The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Merge. All participants have unanimously said that a migration from ((Infobox company/wikidata)) to ((Infobox company)) should occur. As for what should get merged, however: (1) There is quite a disagreement, and (2) nobody is discussing it in details. There is a concern that data coming from another website – WikiData – may not adhere to our standards of verifiability. In Wikipedia's consensus-based decision making structure, all valid concerns (regardless of the number of contributors who raise them) must be addressed. But perhaps the structure of this page does not lend itself to discussing such questions as "Must we import P1454?" Please take that to the template talk page, where editors can freely discuss such matters at length, create threads and subthreads, and conduct RfCs. flowing dreams (talk page) 07:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox company/wikidata (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox company (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox company/wikidata with Template:Infobox company.
The template is an outdated version of ((Infobox company)) with only a few parameters expanded with Wikidata functionality. The documentation is also moot, as the only parameter given is not available within the template itself. The Wikidata functionality should be merged, there is no point in keeping it a separate template that requires parallel updating. Lordtobi (✉) 16:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as proposed. If there is some political or technical reason for not merging I would like to know what it is. 50.53.21.2 (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Why?: Who thinks that this should be merged with just a few parameters? The template is fine. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Benjaminkirsc, both templates serve the same purpose that is rendering an infobox with details suited for a company article. The /wikidata template is a copy-and-pasted version of the other template, where a few parameters were adjusted to have a Wikidata fallback. This creates a uniformity problem: the main template is continuously discussed and updated, whereas the /wikidata one was not and continues to include obsolete parameters. If we kept this a separate template, every change done to the main template would also have to be made on the other, essentially doubling the work required. Furthermore, I don't see a reason why should we not have these Wikidata fallbacks in the main template, as they do seem to be a good nice-to-have and can still be expanded from after the merge. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 17:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Lordtobi okay Benjaminkirsc (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge There's really no point in having a seperate template for wikidata, it would also be great to use the wikidata as a fallback on the main template so we can have as much relevant information as possible in infoboxes. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 00:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as proposed. --Timur9008 (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge --Prettyboy361 (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge; we don't really need two separate infoboxes that do the same thing with slightly different parameters, do we? -G.A.WILMBROKE [ USER / ALT / TALK / CONTRIBS ] 17:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge so long as the Wikidata functionality is not lost. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow merge Wikidata functionality per nom czar 19:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is the wikidata function documented somewhere? ((Infobox power station)) clearly describes the parameter equivalence and how to populated Wikidata to provide the wanted information. It doesn't seem to be described for these templates yet - is the Wikidata version ready for merging yet, or is a lapsed work-in-progress? --Scott Davis ^Talk 21:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  ScottDavis, I have a merged version in place at the sandbox and plan to go over the correctness and documentation of each item in the coming days, when the TfD is closed. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 21:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Support Merge if there can be sufficient implementation and documentation to generate an equivalent infobox using Wikidata without needing undocumented knowledge. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as proposed.~mitch~ (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• SnowMerge per nom. Lets close this given that it is an obvious improvement and it is appearing on every WP infobox article. Britishfinance (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The discussion at Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC#Discussion should be considered here. The summary of the close there stated: There is a consensus that data drawn for Wikidata might be acceptable for use in Wikipedia if Wikipedians can be assured that the data is accurate, and preferably meets Wikipedia rules of reliability. Wikidata is vulnerable to uncaught vandalism since fewer editors patrol there and vandalism can be quite subtle there. But it is possible to keep track of Wikidata changes from en.wiki watchlists. Telescope articles have been using Wikidata-enabled infoboxes successfully and I would expect that companies could use them too. Company articles are less likely to be the target of vandals than some other topics, and COI editors would likely add correct facts rather than vandalize at Wikidata. See ((Infobox telescope)) for a good example of documentation. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect and save Wikidata functionality to the merged template. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 18:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, do not merge. We should be sourcing and verifying the information ourselves, not relying on Wikidata where, unfortunately, there appears to be little or no verification and where bad actors seem able to do as they wish – at the very least until Wikipedia itself ceases to be an acceptable reference there. (Do please correct me if I'm wrong and Wikidata has recently been rebuilt so that all data/edits is/are provided with independent reliable sources). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikidata changes are (or can be with an option I set a long time ago?) reflected in Wikipedia watchlists. There may be some risk at the time of the merge of having false data already in Wikidata for fields that are not populated in Wikipedia suddenly surfacing in article infoboxes unchecked. Wikidata infoboxes already appear quite common on Commons. So far, in my experience, it is quite rare to have more information (correct or otherwise) in Wikidata than in Wikipedia, so the instances where you find something wrong, it can be corrected there just as easily as in English Wikipedia, and thus becomes correct for all languages at once. Existing English Wikipedia infobox fields will be "local overrides" that hide the Wikidata content anyway, so any unexpected new content would be material that is not presently in the infobox at all. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom Marcnut1996 (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge so long as none of the Wikidata functionality is lost.Back ache (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Will this effect the ability to draw data from Wikidata by the remaining template? John Cummings (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi John Cummings, the Wikidata functionality is to be merged and properly documented, whereafter the /wikidata template is redirected to the main one. Through this, both templates will have the exact same functionality (including Wikidata) without the need to update both separately. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 10:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, so long as Wikidata functionality isn't lost, per Pigsonthewing. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge --Papuass (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative Oppose Question - Edit: Was this the same question User:John Cummings asked? If so, can you clarify how well the Wikidata functionality will be merged and, if so, I'd then support this. I just tried out this Infobox company/wikidata and it's pretty cool how it prefills everything. What's the need to merge it? Why not Speedy Keep, and let editors decide which they prefer? Doug Mehus (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Dmehus, the primary reason to merge is that both templates have (except for the Wikidata part) the exact same functionality, meaning that every time one template is updated, the other needs to be updated as well. This hasn't happened in most cases, and it doesn't make sense to force editors to do the same thing twice just to have it uniform on Wikipedia. That said, the usage of Wikidata data to fill templates should be at least somewhat uniform, which is best covered by using the same template for the same purpose. As for how well this is merged, you can check the prepared sandbox. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 07:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. - MakesNoMistakes (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2019 (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).