Talk:Washboard (laundry)

Question

There's something I wanted to understand, which after reading this article I still don't get: How did people, before washing machines, use washboards to clean clothes? What, does it scrape dirt off or something? How is using a washboard better than just putting clothes in soapy water?

They are still sold in immigrant communities in the United States.K8 fan 22:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

read this then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laundry

Origin of material in this article

This material was simply copied from the article Washboard. I split that article into two fairly unrelated pieces: Washboard (laundry) and Washboard (musical instrument) I also cleaned up some of the repetitious material and added a number of references.--Foobarnix (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Despite a majority in favour of the move, there has been some good opposition indicating that the musical article may actually have a higher usage rate. Considering the split has only recently happened, I'd suggest revisiting this in say six months when the statistics will be easier to analyse and we also hopefully won't have any of the discussion get sidetracked. Jenks24 (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Washboard (laundry) → Washboard – clearly the primary topic. Accordingly, move Washboard to Washboard (disambiguation). Staszek Lem (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS. BTW, the page move Washboard->Washboard (musical instrument) screwed up the interwikilinks. Therefore the closing admin will have a job to unscrew this confusion as well. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. And redirects/wikilinks must me straightened out too, when the dust settles. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Staszek. I am not sure I understand what redirects/wikilinks you are referring to. I noticed that User:Niceguyedc disambiguated virtually all the links to washboard, both musical instrument and laundry. In addition, I personally fixed a couple of trivial redirects such as 'washboard in music' by getting rid of them and putting in the direct link to washboard (musical instrument). Perhaps if you could give me an example of a link that is still 'screwed up' I might be able to help.

--Foobarnix (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per nom In ictu oculi (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I thought that I did everything correctly. (I am editor Foobarnix)

I believed that Washboard (laundry) and Washboard (musical instrument) were distinct enough to deserve separate pages.
I created a new page Washboard (laundry) and moved the appropriate content to it.
I changed the {Laundry navbox}} to refer to the new name Washboard (laundry).
User:Bluerasberry added the {WPHomeliving}} template before I had a chance to do that.
I moved the page Washboard to Washboard (musical instrument) and deleted the laundry paragraphs that had been moved.
I changed the {Percussion}} and {Scraped idiophones}} navboxes to refer to the new name Washboard (musical instrument).
I changed the page Washboard to be the disambiguation page. (I notice that other editors have already expanded this page).
I added a number of needed links and references to both articles.
I added photos to the laundry article.
I rearranged a lot of the material in Washboard (musical instrument) and made it more readable, I believe.

I did not know about interwiki links. I assume that the problem arrises because of the navboxes {WPHomeliving}} {Percussion}} and {Scraped idiophones}}. I want to make three points

1) The two subjects are quite distinct and it is illogical to cram all the material into one article.
2) I improved both articles (new citations, new links, new material, duplications deleted, new photos). It would be unfortunate to see all this work discarded.
3) I would think it would be easier to fix the interwiki links than to move all the material back to its previous state. I did a lot of what links here checking to see if I had messed anything up. It all seemed to link up correctly. Indeed, things seemed to work better. In particular, articles about laundry no longer got linked to the musical instrument, and vice versa. A Bot started this discussion. Perhaps the bot is being persnickety and should have just said, "you need to fix a couple of interwiki links".

My motives were good but that I was unaware of WP procedures for correctly splitting an article. I will read up on splitting. I apologize if I have messed things up. I did not mean to do that. If I have made extra work for other people I will feel terrible.

--Foobarnix (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good move There is room for discussion but I think this was a good split and a good move. The alternative which I feel is best considered is whether there should be a disambiguation page. Thanks Foobarnix for following rules and policy - I think you did everything correctly, except that you could have called for comment first.

First I agree with the split. There is little relationship between washboards for laundry and washboards as a cultural phenomenon in music. Those concepts can have separate articles, because the topics are differentiated in the sources.

I think there is room for discussion about what should be the primary article. Washboard for music is a good candidate for this because the use in music is better covered in the sources used than washboard for laundry, despite the origins of the device and its broad use for cleaning. Having more coverage in reliable sources makes a case for music to be the primary topic.

Having a disambiguation page may be warranted, but I think that might be excessive because the disambiguation could be done at the top of the primary article. There are not many washboard concepts to be addressed here, and I am not sure that a full page is warranted.

