Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 8 October 10 >

October 9[edit]

Template:King's Cathedral and Chapels[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A fairly substantial navbox which contains no links to on-wiki content. As originally created, was a repository of external links. The only other edit made was to remove those links. A main article was created at the same time by the same user, which is currently at AFD, but wasn't even linked to this navbox! RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:39, 9 October 2021 (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).

Template:2020 Thomas Cup Group D standings[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content merged into 2020 Thomas & Uber Cup, the only article the template is used on. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC) Also nominating the following for the same reason:[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).

Template:Row numbers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete or keep for now. Please feel free to continue discussion about alternative methods (e.g., a bot) on the talk page or elsewhere. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template outputs a block of unparsed code for any users of the mobile apps. See here for an example of what that looks like. 150 million pageviews per month come via the mobile app. It's a small percentage overall, but... well, inferring (from other data) an average of 50 pageviews per user per month, that's 3 million people we're serving jumbled nonsense to. It's one thing to have a template that works imperfectly on the mobile app, but I don't think it's okay for us to be transcluding on 84 articles a template that renders their core content unreadable.

I understand that this template provides useful functionality. Thus, until T203293 is resolved, I would propose the following solution: Delete once someone codes a bot to do this. With a bot task, an editor could place something like <!-- Row numbers START --> and <!-- Row numbers END--> around a table, and then make a null template like {{numbered column}} to signal a column that the bot would update after any addition or removal of a row.

To be clear, if the above is unfeasible or undesirable, I would strongly favor outright deletion over outright keeping.

I'll note that I've looked into whether {{if mobile}} would be viable here, but I'm fairly sure it wouldn't be, because it could only remove the wrapping template, not the syntax within the template. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find the specific rationale for deletion here unconvincing, but nevertheless Delete as redundant to the {{static row numbers}} template family. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note that if this is deleted, please also delete Module:Row numbers. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not convinced that {{static row numbers}} and {{row numbers}} are redundant. At the most basic level they are similar: they number rows. But beyond that basic functionality the two templates diverge.—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So write the bot. Don't presume that someone else will do the work for you.
As I understand it, there is a lot of stuff that is visible on desktop that is not visible on handheld devices. If your primary objection to {{row numbers}} is that it renders wiki text for a table then {{if mobile}} might well be a sort-of solution. Whole tables can be wrapped with {{if mobile}} as I did in a simple experiment at List of motor yachts by length:
desktop view
mobile view (surely there's a 'mobile' interwikilink-like prefix isn't there?)
The text displayed could be enhanced to explain why; there could be an entirely separate table that renders only for mobile users.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be open to writing the bot if I have time. But I'm not presuming someone else will do the work, which is why my !vote is conditional on it happening.
As to the rest, though, sure, some stuff doesn't work on mobile, but this is the only case I'm aware of where editors have deliberately done something that breaks output (or, in your example, causes output not to render) on the mobile app—for a relatively minor benefit, at that. I don't know how you can reconcile that with our mission as an encyclopedia. As to using {{if mobile}} to actually show the output, my understanding is you'd have to duplicate the entire table markup (minus the _row_count column) for both of that template's parameters, which would be a maintenance hassle significantly greater than the one the template is meant to fix.
Another thing I just discovered while looking at a table that uses this: It doesn't work with the VisualEditor. Table editing is probably the best use case for the VE, so this is a pretty damning issue IMO. I'm now wondering if the extent of the issues this template causes isn't enough that this should just be outright deleted sooner rather than later. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: I have produced a fixed version of the template, which you can see tested at User:GKFX/sandbox. It doesn't use nowiki tags at all, instead reconstituting the table from the many arguments the parser splits it into. It is visible but essentially uneditable in the VisualEditor (trying to edit it there causes my laptop fans to spin up but not much else.) However, it is easy enough to edit in the wikitext editor, only needing the use of {{=}} to encode = signs. Is that an adequate solution? User:GKFXtalk 22:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that the GKFX table is visible in mobile view. Tamzin and GKFX. The automatically updated tables are also not editable in the Visual Editor. But I haven't heard from anyone wanting to delete them for that reason. See Help:Table and the section on automated tables updated daily by bots. Here is one example:
Template:COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country
I see a need for both static and non-static row numbers. So I think both {{static row numbers}} and {{row numbers}} should be kept.
--Timeshifter (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fixed version has now been moved from the sandbox to the live template and module. The use of <nowiki> tags with this template should be deprecated, tracked and removed. See the fixed version of List of indoor arenas in the United States for a demonstration that this works with minimal change to page code. User:GKFXtalk 17:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this template is extremely useful, especially for lengthy tables where numerical ranking of the entries is an important factor and the table is updated frequently. On a side note, there is a needless and condescending preachiness to this nomination that would be better served if avoided going forward. Furthermore, the accusatory tone is also unwarranted, as no one "deliberately broke" anything here. I use the mobile app and from the day this template was added to the List of motor yachts by length I have not encountered any issues with this table. Those calling for this deletion should at the very least have a clear understanding of what they are discussing, (eg: comparing this to other templates) and be willing to offer an solution along with any deletion !vote. (jmho) - wolf 02:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template is very useful,for lengthy and dynamic tables where numerical ranking of the entries is required.I neither find the template redundant nor the reasons for deletion convincing.Further,the proposal looks carrying a wishlist along than a solution.I oppose the deletion. User:Curnews 04:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this is one of three templates that suffer from this problem, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Warning nowiki broken. User:GKFXtalk 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be inclined to reccomend that we keep this for the moment, with the understanding that in the long term this should be replaced and deprecated. While there is some overlap, it has features that are not available with {{static row numbers}} and so not redundant, more details on the talk page.
    I agree that some readers are ill-served by this template. However, 100% of readers are ill-served by the manual methods needed without it. The long-term solution is to come up with a better method of providing these features or to code a bot to do it, and when that happens I doubt there'd be much opposition to deprecation; if I ever get the free-time I may try to get that done myself. Indeed, ideally MediaWiki would support these and many other features for tables without the need for any additional kludges, but the work involved in getting that to happen is considerable.
    Relatedly the mobile app is so defective that we're probably just better off discontinuing it than trying to work around its myriad deficiencies. This can give you some idea of the problems; if you poke around on phabricator you'll see a lot more. (please ping on reply)
    𝒬𝔔 15:28, 12 October 2021 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_9&oldid=1110951303"