Jump to content

Global templates/Discuss/oppose

From mediawiki.org
  • I read Global templates/Proposed specification, short version and I think that it's a bad idea because... --(your signature)
  • Global templates will inevitable include code that does nothing on some wikis, which, on those wikis, amounts to code bloat. * Pppery * it has begun 17:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, the user in one Wikimedia sister project could ask a bot to include a global template in the project. The important thing: it can be Wikimeda wide easily / nearly automatically / automatically disposable --BoldLuis (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @BoldLuis: I don't understand what you're trying to say. * Pppery * it has begun 21:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery: You can put in one template Template:Noupdate and can continue using the same template locally. But if in one place want the template globally update, can deciede do so. The choice is in your hand. And in the hand of others for their templates. (I'm sorry if I answer quite a bit later, but it has caught me a very busy time). --BoldLuis (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @BoldLuis: This doesn't address the problem; I believe the entire infrastructure is a bad idea because it perpetuates code bloat. The result of this system will be, regardless of the efforts of any individual editor or the presence or absence of opt-out templates, is that the template and module namespaces of every wiki will get polluted with pages not relevant to them. I've already seen this happen on the English Wikipedia with en:Module:Complex date/en:Module:LangSwitch/en:Module:DateI18n/en:Module:i18n/*/en:Module:Roman-cd/en:Module:Ordinal-cd/..., all of which are useless except on multi-lingual wikis but exist anyway because of pre-existing ad-hoc template and module globalizations. Implementing this as a well-established bot is doomed to make this problem even worse. * Pppery * it has begun 21:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So,in your modules en:Module:Complex date/en:Module:LangSwitch/en:Module:DateI18n/en:Module:i18n/*/en:Module:Roman-cd/en:Module:Ordinal-cd (you can include a list), you can add nogupdate. The problem is worse, when you use a text from Wikipedia in non-English to another Wikipedia. Templates are in this other language. If there is a common infrastructure for some templates, you can use in the other language. An idea can be, without translation, because you could use a wizard to see the code template in your own language. What now: copying and pasting a lot of copy from one Wikipedia to the other one and compatibility zero. Babel zero. It is more easy exclude template (also exclude all, excepting XXX ) that have nothing when you need it. BoldLuis (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're still misunderstanding me. I'm not complaining about the content of those module pages, I'm complaining that they exist. I would instead have to add the "don't update" magic word to every module that uses them. I think that that effort is large enough that the entire proposal is a bad idea. In short, the "global templates" proposal is saying "every wiki should have every template", whereas I instead feel strongly that "wikis should only have templates that are relevant to them". I believe this difference in ideology to be irreconcilable, and therefore oppose this proposal. * Pppery * it has begun 23:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The "noupdate" template, which BoldLuis suggests, is not in the proposal, and it won't be necessary.
    More importantly, the "global templates" proposal is absolutely not saying that "every wiki should have every template". It very, very explicitly says the opposite: It must become possible to share templates across wiki sites. Possible, not required. As it is with images: images that must be reusable on all wikis are on Commons, but some images can also be local, for any reason.
    The proposal also explicitly says that it must be possible to make some templates non-global.
    Currently we have forked copies of templates with similar functionality in dozens or even hundreds of wikis. This is a much worse code bloat than having access to a template or a function and not using it. --Amir E. Aharoni {{🌎🌍🌏}} 17:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Will there be left room for local variations, thinking of e.g. infoboxes, navigation templates, layout of them, own initiatives to make templates, etc.? Ymnes (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ymnes, I'm so sorry, I only noticed it now! The answer is yes, of course! It's one of the most important points, and it's written explicitly several times in both the short version and the long version. For example:
    I hope it answers your question! --Amir E. Aharoni {{🌎🌍🌏}} 10:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amire80: thank you for your answer! Ymnes (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]