This could be discussed more, but I am not ready to jump back to reverting everything. We should talk more. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I notice that User:Staszek Lem believes that Washboard (laundry) is "clearly the primary topic" and that User:Bluerasberry believes that [for the] "the primary article. Washboard for music is a good candidate". Could there be any clearer evidence for my assertion that the two topics are mostly distinct and equal and that Washboard should just be the disambiguation page?--Foobarnix (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Se my comment below. We have tradition established already. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: If the washboard concept is going to be split into two articles as it is now, then neither the musical instrument or the laundry item are the primary topic. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 00:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How come laundry item is not primary topic? The musical instrument is the laundry item. We have Jug and Jug (musical instrument), saw and saw (musical instrument), etc. Jug or saw or washboard may be used as musical instrument as is. These are not separate names for something different than plain jug, saw and washboard. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Staszek Lem: In looking to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for guidance, I would say:

A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage: This is a tossup to me, with a washboard used as a musical instrument slightly ahead of a washboard used as a laundry item.

A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance: This points to the laundry usage.

Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere: As I'm the one who fixed all the links, I can tell you that this was overwhelmingly for the musical instrument.

Wikipedia article traffic statistics or Wiki ViewStats traffic statistics: For the two days since the split (the 14th is when the move happened, so a bunch of those visits are the editing of the split), Washboard (the disambiguation page) was viewed 176 times, Washboard (laundry) 86 times and Washboard (musical instrument) 135 times. This would point to the musical instrument, but it's not overwhelming.

Usage in English reliable sources demonstrated with Google web, news, scholar, or book searches: Based on the numbers, this points to the musical instrument.

There is enough here to confirm for me that the laundry item should not be at the base title Washboard. Note: Seeing the response below by Foobarnix as I was typing this, I will note that each topic should be dealt with separately. Just because Saw, Jug, etc. are treated one way does not preclude Washboard from being treated differently. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 22:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me rephrase my argument once more: there are no two different things that are called "washboard". There are two uses of the one and the same thing, washboard, which is a laundry item. Occasionally it is used as a musical instrument (even the Wikipedia article says so). So the formally correct title would be Washboard as a musical instrument (which would be unnecessarily stiff, of course (oh and the redirect is already here!)). Staszek Lem (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, things may be treated differently, but similar things are usually treated similarly, unless there is an important reason not to do so. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then let me be clear about my oppose, as I haven't been fully clear. If there are to be two articles, then the current situation should stay as it is. However, I do not oppose reversing the split and putting everything back in one article, as it is only one item with two uses. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 23:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No longer oppose

Despite the slight inconsistencies noted below, User:Staszek Lem has convinced me of the logic of his case (see above remark).

I now agree that (because of precedent) Washboard, the laundry kind, should probably be the primary article.

Now I wonder if the washboard case could be resolved by doing the following IN ORDER:

Note: Washboard is currently the primary page and is a disambiguation page.

Note: Washboard (disambiguation) is currently a redirect to Washboard (It was created on 16 September 2015‎ by User:Ahecht.)

So, do the following IN ORDER:

Move current contents of Washboard to Washboard (disambiguation).

Move current contents of Washboard (laundry) to Washboard. (It now becomes the primary page.)

Replace the contents of Washboard (laundry) with a redirect to Washboard.

Make sure all three pages are correctly tagged (e.g. disambiguation tag must be removed from new version of Washboard).

Keep Washboard (musical instrument) as it is.

Since there are virtually no current links to Washboard, this should work just fine.

Similar cases are Jug, Cowbell, Spoon, and Saw. The musical forms are Jug (instrument) and Cowbell (instrument), but Musical saw and Spoon (musical instrument). OTH we have Drum as the primary page which describes the percussion instrument. Logically Drum (container) should be the primary article (or should it?). The only problem I see is that people creating musical articles in the future are probably going to put in a link to washboard when they really should be putting in a link to washboard (musical instrument).

Staszek notes that a jug, saw or washboard may be used as musical instrument as is. However unlike jug, spoon, or saw, the musical washboard is often modified with extra attachments like cymbals, wood blocks and so on.

