Template talk:Infobox/Archive 1

message: As the point of this template appears to be to demonstrate good practices for template newbies, I think it's important that  be shown as one of the examples. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your idea presumes that any conditional rows in an infobox is a "good practice".  It seems that may not be the case, and I have trouble seeing any consensus being reached as to which conditional method to standardize on. Let's avoid that headache on this page. -- Netoholic @ 21:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's not. I believe there's a consensus in favor of showing people the correct way to have conditional rows displayed. Certainly people can standardize easily on  because it lacks the accessibility issues associated with hiddenStructure, and it lacks the complexity issues inherent in a forked template design. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Let's not. I agree with Locke Cole. --Ligulem 22:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thirded. Conditionals are very important in infoboxes. If done right, they make things much simpler for article editors.  Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 08:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: We should discourage the use of conditionals until there is a better solution. Regardless of which method you prefer - it seems clear that they should be avoided - and new template creators shouldn't thus be encouraged to find ways to use them when a standard template will do. Trödel•talk 22:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When a better solution is available we can switch to it, but until that time we would be doing people a disservice to not show them the preferred method of conditional inclusion. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I totally agree - but why continue to teach new users of templates to use what we know is a flawed system - let them ask someone if they need conditionals. It is a disservice to teach them to use a flawed technique.  Trödel•talk 04:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is currently the only technique available that works correctly. By using , when such a system is in place, we should be able to use Special:Whatlinkshere to find templates that need to be converted to the new system. Otherwise, we risk editors finding hiddenStructures or other flawed conditional inclusion methods and getting them into widespread use (which would be unfortunate considering the damage they do). I am reverting your removal on these grounds (and on the grounds that at least two others seem to agree). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But it is ugly and hard to edit (i.e. other then just use). So why should we teach it to new users. I am not advocating using hiddenStructure - only that we should NOT encourage the use of any conditionals. Those that really need them can find the information to use them but to include them here is not useful. And please don't pretend that we have concensus here - there are very few people even discussing this issue. Trödel•talk 05:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The alternative to using conditionals is using two or more templates where only one is needed. This is ugly, difficult to maintain, and poor technique. We'll have real conditionals in the software soon enough; until then,  is the best solution we've got.  Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I just want to ask you guys to settle it, perhaps asking people on other places to comment, we don't want this to becomie a revert war, as some of you are close to 3RR. Please ask on irc, I know some of you have actively participated on metatemplates, booleans, etc discussions, but we should settle first before start reverting. --  ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conditionals

message: I'm watching this page, and don't care what the content of the template is... Please stop the revert war or I'll lock it down until you have consensus here. --Syrthiss 19:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop the revert war, please 

message: I've reverted this to the versions without .  To me the reason is simple per AUM and when I'm talking about AUM I'm talking about the section with questions about when a meta-template should be considered and I feel this fails all instances.
#Is the end product essential to Wikipedia, or is it a primarily decorative feature? Meta-templates that are not essential should be avoided.
#:Pretty clear here, I don't think anyone considers this addition "essential", desirable is an argument but it isn't essential.
# Is the template likely to be high-profile? High-profile templates cause more server load, and so are less appropriate for meta-templates.
#:Is there a template more higher profile than this one?  If there are, you can probably count them on one hand.
# Is the desired effect only achievable through a meta-template, or can a template of basically the same appearance be made without them? If the same effect can be achieved differently, even if it is more difficult, a meta-template should be avoided.
#:This is clearly being achieved differently and is somewhat more difficult than the QIF option.
# Will later editors understand how this works?
#:No brainer -- absolutely not.  Unless one is familiar with template creation and usage I would say about 98% of the editors have no idea how this works.
