Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 April 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 5 April 7 >

April 6

[edit]

Template:User Donald Trump

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was wrong venue, userboxes are discussed at MFD Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be in Template space, per long-standing consensus re. userboxes of this kind. Also "grate" is mis-spelled. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it's the inclusion of the campaign slogan ("Make America great again") which pushes this one over the line. Keep in mind that WP is not governed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Miniapolis 13:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That can simply be edited out if it's a problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Srich32977: Find me an equivalent that promotes Hillary Clinton and I'll nominate that, too. It's well over a decade since we had the Great Userbox War, that set the policy, this violates it. It really is that simple. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go – Template:User Hillary Clinton. And don't forget those devoted to Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein. Oh-oh! Here's one that features a picture of that rebel who kicked the British out of Virginia User:Nerguy/presidents. In fact there are hundreds of such userboxes Category:Political user templates. Which of them advocate or support grossly improper behaviors? The guidance says "Simply: If content is not appropriate on other parts of a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes." Any editor who says they like so-and-so politician (or rebel) is free to say so on their user page. – S. Rich (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LOL Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 11:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I presume, then, that you registered after the Great Userbox War? There is a very firm precedent for not having userboxes like this. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...@JzG: Yet you nominated only a pro-Trump box, ignored all the other political boxes - there's hundreds at Category:Political user templates including several pro-Hillary and pro-Bernie boxes, and, given the... contentious and sensitive nature of the Trump presidency on Wikipedia, shall we say, you really think users wouldn't take offence to that or at least take it the wrong way? You could've at least provided an illusion of NPOV by nominating political userboxes across the political spectrum, yet you didn't. And even if you were to argue that all 500+ of such templates should be deleted, I'd still !vote keep; they are no different to any other userbox and the existence of 500+ templates flies in the face of a "very firm precedent against this" and thereby is too big to be settled through a single TfD. WP:DEADHORSE also comes to mind. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 14:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I knew I'd get the chance to use this wonderful little template message. – Uanfala (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Category handler/numbered

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 April 15. Primefac (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Fire Emblem characters

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per #3 at WP:TFD#REASONS. Template is unused in mainspace and has no likelihood of being used since all links in this template except one have been redirected to non-character articles. The1337gamer (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Airlines in Europe templates

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A navigation template that links only to other navigation templates. That seems to violate WP:NAV which states navigation templates are for the purpose of linking articles. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Tamil films

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 April 15. Primefac (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Adr

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was subst and delete. The main concern is redundancy to PIPELINKS, combined with ease of use and clarity. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A truly pointless template, trying to replace the widespread and largely well understood use of WP:PIPELINKS with yet another template.

MediaWiki and Wikicode has a reputation for unfriendliness, true. Piped links are one aspect of this. But where Wikicode is unfriendly it is almost always when it presents more than one way of doing something, and flips syntax modes between them. This template makes things worse, not better. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An example: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Ironworks&diff=772861274&oldid=767352697 Andy Dingley (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unlike pipetricking, the template does NOT clutter text (and allows abbreviation use too) when typing sequences with addresses such as Summit Hill, Carbon County, Pennsylvania
  • {{adr|Summit Hill|PA}}, {{adr|Carbon County|PA}}, [[Pennsylvania]] versus
  • [[Summit Hill, PA|Summit Hill]], [[Carbon County, PA|Carbon County]], [[Pennsylvania]], and a host of other uses, such as Broad Mountain from
    {{adr|Broad Mountain||Lehigh Valley}}, which without the repetition is far more easy to parse proof reading than
    [[Broad Mountain (Lehigh Valley)|Broad Mountain]]. The amount of typing and confusion saved for the parenthesis and comma cases alone is tremendous. See the links and actual uses, not the simplistic reasons of the easy case cited by the nominator, who apparently feels he can spend my time for me. Let my tools be! // FrankB 20:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm surprised this template wasn't created earlier, as it makes inputting piped links easier. As for its effect on readability, I agree with FrankB that it makes code less cluttered, but the nominator is also right that it adds to the complexity for novice editors to learn, to which I can also add that it will prevent the editor wiked form formatting the link. I'm not sure how these three things weigh against each other, but if it's judged that it's undesirable to have this template visible in the source code, then the solution will be not to delete it but to make it subst-only. – Uanfala (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be OK if this template was used by subst: (although the WP:Pipe trick does most of that), but as it is, this doesn't "make inputting piped links easier", it invents a whole new and unfamiliar syntax in addition to them. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How didn't I know about the pipe trick! Well, it does take care of the two most common cases – commas and parentheses. But the template is still useful for links with natural disambiguators. – Uanfala (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From my user talk:
== TFD Template:Adr ==
You really ought look at the help and the many times used before nominating someone's tool for deletion. What kind of person takes away another persons tools? They'll kill you if you try that on a blue collar work site! I will state categorically, if you win this, my 13 years wading through poorly written prose by academically limited and overly inexperienced writers too lazy to run down a cite like this fix are over, including and especially those taking days to prep, such as take hundreds of characters. Thanks for the hostile environment. // FrankB 20:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Dingley (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala: That's a good catch! Although I'm wondering how often its used like that. Ultimately I have two concerns:
Concern [1] Is there a reason why the Template defaults to Pennsylvania if no argument is given? For example: {{adr|White Haven}} produces White Haven (rather than [[White Haven]] which take you to White Haven, the disambiguation page.
Answered below after relisting notice: FrankB
Concern [2] Does the amount of typing saved in natural modifiers (which is not a huge amount, given that obviously we don't wikilink every reference) in cases like Russian language worth having a template for? And what impact does the template have on editing? Above it's claimed that the template makes pages easier to parse, but, frankly, I think users are generally more familiar with piped links, and will be much more thrown by something like {{adr|Russian||language}} than [[Russian language|Russian]].--216.12.10.118 (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interjected Answer: For those of us struggling to get five words typed without a single error, yes. The template is a godsend! I've been active on 13 sister projects since 2004, and I doubt I'll ever have using piped links, versus using WP:Pipe tricks straight. Every time I've tried the latter, its cost me time, given me ulcers and left me frustrated. Too much like dating when I was 15 to be a fan. It took a lot of trys to get past first base, you know! I know what I'll get with a template, and it keeps me from having to distract my thoughts when typing:
{{adr|James Burke||science historian}, {adr|saddle||landform}, or "... watershed of the {{123|Ohio|River}} and Mississippi Rivers..." or many such strings, where I'd much rather my brain were paying attention to the intellegence of the message and the construction and not the DISADVANTAGES of wikimarkup's piped outputs.
  • If 216.12.10.118 and any other newbie has trouble looking up a template which is linked at the bottom of the page then my Template:123(edit talk links history) will seem just as puzzling as adding 2+2-the first time. LOOK IT UP, learn it. Use it. Make it your own. (Don' they introduce that sequence in Kindergarten?) // FrankB 02:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I got the impression the template is still under construction, which could explain why it inexplicably defaults to Pennsylvania. If the template is too confusing to appear in source text, then it can be made subst-only. If this happens, then it can be simplified to handle only natural disambiguators, which should reduce the number of pipes needed. – Uanfala (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe it is still being constructed based on the edit history (prior to the deletion nomination, the last edit that edited the actual template was in September 2016, though in December 2016 one user did split the documentation out). My concern is that subst-ing will actually crowd the text. {{subst:adr|Russian||language}} generates this:
{{#if:|[[Russian {{{4}}}|Russian]]<!--<br/>
  else --->|{{#if:language<!-- <znoinclude>x</znoinclude><br/>
    then --->|[[Russian (language) |Russian]]<!--<br/>
    else --->|[[Russian, |Russian]]<!--<br/>
        --->}}<!--<br/>
--->}}
If the goal is to make markup easier to digest ... that doesn't solve it--216.12.10.118 (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to safesubst, subst, and delete The pipe trick per se is clearly something we don't expect new users to grasp quickly. That's absolutely fine. But for generally piped links, one needs to know a) the actual title of the page being linked to and b) the text they would like to show. In order to use this template, they need to know those things anyway. So it's not a matter of saving "research time", it's a matter of saving keystrokes. But that comes at the expense of a severe drop in readability for other editors, which on a popular page is a big deal. It's a totally unfamiliar syntax and very much arbitrary (comma -> paren -> space has no natural ordering). We don't have other templates like this for general use in articles, either. The closest I can think of would be {{tl}} et al, but that's meant for back end work by more experienced users. These issues go away when it's used subst-only, but it would have to be bot-substituted. Is it worth it? Not really, in my opinion. – Train2104 (t • c) 05:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Questions... -Just to address the Finished and default case concerns raised above. Pennsylvania history and geography articles were where I was focused having to repeatedly shorten things of the form 'Landform-type, This-or-that County, Pennsylvania' into 'Beaver Brook' or whatever. e.g Broad Mountain (Lehigh Valley) (since it spans two Counties and two river systems, most of its flanks drain to the Lehigh, hence chose that over 'Broad Mountain, Carbon County, Pennsylvania' nameform.

