Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
::1) it combines {{tl|stub}} and {{tl|expand}}, which are never used on the same articles (as noted at {{tl|expand/doc}}); 2) putting the whole articles into the first parameter will require explaining a whole new way of doing things to every new editor on Wikipedia - currently it's far simpler to just add {{tl|stub}} to the bottom, and since it's parametered it's, as I said, strictly to be avoided; 3) no, if it takes two edits to each article to add it and two to each article to remove it, by definition it doubles the work-load on anyone who uses it - especially stub sorters. this can never be seen as an advantage; 4) Since we use bots for moving the stub templates on hundreds of articles at a time (and often manually move similar numbers), 30+ is a piece of cake. I manually moved some 100 articles from one stub type to another yesterday afternoon - it's what stub sorters do here. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 00:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC) |
::1) it combines {{tl|stub}} and {{tl|expand}}, which are never used on the same articles (as noted at {{tl|expand/doc}}); 2) putting the whole articles into the first parameter will require explaining a whole new way of doing things to every new editor on Wikipedia - currently it's far simpler to just add {{tl|stub}} to the bottom, and since it's parametered it's, as I said, strictly to be avoided; 3) no, if it takes two edits to each article to add it and two to each article to remove it, by definition it doubles the work-load on anyone who uses it - especially stub sorters. this can never be seen as an advantage; 4) Since we use bots for moving the stub templates on hundreds of articles at a time (and often manually move similar numbers), 30+ is a piece of cake. I manually moved some 100 articles from one stub type to another yesterday afternoon - it's what stub sorters do here. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 00:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::Further comment - it's even harder to use than I thought, since it appears to be quite often embedded within the article rather than at the start (under infoboxes and the like), making it more difficult to find the start of it to edit. And all the articles using it put the stub template in the wrong place, above footerinfoboxes and categories, so they'd all need editing anyway. Also, the "30+" articles it's transcluded into is actually about 18, if whatlinkshere is anything to go by. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 00:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC) |
:::Further comment - it's even harder to use than I thought, since it appears to be quite often embedded within the article rather than at the start (under infoboxes and the like), making it more difficult to find the start of it to edit. And all the articles using it put the stub template in the wrong place, above footerinfoboxes and categories, so they'd all need editing anyway. Also, the "30+" articles it's transcluded into is actually about 18, if whatlinkshere is anything to go by. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 00:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::One more point - if this was to be used throughout the stubbing process, it would either need to be subst'ed, which would render many of the tools used by stub sorters (such as "whatlinkshere") inoperable, or it would end up being used potentially on half a million stubs (that's about how many there are currently, folks). It would make current problematical high-use templates look underused. I shudder to think what would happen it Wikipedia if it needed to be edited. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 22:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' I have no opinion about whether or not this template should be deleted. I suggested O'delanca move the template from userspace (where a user-subpage was being transcluded into articles) into template space. Just want to say it wasn't "telling him off" but it isn't an endorsement of the template. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 21:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Comment''' I have no opinion about whether or not this template should be deleted. I suggested O'delanca move the template from userspace (where a user-subpage was being transcluded into articles) into template space. Just want to say it wasn't "telling him off" but it isn't an endorsement of the template. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 21:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
*This would be a "pig" if it were allowed to remain, whereupon it might gain more transclusions, thereby worsening all the above. Badly-designed, screws up articles, screws up stub-sorting. '''Strong delete'''. Or else, rename to a non-stub name, take to TFD and delete equally-strongly there. [[User:Alai|Alai]] ([[User talk:Alai|talk]]) 22:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC) |
*This would be a "pig" if it were allowed to remain, whereupon it might gain more transclusions, thereby worsening all the above. Badly-designed, screws up articles, screws up stub-sorting. '''Strong delete'''. Or else, rename to a non-stub name, take to TFD and delete equally-strongly there. [[User:Alai|Alai]] ([[User talk:Alai|talk]]) 22:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
Line 19: | Line 18: | ||
*'''Comment''' It looks like if this was to be of any use it would need to substituted when used instead of transcluded. Otherwise new editors and editors with no understanding of template syntax will not be able to edit the pages. —[[User:Borgarde|Borgarde]]<sup>[[User Talk:Borgarde|talk]]</sup> 12:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Comment''' It looks like if this was to be of any use it would need to substituted when used instead of transcluded. Otherwise new editors and editors with no understanding of template syntax will not be able to edit the pages. —[[User:Borgarde|Borgarde]]<sup>[[User Talk:Borgarde|talk]]</sup> 12:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
