Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 22

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 21 November 23 >

November 22 edit

Template:Treaty of Paris 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete: T3 ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 19:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Treaty of Paris (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template. Issue can be solved with hatnote Night of the Big Wind talk 23:31, 22 November 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Blue mountains line alt 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blue mountains line alt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:East Hills line alt 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Inner west line alt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:North shore line alt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Northern line alt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:South line alt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Western line alt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Rebecca Black 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rebecca Black (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Textbook WP:NENAN. Too soon. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per WP:NENAN. - Saulo Talk to Me 00:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
if the template is small, I think that it should be kept as it is a very popular, article and therefore, I'm sure there are many who use it every day.--80.161.143.239 (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:ISO 3166 code Pakistan 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ISO 3166 code Pakistan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I think this template should be removed, and replaced by using some general-purpose template with the parameter word "Pakistan". The tiny template has become an excuse to create template-redirects using some diacritical marks and an Arabic spelling of "Pakistan" in the 15 related template names, each used in over 10,978 pages:

I spotted all the redirected templates in the report "WP:Database reports/Templates transcluded on the most pages" as templates having the exact same count of 10,978 pages with transclusions. I think the template has been included into some type of infobox(es) used in "10,978" pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox ukcave 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Merge carefully. On the side of merging, there are legitimate points raised about maintenance burden, WP:CFORK, and WP:NOTCENSORED. On the side of keeping separate templates, the entire issue seems to revolve around coordinate data. But no argument offered is really valid: it's not our purpose to prevent people from putting themselves in danger, and it's not our purpose to conceal information in an attempt to prevent people from trespassing, vandalizing a natural resource, or otherwise breaking the law. While it is very likely that no reliable sources exist for location information for many US caves (due to certain laws and to publishers' agreement not to publish this data), forking the template isn't an effective way to prevent addition of unsourced or poorly-sourced data. After all, people can just add {{coord}} anyway and will actually be encouraged to do so by the lack of coordinate fields in the infobox.

So I'm going to close this as "merge", but encourage both sides to discuss how the merger can be best done for minimum disruption. Please don't just do an easy merge without addressing the US cavers' concerns. I've taken the liberty of starting a section for discussion of the merger at Template talk:Infobox cave#Merge from Template:Infobox ukcave, with some suggestions that may get things started. Anomie⚔ 00:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox ukcave (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't see the reason for this separate template - a fork of {{Infobox cave}}. The UK grid reference is of limited value - it can be included in the article if needed or can be obtained by simply clicking through the lat/long link. The other extra fields - one of which (mcra_id) only relates to caves in one small geographic area of south west England - could easily be done by adding "free labels" to the existing infobox. Bob Re-born (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) For many applications, such as the DBpedia, the Infobox is a superior place to put the structured information so that it is accessible for reuse -- rather than scattered willy-nilly around the article.
2) There exist UK-centric infoboxes which are of good quality (ie they contain the maps, etc) Template:Infobox_SSSI, Template:Infobox_UK_feature
3) It is impossible to put coordinate data or maps into the "main" cave infobox, because US cavers just won't have it. (please refer to the debate at Template_talk:Infobox_cave#Locations). So just because of them we can't have a cave infobox with location details in it, while the SSSI infobox can be lovely. Or we can be allowed to let the ukcave one stand in order to work round this issue.
4) There are cave registries (eg the MCRA) for all the national regions of the country which are just coming on-line. This infobox is work-in-progress to start to make cross-references between them and potentially draw in the work of more committed editors into wikipedia.
5) Most importantly, I have got some people here at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Caves#UBSS_Cave_sprint, trying to get them involved in learning how to contribute. It would be a serious shame to discourage them.Goatchurch 13:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The discussion you've linked to is from 2009, and quite honestly I think the premise against including location data in the general infobox because US organisations don't specify it is bogus because we do not leave sensitive information out of articles just because someone doesn't want people to have access to it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's bogus too, but this is an opinion very strongly held by US cavers (you can take my word on this) who are good at deleting references to cave locations throughout all public forums they get into contact with. I guarantee this will result in edit wars. Or we can live with this very reasonable compromise.Goatchurch 15:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
We don't shy away from subjects simply because people feel strongly about them. If the only thing preventing a merge is obstructionism from certain hobbyist parties then we should merge and deal with the fallout from that if and when it happens. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had forgotten all about the maps discussion. Thumperward is correct. We should put the coordinates into the caves infobox - Wikipedia is a global community and not US-centric despite what some may think. --Bob Re-born (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So are you volunteering to bat for me if this gets into a edit war with them? I've got more articles to write. How long have I got to attempt to roll these features back into infobox cave?Goatchurch 16:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes. --Bob Re-born (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Caves#Coordinates have to go back in internationally.21 where, remarkably, one editor declares that " That's [preventing the publication of information] why I'm on wikipedia now, to nip this in the bud"!. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am one such U.S. Caver. My thoughts are this: Filling in coordinates without a reference is original research and grounds for removal. Any coordinate should have a reference. I prefer general locations (i.e. Country, State, County) in the infobox as opposed to coordinates because most people don't know if a cave is public or on private property. Generally speaking though, the only cave pages worth wikipedia pages (read: those with sources) are commercial caves. Coordinates for those would not be harmful. Only inconsistent with those that are not commercial or publicly known. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why are caves to be treated any differently from, say, mountain peaks? We get the coordinates for those from maps; it seems reasonable to do the same for a cave. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Federal Cave Resources Protection Act has caused the USGS (the primary source of map data in the U.S.) to exclude caves. WTucker (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you are the editor I quoted. The ownership of a cave is irrelevant to its location, or its notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a plea to editors to better understand the situation. I've caved with Europeans before. They explain to me that Europeans are much more responsible of their caves. Whereas here in the states, the general public vandalizes, defaces, and disrespects the cave environs and it's inhabitants. That is the dichotomy between our cultures. For Europeans, it's easy to post coordinates because they don't have to fear the wrath of Americans pissing in their caves, smashing beer bottles against the wall, and spray painting vulgarities on irreplaceable speleothems. Hence the sensitivity on cave locations.
Honestly, being a caver, I think the easiest solution is to ask ourselves "Why do we need a coordinate field?" Does it really accomplish much or does it cause more pain than is worth the effort? Leitmotiv (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no place for such special pleading. Coordinates in articles about caves will have all the benefits of coordinates in articles about any other point of interest; and that's established with consensus and common usage across Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so it falls on deaf ears. But I will make a reply to both of your statements. Redrose64 asks why is it different for caves than for mountain peaks. Because caves are typically sensitive and closed ecosystems. Examples: Endangered biological species sometimes found only within one cave. Archaeological resources, once disturbed the information on that site may never be regained. Speleothems that once broken, never grow back. Caves are not your average park. There can be blind pits, sometimes zero oxygen levels, etc. People die in caves because they are improperly trained or equipped. I could go on...
