Template talk:Sisterproject

This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 26 Feb 2012. The result of the discussion was Keep and orphan.

Pages using this template

Pages which might use this template:

Pages which might use this template in the future:

Template:Meta

This template should never be used

This template should never be used, because calling one template from another is a bad practice. -- Netoholic @ 02:55, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Your source for this contention would be? --Phil | Talk 10:54, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, there is the common sense that two templates require two calls to the database. I've answered more about it here. -- Netoholic @ 15:46, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  - Why are you explaining common sense to us, instead of the developers, who originally designed 5-deep nesting into the themplate system, and IIRC later removed that limitation? --Jerzy(t) 04:54, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
    - That limitation was for five instances of the same template displayed per page, not "nesting" five deep. -- Netoholic @ 06:24, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
      - Do you have a source for that, or just a source that mentions one but not the other? I recall quite specifically that both limitations existed, and that one (or both) was removed. My point stands even if depth-of-5 limit is still in place or never existed: the developers at one point believed that 5-deep nesting was not excessive, and they have not seen fit to restrict it as you are attempting to do -- as far as i can see singlehandedly.
      You continue as if your design wisdom exceeds not just that of your editor colleagues, but the collective wisdom of the designers of a major system that has been constructed with elaborate attention to problems of loading.
      
      What communication have you had with the developers?
      
      --Jerzy (t) 16:27, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

Calling one template from another is good practice, because it allows multiple similar templates to remain in sync. If the database query load is an issue, then a cache of wikitext-after-template-expansion could be added to the software, if it is not there already. —AlanBarrett 21:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deletion

This template is up for deletion at WP:TFD#Template:Sisterproject. Go there and vote! -- Itai 09:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Survey

Survey ends: February 9, 2005.

Trying to form a consensus. Should this template be used to generate templates listed above? This would ensure consistent formatting, and would make editing them easier. An example of the modification (for Template:Wikisource):

From:

<div class="noprint" style="clear: right; border: solid #aaa 1px; margin: 0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 90%; background: #f9f9f9; width: 250px; padding: 4px; spacing: 0px; text-align: left; float: right;">
<div style="float: left;">[[Image:sourceberg.jpg|50px|none|Wikisource]]</div>
<div style="margin-left: 60px;">[[Wikisource]] has original text related to this article:
<div style="margin-left: 10px;">'''''[[Wikisource:{{PAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}}]]'''''</div>
</div>
</div>

To: (current sisterproject layout)

{{Sisterproject |project=Wikisource
|image=Sourceberg.jpg
|text=[[Wikisource]] has original text related to this article:
|link={{PAGENAME}}
}}

Or: (very similar, slightly more flexible, sisterproject layout)

{{Sisterproject |project=Wikisource
|image=Sourceberg.jpg
|text=[[Wikisource]] has original text related to this article:
|link=[[Wikisource:{{PAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}}]]
}}

Support

(Sign your name & timestamp only, no comments.)

— Itai (f&t) 21:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
--Jerzy (t) 15:38, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
– Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:10, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Squash 20:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support votes after the "official" survey end on February 9, 2005
- Mononoke 20:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Blank<Verse ∅ 04:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Neutrality^talk 01:23, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:54, 2005 August 12 (UTC)

Oppose

(Sign your name only, no comments.)

Read Jamesday's post Cburnett 18:10, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
per Jamesday's concerns --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 03:56, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

The sisterproject layout cannot presently be changed, as it is used in Template:Wikiquotepar, which is protected. Once this is resolved, it will probably be unprotected. — Itai (f&t) 21:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it wouldn't do any good for me to point out that holding a survey is only supposed to be a last-chance effort when consensus cannot be reached. I really wish you'd let discussion handle this, rather than another unusually formatted survey. -- Netoholic @ 03:18, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
- No. Quit stalling. The discussion regarding this template has encompassed dozens of pages and a large portion of Wikipedia's bandwidth. If you're unhappy with the survey's format, format away. — Itai (f&t) 13:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Hey, read it for yourself at Wikipedia:Survey guidelines. Surveys are last-chance efforts to make a decision. Also, that page says not to start a survey without general agreement on the format. I don't even pretend to know all the options available to us, but this survey is not going to get us closer to any agreement. Like your previous ill-conceived polls, it will have no support and I will not be obligated by it at all. -- Netoholic @ 15:22, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
    - Any possible effort has been made to resolve this. (Users not familiar with this debate need but have a look at the contribution of Netoholic and me.) You are quite familiar with the options, having reverted them on many occasions. If you disagree with the format, suggest another. This will be resolved, Netoholic, and the decision will be made by the community, not you. — Itai (f&t) 15:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It seems to be formatted fine to me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:10, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
- So I guess it's my turn to spam a bunch of user talk pages and drum up votes, too? -- Netoholic @ 18:38, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  - It would seem pertinent to begin by voting yourself. Afterwards, feel free to notify any users who you think might find this relevant. — Itai (f&t) 21:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My question on WP:TFD has not been answered:

"Can anyone outline exactly how much of a burden this is? If we're talking an extra DB query on top of 100 queries for a page then it's not worth fretting over. Cburnett 01:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)"

Exactly what are the load requirements of nesting a template? If nesting changes the number from like 10 to 11 DB calls then ok, debate on, but if it's 100 to 101 then this debate is a WASTE OF TIME.

These technicalities aside, why isn't Netholic crusading against this but not Template:Metastub, Template:MetaPicstub, or Template:Stub Category? Has the wikipedia servers ground to a halt because templates like Template:Film-stub or Template:Math-stub have a nested template? Nope, doesn't look like it. So, it would appear that Netholic's object have no merit. If I'm wrong, then put something up other than making a mountain out of a mole hill. Cburnett 00:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Implementation

I was really quite torn about whether to implement this or not. While the legitimacy of the poll is not really in question (with one editor finding it illegitimate, half a dozen finding it legitimate), it did not seem wise to implement this as long as debate was going on. I fully considered offering that the deadline be postponed, but then realized that we'd have to vote on whether to postpone the deadline or not, which I would rather avoid. Basically, the idea behind this survey was that consensus is not likely to be achieved, and that a decision has to be made either way, rather than debated endlessly. While there was no clear majority for either side (there not being that many voters), this poll did conclude 4:2 in favor of the change. Even if you include Netoholic's implied vote, this is still 4:3. So, I have taken to implementing the change in all related templates. I have also made a slight modification to the template itself, which I hope no one would mind. — Itai (f&t) 22:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You sir, are acting stubbornly and foolishly. Yes, your changes will be reverted because the survey was a sham and not run properly. Thank you for yet again distracting us from productive editing, by pushing an idea which does not have even majority support. -- Netoholic @ 22:56, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

You're the only one who questions the validity of the survey. There is a slim majority support for the change. — Itai (f&t) 23:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I do not care who happened to sign your "survey", but reading the entire talk page here should show that many more people agree this is a harmful solution. There is no consensus for change, so the default is to revert to the previous "stable" condition. Netoholic @ 23:11, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

Oddly, "reading" through "this" talk "page" I "do" not "see" that "many more people agree" etc. For my part, I'm going to wait until tomorrow, when other people see this. Unlike you, sir, I believe in community decisions. — Itai (f&t) 23:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No meta-template, please.

There are a number reasons why so-called "meta-templates" should be discouraged, while there is only one reason I see for them being encouraged. Convenience. I am going to try and explain why "convenience" is a misleading concept, as well as describe the problems I see with these "meta-templates".

The existence of meta-template schemes for some uses has resulted in an explosion of related templates. This is most often because of the seeming "convenience" factor. It is very easy (I say too easy) to create a new entry in the template namespace. An excellent example of this is Wikipedia:Stub categories. This page documents templates created using the Template:Metastub & Template:MetaPicstub. There are literally now hundreds of these stub templates, many of which have been created on the spur of the moment. Many more are not even listed on that page because the creators have not listed them. The sheer quantity of this is growing out of bounds and the reason is the "convenience" granted. We've already seen many of these come through on WP:TFD... is it "convenient" to have to clean-up after someone creates a bad template like Template:Bush-stub?
There is a noticable, and expected, drain on the database due to these meta-templates. In normal cases, a single template entry is checked each time a page is displayed. When using a meta-template, like MetaPicStub, each call is doubled. The worst part happens, though, when a page is saved.
Each time a page is saved, all of its links from it are refreshed, including the reference to the template (and meta-template) being used. So when I update a page like Republic of Canada, the database creates all the normal links, and one to Template:Canada-stub, and one to Template:Metapicstub (a redirect), and one to Template:MetaPicstub. Look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:MetaPicstub - none of those articles are actually calling it directly, they are just "false links". All links are purged and re-created on page save. This takes a lot more time and server resources than even the database read in the first place. True, it may not be a massive amount, but every efficiency we gain goes towards helping the load on the servers.

