Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 23



Template:2018 IPL match 1

 * 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 relisted on 2020 October 31. Primefac (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2018_IPL_match_1
 * 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).

Template:Fluorides

 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC) A user asked me on my talk page if this overlaps too strongly with Template:Fluorine compounds. This one seems to be specific to binary fluorides. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 20:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Fluorides
 *  Merge  ch to neutral, follow content people (like G.B. below), discuss via (content) talkpage, not here. No admin job here. Why did you not use the Merge from/Merge to route? I'm sure people from WT:CHEMICALS can work this out by content. The problem with XfD is that it tends to give undue weight to drive-by !votes. -DePiep (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep separate, as Template:Fluorine compounds is already too big. Compounds of fluorine is really too big a scope for a navigation template. Template:Fluorides is about the right size for this kind of template. Template:Fluorine compounds should be split into smaller pieces to be useful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is what I meant when I said: let's leave it to the pro's :-) -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Graeme Bartlett. Double sharp (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Graeme Bartlett. Since the page of Template:Fluorine compounds is too big, it may be better to exclude the simple fluorides (F−) part. --Leiem (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Graeme Bartlett. I think Template:Fluorine compounds can exclude binary fluorine compounds (they included in Template:Fluorides). --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep after much editing. Template:fluorides include only neutral binary fluorine compounds and a link to Fluoride from the title and another to the compounds of fluorine somewhere in the template. Template:fluorine compounds for everything else that are already included. and then includes a link to the compounds of fluorine from the title, fluoride somewhere.-- Ktsquare (talk) 01:24, 27 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).

Template:Defn/doc transclusion

 * 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 speedy delete. G7 Izno (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC) Unused old /doc. Gonnym (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Defn/doc transclusion
 * Delete. I'd actually meant to speedy this (as non-controversial maint.), and just forgot it was there.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:57, 23 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).

Template:Unbalanced

 * 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 keep separate. The majority of opponents to the proposal feel that any shortcomings and "duplicity" between the two templates can be cleared up by expanding and/or clarifying the documentation to make it more clear when to use each template. If there are still concerns about usage following these updates/changes, there is no prejudice against re-nomination, but please give a few months for both the changes to be made and to potentially demonstrate that there has been an impact. Primefac (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Unbalanced - 543 transclusions
 * POV - 6,676 transclusions

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)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * 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 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)
 * I wonder what you would all thing about doing this the other way around. There are two major categories of NPOV problems.  One is that the article's contents are unbalanced (e.g., Cancer is all about death rates and doesn't talk about treatment or survival).  The other is that the article's wording is poor, so you have tone problems (e.g., "Cancer is the worst disease in the world").   What I like about unbalanced compared to the very generic POV tag, and why I want to Keep it separate, is that it is easier to figure out what the problem is:  too much or to little of something, rather than non-neutral phrasing.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Lack of balance and lack of neutrality are not the same thing. As Template:Unbalanced says, Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints. But the issue with a POV article is not usually a lack of balancing content, it's that there is POV content that needs to be rewritten or removed. The neutrality template is needed to address this problem. Gatoclass (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As Toddy1 and Gatoclass described: the issues they address are fundamentally different, despite what documentation might imprecisely say. A merge would not help a potential editor to find the problematic issue (balancing POV by adding more POVs?). -DePiep (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And why should we not believe the documentation? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not about 'belief'. Documentation is a secondary description, derived from primary WP:Policy. Documentation is not, eh, certified and so can be imprecise in its decription (while helpful for its local purpose). So we should go to the policy: say WP:POV, WP:BALASP. Also, cherrypicked quotes from doc (or policy) should be treated with care, because context might matter. Even better, a first task is to get a grasp of the policy in full. In total: a documentation, written with a different purpose, unscritinised and under a different title, is not a good judge or guideline in this matter. -DePiep (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, which policy says these templates are used for different purposes?  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Despite the shared documentation and the similarity in ultimate function, the two templates are worded differently, and as pointed out above that has different implications for the exact nature of the issues that each template identifies. – Uanfala (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose and clarify usage. It's clear from this discussion that there is confusion about appropriate usage of these templates, and to the extent that those of us dedicated enough to come here are confused, those just casually employing the templates are surely all the more confused. I hope that when this is closed, the closer will modify the documentation or notify others that consensus exists to do so.
 * Regarding usage, the distinction I'm seeing emerge here is that Unbalanced applies only when there are issues with the amount of text devoted to different sides of an issue, whereas POV applies when there are issues with the language employed within some portion of the text, and perhaps also unbalanced issues. So unbalanced denotes a narrower issue. In practice, given transclusion counts, it seems many unbalanced articles are tagged with POV, but I don't think that's a huge issue. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - disputing an article's neutrality (POV) is much stronger than suggesting not all viewpoints are equally treated (Unbalanced). Having both serves distinct needs. CapnZapp (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support merging Unbalanced to POV: I do not find the suggested differences between Unbalanced and POV to be meaningful. I also think that both templates should serve to point people towards the talk page, where the specific issues should be explained in as much detail as possible, or be under discussion. In practice, people are often too quick to tag and run away rather than engaging meaningfully in complex problems with articles. Adding a level of nuance to the difference between Unbalanced/POV is still unhelpful in this case because a tagger should still make it clear specifically what views are over/under-represented or omitted or specifically what POV the text has. This explanation would render the difference between Unbalanced and POV unimportant. — Bilorv ( talk ) 03:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope you can agree that WP:BALASP is more specific than WP:POV (as the WP-page structure illustrates). Now if you ask for the tagging editor being more specific, why not have a more specific template available? Or would it be useful to have only one template "Something wrong with this page", and let the editor work it out? -DePiep (talk) 09:51, 30 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).

Template:Tick and mite-borne diseases and infestations

 * 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 split as proposed. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC) 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)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Tick and mite-borne diseases and infestations

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Maybe if you create those two templates? Then maybe you will see more discussion, since voicing support for delete won't lose any info. At worst, the two templates you create will be ones deleted. CapnZapp (talk) 12:45, 30 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).

Template:View from the Mirror

 * 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 delete. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC) Currently unused. Was used in The View from the Mirror, but replaced with Three Worlds Cycle, which contains all the links this does. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * View from the Mirror
 * Speedy delete. CapnZapp (talk) 12:42, 30 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).

Template:Rio Rita

 * 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 delete. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC) per WP:NENAN. Only 3 links. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Rio Rita
 * Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:30, 23 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).