Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 November 4

November 4

Template:Film date

• Template:Film date (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Start date (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Film date with Template:Start date.
This template is used in 100,000 articles. It includes functionality useful for television films that is not used in the TV project because the TV project uses {{start date}} in nearly 50,700 articles. ({{infobox television film}} was merged into {{infobox television}} over 5 years ago.) It seems prudent to consolidate the two templates since they have similar functionality. AussieLegend (✉) 09:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: The template is used mainly by articles in the scope of the Film project, the intention two-fold. First, it provides automatic categorization for articles into year categories (e.g. Category:2020 films). Second, it provides consisting formatting for multiple dates in different locations (see use in The Death of Stalin). It seems that the concern proposed is its use in television articles, which was not the intent of the original template. Merging a template because one project does not advise its use does not seem productive to the thousands of articles that are using the template as intended and as advised by the film project. BOVINEBOY2008 10:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the concern proposed is its use in television articles - No, not at all. My concern is that the functionality of {{film date}} is missing from {{start date}} and merging the two would enhance the functionality of the latter. I don't propose that the functionality be lost to the film project at all, which is why I proposed a merge, not a deletion. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose and also please implement module-based rewrite for additional functionality. Also a made-for-TV film is still a film, not a TV series, so that other merge was wrong-headed. ―cobaltcigs 12:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You haven't actually stated why you oppose a merge that would enhance the functionality of another template. As for the infobox merge, that was "both broad and unanimous". --AussieLegend (✉) 12:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

If there's functionality in "film date" that would improve "start date", then why not just copy that functionality and add it to "start date" instead of demanding that they be merged? Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

With the added functionality in {{start date}} there will be no need for {{film date}}. I thought that would be obvious. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Other than the need to make "start date" somehow know whether it's on a television film or a television series, so that it autocats television films as films but doesn't autocat television series as films? Unless you can figure out a way to make the merged template automatically make that determination on its own, with absolutely zero opportunity for any form of human error to ever cause even one single solitary television series to ever get miscategorized as a film at all (or any film to ever get miscategorized as a television series), the templates still won't be redundant. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you think autocategorisation is completely automatic now? It's not. In order to categorise TV films you need to include |TV=yes or |TV=y. If an editor forgets to do this, the article is added to Category:YYYY films instead of Category:YYYY Television films. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

In the film template, autocategorization is completely automatic: every film with the "film date" template on it is automatically added to "YYYY films" for the YYYY specified in the template. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

In the film template, autocategorisation is not completely automatic. It's only automatic for film articles. If a TV article uses it without |TV=yes, TV articles will be automatically categorised as theatrical films, which is not correct. If you use the film template in the wrong article, which I have seen done, it automatically categorises the article as a film article, even if it's about dinosaurs or rockets. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

You do realize you're literally contradicting yourself here, right?

In the film template, autocategorisation is not completely automatic. [...] If you use the film template in the wrong article, which I have seen done, it automatically categorises the article as a film article, even if it's about dinosaurs or rockets.

Yes, it does. That's exactly my damn point: if you use the film template in an article, then that article is automatically categorized as a film even if the topic is not actually a film. In other words, the template automatically categorizes the topics, exactly as I've been saying. And the fact that it's not correct to automatically categorize non-films as films is precisely the problem here — if you merge a template that's meant for films, and thus automatically categorizes its topics as films even if it's been used errroneously on non-films, with a template that is not meant for films in the first place, then a lot of things that are not films start getting miscategorized as films. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Wthout switches, the template automatically categorises any article that it is used in as a film, whether or not the subject is a film. If you want to categorise a television film as a television film then it is a manual process, through the use of a switch.

if you merge a template that's meant for films, and thus automatically categorizes its topics as films even if it's been used errroneously on non-films - The template really shouldn't automatically categorise EVERY article as a film. That's running afoul of WP:TCAT. Switches should be used. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, no, I'm not missing the point at all. I'm not talking about television films, I'm talking about television SERIES. You know, ongoing things with regular episodes, which are NOT FILMS. The fact that you keep replying to me by repeating this irrelevant point about how {{film date}} handles the distinction between theatrical films and television films is getting tiresome, because THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE: this has nothing to do with how film date handles that distinction, and everything to do with the fact that film date is for films while start date is for television SERIES.

