Template talk:North America topic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] This template is in need of reform

This template is a big red link generator. There are articles that do cover things "in" a place that are not named that way. Granted there are many uses of the template that do generate mostly blue links, and for articles that are supposed to follow a name that includes "in", I think the usage needs to be cleaned up. You can see examples of both via Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:North America in topic. I was thinking about nominating this for TfD, but I'd rather try to work something out instead. Ideas? -- Ned Scott 05:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that what would be desirable is not a reform of this template, which as you say works fine for many uses, but guidelines for applying it in a useful way.
Where there are series of articles by country for which this template is not suitable - typically because they are in [[Canadian x]] format, I might suggest creating another template. Note that the article name doesn't have to include "in" - the format simply needs to be [[x country]].
Where there are templates for which only a few articles have been created, I would suggest considering whether it would be possible and desirable to eventually create a complete or near-complete series. If so, then the red links are useful, and if there are just a few small states where a full article on a particular topic will never be warranted, redirects can be put in place to the broader article which covers the issue. If articles are only possible or desirable for one, or a small number of nations, then the template should not be used on that page. Warofdreams talk 23:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the concerns raised above, the template does work well for several topics but it can generate a ton of red links when it is not used with care. I would say the template should only be used on topics where it does not generate many red links unless there is a concerted ongoing effort to write the missing articles and place the needed redirects. A red link may be useful to Wikipedia editors but from a users perspective a red link is a broken link. Here's a list of the topics that it appears to work reasonably well in:

Economy
Geography
History
Politics
List of cities
List of political parties
Transportation

And here's some that it currently works poorly in:

Buddhism
Capital punishment
Censorship
Civil unions
Environmental issues
Extreme points
Foreign aid
Gay rights
Hinduism
History of the Jews
Human rights
Islam
Law enforcement
List of airports
Protestants
Religion
Roman Catholicism
Surf breaks

The template itself is fine but it's being misused. I'd suggest that a list of recommended topics be maintained for this template (perhaps in a usage section within 'noinclude' tags on the template) and it's use otherwise be discouraged. --Dv82matt 14:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with having such strict rules. Many of these topics would merits articles on each country in North America - in the case of List of airports in..., almost half of the potential articles already exist. Red links are not a problem; they are a good thing when they point to an article which should exist. By the way, thanks for your work in adding the template to the List of political parties in... series of articles. Warofdreams talk 00:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Well some usage guidelines aren't out of line IMO. The topic should at least be broad enough that a full article is warranted for each country listed.
Take "List of airports in..." which you defend, for example. You might say its not too bad, only about half of the links in the template are red, but look at some of the blue links. Antigua and Barbuda has only three airports, Dominica and Grenada have only two each, there are several other extremely short lists of airports also in the template. Do we really want to have a seperate list of airports for each country even when there are only two or three airports in a given country? And if the answer to this question is "yes" then it is simple enough to include "List of airports" in the list of recommended topics for this template.
You say that red links are not a problem, but they are only not a problem if they indicate articles that should be created. If the template is used to spam red links or spurs the creation of inappropriate articles which later have to be deleted or merged then it could be a serious problem.
I really like this template, it encourages uniformity across topics, it's simple and easy to use, and it allows updates to a single central template rather than several topical ones. That said it does have some drawbacks as well. It's fragile, it generates inappropriate red links if not used with care, and it often relies on redirects to link it to the appropriate articles.
There are many ways other than a list of recommended topics, to effectively deal with the drawbacks while keeping most of the advantages it provides. For example we could merely provide usage guidelines without a set list, or it could be used as a template generator rather than as an actual template. What do you think? --Dv82matt 07:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, some usage guidelines are exactly what I have previously suggested, that we should only have red links to articles which should be created. Some of the subjects with few articles on North American countries at present, such as Islam in, History of the Jews in, or Gay rights in, are well represented in other areas of the world, and it seems likely that decent articles for the other North American states will be written at some point. Subjects such as Surf breaks in seem unlikely to merit an article per country, but this is a subject of which I know little, so I may be mistaken.
It's not hard to think of subjects where this template would be inappropriate - for instance, Fashion in, as fashion articles are not divided by nation; or Maya in, as articles could only be written for a few nations.
I think the usage guidelines are the way forward, as using this as a template generator would make it very time-consuming to update in the way that Template:Europe topic was recently, when Montenegro gained independence. Warofdreams talk 23:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm glad we agree there should be some guidelines. I guess I just have a harder time than you seeing the need for articles such as Islam in Navassa Island, History of the Jews in Costa Rica, or Gay Rights in Saint Lucia. I suspect that many such articles would be deleted or merged if they were created making the red links misleading. Leaving aside particulars for now what do you think of the following.
Guidelines:
  1. Before implementing this template in a topic check it for red links. If there are several red links consider whether a seperate article in the topic for each country is warranted.
  2. Some topics may use a different navigational scheme. In general don't use this template if there are already navigational templates in several of the articles of a topic.
--Dv82matt 01:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I like those guidelines. I almost feel inspired to write History of the Jews in Costa Rica - there's a useful webpage providing an overview! But more generally, where there are a only small number of territories where an article is not useful, a redirect can be created to the article where the topic is covered - e.g. Islam in a country with very few Muslims might redirect to Religion in, or Navassa Island in many topics might redirect to the main Navassa Island article. Warofdreams talk 02:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and add them to the template then. As to redirecting to a more general article I think thats fine as long as it isn't overused. These types of redirects can be quite misleading to the user. For example if "History of the Jews in..." redirects to the "History of..." article and the "History of..." article makes no mention of the Jews. --Dv82matt 03:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music of

Warofdreams reverted my addition of this comment, presumably accidentally as he posted at about the same time.