As response to Andy. I feel that ownership is of big consequence. Let's not kid ourselves as to what coordinates are used for in most cases. They are used to direct people. You can't deny that that is what people use them for. So as Wikipedians, are you directing them to publicly held caves, or privately held caves? In the latter, it's a trespassing offense. As Wikipedians, when you make a blanket statement that all cave infoboxes should have coordinate fields there are consequences. You can claim innocence that you had no part in it, but only the naive will believe you. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No your comment did not fall on deaf ears; I read and considered it, and gave an appropriate response. You would do well to assume good faith. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope not! There may be a consensus on coordinates, but I remind you of exceptions. Wikipedia likes to boast it's not a democracy and it's votes should be used carefully, but that's all it seems to do is vote like a democracy and force those special exceptions to the tyranny of the majority. I find it amusing that a lot of Wikipedians act like the whole world is an oyster meant specifically for humans to shuck, but think little of the oyster. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What a load of tosh, so if you give the location of a bank to a person and they rob it, those are the consequences, really. Locations are a vital part of a geological feature, the location is the citation to its existence, without it nothing can be verified. Protect caves give the location. AndrewAtkinson (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No load of tosh, here Andrew. I think you appear to be European and have a different cultural experience than us in the States. I see we may have a common friend in Des Marshall. Locations are not a vital part of geology. Geology can do just fine without human intervention. Yes, protect the caves, keep humans as far away as possible! It only takes one bad apple to ruin the show. Just one. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no quarrel with a merge including the coordinates field. In fact, this is the first argument I have read where having the coordinates in the infobox is any different than simply in the article apart from the infobox. I do have a serious quarrel with adding unsourced coordinates (to any article, actually; but, especially caves and other sensitive locations). Too many times, these coordinates are original research and are not verifiable. Sometimes, the only verification possible is finding a similar feature name on a map; often, that is not even possible. Finding a feature on a map does not qualify as reliable secondary coverage. It is primary and unless the location description from reliable secondary sources is sufficient to prove the feature found on the map is the feature, it is original research to use the primary source. For caves, though, few sources of coordinates exist in the U.S. as the USGS specifically excludes them from its database and the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act prohibits federal employees from disclosing location information for "significant" (read notable) caves on almost all federal land. WTucker (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The argument about not having locations to protect the cave is bogus, and essentially irrelevant to the debate on locations on wikipedia, however does need responding to, as there is obviously a need for education so others can learn for others successful policies. Most of the UK (and probably Europe) has believed that the best way to protect caves is to publicised there existence and location. One of the reasons for this is that if they are not publicised they can be damaged without anyone noticing for years. A classic example of this is the SSSI designation of some caves. This publicisation of caves has reduced the distruction of caves in the UK dramatically, to the stage where most landowners activly call cavers for help when a new hole is discovered and are generally keen to allow it to be kept open if possible.AndrewAtkinson (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is far from "bogus." Secrecy on locations has effectively shown that that less people that know about a cave, the better protected it is. Coordinates, like I said above, are used to direct people. Geocaching and Waymarking have shown that to be the case and are the flag-bearers of coordinate sharing on the internet. We already have problems with geocachers breaking the law in our county by leaving caches in caves when it is illegal to leave behind material in a Federally protected cave. See my further comment below on double-edge sword, however. The locally known caves near and within the city I live in are desecrated! How many times would you like to have to go clean up John Doe's cave that is used for partying? Imagine all those bits of broken glass you just have to leave behind because tweezers won't suffice. For anyone thinking I'm using hyperbole, think again. This is all too common in the States. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make an argument about not having locations to protect the caves (well, except to mention that they are sensitive). I made Wikipedia policy arguments about not adding unsourced, unverifiable information; no original research; and the use of primary sources. WTucker (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it was not really directed at you, it was the argument higher up (Leitmotiv), I guess I got it in the wrong place AndrewAtkinson (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those can be dealt with directly, rather than using a technical hack to preclude the possibility of information being included even if it is accurate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. WTucker (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you partially that secrecy is a double edge sword. However, it's a mixed bag for the U.S. For instance, in my county we have one of the smallest caving organizations in the U.S. But our county has the most caves in the state. Our manpower cannot keep up with the potential need from us if all the caves were public. You could argue we'd get that manpower once they were public knowledge. This couldn't be further from the truth in our case. We have seen people that already have a disposition to like caves, seek us out, only to not want the responsibility! Unlike Europe, Americans are overworked, and underpaid. It is very hard for us to hold on to potential members. So many have come to a meeting, wanting nothing more than locations, and then never come back for another meeting. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Unlike Europe, Americans are overworked, and underpaid." At that point, I think you should stop digging. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To those few who have referred to WP:NOTCENSORED above,: would you support adding phone numbers, street addresses, familial relationships, contract negotiations, political donations, etc. obtained from a search of primary sources with no secondary source to back you up? Wikipedia is very much censored: articles are deleted; BLPs are protected; and ironically, this very discussion is a deletion discussion. WP:NOTCENSORED is not a grab all, trump card. WTucker (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We already have guidelines in place to deal with unverified or unverifiable content, and in one particular case (potentially damaging material on BLPs) a stronger ruling. There is no demonstrable need need to use technical measures to short-circuit that process in this particular case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Thanks. WTucker (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with {{Infobox cave}}, by adding missing parameters, including coordinates, to the latter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little dismayed that Cavers weren't invited to this conversation. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see two different infoboxes. Wikipedia likes to be streamlined for efficiency and I understand that. But what is not taken into consideration is the multiculture of the world we're documenting (and treat it all the same). I think Wikipedia should be less rigid and more flexible in some cases. Europeans have better conservation ethics than Americans and can handle caves with coordinates. Americans have effectively shown that they do not have strong conservation motives regarding caves. American city governments sometimes like to bury or detonate cave entrances because they can be management nightmares. Is it really so difficult to have two infoboxes?
    If so, then I will side with WTucker's statement that any coordinate listed must have a reference or will be eligible for deletion. With commercial grade GPS's being not very accurate, people's difficulty understanding coordinate systems and datums (to speak nothing of lat/long), and the main argument that it's original research, I don't see any gain in adding a coordinate without a proper reference from a notable source. Without cross checking with a notable reference on original researched coordinates, no editor will know if it's correct! And quite possibly a waste of everyone's time here. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given all the above, and the protracted debates and editing wars that have happened previously; to reduce the damage I would, reluctantly, have to vote for separate info boxes.AndrewAtkinson (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if the (still completely specious IMO) arguments not to include coordinates for US-based caves have consensus, there is still absolutely no need to duplicate the majority of the template code. Simply add a note to the documentation stating that location information should not be added to US caves. This is trivial to implement, and the two issues are orthogonal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly specious my friend. You just don't have the experience with caves that I do. And I doubt you'd want that experience. However, I could live with an implementation as you've cursorily outlined, and that's knowing full well that it could be overturned in the future, and that U.S. cavers would be stuck with a worldwide infobox potentially disclosing locations for Federally protected caves and privately held ones. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why would the generic cave infobox be made deficient if it a problem with the US? Why doesn't the US caves then not use a specialized template instead of making the world conform to US peculiarities? 70.24.248.23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    • Not sure I fully understand your comment. But I think a simple solution is to, instead of have a global blanket policy on infoboxes for multi-cultural places with different needs, not slap an infobox that helps one group and impinges on another. I'm not advocating everyone conform to US standards. I have no problem with a separate UK cave infobox. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "I'm not advocating everyone conform to US standards" Yes you are. You're trying to tell me what I may or may not put into articles on Wikipedia, based on your local customs and biases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't you dare put words into my mouth. I may have an unrefined position due to my lack of experience at the higher level of things at Wikipedia, but don't twist my words around sir. If you are pushing me to say that U.S. cavers and their caves should have their own infobox that caters to the sensitivity and needs of the caves and culture of the U.S. then yes, I advocate for everyone to respect articles on caves in the U.S. per its culture. No more than that. That is hardly "everyone" across the board on all caves. Tsk, tsk, on you for twisting. To clarify my words: I do not advocate that the whole world needs a cave infobox without a coordinate field. But when in Rome, do as the Romans do.