I keep repeating over and over again that the problem is about television SERIES, and you keep responding with this irrelevant blather about television films, even after I've pointed out several times already that television films are not what I'm talking about. That doesn't make me the person who's "not getting it". Bearcat (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not missing the point at all. I'm not talking about television films, I'm talking about television SERIES. - Yes, you are missing the point. Television series are not relevant at all. Nor are Adelaide, Apollo program, Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Effigy Mounds National Monument or any of the many other articles that use "start date".

I keep repeating over and over again that the problem is about television SERIES, - Believe me, it's getting frustrating. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't fucking matter how many other types of things use {{start date}}. You kept harping on television films as if they had anything to do with anything, even when I said I wasn't talking about television films — for one thing, television films are supposed to be getting categorized as films anyway, so the categorization of television films has nothing to do with anything. The problem is that if we merge the templates, a lot of things that are no type of film at all, such as television series, Adelaide, Apollo program, Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Effigy Mounds National Monument or any of the many other articles that use "start date", are vulnerable to getting miscatted as films if an editor makes the slightest error in template syntax — and conversely, things that are films will fail to get categorized as films if an editor makes the slightest error in template syntax. If there's one thing I've learned in my years as a Wikipedia admin, it's that no matter how simple and foolproof something may seem, people will still find a way to mess it up.

So, the bottom line is this: if you're so bound and determined that these templates have to be merged that you're willing to make up your own strawmen about television films to argue with, then it is your job to be constantly on top of every individual transclusion of "start date" to ensure that every error which causes a non-film to get miscategorized as a film, and every error which causes a film to fail to get categorized as a film, gets corrected immediately.

But you don't want to be locked into having to constantly do that every second of every day for the rest of your natural life, you say? Guess what: neither does anybody else. But if you merge these templates, then somebody has to take on the permanent job of miscategorization police, because people can, do and will screw up.

So unless you can come up with a solution that prevents any non-film from ever getting misfiled as a film, and prevents any film from ever failing to get categorized as a film, without the use of optional yes/no flags that people will fuck up, I'm not the one who's missing the point. Bearcat (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't fucking matter how ... Dude, you need to calm down. If you can't control yourself there's little point in continuing with this thread.

You kept harping on television films as if they had anything to do with anything, - Television films are at the very heart of this proposal. You even said Other than the need to make "start date" somehow know whether it's on a television film or a television series, which is a complete non issue as it is easy to do. ou also said so that it autocats television films as films but doesn't autocat television series as films? That's also easy. for one thing, television films are supposed to be getting categorized as films anyway, - No, they're supposed to be categorised as television films, which is what {{film date}} does when you include |TV=y per the template instructions. It actually categorises TV films as Category:YYYY Television films. I've already explained this. if we merge the templates, a lot of things that are no type of film at all, such as television series, Adelaide, Apollo program, Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Effigy Mounds National Monument or any of the many other articles that use "start date", are vulnerable to getting miscatted as films if an editor makes the slightest error in template syntax - No, that won't happen because you will have to use a switch. As I explained, fully automatic categorisation falls afoul of WP:TCAT. I've already explained that as well. you're willing to make up your own strawmen about television films to argue with - I find this offensive, especially when you don't seem to be following the discussion. So unless you can come up with a solution that prevents any non-film from ever getting misfiled as a film, - I've already explained how to do that. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

"No, they're supposed to be categorised as television films," Yes, that's true, but it's not in conflict with what I said. The base "nationality films" categories are deemed all inclusive, which means that all films are supposed to directly appear in the parent category even if they're in other subcategories. If a film is in Category:Canadian drama films, it still has to be filed in Category:Canadian films alongside that; if it's in Category:Spanish comedy films, it still has to be in Category:Spanish films alongside that; and if it's in Category:American television films, it still has to be in Category:American films alongside that. So television films, even if they're already categorized as television films, most certainly are supposed to be categorized as films as well.

"No, that won't happen because you will have to use a switch." And as I've already pointed out, using a switch does not work, because editors can, do and will mess switches up. If they miss the switch, the thing gets filed wrong. If they mistype the switch, the thing gets filed wrong. If they use the wrong switch, the thing gets filed wrong. So manual y/n switches are not the answer — they're the problem that needs to be answered, because they are not foolproof and do not prevent things from getting miscategorized.

