Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia technical issues and templates: Difference between revisions
Added: Wikipedia talk:Tutorial. |
Maintenance. |
||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
{{rfcquote|text= |
{{rfcquote|text= |
||
Is storing data an acceptable use of template namespace? [[User:Pppery|{{3x|p}}ery]] ([[User talk:Pppery|talk]]) 23:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)}} |
Is storing data an acceptable use of template namespace? [[User:Pppery|{{3x|p}}ery]] ([[User talk:Pppery|talk]]) 23:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)}} |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
Currently [[Template:Infobox U.S. state]] is nominated for TfD, and as a result every single U.S. state (e.g. [[California]]) has a notice saying ‹ The template Infobox U.S. state is being considered for deletion. › Now as an editor, I appreciate the notification, but for the vast majority of our readers that the TfD discussion has very little to do with, it looks ugly and unprofessional (and certainly unacceptable for a featured article like [[Oklahoma]]). Infoboxes by their very nature are highly trafficked, and I don't think it is useful to serve up a deletion notice to every one of those visitors. Is there a way to display it only for logged in users? -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">♥</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">♦</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">♣</font>]] ♠ 03:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)}} |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
We have four issues (at least) that are combining in a negatively synergistic way: |
|||
# There's a [[WP:PROCESSFORK]] of sorts between coding (and discussing) [[Wikipedia:Template|templates]] versus doing so with [[Wikipedia:Lua|modules]], despite the latter being an adjunct to the former. |
|||
# Few editors care to participate and [[WP:Watchlist|watchlist]] in either [[WP:Namespaces|namespace]], but it's probably at least an order magnitude lower for Module namespace. |
|||
# The editors involved in implementing and maintaining modules are a much smaller and more self-selecting group. While this is necessary when it comes to directly changing the code, it's an [[WP:CONLEVEL|unproductive narrowing]] when it comes to decision-making and consensus formation. |
|||
# Templates are being converted into Lua modules without good reason, making them further developable by a far smaller number of editors; such conversions need broader discussion on a case-by-case basis. |
|||
Overall, getting stuff done in Template and Module namespaces is [[WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY|taking longer and longer, with more inconsistent results]]. Particular individuals deeply involved in modules have [[WP:VESTED|much more personal control]] over Module space than Template space, and our "geeks" in general (especially those with the [[WP:TemplateEditor|TemplateEditor user level]]) have more control over both namespaces compared to main (article) or project ("Wikipedia:") namespaces – which leads to problems even with the best of intentions. In the "Extended discussion" section below I've outlined some examples (and I do so as someone with the TemplateEditor permission bit; this is not a sour-grapes "class struggle" between user levels). |
|||
'''A possible solution''': The status quo seems likely to continue (or worsen) if an explicit change isn't made. {{strong|[[WP:Templates for discussion]] (TfD) should serve as more of a "clearinghouse" of template and module changes (like how [[WP:RM]] works for proposed moves), not just as an [[WP:XFD|{{var|X}}fD process]]; this will draw additional editorial attention to template and module matters.}} It should be as simple as having a {{tlxs|tfd-thread}} template and [[WP:BOT|bot]] that adds RM-style pointers to the [[WP:TFD]] log, directing people to Template_talk and Module_talk discussions, in addition to the existing "settle it here at TfD" deletion and merger entries. I think this would both even out the discrepancies between Template and Module namespaces in "getting the work done", and also give the WP community much more say into how its templating system operates. It's also consistent with TfD's rename several years ago to "Templates for {{em|discussion}}" not "{{em|deletion}}". It would be a new norm that any potentially controversial template/module change proposals should be listed in this manner, the way potentially controversial moves are listed at RM. (As with manual moves and [[WP:RM/TR]], trivial fixes need not be so listed – if you need to fix an obvious typo in a template, [[WP:BOLD|just do it]]; this is [[WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY|not a bureaucracy]].)<br /><span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 05:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)}} |
|||
'''[[Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019#rfc_D72E76A|Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019]]''' |
'''[[Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019#rfc_D72E76A|Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019]]''' |
||
{{rfcquote|text= |
{{rfcquote|text= |
||
| Line 62: | Line 48: | ||
In this stage of the consultation, the WMF [[:mw:Talk pages consultation 2019#Phase 1: Collect information|suggests asking community members five questions]]. There are therefore five subsections for each of those questions (under [[#Suggested questions|§ Suggested questions]]). It may also be appropriate for other issues to be considered on this page, in separate subsections (under [[#Other topics|§ Other topics]]). [[User:Jc86035|Jc86035]] ([[User talk:Jc86035|talk]]) 14:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)}} |
