Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 30

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 29 August 31 >

August 30 edit

Find sources templates 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 merge the configuration files of Find sources, Find sources 3 and Find sources 4, and redirect Find sources 3 and 4 to Find sources; and subsequently redirect Find sources AFD to Find sources if it doesn't cause the AFD logs to implode. If some links from 3 and 4 won't be copied over to Find sources, 3 and 4 should be substituted where preserving history would be desirable (i.e. in discussions, but not in welcome messages, for instance), per davidwr. Alakzi (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging into Template:Find sources.

Similar templates; no need for more than one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning support – provided that the various links that are not currently present in {{Find sources}} (e.g. NYT, et al.) are actually merged into it. North America1000 23:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support: It needs to be a complete merge, no loss of searches. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The reason for creating a separate template for AfD was because Template:Find sources was causing some of the daily AfD logs to go over the post-expand include size. This may not be as much of a problem now that Template:Find sources multi has been replaced by Module:Find sources, but we should keep it in mind. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 24 using both of the different templates. With Template:Find sources AFD the post-expand include size was 1257200/2097152 bytes, and with Template:Find sources it was 1319754/2097152 bytes. So we are talking about a 5% increase in post-expand include size if we merge the two templates, and on this AfD log at least, they are both well within the limits. I'd be interested in seeing how they fare on some bigger AfD logs - does anyone know where some really meaty logs might be found? I looked for the ones that triggered the creation of Find sources AFD when they broke, but I couldn't find them. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found the relevant discussion: it's at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 67#Daily AfD pages are getting too long. One of the log pages that is mentioned there as being over the post-expand include size limit, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 16, is actually smaller than the one I tested above. It comes out as 948283/2097152 bytes for Template:Find sources AFD and 993205/2097152 bytes for Template:Find sources. So there should be no problem merging the two, and there should even be room to add a couple of extra links if desired. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I shouldn't infer a 5% increase from the above - it's misleading, as the text in the AfD discussions themselves is counted towards the total. The real difference is about 660 bytes for Find sources AFD versus 880 bytes for Find sources (the exact length depends on the article title) multiplied by the number of AfD discussions in the day's log. This week we seem to have been averaging about 120 AfDs a day, which makes a difference of about 26kb between the two templates, or about 1% of the limit. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administrative comment The small "see tfd" notices at the top of {{Find sources AFD}} is making AFD discussions look downright ugly. I think Wikipedia can live with the ugliness for a week but if the discussion starts to look like it could close early due to WP:SNOW, please consider this an argument in favor of closing early rather than on time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC) That issue is now resolved. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for any merge that won't break the Wiki or reduce functionality (I'm envisioning parameters so existing templates can be replaced with no change to their output). Strong oppose for any change that will break the wiki, oppose any change that will change existing functionality for templates that are in use, neutral for any change that will change functionality of templates that are not in use. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Update: Oppose any change that will reduce existing functionality for existing templates, Weak oppose to any change to the functionality of templates 3 and 4 (3 and 4 each have hundreds of tranclusions). After this TFD is over with, a discussion on changing the behavior of 3 and 4 or simply making their behavior identical to the main template can be handled on the appropriate template-talk page. Be careful changing the behavior of the AFD template, as anything that changes its appearance could be disruptive to AFD pages. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understand it, this proposal is to merge all of the listed templates into Template:Find sources, so that they would all have exactly the same look and functionality. A merge that won't break functionality is essentially what I've already done with Module:Find sources (see my comment below). — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommended method of merge: Expand {{Find sources}} to include all sources in the other templates, add a parameter "style=" so the few hundred pages that transclude {{Find sources 3}} and {{Find sources 4}} won't change, then replace the latter 2 with the former. If {{Find sources AFD}} can be merged in in a similar way as "3" and "4" without breaking the Wiki, do it. Note that there are 2 links on the main template that aren't useful for the AFD version. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is pretty much how the templates already work - take a look at the documentation for Module:Find sources. The main difference from the way you describe is that instead of using one template with different parameters, it uses one main module with different template configuration modules, each of which is output through a different wrapper template. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with davidwr on all counts.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing admin: I changed my comment above after Jeff G. made his complete endorsement. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I still agree with davidwr. It should be possible to combine use of these templates going forward while preserving the look and feel of previous usage of them in archived discussions. What conflicts in usage could not be covered by making the top specified template the main one and wrapping it with the other templates, perhaps with an additonal "display" or "type" parameter, and maybe an "afd=y" parameter? Expecting all editors to stop typing the name of any template that has been in use for a long time would be a futile exercise; instead, templates and their designers should follow Postel's Law, and make templates backwards-compatible. The article maintenance tags like {{onesource}} which request editors to add and verify sources could even wrap this template (in a manner yet to be determined) so as to further push our agenda of making the project more reliable based on our inclusion of information from more and better sources.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in response to Mr. Stradivarius: My concern is that the two lesser-used templates ("3" and "4") may be intentionally using a different list of parameters. I'm fine with deprecating them (in fact, I strongly favor deprecating them) but I'm a little leery of forcing them to change just for the sake of eliminating them. I'm also fine with going through each one of the several hundred uses of "3" and "4" individually and replacing them with the main template, but only after making sure that doing so won't cause any harm. The AFD one is a bit different since almost all existing uses that are more than a few weeks old are on archived discussions and nobody cares if the template changes on those pages, but on the other hand, any changes to the AFD cannot be allowed to disrupt ongoing discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE This TFM is showing up when you try to create a page, so one of these templates is loaded directly as an editnotice -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, perhaps it's just DRAFTspace then. (It isn't occurring in talkspace, but I didn't think/expect it would). [draft:adfsdfasfdsfasdfabaasfa] -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2015 (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:Catcross2 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 speedy delete. Jujutacular (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that contains link to toolserver. Author agrees that template should be sent to TfD. GoingBatty (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2015 (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:Broke with Expensive Taste track listing 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 speedy deleted WP:CSD#G7 at author's request. JohnCD (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another one, per previous consensus on these kind of templates, they are to be deleted —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 05:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (Author request) scrap it, I'm pretty sure my !vote as author makes the template eligible for speedy deletion. Azealia911 talk 07:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: IndianBio, it may be worth you leaving an advisory note at {{Extra track listing}} to not create these particular kinds of templates if there's a broad consensus on past examples as you say there is, (for whatever reason that is, you didn't actually provide one other than other templates like this have been deleted in the past. I'd also like to see a few of these past TfD examples.) Azealia911 talk 09:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IndianBio, fair enough, I've reinstated my delete request so unless I'm wrong, the template now qualifies for speedy deletion under G7. But repeating what I said before, it really would be worth leaving a comment on the talk page, or even the template documentation of {{Extra track listing}}, explaining that album track listing templates are redundant and likely to be deleted in cases which the artist of the album has their own template with links to the songs in the track listing template. If there was something like this implemented way back during the 2013 mass deletion, I would have definitley not pursued to create the template and everybody's time would have most definitely been saved. Azealia911 talk 13:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree absolutely. I will implement it in the template once this one is closed. And you can nominate for G7 too. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 13:46, 30 August 2015 (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/2015_August_30&oldid=1140386783"