User talk:Zackmann08

User	Talk	Awards	Sources	Contacts	Notes	Templates/Tools	Bookmarks	My Sandbox

---

Volleyball Box

@Gonnym, Nigej, and Tom (LT):, you each took part in the volleyballbox TFD so pinging you here. I was getting ready to start the conversion, I even wrote my script, but then started having second thoughts. I don't really like the way either of these two templates works. {{Volleyballbox2}} has a better formatted output, but I hate the way that it uses so many <br> statements to format things. Then {{volleyballbox}} doesn't really clearly show who won which set, etc. I was kicking around the idea of actually redoing the entire template as a module... having things like {{{team1_1}}}, {{{team2_1}}} (for team 1 set 1 score and team 2 set 1 score). Then I could automatically bold whichever team has the higher score. Do you guys have any thoughts on the matter? I just feel like if I'm going to take the time to merge the two templates, I might as well make them actually look good. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

My opinion - as long as the current functionally is kept, then if you have a better version that works better in terms of wp:accessibility and other best practices, go for it. From looking at the templates, it seems they are using a table and doing a mix of a layout table vs a data table which is not recommended by most (all?) accessibility guides (as an example), so if you're vision fixes that, even better. --Gonnym (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: cool. I needed a new project so I'm going to do this. Might ping you in a few days for some feedback! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: so instead of a few days it became a few hours... Do you have a few minutes to give it a once over? I've got a testcase at Template:Volleyballbox/testcases that I've been playing around with. Obviously feel free to create any others you'd like. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the module code - your tables are missing column and row scopes (the same issue the previous code had). This table is not a layout table (even if it tries to appear as such), but a data table. So your code needs to work to present it as such. I've written a mockup below using plain wikitable code. Now while the template code looks more visually pleasing maybe, it just fails in accessibility, so the question is, as always, what do we go for? (also, just a side-comment, the time the match was played and the stadium it was played in seems a bit trivia, but that may just be me).

WIP Samples

caption Date Match Attendance Referee(s) Report(s) Team 1 Set Team 2 February 19, 2019 China vs Germany 14,000 Kim Kun-Tae (South Korea) Janpen Jirakakul (Thailand) ref 10 1 11 11 2 15 12 3 9 13 4 10 14 5 24 2 Final 3 caption Date Match Attendance Referee(s) Report(s) Score Team 1 Team 2 February 19, 2019 China vs Germany 14,000 Kim Kun-Tae (South Korea) Janpen Jirakakul (Thailand) ref Set 1 10 11 Set 2 11 15 Set 3 12 9 Set 4 13 10 Set 5 14 24 Final 2 3

Gonnym (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: interesting. That is definitely a radical redesign of the table. Will have to give it some real thought. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure there are other optional designs (but I don't know them), but sometimes a simple table does the job. The other table will be read as "STADIUM, DATE TIME, Team 1, 2 – 3, Team 2, Attendance: ATTENDANCE" in a screen reader and the use of the br tags to make rows in the set_right_info() function is also against the guidelines. --Gonnym (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: frankly I like your design. Its clean and clear. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Curnews and Phuebi: you both recently listed yourselves as members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Volleyball. Would you care to weigh in on this? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Current working/planned solution

CAPTION

Date/Time	Match	Location	Attendance	Referee(s)	Score	Team 1	Team 2	Source
February 19, 2019 2:30pm	China vs Germany	Washington, DC MCI Center	14,000	Kim Kun-Tae (South Korea) Janpen Jirakakul (Thailand)	Set 1	10	11	Result Statistics
					Set 2	11	15
					Set 3	12	9
					Set 4	13	10
					Set 5	14	24
					Final	2	3

