Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 22

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 21 August 23 >

August 22 edit

Template:MYPA squad 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The club is currently not active in professional football after having ceased operations in 2015 due to financial difficulties. Kq-hit (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the club only have youth teams nowadays. So there is no use for this template at the moment.--Todorov-FIN (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are any of the teams that were in it notable? If they were, they remain so per WP:NTEMP.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, this is for the current squad which doesn't exist, hence the navbox should not exist. Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is no current squad for this club as it's defunct. Also the players linked in the navbox are playing at other clubs. --SuperJew (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2016 (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:AEP Paphos squad 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AEP Paphos was dissolved on 9 June 2014 Kq-hit (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, defunct. Frietjes (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is no current squad for this club as it's defunct. Also the players linked in the navbox are playing at other clubs. --SuperJew (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2016 (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:Nyis-plant 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).

The result of the discussion was delete per author approval. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on old user-space drafts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This template should be deleted.--Nonenmac (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2016 (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).

Australian non-fully professional teams 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Squads of not fully professional teams. Following up on this discussion. SuperJew (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2016 (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:JAN 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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 30#Template:JAN ~ Rob13Talk 09:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve transclusions, links to amazon.jp, mostly in citations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete, and convert to either ISBN, or possibly ASIN if there is no other alternative. Frietjes (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2016 (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:ISSN link 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).

The result of the discussion was merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:ISSN link with Template:ISSN search link.
Seem to have the same or overlapping functionality. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge, should basically require redirecting {{ISSN search link}} to {{ISSN link}} (possibly with some history merge). the {{ISSN search link}} template takes one input arg, while {{ISSN link}} takes either 1 or 2 args, but with the same functionality when only one arg is used. Frietjes (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not opposed to merge, as the author of {{ISSN link}}, but you do realise that it's based on (cut + paste + modify) {{ISSN search link}}, right? The former only exists because the latter was edit protected and I wouldn't have wanted to risk screwing up anything anyway. On the plus side, that should increase the odds that they'll be direct drop-in replacements in all the places they're used. --Xover (talk) 04:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't fork protected templates; make changes in the template's sandbox, then use {{Edit protected}} to have someone copy across the code. And never fork a template by copying without attribution. That's breach of Wikipedia's Ts&Cs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Andy: Yeah, it was in the middle of a project and made for purpose, and the attribution slipped my mind; hence the addition of {{copied}} templates on the respective talk pages when this issue popped up. --Xover (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2016 (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:ISSNT 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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 30#Template:ISSNT (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undocumented ISSN link template, with only seven transclusions. Redundant to {{ISSN search link}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • redirect Frietjes (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep [see further comment below]. The markup this template generates is different from what {{ISSN link}} and {{ISSN search link}} do. I can't tell at a glance what the differences in markup are supposed to achieve—except be different depending on whether the article is displayed as normal or in print—but its behaviour is anyway not identical to the other two templates and thus can't be handled with a redirect, and I don't think a merge would be smart (unless it coincided with a move to a common Lua backend for all three). --Xover (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC) [Modified: Xover (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)][reply]

Let's see:

{{ISSNT|0951-8304}}
0951-8304
HTML: <a target="_blank" rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.worldcat.org/search?fq=x0:jrnl&q=n2:0951-8304">0951-8304</a>
{{ISSN link|0951-8304}}
0951-8304
HTML: <a target="_blank" rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="//www.worldcat.org/issn/0951-8304">0951-8304</a>
{{ISSN search link|0951-8304}}
0951-8304
HTML: <a target="_blank" rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="//www.worldcat.org/issn/0951-8304">0951-8304</a>

