Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 15

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< March 14 March 16 >

March 15

edit


Template:Infobox TPFEN

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox TPFEN (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An organization infobox intended for use in only one article, Federal Criminal Court of Switzerland. We don't create an infobox template per article, instead we use {{Infobox organization}} or its derivatives for all articles.  Sandstein  16:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given its use of German parameter names, I'd imagine this may have been a c/p from de-WP (update: it is). Unneeded given the development of our own article and the existing broader infobox system we have available should that article ever require an infobox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see a need for it. WP:NENAN. — T13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 18:02, 16 March 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Iapprove

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iapprove (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Iapproved (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

This new template produces a fairly unappealing green box that basically says "I like this". An "I approve" might be a good addition to Category:Image with comment templates, but it would need to look completely different. Also not sure why this has been constructed in two parts. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to changing the appearance. The reason I had to make it work in two parts is because of the way that it will automatically add the signature, gender (if available), and timestamp to the post. All the user needs to type to make it work is {{subst:Iapprove}} and it does the rest. So, changing the way it looks on Template:Iapproved wouldn't require it to be deleted, and would be a recursive fix. — T13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 14:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Technical, I mean this in the best possible way - your understanding of our templating language has some way to go yet. A simple result like the one you want with this should never require two templates to make it happen. It's true, getting substitution to work right can be awkward, and involve using tricks like {{subst:&lt;includeonly&gt;whatever}}&lt;/includeonly&gt;. If you can't work out how to shoehorn the behavior you want into a template, it's best to ask for help at the technical pump and test it as a subpage of your sandbox rather than ploughing ahead with a live template. Hope this helps. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Willing to recode based on Template:Bug resolved (  Resolved) to look like:
  {{{1}}} gives {{{2}}} support at {{{3}}}.
— T13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 14:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, most of the other templates in Category:Image with comment templates seem to convey a useful message. I would certainly get rid of {{great}} and {{like}} which are so much like {{iapprove}}.—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't understand the purpose. Why do we need a large green box to indicate approval rather than simply saying it? I presume this will naturally be followed by a read box to indicate disapproval. Can we not accomplish the same thing by using the bold indicators, and be less jarring? Making your opinion bigger does not make it more valid, or others less valid. I don't think creating an uneven 'voting field' in this manner is desirable. --NickPenguin(contribs) 15:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTVOTE. We have (the equally maligned, but apparently invulnerable) {{like}} for content-free approval already, which is far less distracting. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of templates like {{great}}, {{like}}, and {{subst:Iapprove}} are to improve editor morale and promote productive edits. They are there to show good faith so there will be less assumptions (everyone knows what happens when they "assume" something).
Nick, the purpose of making it stand out a little is to ensure that the OP will see it and know they have something that others agree with and encourage them to pursue advancing what they started instead of giving up. I have no intention of making a {{subst:Idisapprove}} as it defeats the purpose of IMPROVING morale and promoting good editing.
Thumper, {{like}} does not automatically sign and date itself.