" As I explained, fully automatic categorisation falls afoul of WP:TCAT." Be that as it may, changing it has to be done extremely carefully, to make sure that none of the affected articles get pulled out of their correct categories at all: the last time I can recall a template that was autocatting articles having that function removed from it arbitrarily, the entire Category:Populated places in Austria tree got completely decategorized — and no, I'm not making that up: every single city, town or village in all of Austria really did get thrown into the uncategorized articles queue by the template change, and it took over a week to put all the articles back where they were supposed to be. So no, regardless of whether it's right or wrong for the Films tree to be populated that way, you are not touching that function until you have personally gone through all of the approximately 100,000 articles we have about films to make sure that they're all directly categorized appropriately, so that removing the categorization funtion from the template does not pull a single article about a film out of its appropriate Year films category — regardless of whether it's right or wrong, there's a lot of due diligence that has to be done before the function can be removed. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't know. I'm not sure it will be all that productive for TV films. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

It certainly won't hurt the film project editors to only have to be using one template, no matter whether what article they are editing. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. In addition to all the reasons that have already been pointed out, it also bears mention that "start date" is not only used for television films, but also for the premiere date of ongoing television series — which means that if they're simply merged willy-nilly, then we start getting TV series autocatted as films (which is not desirable). If there are functions in "film date" (other than auto-catting as films) that would improve "start date", then anybody can copy and paste them into "start date" at any time so that "start date" gains that functionality — but it doesn't necessitate merging them into one. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

A merge would not be "willy-nilly". The merged template would be tested thoroughly, as is done and as should be done with merges. Importantly, {{film date}} already contains TV functionality and is already used in many TV articles where it auto-cats TV films. However, not all TV films use the template now so there are a lot of sub-categories of Category:Television films by year that are incompletely populated. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

And how exactly do you propose to make the target template autocat television films as films, while making it not autocat television series as films? Again, the start date template is not used only for television films, but also for television series — and a merged template would have to somehow be able to differentiate films from television series all by itself, without ever introducing any opportunity for human error to result in any topic getting miscategorized — so the only way I can think of (adding some kind of extra "series-vs.-film" flag that would have to be manually turned on or off by an editor) simply doesn't cut it. If you can't figure out a way to make a merged template automatically know whether it's transcluded in a film or a television series all by itself, with no opportunity for anybody to ever make any form of error that ever causes any film or television series to get miscategorized as the wrong thing, then the templates still aren't redundant no matter how similar their functionalities are or aren't. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

And how exactly do you propose to make the target template autocat television films as films, while making it not autocat television series as films? - How about exactly the way it is done now? Do you think autocategorisation is completely automatic, because it's not. In order to categorise TV films you need to include |TV=yes or |TV=y. If an editor forgets to do this, the article is added to Category:YYYY films instead of Category:YYYY Television films.

the only way I can think of (adding some kind of extra "series-vs.-film" flag that would have to be manually turned on or off by an editor) simply doesn't cut it. - That's exactly how it is done now to "make the target template autocat television films as "television films", while making it not autocat television films as films?" --AussieLegend (✉) 16:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

How the TV template does things is irrelevant, because I'm talking about the film template. The film template does autocategorize films as "YYYY films" for the year specified in the template — and a merged template would have to retain that function, because it fuckers the film categories if it doesn't. So you merge them, and the slightest editor error gets a film categorized as a TV series and vice versa. It has to be completely impossible for that error to even be possible for anybody to ever make at all: just saying that it's fixable when it happens is not good enough, because somebody has to notice the problem before it can be fixed — it has to be absolutely impossible for any such error to even get made in the first place.
And by the way, you're still missing the actual point: the issue isn't about television films vs. theatrical films, it's about all films versus television series, because the "start date" template is also used for the premiere dates of television series. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