**'''Further comment''' After looking at one page it is transcluded on ([[J. J. Jeczalik]]), I am saying '''Strong delete''', because this is not in conventional practice on how templates are used on wikipedia. It took me a while to find where the template finished, and I'm not exactly a newbie with templates. —[[User:Borgarde|Borgarde]]<sup>[[User Talk:Borgarde|talk]]</sup> 12:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC) |
**'''Further comment''' After looking at one page it is transcluded on ([[J. J. Jeczalik]]), I am saying '''Strong delete''', because this is not in conventional practice on how templates are used on wikipedia. It took me a while to find where the template finished, and I'm not exactly a newbie with templates. —[[User:Borgarde|Borgarde]]<sup>[[User Talk:Borgarde|talk]]</sup> 12:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
***In any case, substing renders much of what WP:WSS does far more tricky - whatlinkshere is a widely used tool by stub-sorters. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 22:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''' What I could suggest is I go across, substitute all the uses of the template, and state clearly on the template documentation that it must be substituted, if that would help. Also, the template does not use any syntax or parser functions, and yes I did find instances where both templates were used even before I'd been at work with it, such as with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenneth_Bradshaw&diff=next&oldid=248893376 this] one.--[[User:O'delanca|O'delanca]] ([[User talk:O'delanca|talk]]) 13:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' What I could suggest is I go across, substitute all the uses of the template, and state clearly on the template documentation that it must be substituted, if that would help. Also, the template does not use any syntax or parser functions, and yes I did find instances where both templates were used even before I'd been at work with it, such as with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenneth_Bradshaw&diff=next&oldid=248893376 this] one.--[[User:O'delanca|O'delanca]] ([[User talk:O'delanca|talk]]) 13:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
**It's true that both templates can be found; there's a bot that goes through and prunes those instances on a regular basis. Maybe it missed that one, or someone reinstated it. [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] <small><font color="green">[[User talk:Pegship| (tis herself)]]</font></small> 17:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC) |
**It's true that both templates can be found; there's a bot that goes through and prunes those instances on a regular basis. Maybe it missed that one, or someone reinstated it. [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] <small><font color="green">[[User talk:Pegship| (tis herself)]]</font></small> 17:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
***'''''Comment to closing admin''' - User:O'delanca has now !voted ''keep'' three times.'' [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 22:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''delete''' because it breaks readability (and dated expand categorization - though that is an easy fix) if not substed, as well as sdatung. If substed AWB will remove the expand from stubs I think. Also allows use of non-existent stub templates. basically a nice idea, but quicker and celaner to just to add the stub template. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', 19:03 2 November 2008 (UTC). |
*'''delete''' because it breaks readability (and dated expand categorization - though that is an easy fix) if not substed, as well as sdatung. If substed AWB will remove the expand from stubs I think. Also allows use of non-existent stub templates. basically a nice idea, but quicker and celaner to just to add the stub template. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', 19:03 2 November 2008 (UTC). |
||
*:I have substed the existing uses and am looking at the wider problem of stubs with expand tags. Incidentally the cat was included with leading :, hence it was empty. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', 03:40 3 November 2008 (UTC). |
Revision as of 03:40, 3 November 2008
November 1
Cat:Stubs that need expanding
Apparently connected with {{expandstub}} below, though none of the articles marked with that template feed into it. We already have a category for stubs that need expanding - it's called Cat:Stubs. All stubs need expanding. Delete (preferably speedily, since it's empty) as redundant. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
{{expandstub}}
Looks like an attempt to combine two different templates which serve widely different purposes - parameterised, too, which is strictly avoided for stubs. Not useful for the purposes of sorting stubs (quite the opposite - it's already leading to stubs being placed in non-existent categories due to the ease with which a spurious non-existent stub name can be used), and certainly not a viable replacement for either. Much more prominent than a standard stub template (which is one thing we try to avoid), overly linked to Wikispace, and a pain to edit (requires double the number of edits to add it or remove it, and due to its placement harder for newbie editors to edit around it). Delete Grutness...wha? 20:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I think it should be kept because:
- It's not an attempt to combine two contradicting templates, more an attempt to make inserting them much easier.
- It's parameterised as it probably wouldn't work if it wasn't. As for it being difficult to edit, well, thats why you put the whole article in only one parameter and the stubtype in a second.
- Also, if it takes double the number of edits, surely you'd think of it as an advantage?
- It's only in the mainspace to start with after another editor told me off for transcluding it in articles before it was in the mainspace. So far it's transcluded into 30+ articles, so deleting it will be a pig to remove.--O'delanca (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- 1) it combines {{stub}} and {{expand}}, which are never used on the same articles (as noted at {{expand/doc}}); 2) putting the whole articles into the first parameter will require explaining a whole new way of doing things to every new editor on Wikipedia - currently it's far simpler to just add {{stub}} to the bottom, and since it's parametered it's, as I said, strictly to be avoided; 3) no, if it takes two edits to each article to add it and two to each article to remove it, by definition it doubles the work-load on anyone who uses it - especially stub sorters. this can never be seen as an advantage; 4) Since we use bots for moving the stub templates on hundreds of articles at a time (and often manually move similar numbers), 30+ is a piece of cake. I manually moved some 100 articles from one stub type to another yesterday afternoon - it's what stub sorters do here. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Further comment - it's even harder to use than I thought, since it appears to be quite often embedded within the article rather than at the start (under infoboxes and the like), making it more difficult to find the start of it to edit. And all the articles using it put the stub template in the wrong place, above footerinfoboxes and categories, so they'd all need editing anyway. Also, the "30+" articles it's transcluded into is actually about 18, if whatlinkshere is anything to go by. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- 1) it combines {{stub}} and {{expand}}, which are never used on the same articles (as noted at {{expand/doc}}); 2) putting the whole articles into the first parameter will require explaining a whole new way of doing things to every new editor on Wikipedia - currently it's far simpler to just add {{stub}} to the bottom, and since it's parametered it's, as I said, strictly to be avoided; 3) no, if it takes two edits to each article to add it and two to each article to remove it, by definition it doubles the work-load on anyone who uses it - especially stub sorters. this can never be seen as an advantage; 4) Since we use bots for moving the stub templates on hundreds of articles at a time (and often manually move similar numbers), 30+ is a piece of cake. I manually moved some 100 articles from one stub type to another yesterday afternoon - it's what stub sorters do here. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I have no opinion about whether or not this template should be deleted. I suggested O'delanca move the template from userspace (where a user-subpage was being transcluded into articles) into template space. Just want to say it wasn't "telling him off" but it isn't an endorsement of the template. Protonk (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- This would be a "pig" if it were allowed to remain, whereupon it might gain more transclusions, thereby worsening all the above. Badly-designed, screws up articles, screws up stub-sorting. Strong delete. Or else, rename to a non-stub name, take to TFD and delete equally-strongly there. Alai (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete; parameters and just the general construction make this rather tortuous for even an old hand like myself to use, and I don't see that it's any improvement over the current method. Her Pegship (tis herself) 02:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I can't understand why you find it so difficult to use. I don't know if it's just me and that I'm the only one that can understand it, but could you explain why it is so difficult to move?--O'delanca (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I guess it's just the logistics of having the entire text of an (admittedly short) article encased within a template. It seems to me that if I were a noob trying to expand an article, I would click on the edit link, encounter the template, and be a bit daunted by not knowing which parts of it could be disturbed. Plus, I don't see how this is any quicker/easier/more efficient than just adding one line of stub template code to the bottom of an article. Last but not least, I agree with Grut that it's kind of obtrusive visually. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It looks like if this was to be of any use it would need to substituted when used instead of transcluded. Otherwise new editors and editors with no understanding of template syntax will not be able to edit the pages. —Borgardetalk 12:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Further comment After looking at one page it is transcluded on (J. J. Jeczalik), I am saying Strong delete, because this is not in conventional practice on how templates are used on wikipedia. It took me a while to find where the template finished, and I'm not exactly a newbie with templates. —Borgardetalk 12:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep What I could suggest is I go across, substitute all the uses of the template, and state clearly on the template documentation that it must be substituted, if that would help. Also, the template does not use any syntax or parser functions, and yes I did find instances where both templates were used even before I'd been at work with it, such as with this one.--O'delanca (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's true that both templates can be found; there's a bot that goes through and prunes those instances on a regular basis. Maybe it missed that one, or someone reinstated it. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- delete because it breaks readability (and dated expand categorization - though that is an easy fix) if not substed, as well as sdatung. If substed AWB will remove the expand from stubs I think. Also allows use of non-existent stub templates. basically a nice idea, but quicker and celaner to just to add the stub template. Rich Farmbrough, 19:03 2 November 2008 (UTC).
- I have substed the existing uses and am looking at the wider problem of stubs with expand tags. Incidentally the cat was included with leading :, hence it was empty. Rich Farmbrough, 03:40 3 November 2008 (UTC).