Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 2: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 301: Line 301:
***I don't see how a state fits this criteria. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 17:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
***I don't see how a state fits this criteria. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 17:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
****You are, of course, at liberty to argue that consensus ''can'' change; however, you offer zero evidence that it ''has'' changed. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 20:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
****You are, of course, at liberty to argue that consensus ''can'' change; however, you offer zero evidence that it ''has'' changed. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 20:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
**'''Irrelevant claim''' [[User:Bokmanrocks01|Bokmanrocks01]], your {{tq|I agree with the earlier statements that U.S. states are not settlements.}} - it was not claimed in the proposal that they are. [[Special:Contributions/78.54.186.169|78.54.186.169]] ([[User talk:78.54.186.169|talk]]) 06:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Merge'''. No reason this shouldn't at least be a wrapper, if not replaced entirely. Only users who truly fail to understand the purpose of Infobox settlement would think "a state isn't a settlement" is a valid argument against this. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 21:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Merge'''. No reason this shouldn't at least be a wrapper, if not replaced entirely. Only users who truly fail to understand the purpose of Infobox settlement would think "a state isn't a settlement" is a valid argument against this. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 21:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />

Revision as of 06:37, 6 March 2019

< March 1 March 3 >

March 2

Various Cape Cod S-line templates

S-line templates for the Cape Cod and Hyannis Railroad, Cape Cod Central Railroad, and Amtrak's Cape Codder. Replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Cape Cod and Hyannis Railroad, Module:Adjacent stations/Cape Cod Central Railroad, and Module:Adjacent stations/Amtrak. All transclusions replaced. Mackensen (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northern Cyprus women basketball teams in Turkey's leagues

unused navbox with no parent article. WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northern Ireland prime ministers

unused navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northern Territory regions

unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northern hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons

unsued navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nuu-chah-nulth-aht peoples

unused navbox. WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nyborg Municipality

unused navbox with mostly redlinks and plaintext Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Off-season Australian region tropical cyclones

Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OlivierAward NewPlayActor

Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OlivierAward RevivalActor

Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Omaha Mavericks men's ice hockey coach navbox

Unused navbox with only 2 links. WP:NENAN. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Omani League

unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oriental Orthodox Christianity in Europe

Unused navbox that violates WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Os Garridos

Unused navbox with mostly redlinks. Violates WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Osaka University academic alliances

Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Other Cricket tours of Sri Lanka

unused navbox with mostly redlinks. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Other Radio Stations in Arkansas

unused navbox with only 3 links. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 3 tiers: by frequency, by format, & community of license.Stereorock (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Our Peak

unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PE-FedRep

unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:POV/subpage

unused subpage that seems to be replaced by /sandbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PPDpresidents

unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Palestine NFT results

unused navbox with only redlinks. Violates WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Panamanian mobile network operators

unused navbox with only 3 links Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Panchayats in Patna District

Unused navbox with mostly redlinks and plaintext. Violates WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Panchen Lamas PRC

Unused navbox with only 1 link Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Panchsheel Nagar district

unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Paraguay squad 2012 FIFA Futsal World Championship

unused navbox with only redlinks. Violates WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Parliamentary constituencies in Masvingo

unused navbox with no parent article and mostly redlinks Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Patriots1967DraftPicks

unused navbox that violates WP:ACCESS Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Penthouse Pets of 2005

unused navbox with no parent article Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:People's Party MP 2006–2010

Unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Surface Railroad S-line templates

Replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Boston Surface Railroad. All transclusions updated. Mackensen (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dfn

We currently have the <dfn> tag being used on about 40 pages, and Template:dfn used on about 80 pages. This tag is apparently just for semantic web purposes, and doesn't benefit readers directly. Sometimes we do put semantic web markup inside templates and things, but it seems like most of the time we try not to clutter up the article text; the Manual of Style says to use HTML markup sparingly. The template adds <dfn> tag, but also has the capability of producing a nice tooltip.

If we were to decide that this tag should be used for its intended purpose, that would mean a campaign of adding it to millions of articles, at least to the bolded term in every intro, and possibly to other terms in the article that define important terminology. The fact that it's used on so few articles after 7 years or so of this template being around indicates to me there's not much support for doing that. While I'm an active user of the semantic web, in this case I think it might be better just to go in the other direction and scrub the project of this tag on the theory that it's unnecessary markup.

There remains the question of what to do about the tooltips. As the template documentation warns, the tooltip contents are not accessible to all users. I think that's an argument for not using that functionality at all, and integrating any definitions into the main article text in all cases. The fact that a tooltip aids understanding is probably an indication of sub-optimal writing, which I think is another argument for scrubbing this template.

So here are the options I can think of:

  1. Declare (by not deleting them) <dfn> and {{dfn}} are beneficial, and advocate putting them on millions of articles.
  2. Declare (by not deleting them) <dfn> and {{dfn}} are OK to use, but don't promote them.
  3. Convert all instances of <dfn> and {{dfn}} for consistency, more control over rendering, and easier parsing. Declare (by not deleting it) {{dfn}} as the preferred form.
  4. Delete all instances of <dfn> and instances of {{dfn}} that don't involve a tooltip.
  5. Delete all instances of <dfn> and {{dfn}} and integrate tooltip contents into the main article.

I think these are actually ranked from least to most preferable in my view. I'm open to other suggestions if I've missed something or if people don't like any of these choices or have some clever ideas. -- Beland (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (option 2) as potentially useful, and as the correct markup to use for the purpose in question. WP needs to be doing more not less semantic Web stuff as we move into the future and as repurposing of our content broadens, and as we get closer to proper HTML 5 compliance and the site thus gets increasingly easy to machine-parse. Option 3 wouldn't be terrible, but we actually have no real reason to try to get people to stop using plain HTML if they want to. TfD even has a history of deleting HTML-wrapper templates some editors don't think are strictly necessary (albeit that's mostly a very old history, and consensus could have changed, especially given the frequency with which people are using custom CSS and JS these days – we need templates for classes).
    Also, wrong venue: Whether or not <dfn> and {{dfn}} should at this time be used more broadly, as a matter of the guidelines advocating them directly, is a matter probably for an RfC at WT:MOS, not a TfD (and probably also advertised at WP:ACCESSIBILITY, WP:VPTECH, and various other venues). "We're not using it much" isn't really a deletion rationale. And buried at the bottom of a TfD is not the place for a discussion of whether the tooltip system should be dismantled; that's definitely an RfC at VPTECH.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC); clarified, 19:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sit somewhere in #2 or #3 for now. I think it would be nice if we could get a wikitext version of this tag, so that we could use it in the lead of an article. --Izno (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Costliest U.S. Atlantic hurricanes by wealth normalization

Violates project consensus that inflation will not be used. Discussions have taken place here and here. Inflation values should not be given for storms considering they can't be calculated for areas outside of the US. Not to mention differences in calculations (pop. density, building codes, etc.) that would make such calculations impossible. Both discussions also raise valid points as to why inflation adjustment should not be used. NoahTalk 01:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this template is wealth normalization, not inflation adjustment. You can very well calculate those for non-US regions, in fact Wikipedia has dozens of lists with countries' GDP (i.e., its current flow of wealth) denominated in US Dollar, even though that isn't the currency those numbers originated in. Those numbers come from agencies like the IMF, the CIA, the Worldbank, and others, who have an army of economists figuring those numbers out. I don't know where this alleged consensus of not using inflation- and/or wealth-adjustment was established, but it's one moronic decision if there ever was one. The only thing this template needs is an update to Weinke et al. (2018). --bender235 (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template contains useful encyclopedic information, which is an attempt to rank hurriacens by most costly to the society at the time. It's used in several articles so serves its purpose as a template. It shouldn't be deleted just because of a content dispute, ie. an argument about which way of comparing costs is best. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tom (LT):Might I inform you that wealth normalization has been removed from EVERY TC article except some (not even all) of the ones on that list. The project quit using wealth normalization a few years ago because it is misleading. NoahTalk 11:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where was this consensus established, and what was the main concern with using wealth normalized damage figures? Sure these numbers aren't perfect, but comparing hurricanes by nominal GDP damage is utter nonsense. If we want to delete those "most costly hurricanes" rankings, we should start with the ones that use nominal damage. --bender235 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Im going to ask about the specific consensus later since I am out of town, but your post (second to last) here shows exactly why wealth normalization is not even close to accurate. All it is is a PREDICTION about what that storm would cause TODAY, not what it ACTUALLY did. To have a list of these in an article is simply misleading. This either needs a serious explanation to clear up that this isn't inflation adjustment or simply removed to alleviate confusion. NoahTalk 02:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: LOL, of course these numbers are estimates, but so are unadjusted damage figures. How do you imagine these are established? You think someone from the NOAA roams around Texas and Louisiana after a hurricane and collects receipts from repairs?
I'm still waiting to see where this supposed consensus to not include adjusted damage figures was established. Until then, these templates stay put. --bender235 (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've updated this template to 2018 using Weinke et al. (2018). Also, I've tried to trace back this supposed "consensus" not to use wealth normalization or any kind of adjustment of nominal damage figures. What I found was the unilateral removal of the wealth normalization table from List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes. I will re-add the (updated) information immediately. --bender235 (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there is no specific consensus. If you aren't even going to read what I actually said, there is no point in me arguing. You saw the word prediction and jumped to a conclusion despite the fact that I said wealth normalization is a "prediction about what that storm would cause today, not what it actually did". Nowhere in that did I mention opposing it because it was an estimate. I said it is inaccurate because it stems too far from what the storm actually did in its day. Since nobody seems to care anymore, this discussion is over and the template may stay for now. NoahTalk 02:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand, at least in principle, that comparing nominal damage figures from a storm in 1918 with a storm in 2018 is pointless? For the same reason oil price comparisons can only be reasonably done after adjusting for inflation. But then again, a barrel of oil in 1918 is not different from a barrel of oil in 2018, whereas a typical single-family home in 1918 was much cheaper, and contained much less valuable goods, than a typical single-family home in 2018. That's the logic behind wealth normalization, and while it's not a perfect method, it is far better than comparing nominal figures. --bender235 (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do. In this case, regular inflation adjustment would be much better as it simply takes what the storm did and adjusts it today's money value rather than predicting the amount said storm would cause today. As I said earlier, please explain what wealth normalization is in the article as it might baffle or confuse readers who have not experienced it before. A simple note on the column header would work. NoahTalk 03:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think both questions (1 "how costly was this 1915 storm in today's money?" and 2 "how costly would it be given today's population and wealth density?") are interesting. The answer to the second question is particular useful when comparing whether storms have become more costly over the past century. --bender235 (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Trillium Line route diagram detailed

Ununsed template, no reason to keep it around. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Template:Trillium Line route diagram. Useddenim (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The template is not unused, it is linked to from the less detailed template. I think this is an appropriate setup and the template should not be deleted or merged. BLAIXX 00:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaixx: where are you seeing that the template is used? this clearly shows that it isn't... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That shows it is not transcluded, but it is linked to from Trillium Line: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Trillium Line route diagram detailed. —Kusma (t·c) 20:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: that fact that it is linked is not relevant. The template is not used on any pages. If you want to use the content, then it should be transcluded on a page. Templates are meant for reuse, not to be linked to as stand alone pages. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it is not transcluded is not relevant, seeing that the template is being employed in a useful fashion, supplementing an article. —Kusma (t·c) 18:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Blaixx. —Kusma (t·c) 20:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Blaixx. Mackensen (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma and Mackensen: your !votes to keep neglect to actually address the point that the template is not used. LINKING to a template is not a valid use of a template. Templates are meant to be transcluded, not linked to as standalone pages. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the template is arguably main space content masquerading as a template. It's fulfilling a useful function in that respect, how would you suggest handling this differently without degrading the user experience? Mackensen (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Zackmann08: I disagree with your unproven assertion that this is "not a valid use". It may not be documented anywhere, but having diagrams in template space instead of article space has been a traditional and widely accepted practice for a long time. The information is not in article space because it is not an article, and we no longer have article subpages. It is not in file space because it is editable. It is in template space because it is similar to Template:Trillium Line route diagram. Some templates are useful as standalone pages, and there is nothing wrong with that. Deleting this template deletes useful information for no benefit. —Kusma (t·c) 18:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Zackmann08: Forget about WP:DONTGETIT. The template has valid content and is not “Unused”. It's perfectly acceptable for route diagrams to link to a more-detailed sub-diagrams, just as there's no prohibition against stand-alone templates: see Template:East Coast Main Line diagram, for example (or are you now going to nominate that for deletion, too?). Useddenim (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or actually use - Templates should not be used as links which replace articles. If that template is useful, then use it on the page. If if it isn't useful and you need to hide it, then it should be deleted. Linking it as if it were an article should not be acceptable. --Gonnym (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: And where is the directive that says that? Useddenim (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not used as a link that replaces an article. It is a diagram. We would not delete a diagram in file space if it is linked to from an article. This diagram has the advantage of being editable and including wikilinks, much better than an equivalent-looking SVG. —Kusma (t·c) 08:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is used as a link, which for any unknowing reader (and to most editors) would seem like a link to an article. There is a blue text link that leads to this diagram. I would have no issue with this diagram if it were actually placed on that article, but this is not the case. --Gonnym (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDL is not a valid argument. Useddenim (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox U.S. state

Replace with {{Infobox settlement}}. At the very least this should be converted to a wrapper template. Yes this was previously nominated 10 years ago, but lots has changed since then. Additionally, it is not likely that there will be any new US states so shouldn't need to be maintained on new pages. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Metadata Population BE

Not a valid way to store data. The population should either be directly placed on the page or stored in WikiData. Not maintained in this sort of template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same for Destatis as for Statistik Thüringen [4] "Vervielfältigung und Verbreitung, auch auszugsweise, mit Quellenangabe gestattet". --Septembermorgen (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding maintained – compare population data for North Rhine-Westphalia:
  • from {{Metadata Population DE-NW}}: 18,139,116 (31 December 2022)
  • from Wikidata: 17,932,651 (31 December 2018)
-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's what happens when a community maintains data in multiple venues - they get out-of-sync. Far better to maintain data in one place, and transclude it as required. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the perfect is the enemy of the good. Yes, ideally we should use Wikidata for data (which, at least for Belgium, does not have population data for each entity as of now). For now we have this very useful system where we can easily put data, instantly updating all relevant articles where the data is transcluded. We shouldn't give up efficiency out of principles like "not a valid way to store data". SPQRobin (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - at least until there is a good, and equally well maintained alternative in Wikidata. The current population data templates are referenced, up to date (December 2016 and 2017) and I can't remember ever having found an error in the data. Markussep Talk 18:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I do not particularly like these templates (not intuitive to use, require updating on several wikis) but until there is a workable Wikidata alternative, de-centralising the updating of population data looks like a step backwards or two. —Kusma (t·c) 14:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a workable Wikidata alternative, already. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • As you probably noticed, it is currently of significantly inferior quality. Transferring the data in these templates to Wikidata wholesale would probably violate copyright, as most of the data is CC-BY or similar, not compatible with Wikidata's CC0. While I believe that population data should not have any usage restrictions, that does not seem to be the case. The templates are a workaround for the copyright situation, so they are currently the best way we have to store the data. —Kusma (t·c) 20:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • No: the alternative is of a much superior quality. That the data is not yet uploaded does not detract from the merits of the technical solution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Deleting these templates and using the data currently stored in Wikidata would degrade the quality of our articles. I do not care too much how the data arrives in the articles (whether from templates here or from Wikidata), but making information in our articles deliberately less accurate or less up-to-date is in my personal view significantly worse than using a "non-valid way to store data". Store the most up-to date data in a valid way, if that is possible, then come back. The theoretical technical superiority of the alternative is irrelevant if it means a practical decrease in quality of our articles. —Kusma (t·c) 21:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not one person is suggesting anything that would "degrade the quality of our articles" nor "making information in our articles deliberately less accurate or less up-to-date" and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Then I don't understand what it is you are suggesting. I see some "delete, the data should be on Wikidata" votes above that you seemed to agree with, as you started arguing with all of the keep voters. What do you think we should do? —Kusma (t·c) 21:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_2&oldid=886431175"