In short, I think in at least this case, for creating sister project links, we can easily manage the space by normal maintenance means. If all it takes is for us to decide a standard format (div vs. table, etc.), then let's do that and document it. If we try to incorporate a meta-template here, we'll end up with so many one-off templates that it will be impractical. In fact, it has already started with Template:Picp and more. I am sure the one-offs are always good intentioned, but making it too easy to make them is a danger to consistency. We've got 8 sister projects, and at most need 3 templates (move, "PAGENAME", parameter) to achieve this. I will commit to keeping a better on those 24 or so templates to ensure they stay consistent. Let's avoid using a meta-template if we don't need it. -- Netoholic @ 16:29, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

#1 and conclusion are slippery-slope fallacies. You're saying that people will be creating hundreds of sister project templates? Exactly how many are there?

As for #2, I ask for numbers (twice now), which you haven't (can't?) given me. As for #3, that goes with #2. You haven't given anything other than generalities as to the true load requirements of nesting a template. Cburnett 17:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please read my post below and also stop creating huge templates and categories like stub rather than stubA or similar. Your reasoning that they should also be a problem and Netoholic should also be addressing them is correct: they are. All are a problem and all should be dealt with, generally by dividing them into smaller pieces, like splitting by the first two letters of the article title. To see why I suggest two rather than one, see the letter frequency and estimate how many pages will be updated by a single letter instead of dual letter division. Two letters won't be sufficient for some cases. Netoholic did discuss the possible, and actual, issues with the developers prior to writing. Jamesday 17:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you very much for the input. My beef was that Netholic was trying to speak with authority but couldn't give any real information to back it up. Cburnett 18:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Technical impact of templates like this

For those unfamiliar with me, I'm the developer most involved with the database servers. The use of this template creats significant problems for the following reasons:

When a template is changed, all pages involving that template are marked as invalid and uncachable (by changing the database entry of every page which uses the template) and must be purged from the Squid cache servers. On the next view of each of those pages, the apache web servers must carry out the slow operation of rebuilding the page, increasing the load on them and slowing down the site. That makes a template such as this, which would be featured on a very high percentage of pages, an excellent denial of service attack vector, since changing it or any component used in it would flush a substantial percentage of the site caches, which are critical to site performance and normally serve some 75-80% of all hits.
When individual work templates are involved, the flushing is limited to only the individual work concerned. That's still a major denial of service attack concern but it's nowhere near as bad as creating a single huge vulnerability and the load increases even legitimate edits to it involve.
Categories used in such templates are also a concern - huge categories also create a major load, response time and denial of service issue.
In addition to the specific update issues for each template, the template what links here, image description pages and all other components involved in the template become denial of service attack vectors, since they can involve reading very large numbers of database entries or upating very large numbers of pages when they are changed.

To give some idea, touching about 18,000 pages currently takes a database slave with 4GB of RAM, 6 drive RAID 10 array and write caching disk controller some 90 seconds. I know that time because I see it happening. While that update from a simple save to a template used on those 18,000 pages is happening:

all watchlists may be out of date by that amount of time
recent changes may be delayed by that amount of time
page history displays may be out of date by that amount of time
almost all page views are delayed by 10 seconds (because they all wait for that long when a slave is lagged, to give it a chance to catch up and deliver current information. Not waiting generates complaints about the out of date items above)
since few of the pages are likely to be the most popular pages which should be in the database and other site caches, the need to pull those items into the caches to update them also decreases site performance for some significant time after the immediate delay is over, while the caches reload what they should contain to service normal requests.
adding more databases servers doesn't help much: each of them has to do the same work. Splitting some projects onto different database servers does but that simply means that all viewers of any English encyclopedia page are affected, instead of all viewers of all sites. "Only" affecting en is an improvement but it's still not going to be appreciated by those using en.

The developers are working hard to reduce the number of things which can cause long lags of this sort. Templates like this are working hard to increase the number and frequency of them. Please avoid creating a single template which is used on more than a small percentage of the pages on the site. Creating new attack vectors on the database servers, Squids and apaches, which is what such templates do, is a very bad idea. Jamesday 17:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're quite right about the attack vector (naturally, being a developer), and this has been discussed before, phrased somewhat differently. And, as before, I ask this: are we really likely to encounter such knowledgeable attacks? (Modifications don't count. Modifying 24 templates to meet a new style would flush as large a percentage of site caches as modifying one meta-template. ) Seems unlikely to me. Besides, this means that no template should ever become too popular, lest it become a soft spot. I'm not convinced, although I am grateful for the technical input. (Summary: the appearance of Übervandals is unlikely. If they appear, they'll be blocked.) — Itai (f&t) 22:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're kidding right? This is the main DB developer on the project, and he's confirming everything I've said before plus bringing up another valid point about both accidental and deliberate DDoS attacks, and you're not convinced? -- Netoholic @ 16:14, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

Not kidding. Input appreciated. Understand point. Raise point of my own - you need to be able to edit Wikipedia to exploit this vulnerability. Vandals can be banned. — Itai (f&t) 16:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vandals can create multiple accounts in rapid succession, and also edit from proxy servers. Their edits could be subtle (adding an extra space), but sufficient for causing the caches to be purged. By the time you even got to banning them, it would be too late. -- Netoholic @ 17:28, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

I think you're worried unduly about something which has yet to happen. If I understand caching correctly, modifying the template twice in the same day would have little more affect on the cache than modifying it once. You can't do it over and over again in rapid succession and cause the same affect (indeed, you cannot cause quite the same effect until the cache has been recreated in its entirety). Should an attack happen (which I doubt - slowing Wikipedia down with only a handful of people knowing the reason hardly sounds like something which would give a vandal a kick), we'll reconsider. Worst case scenario, it will take very little time to decommission this template. Until an attack happens, however, I see no reason to live in fear. — Itai (f&t) 23:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're underestimating the vandals - we've seen template-based attacks on recent changes, the main page and assorted other places. The caching effect happens once and most of the harm is done. The database harm happens with every edit - the original one and the revert to undo it, for example. Subsequent ones are a bit less painful than the first if the set of pages is small enough to fit in database server cache because they won't need much more disk activity. We've also seen vandals apparently deliberately using lag-producing activities to delay detection, reaction and visibility of correction. Jamesday 11:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What you're saying is that if someone was to repeatedly edit Template:Metapicstub repeatedly, this would make Wikipedia grind to a halt? If this is the case, it should be protected immediately. If not, well, I'm still in favor of letting Template:Sisterproject have a trial run. (I realize I sound stubborn.) If it's used adversely, it can be decommissioned. — Itai (f&t) 15:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Could you compare the server impact of (on the one hand) making similar edits to eight separate templates that all look similar but do not use a meta template, versus (on the other hand) making one edit to a meta-template used by eight other templates. Suppose that the number of pages using the eight templates is identical in both cases. —AlanBarrett 17:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Assuming even distribution, each of the 8 edits would flush from cache one eighth of the pages in each edit. On the database side, lets look at that 90 second case I mentioned:

90/8 = 11.25 seconds, call it 12.
those who view in the first 2 seconds will wait ten seconds then see out of date information.
those who view in the remaining ten seconds will see delay of up to ten seconds and then completely current data.
so, splitting it has removed most of the visible lag and visible problem.

In normal editing there's likely to be normal human delay between edits, so it's likely that the next edit won't be within those ten seconds. Net result? Far less visible lag - far greater benefit than you might think if you didn't know how the pieces fit together. Eliminating such lag sources is one of the significant tasks we're engaged in, because people find them annoying and because of the slowdown effect. Having people creatively working out new ways to cause them doesn't really help...:) Jamesday 11:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If I read this correctly, I think James Day is saying these metatemplates could be harmful if they were frequently edited, because (and only because) they will be very popular templates. Wouldn't this problem go away if the metatemplate were protected? Then the Übervandals would have to be sysops, which is (obviously) very unlikely. By the way, James Day's information is a great reason why oft-used templates should be protected, since edit wars on oft-used templates cause all the problems mentioned. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 14:25, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is merit in protecting the extremely widely used templates, perhaps those used on 10,000 or more pages (or included within templates used in that many). Same applies for images used in that way because a change to such an image causes the same problem as a change in the template which includes it. In extreme cases one or more of the developers might act, as a developer, not as an admin, to protect the largest to protect the Wikimedia systems. Generally I try to dodge that sort of thing or just explain things, so people can work around the issue themselves with normal editing solutions once they understand why there's an issue and what approaches can deal with it. Jamesday 11:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that if there are templates which are used on that number of pages, we should probably seek some other solution than a template. Templates should be boilerplate text for common topic areas (navboxs, infoboxes, etc.), but qualities which exist in all subject areas (stubs, cleanup, expansion, etc.) should probably be handeled by a checkbox/marker/flag feature in MediaWiki. For those uses, templates are just a kludge. -- Netoholic @ 15:43, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

You forgot {{disambig}}. As I was saying on Wikipedia talk:Meta-templates considered harmful, this has nothing to do with meta-templates. — Itai (f&t) 15:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is currently no provision in the Wikipedia:Protection policy to support permanent protection of any template as a preventative measure against possible vandalism. After all, protected pages are considered harmful, as well. I do not support an elite core admins controlling these meta-templates, when other alternatives abound and when they still are a drain on the server resources. -- Netoholic @ 16:36, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

It would appear that you would prefer to participate in editwars on oft-used templates[1]. Regardless, this question could better be debated at Wikipedia talk:Protected page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 17:47, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

And your "accusation" is better debated on my talk page. I suggest keeping away from that sort of argument, and keep this discussion on topic, and about the overall technical problems. -- Netoholic @ 19:08, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

Template disputes happen. That includes disputes among admins. That's part of why it's not really sufficient to just protect the template. Protecion will help, but... people do change things, and are supposed to be able to do so. It's better to arrange things so they can, without causing undue problems. Jamesday 11:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Enough

Enough. This has been discussed and supported on Wikipedia talk:Sister projects. This has been on WP:TFD twice (1, 2), and has been endorsed by the community on both occasions. The survey above has shown there to be support for using this template (true, Netoholic did not take part in formulating the survey, but I have asked him repeatedly beforehand to join me in this, which he refused). A single bullying user opposes this (a few others have raised legitimate concerns, but none have so flaunted proper Wikipedia procedures), taking measures such as turning the template into a redirect when his WP:TFD vote has failed. If this template is not used - if a single user can, by repeated violations of procedures and etiquette, prevent the implementation of a change supported by a majority of editors – than the Wikipedia community has failed. — Itai (f&t) 10:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Meta-templates considered harmful for a number of reasons. This template was a poor idea, and even when he was corrected, Itai is too bull-headed to give up. Look at his contributions. He has done hardly anything lately except log in and continue vandalize Wikipedia to make some sort of point. I say vandalize because he knows that the meta-template is a server resource problem, plus each unnecessary edit to these templates cause every page that uses them to be purged from the server cache, slowing down Wikipedia for us all. Unfortunately, I don't know of anyone else that has tried to resolve this with him, or else I'd file an WP:RfC. -- Netoholic @ 17:21, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

This is not about right or wrong. (Altough, of course, I am right and the other person's wrong - which I daresay is precisely Netoholic's opinion.) This is about decision making. This is about community. This is about the need to ban Netoholic. — Itai (f&t) 17:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One more go

That I am still pursuing this is a testament in my belief in the eventual triumph of good. This template has been surveyed once on this page, and twice on WP:TFD. In all cases it has been voted kept or used. Not using it is an insult to the Wikipedia community. — Itai (f&t) 02:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You leave for days, or weeks at at time, and then return only to revert these? Give me a break. -- Netoholic @ 03:17, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

You may have it. Anyway, enforcing community opinion is by no means disrupting Wikipedia. — Itai (f&t) 16:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you had true community opinion, it wouldn't be, but as such, all you have is a nagging habit of making extra work for me and not even bothering to let this rest. Doing this repeatedly without productive discussion is disruptive. I've made my case at Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful, where's yours? -- Netoholic @ 18:46, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

Above. And at Wikipedia talk:Sister projects. And at WP:TFD. And at many of the talk pages of the individiual templates. If you're looking for me to create Wikipedia:Meta-templates are swell, you're going to be looking for quite some time. As for this particular template, my point is made, and the community agrees with me. — Itai (f&t) 21:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So why is it again that the community isn't the one that edit wars over this? -- Netoholic @ 21:54, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