What TV template are you talking about? Whatever it is, I wasn't talking about that. I was explaining how "film date" categorises articles. Sure the template autocategorises films but if you don't add a switch in a TV article it also gets categorised as a film, not a television film, so the template is flawed already based on your arguments. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Which, again, just proves that you're missing the point. Why do you keep harping on the difference between how "film date" handles theatrical vs. television films, when I've been exceedingly clear that the problem is not with that, but with the fact that you're trying to merge it with a template that's primarily used for television SERIES? The problem here is not "theatrical films" vs. "television films" — it's "all films regardless of the theatrical vs. television distinction" vs. "things that are not films at all". If you merge the templates and take the autocategorization of films function away, then you break the film project — and if you merge the templates and don't take the autocategorization of films function away, then things that are not films at all start getting categorized as films. Bearcat (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

you're trying to merge it with a template that's primarily used for television SERIES? - {{start date}} isn't predominantly used for television series. It's a general template. There are nearly 50,700 TV series articles that use it with a total use of 359,301. Many of those articles have nothing to do with TV.

If you merge the templates and take the autocategorization of films function away, then you break the film project - That won't happen. At worst, the categorisation will become "opt-in" with a switch, and a bot can easily update any affected articles. Then we can start getting TV films categorised properly. If we use a switch like |type= the categorisation can be expanded to cover other types of articles as necessary. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose without a specific plan for dealing with the multiple conflicting unnamed parameters in these templates. Start date accepts HH|MM|SS|TimeZone, while Film date accepts multiple dates and locations, all as (Cthulhu help us) a long list of up to 20 unnamed parameters. How would a merged template work? If Film date is useful in TV articles, use it instead of Start date. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Not sure why what is used for TV article infoboxes has to be imposed on film article infoboxes. This isn't broken so it does not need fixing. MarnetteD|Talk 19:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not at all what is proposed. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Really? Replacing "film date" which is used in film article infoboxes with "start date" which is used in tv article infoboxes seems to be the proposal. Perhaps you are not clear on what it is you are asking for. This does confirm my reasons for opposing. MarnetteD|Talk 19:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

{{start date}} is used in over 359,000 articles, not just TV articles. It's not a TV template, it's a general template. I am perfectly clear on what I am proposing, it appears that you are not. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. See WP:SLOP and WP:BROKE. Quahog (talk • contribs) 22:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Neither of those apply, especially WP:SLOP! There is a problem that has been ongoing for some time and that is the improper categorisation of television films, which has been explained more than once. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Merging Template:Film date with Template:Start date still doesn't seem to solve this "problem" you're on about. As Cobaltcigs has pointed out, made-for-TV films are still films, not TV series, so there is no realistic problem with the categorisation. Also, a look at Category:Television films shows (to me) that there really isn't anything wrong with the current system. Quahog (talk • contribs) 00:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it will fix the problem because {{start date}} doesn't include the semi-automatic categorisation that {{film date}} does so articles aren't being added to the categories. Clearly, you haven't looked hard enough because the categories are missing a lot of articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

As everyone else is trying to point out, you're proposing to merge Template:Film date into a template that's used for TV series, which is why I still think WP:SLOP applies here. This merger isn't much beneficial at all. Also, if there are any missing articles in Category:Television films, just add the categories to that article, simple as that! Quahog (talk • contribs) 15:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

As everyone else is trying to point out, you're proposing to merge Template:Film date into a template that's used for TV series, - I don't see why people are so fixated on TV series. {{start date}} is used by many articles. It isn't just for TV series. I've just had to provide some examples to Bearcat above, as he seems confused as well. Once again, TV series are irrelevant.

just add the categories to that article, simple as that! - Easier said than done, and it's separate problem altogether that would be made easier by a merge. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:SLAP certainly applies. ―cobaltcigs 11:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I know Template:Start date is used by many articles, the point I'm trying to make is that there's a reason why television films use Template:Film date, and it's that they're still films, not TV series (which don't have a dedicated template and as such uses Template:Start date), and it would certainly be a lot more useful if they use the film date template. As such, I'm still not convinced this merger will actually solve this "problem" you're on about. Quahog (talk • contribs) 20:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

the point I'm trying to make is that there's a reason why television films use Template:Film date, - But they don't. Because TV films are now handled by {{infobox television}} instead of {{infobox television film}} and have done for over 5 years, they use "start date". That's where the problem lies. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• AussieLegend, I might have time next week to take a look at this and we can work together to see what functionality from film date we can use for the television template. I will say that start date is also used in episode list templates which makes it seem like not a good target. This might need a more deeper look. Please remind me next week if I forget. --Gonnym (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

