Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 October 17

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 16 October 18 >

October 17 edit

Template:Rugby squad start 3 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. The documentation is for a different template and does not mention how to use this one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:Shortblock edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 07:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. This has the look of a subst-only template, but I was only able to find one match in all namespaces. Created in 2005; presumably replaced by a better template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Template:Uw-block. This template might have been intended for substitution, where there might not always be a linkback. In the event some long-term editors still use this template, it will result in the correct template being used. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 12:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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).

Template:Temples of Jalore District edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with no main article and no apparent potential for expansion, since there are just two articles in Category:Temples of Jalore District. The category works fine for navigation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:Ctime:H edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, incoming links, or documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:Ctime:m edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, incoming links, or documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:Country data Odùduwà edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2022 October 24. ✗plicit 23:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:Hexcolor-to-hue edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2022 October 25. ✗plicit 07:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:IPvandal edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Vandal. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:IPvandal with Template:Vandal.
I believe this template should be merged with Template:Vandal because we have a module that can reliably detect the IP address of the current user. If an IP is specified in the 1= field it should display the IP links. Otherwise it should display the userlinks. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 13:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"We have a module": Citation needed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 x2 Clyde!Franklin! 00:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1x3 ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Module:IPAddress has been around for yonks and is used all over the place without issues. SPI swapped to using it about 6 months ago via {{Sock list}} so you no longer have to use different templates for reporting IP sock puppetry and sock accounts, it was a really nice quality of life change. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does that module do? The "documentation" for it gives no indication whatever. JBW (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You feed it a parameter and it tells you if it's an IP or not (the assumption being that if it's not an IP it's a username). It can also tell you if it's an IPv4 address, an IPv6 address or an IP range. It's used all over the place, e.g. in Template:Blocked text it swaps the message between "This IP address has been blocked" and "This account has been blocked". 163.1.15.238 (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, nice. If this works, call me in for simplicity. Keeping AIV reporting a simple task, or making it even simpler, is a benefit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the benefit conferred by the change? JBW (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW As an IP editor I would find it easier to file AIV reports if there was only one template, it's always annoying when I go to preview a report and realise that I've reported an IP using the wrong template, it's just an unnecessary complication that could be disposed of via modern templates. What is the benefit of having two templates? 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You preview your report and see that you've used tge wrong template, so you type in "IP", or erase "IP" from what you had written... Pretty annoying. You say "as an IP editor"; how does being an IP editor make this any different from how it would be for an editor with an account? There's always some advantage in keeping templates simple, to reduce the difficulty of figuring how they work for editing purposes. Adding code to make the template switch between differentcases adds some, even if only a little, complexity, and making it dependent on Lua modules puts its workings right out of the understanding of many editors. Templates are already very often very opaque in how they work. JBW (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW It's annoying because it's extra complexity and messing about that provides no actual benefit, has no real reason to exist and could be removed with not too much work. The only reason we have 2 templates because back when these were made for WP:Vandalism in progress there was no Lua and about the most complex thing you could do with templates was {{Qif}}.
Adding code to make the template switch between differentcases adds some, even if only a little, complexity - the template does switch between different cases, {{IPVandal}} already produces different output for IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses and IPv6 ranges. making it dependent on Lua modules puts its workings right out of the understanding of many editors - one of these templates is already implemented in Lua. {{IPVandal}} just calls Template:User-multi which is a wrapper for Module:UserLinks. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By merging the functionality we can actually make the template code used a lot simpler. I presume the goal of the "Vandal" template is to generate userlinks without notifying the user (and thus they won't be able to do stuff like bork the AIV page if they think about it). The IP vandal template will ping the user if you put a username inside of it (tell me if JBW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) generates a ping). On the other hand, the generic vandal template will not generate IP links if an IP address is put in (192.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)). The reason for not pinging is obvious - if the vandal is pinged to a page where they are reported, they can and will start messing around with that page, from inserting nonsense to blanking and all in-between. Having two templates just adds a layer of complexity. Why have two templates when you can have one robust template? Think about this extra check that code like Twinkle and RedWarn/Ultraviolet might have to do - why have it when it can just feed the report information into one template? That is why I opened this TfM up. There should not be a need for two templates if just having one robust template does the job. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 03:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been clearer. The behind the scenes code would be a little complicated, but not impossible to read, while the end user would not have to worry about which template to use. Pick one and done. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 04:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've been meaning to suggest this for ages. As noted above, I swapped {{SPI report}} over to a unified IP/account system earlier this year, and there have been no issues. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If this is technically possible, then I see no reason to oppose this. Mz7 (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The questions I raised above have been answered, and if, as seems likely from what has been said above, the change can be made without causing problems, we may as well simplify things by having only one template. JBW (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this change; it seems technically possible and simpler, I also see no good reason to oppose this. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per 163.1.15.238's explanation of Module:IPAddress. — Clyde!Franklin! 18:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Looks like the module in question only handles IPv4 addresses, not IPv6. We would still need something appropriate for IPv6. Binksternet (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick skim of the module's code suggests that it should support IPv6. Unless you're referring to the line in the documentation that says Only dotted decimal notation for IPv4 supported., which is stating that specifically for IPv4 addresses the module will only support those written in dotted decimal notation. That line could probably be clearer though. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Binksternet The module does support IPv6 addresses. Look at the testcases at Module_talk:IPAddress/testcases, where it returns 4 for valid IPv4 addresses and 6 for valid IPv6 addresses. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per Tamzin and 163.1.15.238. If it works for {{SPI report}} then it should work for combining the two vandal templates. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – should make AIV reporting easier once implemented. –FlyingAce✈hello 05:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per IP and Tamzin, however I do have a question, have the people maintaining antivandal tools such as RedWarn/Ultraviolet and Twinkle been notified of this discussion? If this is implemented this could probably break reporting IPs with them since they use the IPvandal template. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it should break too much, but I'll do a courtesy report anyway since Twinkle forgot to do the notification. I should prob also notify Huggle in case they use it. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 21:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope I did the notification right. Please double check my work. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 21:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blaze Wolf A redirect will be left behind when the templates are merged, so either name would work for both IPs and users. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    True, although it would be preferable (and possibly easier) for them to just switch over to the new merged template. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_17&oldid=1118215556"