Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell

From PsiForum
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion
Revision as of 13:55, 9 December 2021 by Tachyony (talk | contribs) (Imported page)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcut

If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.

Tools

There are several tools that can help when implementing TfDs. Some of these are listed below.

Closing discussions

The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions.

To review

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

Param mapping
    mapping = {
        # Header / misc
        'boxtype' => nil, # only support boxtype = 'locomotive'
        'Farbe1' => nil, # color
        'Farbe2' => nil, # color
        'Baureihe' => 'name',
        'Abbildung' => 'image',
        'Name' => 'caption',

        # General
        'Nummerierung' => '', # "Number(s) allocated to the vehicle(s)"
        'Hersteller' => 'builder',
        'Baujahre' => 'builddate',
        'Indienststellung' => 'firstrundate',
        'Ausmusterung' => 'retiredate',
        'Anzahl' => 'totalproduction',
        'Wheel arrangement' => 'whytetype | aarwheels', # ambiguous? which one is it?
        'Achsformel' => '', # same as above
        'Gattung' => '', # some form of class (eg "S 37.19")
        'Spurweite' => 'gauge',
        'Höchstgeschwindigkeit' => 'maxspeed',

        # Wheels (should wheelbase sub-params be used in [[Template:Infobox locomotive]]?)
        'Laufraddurchmesser vorn' => 'leadingdiameter',
        'Laufraddurchmesser hinten' => 'trailingdiameter',
        'Laufraddurchmesser außen' => '', # Outer carrying wheel diameter, Garratt locomotives
        'Laufraddurchmesser innen' => '', # Inner carrying wheel diameter, Garratt locomotives
        'Laufraddurchmesser' => '',
        'Treibraddurchmesser' => 'driverdiameter',

        # Weight, dimensions and Axles
        'Leermasse' => 'locoweight', # "Total weight of vehicle when empty"
        'Dienstmasse' => 'tenderweight',
        'Reibungsmasse' => 'weightondrivers',
        'Radsatzfahrmasse' => 'axleload',
        'Höhe' => 'height',
        'Breite' => 'width',

        # Steam traction / cylinders
        'Zylinderanzahl' => 'cylindercount',
        'Zylinderdurchmesser' => 'cylindersize',
        'Kolbenhub' => '', # "[[Piston stroke]] - I think current template requires this to be <br>'d onto cyclindercount, if so, that should probably be changed in template"
        'Heizrohrlänge' => '', # Heating tube length. totalsurface/tubearea is provided, but this is an area, not a length?
        'Rostfläche' => '', # "Grate area"
        'Strahlungsheizfläche' => '', # "Radiative heating area, Firebox + combustion chamber"
        'Überhitzerfläche' => '', # Superheater area
        'Verdampfungsheizfläche' => '', # Evaporative heating area, Firebox heating area + combustion chamber + heating tubes + smoke tubes (total heating area)

        # Misc
        'Steuerungsart' => 'valvegear',
        'Tenderbauart' => '', # Tender
        'Wasser' => 'watercap',
        'Brennstoff' => 'fueltype + fuelcap', # in practice, may solely be 'fuelcap'
        'Lokbremse' => 'locobrakes',
        'Bremsen' => 'trainbrakes',

        # Undocumented
        'VorneLaufraddurchmesser' => '',
        'HintenLaufraddurchmesser' => '',
        'LängeÜberPuffer' => 'length/over bufferbeams', # ?
        'Kesseldruck' => 'boilerpressure',
        'AnzahlHeizrohre' => '',
        'AnzahlRauchrohre' => '',
        'IndizierteLeistung' => '',
        'HDZylinderdurchmesser' => '',
        'NDZylinderdurchmesser' => ''
    }