— T13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 16:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I find your argument unpersuasive. Improve morale with a throwaway icon? \(^.^)/ How cute. We are here to be an encyclopedia, not to be some poor editor's therapist. And of course one has to ask, is the template improperly used when an editor uses it to support a position opposite to, in your example, OP's position – like someone might use it to support my position (please don't). If that happens, what happens to OP's delicate morale?
If morale needs boosting, I can think of little better than another editor actually writing an appropriate note, either in the discussion or on the other's talk page, unequivocally stating support. That the supporter took the time to write such a note has significantly more weight that a cheap icon that cost nothing in time or effort to give. Similarly, I don't find much value in barn stars either.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The very last thing we need is a focus on talk-page decoration. Instead, the focus should be on the encyclopedia, and since this is en.wiki we use English to communicate, not icons or visual slogans. ILIKEIT boxes tend to proliferate and cause inexperienced editors to think that this site is like any other web forum where people chat and express their personality. {{like}} is generally used ironically. Johnuniq (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hex, by your statement, "A simple result like the one you want with this should never require two templates to make it happen," Template:Template_for_discussion itself should be deleted. This being said, I would be happy to rewrite it to use only one template, even if this causes the span code to be subst on the page, which is all I was trying to avoid to make it look a little neater.
Trappist, the template says the poster supports the topic of the discussion, not the specific comments within and therefor "And of course one has to ask, is the template improperly used when an editor uses it to support a position opposite to, in your example, OP's position – like someone might use it to support my position (please don't)," is not a realistic argument.
I'm trying my hardest to WP:AGF, but it is hard when at every turn it feels like you have been antagonizing me. That being said, not all the communication that happens off-main-space needs to be so neutral. I'm sure that like Trappist, you're opposed to WP:WikiLove, userboxes, and the barnstar system. A wise man once said, "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar." Having little things like this reduces assumption and improve faith in fellow editors. So, I encourage you all to work with me to make it an acceptable template that still shows the support and encourages people to continue editing.
— T13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 23:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because the template doesn't explicitly say that the editor supports the subject, where the template is placed will be interpreted by me, and likely others, to mean that the editor supports that which immediately precedes it.
You're right about off-main-space communication: it need not be so neutral. But, it is not a lovefest nor is it a place to get to know your fellow editors, it is a place to discuss the encyclopedia. Of course at your own talk page you can do anything you want. Have at it.
It is unclear to me whom you are addressing in your last paragraph. I can assure you though, that I am not out to get you – I don't think anyone here is. What will most assuredly show good faith to other editors is the quality and usefulness of the work you do. This applies to all of us.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How would that help the encyclopedia? Sprinkling nonsense boxes in discussions would certainly attract flies, and that would be very unhelpful. If the community is overtaken by people wanting somewhere more sophisticated than Facebook to message each other, the encyclopedia will suffer. Johnuniq (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. How does turning away editors of diverse backgrounds because you can't stand seeing a little flare and good spirit towards each other help the encyclopedia? WP:WikiLove says love thy fellow editor, and these little {{subst:Iapprove}} style quips helps show that good will towards each other. — T13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 23:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Simplified, single template version available now: {{subst:Iapprove/sandbox}} and it looks like:

  — T13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) gives his support for the subject at 23:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Can someone subst: the transclusions of this template. Rich Farmbrough, 08:39, 20 March 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Collapsed infobox section begin

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep for now Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collapsed infobox section begin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Presumably good-faith templatisation of bad-faith code; used to hide not sections but almost entire infoboxes, apart from their titles and images (e.g. on Andreas Scholl (Andreas Scholl with template). Prior discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Hidden infoboxes. The paired end template should also be deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The link I'm about to give you won't get you there because the section header for §Collapsible Infobox is inside a collapsed discussion. Still, see the Montacute House infobox in WT:MOS/Infoboxes §Collapsible Infobox. Apparently it is not possible to ever link into something that is collapsed. I suspect that the backlink problem is similar to the problem of getting directly to the discussion section header from here.
Once you get there, there are two citations that backlink to the references inside the infobox (taken from Montacute House). The default state of the infobox is collapsed. Clicking on the backlink carets (^) should take you to the references inside the infobox. They don't unless the infobox is expanded.
I don't think that this is strictly an issue with {{Collapsed infobox section begin}} and {{Collapsed infobox section end}} but rather is an issue about linking into something that is collapsed. See also the collapse mechanism used at Montacute House; it suffers from the same disability.
Have I clearly stated the problem? I have, by the way, observed this issue with three different browsers.
Moving citation references outside of the collapsed infobox is, no doubt the correct solution perhaps, but in cases like Montacute House where the two cited bits of information really are best stated in the concise way that an infobox allows, is much better than wrapping them in some bit of dreadfully boring prose in the article text somewhere. And no, I'm not trying to open that whole can of worms again. I suspect that regardless of best practice and simple work-arounds, editors will reference citations from within collapsed infobox sections leaving readers to puzzle about why they can't backlink to the reference. We should do nothing that causes readers to puzzle about stuff like this.
And for my own edification, where is this usage caveat documented?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the usage cavaet is documented in the documentation. Frietjes (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, thanks for that. Here's another issue. {{Collapsed infobox section begin}} / {{Collapsed infobox section end}} can't be added to an article's infobox but must be added to the infobox template. This of course impacts every article that uses the template.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so maybe it does work in some but not in others, I've just seen the example that Editor Frietjes has added to the template's documentation. I tried it at USS Natick (YTB-760) inside {{Infobox ship characteristics}} where it definitely doesn't work. Granted, ship infoboxes are a peculiar lot. So I went to Category:Infobox templates and tried it in {{Infobox Lok Sabha Constituency}} (picked at random) at Darjeeling (Lok Sabha constituency); did not work.
If this template is to be retained it should work with all infoboxes, not just a select few.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly make it work in those examples, e.g. here and here. as far as other infoboxes go, I could make work there as well. however, I don't see a reason for adding support for templates for which there are no articles where it is desired. as far as I can tell, the entire point of having this option is so it can be used in places where there is consensus to use it (which is not currently widespread). Frietjes (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Darjeeling
Indian electoral constituency
Constituency details
CountryIndia
Copied the {{Infobox Lok Sabha Constituency}} template here from Darjeeling (Lok Sabha constituency) so we don't disrupt the article. When I said that it didn't work, it didn't because I chose to put the start template someplace other than where you did. Is this another of those documented caveats? Too many caveats is too many caveats. Editors will use this template and will be disappointed when the section that they want to collapse doesn't collapse or doesn't collapse correctly.
Another issue is that there is no requirement to have infobox parameters follow a prescribed order. For example, I moved |Existence=1957-present from just below |image= to inside the {{collapsed section begin / end}} pair. That parameter, of course, doesn't get collapsed as an editor might think that it does.
So, the caveat for all of this surely must be, that the {{collapsed section begin / end}} pair are only to be used inside infobox template code and not in an article's invocation of that code.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yes, having the code in the infobox template would be better, but supporting every possible combination of collapsed sections would not be feasible. clearly, this template cannot re-order the fields in the infobox, so the begin must appear above the below, and it will only collapse sections between the two. as far as I know, this is the only working solution that has been presented. Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha! You've fixed it. So, can you make the collapsible table have the same column widths as the infobox's enclosing table? You can see in the Darjeeling infobox at right that when the Further information section is expanded, the right hand column is offset to the right from the data above the heading.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
without going into too many technical details, I can say that would be harder. if you want a technical explanation of why this would be harder, I am more than happy to elaborate, but probably better to leave this to either my talk page, or the talk page for the template. Frietjes (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: given that the nominator recently tried to reject this concept via the linked discussion and was unsuccessful, this nomination feels more than a little like forum-shopping. Per MOS:COLLAPSE, collapsing part of a table that summarizes the article text is perfectly acceptable, and this template is a cleaner and more efficient way of doing so than the previous coding hack. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that that discussion, which you closed, found no consensus, we're back to the status quo, which is that we don't hide infoboxes on Wikipedia. Since this template is use for hiding most of the infoboxes on which it is used, it - like the hack it replaces - is not needed, not necessary and has no community support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Assuming this is Andy speaking, you seem to be a bit confused - the status quo is that infoboxes or parts thereof can be collapsed where there is agreement to do so, as had been done for years before you objected. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • [missing text & sig restored] Small sections of some infoboxes have been collapsed. This template is used for hiding almost entire infoboxes, apart from their titles and images of infoboxes where no such practice has been common. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your added text is factually incorrect, and your further response is irrelevant: as I've already pointed out, MOS:COLLAPSE allows the collapsing of tables (with no upper limit on how much of the table) that duplicate article text (which per your own arguments previously is the definition of an infobox), and "common" and "status quo" are not the same thing. I don't know, nor I suspect do you, how many articles use coding to hide portions of boxes, but this practice has been employed on a per-article basis for years. It's very clear you don't approve of this practice, but simply deleting this template - which both can be used in the manner of which you appear to approve, and can be replaced with coding - after failing to gain consensus to reject the practice is not the way to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Truthkeeper (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Collapsed infoboxes are not a good thing. - Denimadept (talk) 06:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Andy Mabbett ought to be ashamed of himself for pursuing this issue across how many forums now? Four? Five? I understand that he's now some kind of accredited Wikipedia trainer, so God help any of us interested in content rather than this kind of dog shit. Malleus Fatuorum 07:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Andy Mabbett is again wasting our time. He is capable of contributing to WP, but not on this subject. He should be topic-banned on anything related to info boxes. --Kleinzach 09:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nikkimaria. And I agree with Kleinzach. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I understand from the above that you have to use the code with so much caution that it seems problematic to offer it at as an option. I prefer to collapse lists within a parameter, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    the backlinks for references is an issue with all collapsed sections. the uncollapsed purists would disagree with any method for collapsing content. I do agree that this is a hack, but better to template a hack than to use raw html in the articles, which is what was being done before I templated it. at least now we can track the usage and (hopefully) eventually remove it once support is added to the individual infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nikkimaria and previous discussions. Support topic-ban on Andy Mabbett and infoboxes: His broken-record campaign violates forum-shopping, I didn't hear that, etc., and has wasted the time and patience of too many editors. The linked discussion, linked by Nikkimaria, notes an editor who was exhausted and has stopped editing---one of many, Ceoil noted. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just wish to add to my previous, terse "Keep" opinion that I also agree with the comments made by Kiefer.Wolfowitz, Kleinzach, Malleus, and Nikkimaria about this proposal, and that so much time is being wasted that a topic-ban on Andy Mabbett would also solve the time-wasting going on here.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Duplicates Template:hidden unnecessarily. If you want to have collapsed sections, which I personally don't agree with, don't fork a template to do it. --Izno (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    really, tell me how it is a fork of {{hidden}}? the hidden template is used to wrap an entire infobox, where as this, shockingly creates a "collapsed infobox section". who would have thought that it had that function. Frietjes (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really having trouble seeing how it's not a fork of hidden. What specifically makes the two differ? Couldn't I use hidden to create a "collapsed infobox section"? Am I missing something here? --Izno (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    try to recreate the example in the documentation using {{hidden}}. the hidden template is used to collapse prose, or an entire table, or an entire infobox. this template can be used to collapse a subsection of an infobox, not the entire infobox. Frietjes (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note canvassing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#TFD for collapsed infobox code. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not a fan of this at all - but we just had a very very very long talk on the matter and despite the accessibility problem many are ok with this.Moxy (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. as the creator of this template, my only request is that we don't simply revert this change. no raw html tables in articles please, and this is certainly far better than wrapping the entire infobox inside a {{hidden}} template, since it selectively collapses sections of material. the best option would be either (a) don't collapse anything in the infobox or (b) move the collapsing option to the individual infoboxes by adding a parameter to {{infobox person}}, {{infobox building}}, ... however, until one of those two things happen, would rather not see us simply go back to using raw html table hacks, div containers, or {{hidden}} wrapper hacks. Frietjes (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If enough people say "Keep" do something that bombs, the bombing doesn't matter, - we have to follow consensus, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should have faith in our developers and understand that it needs to be tested. Frietjes is the only person to present a workable solution to an ongoing problem, and in my view that solution deserves better than to be sent to the scrap heap in a knee jerk reaction. It probably won't be used that often but is worthwhile having, testing, tweaking to use when/if needed. And yes we do follow consensus. Certainly it can't bomb as badly as File:Infobox (collapsed) open.jpg. But we've just moved the discussion from venue to another and it really needs to end. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, the reason why it bombed is that you put the begin in |tablecolor=, which is used to set the color of the table. if you would have put it just after the |name= it would have worked better (e.g., see here). I would not generally recommend using this template with {{infobox user}}, since that template already has section headings, so it would be better to add optional collapsing code directly to {{infobox user}}. adding it there would probably be not very controversial, since that template is not used in articles. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This template is pretty much a hack in development, but I don't see a reason to delete it at this point. My !vote is on the assumption that it will be improved as necessary, and that if a better solution is found, there will be further discussion. If your issues were not addressed already by Frietjes, feel free to reply again. -PC-XT+ 04:42, 18 March 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_15&oldid=963868660"