Content deleted Content added
Line 30:
* '''Support''' - the full name should be the default name.--Esprit15d • <small>[[User_talk:Esprit15d |talk]]</small> • <small>[[Special:Contributions/Esprit15d|contribs]]</small> 03:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
* '''Support''' [[User:Ythlev|Ythlev]] ([[User talk:Ythlev|talk]]) 16:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
*:The move caused huge-ish disruption, messing up all or nearly all of the 3,270 list-articles in the system covering places listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, e.g. [[National Register of Historic Places listings in San Miguel County, New Mexico]] for just one example. I have asked [[User:BD2412]] at their Talk page to reverse the move ASAP, then to sort out how the move can be accomplished without damage, later. --[[User:Doncram|Doncram]] ([[User talk:Doncram|talk]]) 03:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
*::
▲:::(ec) I don't know about modules vs. whatever else (i have created/modified templates but I don't even know what a module is) so take this comment as not fully informed. But there may be widespread other problems caused by the move. Actually, since the DTS template is transcluded so widely, I don't think the above discussion was adequate, so could the move discussion close be cancelled and the discussion reopened? With notice given to Village Pump and WikiProject NRHP and perhaps numerous other forums. One issue that usually/often doesn't matter is that one name uses less keystrokes than another, but here to expand to a longer name causes a significant increase in data storage/usage and perhaps reading times. Also implementation details were not adequately considered, apparently. This is too big of a change I think to be decided by just a few. --[[User:Doncram|Doncram]] ([[User talk:Doncram|talk]]) 04:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
▲:::: {{ec}} {{tq|Implementation details were not adequately considered}}. No, I was fully aware of the fact that it is not possible to leave a redirect behind when moving a module when I filed this requested move. Contrary to what you said, it is not somehow necessary to advertise every single requested move of a highly-used template to VPT, NRHP has nothing to do with this template's purpose and naming, meaning notifying it would be inappropriate. As users of Wikipedia, we [[WP:PERF|do not need to worry about things like {{tq|a significant increase in data storage/usage and perhaps reading times}}]]. There is no grounds for a reopening here. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 04:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
▲:::::Maybe it does not cause a performance issue for the servers, but I think it does cause a performance issue for the editors writing out tables, who have to contend with longer rows, sections, pages, harder to edit, not intuitive, when a short code is what they want for the purpose.
*:::: I have to disagree. It turns out that implementing this move would require the editing of tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of articles. Therefore, it should not be implemented until there is a clear consensus for such a change, and a strategy in place to implement this both technically and in terms of workflow. This can probably be done by a bot, but it does invoke larger interests. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 04:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
▲:::::I do agree it would be unfortunate to have to involve in the many NRHP wikiproject editors who certainly don't want to be bothered. But if implementation requires widespread changes by bot or otherwise, they and other wikiprojects who use tables probably do need to be given notice. By giving notice to the village pump, i meant to the Village pump technical section where persons who might better know about likely impacts could be recruited to help implement something here, if it were important to implement something here (which it is not... I don't see why this is being discussed at all... i see no benefit to the project of imposing a change here, and there is cost already, i.e. the cost of the attention required by this discussion already). --[[User:Doncram|Doncram]] ([[User talk:Doncram|talk]]) 18:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
*::::: No, implementing this requested move would not require editing thousands of articles, it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22%23invoke%3ADts%22&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&ns108=1&ns109=1&ns118=1&ns119=1&ns446=1&ns447=1&ns710=1&ns711=1&ns828=1&ns829=1&ns2300=1&ns2301=1&ns2302=1&ns2303=1 would only require editing three pages], as, although the module can't redirect, the template can, and all of the thousands of transclusions of the module go through the template. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 04:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
▲:::::: There was only massive cost because the original requested move was implemented in a technically inept way that broke the template. It may be that you see no benefit from templates not having needlessly abbreviated names, but the fact that this requested move had {{u|Gonnym|three}} {{u|Ythlev|other}} {{u|Esprit15d|users}} support it clearly indicates that many Wikipedians have the opposite opinion and do see a benefit to templates having non-abbreviated names. I had no reason to suspect that any of this breakage would happen when I started a requested move a few weeks ago, and thus no reason to post to VPT (although nothing is stopping you or anyone else from doing so). Furthermore, there will be no bots that go through all transclusions and change "Dts" to "Date table sorting"-- that task would be in violation of [[WP:COSMETICBOT]]. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 18:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
*:::::: When I
*:::::::
*::::::::
*'''Oppose''' - contrary to what is claimed above, renaming the template and module and then changing the text to point to the updated module name did still result in broken links. I have no idea for what reason, but when I went to [[27 Club]] I found a whole table full of ugly red errors messages instead of dates. This is turning into a massive drain on editor time, and is pointless tinkering, so I am opposing it. But if an admin does close as moved, please at least make sure nothing is broken when you've done so. As BD2412 says, this will probably require setting up a bot to manually change all the links to the template across the wiki. THanks — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 15:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
** Seems a bit out of place to revert the consensus attained move and re-open a closed RM. If you saw an error, you should report it so it can be investigated. --[[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 15:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
**:Well since the move had broken thousands of pages, I think it was quite justified myself. Try to consider the readers next time, {{u|Gonnym}}, instead of launching attacks on me. If someone wants to close this they can, but it needs much more consideration than has been shown so far. For now it is relisted, as was done by {{u|BD2412}} this morning. — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 16:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
** Consensus does not become invalid because implementing it is difficult: some templates have sat at [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell]] for more than a year. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 02:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
*: I'm seriously baffled. This is far from my first requested move of a module, and all of the other ones I've done have gone smoothly. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 16:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
*: {{ping|JJMC89}}. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 16:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
| |||