Navigation templates

Link templates

Other

  • Into {{Talk header}}:
    • 2020 October 4 – Friendly_search_suggestions ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
      • Should be easy enough to remove the vast majority since {{talk header}} already has the links. A bot is basically required though. Primefac, would a general TFD implementation BRFA be quick if I filed one or would there be questions about the need for a forth bot doing this? --Trialpears (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Reasonably quick, probably, but this is one of the ones I was going to look at this week and I can bump it to top priority. Primefac (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
          • Nah, then I'll leave it to you! There are others waiting. --Trialpears (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
            • Pages with Talk header (~3600), pages without (~19k). The former will be removed and the latter will be converted. Primefac (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
              • I've seen a few that are used in sections on a talk page as a part of a conversation. These may warrant some extra attention. --Trialpears (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
                • Interesting point. I'll make sure they're always preceded by a template, which should minimize the number of non-standard uses that trip. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
                  • @Primefac: Please note that the {{Friendly search suggestions}} (FSS) template has several search options that are not existent in the other templates that were discussed at the TfD. Consensus at the TfD discussion seems rather clear that "all" were to be merged into the Find sources template (e.g. the multitude of "Merge all, add {{Find sources}} into {{Talk header}}" !votes), after which, the Find sources template would be added to the Talk header template. The latter has already occurred, but the FSS template links are still nonexistent. A lot of thought and work went into the FSS template, so it sure would be a shame if those valuable search links got lost in the mix somewhere. North America1000 16:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
                    • While I slog through the slow process of replacing uses, you are more than welcome to merge the content per the discussion (it's not necessarily a one-editor show). If you don't do so by the time I finish the orphaning, I will do so before deletion. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
                      • It seems relevant to link in a discussion NA1000 had with myself and Trialpears prior to the comment above, here. I'll repeat simply for the record that I'm not sure there was a consensus to add in a dozen more links, at least on the basis of that discussion. It was an undiscussed detail at the time, however, so I guess people can make up their own opinions on the matter. To not disclose that conversation above when repeating their interpretation of my own close, and then request someone else make the edit without disclosing the conversation to them, is probably forum shopping, however. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
                        • User talk pages are not particularly "forums", as in Wikipedia namespace areas, they're user talk pages, and I went there to discuss why the Friendly search suggestions template was being prematurely removed from talk pages before any merge occurred. Bottom line is that consensus at the TfD discussion was to merge, not to selectively merge, and not for the closer to later come along and decide via WP:SUPERVOTE to then delay the merge per their own personal opinions, ignoring the consensus that occurred. Fact is, I feel that the closer should have refrained from closing the discussion entirely and !voted instead, since they now appear to be against the merge from actually occurring.
                        At the talk page discussion linked above, ProcrastinatingReader stated "If, instead, you're not asking for my interpretation on the close (as the closer) and are instead just asking for something to be done, then note that I'm not standing in your way. I haven't touched the merge for months and am not currently implementing it. So I guess you can ask Trialpears, or edit the template {{Find sources}} yourself if you wish. I'm not standing in your way, objecting to that change, or saying I'll be reverting it.". How on earth could my post here then be considered as "forum shopping"? It certainly is not. It is commentary about a proper merge being performed. Simply put: WP:CONSENSUS was to merge, not to delay the merge. After the TfD discussion, users eagerly removed the {{Friendly search suggestions}} template from article Talk pages, and unfortunately, now only very rudimentary search options are available to those that perform research to improve articles.
                        Another matter is that the search options presently remaining are dumbed-down almost to the state of when the Find sources template was first created in 2007 (perm link). The merge should occur 1) per the consensus, and 2) because all of the innovation that went into improving search options over the course of years will go down the drain, in favor of the present dumbed-down version of the template. Moving backwards and providing inferior search options does not improve Wikipedia, it deteriorates it. North America1000 23:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
                        It's forum shopping (or asking the other parent, or whatever terminology you wish to use) because you asked the person doing the merge and got an answer, asked the closer and got an answer, presumably didn't like both answers, and then asked an admin giving your own interpretation again, without disclosing the interpretation of the closer and the person doing the merge. Of course, you're free to ask anyone else to look into it (or use your own advanced permissions and take responsibility for the edit yourself?), but you can't seriously say it's not forum shopping to go down a list of permission holders until one makes the edit unknowing of the history that wasn't disclosed to them. ProcSock (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
                        You've got this terribly wrong. You state "and then asked an admin giving your own interpretation again" The matter was discussed at Trialpears talk page and here. Primefac, the admin you appear to be referring to, has already stated here over a month ago (28 March 2021 UTC) that they will eventually perform the merge, before I even came along. Since Primefac has stated that they eventually perform the merge, I posted above initially as a friendly reminder for the FSS template to be included in the merge as per the consensus at the TfD. I have not contacted any other admins, as you incorrectly state above. This is a bizarre statement. I didn't even notice that Trialpears has template editor rights until I read your post directly above. There is no mythical list of users I am contacting based upon their permission levels, and I resent being unjustly accused of something I have not performed. I initially contacted Trialpears to ask them why they were removing the FSS template from talk pages. The user's permission levels has nothing to do with any of this; I would have asked any user the same question. For full disclosure, I also messaged Primefac on their talk page, thanking them for replying here and stating that it's unlikely I'll be able to perform the merge myself (diff) (because it appears that Lua skills are necessary). Also, I am allowed to state my opinion here and elsewhere. You're making a mountain out of a nonexistent molehill here, and I won't be responding further here about your armchair allegations. There is no forum shopping, and normative communication is allowed. I again reiterate that you should not have closed the discussion since you have a personal opinion about the scope of the merge, and you should have !voted instead. Good day. North America1000 04:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
2020 February 1 – Football_squad_player ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • At this point this is ready for large scale replacement. I said a while ago that I could do it but due to me being quite busy IRL this seems unlikely to get done in a timely manner. If you feel like doing a large scale replacement job feel free to take this one. --Trialpears (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Trialpears, what large-scale replacement? I (foolishly?) jumped into this rabbit hole, and have been in it for over a day now. This is a very complex merge; I've got the documentation diff to show fewer differences, but there's still more to be done. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Meta

  • Merge with Template:Infobox Chinese
    1.5 years later I've taken another look. The merger itself doesn't look toooo bad but I'm really not a fan of adding "Infobox Chinese" to tons of articles not related to China in the slightest. The 2019 RM didn't go too well though and it's perhaps best to try to at least partially take a look at the (imo not so relevant) things cited as issues in the RM. These are adding support for some other major languages which is currently partially or completely missing (Arabic, Hebrew, Urdu if I'm not mistaken, Greek and probably a few more). The ordering support is also somewhat lacking which would be a pain to fix if it wasn't a module. I'm not particularly trilled about taking it on but I'm not a fan of having this ancient merger around indefinitely either. Trappist the monk you seem like the obvious person to ask since you both developed the module and is the language guru, but it's completely understandable to not want to touch this. --Trialpears (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    If I remember correctly, I wrote Module:Infobox multi-lingual name to consolidate multiple various templates (with all of their unique peculiarities) into a single source. Then I wrote a long long document describing the things that should be done to make the whole mess more sensible. Alas, I lost that document as the result of a catastrophic computer failure which was perhaps serendipitous because of the drama the would inevitably arise – you know how wikipedians hate hate hate change because oh my god the sky is falling. In retrospect, I came to realize that the better solution is to restart as a fresh design beginning with a whole new specification. If the fresh design is any good it can organically take over from existing infoboxen without drama. I have done nothing to advance that because, as you can see, it appears that wikipedians are more-or-less happy with the crap template that I wrote. And, it appears, that wikipedians couldn't give two hoots about merging the two infoboxen because nigh on four years since the tfds and here the merge lingers... Better to declare the merger dead and get on with life?
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    Regarding the name - keep in mind we can create any number of useful redirects if adding "...Chinese" to something that isn't is a problem. That being said, if it gets built into a location-neutral module, it would make so much sense to rename the main template (wink wink). Primefac (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    It's a mess right now but I think the problem isn't that people don't care but that there are very few people who feel confident enough with both the lua and the languages to take it on and the few who do either don't want to get involved in the drama side or are simply busy elsewhere. I think I may deal with it after I've finished the mergers I've started but then there won't be any huge improvements to the module but rather just what's required for the merger. No matter what a second RM is coming. --Trialpears (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    The primary purpose of this board is to implement the merger. If there are improvements made along the way that's great, but they're not a requirement and (not that this is the case for this merge) shouldn't hold up a merge. Primefac (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    That the merge hasn't completed in 4 years surely means that it's reasonable to consider whether or not the original merge is still relevant. If we do continue with a merger, it seems perfectly reasonable to change the target to be called something like Template:Infobox multi-lingual name, using Module:Infobox multi-lingual name, rather than using the name of a language that isn't pertinent to many (most?) transclusions — the first page of Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_name_module shows me some Chinese but also a bunch of Japanese, French, Spanish and Italian films. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    @OwenBlacker: I tried renaming at Template_talk:Infobox_Chinese#Requested_move_23_September_2019. More likely than not I will get to this during the summer so at least it shouldn't get to five years. I don't really see much that would have changed people opinions on this template. Not much has actually happened on this front. --Trialpears (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 2020 November 28 – Old_move ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • 2020 November 28 – Old_moves ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
    Module version created. More information at Template talk:Old move#Module and merger. --Trialpears (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to some other format are put here until the conversion is completed.

To substitute

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (e.g. the template should be merged with the article or is a wrapper for a preferred template) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

To orphan

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

  • None currently

Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted.

  • None currently
Retrieved from "https://wiki.tachyony.co.uk/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Holding_cell&oldid=3199"