changes among WP:NFL members in my user sandbox space. If you would like to participate in a discussion about which current parameters should be removed or restricted in order to reduce the often ridiculously long sues of this infobox, please feel free to do so. If you want to understand the evolving thinking of long-time sports editors regarding player infoboxes, there are also a series of related and enlightening discussions on the talk page of WP:NBA.
As one other editor succinctly stated the fundamental issue: "WP:IBX encourages keeping infobxes as small as possible. 'When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.' Too often fields are added in an infobox to compensate for laziness in finding the proper location in prose."
IMHO, those are words of wisdom to live by, and rooted in the text of the infobox guidelines. If you internalize that, you will understand why I believe that the amalgamation/consolidation of related but distinctly different templates, with an ever wider variety of optional parameters, is often a bad idea. Sometimes amalgamation/consolidation via TfM makes perfect sense; sometimes it contributes to cruft and unnecessarily long infoboxes contrary to IBX's fundamental design principles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
But not all parameters of these consolidated infoboxes are meant to be used in any one article. There often are separate examples and code samples for each of the infobox's uses in the documentation, as with {{Infobox officeholder}}. Alakzi (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Alakzi, I'm aware of that; the problem is that a simple consolidation and the simple versions of the so-called "wrappers" do not prevent the importation of inappropriate parameters into the wrong use. I'm a big fan of keeping it simple, designing for actual users, and giving them the right menu from which to choose. For every simple "wrapper" with which I have ever worked, I have witnessed newbies, IPs or OCD users attempt to import parameters from the master template which were never intended for the particular use. I think the quoted part of the WP:IBX guideline above contemplates this. We have created versions of various infoboxes that include 40+ individual datapoints in actual use and sometimes run 18+ screen inches. Not only is it horrible layout and design from a graphics perspective, it's also directly contrary to one of the fundamental infobox design principles of the guideline as written. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: Please provide links to those discussions, as I requested a month ago. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Noted that, after almost two months, no links have been provdied. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

We need to move forward on this, now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion template in nonincludes causing a display error in the template up for deletion[edit]

Weirdly, the tfd template in {{tiny ping}} is causing all indentation to be lost. That is, posts where it is used, that are prefixed with a colon, do not indent. Since the tfd template is in noincludes, I would have thought it would have no affect whatever on the template's output but that's not the case. Any idea why that would be happening? --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Place the code on the same line as the <noinclude>...</noinclude>. Alakzi (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Martijn Hoekstra took care of it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. Hopefully this will all be fixed in twinkle soon(tm)(r). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Holding cell backlog[edit]

There's a long list of templates that are now ready for deletion at the holding cell. Also, User:GiantSnowman inexplicably reopened this one, so it'll have to be closed before deletion; I've already orphaned all five templates. Alakzi (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:BADNAC. GiantSnowman 17:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, it wasn't "inexplicably reopened" - this is the edit, and the summary says "you cannot NAC if the outcome is 'delete'" which is certainly explicable. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes, I've had BADNAC shoved in my face plenty enough times; and I've demonstrated how it's inapplicable plenty enough times. If you'd like to thoughtfully discuss this close, your input is welcome on my talk page. Copied from there:

WP:BADNAC is a reading of WP:XFD, which advises against it. WP:XFD was written with articles in mind, where a delete outcome means the article's gotta be instantly deleted. A non-admin closing an AfD as delete is impractical; AfD is not equipped for it. The TfD that I closed required the orphaning of the templates to be deleted. If Martijn had closed the discussion—as he likely would've, if I hadn't—he would not have deleted the templates. As far as I know, he does not use AWB; it'd have been extremely tedious work to manually remove all transclusions. Indeed, what he would've done, is to list the templates under 'To orphan' in WP:TFD/HC. Then, I'd have carried out the orphaning, and marked them for deletion, after which time, any admin could've deleted them. My having closed this discussion has only had a positive impact on the project.

Alakzi (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I usually tag such templates for speedy deletion, with a link to the TfD section in the rationale. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Archive number[edit]

This page says that Error: Invalid page name(s) but looking at the code, I don't understand how to correct this problem. Can an editor more familiar with templates and transclusions look this over? Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 14:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This template will only work on "Archive X" pages; its function is to return X. Alakzi (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Side effects of WP:INFOCOL[edit]

Yes, I understand there has been a concentrated effort in the past couple of years to merge similar infoboxes, per the WP:INFOCOL essay that Andy first started. I'm a little concerned that it has the unintended side effect of creating numerous infoboxes that are very long and must be template protected. For example, {{Infobox building}} is now template protected and now exceeds to data100. I'm not sure having 100 parameters was the intention when MOS:INFOBOX#Purpose of an infobox was edited to read: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content". And I do not think that is in the spirit of what MOS:INFOBOX#General design considerations says about, "Creating overly long templates with a number of irrelevant fields is not recommended". I'm sure there are numerous articles with Infobox building that have that type of scenario where most of those 100 parameters are irrelevant.

And then if, per WP:INFOCOL, it supposedly "makes life easier for editors", it surely does not for those editors who do not have the template editor permission, and thus can no longer easily directly edit those infobox templates that they first started and then was subsequently merged. I don't think that possibility was ever considered on the original RFC. Infobox template are different than, say citation templates, because they are specialized depending on the group of articles they are being used on. So in the case of {{Infobox building}}, we have a wide range of parameters from topics ranging from hotels to shopping centres. And thus, fall under multiple Wikiprojects who may not have a template editor as one of their members. And thus they must wait until they get approval from a template editor. Really, it only benefits the small group of template editors for maintaining and reducing the workload of the technical aspects of template code.

Furthermore, I know a case where I myself was reverted for adding a parameter on a particular template, and the resulting discussion on that template's talk page per WP:BRD ended with no consensus, but a few months later this same parameter was added as a result of a merge (I do not think the editor who originally reverted me has ever noticed this) -- thus, in effect, the consensus on one template superseded the opposite (non)consensus of the other template. And, as I mentioned, because of merges, infoboxes would fall under multiple WikiProjects, which increases the likelihood of a similar situation I just described, where the consensus of one WikiProject gets overruled solely because the result of a merge. In essence, this has created a loophole. My occasional, and sometime rejected, proposals to add "publictransit" parameters to various infoboxes could eventually get achieved by me not lifting a finger and instead patiently waiting for other people to do various merges. And likewise, an editor could use the same loophole to add a parameter I recently objected to. And with them being all template protected, in most cases "being bold" in trying to remove these parameters is off the table.

Look, I know Andy and others here have good intentions on consolidated infoboxes, as Andy had first stated when he began WP:INFOCOL. I'm not sure if the benefits (listed on WP:INFOCOL) outweigh all the costs (the possibility of having a bunch of template-protected infoboxes, with publictransit and over 100 other parameters). Thoughts? Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)