BTW, my principal motivation was to get the musical and laundry washboards into separate articles. This is, in fact, the case for saw, jug, drum, spoon, and cowbell. I realize now that if I had moved washboard to Washboard (laundry) instead of to Washboard (musical instrument) that the situation would now be simpler because the laundry washboard again becomes the primary article.--Foobarnix (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The motivation of page splitting is correct beyond doubt. Minor comments. Drum is in its correct primary meaning: the container is named after the drum, not vice versa. Washboard modification you described are non-essential: extra attachments are basically "two-in-one" combinations of different instruments. BTW, if you are familiar with Cajun music, you would notice that spoons are modified as well, most common being binding them in pairs, either directly or over a wooden block, or attaching a ratter to them, etc. Musical saw (and musical bow) are special cases: they are commonly called so, and there is no disambiguation title conflict. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more point

I said above that people creating musical articles in the future are probably going to put in a link to washboard when they really should be putting in a link to washboard (musical instrument). I got to wondering if the same point applies to spoon, saw, jug, and so on. So I checked for incorrect links to spoon. My worst fears were realized. There were at least 33 incorrect links to spoon. Many of them should have linked to Spoon (band) and the rest should have linked to spoon (musical instrument). (I fixed them of course.) It makes me think, contrary to the point that User: Staszek Lem makes, that it is a mistake to have a primary article be the original generic physical item when there are popular alternative uses for the primitive object. Here is why: People constantly use simple links to spoon to mean the band or the musical instrument. If spoon was the disambiguation page, the oversight would immediately be caught. But all of the bad links I just fixed have been around for a long time. The same kind of thing is sure to happen with washboard. I now think that words like spoon, jug, washboard, saw, block, and others should be the disambiguation page. But I do not feel that strongly about it. Any consensus people come to is OK with me. (Notice that-thank goodness-block is a disambiguation page.)

--Foobarnix (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- That's a good point. However you did not present an evidence that musical washboard is more popular for readers than the laundry one. Convenience for wikipedians does not trump the convenience for readers. I would think that people with interest in Cajun music are a small minority. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People with interest in Cajun music may be a minority, but user:Niceguyedc found that the links were "overwhelmingly for the musical instrument."

IAC, this whole topic is much broader than the name of this one article. User:Blue Rasberry points out that "disambiguation could be done at the top of the primary article" but I am not sure even that is a good solution. See further related problems that I found and discuss in the section Original Talk page for the page Jug section of the page Talk:Jug (disambiguation).--Foobarnix (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re: "overwhelmingly for the musical instrument." - This is because it is transcluded via several musical instrument templates, such as {{Scraped idiophones}}. And one again, our internal conveniences are irrelevant. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even after looking at the three templates that now link to the musical instrument ({{Scraped idiophones}} is transcluded on 5 articles, {{Russian musical instruments}} is transcluded on 13 articles, and {{Percussion}} is transcluded on around 120 articles), there were still over 230 links to Washboard. Of those links, over 80% were meant for Washboard (musical instrument). -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 03:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had also noticed that; but it is an unimportant side issue. I do not care about which kind of washboard has more links or more hits. My concern is otherwise and is twofold:

1) The two articles about washboards should be separate. They have almost nothing to do with each other.

2) Staszek Lem has several times emphasized that "Convenience for wikipedians does not trump the convenience for readers." I also do not care about what makes it easy for editors. My concern IS with the reader. WP editors are often sloppy and put links to washboard (or jug or spoon) when they meant to link to the musical kind. But the person who suffers is the WP user who gets to a page about the wrong kind of washboard (or jug or spoon) and may not notice that he can switch to the kind of washboard he is looking for. The problem is even worse for Jug because it does not even have an {{About|...} template. [yet] Currently, a naive person who clicks a Jug link in a musical article might be somewhat baffled as to what to do next if he carelessly fails to notice the disambiguation notice. It would all be so much easier if the articles washboard and jug (and perhaps other things) were the disambiguation pages. Then approximately 200 unintentional wrong "washboard' links would have been instantly caught and would not have cluttered up WP until user:Niceguyedc finally fixed them. In October 2014 User:Rmhermen moved the very sensibly named Jug (container) to Jug and this will probably lead to a whole new set of misdirected links by sloppy musical article editors. Query: Does somebody want to volunteer to track down all the links to jug that should have been links to Jug (instrument)?--Foobarnix (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not that passionate about the issue. It just hurts my sense of logic. Other than that, I am ready to bury the hatchet, so that no more our time wasted. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. while googling the topic I run into an amusing term, digital washboard :-). Too bad not enough notability for wikipedia :-). On the other hand, digital spoon has a whooping 113,000 google hits! Staszek Lem (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.