Template talk:new en basic
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Suzukaze-c in topic RFD discussion: March 2019
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
The following appears to be the full list.
- Template:new en basic
- Template:new en noun
- Template:new en plural
Template:new en useful- Template:new en adj
- Template:new en adv
- Template:new en compar
- Template:new en superl
- Template:new en verb infl
- Template:new en verb third
- Template:new en verb pres part
- Template:new en verb past
Template:new en adj noun- Template:new en plural third
- Template:new en noun part
- template:new en -ed
- template:new en -ly
- template:new en -ness
This templates are well over a decade old and associated with Wiktionary talk:Project-Nogomatch, which appears long dead. No uses in mainspace any more. Benwing2 (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, this isn't the complete list. There are more such as Template:new en plural third bot, Template:new en plural bot, etc. and corresponding pages for other languages, see here. I don't know if any of them are in use; it seems their original purpose was in some article-creation gadgets. I suspect they aren't in use but don't know for sure. Benwing2 (talk) 05:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wouldn't you have to make sure than none of these templates are used by other templates, ultimately by one still in use? It seems like the inverse of template expansion. One could search template namespace for wikitext that invokes the template. Also use in other namespaces that normal users might see (like Appendix). Are there ways to partially automate the detection of completely out of use templates (and modules), those used only on user pages, etc? DCDuring (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have always just searched the dump in those cases. One dirty way to do it would be to modify the template you are looking for to categorize all entries which include it and then look at the entries in the category. - TheDaveRoss 12:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Are you saying you search Template or Module namespace in the all-namespace current dump? DCDuring (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, although I haven't done it with modules, so I have always used pages-articles for everything. I just search for the template name and manually review the pages which it finds to see if it is being used or not. If it were a common thing that wouldn't work, but I have only ever done so in cases with like 20 instances across current versions. - TheDaveRoss 19:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Are you saying you search Template or Module namespace in the all-namespace current dump? DCDuring (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have always just searched the dump in those cases. One dirty way to do it would be to modify the template you are looking for to categorize all entries which include it and then look at the entries in the category. - TheDaveRoss 12:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- If we get rid of these, can be also get rid of:
- Wiktionary:English entry templates
- Wiktionary:Entry templates
- MediaWiki:Nogomatch
- Wiktionary:Project-Nogomatch
- and references to these templates at least on other non-discussion pages?
- Failing to get rid of such pages and references clogs special pages. DCDuring (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DCDuring I can get rid of those extra pages as well once I'm sure that these templates should all be eliminated. I think I can write a bot script using pywikibot to list all the references of each 'new *' template and check that it's only user and discussion pages. I'm a bit concerned that these templates somehow or other used by some JavaScript or Lua that someone is using but I assume somebody would have said something by now if that were the case. Maybe User:Rua knows? Benwing2 (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- It looked to me that the new entry function is now performed by a Lua module, apparently for all languages, but my technical judgment is poor. And I would want premature deletion. DCDuring (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DCDuring Can you point me to the Lua module in question? Benwing2 (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- The may be a module, but there is JS. See [1]. DCDuring (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DCDuring Can you point me to the Lua module in question? Benwing2 (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- It looked to me that the new entry function is now performed by a Lua module, apparently for all languages, but my technical judgment is poor. And I would want premature deletion. DCDuring (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DCDuring I can get rid of those extra pages as well once I'm sure that these templates should all be eliminated. I think I can write a bot script using pywikibot to list all the references of each 'new *' template and check that it's only user and discussion pages. I'm a bit concerned that these templates somehow or other used by some JavaScript or Lua that someone is using but I assume somebody would have said something by now if that were the case. Maybe User:Rua knows? Benwing2 (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wouldn't you have to make sure than none of these templates are used by other templates, ultimately by one still in use? It seems like the inverse of template expansion. One could search template namespace for wikitext that invokes the template. Also use in other namespaces that normal users might see (like Appendix). Are there ways to partially automate the detection of completely out of use templates (and modules), those used only on user pages, etc? DCDuring (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Here is the full list, with #uses and refs.
