Template talk:Quaternary footer
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Proposal to convert to navbox
[edit]There is a proposal to convert this template to use {{navbox}}. Please feel free to join in the discussion here. —hike395 (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Recent template rename
[edit]To editor The Transhumanist: not for anything, but your recent rename of this template from "Quaternary footer" makes it different from its associated navbars: {{Period navbars}}. Do you think they all should be renamed? Paine Ellsworth put'r there 11:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Certain associations are more powerful. The grouping method that seems to work best is matching by root title. So, Quaternary, Category:Quaternary, Template:Quaternary, Portal:Quaternary, and Book:Quaternary would be a set. (Unfortunately, "Template:Quaternary" was already taken by the math department). There's this magic word, "
{{PAGENAME}}", that allows automated use of articles, templates, categories, portals, and so on, that share the same title (other than namespace). A similar magic word in WP:AWB is also useful only when the titles match. At the Portals WikiProject, we were able to create 2600 portals using a creation template that calls various components based on their matching titles, using{{PAGENAME}}. For example, in the wikicode of Portal:Judo,{{PAGENAME}}translates to "Judo", and is used throughout the page to transclude the lead from Judo, pull the links out of Template:Judo, display a cattree of Category:Judo, and set the page's category to that as well.
- I was going to create Portal:Quaternary, but discovered that Template:Quaternary is a math calculation program of the Math WikiProject, and that the portal was already created under the synonymous title Portal:Quaternary prehistory. That set is all screwed up. :)
- My suggestion is to name navigation footer templates so that they match the title of their corresponding articles. — The Transhumanist 14:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- I am neutral about the names. Guess I never gave this much thought. I think it would be good to standardize this way; however, you've already come across an important dilemma... the fact that some template names that would be needed for setting and maintaining a standard are already taken, and it might not be an improvement to change those already taken names. Maybe this is something that more editors should be in on? It seems like what you suggest would be almost as much of a monumental task as the categorizing of redirects.
(perhaps moreso?) In any case, I noticed that the /doc page for this template has not been renamed yet, but before we move it, we should decide which way we want to go with this set of templates. Paine Ellsworth put'r there 16:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- I am neutral about the names. Guess I never gave this much thought. I think it would be good to standardize this way; however, you've already come across an important dilemma... the fact that some template names that would be needed for setting and maintaining a standard are already taken, and it might not be an improvement to change those already taken names. Maybe this is something that more editors should be in on? It seems like what you suggest would be almost as much of a monumental task as the categorizing of redirects.
- @Paine Ellsworth: Naming conflicts are extremely difficult to unravel system wide. Therefore, I've been doing it primarily for the templates I come across while working on portals. As new portals get created, the corresponding template titles get adjusted as needed, where possible. I've found the following naming conflicts are common: sometimes the template name is already taken by the WikiProject, sometimes by a sidebar or series box, often by a less common use of the term (such as for a band name), and occasionally by something else. Therefore, I typically rename the footer template when the root name isn't taken yet. — The Transhumanist 01:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- In this case, the previous template name was in line and standard to the other footer templates. Should we move it back? or should we move the other footer templates to their root names? Paine Ellsworth put'r there 10:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Paine Ellsworth: Naming conflicts are extremely difficult to unravel system wide. Therefore, I've been doing it primarily for the templates I come across while working on portals. As new portals get created, the corresponding template titles get adjusted as needed, where possible. I've found the following naming conflicts are common: sometimes the template name is already taken by the WikiProject, sometimes by a sidebar or series box, often by a less common use of the term (such as for a band name), and occasionally by something else. Therefore, I typically rename the footer template when the root name isn't taken yet. — The Transhumanist 01:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest keeping the word "footer" in all of these navbox names. Geological period navboxes tend to be misused by editors, being placed on inappropriate articles or in odd places in good articles. Having a name that describes the usage is helpful to minimize misuse. —hike395 (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- I've also seen a trend toward renaming sidebars as "(subject) sidebar", especially when there is an associated navbar or footer, so I tend to agree with you hike395. Paine Ellsworth put'r there 15:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Having a standard would be best, and renaming sidebars is a good strategy. Having a standard (that is always followed) for footers would also be best. If that means the subject preceded by "Footer", that would work. The problem with that strategy is that the de facto standard at this time is the root name, which most, but not