            As an American Caver who has lots of experience protecting and managing caves I and thousands of cavers will feel the effects of anything done on Wikipedia hereafter regarding this policy. Not you. So don't take the position that you are so obstructed. You can complain about censors sir (as if any knowledge ever belonged to you or anyone else), but this world isn't just about you or the rest of humanity. I remind you that you share the world with other life and to stop acting like everything should be your oyster to shuck or that you deserve a naked world. Your profile states you live in England. As I have said, I have no problem with a UK infobox with coordinates. Have at it! I respect the culture of Europe and their local needs. The small slice of Wikipedia governing U.S. Caves hardly affects you as you potentially claim. Could I be any more clearer? Leitmotiv (talk) 07:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • You couldn't be any clearer about your vested interest, no. The fact of the matter is, though, that Wikipedia does not cater to vested interests. That applies to the geographical locations of cave networks in the United States just as much as removal of depictions of the prophet Muhammad. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're wrong there. Wikipedia does have a conscious bias or unconscious bias towards disseminating information. That is a position catering to those who want zero censorship. You can make exceptions for famous people, but why not closed and sensitive cave ecosystems? Remember, caves are homes, too. Like Thincat said, there is no policy that says Wikipedia needs coordinates. I remind you all that posting coordinates for a cave is akin to posting that street address. Many caves are homes to bat hibernaculums and it takes literally only a few disturbances during hibernation so that a bat will expend enough fat reserves and will not last the winter and subsequently die. Post coordinates if humanity is all that is at stake here and all you care about is zero censorship. One final comment. Someone mentioned that I'm the only dissenting voice. Well, that's only natural seeing as how all you admins (or whatever it is you are) will routinely run into those you outnumber on pages like this that are specifically designed for your use. Remember, I was never invited in the first place. But you make a good point. Maybe I should start bringing this to the attention of the National Speleological Society and you will soon have much more capable people than I to banter with. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • In more succinct words, even the default position of Wikipedia is still a position. A position and group catered to. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Just to clarify, what outcome did you expect from threatening to canvas off-wiki on this issue, other than to weaken your own case? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's not a threat, but it points out that Wikipideans think the whole world operates under the premises of Wikipedia. The conclusion that, however fortunate for you, I was the only dissenting voice here is partly by your design. That's why I'm the only dissenting voice. Not because others don't exist, but because they are unaware, uninvited, and not a part of the Special Wikipedia Club. Wikipedia is a group of people with a shared vision and editors devoted to Wikipedia tend to edit with a little bit of bias favoring Wikipedia's goals. That's fine. But realize that Wikipedia's position is at odds with the rest of the world from time to time and Wikipedia's position is not inherently holy nor innocent. It's just a position that the majority all agree on. A club/group/"state of mind" catered to and enforced at the expense of all others. In some people's eyes, that's not far from a dictatorship. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Godwin? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Give me a break. I made no such comparisons. I am pointing out the blindspot of Wikipidean editors are yourselves. I also see you've reverted to the bottom tier of your debate pyramid found on your userpage. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not putting words in your mouth; nor twisting yours: I'm describing your actions; which you repeat in the lamentable comment to which I now reply. There is no policy which restricts English editors to articles about United Kingdom subjects, or gives US editors special privileges when it comes to articles about US subjects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's very simple. The problem is the US bias involved in your recommendation of harmonizing on US standards. Since this is a quirk of US caving, it should not be propagated into the world at large, therefore the US should have a separate template. Since it would also solve the problem of having 200 separate national templates for the rest of the world, instead of just one special template for the US. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am dismayed at the lack of understanding and consideration being shown by some here to US cavers worried about disclosing cave locations (I am neither US nor a caver). Like some of those who I am now criticising, I do not understand why a general template would not do with a note raising the potential sensitivity of recording a location but that is absolutely not a matter for TFD. From the point of view of template maintenance and template space, the disadvantage of having two templates is utterly insignificant. Matters such as this should be resolved, presumably at Wikipedia:WikiProject Caves in the first instance, with matters being referred to the general community if the specialists are possibly at odds with broader policy. Clearly those with an interest in template maintenance can usefully participate. Such policy decisions should not to be driven at TFD. In passing, I note that the locations of the nests of rare birds are not publicised in the UK. Thincat (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The disadvantage of having overlapping templates most certainly is significant; over the lifespan of present templates it's been shown to be a significant burden on maintainers, not to mention a major stumbling block for inexperienced editors. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Significant needs to be defined in this case. Two infoboxes is insignificant in the broader aspect of life. To those distracted by minutiae, then perhaps it's titanic. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia covers (or aims to cover) multiple thousands of caves across the world. That requires the effort of a great many different editors. Anything we can do to make that task easier for them improves our coverage significantly. Additionally, seeing as I didn't address Thincat's "policy" comment: policy is that Wikipedia does not obfuscate, hide or remove referenced material except in very specific circumstances. Wikipedia's US-based caving community is not in a position to define new exceptions to that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "if the specialists are possibly at odds with broader policy" broader policy says we can publish the coordinates with no restriction such as that called for by some here; that has already been explained above. also, your "rare bird nest" example is irrelevant - unless you can show a notable, cited example which has been removed from Wikipedia? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • We certainly may publish verifiable coordinates but there is no policy that we must do so. Whether we do so or not is a matter for editorial judgement, not for TFD. This discussion is in the wrong place. My bird nest example was not intended to indicate any behaviour on WP. Rather, I was suggesting that US cavers are not alone in wanting to keep some locations obscure and it is inappropriate to be dismissing (even scorning) such arguments. Thincat (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • This isn't a logical argument. The existence of the parameter does not mandate its inclusion; however, its deliberate omission amounts to a prohibition on the data in question. Nobody is arguing to mandate that coordinates are included: one party is arguing to forbid it, however, which is a position not in keeping with our goals as an encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would like to draw a comparison to phone books here. Like an encyclopedia they strive to be inclusive of everybody, but at least they leave an option to respect a person's privacy and exclude them. In this extended comparison, I would like to add the privacy of closed-ecosystems of caves be considered. Unfortunately, bats and other cave lifeforms don't speak or type English to defend themselves. So I've take on their mantle. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Keep. I wrote the original cave template several years ago, as well as this new ukcave template (having decided to become more active and promote the improvement in caving articles in the UK) as a work-around to the problem. I explained about the aggravation there would be on this issue, and I believe my point has been demonstrated. I believe the benefits of operating separate templates that take account of the incompatible cultures strongly outweighs the "cost" of operating two apparently overlapping templates. I pointed out that there are many national-centric templates (eg SSSIs) who's application is smaller than ukcave that we are perfectly happy to leave in place. I have also found that the infobox cave in russian avoids the problem by being across a language barrier. The mere historic accident that these are two countries separated by a common language should not require us to keep poking this disagreement. I see the infobox technology as in a constant state of evolution and is never final. It takes very little work (probably less than has gone into all of the above) to chase up and re-edit them in the future if, say, we adopt a box called "infobox uscave".Goatchurch 11:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
    • This is the English-language Wikipedia, and has articles on caves in the USA, UK, Russia and elsewhere; just as the Russian-language Wikipedia may. Your SSSI example is bogus, as that's a purely UK designation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Think you've misunderstood what I said. What I am saying is there is a fundamental incompatibly of opinion between how to handle cave data between the US and the UK that means things will be a lot better with different cave templates. However, in this instance there is not a language or jurisdictional barrier (ie different interpretations of how a cave/nature reserve is defined) that would have forced us into using different templates, which would have meant that we would not be needing to have this discussion. I was trying to add some context that having different templates is not a big deal.Goatchurch 15:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Having multiple (and redundant) templates is a big deal, for reasons outlined above. We don't have "a fundamental incompatibly of opinion between how to handle cave data between the US and the UK"; we have a vocal minority who want to impose a local convention on a global encyclopedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have noted this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Caves#Discussion concerning deletion of Template:Infobox ukcave. Thincat (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have noted this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Discussion concerning deletion of Template:Infobox ukcave. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative proposal edit

Make the current {{Infobox cave}} into the USA-specific infobox, and make the current {{Infobox ukcave}} into the general-purpose infobox. This would be done in several stages, as follows:

  1. Ensure that {{Infobox ukcave}} has all the features of {{Infobox cave}} without altering {{Infobox cave}} or removing features from {{Infobox ukcave}}
  2. Move Template:Infobox cave to Template:Infobox USAcave, leaving a redirect behind at Template:Infobox cave
  3. Move Template talk:Infobox cave to Template talk:Infobox USAcave, leaving a redirect behind at Template talk:Infobox cave
  4. Move Template:Infobox cave/doc, Template:Infobox cave/sandbox and Template:Infobox cave/testcases to Template:Infobox USAcave/doc, Template:Infobox USAcave/sandbox and Template:Infobox USAcave/testcases respectively, but without leaving redirects behind
  5. Amend Template:Infobox USAcave/doc, Template:Infobox USAcave/sandbox and Template:Infobox USAcave/testcases to ensure that they transclude, or link to, the forms with 'USA' in the name
  6. Check all pages transcluding {{Infobox cave}}, and if they are in the USA, amend to transclude {{Infobox USAcave}} instead; leave non-USA caves as they are
  7. Move Template:Infobox ukcave to Template:Infobox cave over the redirect; leave a redirect behind at Template:Infobox ukcave
  8. Move Template talk:Infobox ukcave to Template talk:Infobox cave over the redirect; leave a redirect behind at Template talk:Infobox ukcave
  9. Move Template:Infobox ukcave/doc to Template:Infobox cave/doc, leaving a redirect behind
  10. Ensure that the documentation Template:Infobox cave/doc states that {{Infobox cave}} is not to be used for caves in the USA, and that {{Infobox USAcave}} must be used instead
--Redrose64 (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thank you for working on that which is indeed a TFD matter. If we need two templates your proposal looks generally appropriate to me. However, if "US cavers" could join a consensus that a single template would be acceptable, that would be ideal (I do not think it ought to be acceptable to have location coordinates excluded from the only cave infobox). I have noticed that rather few (20?) articles transclude Template:infobox ukcave. Also, some caves in the UK transclude Template:infobox cave (for example [1][2][3][4][5], all geotagged) but I do not know if that is deliberate. I even wonder whether the lack of coordinates in the infobox actually encourages geotagging of the article itself, there being less warning of possible difficulty. Thincat (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lack of coordinates in an infobox can do just as you say. But having a coordinate field is also the obvious invitation to editing in geotags. Hence all of this discussion. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This alternative proposal presumes there is a prohibition on the use of coordinates in articles about caves in the USA. There is not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • False, at least regarding caves in National Parks. Amazingracer (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the templatewarring caused by US specificity is bad. It needs to be isolated from the rest of the world, afterwhich we can see if the US problem can be resolved somehow. Right now, the generic template is highly biased in favor of a specific US viewpoint, and that should not be the case, it should never have happened, and the US editors who favor their position should have created a US template instead. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are probably right that US should have started off with it's own specific infobox. Since we are the odd man out. By the way is voting restricted to admins? Leitmotiv (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nobody votes. Wikipedia is not a democracy. We discuss issues until we reach consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've already stated I'm aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it's a duck. I've watched past debates split with favor going to those in the majority. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Really? Where did you state that you're aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • With posts like this, I highly suspect you don't read through all of my comments as I do yours. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have done; you didn't say that here. Feel free to prove me wrong. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ctrl-F (for Windows operators), search for "Democracy" under posts by Leitmotiv. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Nowhere do you state that you're aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Here's my exact quotes: "Wikipedia likes to boast it's not a democracy." Since I posted it, it must therefore follow that I'm aware too. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • That's not the full extent of what you said, which continued "Wikipedia likes to boast it's not a democracy and it's votes should be used carefully, but that's all it seems to do is vote like a democracy…" (my emboldening). Hardly a statement that you are "aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Well sir, you can't claim I didn't say it and then switch it to... "which [you] continued [to say]." Did I say it, or didn't I? Your point is weak. I would respect you more if you admitted you were wrong in at least one particular and obvious case. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I haven't switched at all; you didn't make the statement you claimed; you said something else entirely, as my previous comment in this section made clear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Last post for those tucking tails. I stated (therefore aware) that "Wikipedia likes to boast it's not a democracy." How does that not make me aware? Think about that. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • See also Wikipedia:Straw polls. Any non-banned editor, whether admin or not, whether logged-in or not, may participate in a discussion; but an admin is normally necessary to close them. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't resolve content disputes by baking them into forked templates; that will only make matters worse. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The template is already forked. While I disagree that the compromise here is ultimately the right approach for the encyclopedia, it a) moves the discussion forward and b) makes it vastly easier to merge the templates in future should there be clearer support for that. Assuming there is no specific opposition to Redrose's scheme in terms of implementation I'm happy to do the coding work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Forked recently. The above TfD debate is about undoing that fork. The alternative proposal in this section would ratify it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry to show up late to the festivities. Chris, thank you for volunteering to implement Redrose's changes. If I understand them correctly, they would make the US template separate from the world template. I do believe that is the best solution, all around. While I can appreciate and applaud the desire to hold WP to high standards of openness and quality, I also believe that the overall quality of the article suffers when those who can most improve on the article will not contribute because they feel that WP is imposing what, from their perspective, are arbitrary and dangerous rules on them. Having said that, I would like to comment on a few other relevant points.
          I will argue that, for most cases, giving cave locations with accuracy greater than a tenth of a degree is unnecessary. A tenth of a degree is nearly always sufficient for research purposes without compromising the integrity of the cave. That is, its damn hard to find a cave when you have to explore a whole tenth of a degree! It is my understanding that WP strives to be a repository for research rather than a tourist site.
          I won't revisit the argument for omission due to ecological, environmental, cultural, historical or geological reasons, other than to lend my support to most of those arguments. I would add that, particularly for cultural reasons, its not just "Americans", but various native peoples from Canada to Central America who consider unwanted visitation abhorrent on what is frequently considered to be sacred ground. Individual editors of WP may not recognize the values of individual cultures against the whole, but it must be stated that repercussions in the real world can and do occur from unwanted visitation, regardless of the source. WP editors overseas may not care, because it does not directly affect them, but I believe that only shows poor judgement on their part.
          Also the dynamic of cave exploration, visitation and referencing of cave entrances within the US is very fluid at the moment. With the spread of WNS from Europe to North America, caves have become a particularly sensitive topic. In the past year cave use has been debated within the US Congress. Since the US government appears intent on curtailing cave visitation as much as possible, I would not be surprised to see additional legislation passed limiting the spread of entrance locations on government land. Already the NPS considers any cave, regardless of size to be "significant" and warranting of "secrecy". This is a federal law and supersedes state laws and state publications. I believe this also means that locations listed in government publications (the 'open source' research that WP is founded on) are no longer 'open'. I will leave it to others to debate the veracity of that claim - that's how it has been explained to me by the NPS. While all this is unlikely to directly affect WP (Unless someone makes a convincing argument in civil court that WP presents an "attractive nuisance" and is liable and WP actually has assets within the US) it will contribute to the deteriorating relationships between researcher, government and landowner. Although with WNS and the endangered species act... well, things could change very quickly.
          So on the one hand, you have a lot of bad that could come from WP publishing precise locations to caves in the US - from loss of contributors to destruction of sensitive areas to outright hostility towards WP.On the other hand you gain very little, if at all. Most cave entrances look terrible (if they can be seen at all) from google earth or google maps. The only reason you'd want to know the precise location is to visit it. And if its on gov't land, likely its not allowed; and if it's on private land, you need to have the landowner's permission. The latter leads to the trespasser either (a) getting shot (the best case scenario) or (b) the cave getting closed, vandalized or blasted shut (that has happened on numerous occasions).
          Is that fair? Hardly. I'd love to live in a world where we can publish everything without a care in the world and rely on the better nature of others. We don't live in that world. WP, IMHO, if it is to be part of the solution has an obligation to not only educate and inform, but protect the things its informing about.
