This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
highways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles
I started to read that but my brain started melting, I began to gnaw both my legs off in boredom, and had a sudden bout of nostalgia for Wikipedia c. 2003 when things were simple, editing syntax was obvious, modifying templates didn't require the skill of a programmer, and everyone had a vague idea of what we were all doing. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to get a cup of coffee and see if I might actually get an article to FAC sometime this year before I go stark raving mad. I cannot believe how much time people spend squabbling over some box the casual reader browses at briefly before going on to read stuff that is unsourced, poorly sourced, or questionable. Then ask yourself why people laugh at Wikipedia for being poor quality and unsuitable for research purposes.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Ok the long and the short of it is this: the RfC requires consensus to implement any Wikidata calls in specific infoboxes. So to enable this template to call the map information out of WD, we need to propose, discuss and then implement the change. As a courtesy, projects that use the template were notified. If you have such a big problem with "bureaucracy", then why did you bother commenting here? Imzadi 1979→15:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)reply
So you admit you enjoy pointless bickering and will happily flip the bird at anyone who has the complete and utter audacity to disagree with you and suggest your priorities are slightly skewed. Oh, fair enough.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Do you see him saying anywhere that he likes or enjoys this? Look at the options here. It was either we did this without consensus, which is against the rules and would have only caused you to complain about it, or we did it with consensus, which is what we're trying to gain now. Either way, you clearly don't like it, and you've already said you don't like it, so commenting further only makes you seem like you're trying to start a fight.
TCN7JM22:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)reply
There is a clear consensus for adding this to the template. The dynamic maps proposal does not have consensus yet, and even if it did, we are still a long ways off from deploying it. Thus, I will code a module shortly. --Rschen775408:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Okay, a working but messy implementation is live now. I'll come back in a few hours and simplify the code. I'm thinking of converting some of the other fields to use Wikidata as well, as this will be much simpler than the Infobox road conversion. --Rschen775411:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)reply
User:Fredddie, was there discussion that established consensus for such a change? Not necessarily saying it's a bad thing, but I think it would have been better to have the setting on an opt-in basis rather than having articles appearances passively changed without any notification. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
02:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)reply
There was not a discussion. I was being BOLD when I added the automatic mapframe maps. I figured since most articles had the coordinates listed already, adding the mapframe would be no problem. This is the first concern I've heard from it. –
Fredddie™05:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The problem with passive template appearance changes like this is that they change articles' appearances without showing up on watchlists. The Sam Yan article, for example, already had a manually inserted mapframe map, and the change caused
two duplicate maps to be displayed for a few months without any editor noticing. The change is already done, and editors probably have been adjusting to it, so there's no point in reverting it now, but I think there should probably have been some sort of heads-up announcement. (Not sure if there's currently a system suitable for handling such announcements, though. This maybe an issue better suited for a more centralised venue.) --
Paul_012 (
talk)
19:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)reply
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
highways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles
I started to read that but my brain started melting, I began to gnaw both my legs off in boredom, and had a sudden bout of nostalgia for Wikipedia c. 2003 when things were simple, editing syntax was obvious, modifying templates didn't require the skill of a programmer, and everyone had a vague idea of what we were all doing. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to get a cup of coffee and see if I might actually get an article to FAC sometime this year before I go stark raving mad. I cannot believe how much time people spend squabbling over some box the casual reader browses at briefly before going on to read stuff that is unsourced, poorly sourced, or questionable. Then ask yourself why people laugh at Wikipedia for being poor quality and unsuitable for research purposes.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Ok the long and the short of it is this: the RfC requires consensus to implement any Wikidata calls in specific infoboxes. So to enable this template to call the map information out of WD, we need to propose, discuss and then implement the change. As a courtesy, projects that use the template were notified. If you have such a big problem with "bureaucracy", then why did you bother commenting here? Imzadi 1979→15:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)reply
So you admit you enjoy pointless bickering and will happily flip the bird at anyone who has the complete and utter audacity to disagree with you and suggest your priorities are slightly skewed. Oh, fair enough.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Do you see him saying anywhere that he likes or enjoys this? Look at the options here. It was either we did this without consensus, which is against the rules and would have only caused you to complain about it, or we did it with consensus, which is what we're trying to gain now. Either way, you clearly don't like it, and you've already said you don't like it, so commenting further only makes you seem like you're trying to start a fight.
TCN7JM22:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)reply
There is a clear consensus for adding this to the template. The dynamic maps proposal does not have consensus yet, and even if it did, we are still a long ways off from deploying it. Thus, I will code a module shortly. --Rschen775408:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Okay, a working but messy implementation is live now. I'll come back in a few hours and simplify the code. I'm thinking of converting some of the other fields to use Wikidata as well, as this will be much simpler than the Infobox road conversion. --Rschen775411:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)reply
User:Fredddie, was there discussion that established consensus for such a change? Not necessarily saying it's a bad thing, but I think it would have been better to have the setting on an opt-in basis rather than having articles appearances passively changed without any notification. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
02:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)reply
There was not a discussion. I was being BOLD when I added the automatic mapframe maps. I figured since most articles had the coordinates listed already, adding the mapframe would be no problem. This is the first concern I've heard from it. –
Fredddie™05:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The problem with passive template appearance changes like this is that they change articles' appearances without showing up on watchlists. The Sam Yan article, for example, already had a manually inserted mapframe map, and the change caused
two duplicate maps to be displayed for a few months without any editor noticing. The change is already done, and editors probably have been adjusting to it, so there's no point in reverting it now, but I think there should probably have been some sort of heads-up announcement. (Not sure if there's currently a system suitable for handling such announcements, though. This maybe an issue better suited for a more centralised venue.) --
Paul_012 (
talk)
19:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)reply