as I've pointed out above, {{start date}} is used in over 359,000 articles. I don't get why everyone thinks it's a TV template. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is a difference between Television films and theatrical films of which the former is made for television broadcasts like Atomic Train, Thrill Seekers, Polar Storm, and others, while theatrical films may do almost the same thing, but it was the date when it was first released to selected or wide theaters in selected regions first before releasing to DVD's or by video-on-demand sometime later, and it can be broadcasted by television, but it is not considered a television film because it doesn't have the original television network like Syfy to premiere it to television viewers, like Atomic Train (which was premiered on TV by NBC), and Polar Storm (whose the original network is the Sci-Fi Channel [now Syfy]) (I'm not experienced actually, but I refer to keep it that way. not to be merged into one another.) ROBLOXGamingDavid (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the opposers. This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

If you actually read the discussion you'll see that there is a problem in that categories are not being populated. I've explained it above. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I have read the discussion, actually. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't think that categories not being populated is a problem? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I must admit, Aussie, it is slightly amusing seeing you on this side of a TfD. Some sympathies, of course. That being said, isn't {{Film date}} just a wrapper around the latter template. Admittedly, I think you've a valid point somewhere here, but a clearer nomination might've been better, or a demonstration, because it is admittedly slightly hard to see what is being proposed from this side (without one digging deep into this themselves). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

It's clearly a merge discussion so that is what is being proposed and I thought It seems prudent to consolidate the two templates since they have similar functionality made it clear why it was being proposed. You especially should get that as a WP:INFOCOL supporter. There are a lot of side issues, such as incomplete population of categories, and in some cases depopulation of categories that are minor but essentially it's that the two templates serve so very similar purposes that it doesn't make sense to have two separate templates. It's clear to me from some of the responses that people are making assumptions about what does and doesn't happen. I can't do anything about that. As a side note, it shouldn't be amusing. I support or oppose template discussions based on what I think is best for the project. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@AussieLegend that's why I haven't voted oppose (or support) :) -- I haven't had the chance to vet the nom. What I mean is, being clear on how the final template will look (and what is being merged, and where) might've generated a better response. As far as I can see currently, the proposed template is already a wrapper with additions. Should those additions be moved into the infobox, or into start date, or what? If into start date, isn't this loading up start date a bit (to chuck the categorisations into there)? If into the infobox, well, that may well make sense but it hasn't been clearly proposed. As I say, your proposal may well be valid, but I think the issue here is that it hasn't gotten through to people. Making it simpler for non-TPEs to understand may yield better results -- heck, I'm not even completely able to visualise what this will look like afterwards and I am a TPE, same seems true of Jonesey above. Try explaining the proposal better (or creating a mock in sandbox) and I think we may be able to move the ball forwards? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

that's why I haven't voted oppose (or support) :) -- I haven't had the chance to vet the nom. - That's exactly what everyone should have done, instead of diving straight in without asking a single question. Thankyou.

What I mean is, being clear on how the final template will look (and what is being merged, and where) might've generated a better response. - I'm still not sure where the problem lies. The functionality of {{film date}} will be merged into {{start date}}. The final template will look just like both templates merged. There will be some minor changes, e.g. Instead of |TV=y it will probably be |tvfilm=y to avoid errors and |flm= will be added. The nomination really should be clear to anyone with an understanding of how templates work and a simple grasp of the English language. If someone needs clarifcation all they have to do is ask, instead of just running in with an oppose.

If into start date, isn't this loading up start date a bit (to chuck the categorisations into there)? - I really can't see that as a problem. There are far more complicated templates around.

If into the infobox, well, that may well make sense but it hasn't been clearly proposed. - Merging the templates means that start date would have additional functionality that other types of articles may find useful, which is why I didn't propose the infobox option. The infobox option also doesn't fix the problem with television films.