          thanks for allowing me the forum for a few moments.John (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm a scientist actively working in many caves around the world and would like to comment on this, particularly on the characterisation on this page of cave secrecy as a minority view restricted to a bunch of "hobbyists" in the United States. I've visited caves and worked with cavers in many countries including the United Kingdom. Caves in the UK tend to be regarded almost purely as a sporting resource and it is by no means true to claim they have been protected by their openness, very many have had their speleothems trashed and removed decades ago and there is often little further damage that can be done (and I've visited severely degraded caves elsewhere in Europe, as well). I've never caved in the US, but in both New Zealand and Australia there is a blanket policy of non-disclosure of cave locations at all levels of government (geological surveys, state and federal mapping agencies, national parks administrations, etc), which is strongly supported by local caving organisations. As in the US, cavers in these countries have been remarkably successful at discouraging public internet disclosure of cave entrance locations, thus far. Also as in the US, those Australian caves which are well known to the public tend to have been badly trashed, although this is less true for New Zealand. In both Australia and NZ sites of great scientific and environmental significance are protected purely by the secrecy of their locations, and to protect them in any other way is often completely impracticable. If the default WP template for a cave requires coordinates to be given I would see that as highly problematic for NZ and Australian caves, and it's entirely likely this is an issue for caves in other countries as well. In that regard a US-specific template cannot work - perhaps there could be one template for caves where public location data are widely considered to be acceptable and one for where they are not? Actinide (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Considering the fact that there is probably a strong correlation between cave locations being known and cave locations being close to a town, and the damage being proportional to the number of (even responsible) visits, which is proportional to the (sometimes very long) time ago that the cave was discovered, I don't think there is enough evidence to say whether secrecy makes a difference one way or another. I wonder if any cave scientist has had the time to gather an international data set of trashed caves and taken account of these factors in order to settle this matter. If you had been to caves in the Mendip you might have found that many of their entrances are cemented in and padlocked shut. Other practical measures include being on private property and containing lots of "Keep Out" signs (which seems to work quite well for barns), or operating a cave guiding system so people can actually visit them if they want to while being kept out of the sensitive areas. Anyway, more to the point, can you comment on whether Alternative Proposal 2 (below) of including a location_public=yes/no field would be acceptable? Goatchurch 11:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
            • I have caved in the Mendips. The locked steel doors illustrate that even there cavers and land owners wish to exert control over cave access. Secrecy is not an option there due to high population density, just as widespread gating of caves is not an option where we have ten times more caves than cavers. It seems to me that this debate, which was boiling along back in the USENET days and I am sure predates the internet itself, deserves it's own WP article, secrecy_of_cave_locations or similar which could lead to greater understanding from both sides. I'll toss in a couple more anecdotes here and leave it at that. Nullarbor Caves, Australia: ~ 500 km by road from the nearest small town, mostly followed by tens of km on remote dirt roads to reach the entrances. Caves there which are well known outside of caving circles and reasonably easy to get into have consistently had speleothems and subfossil remains smashed and removed. Waitomo, NZ: one of the most spectacularly decorated caves in NZ sits ungated beneath public land less than a mile from renowned tourist caves that see tens of thousands of visitors a year, protected for decades because only a handful of people know even vaguely where it is. Actinide (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • "If the default WP template for a cave requires coordinates to be given…" No such requirement is proposed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fair enough. For "requires" read "invites for the sake of completeness" then. Actinide (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Goatchurch, the correlation you stated makes sense and is probably true for many caves, that proximity to population centers increases traffic. However, this is definitely not the rule. Some cave entrances are very small and well hidden and even while being near a population center, they have evaded heavy usage because the locals are unaware of its existence. I can think of a couple immediately next to my city that fit this description. Additionally, a few caves next to my city also get heavy traffic like you described and that's despite having "No Trespassing" signs and it being apparent it's private property, visitation by people persists. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative proposal 2 edit

I had imagined it would be much easier to adopt a ukcave template, rather than force US cavers to use their own template. (Don't really know why it's become such a big deal to have two templates, but hey.)

How about this idea: We have a special enabling flag in the infobox cave template which we have to set: location_public = yes/no that unlocks all the location specific features of the template. It defaults to "No" and any inclusion of unauthorized location data results in lots of errors and links to the Great Cave Location debate whose summary boils down to: if it's in the US, the answer is No.

I had an earlier idea involving country=USA, which would automatically lock down the location-specific features, but it would get complicated as you'd have to spell the country the right way -- and it doesn't take account that some US caves are public -- eg every single show cave. (Also, I'm told that New Zealand cavers share the same policy. I can speculate that it relies on your country actually having some wilderness areas left.)

If this is acceptable, it should be easy to put the location features into infobox_cave with this location_public flag and then redirect infobox ukcave to it when it's working.

Templates are so darn hard to write. Does anyone else have the skills? Need to put a bit {{#ifeq|{{{location_public}}}|yes... stuff into it. May as well use the ukcave template as a sandbox to get it debugged.Goatchurch 16:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. If it's in the US, the answer isn't "no" - we have polices on this, cited above. You're proposing a technical solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me rephrase this. If you don't understand all the policies in the US (which I don't), the safe/default answer is no, the location is probably not public. If the location is widely publicised then location_public = yes is a statement of fact as to whether people are going to get annoyed if the data is publicised. My technical solution is wholly limited to assisting an editor with the process of ensuring that when location_public = no there are no coordinates in the infobox.Goatchurch 10:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Not every show cave is public. Some are privately held. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. Many show caves are privately held businesses that distribute fliers saying: "Please come to our show-cave at (fill in the blank) and pay for a guided tour", in which case location_public = YES because it's all over their blooming advertising.Goatchurch 10:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia has no prohibition on writing about privately-held, or off-limits-to-the-public, features. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This seems to me to be the least-bad solution to this issue. It ought to be sufficient to have the location blank in places where it is not wanted/appropriate but I can see that that does invite people filling it in unhelpfully. Being able to display cave info boxes with/without location info is the only way to keep everyone happy and contributing. I've been a caver and cave surveyor for over 20 years and I believe locations are an important item, but equally do understand that caves are a very sensitive resource and there are sometimes good reasons for not publishing locations. More importantly, as you can see from this discussion, the US/AU/NZ-based 'no locations' ethos is very strong and can't just be ignored - trying to do so will cause too much trouble. I don't think the current 'uk-caves' infobox solution is acceptable - it's quite clear that caves are something which _do_ have locations, and that's not a uk-specific thing. An infobox with a location should be the rule, not the exception, so we currently have it backwards. Goatchurch's suggestion of making one template which is 'adjustable' seems like a top plan (subject to technical practicality - I know nothing of wikipedia templates). There is much talk here of there being no reason to include a location other than finding the entrance. This is simply not true: co-ordinates are required in order to lay multiple caves out in their correct geological/spatial relations when making maps/models. This is incredibly important when exploring them and trying to find connections, and for geological and hydrological understanding. That is the main reason I use them. The ability to do this and to share datasets between groups is a rapidly-growing field of endeavour at the moment, and the WP infobox is just one small part of that. Wookey (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for joining the conversation. One comment on your statement "there being no reason to include a location other than finding the entrance." I don't think anyone is arguing that there's no other reason for coordinates. But the majority use coordinates for visitation purposes. People do use them for other reasons, but the end result is that most people use coordinates for discovery purposes. That unmanaged/untrained impact of unaware visitor's is a HUGE issue for sensitive caves. Wookey, your purposes for coordinates is such a niche use that it pertains to very few and select people in specified fields. And in most cases, people with a need for coordinates are already cavers or scientists and already have access to the pertinent information and don't need Wikipedia for that. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Globally, I think it is fair to assume by default that a cave entrance location should not be disclosed unless it is clearly already in the public domain. In the UK, cave locations are typically given in guidebooks freely available to the public. In some places cave entrances are shown on public maps. Conversely an entrance location might be in the public domain but only found with a lot of digging such as by digitising points found on maps in dusty corners of the scientific literature, or by trawling through data at geocaching sites etc. I'd argue in these latter cases there is no clear intent by cavers and/or land managers that location data should be freely available. A Yes/No flag seems a lot more sensible than doing things country by country. Actinide (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Okay, I've implemented the location_public=yes idea into Infobox ukcave to see how it will look. Public example: Ireby_Fell_Cavern, private example: Aquamole_Pot. Turned out to be pretty painless and a perfectly reasonable addition to the template. If this Alternative proposal 2 gets decided as acceptable it can be rolled into Infobox cave in seconds, otherwise things can carry on as they are. I'd like to draw a close to this discussion and end the threat of deletion of this template in the near future, if this is at all possible. Two different templates, or one template with this extra condition, it's easy to switch between them, so it's not important to get the configuration exactly right just now.Goatchurch 20:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is this an issue? edit
