Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox telescope

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

I have updated this template to comply with the longstanding RFC on Wikidata in infoboxes. If data is not showing up in articles, check to ensure that it is reliably sourced on Wikidata. I also removed the transclusion of {{Start date}}, which was generating error messages due to invalid input. The latter problem has been present for a long time, but {{start date}} was recently updated to check input for invalid formatting instead of just returning a version of the input. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Observatory parameter missing

[edit]

The template is not displaying the "observatory" field. It is not picking up the "part of" parameter from wikidata. See Hale Telescope and Samuel Oschin telescope. Thanks. StarryGrandma (talk) StarryGrandma (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The change to "onlysourced=yes" has removed many parameters from telescope infoboxes. Since this is a technical infobox with parameters that are all available in the literature, I am reverting the change. The risk to the encyclopedia of an unsourced "observatory" parameter is low. This template has been using wikidata for 10 years. All infobox data from wikidata should be referenced, but 10 years ago this was not standard and the corresponding wikidata entries aren't up to that standard yet. Making a hash of infoboxes in hundreds of telescope articles isn't the solution. The wikidata entries should be updated first. StarryGrandma (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the 2018 RfC on use of Wikidata requires that imported data have the same level of data accuracy as Wikipedia itself (i.e., be reliably sourced). If infoboxes are missing data due to lack of sourcing, then those fields can be added manually (with their own sources, or with sources in the article itself). — hike395 (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See the section above, which explained why the template was behaving as it was, and explained how to fix articles: If data is not showing up in articles, check to ensure that it is reliably sourced on Wikidata. Hale Telescope is showing "part of" now. Another way to fix it would have been to add a reliable source to the Wikidata "part of" property. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hike395, Jonesey95, if you read the RFC in question you will see that this template was included as the example template in the background discussion section. At that time it used "onlysourced=no" and it was not felt necessary to change it at the end of the discussion. It remained that way for nearly seven years until changed this February. There were multiple options considered in that RFC, but at the close notes only 3A reached consensus. 3C, Require source (we use "onlysourced=yes" as the default) did not reach consensus. The summary of the close reads 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. For the other issues raised within this RfC, there was no clear consensus.
Now I will put on my "I can't believe I am defending a wikidata template hat" to say that I sympathize with your point of view. <leave out 5 paragraph rant on problems with wikidata infoboxes> I have come to believe that such infoboxes work well for technical topics, particularly if well-sourced like {{Infobox gene}}, which was done by an external project. And I have come to believe that wikidata should never be used in biographies, whether of the living or dead. It has been seven years since the subject was last considered and it may be a time for a new assessment. However this template was the poster child of the 2018 RFC, and I am reverting it to match the close of that RFC. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your interpretation of the RFC's consensus. I do agree that seven years is a while ago and that a new, more-focused RFC may be useful. In that RFC, I objected to the 20 or so choices provided with a single discussion section, believing that it would result in a weak consensus, if any, and I think I was shown to be correct to make that objection.
Anyway, I object to a revert, but do what you will. I try not to edit-war over templates. I strongly suspect that any reversion of this template's recent changes will result in unsourced data appearing in telescope infoboxes, with significant amounts of that data not appearing in the body of the article, contrary to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also object to a revert (for now), based on the following argument:
Starry Grandma is correct that there was no consensus in requiring "onlysourced=yes" in every infobox. However, the consensus from that RfC is 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.
Let me turn it around --- for telescope and observatory wikidata, how can Starry Grandma assure other editors that the data is accurate? Unless and until some acceptable assurance is given, I oppose using "onlysourced=no" for this template. — hike395 (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an orthogonal thought: Given that requiring onlysourced has resulted in bits of data going missing from articles, is there a way to call WikiDataIB such that it reports when there is data present at Wikidata but that it can't use it because there is no source? If articles that want to pull data but are prevented from doing so could be placed in a maintenance category, we could visit those articles to fix their Wikidata sourcing problem. That would help all Wikipedias provide more reliable information. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. We could put in a tracking category and perhaps a {{cn}}? — hike395 (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]