I have reverted this template's use on all Music ofs. There are already nice footers that use ordinary musical regions, of which "North America" including Mexico, Panama and Haiti is not one. Tuf-Kat 22:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the mix-up about your post, but the software didn't give me any warnings. Warofdreams talk 00:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought they would be useful, but I can see that on many of the articles they are somewhat redundant. Should there be a seperate Music in "whatever" template that would cover the countries left out of the current template? Sorry for the trouble anyway. --Dv82matt 00:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
No apology necessary -- I am certain you were acting in good faith. I don't really think so. It's reasonable to provide easy linking between related topics like all the musics of the Caribbean or Central America, but Music of Haiti is more related to Music of France or Music of West Africa than Music of Canada. Plus the template leaves out very related topics -- Music of Guyana and Music of Suriname are usually considered part of the Caribbean music area, for example, and are much more relevant there than connected with Argentina and Chile. Continental divisions are useful for physical geography, but are not necessarily the best way to organize things in other fields. Tuf-Kat 01:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, wait I misunderstood your question. You mean countries like the US and Canada that don't have a footer. I don't think so for that too. AFAIK, the US, Canada and Mexico are the only ones missing any. A "North America" template could really only include the US and Canada, which wouldn't be much of a footer. Mexico is relevant to the US (not really Canada though, except through the US) but is just as relevant to Central America, and pretty distinct from both (it's usually classified separately, I think). A North America template that included music of Canada's Prairie Provinces and maybe even Music of Greenland would be okay, maybe, but many of the articles are pretty stubby or nonexistent (e.g. music of New England), and a regional division could be inflamatory. Tuf-Kat 01:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Good points. I'll leave it at that then. --Dv82matt 02:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overriding the top level name

I added a second optional parameter, which if provided overrides the default name for the top level page. Example: Since there is not and probably never will be a "Flag of North America" page, on "Flag of" pages the template can be called:

v • d • e
Flags of North America
Sovereign states
Dependencies and
other territories
1 Territories also in or commonly reckoned elsewhere in the Americas (South America). 2 Territories also in or commonly reckoned to be in the Pacific basin.

. --ScottMainwaring 23:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Nowadays, to override the top level name, use title= before the string you wish to replace the top level name with. The Transhumanist    02:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template name

Per here, would anyone object to this template being renamed {{North America topic}}, thereby leaving the of/in specified by its parameter (e.g. {{North America topic|Communications in}}, {{North America topic|Economy of}}, etc)...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] This Template is misleading

Many of the countries listed in this template are not generally categorized as being in North America , but in central America ( like Panama , Nicaragua etc..)--CltFn 05:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That narrow definition of North America is possible, but it's hardly misleading to use this broader one. This template is based on Template:North America, so that's probably the best place to post any further queries. Warofdreams talk 01:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Central America (Mexico and everything between it and Colombia) is part of the North American continent. Not including Colombia, of course. The Transhumanist    02:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Federalism

"Federalism" is a bad use for this template. Only four countries listed are federations: Canada, Mexico, SKN, US. Why would there be an article on "Federalism in (insert name of unitary state here)"? It makes no sense. —Sesel 00:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Navassa Island

Does Navassa Island need to come out of this template? The article on it is fine, but the idea that one day someone will be inspired to write History of Navassa Island, Economy of Navassa Island, Law of Navassa Island, etc. relating to an uninhabited rock off the coast of Haiti seems a bit improbable to me. It is like a permanent redlink. --Legis (talk - contributions) 18:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't be fooled by the bluelink on History of Navassa Island - it is just a redirect. --Legis (talk - contributions) 18:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I'm contemplating going through the "Languages of North America" template and turning the red links blue, but there certainly won't be a blue link at Languages of Navassa Island. Could someone who understands template syntax better than I do maybe add a parameter like navassa=no to the template so that Navassa can be removed from the templates where it's inappropriate? —Angr 11:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HELP! I made a huge mistake.

OMG, I made a huge mistake. I was looking at the page Flags of North America and saw the template "Flags of North America" but it was named "North America topic", so I thought why? Let's move it to a more specific name... and I did! The bad part is that I didn't know that template is an automatic template used in several pages.

Please, some admin. move back the template to its original place. And I'm sorry, I didn't know this was going to happen. AlexC. ( Talk? ) 09:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I undid it. You didn't "fix" any double-redirects that now have to be "unfixed", did you? —Angr 10:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)