Because the community, while having an opinion, does not genuinely care about so obscure a subject. I, on the other hand, do. — Itai (f&t) 06:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, you just do this to make some obscure point. I have explained many times that there is only one way I will stop undoing your damage. I only wish you'd work with me, and not against me. -- Netoholic @ 06:23, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

The only way that you will stop "undoing my damage" is if your version is kept. Sorry, but no. And, on the off chance someone other than myself and Netoholic is reading this, I shall restress something I have said before - Netoholic's sole claim against the survey above is that he did not participate in phrasing it, which I have, on numerous occasions, asked him to do. Netoholic, quit stalling. The community has voiced its opinion, and I shall enforce it. — Itai (f&t) 06:38, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ending the metatemplate dispute

Given netoholic's request for clarification, and Tim Starling's statement since the closure of the case concuring with James's opinion that this page is harmful, the arbcom is considering the future of this page, and it will likely be deleted. →Raul654 21:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

It is my understanding that simply protecting this template and discouraging any further edits to it will prevent most of the load issues. --mav 16:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to disagree, since Jamesday would have suggested that as a permanent solution. Certainly, protecting this prevents the sudden surge of database stress caused when it is edited and all related pages are flushed form cache. If you read above under #Technical impact of templates like this, you'll see that Jamesday gives other reasons that on-going use of this sort of template is a burden. Specifically, as each article is edited, the rebuild requires extra database reads. Yes, it's a small impact, but if we don't avoid using these, it does add up. -- Netoholic @ 16:34, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the same issue exists for every template used on a page whether it is inside another template or if it stands alone (that is, every template - regardless of where it is directly called upon - is queried when a page it is displayed on is saved). I don't see that as the major issue here. But changing the content of any template that is on thousands of different pages is a major issue regardless if it is a meta template since that flushes the cache for all those thousands of pages. An interim solution to that problem would be protecting these templates and discouraging admin edits to them. Both issues can and should be dealt with in future versions of MediaWiki. --mav 18:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my problem with Mav's idea - let's say we do as he proposes, and protect this page, and continue to use it on hundreds-of-thousands of articles. Well, essentially, we've now created a landmine, that when someone *does* come along and (god help them) makes even a slight change - BAM, the databases get whacked. The mere existance of a template that is used on a significant portion of the database is a danger for that reason. →Raul654 18:24, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

That is an argument against the extensive use of any template. Why single this template out? It certainly is not the worst offender. For that see template:stub and template:disambig or even template:Regnum. A strict moratorium on editing all popular templates until an adequate technical solution is found seems to be a reasonable compromise. --mav 21:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is an argument against the extensive use of any template - yep, that just about sums up what I am arguing for. Template:stub, believe it or not, is *not* used very extensively anymore, because the stub-sorting has converted it over to the genre-tags. Disambig, on the other hand, like this template, is a big problem. A strict moratorium on editing all popular templates until an adequate technical solution is found seems to be a reasonable compromise - that would be acceptable to me. →Raul654 21:22, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Stub is today a much more temporary tag, as Raul said. Template:Disambig is already protected (rightly so). As far as Regnum, I think the whole taxobox system is archaic and could use with a practical re-design. Valid concern, but a discussion for another day. -- Netoholic @ 02:06, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Template:Regnum et al are extremely stable. Regnum itself for example has had two edits in the last year - one piece of vandalism and a reversion. I don't think those of us at the Tree of Life project therefore would have a problem with protecting all the relevant templates, with a statement why on the talk page. Note they do have a good solid purpose - enabling internationalization. Pcb21| Pete 09:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Only just discovered this template now. Can a better (i.e., non-sexist) name for it be found? - MPF 18:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. It's basically in-line with the Wikipedia:Sister projects page, so that would also require a change. -- Netoholic @ 20:54, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

I think this is, um, a pointless endevour designed to fix a non-issue. →Raul654 20:58, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have no particular objection to Template:Siblingproject, if that's what makes you happy. — Itai (f&t) 08:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would make people like me unhappy as it would look stupid. "Sister project" isn't sexist, just standard English. Pcb21| Pete 09:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No new use

The present attempt to modify this template is been attempted by Netoholic before ([2]) - hijacking templates being a typical Netoholic way of solving disputes - and is something I oppose. The template namespace is big and flexible enough for a new name to be chosen for Netoholic's new template. If you want to delete Template:Sisterproject, do it (or rather, allow me to move it to my User: namespace); if you want to keep it for reference, much the better. But using this particular name would make the edit histories of all sister project templates meaningless to an outside reader - why would anybody use this template in all these templates - and is thus something best avoided. — Itai (f&t) 08:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a request on Netoholic's page asking him not to reuse this template until he comes to some kind of mutual understanding with you, Itai. →Raul654 08:10, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, in case anybody else is reading this, an explanation for the blanking of this template (kindly provided by Raul654) is found here. — Itai (f&t) 08:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot "hijack" something that doesn't have a purpose. This template will not be used as a meta-template any longer, as stated by the Arbitrators, and was blanked out and orphaned. Since the name of the template is moderately useful, and not wanting to see the blanked template deleted (because of it's history), I see no problem with re-purposing it into something very useful.

Frankly, I ask the readers of this page not to support Itai's querulous attitude. If it weren't for his long history of edit warring and nasty attitude towards me, I might assume good faith. In this case, Itai is looking only to cause some new argument about a non-issue. I am reverting his blanking of this template as vandalism. He has no grounds to blank a, frankly, nice-looking and useful template. -- Netoholic @ 16:56, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

I can not see why you could not have gone ahead and create a brand-new template (template:SisterProjects would be a better name anyway) and then you could have avoid all this Sturm und Drang. Instead, it seems obvious to me that you "repurposed" this particular template just to piss off Itai when it would have been easier to create a new template. That you went ahead and reverted this template in spite of the very polite request by one of your mentors says much about both your habitual obstinacy, as well as your fixation over this particular template. (And since, according to you, all "blanking is considered vandalism", then User:Raul654 must also be a vandal.) Blank<Verse ∅ 17:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I repurposed this template only because I like the page name matches its function. Why must go through a dragged-out deletion process, just so I can re-create my template afterwards? Itai is being overly sensitive to things and isn't being practical. And you, BlankVerse, are just stirring the pot further. Misquoting me just makes that clear (I said about Itai that "his blanking" was vandalism, not all blanking). I really hate pissing matches. I note that noone is debating whether my new template is useful or not.... only that "Netoholic is evil". I'm so bored. Grow up all of you. Help me make our articles better. -- Netoholic @ 19:27, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Netoholic - To reiterate, since Itai and Blackverse have made it abundantly clear that they don't want you reusing this template, and since I don't think it is a terrible burden for you to use a different name, I think it would be in everybody's best interests if you picked a different name. →Raul654 20:06, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Oh woe is me...Netoholic feels that he is getting picked on. As Itai pointed out above, you had already tried to repupose this template once, so it sure looked like you were falling back in to old habits.

Quite frankly I think that you should have known that repurposing this template, considering the contentious disposition of some of the revert war participants, would have stirred up trouble. The most recent revert war is proof of the strong feelings involved.

As for the name matching the new use: I think that the Template:Sisterproject is a very misleading name for the new use because the name is singular, but the new use is a combination of the different sister projects. Your new template needs a new name, such as the one I suggested: Template:SisterProjects. As for the new template itself, it does look like it could be very useful. There are more and more articles that have three, four, and sometimes more sister project templates on them, and that looks very cluttered.

As for my "misquoting" you, I was just exaggerating your stance because you were being very selective about who you called a vandal.

When I did my last post, I was basing my comments only on what I had seen here, which looked like a fairly good summary of the action. I just saw on Raul654's Talk page that you did asked him before you made your changes. I think that is a Good thing. On the other hand, I'm a disappointed that Raul654 didn't think things though a little bit more BEFORE he gave you approval to repurpose the template. He also should have been able to see the complaints from Itai that the change would cause (and Netoholic's older "hijack" of the same template was in the evidence in his arbitration).

(And Netoholic, could you please quit using "noone". "Noone" is not a word. It is either "no one" or "nobody". "Noone" is a last name, like Peter Noone.) Blank<Verse ∅ 16:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, this template appears to have never been orphaned. It's used as a regular template by plenty of articles. Hence, it should not be blanked, and it should not be changed into something completely different. dbenbenn | talk 02:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, every article reference in Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Sisterproject is an artifact of the use of this meta-template. This is one of the major problems with using meta-templates because these false links are created. Unfortunately, the link between the articles and this will not be removed until the articles themselves are each edited next. Check for yourself. -- Netoholic @ 03:22, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)