Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 June 19: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 228: Line 228:
*:::{{tl|English Heritage listed building row}} seems more the case of what you're talking about than {{tl|aligned table}}, [[User:ais523|ais523]], but sure, that can always be improved upon, even ''after'' '''subst and delete'''. — [[User:Guarapiranga|Guarapiranga]] [[User talk:Guarapiranga|☎]] 00:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
*:::{{tl|English Heritage listed building row}} seems more the case of what you're talking about than {{tl|aligned table}}, [[User:ais523|ais523]], but sure, that can always be improved upon, even ''after'' '''subst and delete'''. — [[User:Guarapiranga|Guarapiranga]] [[User talk:Guarapiranga|☎]] 00:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Break it down into reasonable chunks that relate to each other naturally. This is mind-numbing. [[User:G. Timothy Walton|G. Timothy Walton]] ([[User talk:G. Timothy Walton|talk]]) 02:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Break it down into reasonable chunks that relate to each other naturally. This is mind-numbing. [[User:G. Timothy Walton|G. Timothy Walton]] ([[User talk:G. Timothy Walton|talk]]) 02:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
*:The way these are related, as you can see in [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 June 13#Template:Transclusion]] (and indicated in this TfD's title), [[User:G. Timothy Walton|Tim]], is that these are all (soon to be) orphans of [[template:transclusion]]. — [[User:Guarapiranga|Guarapiranga]] [[User talk:Guarapiranga|☎]] 03:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


==== [[Template:Import-blanktable]] ====
==== [[Template:Import-blanktable]] ====

Revision as of 03:04, 20 June 2022

< June 18 June 20 >

June 19

Template:Transclusion orphans

See also: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 June 13 § Template:Transclusion

cc: RandomCanadian, Izno, Pppery, ais523, Explicit

Per discussion at TfD:Transclusion.

— Guarapiranga ☎ 22:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm uncomfortable with putting this entire list up for TfD at once. I believe that, for many or most of them, the correct action is to subst to the parent article and delete, but think that some of them will need more care. In particular, {{2021 Canadian federal election synopsis}} is in urgent need of code improvement – it's currently over 100 KiB long and (unlike most of these templates) would make the article very difficult to edit if subst'ed in that form. (I still remember when there was a 32 KB "soft limit" which editors were recommended not to exceed on any given page.) I think the correct action will be to subst-and-delete that template eventually, but it would first need to be rewritten (perhaps in terms of a Lua module to format the rows – the template is very repetitive) so that it doesn't completely dominate the rest of the article. There might well be other special cases like that, and so I'm uncomfortable making a blanket "subst and delete" recommendation in case we end up missing a special case where some other sort of cleanup is desired; in particular, although these need fixing, a single mass TfD is probably the wrong way to fix them. --ais523 23:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
    Why do you say {{2021 Canadian federal election synopsis}} would make the article very difficult to edit if subst'ed in that form, ais523? I just had a look at it, and didn't see anything so ominous or complex; it's just a long table. It's actually pretty well formatted (in comparison to other data tables here). I don't see what first needs to be rewritten, and if it's the case that it's very repetitive—well, it's a data table, after all—then it's the prototypical use of templates, not of a Lua module (which is genrally required for subroutines, not to format rows). I don't see how this table would completely dominate the rest of the article, given that the article already is a collection tables and maps, with very little prose, already. In any case, if it's indeed the case of splitting the table into a separate page, then it's the case of putting it into another article, not another template, and transcluding it back to Results breakdown of the 2021 Canadian federal election, as are Results of the 2022 Australian federal election (House_of_Representatives) and Results of the 2022 Australian federal election (Senate) transcluded into 2022 Brazilian general election (this, btw, sort of solves the concern some here have expressed of tables overwhelming article prose). — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The basic issue is that much of the code behind the template is repeated on every row. Excessively repetitive wikimarkup is hard to edit because a) it obscures the actual information – most of the information onscreen is irrelevant, and b) you have to repeat the repetitive information when adding new information, and the exact way in which to do that isn't always clear (e.g. it's easy to confuse parts of the table which repeat for all rows with parts of the table which repeat for most rows but not all of them). The table would be much easier to use if written in terms of a template like {{aligned table}} (but probably not that one exactly – it can't handle the full range of formatting required), rather than having all the markup written out manually. (Note that such a table-formatting template would probably be useful on more than one article, rather than being single-purpose like the templates nominated here.) --ais523 23:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
    {{English Heritage listed building row}} seems more the case of what you're talking about than {{aligned table}}, ais523, but sure, that can always be improved upon, even after subst and delete. — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Break it down into reasonable chunks that relate to each other naturally. This is mind-numbing. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The way these are related, as you can see in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 June 13#Template:Transclusion (and indicated in this TfD's title), Tim, is that these are all (soon to be) orphans of template:transclusion. — Guarapiranga ☎ 03:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Import-blanktable

Propose merging Template:Import-blanktable with Template:Row hover highlight.
Both templates serve the same purpose. — Guarapiranga ☎ 21:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into MediaWiki:Common.css and delete both This is a much more complex situation than it looks – the developers are involved, see T287997. What seems to have happened is that there was useful functionality (with respect to table backgrounds and mouse hover) which was included into the site functionality by mistake, but because it was useful, started being used. The functionality was widely used, and then (because it was an accident rather than intentionally included in the software) ended up breaking at some point, and some people made templates to try to recreate it.

    It seems uncontroversial that having highlight-on-hover behaviour is useful for at least some tables – generally speaking, tables that are being used to hold tabular data (as opposed to being used for some other purpose) benefit from it. As such, we either need to merge it into the main "wikitable" CSS class, or else split "wikitable" into two (together with WP:MOS guidelines as to when to use each version). Creating a template to do the same work via TemplateStyles and editing it onto every page indiviually is a clever short-term workaround, but a bad long-term solution to the problem – we'll end up with a range of different methods of row-highlighting tables and it'll be harder to move over to a coherent system once the software starts working again.

    It's quite plausible that the situation will be fixed by changes to MediaWiki itself; however, if a short-term solution is desirable before then, it should surely be done via site CSS rather than via editing a template onto every page individually, and thus neither of the templates under discussion should really exist. (It is possible that we'll want "Wikipedia's own" data table CSS class with row highlighting, rather than using one which was incidentally part of MediaWiki, in order to be able to optimise it for usage on an encyclopedia; but in that case, we can do a one-time replacement of the CSS class name on articles using a bot, which has to be better than adding a template to every page and then removing the template again once the CSS is fixed properly.) --ais523 22:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

    Let's not Merge into MediaWiki:Common.css and delete both. WP:TemplateStyles are sufficient to support whatever is going on with the relevant templates and should always be preferred to Common.css for the general rationale behind TemplateStyles (see prior link) as well as my project to remove Common.css styles. Common.css should be reserved exclusively for modifications to site chrome.
    The functionality was widely used is an incorrect assessment. It was used by some 300 pages or so. Widely used would be much more than that. --Izno (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The functionality was used on many more than 300 pages (with many uses being indirect via templates); see Timeshifter's comment at the end of this archived VPT discussion. (There are at least 1000 uses: over 300 direct, over 100 via {{Static row numbers table}}, and over 600 via {{Kommunestyre table}}.) It probably should be used on almost every table on Wikipedia, including the ones that don't currently use it, which is a reason to add it to the global CSS rather than placing it on every page individually. --ais523 23:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
    It probably should be used on almost every table on Wikipedia I don't think this is supported solely by the fact that essentially one user has added this class/styles to these 300 some odd pages +- template links. There remains no reason to add this to all tables (all wikitable tables I presume, for obvious reasons like {{infobox}} opposing its general use), and if you think there is, you may submit the patch to the developers that does so. There remain sufficiently many cases where it should not be employed, so I anticipate it being shot down for that reason alone (because Wikimedians are bad at using tables as tables). This is an excellent use case for TemplateStyles. --Izno (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify: my second choice would be to merge the templates with each other, rather than to keep both as separate templates. --ais523 00:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Do not merge templates. Currently, the older template (Import-blanktable) written by Krinkle on August 4, 2021 does more. See discussions: Template talk:Row hover highlight/styles.css and Template talk:Import-blanktable. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Normally, merging templates implies that we create one template which has the functionality of both of the original templates; the basic question about the merge, therefore, is "are there cases where we'd also want a template that does less, or could all situations where we'd want to use either be able to use an improved template that has the functionality of both?". You might want to recommend a particular functionality for the merged template (e.g. that it's based primarily on {{import-blanktable}}'s code), but as it is, your bolded recommendation and your comment with your reasoning don't match each other. --ais523 23:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Clear merge of the templates. These are doing the same thing. My preference would be to support to end up with the title at Template:Row hover highlight. I would not reference mw-datatable as the above task would have been avoided if we were using our own classes. Secondly, I would generally support restricting row hovers to wikitable class tables (perhaps with some name row-hover). --Izno (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not reference mw-datatable
    Yeah, that's meant just as a legacy redirect. — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NK Krka squad

Empty since September 2019. No longer needed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sohanur Rahman Sohan

Four links. Fails NENAN. Same massive list already on director's article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_June_19&oldid=1093989225"