Hi
SUM1. I see you are working in {{Template error report/sandbox}}. I remember last week there was a discussion (but I don't know where). Could you link to that talk? May I note this:
The name "Monthly error report" is not a correct name, we agree. Given the two main functions (1. list template usage in articles=mainspace; 2. list its parameter usage there), the name could better be:
is useless for users both old and new. I had no idea what the hell it was talking about when I first saw it. It's describing a tool that displays parameter usage data for the template, not a "monthly error report". The only thing "monthly" about it is that its data is refreshed each month and that values used by "date" parameters are typically months and years (so, no other parameters fall under this description). It's not an "error" report. It reports valid and invalid uses of parameters, indicates their "suggest" or "required" status and gives a direct transclusion count in the mainspace and file namespace. As above,
DePiep seems to agree.
The tool needs a brief description as well, so users know what they're clicking and why.
I've added a new version to the
sandbox (
testcases) (since updated per discussion below), retaining DePiep's functionality added in the section above.
It should also be placed back on its original line in {{TemplateData header}}, as it's completely separate from TemplateData. The lowercase functionality added in February 2018 should thus be removed.
OK, thx. I think the proposed name needs improvement, "TemplateParametersTool" covers many many tools & other templates ;-). Something like "Template [usage] Report"? And in {{TemplateDataHeader}}, the description lines you mention here may be too long (should be in a /doc page though). Strip the (...) bracketed text?-
DePiep (
talk)
20:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)reply
@
DePiep: The name of the tool (which is not proposed) is another issue. I've posted
a discussion that mentions it to the tool creator, though it's under the premise that the current name is acceptable. "Parameters" must be mentioned, since they are the centrepiece of the tool's functionality. Based on your own recommendations, the best I can come up with is "TemplateParameterUsageReport", "TemplateParameterUsageData" or "TemplateParameterUsageInfo", preferably the first (as it is most descriptive and implies a tool). But I have no issue with the current name.
The name of this template is a much bigger issue, and I will start a rename discussion as soon as the improvements are made to the template contents (or maybe even sooner). Assuming the current tool name stays the same, this template should be called none other than "Template:TemplateParametersTool". · • SUM1 • ·(
talk)21:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Personally, I don't believe my {{Template error report/sandbox}} edits are too long when they will only ever belong in the doc page, which is the doc page's entire purpose, to aid the user in understanding a template, and a fair amount of people will not have any clue what TemplateData or the TemplateParametersTool is. It's the exact reason there are usage notes for templates, which are far longer than anything in my suggestion. · • SUM1 • ·(
talk)21:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)reply
(ec) Why "..Tool"? Why "Template ..."? That is trying to describe the thing instead of naming the thing. And: way too generic (everything in software is a 'tool'; all parameters are template parameters in its context. Shold we add "Wikipedia..." too?). *Naming it*, OTOH, is taking care of an unique name (good to identfy & recognise), and does not have the burden of having to describe its functions. We don't name thing "Infobox that lists the main properties of a Building articler". -
DePiep (
talk)
21:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)reply
@
DePiep: Are you referring to the name of this template or the name of TemplateParametersTool? If the latter, you should bring up your concerns with Bamyers99, the creator of the tool. I only wish to line this template's name up with that of the tool it contains. · • SUM1 • ·(
talk)21:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)reply
No change for the tool itself (which is not enwiki anyway). The template, and all of its documentation & talk, should relate to
WP:TDMER (whith a better name/shortcut of course). etc., etc: one big WikiProject. I know toolcreator Bamyers99 is not interested in how we use it here, so no problem from there. -
DePiep (
talk)
22:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)reply
@
DePiep: Fine, omit "Parameters", if we're going to be that insistent on brevity over precision. And don't get me wrong, I do see the benefits of that, I just remember how darn confused I was about what the tool did at the start. But these changes need to happen now. · • SUM1 • ·(
talk)14:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)reply
By the way, I also see your point about removing the brackets, but I propose that they could be retained as an optional parameter if for whatever reason more explanation is needed on a certain page (maybe a template with high likelihood of this tool being used by many users). I've added this to the sandbox. · • SUM1 • ·(
talk)15:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Had a rethink. Now I'm back to believing that the explanation should be default and allowed to be disabled. Transclusions aren't parameter data, and it helps for the user to know what they could gain out of clicking that link before they click it.
