Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

External link templates

Just trying to clarify the comments when discussing the deletion of an external link template - Template:ARP, it was suggested that I should not nominate it for deletion while it is being used, but gain a consensus somewhere that it is not to be used instead. As the TfD instructions indicate that the consensus needs to be discussed here how is that done without raising a TfD. Any clarity in this would be appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

MilborneOne, in your TFD you are making two claims. First, that the external links should not exist, and second, that the template should not exist to propagate those links. You cannot discuss the second without discussing the first, and TFD is not the place to be discussing the inclusion/exclusion of elinks.

For example, with this template the consensus already existed that the site should not be used as an elink (or reference), and thus the template was nominated for deletion.

I have no particular opinions about the website in question, but if you feel strongly that it should not be used on Wikipedia please go to the External links noticeboard and start a discussion there. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Generally speaking; deleting an external link template, when multiple links to the site still use it, so they will be converted to untemplated wiki-markup links, is extremely harmful, for a number of reasons. IT makes it harder to update the links if the domain or link format changes; harder to export the data to Wikidata, and impossible to fetch the links from Wikidata. We saw this recently with the MySpace debacle. TfD closers should refuse such deletions as out-of-process (or, better, such proposals should be speedily closed and referred to WP:EL). As for this specific case, I'm aghast to see the template was deleted via a non-admin closure, with the comment "REFUND applies provided that the usage/elink are deemed to be worth having a standalone template", when my comment in the TfD was "Keep While there are still links to the site, the template should not be deleted. Find consensus to remove the links first, please". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I was debating commenting on this, but I guess now I should. When I first saw the notice I left it be, thinking that an admin would close as keep. The next time I checked it I found that there were no uses of the link anywhere on the site (through the template or just regular elinks). I was AGF and didn't automatically think there was GAMING involved, so I relisted (pinging those involved in the discussion) but with no uses and no replies I thought that it would be acceptable to delete. Andy, if you feel strongly about this I am willing to go through the REFUND and EL process, though it would also involve MilborneOne being honest about their removal of the links while the TFD was underway. Primefac (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Primefac I did remove the template from articles as it was of no value and raised it at the related project as it was clear from the comments here that this was not the right place to discuss it and it was out of scope, although this was not clear from any of the instructions that relate to this board. MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Andy, consider myself fully TROUTed. In looking at the actions of MilborneOne they did remove all usage of the template during the TFD despite multiple people advising against it. There was also usage removed by an IP, which I have also reverted (still looking for more though). I've gotten the template undeleted and re-closed the TFD. Primefac (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I understood from what Pigsonthewings said that the purpose of the template needs to be sorted first before it can be discussed here (although it may be usefull to actually add that to the board instructions). This gave the message that the template would not be deleted and the TfD closed as out of scope. So knowing that the template added no value I then removed it and then raised it at the related project for a sanity check. So after being told it was out of scope for this board I find the revertion of the removal of the external link template in the actual articles a bit strange, particularly as somebody will have to go and remove them all again. MilborneOne (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

MilborneOne, the issue is the order in which things happened. If you think a template should be deleted, you put it up at TFD. If it is decided it should be deleted, you remove them from the pages. If you do it in the other order, users commenting on the TFD simply cannot see the template in-use as it should be used. Now, in this instance we're talking about an external link template, which adds a "step 0", which is to determine if the link itself should not be used. The reason for this is that if the link should be used, then there is no reason to delete a template that makes it easier to add the URL. Basically, you did everything backwards, which is why I reversed my close and undid your removals. Primefac (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Interlanguage links

The various flavours of {{interlanguage link multi}} are all wrappers for the template. However, a simple substitution would result in text like {{ill|fr|XYZ}} being turned into {{Interlanguage link multi|XYZ|fr||lt=|nobold=|vertical-align=}}. {{ill}} is the most-used version of the template used (20k of the total 25k), so even replacing "ill" with "interlanguage link multi" seems like a chore.

There are two issues with not substing the existing transclusions and using an AWB script to actually replace the text. First is that there are 25000 total transclusions between all the templates. Second is that replacing (e.g.) {{ill|fr|XYZ}} with {{ill|XYZ|fr}} and then changing the redirect target to {{interlanguage link multi}} (or vice versa) would result in a temporary nightmare of broken templates.

So... I'm looking for thoughts on this. I don't particularly like the idea of replacing short/simple transclusions with big chunks of unnecessary text, but if that's the only solution that doesn't cause mass panic until the servers can purge their caches I guess that's what we'll have to go with. Primefac (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course, if mass panic for a day while the servers sort themselves out is acceptable, I'll get coding a suitable method of replacement. Primefac (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Primefac: I've edited Interlanguage link Wikidata, Interlanguage link forced, Red Wikidata link, and Interlanguage link to make the substitution clean (not leave empty parameters). — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It's funny, I just did something similar to another template yesterday and didn't even think of it for this set. Thanks JJMC89! Primefac (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion relevant to this set of templates at Template talk:Interlanguage link#Survey. Input is requested. Primefac (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

PDFlinks - think I have a solution

I need a second set of eyes on this one, because it's a huge set of transclusions (6615) and I don't want to screw something easy up. I've got a potential workaround to {{PDFlink}} at {{PDFlink/sandbox}} by turning it into a wrapper for {{cite web}}. If this looks good to everyone, I'll submit an edit request to update PDFlink accordingly (after safesubsting everything).