Benwing2 (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Deleted them all. If anyone complains, we can restore selectively. Benwing2 (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- This may be tedious, but it seems to me to be the right way to reduce the chances that deleting a template (or module?) might break something. DCDuring (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DCDuring UGH UGH UGH. Many of these are in fact used, by the table that comes up when you search for a non-existent entry (it says "These entry templates may help when adding word" and has table of various parts of speech related to the word "cross"). It is specified in MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new. I restored the ones used by the table. Personally however I'm not sure if this table is helpful, esp. since above it is a link to User:Yair rand/newentrywiz.js, which appears a lot better and supports many more languages. What do people think about deleting the table? Benwing2 (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Can we get an idea about how often any of these templates are used in a week or month. I'd favor creating a log of invocations or entries created if that were possible. I don't think that there is any way to use the dumps for this. Of the templates that are not statically transcluded in user-facing namespaces, ie, transcluded only in user and talk pages, how many are in fact not subst-ed in some time period? They would seem to be all be prime candidates for deletion. Could we add something to each of such templates or to the code supporting "subst:" that would populate such a log. DCDuring (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I have no idea how to do that ... Benwing2 (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- It turns out to be harder than I thought. If you look at the page creation log, you'll see that I created an entry for Mexican bush sage. I used the blue "Noun" button, but the edit summary is the default one that the system adds when there is none. I then created an entry for white sage using just a redlink and entering all the content by hand. There doesn't seem to be anything in the logs that can be used to tell them apart. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- For a limited number of templates one was tracking, one could have the template insert a category line (eg, Category:Substed template tracking (TEMPLATENAME) on the page in which the template was substed. That would mean inserting the categorization code into each tracked template.
- I wonder whether there is or could be something in the customization of the Wikimedia software that allowed logging of substs more directly.
- Does anyone know whether substs appear in the dump of changes, ie, enwiktionary-20190320-stub-meta-history.xml.gz 3.0 GB? Though that is a large file probably would take a lot less than an hour to download and a lot less than an hour to find all substs, provided they are actually recorded. If one needs the file of changes with full text history, that is a much larger file, I think. Moreover, I don't know whether it can be run. Most recently it was skipped. DCDuring (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- These aren't substs, they're preloads. The code that calls them is in the URL itself and processed directly by the system. What's more, preloads are used by the acceleration templates and other new-entry methods. There are preloads that don't include templates, but I'm not sure if any trace is left either way. I'm skeptical that something that doesn't show up in the logs would show up in the dumps. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DCDuring: I haven't downloaded the full history (the actual file wasn't generated; it would be bigger than 3 GB: 29 GB in the last dump), but my guess would be that it is similar to the pages-articles and pages-meta-current dumps, in that you see the actual wikitext of the page, which never contains the name of the template that was substed. I don't know if there's any record of template substitutions. — Eru·tuon 04:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Erutuon, Chuck Entz: Thanks for humoring me. I tried substituting a template and looked at diff in the page history. There is no indication that the content was produced by substitution. That means we can only track the use of templates by inserting comments, categorization, and/or nondisplaying templates, the latter two to allow use of insource searching for comments, should comments be necessary. Should we find a given substed template to be in more than rare use, we would then have a bit of a cleanup job. Probably not worth it. DCDuring (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- It turns out to be harder than I thought. If you look at the page creation log, you'll see that I created an entry for Mexican bush sage. I used the blue "Noun" button, but the edit summary is the default one that the system adds when there is none. I then created an entry for white sage using just a redlink and entering all the content by hand. There doesn't seem to be anything in the logs that can be used to tell them apart. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I have no idea how to do that ... Benwing2 (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Can we get an idea about how often any of these templates are used in a week or month. I'd favor creating a log of invocations or entries created if that were possible. I don't think that there is any way to use the dumps for this. Of the templates that are not statically transcluded in user-facing namespaces, ie, transcluded only in user and talk pages, how many are in fact not subst-ed in some time period? They would seem to be all be prime candidates for deletion. Could we add something to each of such templates or to the code supporting "subst:" that would populate such a log. DCDuring (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
@Benwing2 I stumbled upon Template:new trans table template at some point and thought it was pretty nifty. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 01:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)