Knowledge:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 15

643: 2277:

infobox), and "common" and "status quo" are not the same thing. I don't know, nor I suspect do you, how many articles use coding to hide portions of boxes, but this practice has been employed on a per-article basis for years. It's very clear you don't approve of this practice, but simply deleting this template - which both can be used in the manner of which you appear to approve, and can be replaced with coding - after failing to gain consensus to reject the practice is not the way to go.

1159: 656: 1563:

dreadfully boring prose in the article text somewhere. And no, I'm not trying to open that whole can of worms again. I suspect that regardless of best practice and simple work-arounds, editors will reference citations from within collapsed infobox sections leaving readers to puzzle about why they can't backlink to the reference. We should do nothing that causes readers to puzzle about stuff like this.

994:, userboxes, and the barnstar system. A wise man once said, "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar." Having little things like this reduces assumption and improve faith in fellow editors. So, I encourage you all to work with me to make it an acceptable template that still shows the support and encourages people to continue editing. 1818:. as far as other infoboxes go, I could make work there as well. however, I don't see a reason for adding support for templates for which there are no articles where it is desired. as far as I can tell, the entire point of having this option is so it can be used in places where there is consensus to use it (which is not currently widespread). 2206:

Given that that discussion, which you closed, found no consensus, we're back to the status quo, which is that we don't hide infoboxes on Knowledge. Since this template is use for hiding most of the infoboxes on which it is used, it - like the hack it replaces - is not needed, not necessary and has no

1907:

so we don't disrupt the article. When I said that it didn't work, it didn't because I chose to put the start template someplace other than where you did. Is this another of those documented caveats? Too many caveats is too many caveats. Editors will use this template and will be disappointed when

945:

The very last thing we need is a focus on talk-page decoration. Instead, the focus should be on the encyclopedia, and since this is en.wiki we use English to communicate, not icons or visual slogans. ILIKEIT boxes tend to proliferate and cause inexperienced editors to think that this site is like any

539:

Technical, I mean this in the best possible way - your understanding of our templating language has some way to go yet. A simple result like the one you want with this should never require two templates to make it happen. It's true, getting substitution to work right can be awkward, and involve using

2831:

person to present a workable solution to an ongoing problem, and in my view that solution deserves better than to be sent to the scrap heap in a knee jerk reaction. It probably won't be used that often but is worthwhile having, testing, tweaking to use when/if needed. And yes we do follow consensus.

2041:

yes, having the code in the infobox template would be better, but supporting every possible combination of collapsed sections would not be feasible. clearly, this template cannot re-order the fields in the infobox, so the begin must appear above the below, and it will only collapse sections between

908:

If morale needs boosting, I can think of little better than another editor actually writing an appropriate note, either in the discussion or on the other's talk page, unequivocally stating support. That the supporter took the time to write such a note has significantly more weight that a cheap icon

982:

Trappist, the template says the poster supports the topic of the discussion, not the specific comments within and therefor "And of course one has to ask, is the template improperly used when an editor uses it to support a position opposite to, in your example, OP's position – like someone might use

602:

should also be deleted. Like I said, I don't mind reformatting to to conform more to what those look like, and to be perfectly honest I wouldn't have created it if I could have found that list in the first place. However, now that it is created, and I don't see any that say the same thing on that

2424:

the backlinks for references is an issue with all collapsed sections. the uncollapsed purists would disagree with any method for collapsing content. I do agree that this is a hack, but better to template a hack than to use raw html in the articles, which is what was being done before I templated

2092:

Ah ha! You've fixed it. So, can you make the collapsible table have the same column widths as the infobox's enclosing table? You can see in the Darjeeling infobox at right that when the Further information section is expanded, the right hand column is offset to the right from the data above the

894:

How cute. We are here to be an encyclopedia, not to be some poor editor's therapist. And of course one has to ask, is the template improperly used when an editor uses it to support a position opposite to, in your example, OP's position – like someone might use it to support my position (please

2444:

per Nikkimaria and previous discussions. Support topic-ban on Andy Mabbett and infoboxes: His broken-record campaign violates forum-shopping, I didn't hear that, etc., and has wasted the time and patience of too many editors. The linked discussion, linked by Nikkimaria, notes an editor who was

2276:

Your added text is factually incorrect, and your further response is irrelevant: as I've already pointed out, MOS:COLLAPSE allows the collapsing of tables (with no upper limit on how much of the table) that duplicate article text (which per your own arguments previously is the definition of an

2467:

I just wish to add to my previous, terse "Keep" opinion that I also agree with the comments made by Kiefer.Wolfowitz, Kleinzach, Malleus, and Nikkimaria about this proposal, and that so much time is being wasted that a topic-ban on Andy Mabbett would also solve the time-wasting going on here.

