This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Support proposal. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

---

So, this is something that we've been relatively inconsistent on over the years: whether to put the closing braces for a template on the same line as the last parameter/entry, or to put them on a different line. Specifically, this is about infoboxes and scrollboxes, and/or other large-multi-line templates like tables, {{App}}, and opening crawls. In my opinion, putting the closing braces on their own line is best for code readability, and it means that you can easily find the end of a scrollbox or infobox, which can get messy when the last entry of the template ends with another template, like how the {{Databank}} entries go at the bottom of the list. We should also expressly codify that the parameters for infoboxes (and {{App}} should go on their own line, as I don't think that's actually in policy at the moment.

So, my proposal is we add the following to the Formatting section of the Manual of Style:

• When using the {{Scroll box}} template for multiple entries, the closing braces of the template should be listed on their own line after the final entry for readability. An exception to this rule is the wrapping of scroll boxes around {{Reflist}}, which can be listed on a single line.

As well as adding this to the Infobox section of the Layout Guide:

• All infobox parameters should be listed on their own line, as should the closing brackets for the infobox as a whole.

and this to the Appearances section of the OOU Layout Guide:

• All parameters of the {{App}} template should be listed on their own line, as should the closing brackets for the template as a whole.

Support[]

1. As proposer. Doing it this way is much more readable, and honestly it helps my parsing and regex work for the bots, and helps prevent issues. Cade Calrayn 18:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Fan26 (Talk) 18:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
3. Finally. Happy to see this be officially implemented. Bonzane10 (holonet) 18:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
4. 01miki10 ^{Open comlink} 18:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
5. Love consistency. Rsand 30 (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
6. Ayrehead02 (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
7. —spookywilloww^talk 19:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
8. <-Omicron^{(Leave a message at the BEEP!)} 19:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
9. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 19:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
10. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 20:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
11. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
12. Imperators II^(Talk) 21:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
13. I guess I'll suffer having to unlearn the last change in precedent if it makes it easier for Cade's droid army to take over the wiki. Master Fredcerique(talk) (he/him) 22:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

    Probably a little late in the game to add it, but the same should be applied to the {{Information}} template on file pages. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 21:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

14. Per OOM's comment below. LucaRoR ^(Talk) 14:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
15. ThrawnChiss7 ^{Assembly Cupola} 01:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose[]

1. Manoof's points below persuaded me. Simplicity shouldn't be sacrificed for consistency on policy when this can just be implemented informally throughout articles with changes to template preloads, bot runs, and status article precedents. I'll do my best to keep closing braces on separate lines, but there's no need to further overload our policy pages (and thus editors unfamiliar with new rules). OOM 224 (he/him) 08:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Manoof's points have convinced me as well. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 01:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
3. Given above I feel comfortable throwing my name behind a vote ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 12:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Per Manoof and OOM. Having this as an informal norm is much more community-friendly rather than including it in a policy. Efe Önem (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss[]

• Boo I've been doing same-line closing braces for infobox templates my entire time here! 😛 As long as we don't enforce this too harshly and tell people off just for something this minor (unless it's on a status article or status article nomination cos the Inqs (love y'all) are teh evil) I'm good if this makes life easier for botting and stuff. Also, when this passes, we'll want to update the infobox template instructions and preloads accordingly. OOM 224 (he/him) 21:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
  • The same should also be done for the {{Information}} template. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 04:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Policy should be enforceable, so having a policy that isn't enforced is simply instruction creep (adding instruction for the sake of instruction) and doesn't make sense to me. Making it consistent for ease of bots and adding it to preloads, for sure! There are bits in policy like this and other minor formatting things that don't impact readers and add a hurdle to people becoming editors and often get missed and require fixing even by experienced editors. Can't we get a bot to do a cleanup run of these things rather than having a policy that doesn't get enforced? Or gets enforced situationally e.g. in 5 years time when the above agreement has been forgotten, which is historically not a good approach with actual law. This has occurred to me in the past as a way to get more editors given how many pages and policies editors need to conform with, but was afraid to speak up (ironic given why I haven't voted oppose). Noting as well there was no discussion for me to raise this prior to voting for discussion/consideration and the above points probably require a larger discussion/culture shift. ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 07:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I wonder if it might be beneficial to list somewhere all the things we have bots clean up for us that aren't in policy so that new editors are informed of changes that will be made without feeling like they broke a rule. Master Fredcerique(talk) (he/him) 18:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
  • There was discussion in Discord, as is often the case. I thought I replied to OOM already, but this is one of those cases in the Layout Guide where it's meant to be policy but it's not meant to be something we reprimand people for. Just like the basic structure of articles and the ordering of sections. It's something that, if someone sees is wrong with an article, they fix, but not something we yell at users for. I'd think that was fairly obvious, but I'm sorry if it wasn't. Cade Calrayn 19:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)