| Revision as of 05:23, 27 April 2020 editCan I Log In (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,880 edits →RfC on linking to template namespace: RfC CLOSED: OPTION B!← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:05, 27 April 2020 edit undoWikiHannibal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,917 edits →Outdated/updated templates: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 158: | Line 158: | ||
| :. Didn't do it for the separate countries in Asia, but feel free to give them a groupwidth as well if you prefer. --] (]) 00:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC) | :. Didn't do it for the separate countries in Asia, but feel free to give them a groupwidth as well if you prefer. --] (]) 00:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC) | ||
| ::{{u|Mfb}}, Thanks! ---] <sub>(])</sub> 15:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC) | ::{{u|Mfb}}, Thanks! ---] <sub>(])</sub> 15:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC) | ||
| == Outdated/updated templates == | |||
| Why does this main template link to outdated templates such as ] and ], and not to | |||
| ] which is updated and includes per capita info? Thanks, ] (]) 10:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:05, 27 April 2020
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 pandemic template. |
|
Archives: A, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
 | This template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 pandemic template. |
|
| Archives: A, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 7 days |
RfC on linking to template namespace
OPTION B Prelimary results: 8/13/7 (7/9.5/4 adjusted for dual votes)Summary of Option A arguments: It's useful!.
Summary of Option B arguments: Templates are for technical behind the scenes editors namespace, so readers shouldn't be looking at them. However, we gotta preserve the data, and they're getting huge!
Summary of Option C arguments: Templates are not articles!
Summary of Consensus: The main consensus here is to move them out of template space and preserve it. This is going towards Option B since the arguments are combing both Option A and option B. It'S uSeFuLl, but ThEy'Re NoT aRtIcLeS! Option B has your back everyone. (non-admin closure) {{replyto}} Can I Log In
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 | This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
The "Data and figures" section of this navbox links either exclusively or almost exclusively to the template namespace. Here are three options:
- Option A: Keep as is and continue to link to template namespace.
- Option B: Expand the linked templates into standalone articles.
- Option C: Remove the linked templates from the navbox.
I look forward to reading your thoughts. 06:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Bait30 05:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: some of the templates have been already included in standalone articles. For example, 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Singapore#Statistics. Linking to the statistics subsection counts under option B. Bait30 23:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Discussion and !votes
- Option C or B We should not be linking to templates. It is against usual Misplaced Pages practice. Current links to templates can be dropped, replaced with links to article sections, or, where appropriate, the linked templates can be expanded into standalone articles. Bondegezou (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Before making a decision, it would be good to know why it is linking to templates. · · · Peter Southwood : 08:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment: +1 to Pbsouthwood, and another question: does the navbox already link to the pages, which transclude these templates? Do these pages have captions and/or prose describing the transcluded content? —andrybak (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- I assume that each template is transcluded into at least one article within the scope of the navbox, but have not checked, and it is technically possible that I may be wrong. In most cases I would expect at least two transclusions, into two articles, otherwise why bother to make it a template. · · · Peter Southwood : 10:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Here's list of translusion counts:
- I assume that each template is transcluded into at least one article within the scope of the navbox, but have not checked, and it is technically possible that I may be wrong. In most cases I would expect at least two transclusions, into two articles, otherwise why bother to make it a template. · · · Peter Southwood : 10:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
| Transclusions counts | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Most templates have a single transclusion. One has no transclusions at all. And two templates have more than one transclusion. —andrybak (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- With the above in mind, my !vote goes to Option C. Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/WHO situation reports should be summarized as a paragraph in the section 2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak#WHO response measures and deleted per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. —andrybak (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Most templates have a single transclusion. One has no transclusions at all. And two templates have more than one transclusion. —andrybak (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option C or B per Bondegezou rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option B based on what Bondegezou said. Idealigic (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Since there seems to be a suitable article using all except one template, I see no added value to the reader in having an extra link from the navbox to each table. I would be interested to know the rationale for having these tables as templates rather than the more usual practice of simply including them in the text. I can see the point when a table is used in more than one article, but not when it is in only one article.· · · Peter Southwood : 18:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option A or B. These data are extremely valuable. Most readers don't know or care what a MediaWiki namespace is. If someone wants to turn these into articles in mainspace, that's great, but I think a link to the data should be preserved in any case. 72.209.60.95 (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- I have not seen anyone contest that the data are valuable, just the way they are being used is unusual and not covered by any manual of style guidance that I am aware of. As tables in a regular article they are plainly encyclopeic. As naked tables without context the case is not clear.
- What is the specific usefulness claimed for them as stand-alone tables, beyond their obvious value in articles where they are given context and explained? · · · Peter Southwood : 15:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Now that you mention it, maybe there's no need to link to the templates specifically instead of the articles which transclude them. For example, instead of linking to Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Switzerland medical cases, we could just link to 2020_coronavirus_outbreak_in_Switzerland#Statistics. I'm fine with doing that. 72.209.60.95 (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option A the navigation to all the relevant pages is useful to quickly jump around to edit or read. I expect our readers will also appreciate it. So WP:IAR is applicable if an rule is an obstacle here. Removing the links does not add to the encyclopedia and would be slightly disruptive. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option A. It is useful, WP:IAR. I also cannot find any policies or guidelines that explicitly discourage linking to templates. Darylgolden Ping when replying 03:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Useful in what way? · · · Peter Southwood : 15:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option A Works well the way it is. We can innovate and do what makes a better encyclopedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option A The templates provide useful encyclopedic, sourced information and in this context including them in the navbox seems appropriate. The context in each template is provided by the {{main}} headers in the <noinclude> header sections. This context may not make sense for more typical Misplaced Pages navboxes. Obviously, a navbox for functional templates like {{t}} or {{citation needed}} would not make sense in the main namespace. Boud (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- We have a guideline on this. It's WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Shouldn't we do what it says? Bondegezou (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. I do not know if you are all aware that transclusions can be done from main space, in the same way that templates are transcluded from template space. If these tables are so generally useful that they should be used as stand-alone content, why are they not in main space as articles? · · · Peter Southwood : 07:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option B: While there is nothing wrong with option A, I find option B to be a better choice per 72.209.60.95. I just think it would be better to avoid linking to other namespaces as much as possible. It might confuse many newcomers who might think of it as a template with example numbers or something. Side note: I am officially no longer an uninvolved editor in this RfC so I will not be the one closing the discussion. I recommend waiting a week before requesting a closure per WP:ANRFC Bait30 08:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC).