everyone, follows. At the present time, the vast majority of navbox footers are named with the root name, though several different types of templates compete for that title. Perhaps there would be no such competition for "Footer rootname". Renaming them, however, would be a monumental task, as there are tens of thousands of them placed on millions of articles. Far fewer use something other than the unaltered root name — for example, only about 3100 use "footer", and in various ways, with more than 3/4 of the use being for championship footers which start with the word "Footer ". So, I would be inclined to stick with the root name for navbox footers in general. Currently, that's what gets used in substitution templates that make use of magic words (variables) to call footers — because footers named with the root get by far the most matches. — The Transhumanist 19:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- I understand your argument about consistency with other footers, and think it's compelling. But, as you point out, the rootname is "Quaternary" as a single word and {{Quaternary}} is already used for a non-footer template. Whatever we do has to be inconsistent with standard usage, because that's taken. Given that we are forced to be non-standard by adding an extra word, and given that historical misuse of these templates, can we stick with {{Quaternary footer}} (and allow other geological period navboxen to also end in footer)? —hike395 (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- Having a standard would be best, and renaming sidebars is a good strategy. Having a standard (that is always followed) for footers would also be best. If that means the subject preceded by "Footer", that would work. The problem with that strategy is that the de facto standard at this time is the root name, which most, but not everyone, follows. At the present time, the vast majority of navbox footers are named with the root name, though several different types of templates compete for that title. Perhaps there would be no such competition for "Footer rootname". Renaming them, however, would be a monumental task, as there are tens of thousands of them placed on millions of articles. Far fewer use something other than the unaltered root name — for example, only about 3100 use "footer", and in various ways, with more than 3/4 of the use being for championship footers which start with the word "Footer ". So, I would be inclined to stick with the root name for navbox footers in general. Currently, that's what gets used in substitution templates that make use of magic words (variables) to call footers — because footers named with the root get by far the most matches. — The Transhumanist 19:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
It's no surprise that I am confused by this. Another concern is "should we capitalize?" For example, it appears to be standard with these geological-period templates to uppercase "Period", "Era", "Eon" and so on. Should this template then be titled "Quaternary Period"? Perhaps an agreement can be made to use the root name followed by "footer", which in this case would be "{{Quaternary Period footer}}" or "{{Quaternary period footer}}"? Would one of those be acceptable to everyone? Paine Ellsworth put'r there 14:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- The rootname of the article is "Quaternary", not "Quaternary Period" or "Quaternary period". By Transhumanist's argument, we should call this footer {{Quaternary}}. There already is a Quaternary template with ~400 transclusions, while this footer only has ~50 transclusions. So, we can't really name this {{Quaternary}}. I was proposing sticking with {{Quaternary footer}}. I think {{Quaternary period footer}} (any capitalization) is too wordy. —hike395 (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- That makes it clearer, hike395, and we follow the root name, which is the main article's title, and just add "footer" to that root name. That would mean that this recent page move should be changed back to "
{{Quaternary footer}}". So if The Transhumanist agrees, then that is how we will proceed. If there is still no agreement, then I think we should revert the recent page rename and open a requested move to rename it "{{Quaternary period}}". Paine Ellsworth put'r there 00:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)- I agree with whatever you decide for naming prehistoric period footers, as long as it is acknowledged as an exception to the common practice. But before you do, I have a question: Are the articles themselves named correctly? — The Transhumanist 00:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I would say that the articles, which leave off the suffix-like qualifiers, are named correctly. There was, for example, a time when "epochs" were called "periods" and so forth, so some time back the community probably decided that it was best to use just the root name, such as "Quaternary", for these articles, and to add hatnotes that point to "[root name] (disambiguation)" when appropriate. At that time, these geological-period root names became WP:PRIMARYTOPICs for the terms. So "Quaternary" (the geological period) is the PTOPIC at Quaternary (disambiguation). And according to the page-move logs, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6], those are the stable article/dab page titles and have been so for a long time. Paine Ellsworth put'r there 01:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with whatever you decide for naming prehistoric period footers, as long as it is acknowledged as an exception to the common practice. But before you do, I have a question: Are the articles themselves named correctly? — The Transhumanist 00:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- That makes it clearer, hike395, and we follow the root name, which is the main article's title, and just add "footer" to that root name. That would mean that this recent page move should be changed back to "