In this stage of the consultation, the WMF [[:mw:Talk pages consultation 2019#Phase 1: Collect information|suggests asking community members five questions]]. There are therefore five subsections for each of those questions (under [[#Suggested questions|§ Suggested questions]]). It may also be appropriate for other issues to be considered on this page, in separate subsections (under [[#Other topics|§ Other topics]]). [[User:Jc86035|Jc86035]] ([[User talk:Jc86035|talk]]) 14:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)}} |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
}} |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
}} |
|||
{{RFC list footer|tech|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }} |
{{RFC list footer|tech|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }} |
||
Revision as of 06:01, 25 March 2019
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
| I was wondering if I should add headings at the top of the tutorial pages like this:
|
Template talk:Country data New Caledonia
| In order to be consistent with the consensus at Flags of New Caledonia that both flags are displayed side-by-side, should the default setting of this template be the "both" setting? Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC) |
| Page movers and administrators have the ability to move pages over redirects. However, they can only perform this operation if the redirect has no other edits to it except its creation. This is with good reason, because it prevents abuse e.g. a page mover or administrator could blank and redirect a really important page and then move another page over it, thus deleting it.
I am proposing a change to how the system works. This is the latest example of many requested moves I have closed, hoping to move over a redirect, only to find that a bot, usually User:RussBot or User:Avicbot, have made one minor edit to it, such as fixing a double redirect. These edits are marked as minor, however, it still means that a round robin move is required, which not only makes the page history look more confusing to the untrained eye, but also uses up more moves than is really necessary. The anti-abuse measure would still work because pages with any history whatsoever could not be blanked and deleted in an abusive way due to the "all minor" restriction. Therefore, I propose that the MediaWiki move over redirect function be changed to allow users with +extendedmover to move over a redirect only if the redirect, or its talk page, has no edits which are not marked as minor in its page history, apart from its creation. SITH (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC) |
| Should Template:Infobox mathematical statement be applied to the article Fermat's Last Theorem in any form? The proposed implementation can be seen here and here.
For background and previous input, please see the discussion above at Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem#Inclusion of Infobox mathematical statement. An overview of associated discussions is listed at User:Worm That Turned/FLT. 07:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC) |
| Per the above discussion, the question is whether the above change regarding the DYK parameters is desirable. Any comments are appreciated. Ergo Sum 23:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox officeholder
| The current policy regarding ordinal numbering is that an infobox should only mention someone is the nth President, Prime-Minister, senator, etc. if this is well established practice in the country the person holds office in. Recently, CroGamer 1 has called for this policy to change. The problem lies in the fact that ordinal numbering is subjective; if someone is elected non-consecutively, how does the numbering works? What about a temporarily acting officeholder? At the same time, knowing that someone was the "11th President of X" can be useful to know. If there is a well established usage in the relevant country, we should still follow that. If this isn't the case, should we continue our policy of not mentioning it, or should we have a wiki-wide policy for all these countries in which we establish how to number? 23:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Community portal
| I am suggesting a new layout that removes info about new automated portals and outlines and instead a section that emphasizes the signpost ( that is community generated). Since the community has had such a backlash about automated portals and last time we talked about this there was really only one objection by the person who created all the portals. I Think we should talk about a redesign again.--Moxy (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Template namespace
| Is storing data an acceptable use of template namespace? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019
On 21 February 2019, the WMF informed various Wikimedia projects of the 2019 talk pages consultation.
An explicit objective of the consultation is to change communication on Wikimedia projects in some way, because the present wikitext communication system effectively forms a cultural barrier for new contributors, in spite of its flexibility and transparency. In enumerating various possible outcomes and solutions, the consultation page notes: "For this process to work, we need to be open to all kinds of directions." In this stage of the consultation, the WMF suggests asking community members five questions. There are therefore five subsections for each of those questions (under § Suggested questions). It may also be appropriate for other issues to be considered on this page, in separate subsections (under § Other topics). Jc86035 (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion
Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion