Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 4

< November 3	November 5 >

November 4

Template:Infobox World Heritage Site/Wikidata

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Following Template:Infobox UNESCO World Heritage Site: There are comments are in favor of keeping until a merger can be achieved per the recent RfC. This will be a slow process, and there should be no rush to get rid of one template over the other until everything is in order. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 06:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox World Heritage Site/Wikidata (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused.
Duplicate of an infobox where consensus has already been established to remove wikidata.

If this template has some temporary purpose while resolving the above consensus, deletion of this template could be carried out at the end of that process. Alsee (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim of consensus in that RfC seems weak; it looked like a supervote to me. In any case, the use of Wikidata is a work-in-progress and it would be disruptive to delete such pages while we're sorting out what is and isn't sensible and acceptable. Andrew D. (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since the template will most likely use Wikidata in the future anyway and can be kept as a sandbox; since the consensus was slim and the majority was less than 60%; since there has been consensus in previous RfCs to use Wikidata within infobox templates which has not been overturned; and since it is now trivial to view in Special:Watchlist and Special:RecentChangesLinked (works logged out, FWIW) changes to any Wikidata entities used on or linking to watched pages. (I don't know if anyone told them, but {{Coord}} and {{Location map}} now use Wikidata automatically if no coordinate values are added and have done so for a while now.) Jc86035 (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC) No opinion. Jc86035 (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment describing the RFC result as a "supervote" or "slim" is non-credible. I don't think I have ever seen a majority-close described as a "supervote". There was 82% consensus prior to the RFC being canvassed at a wikidata convention. That canvassing resulted in a quadrupling of oppose votes. The pre-canvassing consensus was so strong that quadrupling the opposes had essentially no effect. It didn't shift the majority. In ANI discussion on the canvassing issue[1] four admins either endorsed discounting the weight of canvassed !votes, or endorsed the close-result which discounted the weight of canvassed !votes. Alsee (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Alsee: I agree that the canvassing was probably improper, but it has no bearing on the fact that Wikidata isn't going away (whether we like it or not) and it will probably be re-added to the infobox in a few years when Wikidata has matured enough. From the talk page discussion it looks like the Wikidata functionality was added a little too soon, before the Lua module was ready to support the infobox. In any case, I would treat the template the same as a /sandbox subpage. Jc86035 (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jc86035, I certainly don't imagine the website Wikidata is going away any time soon. However recent consensuses have been going against use of Wikidata on Wikipedia, either removal or rolling it back to restricted-experimental use. The primary concerns raised in those discussions cannot be resolved by improving the LUA module. For example auto-import of wikidata values means we can't effectively deal with a spambot approved at Wikidata, LUA module or not. That is not a theoretical concern - Arbcom is currently considering taking a case involving that actual event.
There is explicit consensus that Infobox World Heritage should should not use Wikidata, and there is no reason to believe that consensus is going to reverse any time in the foreseeable future. Any TFD could get a 'keep because consensus might reverse some time in the infinite future'. That's a lot like an AFD 'keep because consensus on Notability might reverse in the future'. Alsee (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Alsee: I have struck my vote, since the template can be resurrected by an administrator if Wikidata does end up being added to more infoboxes (regardless of the ArbCom case). Jc86035 (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's no surprise that this is currently unused and a duplicate of the existing template, given that I re-created it only 24 hours before this deletion nomination. My intention in that we use this temporarily to split the non-wikidata and wikidata uses of the template to implement the RfC linked to in the nomination, as described at [2]. In the longer term, I think this is worth keeping so that other language Wikipedias can use the code if they want to (without having to ask an admin for access to the code), and if any user here wants to use the wikidata version in articles that they are working on. Note that discussion is ongoing at Template_talk:Infobox_World_Heritage_Site#Implementation_of_RfC, and this discussion really should have been kept in one place rather than there, here, and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_1#Template:Infobox_UNESCO_World_Heritage_Site... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears three rationales were offered. (1) Temporary usage followed by deletion is acknowledged in the TFD nomination as well as in the delete !vote below. (2) Several people have been arguing that extra versions don't make sense, including you. It is especially dubious to encouraging people to fork to a version that has an established consensus against it.[3] (3) Using EnWiki template space a repository for other wikis is a rather novel argument. First, usage by other wikis is a purely hypothetical argument which could be asserted to 'keep' in absolutely any TFD. Second, that arguably conflicts with the intent of NOTREPOSITORY/NOTWEBHOST. Third, even if we did want to be a repository for other wikis, I find it highly dubious that we would want to be a repository encouraging other wikis to attempt to use templates which we explicitly found inferior/unsuitable for use. Alsee (talk) 10:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a creative re-interpretation of what I said. "Use this temporarily" for a given task is not the same as "Temporary usage followed by deletion". Keeping multiple versions around makes sense if one has significantly more functionality than the other (i.e., the Wikidata integration) - which is not the case for the pointy fork of the non-Wikidata version (which only removed functionality). The consensus said nothing about not keeping a copy around. It was also not full consensus - some people found the Wikidata functionality useful enough to !vote keep (or to keep on using the template), and different projects have different expectations here. We could user-ify it if needed, but we seem to be establishing a norm of having "/wikidata" templates, so keeping it at that URL makes it easier for others to find. Mike Peel (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after the current mess is sorted out (or immediately if it isn't needed to sort out the mess of course). If you want to have the code for other language wikipedias, then either userfy or move to Wikidata. Re-discussing the RfC here seems improper, we have other venues for that. Fram (talk) 08:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The RfC said nothing about not keeping a copy of this template around. See my comment above about userification. Mike Peel (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unused templates are typically deleted. The /Wikidata version will, at the end of the conversion and per the RfC, be an unused template. "we seem to be establishing a norm of having "/wikidata" templates" is the problem, not the solution. Fram (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:Technology

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 November 12. (non-admin closure) Yashovardhan (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Technology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

Template:Motion of no confidence votes in the United Kingdom

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 November 13. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 12:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Motion_of_no_confidence_votes_in_the_United_Kingdom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

Template:Vgrpg-chrono

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vgrpg-chrono (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-use template; should be merged with the article {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see translcusions over at least 10 templates...? --Izno (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All of which transclude it through List of role-playing video games {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you can replace it with a non-template, that would be okay. SharkD Talk 05:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:Rail-interchange 3166

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rail-interchange 3166 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; single-use template which I replaced with {{Rail-interchange item}}. Jc86035 (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:UNC-Chapel Hill programs

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 November 12. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 06:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UNC-Chapel_Hill_programs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

Template:UNC-Chapel Hill landmarks

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 November 12. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 06:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UNC-Chapel_Hill_landmarks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

Template:Infobox Oxford College Boat Club

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Oxford College Boat Club (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used on only a handful of articles. I'm not entirely sure if there is a suitable merge target, but I would guess that there is. Izno (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

replace with {{Infobox rowing club}}, adding any useful parameters to the rowing club template to avoid losing important information from the infobox. Frietjes (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I just checked and this conversion works [4] [5]. Frietjes (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought it might, but the one is named for row clubs when the other is about boat clubs. --Izno (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - in this case, they are called boat clubs but only participate in rowing events. for sailing clubs, there is {{Infobox Sailing team}}. Frietjes (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:Summer camps in New Jersey

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 12:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Summer camps in New Jersey (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one of the pages in the navbox has an article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:Summer camps in South Dakota

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 12:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Summer camps in South Dakota (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not navigating between any entries with articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:Summer camps in South Carolina

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 12:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Summer camps in South Carolina (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Neither entry has its own article (one redirects to a page that doesn't even contain the word "camp"). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:Summer camps in Rhode Island

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 12:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Summer camps in Rhode Island (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We don't need navboxes for one link. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:Summer camps in Oklahoma

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 12:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Summer camps in Oklahoma (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one of these entries actually has an article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:Summer camps in North Dakota

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 12:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Summer camps in North Dakota (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one of these entries actually has an article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).