All of that said, even though I reverted I would encourage this to calm down and be discussed.  I see nothing but hostile reverts the past couple of days amongst more or less four people.  I see some strikingly hostile ones in there as well.  Continued behavior, 3RR or not could lead to more drastic action needed to keep the peace.  3RR doesn't give you license to go and do another 3 reverts the next day, this is not useful or helpful.  Answer the issues that need to be addressed and work to achieve a consensus.  I've seen "consensus" bandied about here but no discussion to back up that one has been reached.  --Wgfinley 20:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're citing a rejected policy that the lead developer has described as being based on inaccurate concerns. If WP:AUM were accurate and reasonable then you'd have a perfectly valid point. However, since many people do not consider it to be so you need some other basis to be threatening "more drastic action". I could write up a 'Avoid diagreeing with Conrad' essay, but that doesn't mean people have to follow it. :] --CBD ☎ ✉ 20:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, what was that?  Oh yeah, I just said something about hostility and reducing it.  He didn't throw out the entire guideline, advice, suggestion, what have you.  I think these four questions are still well consdidered to be sound reasons when determining if a meta-template is a good idea or not.  Perhaps if it failed in one of these areas you could say I'm nitpicking but there isn't a single area that it satisfies.  --Wgfinley 20:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Go back and look at AUM, Brion edited the guideline, the "questions" I just cited is still there after his revision which would indicate to me he supports those questions because why would he make vast revisions everywhere else and not there?  Nobody just "wrote up" a policy, it originated with what one developer said about it, has been updated with what another devloper has to say and that's what I'm quoting from.  As far as "threats" if you want to consider that the threat that is fine, I think edit warring for days on end is the real threat and I'm not the first admin to come in here and say that if it didn't stop something more drastic would need to be done (see the prior heading).  --Wgfinley 22:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brion's edit of the page consisted of leaving the page untouched except for adding a big box at the top saying that it should not be policy. Taking that as approval of the 'questions' or any other portion of the content of the page seems unfounded at best. Again, WP:AUM is not a policy. It isn't even (as you keep saying) a guideline. It's an essay written almost exclusively by Netoholic (because most other edits have been reverted out) with no community or developer consensus behind it at all. I agree that edit warring is bad. However, it is the continued pushing of a failed policy proposal which is at the root of the edit war on this and various other pages. Both WP:AUM and this page have been reverted to versions which are founded on a faulty principle (i.e. 'meta-templates cause significant server load problems') and then protected. That is also not a good thing. You continue to quote WP:AUM as grounds for your actions... but the fact is that page carries no weight whatsoever. You might as well be quoting 'The Cat in the Hat'. If you want to take 'more drastic' action I direct you to the root of the disagreement... what valid reason is there for systematically eliminating meta-templates? I don't see one. Anywhere. --CBD ☎ ✉ 23:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:AUM is plain instruction creep: "All new policies should be regarded as instruction creep until firmly proven otherwise". Ignore it. It's a red herring. Going willy-nilly killing each meta-template is ridiculous. --Ligulem 23:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is the problem as I see it - there is a very clear difference between 1) removing the use of meta-templates from a template meant to instruct new users on how to create an Infobox, and 2) going through all existing templates and removing meta-templates. (1) is all that wgfinley proposed, but you are countering his proposal with arguments against (2) Trödel•talk 04:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So... you won't object to restoring meta features to all the other templates they've been stripped out of. Excellent. Good to know. :] --CBD ☎ ✉ 05:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Frankly I find your disingeniousness to be extremely frustrating. There are two different issues and I am arguing in favor of (1) here; THAT does not imply either an endorsement of (2) nor a repudiation of (2). It is clear that we shouldn't teach new users to use conditionals. (2) is a much more difficult question - and unfortunately it doesn't lend itself to a "do xxxx in all cases" type policy. Trödel•talk 13:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try 'facetious'. 'Disingenuosness' (in addition to being a personal attack) implies a false pretense to be unaware of the larger picture. I am specifically pointing to the larger picture. Saying, 'we are only talking about this page' and 'this only applies to what we teach new users' ignores that Wgfinley, and Netoholic, and you have made similar arguments on WP:AUM, WP:RFAr, and other pages for how this should apply to other pages and all users. It ignores that templates have been systematically stripped of conditionals. You say, "It is clear that we shouldn't teach new users to use conditionals.", but that is, in fact, anything but clear. Indeed, I and several others disagree entirely. I have seen no compelling rationale for that position. Mind you, if the 'massive server load' or 'very difficult to use' claims were true those would actually be compelling reasons... but they plainly and demonstrably aren't true. So what are we really talking about here? Hypothetical nebulosities and minor inconveniences in the short term while we wait for true conditional logic to be implemented? For this we are trying to 'hide information' from new users and redo dozens (hundreds?) of templates? No, it is needlessly disruptive. --CBD ☎ ✉ 14:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You're right, there's a difference. But there's also people who will, invariably, wonder how to create conditional paramters themselves, and I believe it's the responsible thing to do to show them the current best method. Otherwise, we risk people learning the incorrect and broken methods Netoholic has pushed for months (hiddenStructure, etc). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If they are intelligent enough to properly implement a conditional they will read this talk page and identify several users who can help them. Trödel•talk 13:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not an assumption I am prepared to make (and not when the costs are this high). —Locke Cole • t • c 13:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Injecting Sanity 

message: Note: This has been posted both to Template talk:Infobox and WT:AUM. I've done several reverts on Template:Infobox, and I want to make my own position on the matter clear, rather than just blindly reverting without an explanation.
