Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 10 May 12 >

May 11[edit]

Template:West Santa Ana Branch[edit]

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) feminist 08:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and low likelihood of being used. Inaccurate representation of a nonexistent train route; simply a list of cities that an old track passes through. See discussion at WT:RR#Template:West Santa Ana Branch. James (talk/contribs) 20:33, 11 May 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:Brazilian Christian leaders[edit]

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) 18:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vague category that is not used on any articles. Should be a cat and not a nav template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:21, 11 May 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:Letra de[edit]

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) feminist 08:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     13:21, 12 May 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:Legrenzi operas[edit]

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) feminist 08:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates {{Giovanni Legrenzi}} (which is used). Frietjes (talk) 18:21, 11 May 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:Legend5[edit]

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) feminist 08:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     13:21, 12 May 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:Nook series[edit]

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) feminist 08:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 18:14, 11 May 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:North Takoma[edit]

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) feminist 08:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused trivia Frietjes (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     13:21, 12 May 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:Nova Scotia Municipal Districts[edit]

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) 00:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and redundant to {{infobox settlement}} Frietjes (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     13:21, 12 May 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:Novels by Pathak[edit]

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) feminist 08:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates the category and the article. Frietjes (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     13:21, 12 May 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:Novi Sad neighborhood[edit]

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) 00:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and redundant to {{infobox settlement}} Frietjes (talk) 18:08, 11 May 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:Noynoy Aquino cabinet 1 vertical[edit]

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) feminist 16:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates Presidency of Benigno Aquino III#Administration and cabinet Frietjes (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     13:21, 12 May 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:O-Pee-Chee Sports Card Products By Year[edit]

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) feminist 16:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

navigates nothing (all redirects) Frietjes (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not useful. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     13:21, 12 May 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:Olympic Games Roller Hockey[edit]

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) feminist 10:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     13:21, 12 May 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:Omar Shihab[edit]

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 as G2 by RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 17:57, 11 May 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:Link up[edit]

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 redirect to Template:Underlinked. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Link up and Template:Linkage with Template:Underlinked.
TheDragonFire (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge allper nom, clearly three templates saying the same thing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all: All are clearly saying exactly the same thing, and Template:Underlinked is the best worded recipient. The other two use some jargon that a casual editor may not be familiar with, decreasing their usefulness. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should just redirect link up and linkage to underlinked instead of spamming a TfM notice on every page that uses underlinked. KMF (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect "Link up" and "Linkage" should be redirected to underlinked, per KMF. Link up and Linkage are used by zero main space articles, and only a few transclutions in non-main space. (underlinked is used on 24296 pages) Christian75 (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Christian75: Or perhaps they should be deleted then as redundant once replaced where they are used? Surely that is a classic case of WP:TFD#REASONS number 2 (and perhaps 3). TheMagikCow (T) (C) 11:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, they are completely unused, except for examples on their own documentation pages. (User:Pppery/noinclude list doesn't count, as it, for technical reasons, transcludes all templates at tfd). Pppery 19:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all in Template:Underlinked, per TheMagikCow and Christian75. --Dэя-Бøяg 12:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect per Christian75. Elliot321 (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect per above, Sadads (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't understand why we need "link up" and "linkage" at all. Obviously, merge or redirect in lieu of deletion, but I fail to see any benefit of these two. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Template:Link up and Template:Linkage. Unused. feminist 10:58, 18 May 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:Contains Slovak text[edit]

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) feminist 10:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template (not counting userpages and template docs) with unclear purpose (Slovak conjucts are mostly the same as in many other languages).    FDMS  4    15:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     13:21, 12 May 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:Infobox person/Wikidata[edit]

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 to delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The enigmatic "Q1972108" award, courtesy of Wikidata
The enigmatic "Q1972108" award, courtesy of Wikidata
So nice they gave it twice
So nice they gave it twice

This was discussed three months ago, and closed as "keep" but with a clear indication by the closer that there was no objection to revisiting the issue in three to six months if things didn't improve (" making sure all usage is extremely vetted to ensure everything is working as designed." See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 24 for the full closing statement.

I have now revisited this template and checked some articles where it has been added since the TfD. I raised some of the problems at Template talk:Infobox person/Wikidata, but while one was corrected (finally, the issue was already raised at the previous TfD), the other three were dismissed as "very minor edge cases".

Considering that the template still produces bugs on many pages where it gets introduced, and that the people adding the template and maintaining it don't seem to care about these problems and dismiss nearly all problems as "fix them on Wikidata", we are here again.

Note that Wikidata has no BLP policy, and no Verifiability policy, and has rejected both in the past. Wikidata considers many unreliable sources (including other wikipedias) as perfectly acceptable sources.

The result of these problems and the unwillingness to fix them in the template is

  • Articles showing Qnumbers (the internal Wikidata identifiers, basically a meaningless unique number) when no English label is available for a field in Wikidata (example shown above, another example discussed on template talk page)
  • Articles showing duplicate data in the infobox (example given in talk page discussion, other example shown here)
  • Articles showing the wrong date in an infobox, despite having the right date both here and at Wikidata sourced to good sourced (national library of France), but taking the date from Russian Wikipedia anyway, even when the infobox is said to only show sourced data (happened in Stefan Andres)
  • Articles showing the wrong date, again taken from Russian Wikipedia[1], contradicting the date in our article despite it being explained in a footnote why this is the correct year and the Wikidata year is outdated

Note that this template (or a variation thereof) is already used on multiple smaller wikiversions. The result of this, coupled with the very poor vandalism checks on Wikidata, is that e.g. for 1 1/2 day Kurt Cobain was in many languages said to have been born in Denmark and died from anal sex ([2])/ Since yesterday evening, Wikidata also happily informs us that Kurt Cobain is also known as Kurt Donald Trump Cobain[3]. This is not some obscure article, but a very widely read one. Then again, for four days last week Robert Pattinson (again an article with a very high number of readers, not something obscure) was moved to Robert Pattinson cara de verga (= Cockface) on Wikidata before somone finally intervened[4].

These examples show that either hardly anyone on enwiki has enabled the "check Wikidata chanegs" on their watchlist, can detect vandalism through this, or can be bothered to correct it. The idea that people will happily maintain two sites instead of one is largely false (some editors do, but the vast majority clearly don't).

Wikidata can not be trusted as a source for information on people, and is not maintained adequately. Coupled with the fact that the people who maintain the template here don't care (enough) about these problems ("We create a problem on enwiki? Fix it on Wikidata" is the standard reply, meaning that we now have to check and maintain two sites to keep one article correct) is enough for me to revisit this issue already and ask the community to please stop this test (either by deleting this template, or by making the mainspace offlimits for it so that it can only be used for tests in sandboxes and the like).

At the very least, sending a clear message to the people maintaining and defending this template that unsourced, wikipedia-sourced, or undecipherable Wikidata content (like q-numbers) is simply not wanted here, is needed. Deleting this template of course sends that message, but if enough people feel that we should give a third chance to prove that this really can be acceptable in biography articles, then so be it.

TLDR:

  • Wikidata has no BLP or Verifiability policies, and accepts low quality sources including other wikis
  • Wikidata has a poor track record of reverting even very high profile vandalism in a timely manner
  • The template still has many problems, resulting in incorrect or undecipherable entries in enwiki infoboxes
  • The people promoting and maintaining the template minimize the problems and refuse to fix them
  • While the template doesn't improve, it slowly gets added to more and more articles Fram (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does the watchlist option actually work? I've tried enabling it but nothing ever shows up. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     13:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lucky you ;-) I had it enabled, but I got way too much changes with barely understandable edit summaries. I have now re-eanbled it, and the most recent edit I get is ". D Maurice Tillieux (Q1390636); 13:40 . . Aschroet (talk | contribs) (‎Created claim: Property:P373: Maurice Tillieux, #wikidata-game)" which tells me nothing (apparently this is the link to the commons category) Most of the others are changed interwikilinks, and something like ". D Turkey (Q43); 21:11 . . Spinster (talk | contribs) (‎Created claim: Property:P3916: concept876, #mix'n'match)" which is again unintelligible. So for me the option does work, but the results are largely unusable. Fram (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete (or userfy/send to the template sandbox), keep the information in the normal template for now. There appear to be a lot of implementation issues, such as the lack of a WD verifiability policy and the less-than-optimal methods available for transcluding information from items. It doesn't seem likely to work well unless statement referencing and vandal fighting are added to the Wikidata Game or something, since the data quality just isn't good enough and vandalism is far too easy. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     14:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)    [reply]
    • Changing my vote to keep. I didn't notice this earlier, but the template has an |onlysourced= parameter, which is probably good enough for avoiding information of dubious accuracy. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
      to reply to me       17:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, at Stefan Andres we got the wrong date, sourced to Russian Wikipedia, despite using the "onlysourced=yes" parameter (like I said above). The onlyhsourced parameter is not reliable. Fram (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Convert to Wrapper The template creator has put in a lot of efforts and this has a good potential. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Capankajsmilyo: Of course the authors have invested some effort into writing this, but it doesn't mean it's currently as useful as the normally-used template due to the aforementioned issues. I don't think this is a valid rationale for speedy keep. If it is to be used again in future it can always be kept in the template sandbox. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
      to reply to me       14:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to a wrapper and make subst-only per my comment in the previous Tfd. Little seems to have changed. Pppery 19:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous, recent TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't we want Wikidata infoboxes that look like this?
  • Keep, why are we back here again so soon after the last TfD?
I've been trying to find the energy to work more on expanding this template's functionality, but TBH I've been distracted by other infoboxes where there has been more good faith assumed around the work of adding Wikidata functionality (or even thanks offered for doing so). There are issues with the current code that we use to import Wikidata values into Wikipedia infoboxes, and there are a lot of improvements that can be made to it, but the criticism of this template is still not taking place in a constructive way - instead, it's being done in a way that seems to be opposed to using Wikidata here full stop.
In particular, replies about how things are easier to fix *on wikidata* rather than by extra coding right now are not accepted - it's trivial to remove duplicates, or to add a label on Wikidata, or to fix the date on Wikidata. To demonstrate this, those changes have been made quickly by myself and RexxS on Wikidata. These kind of fixes are *encouraged* on Wikidata, particularly if references are supplied along with them, and I'd be very surprised if making those changes was reverted on Wikidata (whether or not there's a policy about them). The Wikidata vandalism comments remind me of comments I've seen about enwp in the past - they aren't unique to Wikidata. I'm sure there are many people that would say "Wikipedia can not be trusted as a source for information on people, and is not maintained adequately."
The same code we're using here is working perfectly well in, e.g., South Pole Telescope - where the whole of the infobox is Wikidata-driven (A screenshot of the infobox is on the right). That same amount of information could be displayed using this template, if we actually have support to add more Wikidata parameters to it, and if there is also the willingness to constructively work on it together. (And yes, that does include trying out different options of setting out information on Wikidata by editing Wikidata, not just saying "I don't want to leave enwp").
Infoboxes about people do present special challenges. We have to make sure that data is referenced, which is why this infobox only uses referenced statements on Wikidata. People are against presenting some pieces of information that are acceptable on Wikidata, such as religion or citizenship, which is why those data aren't shown in this infobox now. There will be other issues like this, and we can work with them as they arise - so long as this is done in a constructive manner.
Making this a subst-only wrapper will not work as this template is currently coded, unless you want a lot of template code embedded in the article as a result (something that this template is actually aimed at reducing - since you just need to use {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} in the article rather than the rest of the parameter calls). If you want a wikidata-filled template that can be subst'd, then that's a whole new development exercise, not what you are seeing here. This template does allow for any shown value to be manually overriden if needed (just set the parameter value as you would do for any other infobox, and that will be shown rather than the Wikidata info), and that is the better approach to take here where needed - or, if need be (e.g. where none of the infobox values can be sourced), then just use {{Infobox person}} as usual.
If there is not a willingness to assume good faith and to collaboratively work on developing this Wikidata infobox template together, then perhaps it should just be archived for now, and we can focus on working on infoboxes where this kind of work is appreciated, and deal with the issues that arise from those situations before revisiting this one. But that would be a shame, particularly for those that are currently using this template. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"replies about how things are easier to fix *on wikidata* rather than by extra coding right now are not accepted" Indeed. On a fundamental level (we shouldn't need top edit another site to get our articles right), and on a practical level (correcting it on Wikidata may be feasible for one or two articles, but this template is meant for 100,000s of articles in the end, so these issues will need to be tackled anyway). "it's trivial to remove duplicates, or to add a label on Wikidata, or to fix the date on Wikidata. To demonstrate this, those changes have been made quickly by myself and RexxS on Wikidata. " Yes, for the examples of problems Wikidata critics find. Until then, the wrong information was shown for weeks or months on these articles; the same errors will happen (probably already happen) on many other articles. You still ignore the difference between fixing a singular example after it has been found by someone else, and fixing the actual cause of the problem. "I'm sure there are many people that would say "Wikipedia can not be trusted as a source for information on people, and is not maintained adequately."" Yes, and why would we make it worse by encouraging the use of another unreliable source, instead of our current practice of encouraging the use of high quality reliable sources? Enwp has problems, and removing this template won't solve them all at once; but using this template is worse than not using it in general. "he same code we're using here is working perfectly well in, e.g., South Pole Telescope - where the whole of the infobox is Wikidata-driven" Bravo. Telescopes are usually less contentious than people though, and in the end, it doesn't matter if there is another infobox you have gotten to work (and ignoring the other ones which have rejected Wikidata infoboxes because of problems, like the Wikiproject cycling); we are discussing this infobox, which doesn't work "perfectly" at all. "this infobox only uses referenced statements on Wikidata. " No, it doesn't, as I have shown (or do you consider elements where the source is "Imported from Russian Wikipedia" as "referenced statements"?)
"There will be other issues like this, and we can work with them as they arise - so long as this is done in a constructive manner." I raised the issues at the template talk page, and the replies I got (mainly from you) were definitely not constructive, so please don't pretend that you are the constructive onbe and I the evil boogeyman. You refused to do anything about one problem, doubted that the other problem even existed, and in general considered everything trivial and a very minor edge case, no matter how often it happened (but then again, how could you or RexxS or Laudeci know this, none of you seem to actually look at the articles this template is used in with a critical eye at all). Fram (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you seem keen to badger every opposition statement, I expect I'll be given the right to correct your distortions.
Of course it's easier to fix the lack of an English label on Wikidata. Of course it's easier to remove a duplicate statement on Wikidata. We don't ask our editors to fix errors in pictures stored on Commons without going to Commons to do that, so why do you expect content stored on another sister project to be any different? On a fundamental level (we shouldn't need top edit another site to get our articles right) is pure nonsense. It's exactly what we've done for years with images.
We don't disagree that the onus is an editor adding an infobox (Wikidata-enabled or not) to check that the information displayed is accurate and sensible. We do disagree on how to solve any issues. Some are best fixed on Wikidata itself - duplicate statements and a lack of an English label are obvious ones. Look at how simple it is to fix them: click on the 'pen-icon' or [edit on Wikidata] link; add the label or remove the duplicate statement; click 'save', and it's done. I could train even you to do that.
Editors are just as likely, nay, far more likely, to use unreliable sources (or no sources) directly on Wikipedia. At least the infoboxes have filters that can remove unsourced/badly sourced from Wikidata. The problem is less, not greater.
You've shown nothing that's sourced just to 'imported from Russian Wikipedia'. When I looked at Stefan Andres, the article you were complaining about on the next day, I couldn't see any duplicate date of birth because you'd already fixed whatever problem existed yourself. You fixed the problem, and yet you're still whining and trying to make capital out of it. When I check what would be returned from Wikidata, I get: 26 June 1906, 1906 Edit this on Wikidata - what's wrong with that? Don't expect me to fix problems that you've already fixed.
You don't seem to understand that this infobox isn't compulsory. It's still perfectly reasonable to make use of {{Infobox person}} if editors prefer that. I just want to make sure that editors who do want to make use of this infobox are not denied the choice just because you get upset when everybody doesn't want to do things your way.
If you are claiming that my response to you at Template talk:Infobox person/Wikidata #Please remove citizenship - I agree that it's too difficult to programmatically decide whether the country is "commonly known", so there's no way of knowing whether to link it or not; similarly there's no simple means of distinguishing between countries that automatically grant citizenship to everyone born within their borders (like the USA) and those that do not (like GB). I've disabled fetching country of citizenship (P27) from Wikidata. The parameter |citizenship= remains in the template to allow values to be added manually in the minority of cases where it is needed. - is not constructive, I'm going to call you a liar, not a bogeyman. I fixed the problem that was best fixed on Wikipedia on Wikipedia; I fixed the problem that was best fixed on Wikidata on Wikidata. I have never refused to fix a problem and anyone can read that talk page and see the truth of your attack on me. --RexxS (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Old, incorrect version of Stefan Andres, using onlysourced=yes but returning wrong info from Russian Wikipedia instead
Current, correct version of infobox, using the standard template, summarizing the data in the artcle instead of taking information from elsewhere
There we go with the "liar" again. Drop your personal attacks or you'll get reported again. You seem to ignore that my post above was a reply to Mike Peel, not to you, but then again, you seem to ignore a lot of things here. Let's just look at how you "checked" the Stefan Andres issue, which was not about the date of birth and not about duplicate data, but about returning the wrong date of death, like I clearly said at the template talk page: "Stefan Andres has "onlysourced=yes" and gives "Died 29 July 1970 Edit this on Wikidata (aged 64)" The article gives 29 June (instead of July) as date of death. " If you can't even check such a simple issue, what are you doing here commenting on my supposed "lies"? I "fixed" the issue by replacing the /Wikidata infobox with the standard one, which is what I propose to do with all articles which use this version of the infobox. I'm glad you approve of my fix. Fram (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a sec, you two; I'm grabbing the popcorn. Laurdecl talk 08:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
;-) Yes, I can get annoyed when people call me a liar but are at the same time claiming that no problems exist because they checked the wrong thing. I can understand people not accepting my solution, but I guess that by now people should at least accept that usually, when I claim problem X or error Y happens, it really does happen and I'm not making up things. With Mike Peel pulling this trick first on the template talk page (Avoid showing the same thing twice section; "As far as I can see, this didn't show up on enwp"), and now RexxS trying the same approach about information sourced to Russian Wikipedia appearing here when it shouldn't happen, it gets frustrating. It is very difficult to have an intellectually honest debate with people who falsely dismiss the basic facts underlying the discussion. Fram (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(1) You call my efforts "not constructive" and I immediately give you a recent example of where I fixed the citizenship issue you raised. Calling that unconstructive is a lie, and I'll defend that in any forum. You should have the decency to strike that personal attack on me.
(2) Where's the information sourced from the Russian Wikipedia? When I looked at Stefan Andres, it gave the same dates of birth and death as in the text. No problem that I can see. Anybody can look at the article and check that. You fixed the problem that you saw. I approve of your solution. Why are you still whining about it? --RexxS (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I called the replies I got about the 3 immediate problems I listed at the start of this TfD "not constructive", and directed that commented mainly at Mike Peel. You just seem intent to continue with the "liar" and "lie". Whatever makes you happy, I suppose. Your point 2 is utterly ridiculous though, and the exact opposite of being constructive. I note a problem with the template, and a) raise the general issue at the template talk page and b) fix this specific instance of the problem by getting rid of the Wikidata template. Not getting a reasonable reply to some other issues or any reply to this issue, and considering more general issues with Wikidata vs. biographies, I start this TfD. You claim "You've shown nothing that's sourced just to 'imported from Russian Wikipedia'. " and "When I check what would be returned from Wikidata, I get: 26 June 1906 Edit this on Wikidata - what's wrong with that?" You were wrong on both accounts, as the date from Wikidata you gave was not the date I raised as an issue (you looked at the birthdate, not the date of death). I'm still "whining" about it (again, very constructive and mature choice of words) because you didn't seem to be able to comprehend the issue. Now you disingeniously state "Where's the information sourced from the Russian Wikipedia? When I looked at Stefan Andres, it gave the same dates of birth and death as in the text. No problem that I can see. Anybody can look at the article and check that. ". Duh. For the final time, this is not about me or you or anyone fixing an issue at an individual article, this is about fixing the root cause of the problem so it doesn't happen again at other articles. Your unwillingness or inability to grasp that essential difference is astounding. Fram (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's nail this down then. Do you maintain that the replies I gave you at Template talk:Infobox person/Wikidata are "not constructive" (your words)? Or are you going to strike your personal attack on me? --RexxS (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2 which explicitly permits us to include WD in infoboxes and the last TfD which closed as keep. "Wikidata does X badly" is not relevant to this template specifically. I'm having a really hard time WP:AGF given the serial pot-stirring by the nom, who has recently nominated a bunch of Wikidata categories at CfD. Laurdecl talk 01:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...which were closed as delete, so perhaps the problem is not the shit stirring, but the shit. And of course, you ignore that the problems I list are specific for this template, in addition to the general Wikidata problems. When you look at the RfC you link, there was consensus to use Wikidata in infoboxes "Modify existing infoboxes to permit Wikidata inclusion when there is no existing English Wikipedia data for a specific field in the infobox.", and there was approval to use infoboxes like the one now up at TfD when there is consensus for them. The consensus for this one was dubious at the last TfD, but the close specifically said that a renomination was appropriate after 3 months if no improvements were made. Seeing the number of problems with this template, and the refusal of the template maintainers (which are at the same time some of the "keep" voters here) to do anything about these problems (not even recognising that showing Q-numbers to our readers actually is a problem), I see no improvement (neither here nor at Wikidata), so a renomination is appropriate. I note that you don't comment on any of the actual issues with the template and Wikidata, but just a knee-jerk "oh, we got permission four years ago and the nominator doesn't like Wikidata, so keep" reaction. Fram (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the result of the last TfD was "keep", not "no consensus". As for "problems", the examples you show were fixed in a little under 6 seconds. The only problem you talk about is a cosmetic issue over showing Q numbers, which is so easy to fix, I could probably do it for every article with this infobox in a day. Last time, you showed incorrect death dates and empty fields, but those have now been fixed anyway. The reason I "don't comment on the issues with this template" is that there aren't any. Laurdecl talk 02:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: To be blunt, this is a bad-faith renomination of a previously closed debate: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 24 #Template:Infobox person/Wikidata, where the result - a mere three months ago - was "Keep". Nothing much has altered since then, except that a very few new issues have arisen and been fixed satisfactorily.
    Indeed, some issues, like the difficulty surrounding the citizenship parameter are best solved by changing the code on Wikipedia - and that has been done. Other problems, like the lack of an English label for D.A. Thiemeprijs (Q1972108) needed to be fixed on Wikidata of course. Again, that has been done, and if we now examine what is returned for Willem Kloos (Q2574395) from Wikidata, we get: D.A. Thiemeprijs, Tollens Prize Edit this on Wikidata. No problems there. If we examine what is returned for Elisabeth Schiemann (Q1330249) from Wikidata, we get: Officer's Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany, Righteous Among the Nations Edit this on Wikidata No duplicates there - and it took all of ten seconds to fix.
    • Screenshot from Willem Kloos showing Qnumber not in infobox
      Screenshot from Willem Kloos showing Qnumber not in infobox
    • Screenshot from Elisabeth Schiemann showing no duplicate Wikidata data
      Screenshot from Elisabeth Schiemann showing no duplicate Wikidata data

    I urge anyone reading this discussion to examine Willem Kloos and Elisabeth Schiemann. None of the problems raised by Fram exist any longer. As with the case of every other issue that has been raised, every single problem has been fixed. It's just that Fram doesn't like anything being imported from Wikidata at all, and wants to abuse this process to do an end-run around the long-standing consensus that editors may incorporate Wikidata into infoboxes: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2. --RexxS (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • You didn't fix the issue, you fixed the individual example. The same issues will reappear again and again with this infobox until the underlying problems with the infobox are corrected, which has been rejected at the infobox talk page. That some of the keep voters deliberately confuse "I fixed your example" with "I fixed the actual underlying issue" is not new though.
      • "None of the problems raised by Fram exist any longer." Oh, so Wikidata now has a BLP policy, and corrects high-profile vandalism swiftly, and the infobox will no longer show Qnumbers or wikipedia-"sourced" information or duplicate information if the same conditions happen as with thde "fixed" examples, ...? RexxS, please don't make claims which you can't defend with a straight face. Fram (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • The issue actually was the individual example. It's fixed. Yes, editors will introduce incorrect information into Wikidata just as they introduce incorrect information into Wikipedia. The place to fix the problem is where it occurs. No English label? Add the English label. Duplicate value? Remove the extra value. Wrong dob? Amend the dob. It's not rocket science, and it takes moments to follow the Wikidata edit link or icon to make the fix. Just what are "the underlying problems with the infobox"? I'm more than happy to make corrections, but they have to be real underlying problems. It's not reasonable to expect code to 'magically' fix inaccurate data - that's a problem with the information supplied, not the infobox; and that's just as true for {{infobox person}} as it is for {{infobox person/Wikidata}}.
          What problem "has been rejected at the infobox talk page"? Give us a link to where I have refused to fix a problem? You can't can you? You made that up, and you know what that makes you. --RexxS (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Bye, RexxS, I'm done wasting my time talking to you. I didn't say you have refused anything, I said "which has been rejected at the infobox talk page." Just like above, not everything that is being said here is about you. As long as you don't see the difference between a problem and an example of the problem, then it is utterly useless to discuss this with you, and dangerous to let you come even close to any template or discussion about them as you are obviously not fit to understand the implications of anything you do (nor, as demonstrated above, do you seem capable of actually understanding a problem report and finding the problem that is being raised). I do like your "The issue actually was the individual example." bolding, it eliminates the embarras du choix of finding the most stupid thing in your replies as you highlight it yourself. When you have a template which supposedly eliminates unsourced information and wiki-imported information, and it is shown that this isn't true with an example (where the template is then removed), then the issue is obviously not the individual example, but the template (or the source of the template data). This applies even more to the other issues were multiple examples were given. Ths issue is the template. Fram (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • If that means you won't be further badgering all the contributors who point out your delusions, then that's a good thing. I can tell the difference between a problem and an example of the problem, but you can't see which problems require the code to be corrected and which require the data to be corrected. There's no coding that will magically supply a English label where none exists. But I write code that allow you to see where those labels are missing, so that you can correct them. That's the bit you don't like. You think that the English Wikipedia is the only Wikimedia project worthy of editors' time. I take the view that there is an opportunity for synergy between the sister projects, and if I see an error on Wikipedia that relates to an error on Wikidata, I'll fix it on Wikidata, so that all the other language Wikipedias can benefit from it. I respect your choice not to correct errors on Wikidata (or Commons, or in other languages) yourself, but I don't accept your blind desire to prevent other editors from doing so. If it's any help, I'm willing to overhaul any or all of the code in Module:WikidataIB – which is only in beta, after all – to see if I can spot any inconsistencies, but when I can't duplicate the problem you report, it doesn't give me much of a lead on where to start.
              If you maintain that it is "dangerous to let [me] come even close to any template or discussion about them as [I'm] obviously not fit to understand the implications of anything [I] do (nor, as demonstrated above, do [I] seem capable of actually understanding a problem report and finding the problem that is being raised)" then you surely ought to be seeking to remove my template-editor privilege? Try it, and see if you can find a single person on Wikipedia who agrees with you. WP:ANI is that-a-way. --RexxS (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • At last something substantial. About showing Q-numbers instead of nothing: "if I see an error on Wikipedia that relates to an error on Wikidata, I'll fix it on Wikidata, so that all the other language Wikipedias can benefit from it." Adding an English label to Wikidata doesn't help all other language Wikipedias of course. It only helps at most one enwiki article. But to achieve this, to correct missing labels on Wikidata, you prefer to show meaningless database keys to enwiki readers. This is the wrong priority. "There's no coding that will magically supply a English label where none exists." And no one asked for this, so you're arguing a strawman here. The request was to hide the Qnumbers, not to magically invent anything to put there. "you can't see which problems require the code to be corrected and which require the data to be corrected." Actually I can, but then you at least have to read what is written and not what you find the easiest to dismiss. "I respect your choice not to correct errors on Wikidata (or Commons, or in other languages) yourself, but I don't accept your blind desire to prevent other editors from doing so." You are free to correct all errors in Wikidata you want to, no one is preventing you, so please don't make false claims. What I don't agree with is adding Wikidata errors to enwiki articles, for a number of reasons (fundamentally Wikidata's poor or missing policies which are not compatible with the demands we have on sources, even if these are often not met on enwiki itself. Our readers should always be our first priority, not getting Wikidata errors corrected. "when I can't duplicate the problem you report" is exactly the reason you shouldn't come near templates and error reports. Until you corrected the problem at Wikidata an hour or so ago, you could perfectly duplicate the problem in that example, but instead you required to have it explained to you what, three times? I don't know whether this incompetence (which indeed would mean that it would be better if you weren't a template editor) or dishonesty (as you seem quite capable of finding and duplicating such problems when it suits you), but it certainly doesn't reflect well on you. Now, as you seem to be convinced that the problem is not with your template editing skills, please correct the code to get the right data where possible, and to hide missing or badly sourced data. Fram (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • You know, I've just spent a wasted half-hour exercising my code-editing skills by looking through the code of Module:WikidataIB to fix the problem you reported in your nomination statement: "Articles showing the wrong date, again taken from Russian Wikipedia[5]" I was puzzled about why my code was returning the date of birth of Stratis Myrivilis from Wikidata when it was only sourced to the Russian Wikipedia. Then I spotted that the IP editor had set |onlysourced=no, so naturally it returned an unsourced value. Nikkimaria fixed that soon after by changing it to |onlysourced=yes (which is the default now). Do you think it's funny to report that as "an underlying problem with the template"? How can anybody take your complaints seriously? --RexxS (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • In that case, I indeed did not use the onlysourced=yes version. In the one we were discussing all this time, Stefan Andres, I did use the Nikkimaria version (onlysourced=yes) and it still gave the wrong information. Fram (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Rereading my nomination statement: I said that Stefan Andres used the wrong (ruwiki) date, despite having onlysourced=yes, and I sait that Myrivilis used the wrong date from ruwiki as well, but said nothing about it being onlysourced=yes. The underlying problem, that (at least in some cases) the ruwiki date is shown despite the onlysourced=yes parameter being used, is factual, not funny. That you used the wrong example to test this is too bad. Fram (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've raised this TfD at WP:ANI#Uninvolved trouts required to get some uninvolved eyes on the behaviour of all sides here. Feel free to read the message I left there and add your own position if needed, I tried to keep it neutral. I'll probably stop commenting here for a while now. Fram (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stay cool
    • Comment the main issue, as I see it, is the reliability (or lack thereof) of Wikidata (especially concerning high profile BLP-articles). Concerns about bugs (showing Q-numbers) are secondary. This transcends the scope of TfD and should not really be discussed in the context of deleting a single template, but merits an RfC. Kleuske (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Inappropriate for WP until WD has strong BLP and V policies. James (talk/contribs) 19:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is unrelated to this TfD specifically. We have a consensus to include Wikidata in infoboxes. The deletion reasons here should focus on the (nonexistent) issues this template has. This !vote is invalid unless it is taken to override the RfC involving hundreds of editors. Laurdecl talk 10:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep bad faith reopening of previous conversation, instead of working to fix the template. Sadads (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There's plenty I could add, but as challenging Fram is itself a blockable offense... ... ... Joefromrandb (talk) 05:58, 20 May 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:Estonian recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross[edit]

    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 May 20. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:44, 20 May 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).
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_11&oldid=1142562389"