One thing I've noticed so far (see the testcases) is that if there is no title (i.e. the URL is bare) it throws the "Missing or empty |title= " error, but I wonder if that's not for the best. Primefac (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Second issue - when subst, it leaves in the various {{first word}}/{{trim brackets}}/etc templates I'm using to parse out the URL. If I {{{|safesubst:}}} those templates, I get invocations of the String module showing up in the text. I have to be missing something obvious. Primefac (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Primefac: {{First word}} uses Module:String and isn't programmed to substitute cleanly. ({{trim}} is, though). Pppery 20:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong template above (fixed). Either way, either a new way to wrap this is necessary or we just accept that there will be a bunch of unnecessary templates kicking about. Primefac (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Primefac: {{trim brackets}} is also cleanly substitutable, however. There is no way of fixing the string invocations without editing {{first word}} or not using that template at all. Pppery 20:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the most straight-forward thing to do is go "the ugly route" and just remove any templates, turning PDFlinks into a straight-forward elink, as that's essentially what's passed to it. {{PDFlinks|[http://example.com Example]|2MB}} would be converted to [http://example.com Example] (2MB). It isn't necessarily pretty or (really) in-line with best practices, though. Primefac (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I suppose something could be coded in Lua specifically for this task that is subst'able. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Update: I'm using "match" and "replace" from the String module, which substitutes cleanly. Now I think I just have to clean up the regex to properly handle the odd cases which have popped up. Primefac (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Odd cases have been dealt with, but I'm seriously having issues with things substing cleanly. At the moment there's a #switch statement that hasn't been safesubsted, so if anyone wants to take a look that would be smashing. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Primefac: {{str mid}} isn't cleanly substable. Perhaps you could use Module:String (or edit the template to add that feature) Pppery 23:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Stupid templates not being cleanly substable. Thanks. I'm now using String|match, which is clean (and works!). Primefac (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

using deleted templates

James Welch is the subject of today's (2016-11-18) Google Doodle. The template {{Google Doodle}} was previously applied to articles about the subjects of such Doodles, but it was deleted 13:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC). It appears that NaturalAbundance (talk · contribs) has the code to the deleted template and is applying it manually to articles; such is the case with Mr. Welch's article. Is there any policy, directive, or guideline regarding exploiting such a loophole? — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I had no idea that it was deleted. I have seen others use it and thought it was a cool idea. If I am going against the rules, I will not do it again. Thanks NaturalAbundance (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

fourthords, from a completely technical standpoint, a template deleted via TFD should not be used*, and that would include the code itself. NaturalAbundance, thanks for being understanding. * I can think of a few exceptions, but they would mostly be for hardcoded instances of citation templates Primefac (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Noincluding?

The RfC seems to be over now and it's ended up in the archive. I think I'm seeing rough consensus supporting the proposal and I'm planning to update the listing instructions in a couple of days. This is an opportunity for anyone to object (particularly any of the three participants who opposed it). If an objection is raised then we'll have to wait until the discussion is properly closed. – Uanfala (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing remotely reaching "rough consensus." Purely from a numbers perspective, there are three for, three against (and a couple of on-the-fencers). I see no indication that anyone's mind was changed, and the arguments for keeping things as they are seem to be just as relevant as those against. Granted, much of the discussion dissolved into a question of if the notice should display at all, but that in itself is an RFC-worthy discussion. The whole process was a bit of a mess (I believe the top proposal changed three times?), so honestly I think that starting a new RFC with very clear goals, aims, and changes should happen. Give the proposal, a space to support/oppose, a place for discussion, and space for counter-proposals.

I'm still (generally) for the overall idea of the change, I just don't think that a clear consensus of what that change should be exists. Primefac (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, as a note, despite pppery's module, I think that there is a proper place and time for IAR when it comes to displaying and/or hiding TFD notices (based on the current rules), but that it should be on a case-by-case basis. Primefac (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Primefac: Why, exactly, is the fact that I coded a lua module relating to this months ago relevant know, and thus needs to be mentioned with the language "despite"? Pppery 00:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, I have no idea whether you are referring to Module:Noinclude or Module:Sandbox/pppery/noinclude tfd (which powers User:Pppery/noinclude list) Pppery 00:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I have been under the impression that the module was made so that users could check (on User:Pppery/noinclude list) whether the TFD notices have been properly wrapped (if necessary) by the noinclude tags. I recall disagreements shortly after the RFC about being incredibly strict with the current viewpoint. That was my only point regarding my above comment. I can see, however, how it could be misconstrued, and I've stricken it above. Primefac (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

