Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 7

< August 6	August 8 >

August 7 edit

Template:History and politics of Fiji edit

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:History and politics of Fiji (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

this is a remnant of the days when edit links would stack below the sidebars. now that this has been fixed, we don't need a wrapper to combine the two sidebars. I have already replaced it in the dozen articles which were using it. Frietjes (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused/redundant —PC -XT + 03:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:Botanist edit

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 no consensus to delete it, but there may be a possible compromise to change either (a) how the information is displayed, (b) where it is displayed, (c) to create an alternative version that could be used within the infobox, or (d) to create an alternative version which could be used to cite the author abbreviation within the prose. Please feel free to continue the discussion elsewhere. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

As can be seen at James Eustace Bagnall, botanical names are now part of the {{Authority control}} template. Such duplication is unnecessary. It may be that this template should be kept, and the property removed from the AC template. I'll post a pointer to this discussion, on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, get rid of {{Botanist}}, it's not nearly terse or opaque enough. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Stuartyeates, how does being opaque help improve Wikipedia? FloraWilde (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stuartyeates, were you being sardonic, or did you actually mean that as a delete !vote? —PC -XT + 08:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reasoning here doesn't make sense to me. The authority control template doesn't add the text, category, and reference found in the botanist template unless I'm mistaken. The purpose of the authority control template appears to be completely different from the botanist template... Rkitko ^(talk) 11:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The reasoning is "Such duplication is unnecessary". Which part of that are you having trouble with? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's being duplicated, exactly? The main purpose of the botanist template is to add standard text, a category, and a reference. If there's any overlap with {{Authority control}} then it was added later to {{botanist}}. The original template had nothing to do with what authority control does. If you're concerned about duplication, the proper remedy would be to remove the offending code from {{botanist}}, not delete it. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have you looked at the article named above? Can you not see any duplication? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have looked at the article. I see no duplication, {{botanist}} is used properly and nothing it does is duplicated by {{authority control}}. Instead of answering a question with a question, could you spell out exactly why you think {{botanist}} duplicates {{authority control}}? Rkitko ^(talk) 15:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        If you don't see the duplication there, with data both entered and displayed twice, then I can't help you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Snark is neither appreciated nor necessary here. Perhaps you should be WP:TROUTed for your inability to answer questions and justify the argument to delete the template. A botanist's abbreviation is not just a piece of interesting information to be used for authority control. It is used so widely in publications that it becomes a standard way to refer to that person. It's so important that we have redirects from the abbreviation to the biography article. A botanist's abbreviation is not just "data". The {{authority control}} template is at the very bottom of the article and usually ignored -- it contains links, not information. {{botanist}} is usually placed closed to the top of the article, sometimes in the lede -- it contains information, a category, and a reference. {{botanist}} does not perform the same function as or is used in the same way as {{authority control}}. There is no overlap or duplication. Rkitko ^(talk) 16:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        There was no snark. I literally cannot help you, if you cannot see (or will not acknowledge) what is in front of you. Nor am I to be trouted for not answering questions which are either pointed or rhetorical. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        as pointed out below, James Eustace Bagnall is a good example. I think we can get rid of one of the four times this information is provided in the article. I believe {{authority control}}/{{infobox scientist}} cover it quite well for anyone looking for the information. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        @Frietjes: - But James Eustace Bagnall is not a representative example. I would hazard a guess that most of the botanist articles I stumble upon (like Giovanni Arcangeli) do not have four mentions of the abbreviation but just one substantive instance. Let's admit one thing, at least -- {{authority control}} does not give substantial context for what the author abbreviation is so it certainly doesn't count as repetition of information; to be relevant, information needs context, not just a link amid a list of other (nearly) meaningless numbers. In the authority control template, it's used only as a data point. Most of the botanist articles don't have an infobox (I was responsible for reducing the author abbreviation parameters cluttered text back in 2007 in {{Infobox scientist}}) and most don't have a separate mention of the author abbreviation in the lede. Deleting this template would lead to most botanist articles having no mention of the abbreviation except for the underwhelming and confusing placement among the list of numbers on the authority control template at the very bottom of the article. Leaving that as the only mention is wholly undesirable, which is why I still see no clear evidence that the function and purpose of {{botanist}} is duplicated by abbreviations now being included in {{authority control}}. Rkitko ^(talk) 15:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        so, fix it by adding {{infobox scientist}} to Giovanni Arcangeli? seems to be a suitable solution to me, and with such a short article, the {{botanist}} is really overwhelming in that case. Frietjes (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        @Frietjes: I'm not at all satisfied with {{infobox scientist}}. There's not enough room in the template to include a sufficient explanation of what the author abbreviation is. {{botanist}} has three links: List of botanists by author abbreviation, author citation (botany), and botanical name while the infobox only has one of those. Are you volunteering to do the necessary work to add hundreds of infoboxes to existing articles? I've also run into a few rare editors who despise infoboxes and remove them from articles they've created -- a separate issue, but still a concern when you depend on them alone for this kind of information. Rkitko ^(talk) 15:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I would be happy with having a prerequisite for removal of this template to be that the