World Heritage Sites NA‑class (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites articles NA This article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Any ideas on how to proceed with the implementation of the RfC result? I mean, several options on how to proceed after the closure of the RfC were proposed in its discussion area: I propose to work towards a consensus ASAP on which one to pick (or ASAP propose another one which may find consensus). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Pi bot 2

(After edit conflict) OK, so we now have a result from the RfC, so now we need to implement it. My suggestion is as follows:

• I have written code and put together a bot request to separate out the uses that are currently entirely using Wikidata to {{Infobox World Heritage Site/Wikidata}} - unless there are any objections I will copy the current version of the template to that page and then run the bot. We can then manually check for cases that are only using a few local parameters and move them over as well.
• We can then merge {{Infobox UNESCO World Heritage Site}} into this template, and entries with locally defined values can then use that. Or it can remain as a separate template, but that doesn't make sense to me.
• That is, at least, a preliminary solution. It's up to others about whether that's then the status quo or whether the Wikidata info is then locally copied. I can put together some code that will substitute the Wikidata information here if desired. But you all need to figure out what you want to do here/how you want to do it.

I am happy to continue maintaining a separate Wikidata version of this template if desired, but otherwise I'll walk away from working on this template after the implementation of this is complete. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Queries @Mike Peel:
  • I think you should first revert all instances where you removed the local parameters back to the old situation. This will help in reverting to the old version (whether the actual old version or the new version I created is a separate issue). Cases like this or this. Fram (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a ping to Mike Peel: seems a pertinent question – can you commit to (help) recover en.Wikipedia mainspace deletions of local parameters for this template? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have described what I am willing to do above. I see no point in simply reverting the changes I made before, as that will re-introduce a lot of bad data that I've already cleaned up - and the RfC above does not require this as opposed to the solutions I've mentioned above. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The RfC requires a revert to the previous version. What you propose is the opposite, you want to simply rename the template to /Wikidata and be done with it (oh, you also suggest that others can copy the Wikidata data locally, as if the Wikidata data is infallible. You seem to haven't grasped what this RfC was about). I guess simply moving all instances to the UNESCO version of the template manually will be the best solution then? Fram (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • You might want to read what I said again, and try to take it in this time. There was nothing above about not having a separate Wikidata version. I was suggesting we move things over to there *for now* so this version of the template can be changed to a non-Wikidata one, and then the current cases can be migrated back by whoever wants to do so (I suggested one way, you're welcome to suggest others). Again, *I checked through the Wikidata info for the ones I migrated*, and what is on Wikidata for those is at least as good as what was here before, at least for the core parameters (WHS ID, criteria, years), so I see no benefit to undoing those. We can remove things like area if you'd like, which weren't included in the template before anyway. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • "There was nothing above about not having a separate Wikidata version." apart from "as things currently stand, the Wikidata-based template is not suitable for use in en.wiki" you mean? You checked through the Wikidata info when you migrated them, and you didn't notice any of the problems that caused the RfC and its end results, or you didn't think them important? I think we can handle this without more help from you. Fram (talk) 10:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) A few additional considerations:
        1. There is no deadline, meaning: it is better to do this conscientiously than in a rush. No time-table has been set on when to re-introduce the local-parameters-only code into this template yet. Doesn't mean we have to be lethargic, or that we couldn't set ourselves some goals on when the operation should be complete, but rather aim at good work than overhasty bot operations and the like.
        2. For clarity, I don't think a two-template or three-template solution to cover all World Heritage Sites would be agreeable to the editing community in the long run: co-existing templates for actually the same infobox can only be temporary/intermediate solutions, as aids to get things sorted into a more permanent solution, and the direction of that permanent solution (no Wikidata) has been decided by the RfC.
        3. Re. "... otherwise I'll walk away from working on this template <i.e., unless the Wikidata implementation gets precedence>" (emphasis added, and last part paraphrased from "after the implementation of this is complete"): I'd like to extend that, for example in view of what an arbitrator posted yesterday at WP:ARBREQ: "I think the policy is clear that we run our own project at enWP just as much as they do atWikidata" – I don't say that all conscientious reverts-with-appropriate-updates should be up to one person, but if the person responsible for over 900 deletes of local parameter sets does not help in repairing the damage they are responsible for, and which makes the implementation of the clear RfC outcome a very tangled issue, then I suggest it would be better that this editor would walk away from all templates that call Wikidata claims. Your allegiance should be to en.WP in the first place when editing here: creating a mess affecting hundreds of pages, and then walk away for being only interested in Wikidata seems out of the remit of this talk page discussion. So, I'd suggest a change of heart here, otherwise it seems only logical to add the editor as an involved party to WP:ARBREQ#Crosswiki issues, and let arbitrators decide.

      Pinging Mike Peel. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • @Francis Schonken: Please do not try to put words into my mouth. I think you understood my meaning, but just in case: my walking away is *after* the implementation of this RfC is complete (albeit with a new proviso that this discussion should remain civil and, as much as possible, logical). I do not agree that there is damage to be repaired, or that I have created a mess; it is a disagreement about the approach to take here. As for the concept of having allegiance to a project, that's just plain weird - I'm here to help improve the Wikimedia projects/free knowledge, not to swear loyalty. Mike Peel (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, let's ask this simple question again: can you commit to (help) recover en.Wikipedia mainspace deletions of local parameters for this template? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • The simple answer is 'yes'. For the more complex answer, see the last two sentences of my third bullet point... Mike Peel (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Tx, and my apologies for apparently having completely misread the more complex answer, it was not my intention to upset anyone. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on the direction of approach proposed below in #Substitution. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Mike Peel: seems this isn't over yet, see [1]. Sorry, Mike, I do what is easiest to recover the static data, even if these static data are then wrapped in a different template and/or some other cleanup is happening at the same time. I didn't see much collaboration to undo your own deletions of these static data, so you're hardly in a place to comment on those who do, per the RfC outcome, imho. In the example you cite, you deleted "Historic Town of Zabid", and I recovered that by using the undo function, because, in that case, that was the easiest way to proceed. I'm sorry if that ruffles your feathers, but these operations to recover the data which should never have been deleted (by you, that is) are complex enough as it is not to add another layer of complexity because you don't like to see reverts popping up. You have been asked to do these reverts yourself, but you didn't: so don't now criticise other who do – it is only applying the outcome of the RfC. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I nominated Infobox_World_Heritage_Site/Wikidata for deletion. Consensus was to convert this infobox back to non-wikidata. Not "keep & rename". Alsee (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did anyone actually *read* what I wrote at the start of this? Given that a lot of the concerns raised are with the infoboxes that I hadn't gotten around to converting to Wikidata, I thought splitting this for now into a non-Wikidata version (at the current location) and a non-Wikidata version (at /wikidata) would help resolve that issue immediately, while we discuss the rest. But by all means, let's have three separate discussions talking about how to file the template code... Mike Peel (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are currently 1368 transclusions of {{Infobox World Heritage Site}} ([2]):
      1. 470 of these use locally defined parameters (Category:Articles using Infobox World Heritage Site using locally defined parameters)
      2. 439 use no local parameters (Category:Articles with WHS infoboxes completely from Wikidata)
      3. leaves 459 using (I suppose) a mixture of one or more local parameters and one or more Wikidata parameters --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
         • I think these are the uses of the infobox as a child template while fetching the rest of the values from Wikidata. Mike Peel (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Afaik #2 and #3 are the problematic ones (I don't understand "Given that a lot of the concerns raised are with the infoboxes that I hadn't gotten around to converting to Wikidata..." – I don't see any concerns raised around the infoboxes that were not converted to Wikidata, which would be, as far as I understand, #1 in the list above) --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I might be missing something, but I thought this was where most of the concerns were - particularly inappropriate areas being dislayed. #2 and #3 were the ones I went through and cleaned up, and most of the errors are probably in #1. Mike Peel (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Re. "I have written code and put together a bot request to separate out the uses that are currently entirely using Wikidata to {{Infobox World Heritage Site/Wikidata}}" – I don't understand why that would be a good idea? Can't even grasp *why* you proposed it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Staying with "most of the errors are probably in #1", I though this would be the first set of examples that you'd want to remove the Wikidata values from, and by moving the rest off to another page meant that we can change the template here to a non-Wikidata version. Again, these are the ones I hadn't looked at yet, so are probably where most errors are. It also means that we then have a defined set of articles that are using the Wikidata version (through whatlinkshere). Mike Peel (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Re. "unless there are any objections I will copy the current version of the template to [the {{Infobox World Heritage Site/Wikidata}}] page" – OK, you have now secured a copy of the code, however, as it serves no apparent purpose on en.Wikipedia, I suppose that page can be userfied now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If need be, it could be userfied. However, I don't think that would be the best thing to do, see [3]. Mike Peel (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Re. "... and then run [Pi bot 2]" – Still don't see why that would be good idea. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    See above. Mike Peel (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Re. "We can then merge {{Infobox UNESCO World Heritage Site}} into this template, and entries with locally defined values can then use that" – Why would one do that *before* providing parameter values that correspond with that version of template code? --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Surely Fram's version of the template is perfect, and will immediately fix all of the issues here, so why wouldn't we want to merge it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Peel (talk • contribs)

