Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:20, 15 September 2017

September 15

Template:Infobox Dalai Lama

• Template:Infobox Dalai Lama (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox religious biography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Dalai Lama with Template:Infobox religious biography.
per WP:INFOCOL and MOS:IB. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Cite Q

• Template:Cite Q (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is a baffling thing when one comes across it while editing. It creates a properly formed citation. Turns out it is pulling data from Wikidata somehow. This is used in about 225 places which is unfortunate. But based on the deprecation of template:doi per Template_talk:Cite_doi#RfC:_Should_cite_doi_template_be_deprecated.3F, this should not have been implemented. Citation data should be in the article where the citation is used, not somewhere else, and not in another project altogether.

See also discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Wikidata/2017_State_of_affairs#UNREADABLE_WIKIDATA_REFS which is what made me aware of this. -- Jytdog (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Strong keep - Just because you don't like it doesn't make it good enough for deletion. If you find it difficult to find get rid of <ref name="0:"> too. There's not much difference. Keeping that aside I believe it can be made easier to find. Further, I would like to again remind the need for consolidating references into Wikidata for which various editors and tech people are working on already. The way ahead is improving Cite Q not getting rid of it. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep As the nominator notes, this template "creates a properly formed citation". The DOI template discussion has no bearing on this one, which does not rely on DOIs and does not work in the manner of the previously deleted template. More sensible discussions of this template than the one given may be found at, for example, Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 33#Drawing citation metadata from Wikidata. If the nominator is "baffled", there are numerous venues, such as the template's talk page, where they can seek assistance, and where it appears that the nominator has never posted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. I do not have a strong opinion about whether the template should be deleted, slighly leaning towards keep. The obvious problem is vamdalism on Wikidata, though items with citations are not really attractive to vandals and are not highly visible, and one still does not have a single example of such vandalism which would create damage on Misplaced Pages. Another argument is that sometimes data is not retrieved properly (in the example in the discussion, the name of the series changed, and the template retrieves the actual name rather than the name at the time of publication). It can be solved for example by having two separate items on Wikidata. A clear advantage is that the citations are centralized. I understand that most English Misplaced Pages participants do not care a fuck about other language editions (and this is the reason why info on some obscure subjects such as majors of minor Ukrainian cities remains vastly outdated, but this is unrelated to the current discussion). However, references are sometimes changed, and whereas there is some mechanism of propagation of these changes to Wikidata (bots), the changes do not propagate to Misplaced Pages. The changes specifically in the citations are rare though, and this is why I said I do not particularly care - we have minor advantages and minor disadvantages. I strongly oppose, however, the notion that all information should be in the code of the article. First, it should not be. This is exactly the idea why Wikidata was created. Information in the code is updated very slowly. Second, this is actually n0ot the case with our current articles. An example from my watchlist as of today: Kōtōdai-Kōen Station has a link to a dab in the infobox. I tried to correct it, but I can not figure out how it can be done, because it is hidden in some obscure template somewhere. And I am a rather advanced Misplaced Pages user with some experience. It is just not true, the info is not always in the Misplaced Pages article code, and often it is not at all trivial to retrieve or to correct it.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Re "a clear advantage is that the citations are centralized", that is only true if Wikidata is used for all references. While it lives alongside references that exist as text in articles it fragments references. It would only centralise references if all references were moved to Wikidata. I think though this would be fiercely resisted by the majority of editors used to the current system, and will not be possible until it vastly easier to work with Wikidata. Until then this does not really centralise citations – quite the opposite.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 10:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Ymblanter, the plain text 'Izumi-Chūō' is easily found when you edit the page. It had a fairly pointless STN template around it, but so what? I'm sure you know how to make a basic piped link. BTW, please check that diff link. I assumed the disambig target should be the Izumi-Chūō on the same rail line. Alsee (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete or at least remove all mainspace instances of it (directly or through templates). Not only for the reason described above, but also because often it creates incorrect references which are hard to correct. At Povl Riis, this created a reference where neearly everything had to be changed to make it correct. Like I said at WP:ANI ":If I have to add parameters to change the editors' names, change the title, change the link to the pdf, change the journal name, add the volume number, add the page number, and change the publisher's name (assuming all of these are even possible with the current template), then what is the actual use of the cite Q template?"
  For another example of problems with the template, see Regensburg. A long way down on that page, you have the infobox for a UNESCO World Heritage Site. "Area ". Reference 7 is "Bavarian State Office for Statistics and Data, ed. (1991), Amtliches Ortsverzeichnis für Bayern, Munich: Bavarian State Office for Statistics and Data, p. 242, Wikidata Q15707237". Great, we have a reference without anything it references. Furthermore, the source, if you succeed in eventually finding it, has no info on the area anyway. Then again, how could a 1991 source have information of the area designed as world Heritage Site in 2006... Similarly, on Visby they use a 1961 reference for a 1995 world heritage site, resulting in "Location Gotland Municipality, Q10716061, Gotland, Sweden" (emphasis mine) in the text of the infobox.
  And a third group of articles this is used on are telescopes. Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory has the location of the telescope, "Location Coquimbo Region, Chile" with the source "GRID Release 2017-05-22, 22 May 2017, doi:10.6084/M9.FIGSHARE.5032286, Wikidata Q30141628". Neither the doi nor the Wikidata link bring you any closer to the actual source, .
  Some loose articles also use this, e.g. Moksha (Jainism) has a source: "Paul Dundas (2002, 1992), The Jains, London, New York: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-26605-X Check date values in: |date= (help), Wikidata Q36518532" (emphasis mine). Oops! Often, these pages have a Wikidata link to a general website, not an actual reference to the object in question (e.g. Bengtskär lighthouse links to this, not to this; Crucifixion with the Virgin Mary, St John and St Mary Magdalene links to this, not to this which as already present in the article anyway.
  Basically, whether you believe we should have this template or not (I don't, hence my "delete"), it clearly isn't ready to be used in the mainspace and is added to articles and templates in a reckless, often WP:POINTY manner. Fram (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It took just seconds to fix the dual date issue for the Dundas book's item at Wikidata (something Fra could have done, but choose not to). The issue there was the conflation of two editions, just as they are conflated on Misplaced Pages's article about the author. No doubt User:RexxS (whose Lua skills exceed mine) will be happy to kindly update Cite Q to handle the edge case of dual dates in Wikidata, and our project can take yet another a small step forwards, instead of the large step backwards that deletion of this template would involve. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Actually, it took you ten minutes, not two seconds, and since when do we have to edit other websites to fix error messages in Misplaced Pages? I don't see how having to correct references and errors there is somehow a sign of progress. You haven't really explained why deletion of this template would be "a large step backwards" though. By the way, don't edit my comments again. Fram (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      • No, it took seconds to apply a fix that remedied the display in the Misplaced Pages article. I then decided to go back and make further improvements, *after making my post here* . I have not "edited your comment"; I have fixed the list markup for accessibility reasons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The issue at Regensburg is with {{Infobox World Heritage Site}}, which appears not to handle a missing |area= parameter. That cannot be laid at Cite Q's door. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep a) the referred problem has no bearing as the nominator himself states and b) The solution to - real or imagined - problems with using wikidata is to work on those, and not by deleting templates here. Agathoclea (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • If there are fundamental problems with the template, and the supposed benefits seem to be missing from most or all examples actually in use now, then why keep it? I don't understand what you mean with "the referred problem has no bearing". Every time I look at actual uses of this template, I notice new problems. Metrostav has the first "reference": "annual report, Wikidata Q699735". The first link is to our article on "annual report", not to an actual annual report for this company. The second link, to Wikidata, goes to this, the Wikidata page for ... "annual report". The Wikidata link adds absolutely nothing here, only frustrates people wanting to find an actual source. How come? Well, an editor added here the "Infobox company/Wikidata", which calls the cite Q template, with this result. Uesful! Fram (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • But that is a problem of {{Infobox company/wikidata}} and not of the template we are discussing. Agathoclea (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      • No, citeQ generates the actual text of the reference (it is supposedly its unique selling proposition). That CiteQ is used is the choice of the people maintaining that infobox version, but the end result is a reference which is nearly impossible to edit, improve or remove from the article. if CiteQ were deleted, we wouldn't see that "reference" and we would lose the link to the Wikidata item for "annual report", which would be a good thing. In general, no matter through what means the citeQ template is introduced in the article, there seem to be very few uses where the reference actually guides you to the right source, page, ..., the kind of things you would expect in a real, working cite template. Often it is simply wrong, in other instances it is somewhat, vaguely right if you ignore lots of small issues and defects. Fram (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• delete or mark as unusable. This is strongly reminiscent of the previous {{cite doi}} which although well meant was found to be detrimental to the project, because it broke one of the main tenet of WP, that it is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. References are part of the page content, and editors should be able to view, edit and copy them by viewing the page source. Putting them on other pages made them harder to find and edit, harder to monitor for vandalism, harder to re-use by copy and paste. {{cite doi}} was bad enough, but at least when an editor found the relevant page it was a recognisable citation, and could be examined, edited, copied as if it were in an article. Putting them on Wikidata is far worse, as it is a separate project and the way it works is completely unlike WP.