abbreviation and reference provided by {{botanist}} is provided in either (a) the infobox, or (b) in an obvious way in the external links section. a bot could certain make sure this was the case before removing {{botanist}}. or, until that happens, {{botanist}} could be simply deprecated. Frietjes (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        As important as this information is, it should often be displayed in a section on the person's botanical work or even in the lede and not relegated to just the infobox or somewhere in the external links section (the purpose of the template was to offer information, not just a reference or external link). Remember that infoboxes are just summaries of article content. Rkitko ^(talk) 16:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there are shortcomings in the more widely-used templates, those should be fixed. It's not appropriate to have such domain-specific bits of chrome in our articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am strongly opposed to deleting this template. It's nothing to do with the authority control template; it's part of the textual information in the article. It connects with the various List of botanists by author abbreviation pages. I think Andy has misunderstood its purpose, including erroneously moving it out of the text. See Category:Botanists with author abbreviations for all the articles that use this template. Deleting it would be a major error! Peter coxhead (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't use templates for part of the textual information in the article; and part of the textual information in the article would not have a border. What is your proposed solution for the duplication noted? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - {{botanist}} is a 9-year old template and the format hasn't changed very much. The proper place to discuss the merits of formatting choices is Template talk:Botanist. Is there a policy or guideline that prohibits use of templates for short pieces of prose? If not, then this is not a good argument to delete. Rkitko ^(talk) 15:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The issue of formatting has only been raised to refute a statement. The issue being discussed is duplication (read "redundancy"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. This template is used in a very large number of biographies of botanists and has been for a long time. I don't see any rule that says that a template can't be used to insert text into an article. I personally don't really like the border – |border=0 suppresses it – however, other editors seem to like it. The template ensures that (a) there's a standard format for this important information (b) the information is consistently referenced (c) the article is added to the correct category. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - "very large number of biographies of botanists"? Compare Botanist with Authority control. {{Authority control}} is used in almost 100 times as many articles. Also every botanist should be in VIAF, so {{Authority control}} is going to be there anyway. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - As has been pointed out before, this is irrevelant. The two templates have different purposes. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also every botanist should be in VIAF - but they aren't, Stuartyeates. I tried a few and they weren't. Not every notable person who has described species has written a book, and VIAF doesn't index people who simply publish scientific papers (or, presumably, people who publish descriptions within works by others). Guettarda (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in the documentation of {{Authority control}} which addresses this. Am I missing something? Guettarda (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Guettarda: yes, the documentation requires some updates, but if you check d:Q9010691, you will see the botanist name in the Wikidata, which is then automagically found by {{authority control}} and presented at the bottom of James Eustace Bagnall.
Keep Having used this template on hundreds of pages, I think it would be a huge mistake to delete it. It is a very important part of botanist biographies, of which we (WP:Plants) are trying to encourage more. The final say should be with the Project.I also fail to see any duplication. If necessary it can be redesigned. I agree with Peter coxhead and vote: Do not delete. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - James Eustace Bagnall is a good example of why this template is completely redundant an unnecessary. The information about Bagnall's botanical name is repeated 4 times in the article. The abbreviation itself is given once in the lead text, once in the infobox (via the author_abbrev_bot param), once in the Authroity Control box (with reference), and yet again in the botanist template. This redundancy can be found on pretty much any botanist article. If the category isn't already transcluded by one of these other methods, it could easily be added. Kaldari (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kaldari: -- I noted this above, but I thought I'd mention it here too. James Eustace Bagnall is not a good representative of most botanist articles. Most don't have an infobox or if they do they don't use the authority parameter. Most don't also mention the authority abbreviation in the lede. If this template were deleted, most botanist articles would only mention the abbreviation once -- among a list of nearly meaningless numbers in the authority control template at the bottom of the article with no context or explanation, making it more difficult for people clicking on Arcang. to know why they were redirected to Giovanni Arcangeli. Go ahead, click through random botanist articles in Category:Botanists with author abbreviations and you'll see that most use only {{botanist}} for this information. The purpose and function of {{botanist}} is not duplicated by {{authority control}}. Rkitko ^(talk) 15:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: I've also found botanist (or mycologist) articles where the only mention of the abbreviation is {{botanist}}. Augusta Vera Duthie has the authority control template but her abbreviation is not in it. Lekh Raj Batra doesn't have the authority control template nor any other mention of the abbreviation. Rkitko ^(talk) 15:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - fixed both of those (dysfunction of being a gnome). Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hah! Thanks. If you ever get bored of gnome work elsewhere, you could always start at the beginning of the alphabet in Category:Botanists with author abbreviations and work your way through the category. Enjoy :-) Rkitko ^(talk) 16:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete and replace with {{authority control}}/{{infobox scientist}} per Andy, Kaldari, and others above. Frietjes (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no logic in deleting this template and trying to use authority control instead. It's been pointed out repeatedly that the template produces text, not metadata. There's an argument for {{infobox scientist}}, perhaps, but again as has been pointed out, this isn't used as widely as {{botanist}}. One way forward may be to have a version of {{botanist}} (and {{botanist2}}, by the way) which can be placed inside the infobox. The citation is important if the information is not repeated in the text and referenced there.

Incidentally, there's no reason not to repeat the botanical abbreviation in the lead section if it's important; the lead should only contain information elsewhere in the article. However, I don't now think it's sufficiently important to be there in the case of James Eustace Bagnall. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the abbreviation should either be listed in the infobox, or in the article body if the article doesn't have an infobox. Kaldari (talk) 07:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the template and remove the redundant info from the AC template. Redundancy is not a good reason to delete this template, especially when not all articles exhibit the redundancy. Initially, the nom did not seem sure whether this template should be deleted or the info should be removed from the AC template. If anything should go, it should be the info from the Authority Control bar, which is far less useful to readers. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 01:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It reflects poorly on you to make such absurd proposals. We are plainly not going to stop using the more generalised template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - O that's okay, Cunningham, things reflect poorly on me all the time – I'm used to it. Also, please note that I did not suggest to stop using the AC bar, merely to rm the redundant botanists' link. Try a reading comprehension course or two. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 13:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Whatever is decided here should be summarised on WP:Plants as a style guide to those writing botanist biographies. The lead is supposed to summarise the page, therefore one cannot say that information in it is repetitive, duplicative or redundant. The same argument goes for the infobox, which I believe should be a feature of all botanist biography pages. I simply don't see many readers learning anything from Authority Control. That leaves the botanist template as the main source of information in the text. As I have said before, if it is not considered ideal, then let us modify it. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These templates produce different information, with different presentation, using different wording. One is in plain English, the other is not. Brief plain English almost always improves Wikipedia.

The Botanist template produces this -

"The standard author abbreviation Bagn. is used to indicate this individual as the author when citing a botanical name.[1]"

The Authority control template produces this -

"Authority control VIAF 96886663 Botanist Bagn."

Many users will arrive at this article from some botanical reference citing the individual as the author of a botanical name. This lets them see immediately see "this individual as the author when citing a botanical name". FloraWilde (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Plain English" should be added as prose into the article, not as an awkward boxed line of text. Kaldari (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should Plain English not be in boxes? Why do you say this is awkward? FloraWilde (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the rendering from the Authority control template is far from comprehensible to an ordinary reader, and the clickable "botanist" might be expected to go to a page that explains what a botanist is, not how author citations work. The note at the bottom of the infobox at James Eustace Bagnall, "Author abbrev. (botany) Bagn." is somewhat better, but it still doesn't explain in plain English what the Botanist template does, that these abbreviations are associated with plant names, and not with, say, the person's books. Ideally, all these abbreviations should have redirects to the person; that would make little sense if the abbreviation was then only to be found in the Authority control section of the page. The Authority control section relates to finding people's work in libraries, not to finding plants. In fact, the authority associated with a plant name may not be the same as the listed author of the work in which the description appeared, so there is potential to increase confusion. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasoning of FloraWilde - we are here to serve readers, and this serves to clearly highlight a key fact about botanists which the other template makes a little unclear. Nothing will be gained this highly used and highly useful template, there is literally no benefit in deleting it. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 20:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Even though it may need modification, so do the templates that do similar things. I say similar because I don't consider them necessarily redundant, since usage doesn't entirely overlap. This template looks a little funny, and could be improved. I still struggle to use Authority Control, which I think of as a footer infobox. It can pull from wikidata, which is generally a plus. The infobox may even need a little modification, as well, though it is my favorite of the three. If this template is deleted, please substitute it, first. Thanks. —PC -XT + 01:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep per FloraWilde. And in this example, Bagn., the template:Botanist link is sourced and easy to edit. The module:authority link is sourced but first you have to figuere out that its from wikidata and then find the entry and then hope it sourced. Its very diffucult to edit. Christian75 (talk) 08:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Botanist Author Abbreviations were invented as a printed database by botanists for botanists at least as early as 1976. The database is now maintained by the International Plant Names Index. The only way to get included in this database is to have validly published the name of a taxon - see Authors of Plant Names. On the other hand Authority control was invented by librarians for librarians. The Wikipedia page on Authority control (not on the template of the same name) does not include the International Plant Names Index - see Authority control. While Botanist Author Abbreviations are similar to Authority control reference numbers, they are not the same. For one thing Botanist Author Abbreviations are human readable, Authority control reference numbers are not. That is a Wikipedia reader has a chance of understanding who Bagn. is but does not have a chance of understanding who 96886663 is. IMHO Botanist Author Abbreviations should never have been added to the Authority control template, and this discussion should be about removing Botanist Author Abbreviations from the Authority control template, not about deleting the Botanist template.
If the decision is made to delete the Botanist template then it should not be done before an alternative means is provided for placing an agreed common text on the biographies of botanists that describes what a Botanist Author Abbreviation is and what the abbreviation is for the botanist in question. The alternative means should also place the article in the Category:Botanists with author abbreviations. Oh, that is what the Botanist template already does.
To paraphrase "If it is not broken, don't try to fix it": If it is needed, don't delete it. However I believe that the Authority control template is broken - stuff has been added to it that should not have been added to it - it does need fixing. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision to template edit

As noted above, this is an old template and the default presentation of the information in a paragraph with a border is rather unusual now. I've added a parameter to the template, |inline=yes, so that the information simply appears inline. I suspect this, or at least the absence of a border, should become the default, but we can discuss this later at the template's talk page. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.