  • TLDR, but.. this isn't about UK versus US, or US versus everywhere else. There are cavers in the US who are sensitive about keeping the cave locations private. That's fine. The coordinates can always be removed using WP:BURDEN. So.. what I'm saying is there's only need for one template that has the coordinate parameter. There's no reason to add a location_public; the coordinates can be made nonpublic by not including them. The sample infobox doesn't have to include the coordinate field, so it won't even be included by 90% of infobox users. The cavers seem to be very good at patrolling pages to remove coordinates, so I'm confused why this is a problem. tedder (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand why either of the two solutions (having two separate templates, or having optional coordinate fields in one template) is a problem either. However, the preceding several million words definitively establish that it is a problem -- whether or not we are able to understand it. But as long as caves in the UK can be located properly as they are in every other cave information source we have here, I don't mind which of the two solutions is settled upon. Goatchurch 20:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I am very pleased that this is now being discussed from both a caving and template point of view so I shall now stop complaining that this is the wrong venue. I have two general observations. First (and repeating myself) the extra technical overhead of having two templates rather than one is unimportant compared with other issues. However, from reading the discussion, I do not see that having two templates (of whatever names and functionality) really solves the problem. Two, there has been an entirely laudable drive to place coordinates in all geographical articles. In a cave article without coordinates in its infobox there is perhaps a greater risk that someone unaware of the issues will place coordinates in the article inline or in the title but specified outside the infobox. Apart from human vigilance, a bot seems to me to be the only palliative for this and a bot would require appropriate tags to work from. Thincat (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I somehow missed Tedder's post. I don't think Cavers patrol Wikipedia as much as you think they do. Although, I may be having some influence on that now. The problem inherent, is that a coordinate field auto-included in a cave infobox will be requesting coordinates to be filled. Bots can do that if sources are located on the web. Additionally, no Wikipidean editor, in terms of editing Wikipedia, is qualified to discriminate between privately held caves, sensitive caves, et al. On top of that, someone can edit in coordinates, even unsourced coordinates, and have it reversed, but anyone can go back into the history of the article and view the coordinates for themselves. The information is then stuck on the internet unless someone is doggedly watching each cave page to make retroactive deletions to scrub it completely. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know that the coordinate field will be there no matter what, right? And even if it isn't displayed it the "rogue" coordinates added but not doggedly watched would be available for robots to parse? That's the thing about having a "display this" flag. The data would still be there. Secondly, about "bots can do that". Bots wouldn't add unsourced data. It's hard enough to get a bot approved on Wikipedia, let alone one that adds content. tedder (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are bots that routinely add geocoord data sometimes sourced only to an interwiki link.WTucker (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You illustrated my point perfectly WTucker. The information, while "redacted" is still there for everyone to see. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if a bot is doing so, it would continue doing so with the two proposals above. It wouldn't show up as a clickable link for humans, but the coordinate data would still be on the page. As I said, "That's the thing about having a "display this" flag.". You've focused on the wrong part of the issue, and probably having the raw coordinate data there would be worse as it would be harder for cavers to police. It's up to you, though. tedder (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Such bots rarely add coordinate data to infoboxes (I don't recall it ever occurring, but this doesn't mean that none do this). I have seen bots add a {{coord}} to an article, on many occasions, and such edits will be entirely unhindered by any decisions taken regarding what the infobox may or may not contain; the coord is generally added at the bottom, some distance from the infobox (although it displays at the top). There are also bots which will add a {{coord missing}}, and there are users who go through Category:Articles missing geocoordinate data by country looking for articles where they might "helpfully" add coordinates. Again, they are unlikely to observe any infobox decisions. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the one who started this I'm amazed at the legs the discussion has grown. I still don't see why two infoboxes are needed. I don't see what possible right the fringe minority of US cavers can or should have on deciding policy in a global encyclopaedia other than their rights as individuals to participate in a discussion with the aim of reaching some sort of consensus. Right now having read through this lengthy discussion it looks like everyone bar that very small minority agrees that a) the UK infobox is redundant and that b) coordinates should be placed on any article if they can be properly attributed to reliable third party sources. No source = no coordinates, but if they exist then they can and should be published because Wikipedia is not censored. If you (the minority) don't like this then you can easily setup a caves wiki at Wikia on which you can do pretty much anything you want to. I suggest we draw this to a close, delete the UK infobox, put coordinates into the main infobox and move on to making this a better encyclopaedia rather than something that panders to the fringe minority. --Bob Re-born (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should clarify your words better. There isn't a "fringe minority" among U.S. Cavers. U.S. Cavers are more or less pretty unified toward location discretion to help protect caves. And it's come to my attention, that it's not just U.S. cavers that feel this way. But go ahead and call it fringe if it makes you feel better. I will add that sources do exist for caves where extreme discretion should be advised and since the average Wikipidean editor is clueless as to which ones these are, it can cause more harm than good to post such coordinates. Cavers are focusing on Wikipedia because it is usually the first in Google search results, thus making it a priority. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually meant a fringe minority of Wikipedians, not a fringe minority of cavers. Thanks for giving me the chance to clarify that. The interests of a fringe minority of Wikipedian's - specifically the US cavers who want to censor Wikipedia - should be resisted and it looks like that is the exact consensus that has built during this discussion. --Bob Re-born (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought you meant. Thanks for clarifying. I'm sorry that you don't feel that Wikipedia should play a more proactive role in protecting sensitive and privately held caves and their contents. I feel that common sense should trump the obvious conflict of interest here. Especially seeing as how there's more at stake than just a few trivial and intangible Wikipedia pages, for instance, contained and fragile ecosystems amongst other things stated previously. Since Wikipedia does not condone original research, merely having a coordinate field is an invitation to such research since most cave coordinates are not published online. If everyone here must push on "for the sake of the encyclopedia" despite that common sense and conflict with policy, then I would suggest any coordinate field be flagged to no coordinates as the default, until and unless it can be established that it's a commercial cave with sources provided for both. Again, most Wikipideans aren't qualified to discriminate between private and sensitive caves and consequently, only more problems will arise because Wikipedia won't at the very least be discrete! Publishing exact cave locations will accomplish nothing of value for general research at the encyclopedia level! It will only encourage wanton destruction by those desirous of sensitive information. Locations are not frowned upon for these caving articles, but it is my qualified recommendation that it not exceed the accuracy of Country, State/Province, and County (or the equivalent therof). That fits the encyclopedic needs of Wikipedia perfectly. Anything more is excessive, gluttonous, and defeats Wikipedia's own policies as outlined above. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How many privately held caves have articles. If the caves location is secret enough that the location can not be easily found I would be surprised if it is notable enough to get an article. Not to mention that WP:verifiability prevents us from putting in the location anyway. If the location can be easily found or the cave is public then I don't see the problem of including the location. Despite the long discussion this appears to be a solution searching for a problem. AIRcorn (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aircorn, I do not know of any exact amount for caves that are privately held and have articles. That may be beyond anyone's ability here to determine and should really be done on a case by case basis with experts. But my understanding and knowledge on caves leads me to believe that the potential is high for private caves to either: A. have articles in the future, or B. already do. Sometimes resources that cite private caves are abundant, especially in newspapers. Between changes in ownership for any particular cave and their change in entry permissions, you can have people led to believe that the cave is public property, when in actuality it is not. Wikipedia, by wanting to add coordinates, will definitely add to this problem because no one knows if any arbitrarily chosen cave is private, public, or commercial. But some of us here seem to be confused that if the cave is "easily found" (as you put it) then why is it such a big deal? The word "cave" encompasses a whole broad range of aspects. From biology, archaeology, geology, hydrology, and on and on. "Cave" is a multi-faceted and rich term and referring to it in a one-dimensional aspect is a disservice to the resources most caves hold. As I pointed out above, most Wikipedians don't have the knowledge or ability to determine why a cave is sensitive or who owns it or what the specific legalities exist. And you have demonstrated that eloquently for us Aircorn. Your ignorance, and I use that term lightly, ruins it for everyone especially for the "cave." The proper channel for any specific cave detail is not on Wikipedia, it is through your local cave club and their affiliates. They are the experts and exercise caution. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be relatively easy to determine if there are any caves privately held with articles on Wikipedia. Here is a list of caves linked to Template:Infobox cave[6]. I do not know by glancing through the list if any of them are private or not (although I did spot check a few that weren't); maybe you will recognise one. The ones I looked at made it pretty clear that they were public or open for tourists. You are arguing for "ignore all rules" and while I may be ignorant when it comes to caves, I know you need more than an assumption people are going to use Wikipedia to find the location of caves that are unlikely to be on here so they can go and vandalise them. Find some evidence that there are articles of caves here, whose locations should not be shown and you will have a stronger case. AIRcorn (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aircorn, I think you missed my point. If you go off of Wikipedia alone, you will have zero confidence in knowing if a cave is fully private, fully public, fully commericial, a mixture of both, or something else, because the information is based off what you find in sources, but perhaps not reality. Here's two articles Horse Lava Tube System and Arnold Lava Tube System that have privately held caves, and one is a very sensitive bat hibernaculum for the "sensitive"-listed Townsend bat species. Another cave in my area, Fort Rock Cave is also privately held and an archaeological site and no where does it say it's "private" and the infobox is of no help either. Do you really want me to go through the entire list and find you more examples (that are based off Wikipedia information)? Leitmotiv (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
