Module talk:Infobox cyclist tracking
 | This module does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
_pictogram.svg){kind=small}
Cleanup/still needed?
[edit]@Frietjes: I am not too good with Modules yet so I'm wary of editing this... Category:Pages using infobox cyclist with deprecated parameters is now empty and I have removed support for the deprecated params from the template. I also added Module:Check for unknown parameters to the template so any instances of the 6 deprecated params that are added in the future will show up as unknown params. Can you help clean up this module? Lines 149 through 157 can certainly be removed... I also question the need for the rest of this module. Do we really need a module to check that all year params have a matching team param? If so, those should go to a different category as it is not a deprecation issue. Perhaps a Category:Pages using infobox cyclist with effed up params cuz people suck? 
Let me know your thoughts and let me know how I can help. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- User:Zackmann08, looks like the new syntax was introduced in July 2014, which is probably long enough in the past that we can safely remove the old syntax. the module checks for a bunch of things like (1) mismatches between the numbering of the years and teams parameters, which was a common mistake during the conversion to the new syntax, (2) people still trying to use the old syntax br-tag or list syntax but wedged into the new parameters, and (3) malformed weight/height parameters. I will take a closer look later today and see if we can safely kill this. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- for the atypical weight/height stuff, the task is this sort of thing. basically, use auto unit conversion. Frietjes (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@Frietjes: sounds good. I guess my argument against this module is that you have to draw a line somewhere... You cannot test for EVERY case and throw an error for every tiny little thing that can go wrong. It comes down to WP:COMPETENCE. I completely agree that this module catches some great errors. I just think it is a slippery slope and sets a dangerous precedent for error checking the hell out of infoboxes. If you don't have the WP:COMPETENCE to properly implement this infobox without the module catching your errors, maybe you shouldn't be editing. Before you know it we would have a module checking {{Infobox settlement}} saying "This is a United States settlement but you supplied metric measurements. ERROR!!!" or "The
{{{area_land_sq_mi}}}supplied is larger than{{{area_total_sq_mi}}}which is not possible!!!" Trying to be funny but also make a point... It is a slippery slope. Hope that makes sense! :-) --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)- Regarding the height/weight stuff, I've never seen another template that tracks that... I went looking to see how other major templates handle that issue and found this: {{Infobox person/height}} which is used by {{Infobox person}}. I'm pretty sure that would 100% handle the issue you are trying to address without needing to change the transclusions. Check it out! --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Zackmann08, yes, the eventual plan is to use the code in {{infobox sportsperson}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Frietjes: ah beautiful!! Would be awesome to get this merged in there. :-) --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Zackmann08, yes, the eventual plan is to use the code in {{infobox sportsperson}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding the height/weight stuff, I've never seen another template that tracks that... I went looking to see how other major templates handle that issue and found this: {{Infobox person/height}} which is used by {{Infobox person}}. I'm pretty sure that would 100% handle the issue you are trying to address without needing to change the transclusions. Check it out! --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@Frietjes: sounds good. I guess my argument against this module is that you have to draw a line somewhere... You cannot test for EVERY case and throw an error for every tiny little thing that can go wrong. It comes down to WP:COMPETENCE. I completely agree that this module catches some great errors. I just think it is a slippery slope and sets a dangerous precedent for error checking the hell out of infoboxes. If you don't have the WP:COMPETENCE to properly implement this infobox without the module catching your errors, maybe you shouldn't be editing. Before you know it we would have a module checking {{Infobox settlement}} saying "This is a United States settlement but you supplied metric measurements. ERROR!!!" or "The
- for the atypical weight/height stuff, the task is this sort of thing. basically, use auto unit conversion. Frietjes (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- See also: Template_talk:R#Problems_with_number_conversions
- --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
visualhide removal
[edit]This template/module uses the visualhide class. It has a TemplateStyles solution and will accordingly be removed from Common.css soon. Your feedback regarding the timeline is requested at MediaWiki talk:Common.css § visualhide removal. Izno (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)