Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 6

July 6

Alabama counties

Template:Alabama counties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Georgia counties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These two templates were created to replace the county sections of Template:Alabama and Template:Georgia (U.S. state). But they were never really implemented, and the main templates have been used without any problems. They are mostly unused and redundant to the other templates. The Alabama template is used on a few random city articles, but these fail WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. There's really no need to keep these. Kennethaw88 • talk 21:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The template {{Alabama counties}} was not used in "random city articles" but rather, the county seats of some counties, to link to the related county names. --Wikid77 10:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment: A similar template, Template:Florida counties was deleted as WP:CSD#T3 in 2012, and these also may qualify. Kennethaw88 • talk 00:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The related template {{Florida counties}} was deleted (25 June 2012) without consensus, without a logical understanding of the wp:Overlink crisis. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per nom -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• KEEP BOTH to reduce info-spam. Both templates {{Alabama counties}} and {{Georgia counties}} have been fully implemented for over 7 years, but removed from usage (see: Template_talk:Georgia counties). Meanwhile, the larger state templates {{Alabama}} and {{Georgia}} have been spamming the county names into many articles which do not need them. However, template {{Georgia counties}} has been removed in pages where it was relevant to the topic. If WP:BIDIRECTIONAL were a valid concern, then there is no valid logic which justifies info-spamming Template:Alabama into a massive 186 pages, as almost 3x times as many pages as the 67 linked counties of Alabama, as basically double wp:OVERLINKing the county names. Instead, template {{Alabama counties}} should be linked in the 67 county articles and in others directly related to those counties, and the county names should be removed from Template:Alabama, to unlink from 100 articles which do not need to link those 67 county names 6,700 times (100×67). This has been fully explained for over 7 years in the talk-pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:08/10:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem isn't nearly as bad as you say it is. There are much larger nav boxes elsewhere, and Alabama has much fewer counties than say, Kansas or Illinois. It's not spamming to have the county list on any broad state-related topic, since counties are the next level of government for U.S. states. Any article that isn't broadly about the state should have the navbox removed. In fact, it's less useful to have {{Alabama counties}} placed on Heflin, Alabama, which is only located in a single county. Kennethaw88 • talk 14:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, the counties navbox makes more sense on a county-seat town article, where links to other related counties would be expected. What part of "county seat" fails to relate to counties? As a variation of wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, saying wp:WORSESPAMEXISTS for Illinois or Kansas is no reason to not improve pages for Alabama, Georgia or Florida. In fact, Template:Kansas is linked in 570 pages, with 59,850 county links, as almost 6x the county-link spam level for the 105 Kansas counties, as 2x worse than spamming Template:Alabama. Spam is spam, and needs to be fixed everywhere, so the "List of amphibians of Alabama" should not link all Alabama counties, or why must 73 frogs link to 67 county names? Instead, keep template {{Alabama counties}} and remove extra county names from a page about frogs, or reptiles, or trees, etc. The solution is simple: just use template {{Georgia counties}} in articles about Georgia counties, not for Georgia frogs. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

---

• Delete. For any US state, the counties are a primary topic that definitely warrant appearance on the state template, and we should definitely be placing the state template on each county article. The only exception is Texas, because its 254 counties would make {{Texas}} way too large for usefulness; even with 159 entries, Georgia's counties section isn't so large that it needs to be split out (let alone Alabama's 67), and we shouldn't encourage the counties to be separated from everything else if they're not too numerous. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Convert/list of units/...

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jimp 12:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Convert/list of units (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