You're slightly misunderstanding, Primefac. What that list actually does is list all template that are noincluded and do not appear to be substituted, meaning (in my opinion) that the noinclude tags should be removed. It does not do the reverse function of pointing out things that should be noincluded but aren't. Pppery 02:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

That was exactly my understanding of the situation (the "properly" was human-determined). Primefac (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm still just as much against the change as I was previously, and I don't see how the arguments made against the change can be said to have been successfully countered in that discussion - particularly as the two question was not clearly either "should the message be displayed" or "how should the message be displayed" but somewhat a mix of the two. Viewpoints expressed included (paraphrasing) "the display is broken and the message should be hidden, at least until it is fixed." and "the display is bad but it should be fixed rather than hidden." and neither can be reliably taken as completely supporting or opposing the muddled proposal. Accordingly I don't regard the discussion as having come to a consensus either way. Thryduulf (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Especially since one of the arguments in favor of hiding it, the doc page clutter issue, has since been fixed. Pppery 01:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, my counter-proposals about {{ifsubst}} and MediaWiki:Common.css seem to have been ignored. Pppery 02:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not willing to start a new discussion (that would be slightly disrespectful to everyone who already took part) and I'd rather see the old one closed. I'm unarchiving it now and it will hopefully be closed within a month (there's a backlog at WP:RfCl, where a closure has already been requested). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanfala (talk • contribs) 10:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe I should clarify why I'm not abandoning the old discussion altogether. I agree with Primeface that this is a bit of a mess. The proposal was changed once (right after RedRose64's comment at the beginning), it was turned into an RfC relatively late and most of the discussion happened before that. Many editors didn't include a boldface !vote, but that doesn't mean they were on the fence as it was clear from their comments they supported the proposal. That's what I base my impression of rough consensus on. Pace Thruyduulf, the proposal was specifically for not displaying the TfD message, and the examples that came up illustrating the disruption caused by the display of the message would have been the same regardless of the way that message was displayed. I don't think a new RfC would be in place – I can't see how this proposal can get any more specific than that and I don't feel like having another round of the same discussion is worth the community's time. Of course, if anyone comes up with an alternative proposal to address the same issue – that would be another matter. – Uanfala (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Database

Today, I found some automated database created serially for unused templates. Does anybody watch them? Are every unused templates ready for deletion? --Marvellous Spider-Man 08:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Marvellous Spider-Man: Are you referring to this? Many editors go through it semi-regularly and either (a) mark the template as substitute only, if that's what it is; (b) use the template in mainspace, if it's useful; or (c) nominate for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I saw this Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates/7 in What links here of a template. I deduced that if it is 7, then there must be other lists starting from 1. --Marvellous Spider-Man 08:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

There are nine pages (follow Rob's link). And if you look through the last few weeks of TFDs, you'll see that the vast majority of them are "unused templates" being nominated. Primefac (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Author's closing discussions

someone should revert this closure. clearly the author should not be speedy closing the discussion. Frietjes (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done, plus a note has been left on their talk. Primefac (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Expansion limit

I have changed some of the {{tfd links}} to {{tl}} in some of the larger discussion to reduce the expansion size. before my change we were only seeing the last four days of discussion. now we have over seven days showing. it would be great if we could reduce the expansion size of {{tfd links}}, but until that happens, not using {{tfd links}} in the larger discussions seems to be the solution. Frietjes (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

okay, I rewrote {{tfd links}} in LUA and the problem appears to be resolved for now. Frietjes (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for doing that! Primefac (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Friejetes and Primefac: Except that there is already a lua module (with a template wrapper that accomplishes a very similar task, and which yours almost certainly duplicates. Pppery 20:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Your module breaks horribly when the template contains spaces. Pppery 23:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Pppery: what's broken? Looking at Template:Page-multi, it doesn't include a delete link, or subpages, which are two of the most important ones for me. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I remember seeing some URL junk in the links earlier today, but it seems to have been fixed now. Perhaps it needed a purge. In any case, I was saying earlier was that any additional links necessary should just be merged in, rather than forking a duplicate. Pppery 00:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Pppery: Go ahead and add more features to Template:Page-multi and create a new version of {{Tfd links}}. As long as the resulting {{Tfd links}} template has the same complexity or lower, it shouldn't cause the problem we were having before to come back. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

definitely try to merge the module with Module:PageLinks if you want. now that we have a lower complexity version we can also add the ability to list modules for merging, or are modules discussed elsewhere? Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Most modules like Module:zh or Module:Country alias are run through a single template ({{zh}} and {{country alias}}) so mergers involving those sorts of templates could just be based on the template itself (i.e. nominate the templates themselves). However, I see no reason why we cannot discuss modules at TFD (as they are the backend of many templates). As far as nominating a template outside that set... I'm not sure how adding a TFD notice directly to the module would work (unless you added it to the /doc). Primefac (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

tagging the doc page seems to be the most straightforward method for tagging, and probably leave a message on the talk page as well for people who have the module on a watch list. Frietjes (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Frietjes, nice work! I had been meaning to see if we could do something about the expansion size problem. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)