Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic/Archive 1) (bot |
Pestilence Unchained (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 659: | Line 659: | ||
:I'm a no on this. The template is big enough and there's not enough reason to add it in my opinion. <span style="font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 1px 45px black">[[User:QueerFilmNerd|<span style="color:#e52929">QueerFilmNerd</span>]]<small><sup>[[User talk:QueerFilmNerd|<span style="color:#2863e5;">talk</span>]]</sup></small></span> 20:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC) |
:I'm a no on this. The template is big enough and there's not enough reason to add it in my opinion. <span style="font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 1px 45px black">[[User:QueerFilmNerd|<span style="color:#e52929">QueerFilmNerd</span>]]<small><sup>[[User talk:QueerFilmNerd|<span style="color:#2863e5;">talk</span>]]</sup></small></span> 20:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
:We could rename "Ships" to "other" and add it there. Wouldn't change the space demand and that category is small anyway. --[[User:Mfb|mfb]] ([[User talk:Mfb|talk]]) 04:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC) |
:We could rename "Ships" to "other" and add it there. Wouldn't change the space demand and that category is small anyway. --[[User:Mfb|mfb]] ([[User talk:Mfb|talk]]) 04:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
::Why is there even an article? The stub basically says no COVID there.--[[User:Pestilence Unchained|Pestilence Unchained]] ([[User talk:Pestilence Unchained|talk]]) 07:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:16, 11 April 2020
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RfC on linking to template namespace
The "Data and figures" section of this navbox links either exclusively or almost exclusively to the template namespace. Here are three options:
- Option A: Keep as is and continue to link to template namespace.
- Option B: Expand the linked templates into standalone articles.
- Option C: Remove the linked templates from the navbox.
I look forward to reading your thoughts. 06:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Bait30 Talk? 05:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: some of the templates have been already included in standalone articles. For example, 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Singapore#Statistics. Linking to the statistics subsection counts under option B. Bait30 Talk? 23:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Discussion and !votes
- Option C or B We should not be linking to templates. It is against usual Wikipedia practice. Current links to templates can be dropped, replaced with links to article sections, or, where appropriate, the linked templates can be expanded into standalone articles. Bondegezou (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Before making a decision, it would be good to know why it is linking to templates. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: +1 to Pbsouthwood, and another question: does the navbox already link to the pages, which transclude these templates? Do these pages have captions and/or prose describing the transcluded content? —andrybak (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- I assume that each template is transcluded into at least one article within the scope of the navbox, but have not checked, and it is technically possible that I may be wrong. In most cases I would expect at least two transclusions, into two articles, otherwise why bother to make it a template. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Here's list of translusion counts:
- I assume that each template is transcluded into at least one article within the scope of the navbox, but have not checked, and it is technically possible that I may be wrong. In most cases I would expect at least two transclusions, into two articles, otherwise why bother to make it a template. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Transclusions counts
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Most templates have a single transclusion. One has no transclusions at all. And two templates have more than one transclusion. —andrybak (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- With the above in mind, my !vote goes to Option C. Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/WHO situation reports should be summarized as a paragraph in the section 2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak#WHO response measures and deleted per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. —andrybak (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Most templates have a single transclusion. One has no transclusions at all. And two templates have more than one transclusion. —andrybak (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option C or B per Bondegezou rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option B based on what Bondegezou said. Idealigic (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Since there seems to be a suitable article using all except one template, I see no added value to the reader in having an extra link from the navbox to each table. I would be interested to know the rationale for having these tables as templates rather than the more usual practice of simply including them in the text. I can see the point when a table is used in more than one article, but not when it is in only one article.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option A or B. These data are extremely valuable. Most readers don't know or care what a MediaWiki namespace is. If someone wants to turn these into articles in mainspace, that's great, but I think a link to the data should be preserved in any case. 72.209.60.95 (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- I have not seen anyone contest that the data are valuable, just the way they are being used is unusual and not covered by any manual of style guidance that I am aware of. As tables in a regular article they are plainly encyclopeic. As naked tables without context the case is not clear.
- What is the specific usefulness claimed for them as stand-alone tables, beyond their obvious value in articles where they are given context and explained? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Now that you mention it, maybe there's no need to link to the templates specifically instead of the articles which transclude them. For example, instead of linking to Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Switzerland medical cases, we could just link to 2020_coronavirus_outbreak_in_Switzerland#Statistics. I'm fine with doing that. 72.209.60.95 (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option A the navigation to all the relevant pages is useful to quickly jump around to edit or read. I expect our readers will also appreciate it. So WP:IAR is applicable if an rule is an obstacle here. Removing the links does not add to the encyclopedia and would be slightly disruptive. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option A. It is useful, WP:IAR. I also cannot find any policies or guidelines that explicitly discourage linking to templates. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 03:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Useful in what way? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option A Works well the way it is. We can innovate and do what makes a better encyclopedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option A The templates provide useful encyclopedic, sourced information and in this context including them in the navbox seems appropriate. The context in each template is provided by the {{main}} headers in the <noinclude> header sections. This context may not make sense for more typical Wikipedia navboxes. Obviously, a navbox for functional templates like {{t}} or {{citation needed}} would not make sense in the main namespace. Boud (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- We have a guideline on this. It's WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Shouldn't we do what it says? Bondegezou (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. I do not know if you are all aware that transclusions can be done from main space, in the same way that templates are transcluded from template space. If these tables are so generally useful that they should be used as stand-alone content, why are they not in main space as articles? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option B: While there is nothing wrong with option A, I find option B to be a better choice per 72.209.60.95. I just think it would be better to avoid linking to other namespaces as much as possible. It might confuse many newcomers who might think of it as a template with example numbers or something. Side note: I am officially no longer an uninvolved editor in this RfC so I will not be the one closing the discussion. I recommend waiting a week before requesting a closure per WP:ANRFC Bait30 Talk? 08:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC).
