Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 14

October 14Edit

Template:Argyle GoolsbyEdit

Used in only two articles which link to and from each other without the need of the navbox. Does/would not need to be transcluded in the articles for the "associated acts". StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:UnbalancedEdit

Propose merging Template:Unbalanced with Template:POV.

These seem to be about the same issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose – Unbalanced means the affected area is written in multiple viewpoints, while POV means the affected area is written in one viewpoint. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't see those meanings attached to either of the templates in their documentation. {{POV}} is regularly used on articles that describe multiple viewpoints, but where one is given preference i.e. it is unbalanced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    • We also have a number of articles using both templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think the problem is that the template documentation makes them sound the same. Articles can have serious problems of balance without necessarily expressing an unduly (un)favourable point of view. For example, an article on a US Olympic gold medal winner that ignored their sporting career before their Olympic triumph and dwelt on their appearances on Hollywood Squares would be unbalanced. It is good to have both templates, and fix the documentation. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
    • It is not just their documentation which makes them sound the same (though, since you mention it, that of {{Unbalanced}} talks almost exclisively about point of view problems); it is also their content: "This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints." & "The neutrality of this article is disputed." To most readers, these are the same thing. Note that the former is "unbalanced towards certain viewpoints", not "unbalanced in its areas of coverage". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Toddy1, in your example surely the correct template to use on the article would be Template:Undue weight? 192.76.8.82 (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Template:Undue weight is for when articles discuss one aspect of the article in too much detail (i.e. that aspect of the article should be trimmed). But if an article is unbalanced, what is needed is for other important aspects/viewpoints to be expanded/included.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
        • Again, this is not suppoted by the documentation of {{Undue weight}}, which includes " If an article is tagged with this, improve the article by adding content important to the topic...". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
        • The undue weight template specifically mentions that both adding and removing content are appropriate ways of cleaning up the article, it doesn't specify that it's exclusively for articles that require trimming. Even if that was the intention I'm not sure that it is a particularly useful distinction to make, especially if it results in creating overlapping clean-up templates. In the majority of unbalanced articles, clean-up will involve both the addition and removal of content, not exclusively one or the other. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I am not seeing a useful difference. William Avery (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. The 'When to use' sections are near identical. The 'When to remove' sections are identical. These templates refer to the same issue and the same underlying Wikipedia policies. I'm not seeing any value in distinguishing between articles which only contain one point of view and those that are biased in favour of one, both will require similar clean-up. Likewise, it seems to me that for articles that cover certain areas in excessive depth without pushing a particular view would be better served by Template:Undue weight. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per Toddy1. Firestar464 (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Africa topicEdit

Propose merging Template:Africa topic with Template:HIV/AIDS in Africa.
There are two duplicate templates here, Template:HIV/AIDS in Africa (used on one article), and {{Africa topic|HIV/AIDS in}}.

The problem with "Africa topic" is that it is extremely hard to edit. See for example HIV/AIDS in Ivory Coast. When you click on the edit link you get taken to the main page for Template:Africa topic, which doesn't make any mention of HIV AIDS. This means that the HIV/AIDS template is very likely to fall out of date and out of use because most editors - including I expect registered editors - are going to have no idea how to get to the "Africa topic" HIV template to edit it.

So I think the HIV/AIDS templates should be merged, and the template that remains should be Template:HIV/AIDS in Africa because it is easier to access and formatted like a regular template. Tom (LT) (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

As you say, HIV/AIDS in Ivory Coast did not call this template , but {{Africa topic}}. This is a general purpose template for all "topics in Africa", e.g. {{Africa topic|Commerce}}. {{HIV/AIDS in Africa}} should call {{Africa topic}} I believe, to ensure that we don't duplicate the country metadata. Example, when SOuth Sudan was created, it only needed to be added to {{Africa topic}}, not the dozens of Africa-by-country navboxes.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC).
This is how it looked when it used the meta-template. We could make displaying red-links optional. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC).
As Rich Farmbrough notes, Africa topic is a meta-template. There's nothing to merge here, and the question is if HIV/AIDS should have its own dedicated template or just use the general one. CMD (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis I am confused. As I explain above there are two navboxes above that are duplicates, as I clearly state in the lead, so I would like to discuss merging them. given what you say here, what is the correct venue if a "meta template" is used and duplicates an existing navbox? It seems like you are telling me there is no such venue. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@Rich Farmbrough I wish you hadn't edited the article. The article before you replaced the template we are discussing is here: Special:Permalink/853007723. It is very difficult to describe the difficulties in editing the meta template without this example. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Africa Topic is not just used for HIV/AIDS, but for a huge number of different article series. The correct venue for mergers is here, but in this case there is no HIV/AIDS text or context in the Africa topic template at all. The template just appends a string, say "HIV/AIDS in", in front of all the country names. CMD (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
With regard to the templates themselves - I wanted to edit the list of relevant people in Africa part of the HIV/AIDS template. However I am completely unable to because the 'edit' link for the meta template goes to the overall meta template, and it is very, very unclear how to add an additional section. In fact it seems like forever more there will be no ability for normal readers or editors to add any topics to the meta template? The meta template HIV/AIDS should be replaced with the normal run of the mill template. The slight problem of name changing when a country is formed or changes its name doesn't outweigh the general principle of being being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit (WP:5P3). --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps the {{Africa topic}} template (and other related templates) could be upgraded to enable the addition of a custom additional row at the bottom. Then you could have {{HIV/AIDS in Africa}} that calls {{Africa topic}} but adds another row. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose "Country topic" are broad in coverage and generally dont list sub articles of sub articles.--Moxy 🍁 06:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose the proposal, but there is a problem to be solved here. Could we split Africa topic into a core which provides a bare list of links (
    • [[Foo in Algeria|Algeria]]
    • [[Foo in Angola|Angola]]
    • ...
    ), and a wrapper which adds the navbox decoration? Then HIV/AIDS in Africa could call the core to transclude the list without repeating its logic, wrapping it in a custom navbox which also links relevant people etc. We would probably only need to do the sovereign states (list1 parameter to Navbox). Certes (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Great idea, I support this. Combines the best of both worlds - can standardise and update country titles, but also customise the specific template (with, eg, relevant regional organisations, initiatives and people). --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Insect-borne diseasesEdit

This template isn't actually used on any articles. I propose that the template is deleted and the content, which is quite encyclopedic, is changed instead to a list: List of insect-borne diseases Tom (LT) (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Ambivalent. It's fine as a navbox, or it'd be fine as a list; WP:CLN. If Mthoma15 is still around and has a preference, I'll defer to that. If this is kept as a navbox, it should be added to a bunch of pages, since it looks quite useful. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I think there's way too much going on there for a navbox. List is likely more appropriate. Tom (LT) any thoughts? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your ping. Agree a list is more appropriate, hence my proposal above :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Tick and mite-borne diseases and infestationsEdit

I propose a split to {{Tick-borne diseases and infestations}} and {{Mite-related diseases and infestations}}. If this template has to be divided into tick and mite things, may as well be two separate templates. This at least will make navigation easier and also make the template focuses more clear. Tom (LT) (talk) 06:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Current COVID-19Edit

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).

The result of the discussion was redirect to Template:Current. Regarding the continued presence of now-{{Current}} on existing pages, that can be adjusted by an editor if they feel those usages no longer comply with the guidelines on those templates, or further discussed on a per-article basis per the normal editing process. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This template survived an AfD back in March, but I'm renominating since I'd hope it's unsuitability has become much clearer with time. Per Template:Current#Guidelines, the current templates are not supposed to serve as general disclaimers (see also: WP:NODISCLAIMERS), nor are they meant to merely mark that an article contains content related to the news. They are also not supposed to appear on a page for more than a day or so. Given all this, it's evident that every one of the remaining ~60 transclusions is invalid, even putting aside that COVID-19 is more of an era at this point than a singular breaking news event. As I argued last time, I also feel that this template is an unneeded fork of {{Current}}. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  • I am happy that we are discussing this at a less frenetic time.
  • I have removed the template from a number of pages where it was definitely no longer appropriate.
  • I have removed some un-necessary wording I'm sure the template could be simplified further.
  • It should be removed from any article where there is no longer rapidly breaking news (arguably, I suppose, most or all of them).
  • We could consider making it a redirect to {{Current}}. This would be useful for either or both of the following reasons:
    • If there is no need (any longer) to distinguish between COVID rapidly developing situations,
    • To preserve history pages as readable.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC).
Further thoughts:
  • If there's disclaimer text, it should be removed.
  • One of the reasons I created this was that {{Current}} was inappropriate, as it has very short term applicability. While I am not overly enamoured of the application of these types of templates anyway, I felt since we were using some variety of template, and over a longer period, it should not be one of the existing short-term templates.
  • There have been changes to the template, but I was hoping they would be in the direction of simplification and shortening, the net tendency has been to complexity and lengthening.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC).
  • Keep for now. If a vaccine comes out in 2021 then this discussion will be moot anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Rich. Information coming out has stabilized compared to when the template was first made, so I agree it has lived beyond its usefulness. However we should keep history pages readable, and it's possible that isolated events will find the template useful as news breaks. For those purposes, a redirect to {{Current}} seems like the best solution. Wug·a·po·des 18:26, 17 October 2020 (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).