Global templates/Discuss

This is a page for collecting opinions about the Global templates proposal.

If you read the proposal and just agree to it, please sign below. If you disagree with something, write it here or on the proposal's talk page.

This is not a vote. The decision about this proposal will not be made just by counting how many people are for it or against it. It is not a part of Community Wishlist Survey or any other outreach or planning process. If this project is implemented, it will be a significant change in how the software on Wikimedia projects works, so it's important to see that there is wide community consensus before going forward with it.

Tell your wiki friends about this page and invite them to express their opinion, too. This proposal shouldn't be "owned" by just one person or a small group, but by the whole Wikimedia community.

I read the proposal and I think that it is a good idea

edit

Please sign below if you think that this is an important problem to solve, and if you think that the proposed solution (short version, long version) is good. If you think that the direction is generally good, but you have some minor corrections, please indicate this, too. You can write in any language.

I read the proposal. Let me explain why it is a bad idea

edit

It's totally fine to disagree with this proposal. It should only be implemented if there is a wide consensus for it. Before signing below, please make sure that you've read at least the short version of the solution proposal, and please explain what is the problem with it. You can write in any language.

Extended content
  • Global templates will inevitable include code that does nothing on some wikis, which, on those wikis, amounts to code bloat. * Pppery * it has begun 17:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, the user in one Wikimedia sister project could ask a bot to include a global template in the project. The important thing: it can be Wikimeda wide easily / nearly automatically / automatically disposable --BoldLuis (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @BoldLuis: I don't understand what you're trying to say. * Pppery * it has begun 21:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery: You can put in one template Template:Noupdate and can continue using the same template locally. But if in one place want the template globally update, can deciede do so. The choice is in your hand. And in the hand of others for their templates. (I'm sorry if I answer quite a bit later, but it has caught me a very busy time). --BoldLuis (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @BoldLuis: This doesn't address the problem; I believe the entire infrastructure is a bad idea because it perpetuates code bloat. The result of this system will be, regardless of the efforts of any individual editor or the presence or absence of opt-out templates, is that the template and module namespaces of every wiki will get polluted with pages not relevant to them. I've already seen this happen on the English Wikipedia with en:Module:Complex date/en:Module:LangSwitch/en:Module:DateI18n/en:Module:i18n/*/en:Module:Roman-cd/en:Module:Ordinal-cd/..., all of which are useless except on multi-lingual wikis but exist anyway because of pre-existing ad-hoc template and module globalizations. Implementing this as a well-established bot is doomed to make this problem even worse. * Pppery * it has begun 21:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So,in your modules en:Module:Complex date/en:Module:LangSwitch/en:Module:DateI18n/en:Module:i18n/*/en:Module:Roman-cd/en:Module:Ordinal-cd (you can include a list), you can add nogupdate. The problem is worse, when you use a text from Wikipedia in non-English to another Wikipedia. Templates are in this other language. If there is a common infrastructure for some templates, you can use in the other language. An idea can be, without translation, because you could use a wizard to see the code template in your own language. What now: copying and pasting a lot of copy from one Wikipedia to the other one and compatibility zero. Babel zero. It is more easy exclude template (also exclude all, excepting XXX ) that have nothing when you need it. BoldLuis (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're still misunderstanding me. I'm not complaining about the content of those module pages, I'm complaining that they exist. I would instead have to add the "don't update" magic word to every module that uses them. I think that that effort is large enough that the entire proposal is a bad idea. In short, the "global templates" proposal is saying "every wiki should have every template", whereas I instead feel strongly that "wikis should only have templates that are relevant to them". I believe this difference in ideology to be irreconcilable, and therefore oppose this proposal. * Pppery * it has begun 23:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The "noupdate" template, which BoldLuis suggests, is not in the proposal, and it won't be necessary.
    More importantly, the "global templates" proposal is absolutely not saying that "every wiki should have every template". It very, very explicitly says the opposite: It must become possible to share templates across wiki sites. Possible, not required. As it is with images: images that must be reusable on all wikis are on Commons, but some images can also be local, for any reason.
    The proposal also explicitly says that it must be possible to make some templates non-global.
    Currently we have forked copies of templates with similar functionality in dozens or even hundreds of wikis. This is a much worse code bloat than having access to a template or a function and not using it. --Amir E. Aharoni {{🌎🌍🌏}} 17:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm collapsing this four-year-old discussion since I think it no longer reflects my current views on the matter. That was what I said as a kind of knee-jerk reaction to this coming up when I was in the middle of or had just finished a project to clean up lots of unused templates on MediaWiki.org (no, let's not pull in more templates from other wikis). I'm no longer formally opposed to this, and now take no position. * Pppery * it has begun 05:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]