Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 May 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 15 May 17 >

May 16[edit]

Template:R from dotless ISO 4[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) 00:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and consensus is that there is no need to distinguish between the two. If that changes, the template can be re-created and deployed by bots. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:59, 16 May 2018 (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:Food Network specials[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 2018 May 28. Primefac (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2018 (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).

Module:Books and Writers[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. As a general note (speaking as a template editor), I will say that there are learning and editing difficulties with both language sets; depending on what is being done one style might be better than the other. Specifically to this module, however, the consensus is the wiki coding is simple enough that it will benefit more users than if Lua is utilized. Primefac (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is in this module that can't be implemented using Wikitext (possibly with a call to Module:String for the dab-stripping regex) using {{PAGENAMEBASE}} to strip the dab. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose User:Pppery, what guideline are you basing the nom on? Who are you nominating to re-write it in Wikitext using "possibly with a call to Module:String" (not myself, I don't know how). I have no problem if someone came forward to rewrite and test it (with a testcases page) - looks like busy work - but that it theoretically might be rewritten isn't reason to delete an otherwise working template on many pages. -- GreenC 01:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Written without the module here. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Unreadable and difficult to change compared to a well documented and simple Lua module with plainly labeled variable names, inline comments, clear display output. Still waiting for information on a guideline or policy behind nomination: "Nothing is in this module that can't be implemented using Wikitext". -- GreenC 18:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is by no means unreadable and difficult to change, it's just the way templates are written in Wikitext. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    64 nested curly brackets is unreadable and difficult to work with regardless. Not many have the time and patience to untangle where a single misplaced bracket, much less where to insert dozens new curly brackets to add a new feature. It is on the extreme-end of user unfriendly compared to a modern procedural language like Lua designed for non-programmers (Lua can be complex but doesn't need be). Still waiting for information on a guideline or policy behind nomination. -- GreenC 03:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might we see an implementation of this template in wikitext? --Izno (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, JJMC89 already provided one above. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a reasonable delete then. We don't need modules for one-line templates. --Izno (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Still waiting for information on a guideline or policy behind nomination. The nom looks like valuing one thing (bare minimum of characters) at the expense of another (clarity and ease of use). The Lua Module was designed with beginning programmers in mind, anyone can understand how it works and how to make changes by reading the variable names and in-line comments. The Wiki template is a mass of 64 embedded brackets, not beginner friendly or easy to add new template features. -- GreenC
    It's normal to avoid modules where they aren't needed because we should avoid making templates more complex than necessary. Not every editor knows how to program--most people OTOH know how to do basic template wikitext manipulation. The number of brackets isn't really a concern unless they're a soup of them, and the above sandbox is not what I would call a soup. If you personally want to keep a module around to show people how to do the basics of Lua, or for yourself, then I don't have a problem moving it to Module:Sandbox/GreenC rather than deletion. --Izno (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a general heuristic / rule of thumb, but in this specific case the Lua module is less complex than the Wiki module (count of \n notwithstanding). It is easier to read, easier to understand. Most people do not know how to work with wiki templates at this level of complexity (64 embedded curly brackets). The point isn't to teach people how to program in Lua, but make it easier for them so they can make modifications - make working with the template more accessible. Also, it's not really a compromise to userfy source code permission is not needed unless someone actually objected to having source code posted in userspace and I've never seen that short of copyright grounds. -- GreenC 02:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    64 brackets is not a sign of complexity. 64 brackets in soup is a sign of complexity. The above template is not a soup. Stop repeating this point as if it holds water--it doesn't.
    "It is easier to read, easier to understand", is an opinion. Your opinion is colored by your programming background. This is much the same as repeating "the Lua module is less complex". Someone interested in making a change to the wiki template is much more likely to be successful coming from any basic wiki background in this context.
    I do not understand your comment in the small tags. A creator of a page at XFD is usually provided the opportunity to take a page into a user-space (or related--for modules that's e.g. Module:Sandbox/Izno). If you don't want to keep the module around, deletion is usually the alternative (where there is consensus for such, naturally). --Izno (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it is my opinion, in contrast to your opinion. Why I've kept asking, what is the community guideline or policy? There doesn't appear to be one, just opinions. How is it there is nothing written about when to use Lua vs. Wiki? I'm not making this up, I really do believe the wiki template is frighteningly off-putting to any but the most eagle-eyed curly bracket counter (slowly going blind). The logic appears to be that if a person can use single templates, then x10 embedded or whatever in this case being the same thing - doesn't hold water either.
    Regarding the userspace, it's off-topic thus small text, but you said I don't have a problem moving it to [userspace] which implied you would not oppose it, but no one opposes saving code in userspace so I'm not sure why you said so, it looked like an attempt to reach a compromise; if so it was not a real compromise since no one would oppose it anyway. -- GreenC 05:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Some pages are not granted that compromise position. Pages particularly egregious to policy or which are being used to WP:GAME consensus processes, get deleted, regardless of the creator's wish. --Izno (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The module has been around for years without complaint, I don't think there are any policy or consensus issues outside this one wiki vs lua. -- GreenC 13:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, the sandbox version is easier to read. Frietjes (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, templates are much more editor-friendly, and much easier to maintain. While LUA may be simpler for programmers, there's no need to invoke modules when templates will do, if only because modules are beyond the editing skills of most editors and template writers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Advanced template coding:
Most problems are due to awkward features in the markup language which lead to coding errors; for example, omitting a leading brace "{" at parameter {{1}}} causes it to become {{1}} }, as invoking Template:1 + "}".
"awkward features in the markup language" is an understatement. The rest of document reads like an apology .. "Some templates have contained complex conditional calculations nested over 23 levels deep, for years." ie. we know 23 nested templates sucks but hey it works .. in the debugging section it says "Many hideous problems truly are merely 1-minute syntax fixes" .. then gives a lengthy explanation that amounts to eyeballing every bracket to make sure it has matching brackets which is no easy 1 minute fix.
Meanwhile we have this beginner-friendly procedural language Lua with a short learning curve. From Lua (programming language): "Lua is widely used as a scripting language by game programmers, perhaps due to its perceived easiness to embed, fast execution, and short learning curve." Moving from simple Lua to advanced wiki markup is a step backwards. -- GreenC 14:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki markup is the native language of Wikipedia and is well-documented. LUA is an coding language inaccessible to most people. LUA may look prettier and be more powerful, and may even make highly-complex templates more maintainable (e.g. Help:CS1). But for simple templates such as this, it makes them completely out of reach for the vast, VAST majority of editors. Let's say I want to add an accessdate to that template. It's going to take most template editors 5 seconds to do in Wikimarkup {{#if:{{{accessdate|}}}|Retrieved on {{{accessdate}}}.}}. If I want to do that in LUA, I'm looking at a 3-4 months learning curve before I can even begin to touch the thing. This is a problem with templates like Help:CS1 because simple requests can get ignored for months or years (e.g. Help talk:Citation Style 1#Cross check year/date with the arxiv/bibcode) because only LUA coders can do anything about it. The fewer templates have the LUA barrier to edit-ability, the better.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:18, 19 May 2018 (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:Mpf[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) 00:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This template introduces unusual formatting into articles without any apparent reason. Template was created and deployed by Rfassbind without any explanation as to its proper use or where this style originated. I asked about its origin and reason for being, but received no response; none of the major astronomical catalogues use this style that I'm aware of. I cannot reason out how this is a benefit to the site. If deleted, this title should redirect to {{mp}}. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to Huntster for having delayed on our discussion, but my minor-planet updates for 2018 has already been prepared (including some of his recommendations).
This template, {{mpf}} has been documented since its inception in 2016 (see Template:Mp § Template:mpf), as all members of the {{Mp}}-family are documented on the same page. This template is used in approximately 2000 articles and provides a formatted provisional designation such as in:
  • On May 15, 2018, {{mpf|2010 WC|9}} approached Earth... or
  • 9000 Hal, provisional designation {{mpf|1981 JO}}, is a stony background asteroid...
In addition, I also plan to expanded this template in the future. For example, {{mpf}} will provide an option for a link to provisional designation similar to the Lagrangian point templates: L4 which are linked by default. As for the {{mpf}}-template, I personally like the CSS-styles (I just like it) but if this is against any policies and guidelines (which?) then why not simply amend/remove them, rather than to propose the deletion of the template which undercuts my endeavours? I'm also puzzled by the claim that the template was created/deployed without any explanation. Rfassbind – talk 02:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The questions is, what is the point of this formatting? Why is this styling preferred over standard text as provided by {{mp}}? I can't find where it is prescribed by any astronomical organisation. Regarding the lack of explanation, the template description simply says it formats the name. No explanation is given to why, or when it is appropriate, or anything. Just that it does something. I guess I'm also a little troubled that this formatting was widely deployed without any discussion that I'm aware of. Perhaps it was simply not paid attention to by others, but I have to say I find the sudden text style change in the prose rather jarring. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum to this: the Lagrange templates have no real relevance here since they simply provide easy linking and and <sub>'ing; they don't change the default appearance of anything. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a misunderstanding. I thought your first comment "[the template is] without any explanation as to its proper use" referred to a lack of documentation. So I provided you a link to the documentation which displays an example, what it does and how to use it. As for the "why", the templates formats the provisional designation to provide a visual distinction (as in the first example above, where the year of the date and the year of the designation are side-by-side), as well as to install a hook for the addition of new features such as the linkage to provisional designation (that's why I mentioned {{L4}} as an example). Furthermore, I think you are conflating the template as a container for a number of features with the currently used CSS-styles, which I just like and you obviously don't. I'm really not capable to discern whether I'm explaining myself so poorly or whether you just don't listen. Maybe somebody can help us here, please. Rfassbind – talk 05:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify: yes, I was talking about the template documentation. Literally all it says is "Produces a formatted version of a minor planet designation as in, for example:". There is no explanation of when it is appropriate for use, why it should be used, or any of the statements and directions usually found in template documentation. That was my only point regarding that topic. As for the "why" as well, there is zero reason to use a distinctive text format for these. The hook provision is provided by {{mp}} just as easily. Yes, I fully understand that this is formatting that you prefer, and I obviously would never have an issue with you having such a preference. But to unilaterally start implementing that visual preference into such a vast number of articles is something that probably should have been discussed with relevant communities. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't understand the italics and font change. No astronomical publication out there does this, to my knowledge. I always found it jarring in our article when we did this. Short of an valid explanation for the unusual style, back by reliable sources, I say delete this and replace it with the non-italicized, non-weird font change version. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless there are consistent examples of this format in published journals, it just looks odd on the screen. — Eoghanacht talk 19:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, strange format. Frietjes (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2018 (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 "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_May_16&oldid=843264661"