Jump to content

Template talk:Date table sorting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SmokeyJoe (talk | contribs) at 02:37, 8 July 2019 (→Requested move 1 June 2019: s). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Support for the text "present" to be treated as current date

Could the template be coded to add support for the word "present" so that it will treat it as the current date when sorting and will also display that text? To give it context: a table for television programs that have a column for when it debuted and when it ended. For programs that are still running, instead of leaving the column empty, I'd like to be able to write "present". This is similar to how the documentation at {{Infobox television season}} says to use dates with {{End date}} (though I don't see where exactly that template supports that). --Gonnym (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ymd

Can we get an option for format=ymd? In timeline tables, it's the year that's the most important, plus it's ISO, so it would be nice to have it as an option. — kwami (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 June 2019

– Expand overabbreviated template name. * Pppery * it has begun... 12:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 04:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Doncram (talk) 03:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, it is the module, not the template, that is the problem. I was not aware that modules could not be redirected. I have moved it back for now, and created a duplicate at the original move target until all the links can be changed over. bd2412 T 03:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(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. --Doncram (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) 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 do not need to worry about things like a significant increase in data storage/usage and perhaps reading times. There is no grounds for a reopening here. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 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). --Doncram (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 three other 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. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. bd2412 T 04:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, implementing this requested move would not require editing thousands of articles, it 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. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I moved the template, that did leave redirects behind, but it did not prevent the widespread template breakage. Do you mean that the fixes can be implemented without needing to edit anything other than those three pages? bd2412 T 04:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @BD2412: It did not prevent widespread template breakage because you failed to update the template to call the module by its new name. No widespread breakage would have occurred if you had changed the template to say {{#invoke:Date table sorting|main}} instead of {{#invoke:Dts|main}} after you moved the module. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware of that. Now that we have had this discussion it will be easier for a closing admin to implement once the relisting period has elapsed. bd2412 T 04:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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  — Amakuru (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. --Gonnym (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Well since the move had broken thousands of pages, I think it was quite justified myself. Try to consider the readers next time, 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 BD2412 this morning.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @JJMC89:. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery: yep, as I said above I have no idea what is wrong with it. Just that whatever was attempted was not done correctly! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how my comment can be considered "launching [of] attacks on [you]", but I still stand by them. If you'd have reported the issues, someone (me included) could have looked at the issue and see what the issue is. As it stands I have no idea what red errors you saw, as when I try that page with the /sandbox version I don't get those red errors. From a very basic look and without any error to work on, it would seem that the issue might be related to the fact that the module has a specific template set up as the wrapper. --Gonnym (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. DTS is quite clear: it is a quick device to make a date sortable and is good as an acronym or code that is not meant to be spoken out literally. The term "date table sorting" is descriptive of the overall issue; one could create a Wikipedia article date table sorting on the general topic, as applies in Wikimedia and in Excel / Lotus 1-2-3, other table systems current and historical. The term "date table sorting" does not naturally apply to the formatting of a given datum. What is needed is a code.
The requested move seems like "needless tinkering" as someone suggested above. It would be like trying to force the world to change from Qwertyuiop keyboards to something more "sensible", which would cause needless disruption. Everyone who uses the template knows what it is; the quest to change it (in order to make it more understandable/clear?) only imposes needless burden on everyone. Or maybe this would be like a quest to replace use of the code "." by the word "period" to make it more understandable? Bad idea period. We all know what the code is, and a code is what is needed, and the expanded term is not even descriptive to the individual usages.
Anyhow I have used template:DTS in the past and was happy enough with it. When editing a page, I would NOT want to write out "date table sorting" a zillion times or to have it written out longer automatically; it literally makes it more difficult to see all of then-longer longer row or section or page. --Doncram (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is preventing you from calling the template by its redirect if you feel that the shorter name is better (note that, by my count ~5000 articles call Template:Number table sorting through its redirect Template:Nts and zero articles use the full template name directly despite the template having had the longer name since 2010. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The documentation at Template:Dts/doc and perhaps elsewhere linked to there is now screwed up too, showing mixed usage of "dts" and "date table sorting". Some others have tried, and I have tried, to restore previous documentation appearance, but maybe there is more linked templates inside templates that need to be fixed to get it right again. --Doncram (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - DTBSRT or DTbSrt - No one suggested either of these. For those who think that all TLAs (3LtrAcronyms) *must* be limited to three letters, DTS wins. For those who accepted 4 letters TLAs at some point, then graduates of SIXbit (ancient pre-EBCDIC/8-bit ASCII) would find DTBSRT (pre-UpLo) or DTbSrt reasonable, especially since the 2nd T-byte represents both daTe and Tbl/Table. 'Nuff said. Pi314m (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Gonnym. @Amakuru: What exactly did the error on 27 Club say? And are you sure it was the kind of error that simply a purge wouldn't have eliminated? And even if so, reverting the moves per se may have been justified but it doesn't strike me as a reason to go so far as to reopen the RM—you could have simply reported it so others could identify the problem and carry on with the renaming—this is borderline wheel-warring.​​ Nardog (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Date_table_sorting&oldid=905276727"