Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 21
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] March 21
[edit] Template:HurricaneWarning
[edit] Template:NPBPL franchise and postseason
[edit] Template:Video
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was withdrawn. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 17:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Withdrawn, template rewritten to address all issues. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Crufty, semi-broken frame which is no longer used on articlespace. Videos can use image tags directly, and this template just provides a wrapper which looks ugly and has float issues. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep due to Template:Video removals by the nom, preventing notice of impending template loss to involved article editors. Cunningham/thumperward (12:33): "no longer used on articlespace" Well, now that would be because you made an unconcensed series of article edits to remove them from article space - which prevents a reasonable stakeholders' discussion. Another issue is that the notice to the affected template spaces seems to be technically defective, in that it lists the name of the article where the template is used, rather than a link to this deletion discussion. I had a lot of trouble finding it. [Fixed bad nom code.] The template to be deleted notice also does not show up at the top of the article, and may not be noticed by regular editors. After affected editors are reasonably notified this deletion, nom can be reconsidered on the technical merits.
- ...and Keep Template:Video on the technical merits. Still images are not the same as video, and video frames should display playback information All browsing computers can display still images. Many but not all computers can display commercial video formats like Windows Media, Realplayer, and Quicktime, somewhat depending on whether they have bandwidth greater than dialup. Probably many computers cannot display Wikipedia's public domain ogg/Theora format because they either lack bandwidth on dialup, or they don't have the necessary ogg/Theora player components. My computer says it can't get them at all from the offered ogg/Theora download link. Users need to be notified of what they are facing if they try to play an ogg/Theora video, and that means using the video template with the details. Ok, so the template needs editing to improve the float positioning. Other than that, its a plain frame with a marquee and I see nothing ugly about it. That seems to a be mere WP:IDon'tLikeIt statement of fashion slavery. Movies traditionally have marquees, but if that's somehow a problem, the template can be edited to make the marquee optional. Milo 23:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- As I pointed out in the nom, the template is nothing but a wrapper around an image tag currently anyway. No videos which fail to work with a plain image tag work with the template. And the few templates that it was used on have all been converted successfully. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- keep as a matter of hideously underhanded style of nomination. Don't know any of you, but I've seen others do this before and it is bad faith. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- The nom mass removed 24 by my count. I've put notices on most of the affected talk pages, which the nom was instructed to do and didn't. Then the nom had the nerve to revert me and claim I couldn't put any video templates back because the template was up for deletion. Milo 04:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a useful template, especially the included link to Wikipedia:Media help that is directly relevant. On a policy basis, the nomination does not specify a valid deletion criteria: "no longer used on articlespace" does not apply since the nominator deleted pre-existing uses that were in place; "looks ugly" is a personal opinion; and "has float issues" is a technical detail that can easily be fixed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's a good template as it saves space and looks neater, than user putting a line of pics trying to make a "storyboard like" effect. Plus videos are just better than pics, WW2 articles for instance. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Breaking section for the sake of separating out a reply. I don't think people have actually looked into what this template does. All it does is wrap a table around an image tag. compare the following two videos - have a look if you can identify any particular need to use the template:
|
|
A title (which can adequately be covered in the caption) and a help button. That's all. In fact, the image tag version has additional flexibility in that it can accept a size parameter, can be a thumbnail or frame, can have its alignment changed, can be used in galleries, etc etc.
All the functionality described here:
Still images are not the same as video, and video frames should display playback information All browsing computers can display still images. Many but not all computers can display commercial video formats like Windows Media, Realplayer, and Quicktime, somewhat depending on whether they have bandwidth greater than dialup. Probably many computers cannot display Wikipedia's public domain ogg/Theora format because they either lack bandwidth on dialup, or they don't have the necessary ogg/Theora player components. My computer says it can't get them at all from the offered ogg/Theora download link. Users need to be notified of what they are facing if they try to play an ogg/Theora video, and that means using the video template with the details
Is covered by the image tag, not the template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've edited the template to display the "format" parameter that was not displaying previously. I also added a "duration" parameter, and updated the documentation. The video display now looks like this:
|
|
- The display can be further improved, but this provides more useful information than an image tag. Duration & filesize are useful in deciding whether to watch the video or not. The template also features a clear title above the video display. Seems quite useful to me, I don't understand why this is even listed for deletion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- It's listed for deletion because none of the given reasons are sufficient to add additional confusion to how to add a video to an article. The image tag is perfectly sufficient for most purposes. If duration, file size etc. are particularly important to a given clip they can be included in the caption. One of the reasons video on the Web was such a hassle prior to YouTube and similar sites was that users had to learn additional syntax and keep whole separate concepts in their heads for videos when really they're no different from images with play buttons. Not one of the articles I recently fixed up to go without said template is negatively impacted by its removal. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for the clarification. Your reasons appear to be personal opinions and not based in any Wikipedia policy, so are not compelling arguments for deletion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Two out of the four criteria for deletion were satisfied:
- The template is not helpful or noteworthy
- It adds negligible value above an image tag, and loses some functionality built into the image tag.