Maybe one day we will be able to edit Wikidata content within WP pages, and watch it for changes with other page changes. At that point it might make sense to host content such as references on Wikidata. But right now it makes the editing experience significantly worse and so should not be used.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 09:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• delete. It's just about impossible to figure out which source is which while editing an article. Also, the template is self-described as experimental but is nevertheless finding its way into articles, so describing it as experimental in the documentation is insufficient to prevent it from being used in articles. Deleting it would be sufficient. Jc3s5h (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Nowhere in the template's documentation is it described as "experimental". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Maratha Rulers Infobox

• Template:Maratha Rulers Infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template Zackmann08 (/_{What I been doing}) 02:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox LLWSQualifiers-Pre2001

• Template:Infobox LLWSQualifiers-Pre2001 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template Zackmann08 (/_{What I been doing}) 02:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox carom billiards player

• Template:Infobox carom billiards player (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused template Zackmann08 (/_{What I been doing}) 02:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I was asking on the talk page for help, but no one answered so far. If I want to use it in a right way, I will create it new. If you want, you can move it into my sandbox. Regards --Rafael Zink (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox bbl season

• Template:Infobox bbl season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template Zackmann08 (/_{What I been doing}) 02:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:NLP sidebar

• Template:NLP sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused template Zackmann08 (/_{What I been doing}) 02:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)