  • IN EITHER CASE The template generates a nice polite Broad Mountain, my goal--Along with not having to retype things typed already. I have enough trouble getting names of things right just once, thank you very much!)
  • The default to Pennsylvania was entirely inadvertent, I wanted something real to create a realistic link inside the nesting. I only accidentally discovered it left a working link if Arg2 was left out last week myself. I would have no strong objection to changing the logic to create an error condition if Arg2+Arg3+Arg4 are undefined, though it hardly seems worth the effort--and adds complexity to a small well behaved template. I don't believe the template ought be subst'd automatically, since it unclutters complicated prose passages in places where cites are also cluttering the same paragraphs—that is in geography and history sections where other cites should often be around as well. Those article spots and lead paras are where it shines and keeps things simple. Were there a bot to check its use list and test an article had been unchanged for 3-4 weeks, then that BOT could subst for it, as construction was clearly suspended or over. Jes' saying! // FrankB 02:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fabartus:, I see why your template might occasionally shorten writing, that's a solid point.
  1. First, again, in only a very few cases would your template actually shorten writing. As User:Andy Dingley pointed out, for your example, you could just write [[Broad Mountain (Lehigh Valley)|]] The only time WP:Pipe trick would not work is if only a space separated the modifier. You saying that you've had difficulty with Pipe tricks doesn't quite seem to mean that we should create a template that does almost the exact same thing as pipe tricks.
  2. You say that "For those of us struggling to get five words typed without a single error, yes. The template is a godsend!" The problem is - you are one of the only editors to use this template, which appears on less than 50 pages. Of course you want other users to use the template, as you suggest. The problem is, no one is. And because no one is, this creates a readability problem. We don't expect users to have to "look up" templates just to understand that one user of the encyclopedia has trouble with pipe links. There's nothing intuitive about modifiers after commas going in to the second parameter, modifiers in parentheses going into the third parameter, modifiers going after spaces being in the fourth parameter, and then output text going into a "d" parameter. The fact is, WP:PIPE links are extremely common and widely understood; your template isn't. You've taken something that's commonly understood and made it debatably more efficient by sacrificing intuitiveness. Although you might think I'm a newbie since I have no account, I've been editing since 2006, and I'm actually familiar with what constitutes a good template.
I remain a delete vote.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@216.12.10.118: - Unfortunately, I can't really respect your cowardly behavior. Your command of Wikimarkup is evident, but your understanding of psychology is grievously flawed if you think anoms are on an equal footing with editors one can at least contact with a direct question. So contempt for the hiding behind the woman's skirt of your IP addy.
@216.12.10.118: - Congrats, I was able to get pipe tricks to replicate the least used case for use of the template, I'll be sure to try and remember that. BUT THE PRIME case is in the many titles where 'addr'esses formats are involved... like its mnemonic, 'adr' truncates the garbage text we least often want at the end of a link in the many many many name cases when the page title and so links involve comma separated words we don't want, such as ', Luzerne County, Mississippi'. Witness the many uses on display in the newly created stub: Hazel Creek (Lehigh River). Simply put, the template both makes such dense descriptors easier to read and maintain, and far less challenging to type.
Let's see an address case: [[Beaver Creek, Carbon County, Pennsylvania|]] gave Beaver Creek... a totally unexpected result, confirming the anom's point and sending me down Alice's rabbit hole these past ten hours... SOMEONE, ANYONE, explain why source code would automatically be transformed and so HIDE such a useful set of behaviors. I'll note that Help:Pipetrick in 2004/2005 did not mention such transformations, even on Meta, irrc, and since wikimarkup has autoconverted such the changes from {{adr}} forms [here and on a number of other pages I eschewed use of the template today HAS A BIG PROBLEM... the source code and DIFF do not match.