- The template is redundant to another better-designed template
- Again, it's no better than an image tag usually, and worse because one can't float it or specify the size.
- My personal opinion here is based on considerable experience building, editing and using templates. I wouldn't be nominating it if I thought it were a good template, and I had a go at editing it into a better template before I concluded that it was useless. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Again, thank you for explaining. I respect your experience with templates which I'm sure is more extensive than mine.
- However, I respectfully disagree with your two points. The template is helpful in that it provides a title above the video, and encourages the addition of filesize, format and duration info. The issue about not being able to float it or change the size can be fixed in the template code, or, if someone doesn't want to use the template, they can choose to use a direct tag. That's the same with many optional templates, for example the citation templates impose formats on footnotes but are not required. Some users like the way they work, and others prefer to use piped external links or other methods. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Two out of the four criteria for deletion were satisfied:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The difference with the references tag is that it is not obviously deficient in several ways comparing to the less sophisticated mechanism. In this case, for the sake of adding some minor details (a title and some metadata about the format) which could easily be stored in the caption, a considerable degree of flexibility in the size and placement are lost - details which would require considerable extra complexity in the template, and increase its already significant overhead conceptually comparing to the already-familiar image tag. The two are not equivalent, and the template is so seldom-used (less than thirty pages in articlespace after nearly three years of existence) that pulling it now would prevent users from picking up a habit of using a bulky template where an image tag suffices. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Comment This whole Template:Video deletionist exercise analogizes to the discovery that, hey look, one can file papers in file drawers without using file folders. Yes, occasionally people do that when they don't have any folders left, or when something is too big to fit in a standard folder, but overall paper filing is easier when folders are used most of the time.
- Cunningham/Thumperward (16:39): "...the template is so seldom-used (less than thirty pages in articlespace after nearly three years of existence)"
- Yes, of course there isn't much use yet. Video is still fairly new at Wikipedia; as of 2006 there were only about 200 video files. Some of the reasons are described at m:Talk:Video policy.
- Cunningham/Thumperward (12:33): "this template just provides a wrapper"
- That's what it's supposed to do. The simplest model of all layered software is a kernel surrounded by a shell (i.e, a "wrapper"). Using this analogy the image tag is the kernel, and the template is the shell. Kernels have control functions that are harder to use, but more flexible. Shells have fewer control functions which are less flexible, but they are easier to use, so more people having fewer technical skills can use them.
- Cunningham/Thumperward (13:40): "image tag version has additional flexibility in that it can accept a size parameter, can be a thumbnail or frame"
- Yes, of course. Wikipedia:Creation_and_usage_of_media_files#Video_usage explains how to use either the video template, or the image tag if a thumbnail is needed.
- And what's next on the slippery slope? The Image tag will handle audio files too. If the Template:Video gets deleted, is Template:Listen next? When Wikipedia video file use gets really heavy, as YouTube foreshadows that it will, I'm probably not the only editor that wants videos and audios to be easily noticeable among the still images like those at edit view of Apollo 11 section 8.
- This whole line of thought has the smell of the BSD-CLI vs Linux graphics interface feud. One isn't better than the other; each has it's advantages. Trying to force the exclusive use of one or the other may be well-intended, but without a compelling reason to do so, it's also fascist.
- Cunningham/Thumperward (13:40): "A title (which can adequately be covered in the caption) ... "
- Conflating the artistic function of marquee title with that of a caption, is in my opinion, philistine. There are videos so trivial, say, an animated GIF of a steam piston, that a title might be unnecessary or distracting from the point illustrated – in which case, use of the image tag "kernel" is available to avoid a visible video title bar.
