Template talk:by extension

Qualifier
A qualifier this is not. DAVilla 20:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:by extension (undeletion request)
Has been deleted twice, but neither admin who deleted failed to a) Give rationale, or b) Discuss it with the community. Is a common concept used in dictionaries, and is linked to by a large number of pages that now have redlinks. Therefore, I believe deletion of it was a grave error. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 09:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This template not existing does not prevent from displaying “by extension” and does not cause redlinks. — Ungoliant (Falai) 09:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's a total misunderstanding, Purplebackpack89 is requesting undeletion because he doesn't understand the mechanism of what's happened. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The second statement cannot be true, as there are over 50 pages that linked to the deleted template. Why not preserve it as a redirect, or an alternate use, then?  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 10:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Still, why does cause a transclusion of Template:by extension? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it's telling you that Template:by extension needs to be kept, perhaps? Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 10:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you try checking any of those 50+ pages? The “by extension” is displayed in black and doesn’t link anywhere. — Ungoliant (Falai) 10:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Purplebackpack89, you think that Special:WhatLinksHere has an opinion on the matter? What opinion is it? And how do you know what that opinion is? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This in one of a huge number of templates that appear on the fresh run of Special:WantedPages. I think that there may be "ifexist" tests in some templates or modules that causes them to appear. Notice that they do not appear in Special:WantedTemplates. I had noticed this with templates I use, but hadn't realized how widespread the problem was. You can also see that "ifexist" tests might explain why there are thousands of pages that want Pronunciation Appendices for a dozen languages and lesser numbers of pages more many other languages. The clutter makes Special:WantedPages less useful for finding missing content pages.
 * If seems that ifexist tests should be avoided if what is being tested for usually does not exist. If such tests are costly on the servers, then there should be some performance advantage and a reduction in the time taken to run the special pages. There would seem to be a lot of maintenance programming to be done in many templates, including the label system, the topical category system, and elsewhere. DCDuring TALK 12:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way, I'm not sure that "by extension" belongs under the context template. Most of the things under the "context" template can be used in a sentence as "in a ____ context", "in the ____ context" or "in the context of _____" and have it make sense (i.e. "in the sports context", "in an archaic context", etc.  "In the by extension context" or "in the context of by extension" makes no sense, and as such, I believe by extension should be divorced from the context template  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 16:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We never get to start with a clean slate (just like natural evolution). The name comes from the original usage, now substantially trashed in one of the many regressions we endure as a price of the technical contributions we get. Originally, "context" tags were simply and exclusively about register, obsolescence etc, or specialized usage context. Gradually other labels that arguably should be at the beginning of a definition were added, covering matters of grammar and sense evolution, like "by extension" and "figuratively". Then the specialized usage context was hijacked by a lazy advocate of topical categorization. Now, the specialized-usage interpretation is not really possible. Also, one can type "cx" to use a redirect to the template, which further attenuates the connection with the original usage. The advantage of retaining the current names is that veteran contributors don't have to reeducate their fingers. If we don't get a lot of new contributors anyway, that consideration looms large. DCDuring TALK 17:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems like you're agreeing with me that what context has become makes no sense. Anyhow, there's no reason that we can't have two templates that do similar things: one for new contributors and one for experienced ones.  If they look the same and link to the same things, which one it is really doesn't matter.  BTW, isn't not getting a lot of new contributors a really really big problem?  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 17:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think if we want to get new contributors, refraining from immediately blocking everyone as soon as they start editing here would be more effective than creating a bunch of redundant templates. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I continue to maintain that most casual editors would expect the template that creates (by extension) to be located at Template:by extension (or some version with a capital b and/or e). That's just common sense.  Can anybody provide evidence otherwise?  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. But that might require a substantial revision of the regressive, ill-conceived redesign of our label system. I think that is beyond the abilities of the resources we now have available. Our system now makes it extra hard for lower frequency English-language contributors, but has a lesser or no adverse effect on contributors in other languages. Those contributors - and they are probably the majority - seem happy enough with the mostly Webster-1913-derived English definitions that we have. DCDuring TALK 21:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is all very speculative. Perhaps most casual editors wouldn't know that templates have their own namespace, and therefore not try and use as a template. If we're going down the hypothetical route there is literally no limit to the number of possibilities. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The number of transclusions has gone down to zero. Probably due to a software update. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ruakh has added this to Module:labels/data, which solves the issue, IMO. The template should remain deleted because context templates are being phased out in favour of the module. - -sche (discuss) 04:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)