The result of the discussion was relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 5. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete it. Discussion about whether to refactor it or simplify it or turn it into a substituted template can be continued on the talk page. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Why would we have this instead of wikilinks for the terms themselves? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
{{Glossary link}}
's own documentation specifically says it is to be used this way, using {{Cuegloss}}
as the canonical example of how to use that meta-template properly! Please reconsider and revise. You can't possibly mean to seriously suggest that a frontend template should be deleted because it uses a metatemplate as its backend, when both templates are documented as working that way on purpose. Your "cheap redirects" case has also been dispensed with by Fuhghettaboutit, below.
24.23.163.55 (
talk)
23:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Note also that the form of linking through this template is slightly different than a regular link, displaying the dotted underline, which I believe uses the description list definition
HTML element of <dd>...</dd>
, which would not be replicated through just having a redirect to link through, even were it not impossible to use redirects for the majority, as shown.--
Fuhghettaboutit (
talk)
12:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
{{cuegloss|cushion}}
is many times easier on human editors (consider that a typically cue sports article may have numerous glossary links of this sort) than typing [[Glossary of cue sports terms#Cushion|cushion]]
, and vastly easier on both human editors and the system than creating redirects like [[Cushion (billiards)]]
, to things like #REDIRECT [[Glossary of cue sports terms#Cushion|cushion]] {{R to subtopic}}
and then manually doing [[Cushion (billiards)|cushion]]
links in articles.{{
glossary link}}
meta-template with a parameter and value for which glossary is being used; {{glossary link}}
was intended to be used this way, otherwise all uses must begin with something like {{glossary link|glossary=Glossary of cue sports terms|...}}
, repetitive typing of which might be enough to give people carpal tunnel syndrome. Probably half the templates on the system are precisely this kind of frontend solution. E.g. {{
WPBio|...}}
is a frontend solution to a complicated {{
WPBannerMeta|PROJECT=Biography|...}}
call, while {{
Clarify|...}}
is a shortcut way to do {{
Fix|text=citation needed|...}}
, and so on. [[Balkline]]
, an article about the game and its variants, would not serve a useful purpose as a replacement for a case of {{cuegloss|balkline}}
, which links to a glossary article entry that has multiple definitions, only one of which is the game covered by the article. The nominator could have figured this out by spending 15 seconds to look.{{
subst:cuegloss|baulk}}
rather than just {{
cuegloss|baulk}}
? I genuinely didn't mean any offence (your work, and that of everyone else involved in our high-quality cue sports coverage, is very much appreciated), but that doesn't mean that the argument can't be made that said articles go a little overboard in internally linking terms with which readers of domain-specific articles are by necessity already going to be familiar. "Being in balk and on two with his cue ball in the Parker's box, the player opted for a piqué form of masse stroke to work the well known and highly difficult nursing technique involving doubling the rail near the crotch to score through repeated tickies" is indeed a parseable sentence, but as you've already said we'd never employ so much jargon in a sentence here anyway.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk)
10:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)The result of the discussion was delete, there seemed to be a general misunderstanding of the difference between this template and {{ glossary link internal}}. Given that this template is (now) unused, and demonstrated as redundant, I see no serious objections to its deletion. The performance comparisons presented debunk any deletion objections based on the relative complexity. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no reason to make a template that is intended to only be used on one page. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
Glossary link internal}}
will break things, instantly and on many pages. PS: Koavf/Justin actually did
break things instantly on many pages (thousands of cases on over 500 articles) by not noinclude'ing the TfD tags in the template code of Cuegloss and Cuegloss2; this is typically done for inline templates that appear in article prose, so that our readers are not bludgeoned in the eyeballs with weird internal WP editing notices about templates for discussion.
24.23.163.55 (
talk)
22:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC){{cuegloss2}}
and {{glossary link internal}}
cuegloss2 | glossary link internal |
---|---|
Preprocessor visited node count: 124706/1000000 Preprocessor generated node count: 157527/1500000 Post‐expand include size: 1600628/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 806389/2048000 bytes Highest expansion depth: 26/40 Expensive parser function count: 22/500 Lua time usage: 0.231s Lua memory usage: 2.16 MB |
Preprocessor visited node count: 110474/1000000 Preprocessor generated node count: 157468/1500000 Post‐expand include size: 1399882/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 747664/2048000 bytes Highest expansion depth: 26/40 Expensive parser function count: 22/500 Lua time usage: 0.224s Lua memory usage: 2.19 MB |
The result of the discussion was relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 5. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete, after replacement Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Redundant to {{ Infobox park}}. Only 53 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
{{Infobox park}}
; indeed, that would allow for |status=
National Natural Landmark
.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
19:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)The result of the discussion was relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 5. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete or probably redirect to {{ Infobox historic site}} after replacement. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Redundant to {{
Infobox settlement}} various infoboxes (see below). Only 29 transclusions.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
17:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The full list is:
{{Infobox settlement}}
{{Infobox mill}}
{{Infobox military installation}}
{{Infobox military installation}}
{{Infobox museum}}
{{Infobox settlement}}
{{Infobox settlement}}
{{Infobox settlement}}
{{Infobox park}}
{{Infobox settlement}}
{{Infobox settlement}}
{{Infobox settlement}}
{{Infobox park}}
{{Infobox park}}
{{Infobox settlement}}
Please check my suggested replacements and amend/ add others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 5. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Redundant to {{ Infobox settlement}}; only 5 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 4. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 5. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete it. Discussion about whether to refactor it or simplify it or turn it into a substituted template can be continued on the talk page. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Why would we have this instead of wikilinks for the terms themselves? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
{{Glossary link}}
's own documentation specifically says it is to be used this way, using {{Cuegloss}}
as the canonical example of how to use that meta-template properly! Please reconsider and revise. You can't possibly mean to seriously suggest that a frontend template should be deleted because it uses a metatemplate as its backend, when both templates are documented as working that way on purpose. Your "cheap redirects" case has also been dispensed with by Fuhghettaboutit, below.
24.23.163.55 (
talk)
23:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Note also that the form of linking through this template is slightly different than a regular link, displaying the dotted underline, which I believe uses the description list definition
HTML element of <dd>...</dd>
, which would not be replicated through just having a redirect to link through, even were it not impossible to use redirects for the majority, as shown.--
Fuhghettaboutit (
talk)
12:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
{{cuegloss|cushion}}
is many times easier on human editors (consider that a typically cue sports article may have numerous glossary links of this sort) than typing [[Glossary of cue sports terms#Cushion|cushion]]
, and vastly easier on both human editors and the system than creating redirects like [[Cushion (billiards)]]
, to things like #REDIRECT [[Glossary of cue sports terms#Cushion|cushion]] {{R to subtopic}}
and then manually doing [[Cushion (billiards)|cushion]]
links in articles.{{
glossary link}}
meta-template with a parameter and value for which glossary is being used; {{glossary link}}
was intended to be used this way, otherwise all uses must begin with something like {{glossary link|glossary=Glossary of cue sports terms|...}}
, repetitive typing of which might be enough to give people carpal tunnel syndrome. Probably half the templates on the system are precisely this kind of frontend solution. E.g. {{
WPBio|...}}
is a frontend solution to a complicated {{
WPBannerMeta|PROJECT=Biography|...}}
call, while {{
Clarify|...}}
is a shortcut way to do {{
Fix|text=citation needed|...}}
, and so on. [[Balkline]]
, an article about the game and its variants, would not serve a useful purpose as a replacement for a case of {{cuegloss|balkline}}
, which links to a glossary article entry that has multiple definitions, only one of which is the game covered by the article. The nominator could have figured this out by spending 15 seconds to look.{{
subst:cuegloss|baulk}}
rather than just {{
cuegloss|baulk}}
? I genuinely didn't mean any offence (your work, and that of everyone else involved in our high-quality cue sports coverage, is very much appreciated), but that doesn't mean that the argument can't be made that said articles go a little overboard in internally linking terms with which readers of domain-specific articles are by necessity already going to be familiar. "Being in balk and on two with his cue ball in the Parker's box, the player opted for a piqué form of masse stroke to work the well known and highly difficult nursing technique involving doubling the rail near the crotch to score through repeated tickies" is indeed a parseable sentence, but as you've already said we'd never employ so much jargon in a sentence here anyway.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk)
10:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)The result of the discussion was delete, there seemed to be a general misunderstanding of the difference between this template and {{ glossary link internal}}. Given that this template is (now) unused, and demonstrated as redundant, I see no serious objections to its deletion. The performance comparisons presented debunk any deletion objections based on the relative complexity. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no reason to make a template that is intended to only be used on one page. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
Glossary link internal}}
will break things, instantly and on many pages. PS: Koavf/Justin actually did
break things instantly on many pages (thousands of cases on over 500 articles) by not noinclude'ing the TfD tags in the template code of Cuegloss and Cuegloss2; this is typically done for inline templates that appear in article prose, so that our readers are not bludgeoned in the eyeballs with weird internal WP editing notices about templates for discussion.
24.23.163.55 (
talk)
22:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC){{cuegloss2}}
and {{glossary link internal}}
cuegloss2 | glossary link internal |
---|---|
Preprocessor visited node count: 124706/1000000 Preprocessor generated node count: 157527/1500000 Post‐expand include size: 1600628/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 806389/2048000 bytes Highest expansion depth: 26/40 Expensive parser function count: 22/500 Lua time usage: 0.231s Lua memory usage: 2.16 MB |
Preprocessor visited node count: 110474/1000000 Preprocessor generated node count: 157468/1500000 Post‐expand include size: 1399882/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 747664/2048000 bytes Highest expansion depth: 26/40 Expensive parser function count: 22/500 Lua time usage: 0.224s Lua memory usage: 2.19 MB |
The result of the discussion was relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 5. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete, after replacement Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Redundant to {{ Infobox park}}. Only 53 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
{{Infobox park}}
; indeed, that would allow for |status=
National Natural Landmark
.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
19:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)The result of the discussion was relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 5. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete or probably redirect to {{ Infobox historic site}} after replacement. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Redundant to {{
Infobox settlement}} various infoboxes (see below). Only 29 transclusions.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
17:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The full list is:
{{Infobox settlement}}
{{Infobox mill}}
{{Infobox military installation}}
{{Infobox military installation}}
{{Infobox museum}}
{{Infobox settlement}}
{{Infobox settlement}}
{{Infobox settlement}}
{{Infobox park}}
{{Infobox settlement}}
{{Infobox settlement}}
{{Infobox settlement}}
{{Infobox park}}
{{Infobox park}}
{{Infobox settlement}}
Please check my suggested replacements and amend/ add others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 5. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Redundant to {{ Infobox settlement}}; only 5 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 4. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)