@Gonnym: thoughts on Template:Volleyballbox/testcases? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a little above my pay grade but initial reaction has me wondering how the vertical layout would play in a whole tournament's bunch of scores. If you filled out the 2018 FIVB Volleyball Women's World Championship, for example, with that for each match it would be pages and pages in length. Sorry if that's not what you are working on here. Phuebi (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Amazing. There is a 3rd Volleyball table template? This one at least uses a real table. --Gonnym (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Phuebi and Gonnym: I have no intention of touching {{Vb res 51}}. I can see a valid use case for both that template and {{Volleyballbox}}. For right now I just want to achieve the merger of {{Volleyballbox}} and {{Volleyballbox2}}. Do either of you have any comments on Template:Volleyballbox/testcases? Anything you think is missing or should be fixed before I start a rollout? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Since the 'Sets' data is the 'thickest' of the data, I think it looks better in the middle rather than on the right end. Correct me if I'm wrong, but using column headers is for accessibility, right? That will likely cause one to have to scroll the page horizontally when it's the "De La Salle Junior Lady Archers" vs "FEU-Diliman Baby Tamaraws" (not just China v USA). Team names as column headers is redundant anyway. "Score" as the 'Set' column header is odd. Keeping the thing to three columns is visually more pleasing than nine columns, and I feel like a jerk critiquing your hard work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phuebi (talk • contribs) 22:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in response.I would too prefer {{Vb res 51}} or {{Volleyballbox2}} in the usual case,but I understand the discussion is on the vertical Volleyballbox.I feel that the details of the match like Stadium, Time,Attendance,Referees all could come in the first column.Since the team names have come already,is the match column really required ?. As Phuebi pointed out "Score" doesn't look apt as the column header of 'Set'.Imho,even eliminating that column may work,as the absence of set numbers may not affect the comprehensiblity as seen in {{Volleyballbox2}}.That would leave with you four columns and if you take the source/report to the first column then three.Here's a partial Mockup from the test cases.Hope my inputs could be of any use to you.

Date/Time

{{{date}}} TIME STADIUM ATTENDANCE REFEREE	China	v	USA	{{{stadium}}}

Curnews (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Curnews: oooo!!! Me likey! @Gonnym: How about instead of calling that "Date/Time" we call it "match info"? Put all those in one column.... Thoughts? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The above table looks good (small issues: missing row column, and the source column can be smaller). I personally have a problem with the Match info column from the sandbox, as that basically is a counter-design. Instead of placing the info correctly into column, it's all placed in a single column. That isn't really how table's work. --Gonnym (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: so the other thing is that I just looked at a bunch of the other sports boxes, and they are all similar in pattern that is very different from this. {{Handballbox}}, {{Football box}}, {{Football box}}, etc... Do we want to keep this consistent? Or maybe the bigger solution here is that we need to create a global {{sports box}}. I feel like I started pulling at a thread..... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

That's your call. You could also just merge the 2 volleyball templates like in the discussion and leave it for someone else. Sport templates are less about technical implementation and more about unnecessary drama, not something I like to get into. --Gonnym (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I bring it up because I think it should be kept consistent with the other sports boxes... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I know, and I agree. Those templates are not good. Take Template:Football box for example, I'm pretty sure that goal time and penalty info text size are much smaller than 85%, maybe even the player names. But as I said, this won't be an easy sell, so good luck with that. --Gonnym (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox settlement - 5000+ edits - maybe AWB

Except for one template all redirects have been replaced, i.e. the non-wrapper articles directly link to Template:Infobox settlement.

The only template left is Template:Infobox Settlement (uppercase). All 6724 articles that use this redirect have been created between 3 July 2008‎ and 9 April 2009‎. [1]

The good news is, that ca. 5000 are about villages in Poland and would need a fix anyway, e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lipowiec,_Nowe_Miasto_County&diff=prev&oldid=884184853

1. switch S to lowercase "s" : Infobox settlement
2. move coordinates into the box, inline display, or it (inline+title)
3. add pushpin_map = Poland

Could you do that with AWB? 77.11.92.130 (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Um, WP:NOTBROKEN? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Pppery, what is not broken if the map is missing? 77.183.23.149 (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

