Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 7

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 6 June 8 >

June 7 edit

Template:Two digit edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 after replacing with {{padleft: ... |2|0}}, {{padleft: ... |3|0}}, and {{padleft: ... |4|0}}. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary wrappers for {{padleft:}}. "Two digit" is unused after a refactoring of {{TC Decades}}. "Three digit" is used in a few Islam-related templates but should be easily replaced. "Four digit" is more widely used and may be a little more effort to clear up but might as well be nominated now. User:GKFXtalk 20:46, 7 June 2021 (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).

Template:Gender unclear edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 23:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template appears unused and seemingly encourages non-compliance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Gender-neutral language. The template discourages gender-neutral language and implies it should be removed. It also does not acknowledge that subjects may use neutral pronouns such as they, which Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Gender identity would dictate editors use. Refer to template talk page for prior discussion. ExoticViolet (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Unused. ExoticViolet, if you want the category to be deleted. It goes under a separate discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The instructions at WP:TFDHOW under Related categories explains If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add [the Catfd template] after the Tfd2 template but before the text of your rationale.... The corresponding Category:Wikipedia articles with unclear gender category is exclusively populated by this template. Could you confirm whether it still needs a separate discussion? ExoticViolet (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The category does not need a separate discussion, as it will be speedy deleted as G8 if the template is deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A subject's gender being unspecified is seemingly very rare and this template only focuses on he/him and she/her - per nom. Remagoxer (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Gender-neutral language rightly means that this template should not be used on subjects which have no gender (ships, countries, trees, etc). It does not preclude the use of gender-specific pronouns on subjects which do have gender; chiefly people. The template should be updated to include "them/ they" style pronouns; this is not a deletion issue. The lack of current use is normal for a cleanup template, whose use on any given article should always be transient. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The lack of current use is not inherently an issue, yes. It is not clear to me that this template sees any regular use, transient or otherwise. In either case, Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Gender-neutral language encourages us to prefer gender neutral language when it is clear and precise. In the unlikely event where a human subject is notable enough to be written about on Wikipedia, without any clear indication of their pronouns, it would seem appropriate to use gender neutral language to refer to them. Such use appears to be promoted in the Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language essay. ExoticViolet (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the entire content of MoS#Gender-neutral language: "Use gender-neutral language – avoiding the generic he and generic she, for example – where this can be done with clarity and precision. This does not apply to direct quotations or the titles of works (The Ascent of Man), which should not be altered, or to wording about one-gender contexts, such as an all-female school (When any student breaks that rule, she loses privileges).
    References to space programs, past, present and future, should use gender-neutral phrasing: human spaceflight, robotic probe, uncrewed mission, crewed spacecraft, piloted, unpiloted, astronaut, cosmonaut, not manned or unmanned. Direct quotations and proper nouns that use gendered words should not be changed, like Manned Maneuvering Unit.