Our knowledgable Anom (hiding his identity so impolitely) may not like my template, but I have little use for source code which alters the record! If our illustrious programmers are going to change the record, how are newbies (or addle-pated balding old engineers) supposed to observe and learn about the tool? Oh, the many, many, many man hours auto-changing that terminal pipe-bracket-bracket has cost me, and us all. WHAT PERCENTAGE OF EDITORS grasp that tool, I wonder. I wish we could give a quiz! I sincerely doubt it approaches 20%! It's too subtle and hidden too well in the altered record!

As far as your other point goes, I'd say it's a non-starter. Like any other utility template (such as coord, convert, language taskers, etc.), as users see it, if they're editing, they too will encounter a day when it seems desirable, or not. The syntax is deliberately close and familiar to standard pipe link forming wikimarkup. In time and life-cycle, this thing is a baby, and if its only now on 50 pages, that's because I haven't had the time I'd like to originate a bunch of pages from researches about the early American Industrial Revolution, which if nothing else, includes the large task of researching and writing short articles on many key railroads and those they consolidated into.
In conclusion... six or seven or ten+ hours later, and having found out a whole lot more about pipe tricks and piped links (and they're hardly mentioned existance on Wikibooks), I've played enough with them now in today's yesterday's edits to conclude that pipe tricks do indeed make the template superfluous, and that now schooled in the power of '|]]' , I personally can NOW do without it. But conclude we may be better off promoting it. Not only does the source code read clearer in many cases, its use and low resource needs is clearer and cleaner for the next editor to wander into a morass of dense text. We've cluttered things enough for people volunteering their time and expertize to make this project better. A small well behaved template with a clear function is little enough a price for enhanced readability. So I remain a KEEP. It does no harm, and may do some good. // FrankB 08:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fabartus: Sorry for not making that clear. So, for the full run down, given your example:
  1. The user types [[Beaver Creek, Carbon County, Pennsylvania|]]
  2. When the user clicks save, Wikipedia automatically transforms that into [[Beaver Creek, Carbon County, Pennsylvania|Beaver Creek]]
  3. Beaver Creek is generated.
Why is the code transformed? I can't say I have any knowledge on that, but my guess is because piped links are such a standard part of wiki syntax that I think leaving the trick untransformed would actually generate more confusion. Pipe tricks are only a shortcut for the user entering the text, not a way of reducing the amount of text on the page. (Also, my name is Daniel; I abandoned my Wikipedia account about 10 years ago and only sporadically edit now. Sorry my IP address causes you some concern; if it helps, technically an IP is, in some ways, less anonymous than an account!)--216.12.10.118 (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm reminded of the old {{city-region}} template, which was deprecated and deleted seven years ago. Even with the cleanup of the documentation it's hard to follow, at first glance, what this template does. For people unfamiliar with the template it's a barrier to editing the general text of the article in question, and we don't need more of those. Mackensen (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, agree with Mackensen, this is just {{city-region}} all over again. Frietjes (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not a fan of templates that duplicate existing syntax without significantly simplifying it in a large portion of cases. As far as I can tell, this template slightly simplifies syntax in a few cases. The concomitant cost of having multiple alternatives for the same thing outweighs this, IMO. GoldenRing (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Concerns and controversies at the Olympics

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 April 14. Primefac (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_6&oldid=1091625036"