I'm not even completely able to visualise what this will look like afterwards and I am a TPE, same seems true of Jonesey above. - I looked at it and it all seemed clear just looking at the code. I asumed that it would be easy for others too. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Very much oppose: I grew up looking at these things, but I don't want it taken away. Leave it as is. I'd rather let everybody look at these things now and in the near future. Call me when you get the chance 00:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Call me when you get the chance: are you sure you placed your !vote in the right discussion? The reasoning for your !vote seems to hold no relation to the topic or the discussion. El Millo (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
    • It's got me confused too. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  Call me when you get the chance, How is this an argument for keep? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

We need to keep the film date template, not merge it. Call me when you get the chance 17:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

This isn't an argument, you're just stating that you're opposed. Remember this is not a vote, you must have an argument. El Millo (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, what movies are shown in cinemas and what movies are exclusive to television are two different things. How's that for an argument? Call me when you get the chance 20:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

You should really take some time to read the proposal and some of the other opposing !votes. El Millo (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I already read the proposal, but some of the other opposing votes are TLDR. Call me when you get the chance 22:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment – @AussieLegend: I get why {{start date}} may need some of the features that {{film date}} has, but will be an improvement over {{film date}} for the film project in any way? If not, then why not just modify {{start date}} first and then see if a merger is appropriate, if the existence of both templates ends up being redundant and unnecessary? El Millo (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, the film project editors won't have to use one tempate for films and another for every other article that they edit. Having one template instead of two is an improvement from a maintenance point of view. When infoboxes (a type of template) are nominated for deletion or merging, supporters often cite WP:INFOCOL. The principles of that essay really apply to "normal" templates as well. Strictly speaking, since {{film date}} is only used in the film project, there is no need for it at all as the functionality could be incorporated into {{infobox film}} and that would certainly make things easier for the film project. Whichever way you look at it, {{film date}} is not needed. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Now you're muddling this proposal even further. Are you now suggesting that the categorization on Category:YYYY films should be handled by the infobox instead of the template, or are you suggesting that the date should all functionalities of {{film date}} should be incorporated into infobox film, therefore not using {{start date}} either? In any case, I suggest you veer your proposal towards enhancing and upgrading the {{start date}} in order to be as good or better than {{film date}} already is for film articles, and then you might get more support. El Millo (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Now you're muddling this proposal even further. - I was trying not to. I thought this would be a simple discussion but so many people have got the wrong end of the stick. Why are so many opposers against TV series articles that use {{start date}} but not the thousands of other articles that use it? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. In my opinion merging a template used for films into a template that's used for TV series is not a good idea. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but do you actually understand what this proposal is about? As I have had to explain to others, {{start date}} is not just used for TV series. It's used in many articles that have nothing to do with TV. You are of course welcome to your opinion but you really need to explain why merging a template used for films into a template that's used for TV series is not a good idea. I'm of the opinion that merging a template used for films into a template that's used in over 300,000 articles, eleiminating one and simplifying editing for is a very good idea. You need to rebut that with facts. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - It is rather frustrating that none of the opposers are template editors except for Jonesey95. Bearcat is an admin but a look at his contributions shows mostly editing of navboxes etc, not templates like {{film date}} and {{start date}}. (Please accept my apologies if this is incorrect!) The strange obsession with TV series that represent a minority of articles using "start date" by opposers seems to demonstrate a distinct lack of familiarity with coding of these type of templates. To use an analogy, it's like the opposition to 5G and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It is rather frustrating that you are now straying into WP:ASPERSIONS territory since you seem to be saying that only template editors have the ability to comment on your proposal. As to the diatribe in this edit summary why are you so obsessed with forcing something on film articles when the template in current use works just fine. As to your 5g comment that is a straw man which works for Halloween but not this RFC. MarnetteD|Talk 17:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I've clearly explained why I have the opinion that I have. why are you so obsessed with forcing something on film articles itself is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. It's not a case of forcing anything onto film editors.