    Ships may be referred to using either neuter forms ("it", "its") or feminine forms ("she", "her", "hers"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history § Pronouns."     It says absolutely nothing about articles on people, which is where this template is intended to be used, and where gendered pronouns are the norm. Are you seriously suggesting that the MoS mandates that we should not refer to Elvis Presley as "he" or Kate Bush as "she"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore your misunderstanding of the purpose of this template - and an example of its use - has already been explained to you, by User:Genericusername57, when you raised the matter in April, at Template talk:Gender unclear#Appropriateness of template given MOS:GNL: "The template is used for biographical articles where the person's gender is known, but not communicated clearly by the article, e.g., Li Shouxin (politician)...". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was about to suggest updating the template to add they/them pronouns, but then I realized any subject with substantial, notable coverage will have their pronouns quite apparent, making this a very unusual, specific problem. Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 16:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's not the case, as the Li Shouxin (politician) example, quoted above, illustrates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Li Shouxin (Q16239737) on Wikidata has sex or gender (P21): male (Q6581097). As a one-sentence stub article, there is no need to use pronouns. There may be a case where there actually is ambiguous gender of a notable person, but it is probably very rare. Tol | Talk | Contribs 19:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • This template has nothing to do with the case where the gender of a person is "ambiguous"; it is for when the article on Wikipedia leaves their gender unclear. As does the article on Li (whose gender value on Wikidata is, incidentally, uncited). That is why it is called "Gender unclear and not "Gender ambiguous", and why its content says "The gender of this article's subject is not apparent", and not "The gender of this article's subject is ambiguous". Your assertion that "there is no need to use pronouns" simply because the article is a short stub is baseless; indeed, the stub template on that article, like on all stubs, says "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          If an article is a stub, by definition it has lots of important content missing, in which case gender is just one missing thing among many and not worthy of its own template. It would be at bigger stubs/start class where such a template would become worthwhile, surely? User:GKFXtalk 19:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is partisan canvassing for this discussion, here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted a similar request for input to the template author (your) talk page, that of all recent (past ~12mo) editors (1) of the template, that of participants (2, 3) in the erroneous RFC discussion, as well as to WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Notifying interested editors and projects whose scope the Template for Discussion falls in, is best practice per the TfD guidelines not canvassing. ExoticViolet (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Notifying interested editors is indeed permissible, but I didn't simply say you were canvassing, I said there was partisan canvassing in a comment where you made the assertion that the template in question is "claimed to embody a bias against people of certain genders". Such partisan canvassing is expressly deprecated, bby the very guidelines you cite . Your response was to post a long and accusatory screed on my talk page falsely accusing me, in pointing this out, of making a personal attack. You also falsely accused me of making the claim of without evidence, despite me having linked to the section where you did so (and which I now quote). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the simple reason that this isn't an issue. In the unlikely event that there's enough RS to write a bio on someone but the RS don't establish their gender, then the article should match that. If a cited RS establishes the gender but the article for some reason doesn't reflect that, WP:SOFIXIT. And if the cited RS don't establish gender but there's an RS somewhere out there that would, well, SOFIXIT still applies to an extent ("SOFINDIT"), but also, I'm not sure it really harms the encyclopedia to fail to note someone's gender, any more than it's an issue to not note someone's ethnicity, religion, etc., outside of maybe a few specific contexts like athletics... But I can't imagine a situation where the RS wouldn't note gender for someone in a gender-segregated field. (Note: I only became aware of this discussion because I have Andy's talk page watchlisted. (I auto-watch all pages that I edit.)) -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 20:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary, largely per Tamzin above. When might this template be used? Here are the scenarios I can think of:
    • The gender of the subject of a Wikipedia article is not reported in reliable sources. That's okay! Per MOS:ID and MOS:GENDERID, we refer to people using gendered words only if they reflect their gender identity/identification as reported in recent reliable sources. If it isn't reported, it follows that we should not refer to people using gendered words, i.e. should not do what this template suggests. Instead, we should use the singular they, a gender-neutral pronoun.
    • The gender of the subject of a Wikipedia article is reported ambiguously in reliable sources. Incidentally, this happened with Tillie Kottmann, an article I created. The article ended up using the pronoun they even though Kottmann also uses she, it, and fae pronouns, and some reliable sources that are older and/or not in English use the pronoun he, because the newest reliable sources at the time of creation generally referred to them with they/them pronouns; this continues to be the case. That's because of the MOS guidelines mentioned in the previous bullet point as well as a general desire to avoid unnecessarily using multiple pronouns for one person in one article for the reader's sake. I see no use-case for this vague cleanup template in rare cases where gender is reported ambiguously, because either it's clear what gendered terms follow the MOS guidelines (WP:SOFIXIT if they aren't the ones being used already) or it isn't, in which case an editor should not do what this template suggests, instead defaulting to they/them pronouns per the previous bullet and intentionally leaving the subject's gender ambiguous because doing otherwise would be original research in addition to violating the relevant MOS guidelines.