American cavers are completely entitled to hold strong views with regards to caves in their area. However, with regards to caves in the UK, their arguments are wholly invalid, because the caving organizations have been publishing full and complete registers of cave locations for years. That's why I invented the Infobox_ukcave to create something that was completely outside of their domain on order to have a way of recording these geographical entities as clearly as, say, mountain peaks. All we need now is to get those who object to the operation of, what appeared to them, as two identical infoboxes to please give way on this case. As I have been trying to point out, these two infoboxes, Infobox_ukcave and Infobox_cave are in actual fact completely different. Though their differences are not as visible as that between Infobox_cave and Infobox_hohle (german), they span a cultural divide that is probably not going to be closed within the lifetime of Wikipedia. So, can we just remove the threat of deletion from Infobox ukcave, and move on yet? Goatchurch (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm down for UK doing it's own thing. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the opinion, but it isn't up to you, which is why so many people are railing against your minority standpoint regarding coordinates and caves. As I read this we now have consensus (excluding your own opinion of course) to add coordinates to the main infobox and delete the uk version. --Bob Re-born (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can call it a consensus or whatever you like, bit it's not a consensus. It's not just me in this discussion that has disagreed. But more importantly, Wikipedia says this about consensus "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." I have already demonstrated to everyone here that coordinates goes against Wikipedia's interest at the encyclopedic level and disrupts it's own policy. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In light of Goatcurch's comments, UK seems to be the exception to the rule so far. They have coordinates for caves. Great, then their coordinate box won't be generating original research. Whereas the majority of cave articles for the rest of the world probably will. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused how it "goes against Wikipedia's interest" and what policies it disrupts. There are commercial and NPS-style public caves in the US that obviously deserve coordinates. Caves that are protected or secret or anything else don't have reliable sources. It's that simple. It's not much different than Wikipedia's strong WP:BLP policy that protects Wikipedia against slander or libel; that doesn't mean rumors don't get inserted on occasion. See WP:RFPP for examples of that. Saying "Wikipedia will protect all BLP pages because there's a risk they'll get edited" is certainly against both the spirit and policies of Wikipedia. tedder (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well Tedder, if you haven't been reading my posts where I point out the original research aspect, or that coordinates go above and beyond the encyclopedic-level aim of Wikipedia, or demonstrated the hypocrisy in some of the commenter's arguments here, and that common sense should override that conflict in interest, I don't blame you. But you could never be more wrong about it being "that simple." Plenty of caves that are supposed to be secret, or are sensitive, or are protected, or are on private property, do have reliable sources. But I'm not going to be the one to point out where they can be located or for what caves. So rest assured, there are going to be problems with coordinates in the future. Today, Pigsonthewing, has posted coordinates to a privately held cave with archaeological sensitivity and significance. He has taken it upon himself to add coordinates to a Wikipedia cave article that doesn't specifically say it's a privately held cave (but it is). He acted in what he thought was best for the article (which is hard to do all the way across the pond), but not in the interest of the owner, the contents of the cave, or the archaeological history that could benefit us all and lost if trespassers were to visit it and tear it up. If you don't feel that's a slap in the face to that private owner's privacy, nothing will. By the way Tedder, I do agree with you: some cave articles would benefit from having coordinates. Those would be the commercial caves. The NPS has some legality issues with coordinates being posted for their caves, so I would only partially agree with you there. But again, commercial caves are greatly outnumbered by non-commercial caves. So having an infobox with a coordinate field as a default, is again, an invitation to original research for those non-commercial caves, unless the coordinate can be properly cited from a reliable source. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give a flying fig for the "private owner's privacy" or other interests, nor does any Wikipedia policy require me to do so. And as for our "hard to do all the way across the pond" comment, please explain which Wikipedia policy supports the division of editing rights on a geographical basis. Having an edit button is, by your logic, "an invitation to original research". Let's remove that, shall we? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your anger has compromised your better judgment. And I think you need to stop going out of your way to personally target pages that I am editing. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the first time I've seen anyone appear patronising and paranoid at the same time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From this discussion I discern that (A) US cavers don't like coords (B) UK cavers publicly publish it (C) neither US nor UK viewpoints should be used on cave articles not in the US or UK, so there should be three templates UK cave, US cave, and Cave. These three can be combined with a switch (US=yes, UK=yes, or missing) that turns on and off the coords. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge This discussion boils down to "Not censoring this information could (would) be damaging to caves". However, "Not censoring Tianmen Square could (would) be damaging to the Chinese government", and "Not censoring July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike would be damaging to the war in Iraq", "not censoring United States diplomatic cables leak would be damaging to international relations", "Not censoring depictions of Muhammad would be offensive to Muslims". The message is the same. Secondary sources is a trivial issue when it comes to whether or not we need seperate infoboxes; the SSSI information as well. We can have empty fields in a template that are not shown. Both can display where appropriate: either when sources are found or when in the UK. Arguments for keeping seperate templates are not consistent with WP:NOT. Also, cavers removing sourced coordinates, whether private or public, should be labeled "whitewashers" or more specifically "vandals" and blocked. I have no opinion on the removal of unsourced coordinates. However, I would point out that we would block in any other case of a user or group of users changing Wikipedia article's to suit their own interests rather than Wikipedia's.--v/r - TP 18:41, 25 December 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox UK rail accident 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Merge. WOSlinker (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK rail accident (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox rail accident (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox UK rail accident with Template:Infobox rail accident.
The general infobox has more parameters (with the exclusion of |coordinates=, which has to be added separately per that template's documentation). Same has been done previously with Template:Infobox AU rail accident. Also, makes no sense to have individual templates for countries. Debresser (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • As with all the other per-country rail infoboxes (there cannot be a domain on Wikipedia with more per-country duplication in templatespace than rail transport) this would be a significant win for global consistency and future central development. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, including the addition of coordinates parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge unless there is evidence (which I have not found) that coordinates were deliberately excluded from Template:Infobox rail accident. Thincat (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mmm. I now see the coordinates parameter was removed with this edit but it looks to me it was merely someone's idea that coordinates are better in the title than in the infobox(!). Thincat (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was a discussion somewhere a few months ago (which I would never be able to find again) about whether a place infobox with a coordinates parameter should generate a {{coord|lat|long|display=title}}. I forget the outcome but I think there were genuine differences of opinion. Thincat (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • As the summary for that edit didn't mention its removal, and there's nothing about it on the talk page, I've restored the coordinates parameter. Not putting the coordinates in the infobox excludes them from the emitted microformat metadata; not displaying them in the title position excludes the article from Google Maps, Google Earth and OpenStreetMap layers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That seems a good idea to me. Thincat (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After the re-addition of the coordinate parameter, these templates are even more suited for merging. Debresser (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox MilitaryRankBox 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox MilitaryRankBox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Military rank sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox MilitaryRankBox with Template:Military rank sidebar.
