Template talk:Unsolved

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Image

That accretion disk picture (helpfully called "science.jpg") looks good enough on accretion disc, but why does it have to be on every other page that uses this template? Computational complexity theory, for example, has nothing to do with physics. Why not just use a big question mark? Too obvious? (And no, I don't have a big question mark picture. :-) JRM · Talk 18:45, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Well, it's been a while. Now I do have a big question mark picture, and guess what? I'm going to put it on there, too. JRM · Talk 18:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I made the question mark image slightly smaller. I think it looks better that way. --David Göthberg 05:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion for a new question mark image: . The current one looks somewhat unprofessional. Acdx 22:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category application

Shouldn't noinclude be includeonly? Or was it put in noinclude because someone decided they didn't want all the articles that transclude this to be in this category? Whoops, forgot to sign... Alexrussell101 16:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems it should be a "includeonly" tag. So I changed it to that while I was doing several other fixes to the template. However it seems to me it is wrong to use such "automagic" categorising for this template. Since it will add all articles that use this template to such categories and many of those articles only briefly mention a problem but use the template to link to the actual main article that describes the problem. I think only the main article for each problem should be in the category. For instance cryptography mentions one-way functions and uses this template. But I think only the one-way function should be in the Category:Unsolved problems in computer science. --David Göthberg 05:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
What if we put in another attribute, "automagically include", with values of "include" or "no"(default)? It would still encourage people to use these categories. --Homunq 18:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I just did that. Now somebody should go through and fix the pages which use this template for a passing mention by adding a third parameter. I just did cryptography as mentioned above.--Homunq 19:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I like your solution Homunq. I now took some time thinking about other ways to use such Wikimedia logic and about changing the order of the parameters and so on but your solution seems to be the simplest, clearest and most straightforward solution. Nice one! --David Göthberg 13:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFD

Main article: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_12#Template:Unsolved

This template has been nominated for deletion on the grounds that it encourages naive wikipedians to try to answer the question, thus engaging in WP:OR. It looks as if the nomination will fail but this is a valid concern. However, putting a disclaimer about this would violate ... er... I can't find the guideline, but it's the one about not mentioning Wikipedia in articles in a way that would lose context in for instance a printed form. I think the right solution would be to have some "This is really hard and if you think you have an easy answer you're probably wrong. The first step in solving these problems is becoming familiar with why others have failed to." text on the page that you reach from the link. You could either put this text on all the "unsolved" pages, or as an alternate kludgey solution, create "Difficult unsolved" pages with just the disclaimer and a transclude of the "unsolved" pages. --Homunq 18:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"WARNING! The following text may incite original thoughts or a misplaced feeling of curiosity! Do not edit the article in a spirit of speculation! Problems in rear view mirror may be harder than they appear!"
WP:BEANS. Don't make provisions for things you think could happen. You are probably 1) overestimating the problem and 2) underestimating the effectiveness of anything we could say or do to help out the naive. You could try a redesign of the template, maybe a form where it's not stating the unsolved problem as a question, but disclaimers are right out. 82.92.119.11 23:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why isn't this template categorized?

This template seems not belonging to any category. Does anyone know why? --Acepectif 16:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deprecate

the template should be deprecated as unencyclopedic. "unsolved" problems will have to be treated and listed on a case-by-case basis, there is nothing like a global consensus on what is solved and what is unsolved. Is time travel "unsolved" or just fantasy? Is time travel "unsolved" in the same sense the land of Punt is "unsolved"? If things are "unsolved" simply say they are, no need for a template. dab (𒁳) 18:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)