As to your 5g comment that is a straw man which works for Halloween but not this RFC. - Ignoring that this is a TFM discussion, not an RfC, your claim demonstrates what I have been saying. Editors seem to be afraid of change more than concerned with the technicalities. The 5G analogy is right on point. People are scared of 5G because of misinformation and because they don't understand it. That seems to be what is happening here. Of course, I'm happy to be proven wrong. Let's forget a merge or that you're being forced into something (which you are not by the way). please explain why implementing the functionality of "film date" into "start date" is not a good idea? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: You should've expected that the majority of !voters would come from the film project, since it is about a template used in film articles and only film articles. Why are so many opposers against TV series articles that use {{start date}} but not the thousands of other articles that use it. You seem to be really misunderstanding everybody's point here. No one is against TV series articles using {{start date}}, not even close. Most of the opposers, myself included, are against merging the two because it seems to be in detriment of {{film date}} rather than in general benefit of everyone. Regarding your answer to my first comment above, where I asked you if there will be an improvement over {{film date}} for the film project in any way: having to use different templates across different topics isn't a problem for editors, and in any case isn't about the film project but about editors editing outside of it. While I understand that, from a maintenance standpoint, it would be better to have just one template, it would be in detriment of a template for a specific topic which already works quite well. That's why I suggested you tried to first improve {{start date}} to the point which it would be no different to using {{film date}}, and then aim for the merger. I suggest this !voting be put on hold and we move to a Discussion section where we can get everything clear, as some !voters also seem not to understand the details of the proposal, which were rather confusing to begin with and made even more confusing as the discussion progressed. Should this Discussion section be a sub-section of this one or should we move to the talk of the template in question? El Millo (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

it is about a template used in film articles and only film articles. - That's not entirely correct. It is still used in a lot of TV film articles, many of which haven't been converted to use {{Infobox television}}. It is also used in some articles that have been converted so it affects the TV project as well.

You seem to be really misunderstanding everybody's point here. No one is against TV series articles using {{start date}}, - That's not what I said. People seem to be against TV articles in general. The point is, they're pretty much irrelevant to the proposal, even though they would benefit.

against merging the two because it seems to be in detriment of {{film date}} rather than in general benefit of everyone. - Nobody has explained why that would be the case. Yes, "film date" would be obsolete, but what is the issue with using a version of "start date" that incorporates the same functionality. Well, almost the same. There would be one very minor change, which I have explained above.

That's why I suggested you tried to first improve {{start date}} to the point which it would be no different to using {{film date}}, and then aim for the merger. - The entire point of the merge is to "improve {{start date}} to the point which it would be no different to using {{film date}}". Once that happens there would be no need for a merge. "Film date" could be deleted after a bot has updated all articles. The end effect on film editors is essentially zero. They would just have to make sure that |film=yes (or whatever the switch is) be included in the {{start date}}.

I suggest this !voting be put on hold and we move to a Discussion section where we can get everything clear, as some !voters also seem not to understand the details of the proposal, - The proposal isn't really a complicated one. I assumed that anyone able to edit Wikipedia would understand something so simple. Apparently I was wrong. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Gonnym has offered to help working on it with you starting next week. Perhaps you could both work something up in the sandbox of either of these two templates, and then we can discuss more easily if it will be beneficial or not, since we will have something tangible to look at. I offer my help as well, though I'm not exactly an expert on infoboxes. El Millo (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I offer my help as well, though I'm not exactly an expert on infoboxes. The offer of help is greatly appreciated. That you are not "an expert" is irrelevant. You're an end user and end users are always important in the development process. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Claiming that editors are somehow "afraid" of merging these templates without a shred of evidence is classic straw man nonsense with a healthy dollop of sophistry thrown in. Plenty of reasons for opposing have already been given. MarnetteD|Talk 19:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

AL since you have devolved the conversation to personal attacks I will finish by saying that I've seen 1000's of wikipedia discussions over the years and casting aspersions like these rarely get you to the outcome that you are looking for. MarnetteD|Talk 20:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Based on the speed with which the opposes came after the listing, the arguments being used, and the fact that nobody asked for clarification, the only conclusion is that people are afraid of change. Nobody is casting aspersions and the fact that you've taken this (at)tack, rather than take up the challenge of xplain[ing] why implementing the functionality of "film date" into "start date" is not a good idea only convinces me that I am correct. I expected better from you. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per Bearcat and Lugnuts. Horacio Vara (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is too long.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, St3095 ^(?) 11:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Module:Language/data/ISO 639-1/make

• Module:Language/data/ISO 639-1/make (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As noted in the /doc of Module:Language/data/ISO 639-1, the list is now created with the Module:Language/data/iana languages/make module instead of this one. Gonnym (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)