2991:

This template is pretty much a hack in development, but I don't see a reason to delete it at this point. My !vote is on the assumption that it will be improved as necessary, and that if a better solution is found, there will be further discussion. If your issues were not addressed already by

1562:

Moving citation references outside of the collapsed infobox is, no doubt the correct solution perhaps, but in cases like Montacute House where the two cited bits of information really are best stated in the concise way that an infobox allows, is much better than wrapping them in some bit of

1095:

How would that help the encyclopedia? Sprinkling nonsense boxes in discussions would certainly attract flies, and that would be very unhelpful. If the community is overtaken by people wanting somewhere more sophisticated than Facebook to message each other, the encyclopedia will suffer.

1057:

It is unclear to me whom you are addressing in your last paragraph. I can assure you though, that I am not out to get you – I don't think anyone here is. What will most assuredly show good faith to other editors is the quality and usefulness of the work you do. This applies to all of

2148:

without going into too many technical details, I can say that would be harder. if you want a technical explanation of why this would be harder, I am more than happy to elaborate, but probably better to leave this to either my talk page, or the talk page for the template.

1043:

You're right about off-main-space communication: it need not be so neutral. But, it is not a lovefest nor is it a place to get to know your fellow editors, it is a place to discuss the encyclopedia. Of course at your own talk page you can do anything you want. Have at

2357:. Andy Mabbett ought to be ashamed of himself for pursuing this issue across how many forums now? Four? Five? I understand that he's now some kind of accredited Knowledge trainer, so God help any of us interested in content rather than this kind of dog shit. 837:

Nick, the purpose of making it stand out a little is to ensure that the OP will see it and know they have something that others agree with and encourage them to pursue advancing what they started instead of giving up. I have no intention of making a

747:

I don't understand the purpose. Why do we need a large green box to indicate approval rather than simply saying it? I presume this will naturally be followed by a read box to indicate disapproval. Can we not accomplish the same thing by using the

2639:

related to the question. Classical music hardly counts as one directly related (if it were, then so is every other WikiProject due to the use of widespread infoboxes). None of the other stated appropriate notifications apply in this case.

544:. If you can't work out how to shoehorn the behavior you want into a template, it's best to ask for help at the technical pump and test it as a subpage of your sandbox rather than ploughing ahead with a live template. Hope this helps. — 2692:

template, since it selectively collapses sections of material. the best option would be either (a) don't collapse anything in the infobox or (b) move the collapsing option to the individual infoboxes by adding a parameter to

990:, but it is hard when at every turn it feels like you have been antagonizing me. That being said, not all the communication that happens off-main-space needs to be so neutral. I'm sure that like Trappist, you're opposed to 1029:

Because the template doesn't explicitly say that the editor supports the subject, where the template is placed will be interpreted by me, and likely others, to mean that the editor supports that which immediately precedes

978:

itself should be deleted. This being said, I would be happy to rewrite it to use only one template, even if this causes the span code to be subst on the page, which is all I was trying to avoid to make it look a little

2232:

Assuming this is Andy speaking, you seem to be a bit confused - the status quo is that infoboxes or parts thereof can be collapsed where there is agreement to do so, as had been done for years before you objected.

1486:. Apparently it is not possible to ever link into something that is collapsed. I suspect that the backlink problem is similar to the problem of getting directly to the discussion section header from here. 451: 834:}} are to improve editor morale and promote productive edits. They are there to show good faith so there will be less assumptions (everyone knows what happens when they "assume" something). 752:

indicators, and be less jarring? Making your opinion bigger does not make it more valid, or others less valid. I don't think creating an uneven 'voting field' in this manner is desirable. --

1443:

which of the current transclusions has this problem? sounds like a documented usage caveat, rather than a reason for deletion. in fact, this is an issue with all collapsed templates (e.g.,

1193:. The wording is pompous and unnecessary. The green background colour is also unnecessary. If you want to agree with something, write a comment, or use a more light-hearted template like 2410:- I understand from the above that you have to use the code with so much caution that it seems problematic to offer it at as an option. I prefer to collapse lists within a parameter, -- 1503:). The default state of the infobox is collapsed. Clicking on the backlink carets (^) should take you to the references inside the infobox. They don't unless the infobox is expanded. 2192:, collapsing part of a table that summarizes the article text is perfectly acceptable, and this template is a cleaner and more efficient way of doing so than the previous coding hack. 1253: 1218: 2561:. the hidden template is used to collapse prose, or an entire table, or an entire infobox. this template can be used to collapse a subsection of an infobox, not the entire infobox. 2744:- I like the idea of what the code does, I do not like the fact it requires two templates to accomplish it... Is there any way that they can both be combined into a single template? 1805: 2462: 2364: 2036: 2402: 2188:: given that the nominator recently tried to reject this concept via the linked discussion and was unsuccessful, this nomination feels more than a little like forum-shopping. Per 1482:

The link I'm about to give you won't get you there because the section header for §Collapsible Infobox is inside a collapsed discussion. Still, see the Montacute House infobox in

3042: 2608: 2311: 1438: 2419: 1080: 931: 733: 1420: 244: 2328: 2201: 1345: 2921: 2519:? the hidden template is used to wrap an entire infobox, where as this, shockingly creates a "collapsed infobox section". who would have thought that it had that function. 2385: 2349: 1368: 2845: 2732: 2481: 2158: 2143: 2051: 1827: 1683: 1616: 1598: 1462: 1380: 1110:

I'm confused. How does turning away editors of diverse backgrounds because you can't stand seeing a little flare and good spirit towards each other help the encyclopedia?

357: 114: 2822: 2802: 2613:

Nowhere in those messages is any exhortation for people to come here to vote to keep this template. It is merely a courtesy informative, neutral message about the proposal.

683: 2286: 2271: 2242: 2227: 1362: 877: 223: 2941: 2782:

and it BOMBED... Rendered my page virtually unusable. If it doesn't work for something like that, and/or if I can't use it to shrink multiple sections, what good is it?

2626: 2670: 2504: 1150: 2896: 2764: 2434: 1138: 1105: 1016: 590: 191: 2372:. Andy Mabbett is again wasting our time. He is capable of contributing to WP, but not on this subject. He should be topic-banned on anything related to info boxes. -- 2585: 3004: 2982: 427: 2135: 2028: 1797: 1675: 1590: 1430: 1072: 923: 725: 627: 582: 567: 534: 381: 110: 63: 801: 774: 2649: 2570: 2546: 2528: 965: 839: 103: 1304: 182:). Unneeded given the development of our own article and the existing broader infobox system we have available should that article ever require an infobox. 126: 1388:

Presumably good-faith templatisation of bad-faith code; used to hide not sections but almost entire infoboxes, apart from their titles and images (e.g. on

1274: 511: 503: 415: 42: 37: 172: 1115: 831: 719: 507: 377: 273: 2537:

a fork of hidden. What specifically makes the two differ? Couldn't I use hidden to create a "collapsed infobox section"? Am I missing something here? --

1182: 1483: 499: 393: 370: 1397: 498:

I'm not opposed to changing the appearance. The reason I had to make it work in two parts is because of the way that it will automatically add the

2661:- not a fan of this at all - but we just had a very very very long talk on the matter and despite the accessibility problem many are ok with this. 2713:, ... however, until one of those two things happen, would rather not see us simply go back to using raw html table hacks, div containers, or 1653:

can't be added to an article's infobox but must be added to the infobox template. This of course impacts every article that uses the template.

490: 3019: 1356: 1713: 1604: 138: 463:

This new template produces a fairly unappealing green box that basically says "I like this". An "I approve" might be a good addition to

120: 1640: 1519: 1352: 1305: 2425:

it. at least now we can track the usage and (hopefully) eventually remove it once support is added to the individual infoboxes.

1898: 1737: 974:

Hex, by your statement, "A simple result like the one you want with this should never require two templates to make it happen,"

1648: 1527: 405: 21: 2495:

unnecessarily. If you want to have collapsed sections, which I personally don't agree with, don't fork a template to do it. --

697: 599: 464: 387: 147: 1374: 1941:

Another issue is that there is no requirement to have infobox parameters follow a prescribed order. For example, I moved

3038: 2604: 2267: 2223: 1904: 1743: 1416: 62: 2969: 2789: 2751: 1240: 1211: 1168: 1125: 1003: 864: 670: 614: 521: 210: 17: 2877:, since that template already has section headings, so it would be better to add optional collapsing code directly to 2833: 2682:. no raw html tables in articles please, and this is certainly far better than wrapping the entire infobox inside a 1447: 765: 581:: Knowledge isn't Facebook. I don't want to see talk pages littered with these essentially meaningless green boxes.— 975: 2813:

If enough people say "Keep" do something that bombs, the bombing doesn't matter, - we have to follow consensus, --

2679: 1811: 1532:

but rather is an issue about linking into something that is collapsed. See also the collapse mechanism used at

439: 321: 2632: 467:, but it would need to look completely different. Also not sure why this has been constructed in two parts. — 272: 1205: 240: 154: 2455: 1499:

Once you get there, there are two citations that backlink to the references inside the infobox (taken from

333: 2887:. adding it there would probably be not very controversial, since that template is not used in articles. 2827:

I think we should have faith in our developers and understand that it needs to be tested. Frietjes is the

1549:

Have I clearly stated the problem? I have, by the way, observed this issue with three different browsers.

3000: 2937: 2139: 2032: 1801: 1679: 1594: 1434: 1076: 927: 729: 586: 351: 339: 132: 2361: 1731: 327: 1994:

pair are only to be used inside infobox template code and not in an article's invocation of that code.