- The same goes for shrinking the size of a video display frame. Shrinking a video should be done only when the simplicity of the illustrated detail will tolerate it. Compared to a still image, motion causes increased loss of perceived detail, so most videos should be framed larger than the equivalent still.
- Marginalizing the ~#11th historic commercial movie
"Little Sure Shot" of the "Wild West" (a.k.a., Annie Oakley shooting glass balls, 1894.ogg), by putting it in the same trivial unmarqeed frame as an animated piston – that is an editorial offense against art, history, and therefore the undue weight provision of NPOV. - The "Little Sure Shot..." Movie details are not so easy to see, so that movie should be formatted for viewing at the default largest size – especially since, if it's too small, the average user has no easy way or knowledge of how to enlarge it.
- Cunningham/Thumperward (22:37) "Not one of the articles I recently fixed up to go without said template is negatively impacted by its removal."
- The sad part is that you don't even know what were your negative impacts. Your editorial offenses got even worse than marginalizing the first female superstar movie.
- You demarqeed, shrank, and therefore trivialized, the second most important movie, of the single most important event in the secular history of the human species:
Buzz Aldrin steps onto the Moon - Was:
- Original Apollo 11 oldid=199533308#Lunar surface operations wikicode:
- {{video|filename=A11v 1094228.ogg|title=Buzz Aldrin steps onto the Moon|description=|format=[[Ogg]]}}
- Now: Cunningham/Thumperward's edit at Apollo 11 oldid=199669280#Lunar surface operations wikicode:
- [[image:A11v 1094228.ogg|thumb|Buzz Aldrin steps onto the Moon]])
- Cunningham/Thumperward (13:40): "... That's all."
- In some or many cases "that's all" because editors didn't finish filling out the template file information form when they should have, or lacking info left it to others; for example, the Buzz Aldrin video template above.
- I concur with Jack-A-Roe (18:14): "Duration & filesize are useful in deciding whether to watch the video or not."
- I for one, want to know what's behind that button before I click it.
- On dialup, a video file may take hours to download. Even if one has broadband, one may be short on drive space. Probably in most cases, the average Wikipedia user can't watch (or listen to) the video for lack of ogg/Theora/Vorbis components, and should be forewarned.
- Cunningham/Thumperward (13:40): "... and a help button. ..."
- As though the help button means nothing??
- Clicking the Template:Video Help button inclusively leads to this statement (referring to ogg): "... Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X computers do not support these formats by default, and require additional software to play them..."[1]
- In 2005, another editor removed a link to the same help page with the following responses:
"I restored the link to user help. Here is the rationale: Many Wikipedia articles contain sound files. They are labeled with a link to Ogg. The Ogg Vorbis format continues to be obscure, and most people's computers are not set up to play these files. Computer-savvy people will immediately know what to do; they will find and download a player that can handle Ogg files. However, many Wikipedia readers are not computer-savvy. They deserve to be given help, immediately and clearly. Otherwise they will simply give up. This is why the Ogg article needs a link, prominently located, to the help file. Thank you for your understanding. Opus33 17:04, 6 Mar 2005" • "A link to a Wikipedia: or Help: page next to each sound would actually be more helpful, in that it would be more direct; and if the link was added using a template, it would be a lesser breach of the avoid self-references policy. - IMSoP 19:49, 6 Mar 2005"
- So that is a reason that there is a help button, and also the reason for a template which has a self-contained help button. Wikipedia consensus has been here before, and it remains: keep and increase user-friendly and helpful templates.
- Cunningham/Thumperward (16:39): "...increase its already significant overhead..." :
"Generally, you should not worry much about little things like templates and "server load" at a policy level." (Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance#Some quotes from other developers in other contexts)
- IMHO, what's happening here is that you are thinking like a programmer instead of like an editor, which typically means thinking in black or white binary terms instead of the nuanced colors and shades of thought continuums. Unlike stereotype programmers, stereotype editors are comfortable with and prefer many choices, as do encyclopedia users when considered as a spectrum.
- If you really insist on thinking like a programmer, please go do Mediawiki development work.
- However, if you are willing to learn editorial flexibility that you analogously value in the image tag, as well as teaching-learning methods to help those encyclopedia users with modest abilities, then what the editors here are communicating to you about Template:Video is an opportunity to advance your own liberal arts education. Milo 10:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'll let the allegation that I'm being "fascist" (or "philistine") slip. Points I can pick from that response:
- WP:PERF applies to computational compexity. I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing notional complexity, whereby there is more than one way to do something and it's unclear which to choose. We shouldn't introduce unnecessary notional complexity, which is why we delete or merge overlapping templates.