    Re. "Or [{{Infobox UNESCO World Heritage Site}}] can remain as a separate template" – wouldn't agree with the editing community in the long run, see #2 of my 09:35, 3 November 2017 post above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Re. "but [{{Infobox UNESCO World Heritage Site}} remaining as a separate template] doesn't make sense to me" – it makes sense as an intermediate step until issues are settled, not as a permanent solution: see again #2 of my 09:35, 3 November 2017 post above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said, it doesn't make sense to me to have two versions of the non-Wikidata version. Better to merge now, and then Fram can have the fun of tackling the remainder of case #1 uses of this infobox (and the heckling that goes with the process of fixing the issues with them). Mike Peel (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Re. "[recreating {{Infobox World Heritage Site/Wikidata}}, then running Pi bot 2, then merging {{Infobox UNESCO World Heritage Site}} to {{Infobox World Heritage Site}}] is, at least, a preliminary solution" – we can agree it is not a permanent solution, but afaics neither is it a temporary situation that would be part of a solution, temporary or otherwise. So why go through these (afaics) unnecessary steps to come to a situation that neither in the short run, nor in the long run would be anything near a part of a solution? --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    In case my above explanation wasn't sufficient, let me try it from a different approach. There are two situations here - there are the infoboxes that have locally-defined parameters (possibly with a few parameters from Wikidata), and there are infoboxes that are entirely from Wikidata. Those are currently mixed together. I'm proposing a way that we can split these two cases so that one set entirely uses local parameters (this template) and the other entirely uses Wikidata values (the subtemplate). Those can then be handled separately - e.g. the former still need to be checked through manually, but the latter can be substituted automatically if that would be useful. Mike Peel (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Re. "It's up to others about whether that's then the status quo or whether the Wikidata info is then locally copied." – I don't understand: why would that be something you'd not be involved in? --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Because my contributions and viewpoints here are clearly unwelcome. I still think that Wikidata is the way to go here, but others still think that the 20th century is the way to go. I'm still willing to help here, but if others want to maintain this template only using local parameters then they also need to take on the responsibility of maintaning it in the future. Mike Peel (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Re. "I can put together some code that will substitute the Wikidata information here if desired" – finally we understand one another (I think?): that's why I started #Substitution below. I still don't see why any of the preliminary afaics unnecessary steps would be needed to create an intermediary situation that is neither satisfactory in the short run nor in the long run, but this last proposal makes sense to me, so please, I left some questions for you in the #Substitution section below, would you *please* care to respond there? For me it's OK if you want to make a distinction between the ~470 boxes of case #1, the ~439 boxes of case #2 and the remaining ~459 boxes of case #3 in your replies, but I'd like a check whether I understood this part of your proposal correctly. But as said, I think it is best to make this the next step for a solution, rather than the last step after some intermediate steps I don't see to be very meaningful as an implementation (temporary or otherwise) of the RfC outcome. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm still thinking through this option, and I'll respond below when I can. Mike Peel (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Re. "But you all need to figure out what you want to do here/how you want to do it." – "...you all..." includes yourself, I hope. You want to recreate {{Infobox World Heritage Site/Wikidata}}, then run Pi bot 2, and then merge {{Infobox UNESCO World Heritage Site}} to {{Infobox World Heritage Site}} as first steps: either make clear why these would be meaningful first steps, rather than "...put together some code that will substitute the Wikidata information here..." as first step? I propose to skip the intermediate steps and move to the "...substitute..." step, elaborated in the #Substitution proposal below, ASAP. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mike Peel: please see WP:TPO, "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent." You even forgot to sign one of your replies, so creating wrong impressions (kind of putting words in my mouth). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, there were so many points here I couldn't think of a better way of posting the replies. Thanks for catching the one that I forgot to sign; I wasn't intending to make it look like you had posted that line. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Francis Schonken: Re [4], I guess that's OK temporarily providing you have no objections to it being restored once the code here is not the same as at /wikidata. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. "providing you <whatever>" – please don't put words in my mouth. There's no consensus currently about what will happen with {{Infobox World Heritage Site/Wikidata}} once all implementations of WHS infoboxes will have been converted to local data: putting words in my mouth (see above for what I effectively said) is an unpromising approach for finding such consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was a request, not an attempt to put words into your mouth. As the answer is 'no', I'll restore it, per the TfD non-consensus for what to do with it right now. Mike Peel (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re "request" combined with "providing you <whatever>" – please make up your mind: a request combined with one-sided conditions is not a request. As long as Wikidata code is in {{Infobox World Heritage Site}} there shouldn't be a separate template with Wikidata code for exactly the same purposes: that has nothing to do with TfD (wasn't even negotiated during the TfD) but is plain common sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Pi bot 2)

