Template talk:table:days of the week/documentation

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

{{table:days of the week}} is redundant with {{list:days of the week/en}}, which is used by far more languages. One of the two has to go, but I'd rather keep {{table:days of the week}} to be honest. --Barytonesis (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

{{list:days of the week/nb}}is in use. DonnanZ (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose merger unless someone volunteers to do it. Both are fine, and it's a waste of time to convert one to another. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
• I went ahead and removed all instances of {{table:days of the week}} from the main space. I see absolutely no point in having two templates that serve the same purpose; it's only more clutter.
  • {{table:days of the week/uk}} > {{list:days of the week/uk}}
  • {{table:days of the week/tl}} > {{list:days of the week/tl}}
  • {{table:days of the week/sv}} > {{list:days of the week/sv}}
  • {{table:days of the week/pt}} > {{list:days of the week/pt}}
  • {{table:days of the week/mr}} > {{list:days of the week/mr}}
  • {{table:days of the week/en}} > {{list:days of the week/en}}
  • {{table:days of the week/cs}} > {{list:days of the week/cs}}

Pinging @Jonteemil, Daniel Carrero, who worked on {{table:days of the week}} --Barytonesis (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

btw, this might be a good usecase for Wikidata, e.g. Q105 (Monday). – Jberkel (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Meh, I've just found out about {{list:seasons/el}} vs. {{table:seasons/el}}... Seriously? --Barytonesis (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for the ping. I claim credit for inventing the system of "list:" and "table:"-prefixed templates that are repeated the same way over many languages. As a subjective, arguable rule of thumb, I usually prefer tables everywhere and would suggest deleting the lists. That's just my opinion, feel free to disagree.

  As suggested above, I would love to use Wikidata for all that stuff eventually. But I wonder if maybe using Wikidata here would be actually impossible because, say, we want to use some specific words and Wikidata would use other words. Maybe some language has a lot of synonyms for "Monday" and Wikidata would list them all but we wouldn't, or some other situation like this. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  @Daniel Carrero: I prefer the table as well, but I didn't feel like switching everything manually; the switch to list was out of convenience only. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  @Daniel Carrero: yes, there could be some cases where wikidata returns something incorrect, which we could either fix there (preferably), or override it locally (for that language). For most languages it should work fine. I checked a few samples (Ukrainian, Tagalog, Marathi) and the label data in WD for the language looked fine. Jberkel (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose merger as the usage depends on the layout of the page. One could use one table on one place and the other in an Appendix, and in an other appendix the first one again. Except of course there is a more intelligent way like having one template with a parameter for layout switch. Or even one template for all languages where one has to specify the lang and the layout, the data being held elsewhere. Possibly something with Wikidata which I cannot imagine because I have not yet found out what Wikidata is for. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 02:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  @Palaestrator verborum: "the usage depends on the layout of the page": if you're suggesting that we use one template for the main space, and another for the appendix space, I'm not opposed to it; if you're suggesting that one language can use the list template, and another language the table template because of different layouts, I disagree: we should aim at a consistent layout for all languages. I agree with the rest of your message. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  @Barytonesis:: Lol, actually I did not suggest one language can use the list template, and another language the table template because of different layouts. We surely aim at consistent layouts, though I cannot exclude the possibility that for some weird technical or aesthetical reason one has to deviate on one page. I mainly pointed out that there are all kinds of appendices, and these can indeed have varying layouts depending on what appendix it is.

Something with Appendix:Days of the week could be done too, so it does not have its data in cleartext but elsewhence. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 15:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

• @PUC Can't we make it togglable? I.e. introduce an extra parameter to select between whether it should be displayed as a list or a box. Maybe we can abstract that into a separate template so that we don't have to do the same programming work for all the tables/lists that we want to be able to display as either. IMO we should definitely leave it up to the individual languages' editors' discretion to decide between a list and a table, cf. Template:table:seasons/gsw/Italy (the situation will be exactly the same for every table in gsw). --Fytcha (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

RFD-kept. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 21:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply