Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 9

< April 8	April 10 >

April 9

Template:Infobox World Heritage Site

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 merge when ready as already discussed elsewhere and agreed upon. Primefac (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Propose merging Template:Infobox World Heritage Site with Template:Infobox UNESCO World Heritage Site.
Already deprecated, WP:INFOCOL. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They can't yet be merged, as we are still (very slowly) undoing the damage made by the change of the first infobox to a Wikidata one. All help in moving all uses of this infobox to the second one is welcome. Fram (talk) 07:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as Fram said – see follow–up at Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#Progress report: as of today, still 1033 implementations of the Wikidata variant to be dealt with. Once that transition period is over, no TfD is necessary for the merge, as this has already been decided at Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site/Archive 1#RfC: revert back to non-Wikidata version?. Please feel welcome to assist with the conversions as explained at Template:Infobox World Heritage Site#Conversion to local data, which is the real work. I'd close this TfD ASAP for being redundant with a decision that has already been taken, and absorbing editor time for no relevant reason. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, there's already a consensus and slow work underway. I concur that this TFD can be closed. Alsee (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both versions are still catastrophically bad, full of UNESCO bureaucratic nonsense of no interest to anyone, and completely failing to give the most basic information about the actual sites. They are a major disgrace. Neither should be used in the majority of applicable articles, at least for the built sites rather than the natural ones. My complaints about this have been falling on deaf ears for years, demonstrating to me how little most WP editors care about providing the reader with most useful information. Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnbod, your comment seems off-topic: there are a variety of historical site infoboxes (e.g. {{Infobox church}} used at Reims Cathedral, {{Infobox ancient site}} used at Giza pyramid complex, {{Infobox archive}} at Archivo General de Simancas, etc) to which the UNESCO related info can be appended, or not, depending on what the editors of the article think is most useful. If the UNESCO info is appended to the infobox, that can be done with the embedded variant of either template under discussion here, or not. Which says nothing about whether or not merging the templates is desirable. Which is probably also why your comments in Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site/Archive 1#Threaded discussion seem to have made so little lasting impression (although, in the mean while, the template, especially the Wikidata-free variant, seems to have been improved on at least some of the points you suggested in the 2010–2013 period). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, unfortunately I missed the Rfc in October, though I now see somebody complimented my earlier efforts there, but I'm not going to miss any opportunity to point out what a complete disgrace this template is. The vast majority of uses remain as poor as ever. The solution remains not to use it. Other than saying a site is WHS & linking to UNESCO, none of the other information is needed or desirable. Johnbod (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2018 (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:User citizen Baustralia

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 Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User citizen Baustralia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is of no use as Baustralia as a country does not exist. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@L293D: It does as a micronation, though go ahead and switch to speedy, as the other related are. I've substituted it on my userpage. -Kingdom of Baustralia (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Micronation? What size is it then? The size of your backyard? If it does not have an article on Wikipedia, then this template should go. I was thinking of speeding it but I couldn't find a good criteria for it, so that's why I TfD'd it. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:32, 9 April 2018 (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:Unsolved

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 keep per WP:SNOW. Clearly not going to be deleted. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template encourages original research, which is a no-no. The fact that it's survived long enough to be translated into 14 other languages baffles me. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only baffling thing here is the nonsensical nomination -- speedy keep. --JBL (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I also don't really understand how this encourages OR. @Lojbanist: do you have any examples of this being misused? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hanging out at the science and mathematics deletion discussions, I've seen plenty of OR examples, but this template wasn't on any of them. XOR'easter (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nonsensical and non-policy-based deletion rationale. The template should be used to call attention to problems that are described in more detail and properly sourced in the text of the article; at least that's how I regularly use it. And "encouraging original research" is a good thing, far from being a no-no. Encouraging people to add unsourced original research to our articles would be less good, but I don't see how this template does any such thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The template encourages a concise, well-written description of the precise nature of unsolved problems, at least this has been the effect wherever I have seen it. If anything, the template should make it easier to spot and police poorly sourced OR. Torbjörn Björkman (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Entire books are dedicated to the subject of unsolved problems in mathematics. Many research-level books also contain lists of subject-specific open problems. This is a topic that requires no original research. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certainly as used in maths articles, it is an informative, good and proper infobox drawing attention to related unsolved problems. It contributes to building understanding as well as illustrating articles effectively. OR is nothing to do with it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2018 (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).