Most of the general talk about "meta-templates" obscures a simple fact. The overwhelming majority of meta-template usages are conditional templates, chiefly , and the overwhelming majority of conditional usages are for one single purpose: to hide empty sections in infoboxes. According to Brion, there is currently work underway to add native support for conditionals into the MediaWiki software; when this is done, it will clearly be the preferred way to do this, and  can then be deprecated. Until that happens, though, we need to have a backup plan. There are currently three primary options:
#Use qif.
#Use the hiddenStructure hack.
#Fork a single infobox into multiple templates.
(2) is unacceptable because it generates horrendous HTML and breaks some client software, including screen readers. (3) is even more unacceptable because it results in a maintainence nightmare (whenever someone wants to change the base infobox design, they have to remember to do so across multiple pages). Furthermore, (3) places more of a burden on article editors. With a well-designed conditional infobox, empty fields will simply be ignored, so users of the infobox need only omit the parameters that are unused; this is quite intutive. In contrast, forking means that editors must remember multiple template titles and spend time figuring out which one to use. By optimizing for ease of editing on the templates themselves (and, as pointed out above, it doesn't even do that very well) we are hurting ease of editing on articles, which affects far more editors.
Therefore, option (1) is the best alternative we currently have. It's not that difficult for an intermediate HTML programmer to understand, and it offers by far the best experience to the article editor and end user - who ultimately must take precedence. This will hopefully all be moot before long, but this is why the references to qif should stay in Template:Infobox.  Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are generalizing, and working on a premise that is based on unknowable statistics ("overwhelming majority of meta-template usages are conditional templates").  There is no blanket answer to what the best solution for a template is.  The choices are much more complex than Qif vs. hiddenStructure vs. forking. -- Netoholic @ 06:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, OK. In what cases is this generalization not valid, and what other alternatives do you suggest?  Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: To me the main issue is the importance of the template itself.  Instead of creating a meta-template to do this why not an article on how one would do it?  And, let's face it, what percentage of editors are even "intermediate HTML programmers"?  Secondly, as I stated before, Brion has indicated his general support for much of what is in AUM but didn't like the emphasis on server load being the main issue.  That doesn't mean the rest of AUM is bunk.  Finally, this comes down to the target audience, I think any editor who would need this template would have little or no knowledge of QIF and would run a far greater potential of screwing it up than any good to be gleaned from doing it this way.  It's a cost/benefit issue.  --Wgfinley 08:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: template:qif is easy to use and it will be implemented in MediaWiki anyway so it is a good replacement for that laking MediaWiki functionality for now (no harm to the servers, decent html as opposed to Wikipedia:hiddenStructure). The announced MediaWiki function will have the same ease of use as qif. Do not go and make things like the infobox in Silver, this isn't worth the trouble. If there is anyone who would like to know anything about qif or is not shure how it is supposed to be used, she/he can ask me on my talk. You are always welcome. Once we have qif built in MediaWiki it will be easy to convert the templates to that. It's not a good idea to go like silver just for the interim period. --Ligulem 10:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of conditionals in infoboxes