Template talk:Poultry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Birds (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon Poultry is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Agriculture (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Change of poultry template[edit]

I am proposing to change the Poultry template with the more expansive template below, but obviously would not make wholesale changes without opening up for discussion. So, any comments?


__DrChrissy (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

At first glance, it seems awfully repetitive; some links are in there more than a dozen times. I'm also not sure what the intention is behind the change. Smaller, more focussed navboxes are generally much more useful than sprawling ones like this. You should probably ask for opinions at WT:BIRD and maybe other projects, too. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
To All, please find an amended (slimmed down) version of the potential replacement template.


_____DrChrissy (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it's still not good enough. The problems I pointed out are still there. It's still massively oversized and needlessly repetitive. I strongly advise you to seek input from the relevant WikiProjects before attempting any change to the template. You certainly can't take an absence of participation (in a discussion no-one knows is happening) to be consensus. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry that the template does not meet your individual standards and that you felt sufficiently motivated to revert from my expanded version. The revised template has repeats as this is neccessary for accuracy. The original template (the one you have reveretd to) is extremely misleading as it gives no indication of the differences between the way in which the different birds are reared. So, readers do not know whether 'hock burns' applies to quail, duck, broilers or doves. By expanding the table into 'Bird' sections, it is possible to say which subjects apply to which bird. However, this also means that if a subject is relevant for several 'birds', e.g. debeaking, then it appears several times.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
This is not a case of my personal standards, but of common sense. A reader seeing a link "meat" under a heading "chicken", and another under "duck" would reasonably expect the articles to be about "chicken meat" and "duck meat" respectively. Having repeated links is confusing at best, and certainly doesn't provide any advantage. Even if different practices are applied to different species, the place to make that distinction is in the articles in question, not in the template. Links should not be repeated in navboxes. If the same link were given five times in a "See also" list, four of them would be removed, and the same should apply here. Please try to involve the WikiProjects, who will have experience with this sort of thing, and will have helpful opinions on what is worth linking and what is not. Remember that this is just a formalised "See also" section; is a link to First Broiler House really justified on the article Galliformes, for instance? --Stemonitis (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I've made comments to Chris about the use of the (original) template to tag bird families as poultry on the basis that one or two members of the group fit this description. He has accepted this as inappropriate, but I see now that the problem arises from the template, which lists these families. The new version is even worse, with the order Galliformes now added. The template should list only those taxon topics like Chicken and domestic goose, which are unequivocally poultry, and extend to higher taxa only if all are poultry (can't think of any offhand) The list of associated topics I'm not so fussed about, as long as they don't spread like a plague (as per the Galliformes example above. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Fools rush in... I've modified the template to remove inappropriate groups. I don't doubt that there are species omitted, but this is what we should be aiming for Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Using the principle of specificity at the risk of excluding other species, this template should now be using 'Domestic goose' 'Domestic duck' and 'Domesticated turkey' thereby not giving the reader a quick reference to the other species which are reared as poultry. In addition, not a single 'Poultry farming' entry relates to the Domestic pigeon and there is absolutely no indication of the purpose for which each bird is reared....the very reason for their existence__DrChrissy (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the discussion of the Poultry iii template being too large and repetitive. I spent a little time looking at other templates and very quickly found templates of the same size and others considerably larger. Poultry iii is 14 vertical lines.
Automobile configurations (15 vertical lines)
Automotive design (17 vertical lines)
Philosophy (20 vertical lines)
Clothing (33 vertical lines)
United States (31 vertical lines)
Theology (39 vertical lines)
and in the United Kingdom template the topics Geography, Economy, History, Politics are repeated 4 times for the 4 countries. It really did not take me long to find these suggesting they are representative of existing templates on Wikipedia.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Normally I would say that since we can collapse the template by default, more is better. However, I think Jim's version is the way to go here. My one concern is how we deal with overlap between this and the {{Chicken}} template. DrChrissy was just honoring my request for input, and it's still not clear if articles like Blinders (poultry) should be under the farming category here, or in the chicken-specific template. Before we expand more, we should consider the categorization carefully so we can avoid redundancy. Steven Walling • talk 22:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I feel that the current template is so restrictive that it is extremely unhelpful to the average reader. For example, it makes no distinction between broilers and chickens reared for eggs. It takes being directed to and reading through the Domestic pigeon article to be informed pigeon are reared for Squab. Poultry are reared for a reason; surely the reason for their being reared should be included in the template.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)