- Option A Keep it as is and expand given their usefulness. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option A or B I think they are useful as is and provide valuable information, although I would be fine with expanding them into articles as well, particularly if they become larger. ~ HAL333 20:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option B or C. We should not be linking to template namespace from mainspace. Navboxes in mainspace are for navigating between articles. If the template is already transcluded to an article, then the material is already navigable. If it isn't, then it should be, otherwise it defeats the purpose of the template namespace. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option B or C. Misplaced Pages often has too much trouble maintaining a firm line between content for readers and maintenance content for editors. My interpretation of WP:TMP is that templates are firmly on the maintenance side of that line, and we should not blur it. If the data is useful, find another way to present it. Sdkb (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option B. It makes it easier to navigate it for most Internet users. Most users of modern Internet are not interested of technicalities and inners of many services. Fortunny (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option C. The relevant guideline here is WP:TG which states that
Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content
. Additionally, template pages do not show up in search results by default (most users will not use any "Advanced search" option, nor are navboxes visible on mobile, which is at least 50% of our readers. That means that whoever is creating these templates, are creating it for themselves and a small group of editors, and not for the wider community. Option B is irrelevant here, if the topic is notable for an article, expand, if it isn't add it to an article. If both aren't an option, that means that the template has no reason to exist. --Gonnym (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC) - Option B The data are very useful and current the CDC does not publish a daily report of cases and deaths by state. Not like other countries. Link to page with the statistics (table of state cases and deaths) from main page would be fine. Seatto23 (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option B Seems less confusing for users and allows us to maintain useful data. MosquitoBird11 (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option A/C. These templates are used in other articles, if we make standalone articles out of them this gets awkward. We could reduce the number of links here, however. Link to a list of these templates. --mfb (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option B. Length of the template is getting out of hand. gidonb (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- On the wall, templates are more for the 'behind the scenes' part of WP, as opposed to general reading. However, I still think that we should have the links there... Perhaps I am biased towards what would be more useful to me, as an editor.
>>BEANS X211:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC) - Option B or C, a lot of the arguments for option A are WP:ILIKEIT. I think the arguments given for the other options are better. Swordman97 22:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages's response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
Should Misplaced Pages's response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic be added? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Update: I've added to the Information subsection, alongside media coverage and misinformation entries. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Aren't we all in a conflict of interest writing on our own response to COVID?--Pestilence Unchained (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Pestilence Unchained, Well, who else is going to write the entry? If you have specific concerns, please share on the response article's talk page. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Aren't we all in a conflict of interest writing on our own response to COVID?--Pestilence Unchained (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Shortages is Impact + Socio-Economic?
Shouldn't the Shortages related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic page also be placed under "Impact --> Socio-Economic"? This change does highly impact businesses too, especially supermarkets. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Or should there be only one instance of Shortages related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic page as "Shortages", placed only in the "Health issues --> Problems and restrictions" section? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Asia
I propose removing "East", "Central and North", "South", "Southeast", and "West", and just having subheaders for Mainland China, India, and Philippines. The Africa and Europe sections do not have regional subheaders, and splitting Asia into so many section makes finding specific locations more difficult, especially for editors who may not have a strong sense of geography. Thoughts? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, I'd be fine with keeping subheaders for North Asia and South Asia since there are Misplaced Pages articles specific to the regions: 2020 coronavirus pandemic in North Asia and 2020 coronavirus pandemic in South Asia. I prefer removing the subheaders for regions without articles specific to the pandemic. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Cell width
I was thinking consistent cell widths would make the template look cleaner. Does someone know how to make the subheaders for Asia, Europe, and North America the same width?
@Mfb: I believe you helped with this before. Do you mind taking another look?
---Another Believer (Talk) 15:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Like that. Didn't do it for the separate countries in Asia, but feel free to give them a groupwidth as well if you prefer. --mfb (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- Mfb, Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Outdated/updated templates
Why does this main template link to outdated templates such as Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/International medical cases and Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Case fatality rate, and not to Template:COVID-19 testing by country which is updated and includes per capita info? Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Categories:- Template-Class China-related pages
- NA-importance China-related pages
- Template-Class China-related articles of NA-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- Template-Class COVID-19 pages
- NA-importance COVID-19 pages
- WikiProject COVID-19 articles
- Template-Class Disaster management pages
- NA-importance Disaster management pages
- Template-Class geography pages
- NA-importance geography pages
- WikiProject Geography articles
- Template-Class medicine pages
- NA-importance medicine pages
- Template-Class pulmonology pages
- NA-importance pulmonology pages
- Pulmonology task force articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- Template-Class virus pages
- NA-importance virus pages
- WikiProject Viruses articles