Added to sandbox. · • SUM1 • ·(
talk)15:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)reply
From here, I can leave the renaming of this template to you safely ;-). Cathcy will help us all. (pls consider using a shortcut too, i.e., move WP:TDR current
WP:TDmer to a new shortcut).
I think the full description better be in enwiki's homepage of the this template. That is, not all description showing in the TemplateData header, but in its homepage
WP:TDmer (and this link mentioend in the TDheader text). IOW, documentation is in the template page/doc (same place as today), *not* on every TemplateData transclusion. -
DePiep (
talk)
16:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)reply
@
DePiep: Why is that? There's more than enough space. But yes, I can add the WP: page to the header. (Hopefully I understood correctly.) I don't think I understood the last sentence. "TemplateData transclusion"? · • SUM1 • ·(
talk)16:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Because the section #TemplateData is solely to document the template it is documenting*. So
Template:Infobox drug#TemplateData is for that infobox only. The TD-headertext needs only one line of info like "The parameter usage is at
Parameter usage (see
background)."
@
DePiep: I'd be opposed to that particular wording due to the flow of the English, but maybe a workaround can be arranged.
So, as it regards my proposal above (
#Useless text), what specifically (in quotes) are you proposing should be different about it? Are you saying it should only say my text on a WikiProject page but say something else on templates, and if so what? Does your conception incorporate any optional parameters for extra info?
Thx. I'm very chaotic here, I know (that is because we both know something is wrong, I guess).
For now, my points are:
Leave source tool page and Bambers99 alone (we agree I guess)
Rename this template into something more reasonable, like:
Template:Template parameter usage (crisp name, not too long not too dscriptive) (Note: current name [Template:Template error report] is misleading and incorrect, we agree?)
When transcluded into a template doc, like in
Template:Infobox drug/doc#TemplateData, yes there should be text as you propose. (but IMO: keep it short, one line). This is the text you are working in, I understand.
SUM1, I know I have put a lot of strain in this thread/on your edits. Also, I saw your are reading my posts well :-). I don't want to overstress. Have a nice edit. -
DePiep (
talk)
22:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)reply
@
DePiep: Oh great, I'm glad we agree this much then.
As per 2, I accept "Template parameter usage".
As per 3, of course, that will happen naturally.
As per 4, when you say "one line", does that mean a change to my proposal? It barely goes over the first line. However, I'll reiterate my current two options:
Option A: A parameter to hide the brackets (shown by default)
Option B: A parameter to show the brackets (hidden by default) (example at the bottom of
/testcases)
I'm back to accepting option B (I had real trouble deciding for some reason).
As per 5, I'm not sure if I have an opinion on a WikiProject. It wasn't in my initial proposal or issue; I'm only concerned with a) the name and b) the contents of this template. However, I believe you are suggesting that such a WikiProject contain detailed information about this tool. If so, I would inform you that I have already proposed to Bamyers99 to draft a more detailed documentation page for the tool, and
they accepted, so I'd want to avoid redundancy and duplication as far as is possible. (This has already happened for the
TemplateData tutorial, duplicated from
mw:Help:TemplateData in 2014, and it's awful.) If such a page is created, the new documentation could be transcluded on to it. But like I said, I don't have an opinion just yet, I just want to get this template renamed and changed. However,
the change at TemplateData header should happen first, to allow for a smooth transition. · • SUM1 • ·(
talk)05:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)reply
re re 3: Full documentation at
Template:Template parameter usage/doc then, regular template doc. Also includes some explanation of the tool itself. BTW, can you give me an example of the File reporting? I've never met it; hard to find ;-).
re re 4: "one line" -> I meant to say, like: 'use one sentence, not four'. Deprecated words: monthly error report, TemplateParametersTool.
IMO, about the text in TemplateData you are working on:
(a) The sandbox examples in /testcases are too many (too complicated to use). If it helps, you can cut out (deprecate) parameter options I introduced.
(b): Which main sentence, with the external link, do you prefer? I suggest: "Click here to see parameter usage list for {{Infobox drug}}". (template name = option, default = "... for this template"; unchanged).
(c): more variants: do we really need those?
(d): a link to the tool now be a link to the template (two birds with one stone). Like: "... (more about this feature
here)" = at template & /doc)". Again, there is no need to explain/describe the tool in that TD section.
re re 5: you're right, no separate WikiProject page. A shortcut like
WP:TUD could exist (please), and should lead to this template page.
new 7: About the edit process: would it be easier if the Move (template rename) would be done asap? Then #3 is fixed, and only #4 remains (your original issue here).
@
DePiep: Per 3, I had never seen it, that was based off the tool documentation and website itself. But
here's an obvious example.
Per 4, I understand about "TemplateParametersTool", but my text does not contain "monthly error report". About "one sentence", I think it's necessary to mention that the data is updated monthly and based on the parameters listed in the TemplateData (not the template), so people don't get confused.
About a), as I understand, you are taking back some of your edits, i.e. you wish to revert some of the parameters you added in September 2019? If so, my opinion is that I don't mind the 5 configurations you added. It is up to you which of your parameters you remove.
About b), "data" is better than "list" (it's multiple lists on different pages containing different data). Also, your example would be missing an article ("a"/"the"). Your examples for parameters are slightly hard to follow, but I believe you want a parameter for changing the template name (which we already have, thanks to you). In which case, no change here.
About c), my edit only adds 1 parameter ("examples"). I don't believe this is bad or unnecessary.
About d), my argument was that some form of explanation was absolutely necessary, whether this was in the form of brackets or a link (I originally chose both). Your proposal with a link is good enough, but something needs to be there.
Per 5, you can create whatever shortcut you like; I have no objection to it. My issue was only with the template name and contents. Try to keep it in line with the template name, though (i.e.,
WP:TPU as the main one).
I don't think I understand 6. I think you wish to create a template that does the formatting for the link separately. You can do this, it's not part of my discussion. The phrase "monthly error report" should not be any part of the new template.
Per 7, everything needs to be done. We've spent a long time discussing. Ideally, I would have got some more editors involved, but if you are willing to carry out the rename, please go ahead.
I will limit myself to point 4 here (other issues in separate sections): the new text in {{TemplateData header}}.
re 4a): existing options by parameter: I'm not taking them back, but if your aim makes it too complicated (covering all existing options), then you could remove some, to ease the change.
re 4b): "data" is correcter than "list", but also less inviting (non-tech people might be avoinding this link). "Lists"?
re 4c): add |examples=: see my general comment below.
re 4d): "some form of explanation was absolutely necessary" -- IMO that would be solved in a few words like "parameter usage", plus the template link. The doc page of a regular template is not the place to describe an other template.
re 4) in general: about new text for TDheader, in total. We both agree that current text is not correct nor helpful. My points:
A. It must contain a link to the tool page,
monthly error report. The labeltext for this external link should be changed from current one; could have options.
B. And it must contain a link to the documentation/help page, likely
this with appropriate labeltext.
These two links are the sole requirements, the rest is secondary importance. These two too should be the default text. Up to you to compose the wording and short sentence(s). Next, up to you to consider non-default options (like overwriting default texts).
C. However, I oppose adding any extra descriptive information to the TDheader. All wider descriptions, examples, explanation, detailing, specifications in the TDheader is not needed. It distracts & confuses from the main template, and is prone to more hairsplitting on how to write good documentation. In exceptional cases, the options could cover this.
Consider, that TemplateData itself is very short on describing the main template's job (
here). Also, other tracking links are short (and do not even have a description in a templates doc: e.g. "
Category:Pages using infobox architect with unknown parameters (1)".
Of course, I will not edit the sandbox because it is your initiative. Now if you want technical advice in this, like options, just ask.
About "lists", I think the fact that you oppose all clarification of the tool means there shouldn't really be an issue with "data". It is a very standard term in English and most accurately describes what the tool provides. "Usage lists" just sounds wrong, but "
usage data" is a standard term. · • SUM1 • ·(
talk)15:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The sandbox now says, default:
Click here to see parameter usage data for this template in the
mainspace and
file namespace (more about this feature
here). This data is updated monthly and is based on the parameters listed in the TemplateData.
