Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 11

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< May 10 May 12 >

May 11

Template:West Santa Ana Branch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:Linkage with Template:Underlinked
.
TheDragonFire (talk) 15:26, 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:Contains Slovak text

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

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
    ]
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
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]

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]

Please stay cool
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

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"