909:

that cost nothing in time or effort to give. Similarly, I don't find much value in barn stars either.

3061: 2707: 1325: 1295: 1268: 345: 293: 263: 83: 399: 2398: 445: 236: 1815: 178:

Given its use of German parameter names, I'd imagine this may have been a c/p from de-WP (update:

3034: 2841: 2697: 2600: 2307: 2263: 2219: 1412: 2973: 2864: 2818: 2793: 2755: 2415: 1340: 1314:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below.

1244: 1172: 1129: 1007: 868: 674: 618: 525: 433: 282:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below.

214: 98: 72:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below.

3056:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

1955:

pair. That parameter, of course, doesn't get collapsed as an editor might think that it does.

1320:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

1290:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

288:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

258:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

78:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

3057: 2977: 2881: 2871: 2797: 2776: 2759: 2448: 2358: 1321: 1291: 1248: 1176: 1133: 1011: 872: 797: 758: 678: 637: 622: 529: 289: 259: 218: 187: 179: 79: 1771:

If this template is to be retained it should work with all infoboxes, not just a select few.

1730:

where it definitely doesn't work. Granted, ship infoboxes are a peculiar lot. So I went to

1708:

Ok, so maybe it does work in some but not in others, I've just seen the example that Editor

1393: 421: 2324: 2282: 2238: 2197: 1265: 1429:: Citation backlinks to a reference inside a collapsed section of an infobox do not work.— 8: 2917: 2621: 2476: 2394: 2379: 2344: 365: 2859:, which is used to set the color of the table. if you would have put it just after the 2836:. But we've just moved the discussion from venue to another and it really needs to end. 3025: 2892: 2837: 2728: 2591: 2566: 2524: 2430: 2303: 2254: 2247:

Small sections of some infoboxes have been collapsed. This template is used for hiding

2210: 2154: 2047: 2042:

the two. as far as I know, this is the only working solution that has been presented.

1853: 1823: 1612: 1477: 1458: 1403: 1111: 1101: 991: 961: 315: 1908:

the section that they want to collapse doesn't collapse or doesn't collapse correctly.

2965: 2814: 2785: 2747: 2411: 1337: 1236: 1164: 1121: 999: 860: 779: 666: 610: 517: 206: 95: 1717: 793: 753: 183: 54: 890:

Really? I find your argument unpersuasive. Improve morale with a throwaway icon?

2997: 2934: 2717: 2686: 2555: 2513: 2492: 2320: 2278: 2234: 2193: 1533: 1500: 200: 306: 2913: 2666: 2645: 2614: 2542: 2500: 2469: 2374: 2337: 1389: 814: 703: 362: 163: 2888: 2724: 2562: 2520: 2426: 2150: 2043: 1819: 1709: 1608: 1454: 1230: 1197: 1097: 987: 957: 950: 849: 824: 786: 711: 552: 475: 310: 842:}} as it defeats the purpose of IMPROVING morale and promoting good editing. 2678:. as the creator of this template, my only request is that we don't simply 2189: 642: 2586:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Classical music#TFD for collapsed infobox code

542:{{subst:<includeonly>whatever}}</includeonly> 2994: 2931: 1229:

I'm tired of wasting time. All three have been blanked and marked for

983:

it to support my position (please don't)," is not a realistic argument.

2662: 2641: 2538: 2496: 1453:). the key is to move the ref tags outside of the collapsed section. 545: 468: 1576:

And for my own edification, where is this usage caveat documented?

792:

for content-free approval already, which is far less distracting.

150:. We don't create an infobox template per article, instead we use 946:

other web forum where people chat and express their personality.

514:

wouldn't require it to be deleted, and would be a recursive fix.

3050:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

1284:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

252:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

895:

don't). If that happens, what happens to OP's delicate morale?

700:

seem to convey a useful message. I would certainly get rid of

2445:

exhausted and has stopped editing---one of many, Ceoil noted.

782:. We have (the equally maligned, but apparently invulnerable) 146:

An organization infobox intended for use in only one article,

2867:). I would not generally recommend using this template with 1868: 1351: 1118:}} style quips helps show that good will towards each other. 506:

to the post. All the user needs to type to make it work is {{

2950:

Why keeps something that doesn't work? I still say either

2249:

almost entire infoboxes, apart from their titles and images

598::By your reasoning Trappist, all of the templates shown on 510:}} and it does the rest. So, changing the way it looks on 1398:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Hidden infoboxes

2912:

per Nikkimaria; this is already getting beyond absurd...

2855:, the reason why it bombed is that you put the begin in 1988:

So, the caveat for all of this surely must be, that the

1263:

Can someone subst: the transclusions of this template.

2551:

try to recreate the example in the documentation using

2978: