Wikipedia:WikiProject template sharing/Tfd record-Tfd2

this is a verbatum copy of the WP: Tfd in January 2007

For those unfamilar, this is the best online discription of the proto-project Original source page of the below.

Template:Interwikitmp-grp

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. —Cryptic 22:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renominate this tempalate, as it has no use in it's current format, for example on {{tlx}} it's broken. _→AzaToth 12:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interjected out-of-timeline: based on discussion lower down

NOTICE: Now updated per well grounded complaints
I had to pull an all-nighter to free up enough time to evolve this ugly version more (see below), and while this whole scheme and system isn't perfected yet, the process will in the end result in a template which sizes dynamically by the sisters having the name equivilent.
As a matter of fact, that was a goal as early as August, but I lacked the template knowledge how to iterate it to the next level--which is one reason I put it off as tasking in mid-December when I was able to give the wiki's significant regular time again. Too, there are and were significant changes all over the place here in the three months I was 'gone', so catching up is something I'm still doing. Add in a couple of WP:AMA 'brush fires' I advocate/mediated in, and well... I can but do my best in the available hours! Should get there soon as I got some more talented HTML and template expert help, helping me now with the sticky parts. regards // FrankB 16:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, this template is one of a set used to autocategorize, tag and flag templates maintained here where there is a large template savvy staff with vast experience and knowledge and aggressive anti-vandalism patrolling. These are used to cross connect template spaces for tools templates useful across sister's, mainly originating here, but ported and disemenated to our sister projects using the same category scheme. Templates tagged thus and updated are supposed to have the improvements transmitted across sisters.
(1)) It cannot be 'broken' as if the nom. hadn't seen it, on tlx, then it would have been broken by failing to deliver the links and that message.
(2) The auto-categorizing is also working,
(3) There did appear to be a busted link in the Meta linking sub-template, most likely introduced by a BOT--that has happened before.
(4) If there is part of this malfunctioning, such as a link to a sister, it's more likely something not yet in place (not yet ported, which has not yet proceeded systematically, but instead at need, tagging of general tools not yet taking place pending discussion with the Meta 'Communications committee'--for cross language consideration.). The exception to that was wiktionary (which wants no uppercase first names, as offensive to their NAMCON), hence the project failed TfD as no one notified me it was in progress.
(5) Furthering the project has been on hold, save for some time circa Christmas prepetory to shrinking and condensing the notification display, as I had very pressing real life matters to deal with last fall, and am just getting back and up to speed on wikiwork.
(6) Prioritizing time for that continuation is currently somewhat bogged down by mediations needs, but it is on my to-do list. Best regards. // FrankB 21:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problme I see it is that it's telling us that a sister project "has" the template, but given on {{tlx}}, wikibooks and wikisource hasn't the template, and the link to a template on meta is broken. Also, what project is it you are talking about? _→AzaToth 22:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's covered by likely something not yet in place, as in not ported to that sister. The last time you tagged it for deletion coincided with the end of a major redesign and revision, which changes were limited and promulgated to only select sites and pages thereon--I was flat out of time. Then I had to disappear, but made sure the fundamental parts were functional and working before doing so... that cost me two consecutive all-nighters, which are nothing to the young, but costly to someone like me in my fifties.
Since furthering the project will take an additional big chunk of time, it's enqued, catching up on various things and mediating have priority. Feel free to copy over whatever template is not there... you'll save me the trouble. If written properly, even the help translates over without changes.

Delete. I find plastering template documentation pages with these ugly large boxes unhelpful. Clutters up template documentation (example Template:Tlx). Why bother with maintaining complicated template code like this? --Ligulem 22:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but unhelpful to whom, under what circumstances?

- The system has a multipurpose aim:
  1) Have common tools and tool categories for those of us who also donate time to the other sisterprojects. One wiki learning curve is more than enough to master, thankyou. These were inspired by trying to do quick tasks on the commons, wiktionary, and wikisource related to editing here, and then getting stuck as the familiar tools were sometimes missing--costing me time. Having familiar tools to talk about a category, template, or article (lc, lts, la, etc.) just frees more time for all of us to edit in the long run.
  2) By spreading our well developed tools abroad, so to speak, the system enables editors there to have the same bag of tricks. Multipying their efficiency and benefiting all the foundation projects in some measure. Moreover, they serve as a visual reminder that if one of our mature templates is improved and has been exported, the improvement ought be shared with our sisters.
  3) By serving up a common tools template category system, the ported tools give an indirect but quick hook into that sister's admin structure, again a time and efficiency multiplier.
  A) That the display is ugly, I agree with, and the most recent work was adding perameters to allow the basic individual templates to be miniturized and shrink the size of the basic array which is in fact this precise template. This in fact will be the focii of my next effort with them. My HTML is fairly weak, so wouldn't mind a hand at all.
  B) My programming days were in assembler and C, so forgive me if I see the characterization of Complcated code as a bit of hyperbole. The code has several #if logicals to handle multiple states (or conditions). Outside of those, they are linear and simple flow into the top and out of the bottom. Far simpler than many an template I've seen here. The main case is whether the template is not included (a self declaration in it's own page, as when viewing this one), wherein it includes the proper documentation '/doc page' links as I believe you and Conrad worked out together Ligulem for template documentation, the main use is however the case of being included, in which case the documentation is for a template being tagged as having interwiki scope, such as {{tlx}}, where such documentation has nothing to do with this basic template.
  C) The numerically suffixed versions (interwikitmp-grp0, ...1, ...3, etc.) have been drastically shrunk and simplified and are in fact mere shells which call this fundamental template, and concurrently handle the main types and combinations of autocategorization as this template's usage documents. This was the streamlining and simplification work finished on 12 September, the day before the previous Tfd nomination, and my break off in RL, and will be resuming soon. (Glad I missed that one! It would have been too much on top of all that revision work!)
  D) The first seen 'text' is mere iterim documentation, that helps me keep things straight with version numbers, file names and such. In practice, it was more pragmatic to park and upgrade all a sites versions from offline files, vice trying to single edit a whole series.
  [There were for example naming collisions on this site or the other, and only by putting the skelatal tagging system in place could I be sure I'd handled related issues (e.g. on many sites, the site's own prefix (like 'W:') won't work, so [[Commons:namespec]] will always give a bad link on the commons.]
  ... In time, that file header version will be made to vanish. It doesn't present on any tagged template, so it doesn't even add to 'ugly' in the sense used above, but is germane, since you're arguing beauty matters.
  E) Insofar as tagging the tool template is concerned, an immediate improvement is to move the {{Interwikitmp-grp}} tag to the end of the noinclude block, even if it means adding a second one down the end of the subject tool template. This is in fact what I have been doing in the few updates I've made since I returned to wikiediting shortly before Christmas. THIS at least cuts down the uglies influence on tagged templates, and moves the message down to where the tool template's usage is the first thing one sees on the page.

Hope that clarifies things. // FrankB 03:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important Post dated note: Subsequent experience has shown the template to cause a server loading issue when modified since it's hooked into so many tools templates on so many pages. It is therefore imperative to hook it in using WP:DPP (Template doc page pattern) when used, in which case, the exact place it manifests in the template page documentation can be chosen to be unobtrusive and non-interfering quite easily. // FrankB 17:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Xpost: Fm {{Ut|Ligulem}... a wider perspective:
I'm open to suggestions that satisfy the basic goals of such tagging, as I just elaborated upon, but this is not a shallow 'I'm-only-interested-in-my-backyard-thing', but one which should help conserve funds for the foundation on all it's projects. The alternative to one small descendent of this iterim template is individual tagging by the individual templates for the sister's using same. That would clutter up the tools templates far more than the one small line imposed by this arrary or it's targeted autocategorization versions, so I chose the array of impliementation, though on some templates where there is a naming collision requiring a work-around (e.g. 'tl' vice 'TL', 'Cat' vs. 'Cat', etc.). CBD has been helping me focus this all along, and perhaps if my last post isn't convincing to you, you might ask his take on it. Bottom line, the tagging will have benefits on interwiki production and conserving editor's time. The benefits here are small, the benefits 'there' are important. Most sites can't spend a lot of man-hours reinventing the wheels we already have entrenched and debugged versions of, and then they haven't the personel to police anti-vandalism needs.
Even with all our personnel, our system relies on watchlists which are a very weak link if one goes away from wiki for a while. This system at least provides for a fast link to a source template where the A/V patrolling is much more vigorous and more highly manned. Best regards // FrankB 04:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but replace multiple-box displays. Suggest single box along lines of:

Regards, David Kernow (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--Now that's what I'm talking about! And above and beyond the call! Thanks! // FrankB</font> 11:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with a version that isn't so ugly, that's better documented, and that actually works. --ais523 17:23, 22 January 2007 (U T C)

Updated Notification here in chronological timeline. // FrankB 16:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update The template has now been changed by Farbartus to be less ugly and to actually work in most cases; I've fixed it to work for the link to Commons as well. (Note that my 'replace with' !vote has now been fulfilled, so it can be taken to be a 'keep'.) --ais523 17:13, 26 January 2007 (U T C)

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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was subst and delete as a vanity template. Tijuana Brass 10:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Metawiki	See	{{{link}}}
Wikipedia	See	{{{link}}}
Commons	See	{{{link}}}
Wiktionary	See	{{{link}}}
Wikibooks	See	{{{link}}}
Wikiquote	See	{{{link}}}
Wikisource	See	{{{link}}}
Wikinews	See	{{{link}}}
Wikispecies	See	{{{link}}}
Wikiversity	See	{{{link}}}