• I suppose Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Pi bot 2 would need a consensus *before* running it – what do others think? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of /Wikidata variant

Opening section per User talk:Nihlus#Template:Infobox World Heritage Site/Wikidata --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue?

@Mike Peel: please could you look at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs#Proposal from Wikipedia, especially what I added to that discussion here – there may be a copyright problem with transferring short descriptions (such as image captions) from Wikipedia infoboxes to Wikidata. Mentioning this here while (if this pans out as problematic) this may necessitate to delete such copied short descriptions from Wikidata (while operating under a different license than Wikipedia), thus giving some momentum to the suggestion above to undo deletions of local parameters (at least those that could be qualified as "short descriptions" such as image captions that are more than a repeat of the name of the file). At least I'd recommend to stop transferring such short descriptions to Wikidata for the time being, i.e. until it is cleared out whether this may or may not be problematic (or, permanently if the former would be the case). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied there. As far as I can see, there isn't a problem here. Mike Peel (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Step by step

• (step 0) Sort through Category:Articles using Infobox World Heritage Site using locally defined parameters and identify whether this infobox should be used on those pages or not. Mike Peel (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• (step 1) I'm about to create Category:Articles with WHS infoboxes completely from Wikidata as a subcategory of Category:Articles with infoboxes completely from Wikidata, and adapt the code of the template so that articles using this infobox would rather go to that subcategory instead of the general category. I figured this might help to sort issues. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a good step, thank you for making the category. Mike Peel (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• (step 2) Meanwhile, I'm converting articles to the UNESCO version of this infobox template. Either it will be the definitive version after all this, or it will be merged back to here, but in either case it is closer to the end result and implements the RfC outcome. Too bad that thanks to some pointy behaviour of a Wikidata-enabler it shows the TfD template, but that's something I can't help. Fram (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or we could run Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Pi bot 2 to split out the articles using Wikidata, and you could then merge your version of the template to this page and use it without the TfD template... Mike Peel (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Progress report

Partially based on numbers already given higher up in this discussion. Don't know whether we might work towards setting ourselves a goal for when the conversion should be over? E.g. converting an average of hundred a day may mean this would be over in a fortnight; 10 a day would mean still 5 months ahead. Without time pressure would work as well for me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• updated --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• updated --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• updated --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• updated --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Substitution

Exploring another possible path of approach: can the Wikidata claims that are called with the current version of this infobox be imported as static data in en.Wikipedia? E.g. by either of these technical implementations:

1. develop a format of this infobox that operates substitutions for each of the parameters used by the template?
2. launch a bot request to substitute Wikidata claims to static en.Wikipedia parameter values on the 1000+ current implementations of the template?
3. Same as #1 but applied to the "...UNESCO..." variant of the template

This would bypass the (maybe less desirable?) operation of recovering deleted former parameter values: --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC) (updated 13:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

• @Fram:
  • Would you be OK with this (if technically possible)? The "...UNESCO..." variant of the infobox does not use completely the same parameters as the current (Wikidata) version of the infobox (e.g. the "...UNESCO..." variant does not seem to recognise the "State Party" parameter): in the eventuality of this substitution approach we could keep to the current structure of the infobox, and abandon the the "...UNESCO..." variant to come to an (ultimately) Wikidata-free version of this template. So this would come down to abandoning that variant. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC) (updated 13:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]
    • I have deliberately removed the State Party, Region, ... parameters as not providing any useful information on our pages. Instead I have added new, much more useful parameters which were missing. I have no problem with substitution of the Wikidata version to a local version, nor to a merge of that version with the Unesco one; but simply abandoning it would be a step backwards. Fram (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see, but then asking to revert edits like this one (effectively re-introducing values for parameters we'd rather abandon now) would make less sense. So I'd be happy to close the above "Queries @Mike Peel:" paragraphs, because asking for such reverts would seem suboptimal at best?

      Also, I'd rather add a third option now (which I effectively did): call wikidata claims "once", on initial substitution of the infobox, when they would be introduced as local data in en.Wikipedia, after which they could be updated/finetuned in en.Wikipedia if necessary (...if all of that would make technical sense of course...). I'd stop proposing "hasty bot operations" anyhow: I dislike them myself, as I said above, and doesn't seem very well possible to develop something meaningful in that vein (or would there?). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • Started to develop the 3rd option at User talk:Francis Schonken/Wikidata/P of Q#WHS, but need help (not too experienced on many of the intricacies). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mike Peel:
  • Do you think this would be technically possible, and if so: which of the twothree approaches proposed above would work best (or is there still another more optimal method for implementing this idea)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC) (updated 13:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]
  • Would you approve of the idea, and if so: collaborate to its execution? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for not replying more quickly, I've been thinking through how this can be done. This is a backward step from having a structured database that holds this information in a way that can be fetched in a systematic manner (as well as queried - e.g. see User:Mike Peel/World Heritage Sites) - it's sort of like being asked to do your accounts in Word rather than Excel. So thinking this through is rather counter-intuitive.
    • I don't think that (1) is feasible. It works for simple cases where we're just fetching values (with/without wikilinks), but it doesn't work for more complicated cases such as {{Wikidata location}} or {{UNESCO WHS type}}. (3) is the same as (1) - the only difference is that Fram is claiming responsibility for the removal of some parameters and the addition others that I'd already implemented. And this isn't compatible with the simple reverts of my edits, as you've said.
    • (2) could work. It means that we unnecessarily duplicate information that is now held in Wikidata, but that seems to be what is desired. I can write some code that does this - the code would have to fetch the displayed values; the HTML for the displayed values (which can then be translated to wikicode); or the raw wikitext, depending on the parameter specified. But any way this happens, the values currently displayed in the infoboxes would be saved locally - every change I have made can be stored locally instead.
    • Would I approve of the idea? Hell, no - it's a huge backward step. But we can do that if needed. Mike Peel (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re. "I don't think that (1) is feasible" – semi-automatically it is at least feasible, see Template:Infobox World Heritage Site/doc#Conversion to local data (especially its 2nd and 3rd step could be further automated).
      • Re. "(2) could work. ... I can write some code that does this" – please do, and have the bot approved via the usual procedures (when the bot submission is ready, mention it here, please, so that participants in this discussion can co-assess it). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be honest, I'm inclined to take up Fram's request for me to just leave here. I don't want to spend time writing the code if it's just going to be opposed at the bot request stage (as has already happened with the first proposal). If it is something that everyone here wants, though, then I can do that. Mike Peel (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Everyone in the discussion clearly knew that rolling back wikidata in the template would result in all World Heritage articles ending up with a non-wikidata template. Alsee (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bot substituting Wikidata claims to static en.Wikipedia parameter values

Above Mike Peel suggested "[bot ... to substitute Wikidata claims to static en.Wikipedia parameter values on the 1000+ current implementations of the template] could work [...] I can write some code that does this - the code would have to fetch the displayed values"; "If it is something that everyone here wants, though [...]" – well let's give a show of hands, supposing that "everyone here" has become less than a handful after the RfC dust settled. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support development of this bot. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'm not thrilled to blindly overwrite deleted wikipedia content with wikidata, but it seems to be the best realistic option. I tried reviewing a few pages by hand. It would be difficult to get through the required number of cases without running the bot. In fact if anyone does want to pull up deleted content to check against the wikidata-result, it would be easier to do so after running the bot. I didn't see any easy way to completely shut off wikidata in the current template, which makes it extremely difficult to see a clean rendering when I fill in the deleted values. Alsee (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to comment on the last sentence, "fetchwikidata=none" should turn most off, but not everything at the moment (e.g., coordinates don't use that code system) - although with some more development that would be possible. Splitting the Wikidata uses to /wikidata and returning this template to the non-wikidata version would have been the easiest way to have resolved this in the short term (both when editing and when viewing the history). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Mike Peel I tried that, and just double-checked it. It says fetchwikidata is an unknown parameter. Alsee (talk) 09:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The erroneous error message is easy to fix, although that doesn't change anything I said above. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Mike Peel, number one: The infobox for Humberstone_and_Santa_Laura_Saltpeter_Works contains the following raw text "Includes Q42958985 Q42959015". I've lost track of the identified issues with the Wikidata infobox, but in case it hasn't been mentioned, I don't think a reader will find the text Q42958985 Q42959015 very helpful. Number two, there are several fields where |fetchwikidata=none doesn't work. Three, I tried |fetchwikidata=none AND copying every documented field in the template and filling them with junk values. Guess what? That still failed to stop Wikidata import. There are multiple undocumented fields fetching from wikidata, and they ignore fetchwikidata=none. Fun fun fun. On the bright side, none of these issues need to be fixed! They vanish once we've converted back to non-wikidata. Alsee (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I just saw the "Includes Q#####" discussion below. Chuckle. Alsee (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• So, I think the conclusion here is "please go away" - @Fram was explicit about this, while @Alsee went with a more sarcastic approach. I would still like to continue improving these infoboxes, ideally by using data stored on Wikidata, which could have been bot-updated from the WHS site. But this clearly isn't welcome here. So I'm out - but please don't try to portray this as 'he wasn't willing to fix the problems he caused" when I suggested reasonable options that were declined. Mike Peel (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Mike Peel I have nothing against you personally, and I'd assume Fram doesn't either. The only thing we want to 'go away' is wikidata in the templates. Alsee (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Write conversion manual

See Template:Infobox World Heritage Site/doc#Conversion to local data: some assistance in writing that manual would be welcome. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest adding the parameters:

 
| image_map               = 
| map_alt                 = 
| map_caption             =  

Using a location map on sites that are extremely large, such as Phoenix Islands Protected Area makes little sense, and using the image parameter for maps makes it so other images can't be used in the infobox. SpanishSnake (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]