Are almost identical. The other one has the better name. Especially since this one is hardly an infobox. Can probably be deleted afterwards. Then Template:MilitaryRankBox (now a redirect) should be deleted with it. Debresser (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that these were copied from a Scandinavian wikipedia? To be quite honest, I don't see any pressing need to retain either: in its present form (for these are indeed duplicates), the template is intrusive and barely informational. None of the rank articles for other territories seem to make use of a box like this, and I doubt that's an oversight given how regimented (ahem) MILHIST is about its templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment these are badly named, they only deal with Sweden and Finland, but the name indicates genericity. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 04:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is also true. I think that after the merge, the template should be renamed. But that is another matter. Debresser (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:User ry-1 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Procedural close; Forum non conveniens. Userboxes go to WP:MfD. ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 20:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ry-1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:User rue-1, as noted on Template talk:User rue-1. There is a set of template "rue", but this is the only one of "ry". Debresser (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Pitch Sets 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pitch Sets (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pitch segments (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Pitch Sets with Template:Pitch segments.
Almost identical. Can probably be deleted afterwards. Two editors agreed on this proposal at Template talk:Pitch Sets. Debresser (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Intellectual property activism 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Intellectual property activism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Openness (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Intellectual property activism with Template:Openness.
I found this proposal and a small discussion at Template talk:Intellectual property activism. I personally oppose this merge, per the arguments of Ian in that discussion. Even the proposing editor says in the discussion that he wants to keep the template. Posted here in order to bring the proposal to a closure. Debresser (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Scottish Premier League seasons 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scottish Premier League seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Scottish Premier League. Debresser (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that project were to take care that all "Fooish Premier League" templates have a section called "Fooish Premier League seasons", then that would be a good idea. Personally I dislike football, so I won't be engaging myself in this. :) I'll drop them a note. Debresser (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Should the SPL template be renamed given that it covers seasons when the SPL was not in existence? Eldumpo (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The common name is plainly the contemporary one, so I don't see any compelling argument to rename. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • the template spl includes seasons relating to when it was scottish first division and premier division. These were part of this sfl and really aren't the same. If anything it should be changed to Something like Scotland top division and the seasons template updated with all seasons applying only to use on spl season articles. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Does that benefit our readers, though, or simply make it more difficult to navigate between seasons? The purpose of navboxes is as a navigation aid, not a categorisation tool. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its simply inaccurate the SPL only came in to existent as a breakaway in 1998 all seasons before that were part of the football league. So the title on that is misleading also i see no problem in both templates existing along side each other as long as accurate.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem here is that there are two different, yet overlapping concepts. On the one hand we have the concept of "the uppermost tier of Scottish football", for which the title of Premier Division was created at the start of the 1975-76 season (when the SFL was reorganised from two divisions [18+20] to three [10+14+14]), and on the other the Scottish Premier League, a legal body formed in summer 1998. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nuance here can be trivially resolved by slight edits to the template. There is certainly no need for two separate templates for what is essentially a continuous league which happened to undergo a change in management structure. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thats not exactly the case the SFL and SPL are totally separate organisations. The premier division was part of the SFL the SPL is not in anyway. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's an organisational detail. Insomuch as there was continuation season-wise, it is largely irrelevant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't mind if either the existing two-template system remains (but the main template gets renamed), or if it all gets bundled into one "Scottish top-level football" template but there should not be a template called SPL which includes all the previous non-SPL top-level seasons. If you look at how England is dealt with, there is a Template:Premier League seasons which does NOT also include all the Football League seasons; it just has a link to the one immediately before start of Premier League. Eldumpo (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have no problem with {{Scottish Premier League}} adopting the format of {{Premier League}}; in fact, that is precisely the right solution here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • The problem with the SPL template changing and adopting the same format as PL is that the links to the pre-SPL top-level seasons would be lost. I think it's a good idea to have these in a template, it's just that it needs to be appropriately named. I note also that the PL template includes links to seasons, whilst there is also a season-specific one as well ({{Premier League seasons}}), so maybe there isn't a problem in having these 'duplicates'? Eldumpo (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Whilst I can understand the rationale for wanting to delete the season-only template, I think that based on the comments above, this may not be appropriate. The Premier League has separate templates, and there is also the issue regarding the possible renaming of {{Scottish Premier League}} to reflect the fact that pre-SPL seasons are included. I think it may be best to have a wider discussion about football country/season templates and to not go ahead and delete this one as things stand. Eldumpo (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I can see benefit in season articles linking to a template which only has other seasons, rather than the larger template with all the other info about the league - may make it easier for readers. Eldumpo (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I agree keep for now as per Eldumpo a further discussion maybe needs to take place but i think there are valid reasons for having them serrate although it does need improved. The first template does need a name change. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:33, 24 November 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The Fields Medal 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Redirect {{The Fields Medal}} to {{Fields medalists}}. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Fields Medal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fields medalists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:The Fields Medal with Template:Fields medalists.
Almost identical. The other template is a little nicer. Debresser (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "The Fields Medal" is a duplicate newer recreation of an existing template "Fields medalists" which hasn't been updated almost since creation. So {{The Fields Medal}} should be deleted per T3. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have tagged it CSD T3. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Ministers of Defence (Germany) 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Redirect {{Ministers of Defence (Germany)}} to the other one. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ministers of Defence (Germany) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Defence Ministers of Germany (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Ministers of Defence (Germany) with Template:Defence Ministers of Germany.
Templates are virtually identical. Debresser (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force ship classes 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force ship classes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Combatant ship classes of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, which looks the same, but has more classes and ships. Debresser (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Gaelic festivals 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gaelic festivals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Found this as a merge proposal with {{Celts}}. Then noticed that that template already has a Festivals section, and that 3 of the 4 articles using this template also had that one. So added that one to the fourth, and now this template is redundant. Debresser (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unused and redundant. ClaretAsh 08:00, 22 November 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Birthdeath 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Birthdeath (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Lifetime (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Birthdeath with Template:Lifetime.
Adds the same two categories, just doesn't have the functionality to add DEFAULTSORT. When merging we could add the DEFAULTSORT parameter, if we'd like to. Debresser (talk) 05:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't oppose the merge itself, just without adding the DEFAULTSORT, right? Debresser (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd prefer to make both subst-only templates, since according to the talk page, they interfere with automated tools, special pages and bots, or strip the defaultsort out of it if it isn't subst-only. Failing that, then "lifetime" should be deprecated in favor of birthdeath, since birthdeath doesn't have the troublesome defaultsort. If you're going to the trouble of merging things, you should be considering {{L}} and {{ltm}} , since all four templates do virtually the same thing. (You'd need a living=yes parameter...)
But in essence, defaultsort should be optional and only available under subst, and all the four templates should be subst-only. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The opposite merge is a lot less likely to happen, since Birthdeath has only a few instances, compared to Lifetime. And in any case, the question whether to use DEFAULTSORT or not, shouldn't be decided here. I say we merge the templates as per the proposal, and deal with DEFAULTSORT separately. Debresser (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if we change instances of Birthdeath to Lifetime without adding a third parameter, the DEFAULTSORT parameter, that would avoid your objection. In view of this I strongly recommend that we change all instances and then delete this template (or maximum leave it as a redirect). I'd be willing to take this task upon me. Debresser (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As a regular stub-sorter who believes in adding value to articles at the same time, but quickly, I just ask that {{L}} be left alone so that I can add dates and sort key in one quick line of input: {{subst:L|[date]|[date]|sort key}}. Unless you can offer an even quicker way! PamD 10:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal wasn't about {{L}}, so nobody is going to touch it based on this discussion. Debresser (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge all (Birthdeath, Lifetime, L, and Ltm) (and eventually redirect to... whatever, 'L' maybe). They all do the same. Make'm subst only (or bot subst'ed). Do not include a default DEFAULTSORT, as it makes little to no sense to add tags that have no effect and it is confusing. - Nabla (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ltm and L are merged (Ltm is a redirect to L). Debresser (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I took a look at all of them before proposing that, which you'll accept is the most likely thing. - Nabla (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_November_22&oldid=1140200300"