To me, that is too long and too much info. As I described extensively in my previous, 10:07 post: (C) Do not try to document it in the TDheader. (A, B) Doing essentials only = the two links; plus basic sentencing. It could be like:
Click here to see parameter usage data for this template (
help).
About parameter |lc=yes: prefer to abandon this one. This template should be a stand-alone sentence. Better & easier no grammatical interaction with other parts in the TD header. -
DePiep (
talk)
16:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Reason: old name does not cover the essence. The
tool reports all parameters (and just indicates those who are at error wrt the TemplateData definition. Example: {{Infobox drug}}[1]: all parameters used in articles, "N" for non-defined parameters).
Restart: I am working on a separate, new template that basically only provides the external link. This template then can use it, and wrap any text around/into it, to be used in {{TemplateData header}}. IOW, the exact wording for TD is separated from the linking code.
This does not prejudice (prohibit/prescribe) any settting or option of this template.
@
DePiep: Fine, but what happened to renaming {{Template error report}}? It's still not an accurate name. I have my own ideas for other templates that would wrap the header, but it's an extraneous issue.
This new template only does the technical part: providing good links and allowing a labeltext.
Then, this template (you are working on) can compose the text to be used in {{TemplateData header}}; inside best using this new {{Template parameter usage/sandbox-new}} (ease of link & options programming). All text is free to choose; no limits/requirements from this new template.
The TDheadertext have a default, and could have options (parameters) to customise (as is has today).
I am preparing a Move of this template (getting rid of the "error" misnomer). For ease of development, textual edits can be made after that (be it in {{TemplateData herader}} or in {{Template error report}}/newname).
I am contemplating this improvement: all text & options that are shown in {{TemplateData header}} can be managed within&through that TDheader template. That is, no need to have an extra, textual template, as this {{Template error report}} currently does. -
DePiep (
talk)
22:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Urgent text improvement
I am proposing to make an urgent text improvement: the wording "Monthly error report"N is wrong and so much change. I propose to write "Parameter usage report" instead:
Here user
SUM1 has changed the default labeltext into "Click here". es says: Clearer text (should be advice rather than an order; not "the" report, a third-party, unofficial report; more introductory to unfamiliar users).
This is problematic, and not an improvement. First of all, these days we do not use hyperlink text "Click here" any more (more like 2006?). Second, the text is not "clearer". As for hair splitting: yes, it is the only monthly parameter usage report. Such claims should be proposed for discussion. {{
Documentation}} was not adjusted.
I state the edit is controversial. It should be reversed, and one should propose changes up for discussion beforehand. -
DePiep (
talk)
19:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Blind people often have their software present them with a list of link text only. "Click here" links are opaque to them, forcing them to re-read an article. Better link text (for the page as of this comment) would be:
monthly parameter usage report for this template
monthly parameter usage report for Template:Infobox film
(second line occurs multiple times)
Further, with regard to:
|lc=yes for lowercase "click": click here to see a monthly parameter usage report for Template:Infobox film.
and
|label= default → Click here to see a monthly parameter usage report for Template:Infobox film.
it would be better for the default to be "none" or "for" and have the "Click here" functionality completely removed from this template.
I noticed
the above thread. Given that my proposed change is actually a partial reversion, I will implement it now.
@
SUM1, I'm disappointed. Making a bold change to a template-protected page and then not reverting it on request (or even engaging with the critique) falls below the
expected standard for template editors. Hopefully this was just a missed ping/oversight of some sort. {{u|Sdkb}}talk06:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Sdkb: I can say that I never saw the discussion you linked to. This may be because my notifications have been at 99+, because I generally stopped contesting reverts via my notifications, because it's stressful, but I didn't realise that that would stop me seeing tags on talk page discussions, and that in a case where I have editing rights and most other users don't this could end up problematic. I apologise for this. That being said, it was not a bold edit, because it was discussed extensively on this very talk page in one of the previous discussions. However, I have no issues with the changes that were discussed later on or the changes that were ultimately made. · • SUM1 • ·(
talk)22:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)reply