List of templates

Template:Convert/list of units/facdisp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Convert/list of units/item (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Convert/list of units/item2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Convert/list of units/item3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Convert/list of units/itemnontable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Convert/list of units/itemnontable2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Convert/list of units/itemsubtemplates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Convert/list of units/row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Convert/list of units/rowaltab (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Convert/list of units/rowaltabImp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Convert/list of units/rowaltdef (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Convert/list of units/rowaltname (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Convert/list of units/rowbr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Convert/list of units/rowbraltab (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Convert/list of units/rowbrtop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Convert/list of units/rowImp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Convert/list of units/rowkelvinT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Convert/list of units/rownonote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Convert/list of units/rowprimedeftop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Convert/list of units/rowprimename (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All of these are now unused, outdated, and replaced by a less complicated documentation system for the {{convert}} template. I am happy to explain how they worked if anyone is interested, but the entire set has been replaced by the six templates listed in the documentation for {{convert/list of units/unitrow}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy close. TFD isn't a good place to decide whether certain template components are useful. A discussion at the template's talk page is a much better place to assess this, and if consensus concludes that we don't need these components, they should be tagged with {{db-g6}}. If this discussion's already happened, point me to it and I'll happily delete these myself. Nyttend (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Delete all Nyttend is right in general, but these templates relate to documentation so no complex discussion is needed—does WP:G6 apply? Frietjes cleaned up the list-of-unit documentation pages, and the templates listed above are obsolete. A notice has been placed at Template talk:Convert (diff) so anyone following convert will be able to comment here in the next couple of days. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• Question is there a reason not to just mark them all as historical and refer curious parties elsewhere? Furthermore, if there's creative content documented here that was ultimately integrated into later templates, it might be necessary to retain the edit histories for attribution purposes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• Delete all. No need to keep outdated, unmaintained and so possibly wrong documentation.

re Nyttend: there is no procedural rule that says this should be at talkpage. Frietjes has a right to upscale the discussion to TfD. TfD is the tougher route (e.g., because editors from outside the topic can drop by), and so the outcome is stronger. And since this TfD is correctly noted on the template talkpage, no watching editor is uninformed (while the other way around could give prodedural flaws and so nullification of a discussion). I say: it is indeed possible to discuss this at the talkpage, but no obligation and therefor not a reason to close this one early. (Btw, I understand you meant to say procedural close, not speedy close). -DePiep (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Delete these are all superseded. They can be speedily deleted under WP:G6 and WP:G7. Jimp 12:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Distinguish

Template:Distinguish (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This honestly isn't necessary: {{for}} suffices to distinguish between similarly-titled pages, and it's misused all too commonly (recent example). This is the only hatnote which talks down to readers rather than simply pointing them at another page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I agree. {{for}} is for resolving literal ambiguities, {{distinguish}} is for resolving near-literal ambiguities. For example, Senj and Sinj are not literally the same, but it's reasonable to believe that a non-trivial proportion of English readers could confuse the two because it's just one vowel of a difference for two places in the same foreign country. Or Liqueur vs. Liquor. It should be possible to find a technical setup by which we can count the number of clicked distinguish links, and see if we're just talking down to readers or actually helping them. We can pipe link them to something, like we do with WP:INTDAB. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

One thing that should definitely be done is to produce a list of actual best practices to be added to Template:Distinguish/doc#Usage. Right now it looks like a free-for-all. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"{for} is for resolving literal ambiguities" you write - I don't think so. An example of personal perception, but not based on documentation. {for} can be used as a hatnote whenever the resulting text fits. -DePiep (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. The nominatee has 28,000 transclusions; we can't just delete and redirect it to {{For}} because the latter needs one additional parameter that takes an explanatory reason as value. Thus, we can't have a bot do the replacement either. In addition, I really don't see anything wrong with this template. No prejudice against replacing transclusions and nominating again.
  Best regards,
  Codename Lisa (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This technical reason can not be a reason to keep it. You have not proven an impossibility. Interestingly, you point to the "explanatory reason" required in {{for}}. It is suspicious that that is not required in {distinguish}. So this template is low on information—maybe too low. More on this below in my !vote. -DePiep (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• • This is plainly wrong. A substitution for {{for||{{{1}}}}} works. It's depressingto see one of the few editors involved in this TfD with any actual technical ability making elementary errors like this which are then echoed by the unthinking mob. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• keep. This diferentiates between different things with different names that can easily be confused. If it is being misused then the misuse should be corrected. PaulJones (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. Already explained above.--AirWolf (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep as covered by others above. Sympathy for misuse argument - for now how about increasing doc, or taking other action. Widefox; talk 12:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. "For" is more of a see-also thing, for when we're saying "You might also find that thing useful", while "Distinguish" is for "Maybe you wanted that thing, not this thing". Who knows but that we might some time want to reword one but not the other; merging them now or later would prevent (or at least complicate) that process. Nyttend (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's right. A hatnote isn't a see-also thing, i.e. {{for}} is also a "maybe you wanted that thing, not this thing". If it was see also, it wouldn't be on top but in the See also section at the bottom. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As Joy says. A hatnote is not a see also "thing" (a hatnote is non-content and is only used for the reader to help & check: Am I on the right page?). Being a hatnote, {{for}} does the same as {{distinguish}}.

Overstepping this, the description by Nyttend does not clarify the difference at all. Just as easy one can write for {distinguish} "... there is also the page ...", which simply mirrors the point by a bit of wordplay. I think the difference is too subtle, small or absent to be notable. -DePiep (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I add. Reducing {for} to a "see also" (=more within this topic), excludes using it as in "but for the completely different meaning, see ..." (=to another topic). The limitation incorrectly excludes {for} as an alternative for {distinguish}. -DePiep (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, {{distinguish}} does not require a description unlike {{for}}. � (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral. All a bot would need to do is change "distinguish" with "for|[something] commonly confused with this" or even replace the contents of this template with that and substitute all uses. Executed properly, "[something]" can encourage IPs to make one-off edits and even become regular editors. Or one could just reword it, for example to "Often confused with [1]".--Launchballer 15:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Commonly/often confused with" is weasel wording and introducing it into 25,000 articles is an atrocity. So, no way. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep as covered by others above. I am not in favour of deletion. Faizan 17:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see it as talking down to readers. {{for}} is when a reader goes to a page and either sees from the article text that it's not what they want, or otherwise acts as a "see also" even if it was what they wanted. Inother words, it's for additional info for a reader that is clear about what they are looking at. {{distinguish}} is different. This is where a reader would not necessarily realise they've found the "wrong" article eg slight spelling difference from the article they really want and the article text could plausibly apply to the "other" article too. DeCausa (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. It doesn't talk down to readers. Annotation helps readers. --BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep as this is often used for homonyms that are prone to confusion but not the same word (e.g. Hellen Jemaiyo/Hellen Kimaiyo, both Kenyan long-distance runners). "For" is not used in that function. I do find the current template lacking, however, in that it does not easily allow addition of text to say what the other subject is (not very reader friendly as will need a click through to see that). SFB 19:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep For me the template is important to determine between two similarities. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per the several arguments proposed by Codename Lisa. An admin should also consider closing this quickly as a snow keep. - tucoxn\^talk 21:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep It's not reader friendly to delete this template A8v (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, widely-used and not directly compatible with for. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep; it doesn't feel particularly insulting IMO. Rosuav (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - Keep per Nyttend. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - Quite important template, helpful to users who search similar subjects but close names. ///ECGT Mobile | On the Go 04:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per Nyttend; if there is misuse of this template, the individual cases should be fixed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

As I noted at Nyttend's !vote, the difference is so unclear, that "misuse" cannot be established. Even worse, the description that {for} is a "see also thing" is introducing a wrong criteria to check misuse against. All in all, it shows that this template is confusingly unspecific. -DePiep (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep per Joy, Nyttend and Mendaliv. The Distinguish template warns readers unfamiliar with the subject of potential confusion, something the For template doesn't do. The Distinguish template is often misused, but that's not a reason to throw it out completely.--A bit iffy (talk) 06:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oh, snow keep. {{distinguish}} is used so widely because it's widely useful. Even the example in the nomination for deletion is puzzling; rather than a mis-use, that seems like exactly the kind of well-considered, proactive, and helpful link that Wikipedia should offer. {{distinguish}} is not broken.  Unician ∇  08:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The template does not allow to explain or hint the source of confusion. (More in my !vote below). -DePiep (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Really, all hatnotes in the "for" class (for, see also, about, ...; for simplicity just exclude the {{main}} class) are about distinguishing words & spellings & meanings & ambiguities. They all describe in some way or another a possible confusion for the reader. Being hatnotes, their job is to help the reader answering: Am I on the right page? All these are distinguishing. The wording of this one does not add any information to the reader (check two dozen of these hatnotes, and see how many are saying the same: "there is also a page named ...").

Even worse. As Codename Lisa pointed out above, {distiunguish} has no parameter to clarify the source of confusion (spelling? meaning? ambiguous?). That leaves the reader to find out for themselves wat that confusion stems from. That is a mental load. So this is a bad template.

And I notice that its documentation is missing. There is no description on when to use it and when not. Understandably so, because the difference with similar hatnotes is subtle, absent or even a personal perception. (Try proposing a documentation at the talkpage, you'll meet the same language maze as is in this thread). Quite simple: compared to other hatnotes like {for}, {see also}, {about} this one does not add information. It withholds it.

As for process, the template could be declared deprecated for now (out of sight!), and instances should use another template to add information. If that is a manual thing, it be so. -DePiep (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. The distinction is fairly intuitive. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

That intuition is misleading us, ending up in different outcomes. From above: Joy, 08:39: "{for} is for resolving literal ambiguities". Nope. Nyttend, 13:13: "'For' is more of a see-also thing, ..." Nope. Mendaliv, 04:57: "if there is misuse of this template, the individual cases should be fixed." - impossible. Misuse cannot be established because editors have "intuitively" a different prescription. -DePiep (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@DePiep: Don't bludgeon the process. --Scolaire (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying. Please be more clear. -DePiep (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Answered below. Scolaire (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. I can't really believe that you are trying to delete it. It is useful indeed. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 14:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The hatnote will not be deleted. It will be replaced by another hatnote, for example {{for}}. -DePiep (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Excellent explanations mentioned above, more say I not. SzMithrandir (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per Joy and others. Confusion can arise between two similarly-spelled things or people. This template tells readers that the things or people can be confused, and guides them to the right one if they've typed in the wrong one. {Distinguish} is better than {for} for doing this. Scolaire (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

"Confusion can arise between two similarly-spelled things or people". Why or where is it limited to spelling? {Distinguish} can also pertain to confusing meanings. Or ambiguity.

Another example of documentation by personal perception. That shows that documentation itself is unclear. Note that in the history of hatnotes, many new ones were not created from a need to fill an empty space. There was no scrutiny on overlapping meaning.

And, as Codename Lisa mentioned before (though with a different conclusion than I get), {Distinguish} does not have an option for explanation or clarification. So it does not "guide" the reader to the right place, it just gives a "maybe". -DePiep (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

To repeat, please read the essay Don't bludgeon the process. "Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view...Typically, the person replies to every single !vote or comment, arguing against that particular person's point of view. The person attempts to pick apart each argument with the goal of getting each person to change their !vote. They always have to have the last word, and normally will ignore any evidence that is counter to their point of view." You have had your say. Please do not continue to reply to every !vote. It is disruptive. Scolaire (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Snow keep: There is absolutely nothing I can add that hasn't already been said in other "keep" !votes. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Lugia2453 (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per all above me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per above - Everyone's said what I've wanted to say. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• It's somewhat embarrassing how many low-information voters are involved here. I'd very much hope that the closing admin has a very full closing statement. Be aware that anyone clueless enough to try a NAC in response to the above will be heading quickly for a motion to restrict from doing so again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Require a "reason" parameter?

As I've previously indicated, I want to keep the template. However: DePiep suggests (in various posts above) (hope I've got this right!) that the Distinguish template doesn't clarify for the intended audience what the distinction between subjects might be. There is the Distinguish2 template which allows this, but it lacks the automated formatting of Distinguish. So how about all new usages of Distinguish require a "Reason=" parameter so editors are required to clarify?--A bit iffy (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think we need a reason all the time, but why not just merge {{Distinguish2}} with this one? -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:MusicCriticism

Template:MusicCriticism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nominated for same reasons as WP:PROD of the related List of critics' choices for best albums of 2013. This template similarly has ambitious title and scope, but is unrepresentative of all genres of music criticism or music journalism, and even within rock/pop, it's very far from being usefully comprehensive (and unlikely to be improved). To be useful, much less encyclopedic, it would have to have at least dozens of entries (for each of numerous musical genres), representing past and current publications and websites that feature music criticism. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no possibility of that template's scope issues getting sorted out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Incomprehensibly large scope. Adabow (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• I'm pretty sure there's a chance more articles can be put here, but for now, Delete until that happens. 和DITOREtails 15:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Delete due to the "Incomprehensibly large scope" mentioned by Adabow or rename to appropriately define the narrow scope of the current template. Gamaliel (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)