- Option A Keep it as is and expand given their usefulness. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option A or B I think they are useful as is and provide valuable information, although I would be fine with expanding them into articles as well, particularly if they become larger. ~ HAL333 20:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option B or C. We should not be linking to template namespace from mainspace. Navboxes in mainspace are for navigating between articles. If the template is already transcluded to an article, then the material is already navigable. If it isn't, then it should be, otherwise it defeats the purpose of the template namespace. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option B or C. Wikipedia often has too much trouble maintaining a firm line between content for readers and maintenance content for editors. My interpretation of WP:TMP is that templates are firmly on the maintenance side of that line, and we should not blur it. If the data is useful, find another way to present it. Sdkb (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option B. It makes it easier to navigate it for most Internet users. Most users of modern Internet are not interested of technicalities and inners of many services. Fortunny (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option C. The relevant guideline here is WP:TG which states that
Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content
. Additionally, template pages do not show up in search results by default (most users will not use any "Advanced search" option, nor are navboxes visible on mobile, which is at least 50% of our readers. That means that whoever is creating these templates, are creating it for themselves and a small group of editors, and not for the wider community. Option B is irrelevant here, if the topic is notable for an article, expand, if it isn't add it to an article. If both aren't an option, that means that the template has no reason to exist. --Gonnym (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC) - Option B The data are very useful and current the CDC does not publish a daily report of cases and deaths by state. Not like other countries. Link to page with the statistics (table of state cases and deaths) from main page would be fine. Seatto23 (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option B Seems less confusing for users and allows us to maintain useful data. MosquitoBird11 (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option A/C. These templates are used in other articles, if we make standalone articles out of them this gets awkward. We could reduce the number of links here, however. Link to a list of these templates. --mfb (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option B. Length of the template is getting out of hand. gidonb (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- On the wall, templates are more for the 'behind the scenes' part of WP, as opposed to general reading. However, I still think that we should have the links there... Perhaps I am biased towards what would be more useful to me, as an editor.
>>BEANS X2t
11:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
The timeline sub-navbox looks much cleaner and matches the style of the other groups if it is it's own navbox child. Maybe something like this can be created?:
Regions of Africa
This template is quite large. In an attempt to reduce the template's overall size, I propose removing the subheaders for Africa (Central, East, North, South, and West), and just grouping all African locations together. We're not talking about an overwhelming number of entries, and for those who may not be very familiar with Africa's geography, I think alphabetical is better than making people search within specific regions. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- seems reasonable--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. gidonb (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- +1. Additional reason: The boundaries between the regions of Africa aren't so clear-cut, relative to other areas. --Yair rand (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Rethliopuks: There is support for removing the Africa subheaders. Will you please undo your re-addition of the Africa subheaders? ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- To be clear, it was restoring removals that had no consensus, not re-addition. And I oppose this based on the grounds of WP:NPOV. We should treat continents equally -- personal unfamiliarity with a specific region shouldn't be a reason for such a Wiki change. As a counterexample, I may be unfamiliar with what Western/Central Asia countries count as European or Asian; does that in itself constitute a reason to remove the headers of Europe and Asia in favor of a "Eurasia"? Additionally, many Wikipedians are not familiar with what countries belong in the Caribbean, or what countries belong in North America as opposed to South America; are these reasons to remove the category of "Caribbean" or merge "North America" and "South America"? Many people can't pinpoint which countries belong to SE Asia and which belong to Oceania; is that a reason to remove the header of "Oceania"? I disagree that the reasoning is valid for Wikipedia's purposes. Subregions of Africa aren't obscure or not notable concepts, to make an extreme understatement; and I can't quite imagine that people who need to look up or maintain the articles would generally have no basic familiarity with the basic geographical location of the country or territory. I disagree that it would be a fair assumption that we should make for Wikipedia's readers, or editors for that matter. Rethliopuks (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Just checked and the template is automatically collapsed for Wiki articles that cite it, so I don't see a size issue even (unless there's a server-side processing limit that I'm not familiar with); the only time it appears large would be on it own template page with everything expanded. I feel like the crux of your issue isn't the size of the template either, it's the number of the countries worldwide, which we really wouldn't be able to help (because at this time, this part of the template is essentially structured as a "template of countries in the world", with some subnational regions getting their own articles because of various reasons). Rethliopuks (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Rethliopuks, You're welcome to oppose, but there's consensus to remove these subsection headers. I've asked you to revert your structural change because I don't want to spend the time removing the headers only to have you revert again. Can you either remove the headers or confirm you won't revert if I spend time making this change? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- I do not understand why I need to point out again that, even if I were to make this change, it would not be reverting "my change" -- I would be undoing a revert. The change was not mine. On the opposite, I was restoring the subheaders for all continents because they were removed unilaterally before a discussion had concluded. This is a very important distinction to make. Rethliopuks (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Rethliopuks, You're welcome to oppose, but there's consensus to remove these subsection headers. I've asked you to revert your structural change because I don't want to spend the time removing the headers only to have you revert again. Can you either remove the headers or confirm you won't revert if I spend time making this change? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the subheaders, so there's now a single section for Africa. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Europe / EU