    • The gender of the subject of a Wikipedia article is reported clearly in reliable sources, but the terms used in the article are wrong or unnecessarily ambiguous. I would imagine that this is rarely the case, but assuming it's something that happens or has happened, this template still should not be used. That's because in this situation the problem is not ambiguity but incorrectness. Replacing mixed usage of they and he by only using one or the other solves ambiguity, but it doesn't solve the problem if the subject of the article is Michael Spivak, for example.

Wow, that got longer than I expected. Q.E.D., I guess. For disclosure, I came to this discussion from the article Anti-Defamation League via Pigsonthewing's talk page, but did not intend to hound that user, I clicked on the discussion because it looked interesting and am participating because it is. ezlevtlk
ctrbs 05:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your imagined scenarios are incomplete; and most assume that the issue relates to lack of clarity about gender in sources. This template was created for use-cases where the subject's gender is or may be unambiguous and determinable from reliable sources, but is not included in Wikipedia. Consider, for instance: The subject's gender is not specified in the article; sources are behind a paywall or ...sources are in a language other than English. See also the Li Shouxin, example given above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I considered these possibilities, but that's where I come back to my question of "Why does it matter?" It doesn't matter to our readers; you can write a perfectly good article without ever noting someone's gender. Like I said, an article is no more incomplete without gender than it is without religion, ethnicity, etc. All useful to know, but far from critical. Gender is only relevant because we write in a (somewhat) gendered language. We want to avoid editors using gendered pronouns on someone whose gender is not immediately apparent. But we usually don't use amboxes just to keep editors from making bad edits. Instead we use hidden-text notes, editnotices, etc. And if it's about getting attention about the need for one specific bit of information, I don't see why gender should trump all the other things one might want someone to dig through paywalled/non-English sources for. Instead one can just use talk, or ask at a relevant projectspace page, same as with any other query. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 08:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If gender is unambiguous in the most recent reliable sources but the article uses ambiguous gendered terms, the problem isn't ambiguity but rather incorrectness per MOS:ID and MOS:GENDERID. If gender is ambiguous or not reported in reliable sources, the article subject's gender should be left ambiguous through the use of non-gendered terms per the same guidelines. That's why I'm arguing for deletion; in addition to Tamzin's explanation above, which I agree with, I just don't see how this template would be useful guidance to editors in either case. (Wow, I could've just written that in my !vote, it would've been much shorter!) ezlevtlk
    ctrbs     16:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have the article Non-binary gender which discusses this, and we have the ever expanding List of people with non-binary gender identities that suggest that there is a use for this template. The idea that this isn't an issue is woefully out of touch with reality. As far as "unnecessary", well nothing on wiki is necessary, with the possible exception of the WP:5P. I think we'll have a greater and greater need for such a template as we progress. — Ched (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ched: Can you explain how you see this tying in to articles on nonbinary people? That seems to be the opposite of the contexts that have been discussed so far. If someone is established to be nonbinary, then their gender is clear. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 14:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how nonbinary is "clear" with regards to gender, but if you're content with that proclomation, that's fine. You may want to read Gender for clarification of my views, but I'm not here for any "did too .. did not" discussion. To each their own. — Ched (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Nonbinary" is a broad category, sure. But whatever nonbinary identity someone has said they have (even if it's as broad as just "nonbinary"), then that's not unclear. I'm afraid I don't follow the rest of your response, and I'm still not entirely clear on what circumstance you think it would make sense to use this template on the biography of a nonbinary person. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 15:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    When the article content is of the form (and no more than) "Li Shouxin (Chinese: 李守信; pinyin: Li Shǒuxìn, born October 1954 in Hejian) is a Chinese politician who has been serving as party secretary of Shandong University since October 2011". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Li nonbinary? My question to Ched is specifically how they see this template being used in the context of someone who is known to be nonbinary. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 19:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I say Li is nonbinary? I said (emphasis added) "When the article content is of the form.... Your question was about the circumstance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My question was as to what circumstance you think it would make sense to use this template on the biography of a nonbinary person. (emphasis added). I understand the use case you describe with articles like Li's. I'm saying that I don't understand the use case that Ched is envisioning here with articles about nonbinary people. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 19:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes; that was your question; and my answer to that question was that it would make sense to use this template on the biography of a nonbinary person, in the circumstance that the biography of that nonbinary person is of the form of the example that I gave. I really don't see why you can't accept that I answered your question even if you don't agree with my answer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you didn't answer my question. I understand that your use case for an article like Li's works if Li is nonbinary, just as well as if they're binary male or binary female. But Ched seems to envision a usage of this template that is specifically for nonbinary people. That's what I'm asking about. I didn't expect you to have an answer to this; their comment doesn't seem to have much to do with the rationale you've put forward for keeping. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 21:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ezlevtlk
ctrbs 18:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To the extent the template needs some additions to encompass people who are nonbinary or do not want to provide a gender identity, that becomes a WP:SOFIXIT issue. The purpose of a template like this is to identify those biographies where there has not been any identification made. As such, it is a useful tool to identify articles that need additional reliable sources and expansion to present a complete picture of the individual discussed in the article. Montanabw(talk) 20:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; SOFIXIT applies to the alleged problems with the template. The claim that the template is not necessary because editors should just "fix" the problem it identifies applies to literally any problem template; we aren't deprecating those, so it doesn't apply here. The claim that it's totally okay for an article to be ambiguous about someone's gender is personal opinion with which many others (including myself) and many readers would disagree. Gender (and sex) hugely impact one's opportunities, experiences in the world, and the meaning of one's accomplishments (think of the concern over the relative lack of women editors or about the first woman to do whatever). Gender and sex are major characteristics of the vast majority of people, and an article that avoids that topic is simply poorly written and should be fixed (or tagged for someone else to fix). Crossroads -talk- 03:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tamzin and Ezlev. GreenComputer (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep since as discussed gender matters, but I do wonder how often this situation actually occurs. User:GKFXtalk 22:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The only plausible use case is for when an article is so short that there hasn't been an opportunity to refer to the subject using a pronoun. But in that case, the gender is one among many important pieces of information that are missing, and singling it out with a big template like that is bizarre. So there's next to no scope for appropriate use. On the other hand, there's plenty of room for inappropriate use: on articles about non-binary people, or about people whose gender is actually unknown. – Uanfala (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, as pointed out above, this template is currently unused, and more potential for inappropriate use than appropriate use. Frietjes (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2021 (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).

Template:Str crop edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barely used (~300 transclusions) and redundant to {{#invoke:String|sub}}/{{str sub}}/{{#invoke:ustring|sub}} etc. Also the name is unclear, there is no reason to expect "{{str crop|12345678|2}}" to produce 123456 versus 3456 or 12 etc. User:GKFXtalk 14:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep part of a suite of templates. No valid reason to delete. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That suite of templates is all redundant to {{#invoke:String|sub}}, and redundancy is a valid reason to delete. I’m never going to TfD e.g. {{str left}} because it’s so widely used and is perfectly clear in its meaning, but we don’t need to keep the whole suite of templates. The fragmented nature of that suite encourages unreadable code like {{str crop|{{str right|{{{x}}}|y}}|z}} rather than more sensible {{#invoke:string|sub|{{{x}}}|y|-z}} etc. User:GKFXtalk 15:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see what makes the example you call unreadable unreadable. It's a different syntax, and IMO not significantly harder to understand. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This might be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but the reason I don't like the two-template version are (in no particular order) worse performance, contributes to the general excess of brackets in complex templates, it takes a bit of effort to see which of y and z corresponds to crop and right, and you have to explicitly look up the meaning of crop and right, because there is no real way of knowing what each does from the name. Whereas you only need to learn "sub" once, and in any case there is usually a better alternative now like "match" or "endswith" for the tasks that historically were done with substrings. User:GKFXtalk 17:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and further argument there, though str left could probably get the boot too... --Izno (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2021 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_7&oldid=1029110376"