RFC to adopt single use template policy

@Gonnym, Steel1943, Tom (LT), MarnetteD, and Pppery: There has been a recent uptick in the number of TFDs related to only one transclusion. As you may know there has been some debate in the past about whether this alone is enough to justify deleting a template. My personal opinion aside, I wanted to see if you all had any strong feelings about doing an RFC? I was going to write one up and formally file it to adopt a clause in Template namespace guidelines. Before I write it up, just wanted to see if you all had any initial thoughts/reactions. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would agree that doing so is a good idea, as a general "policy should match practice" measure, given that practice seems to be "single-use templates are substituted and deleted". I would suggest that the discussion specifically address the opposing arguments: but it's used many times in the article, but it's complicated Wikitext that should be kept out of the article for ease of editing (links go to discussions where that argument is asserted), and a few others I can't think of. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Or, at the very least, the current practice is more nuanced that "delete all the single-use templates". {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• It would be worth assessing what the current attitude is. It might be the same but it is also worth seeing if consensus has changed. MarnetteD|Talk 02:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• To each his own, I suppose, but as I go through the Template space fixing Linter errors, I wonder why editors appear to be so hot to delete single-use templates when so many zero-use templates (aside from those that should be substed) exist. I know, OTHERSTUFF, but if your goal is cleaning up the place, I would think that the hundreds or thousands of zero-use templates would be worth going after. (FWIW, I recently substed a straightforward single-use infobox template into an article; it was clearly the right thing to do.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Completely agree with Jonesey95 last I checked there were 80,000 or so unused templates. I just couldn't find a way to extract groups of them them for grouped discussion and as I couldn't be bothered to copy and paste 80,000 times (I am a volunteer after all!) gave up. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    • How hard would it be to get a wikilinked, sortable list of unused templates that are not marked as subst only, or perhaps a list that fits Zackmann08's proposed CSD criteria? We could look at that list together to see if we could find groups of templates to nominate. I know that nominating 100 templates all at once doesn't always go over well, but if we had a good rationale, we might be able to make a few of them work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
      • @Jonesey95: MZMcBride already has a report that runs weekly. See: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Yes, but the report includes pages and pages of unused redirects to templates that are used. The proposed CSD criteria don't say anything about redirects, and redirects are cheap and often useful. DAB pages should also be excluded from the report, I think. The report contains templates like {{Typo Team Medal}}, which is a subst-only template (identified as such in the template's documentation) and is used, as can be seen at User talk:Spazure and other pages. I was hoping for a narrower report that shows the real extent of the problem. If there are only 1,000 or so truly unused templates, we can take them to TFD over the course of a reasonable period of time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
          • @Jonesey95: I'm all for improving the report, just not sure how to do it yet. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• @Zackmann08 I think a carefully crafted rationale would be great. Also, it would help test community attitudes about standardising some of the common template use criteria. For example - as an aside - I wish templates > 5 years with no use could be speedily deleted, it wastes so much air time to have discussions about such things (in my opinion)
  • On the other hand, contrary to Pppery I would be more supportive of a narrower scope for single use template deletion. Templates to me serve the primary function of improving the reading experience and the secondary function of improving the editing experience, so I'm not opposed to templates used on single articles per se, if they are really complex. In my experience the complex templates have usually been hived off the parent article years before because they have complex legacy wikitext that, in my opinion, would deter editing (certainly would for me). I'd however energetically support something about single use templates with standard wiki markup codified as a reason for deletion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Simple single-use templates can probably be converted, but as others have said, it depends on what that template does. As Jonesey said though, the real problem is the 0 used templates. If we can get this type added to a Speedy deletion category, that will have move stuff way faster. Atm, it just clutters the deletion process with a very predictable outcome. --Gonnym (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Gonnym: Consensus at WT:CSD is against a crtierion for unused templates, see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 72#Proposal to add T4: Unused. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  Seems a very light consensus at best based on the amount of participants? Was this even placed as a RfC for wider input? --Gonnym (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: I 100% agree that zero use templates need to go. My only point is that when you XFD a zero use template, you never get objections. With single use templates, there are objections gallore, so it would be nice to have something codified. That being said, I would 100% support a full RFC for adding T4, unused. Would you be willing to lead the charge on that RFC? I would certainly back you... (I went ahead and did it) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym, Steel1943, Tom (LT), MarnetteD, and Pppery: per Jonesey95's comments, I went ahead and started with an RFC for unused templates. How about we see if we can get some traction on unused templates first, then maybe talk about single use templates? Would be very interested to hear each of your thoughts on that RFC. Not even sure you all support it, but either way, please add your thoughts! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Great idea, thanks for proposing that. Have commented. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Songkick

Please promptly undo your closure of Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_16#Template:Songkick; there are no valid grounds for deletion there. TfD is not a poll. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: want to try that again in a less accusatory way? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: you may not agree with the decision, but that isn't grounds for mandating that I reverse it. The arguments in favor of deletion made perfect sense to me, while the one argument against did not. In the future, please don't come and simply accuse me of errors. I know full well that TfD is not a poll. Had you simply asked me to relist the discussion, I would have been more than happy to. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Then please spare me the protestations, and relist it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)