- You've suggested that Ogg Vorbis is not playable by default on a majority, or at least a notable, amount of viewing computers through the image tag. This isn't true; the default player is Cortado, which is Java-based, and the majority of readers have an installed and functional JRE. They may wish to know more about the format, but it's not critical to the viewing experience of a notable amount of readers.
- I'm going to have another shot at editing the template to eliminate the major complaints I have, however. If I can do that, I'll drop the nom. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'll let the allegation that I'm being "fascist" (or "philistine") slip. Points I can pick from that response:
[edit] Rewritten video template
Test version up here which preserves everything addressed above except the title marquee, which I still feel is unnecessary. Much thinner wrapper around the image tag. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Cunningham/Thumperward (17:15): "the default player is Cortado, which is Java-based, and the majority of readers have an installed and functional JRE"
- As do I. I have Java (tested ok), Winamp, Windows Media, and Quicktime, yet ogg still doesn't work for me by default. I assume I could make it work by troubleshooting, but that's not the point.
- The bug may not be permanently fixable since the players are constantly contending over filename-extension execution defaults. The Java ogg player is just one more contending player that may or may not work for the average user.
- Cunningham/Thumperward (17:15): "shot at editing the template to eliminate the major complaints I have"
- Since it's "kernel" wikicode rather than template "shell" wikicode, in this semi-finished template form it's not directly comparable to Template:Video for evaluating end-user ease of use.
- I plugged in "Annie Oakley shooting glass balls, 1894.ogg" where "Image-request.png" was, and that displayed ok as a default-sized movie frame. Without the time to analyze the code, I didn't know how to make it float center or left, which may have been one of your original objections. Likewise, some tinkering made the optional parameters appear, but not quite as they should, had I researched the details of exactly what to do.
- Cunningham/Thumperward (17:15): "the title marquee, which I still feel is unnecessary"
- To my previous point, editors don't think like that. Since use of the bare image tag will eliminate the title marquee in the exceptional cases where it isn't artistically desirable, eliminating it by default in the video template is unacceptable.
- A related point is that the aspect ratio of "image-request.png" is portrait rather than landscape. For movies and video it should be landscape, 4x3 minimum. Also, forcing a 4x3 video into a default portrait thumb frame makes it even smaller than the equivalent still image, and so factor-of-2 smaller than it should be to compensate for perceptual loss of detail in motion.[2] As 16x9 video becomes prevalent, that problem gets even worse by factor-of-3.
- Again, still images are not the same as video or movies. Laying out a page with video/movies requires a different editing-artistic mindset. Milo 22:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I've fixed User:Thumperward/video so that the marquee is optional. This should now be a drop-in replacement for the existing template, with all options intact. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- There are still significant problems. I got "float=left" to work (and "float=center" sort of works), but I can't get the "width= " parameter to do anything, using numbers with or without "px".
- Despite your concerns about complex code at the base user level, you've written template code for the template coders level that is significantly more arcane than what was there previously. For example, previously it was obvious that three tics (''') made the marqee title bold. Now the source of boldface is a mystery.
- There are also new float problems. The marquee title is centered, but the frame under it has shifted to the right, making the title look left-shifted in articles. You can see this problem in the Annie Oakley example above; the image is not centered in the white background rectangle.
- It's not obvious that the obvious new float problems are worth whatever unobvious improvements you were seeking in the old float characteristics. What exactly did you gain, if anything, in float ability? Milo 06:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- "float=center" doesn't work. I'm using CSS floats, which doesn't allow for this. I'll eventually special-case "float=center" to do the right thing. "Width" only works if "thumb" is present, because by default the video displays in a frame (which doesn't accept a width value). The left-shifting is a bug which can be discussed on the template talk. As for the relative complexity of the code, that's worthy of an {{esoteric}} tag, but it's not an argument to revert to an arguably more readable but demonstrably less flexible / functional version.
- The old template simply didn't float properly at all. If stacked with images, it usually ended up breaking out of the column it was floated in and invading the article body. Yes, this could be fixed piecemeal, but far better to have the template behave in a similar way to Wikipedia's other floated templates and have it stack in a predicable manner. Anyway, this is best discussed on the template talk. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
