< November 21 November 23 >

November 22

Template:Treaty of Paris

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

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

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

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:

  • Template:ISO_3166_code_Pakistan_Balochistan
  • Template:ISO_3166_code_PAK
  • Template:ISO_3166_code_PK
  • Template:ISO_3166_code_Pakistan_Bagh_Sanjari
  • Template:ISO_3166_code_Pakistan_Baluchistan
  • Template:ISO_3166_code_Pakistán
  • Template:ISO_3166_code_Paquistán
  • Template:ISO_3166_code_پاکستان ← an Arabic spelling
  • Template:ISO_3166_code-3
  • Template:ISO_3166_code-3_PK
  • Template:ISO_3166_code_586
  • Template:ISO_3166_name_PK
  • Template:ISO_3166_name_PK-BA
  • Template:ISO_3166_numeric
  • Template:ISO_3166_numeric_PK

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

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]
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]
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]
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)


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]
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]

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

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]

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

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]
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

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

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

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

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]
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]
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

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]

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)

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

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

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]

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

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]
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]
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.
More