There should be no distinction between countries in europe and the eu for two reasons. First, if you search for a european land you have to look into both lists as nobody knows if the searched country is in the eu or not. Second reason is, that the horrific construct eu will finally get destroyed by the china-virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.209.6.128 (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that EU does not belong under Europe as long as it isn't a proper federation. gidonb (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- WP:CRYSTALBALL re your second point, and generally isn't it pretty clear whether you are in the EU unless you're confused with the legal niceties of Brexit re: the UK? Rethliopuks (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed that the split is more confusing than helpful. Even loyal subjects of the EU, such as myself, are unsure which countries are currently members, and I'd expect people from other parts of the world to know even less, just like most Europeans have no idea which African countries are in the AU. 92.251.20.136 (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
template not working on some pages
This template sometimes does not render correctly and instead shows the following code:
#invoke:Navbox with collapsible groups #invoke:Navbox with collapsible groups
This only happens on certain pages, such as 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Italy. Neither purging the cache of the page nor using a different browser resolves this issue. Anyone know the cause? Ixfd64 (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- This template is too large in terms of code and causes some pages to exceed WP:PEIS. That's what I just learned. --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Agree. This template is too large and unwieldy. I recommend that it is broken up into smaller templates that are applied only on the specific article subsets where they apply. With the exception of List of deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, the people section could be removed altogether. This template is causing problems on some pages and editors have started removing it. It needs to be smaller and more practical.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)- There are now several navboxes like Template:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States. I think country-specific bits could be removed from the main navbox. --Yair rand (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Would there be any consensus for removing most of the "Locations" portion, and only linking to Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania, South America, Cruise ships, and Aircraft carriers? That would cut the post-expand include size of the template in half from 135kb to 67.5kB. See the sandbox. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Would there be any consensus for removing most of the "Locations" portion, and only linking to Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania, South America, Cruise ships, and Aircraft carriers? That would cut the post-expand include size of the template in half from 135kb to 67.5kB. See the sandbox. --Ahecht (TALK
- There are now several navboxes like Template:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States. I think country-specific bits could be removed from the main navbox. --Yair rand (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I definitely think there are some sections that could be retweaked or reworked, particularly I'd say the "PEOPLE" tab, the "DATA" tab, we could definitely reduce the number of locations in the LOCATIONS tab and that could help it show up on some pages. QueerFilmNerdtalk 20:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- I added a
|short=
parameter that reduces the length of the "Locations" and "Data" sections, for use on troublesomely large pages. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 03:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)- @Ahecht: How much does this reduce the PEIS? Also, how do you actually get the measurement of the PEIS? I haven't found a way how. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Template limits#How can you find out?
|short=yes
currently reduces it by 180k, from 230,125 to 45,383 bytes. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Template limits#How can you find out?
- @Ahecht: How much does this reduce the PEIS? Also, how do you actually get the measurement of the PEIS? I haven't found a way how. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- I added a
This article seems interesting for this template. Yug (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't find a suitable place. Maybe a row's title must be tinkered. Yug (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Interwiki
The interwiki for this template is gone. Now only 1 page is connected. I try to find the old item on Wikidata but no luck. Diki Ananta ● Talk 02:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Interwikis everywhere broke earlier today. They're trying to fix it, but in the meantime there's a bit of an issue with new items being created by people who aren't aware of what's going on... The original Wikidata item is at d:Q83761248. --Yair rand (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
List of hospitals
The list of hospitals in Wuhan is getting a little old — they're definitely not the only hospitals involved at this point. Time for a change? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Continent #7?
Should we include 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Antarctica? I'd add it in but I don't want to mess it up. It's not like adding in another country. Liz Read! Talk! 20:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm a no on this. The template is big enough and there's not enough reason to add it in my opinion. QueerFilmNerdtalk 20:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- We could rename "Ships" to "other" and add it there. Wouldn't change the space demand and that category is small anyway. --mfb (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Why is there even an article? The stub basically says no COVID there.--Pestilence Unchained (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)