So yes, there is a difference. Why do we we need {{ISSNT}} to perform a search (an undocumented search, used on just seven pages), when the precise ISSN is known, and can be used to link to a more specific web page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • {{ISSNT}} is meant to be a parallel of {{ISBNT}}, and is obviously meant to behave as {{ISSN search link}}. What would deletion accomplish, rather than merging or redirecting? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 19:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. It looks like all three of these ISSN templates could be merged into one. {{ISSN search link}} could be redirected to {{ISSN link}} as its functionality and syntax looks like a strict subset of the latter; and {{ISSNT}} could be redirected to the same if the {{only in print}}/{{hide in print}} switches are added to it (but the change in behaviour might need testing first). The non-standard search link looks like a bug essentially (a direct ISSN link to WorldCat is the equivalent to Special:BookSources), and could/should be changed IMO. Oh, and if history merge to preserve the edit history of {{ISSN search link}} is possible, that would be a good thing. --Xover (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2016 (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:Interlinear 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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 30#Template:Interlinear ~ Rob13Talk 09:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Single-site Bible link templates. Redundant to {{Bible verse}}, which offers a neutral lookup service. {{Bible chapter}}, etc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment {{Bible chapter}} is an infobox template and therefore quite a different beast, but {{Bible verse}} looks like a template that could be extended with the functionality of {{interlinear}}. Uanfala (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of these look like they could easily be incorporated into {{Bible verse}}. However, given how (potentially) widely used some can be, I'm wondering if won't make sense to keep them as specific wrapper templates (for example, {{Niv}} could be used as a shortcut for {{Bible verse||NIV}}). I'm thinking otherwise only for {{Interlinear}}, whose title I'd really want to usurp for a much more general (but unrelated) template for formatting interlinear glosses. Uanfala (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like the wrapper idea, it'd be easier to use these than have to use an extra parameter for the version.--JFH (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have just added {{Rsv}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:08, 25 August 2016 (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:Editnotices/Page/Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery 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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2016 August 30. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:19, 30 August 2016 (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:FISA Review Court 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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 30#Template:FISA_Review_Court (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unnecessary. The template is a navbox for judges on a court which has only three judges. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Typically, four links is considered a minimum, and this template has exactly four. The connection between these judges is extremely strong, and in the absence of an infobox, we'd certainly want to link them in a "See also" section. Additionally, the number of current judges happen to be too small for a category per WP:SMALLCAT, so a navbox is the best solution. If anything, this could possibly be expanded to include former members. ~ Rob13Talk 09:20, 30 August 2016 (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:Cantatas, motets and oratorios by BWV number 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Evidently created as an out-of-process template merger, it's not clear that there is consensus for such a merge. No prejudice against a speedy renomination for merge of the two templates this seeked to combine, although I somewhat doubt that nomination would be successful. ~ Rob13Talk 09:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant attempt to merge {{Bach cantatas}} and {{Church cantatas, motets and oratorios by BWV number}}, without a TfM proposal, and for which there seems to be no consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The cantatas template is complex enough, and corresponds to one list. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CIRCULAR – it's not because that list includes a motet (unreferenced of course) that {{Bach cantatas}} should repeat the 19th-century error. The world has moved on. The latest two versions of the BWV catalogue no longer include that motet in the chapter of the cantatas, nor does the NBA publish that motet in the series of the cantatas. The reader should not be disinformed via a navbox that is titled "Cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach". Either include none of the motets in that navbox, or all, and then with a correct title. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, evidently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant to {{Bach cantatas}}. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not see the point in this template at all. Why mix motets with cantatas? They are completely different genres. One a capella, the other with a whole orchestral element. Cantatas can also be completely without choral element (BWV 54, BWV 170, etc). I think a reader would find this template confusing. Mathsci (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Motets can have a quite extensive colla parte instrumental accompaniment (that is: more extensive than the orchestra of an average cantata), e.g. BWV 118 and BWV 226 – why is the first of these listed in {{Bach cantatas}} while the second isn't? --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that motets are a related genre to the cantatas, but I think the basic problem with a joint template is that there are so many cantatas that the motets will be "buried". --Thoughtfortheday (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then make a navbox without motets and other distinct genres, so that none of these genres are "buried" and under a wrong title. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you suggest to change the title List of Bach cantatas, perhaps to List of what the author of the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis believed to be cantatas? The template follows the list, in content and name, and perhaps better simple. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man argumentation. I suggest to follow:
Aside about list articles
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • WP:AOAL: "[a list] ... can be referenced to justify the inclusion of listed articles". If you want to include a motet in a list of cantatas, then give a reference that justifies that inclusion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can't help the BWV numbers being not perfect. Some works are not even by Bach, - should be included all other works not by Bach. Should we call it List of works with a BWV number from 1 to ..., mostly cantatas? Keep simple, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
K.I.S.S. means not bothering a reader with the complexities of the BWV catalogue in a navbox. If the navbox is called "cantatas" then it should only contain cantatas. If it is titled "... by Johann Sebastian Bach" it should not contain spurious works, unless clearly indicated (for which a navbox with around 250 links doesn't have much space).
Further this is not a discussion about the list article (this is about a navbox). I've added {{clarify}} tags in the list, if you don't understand what they mean, I suggest you take it up at the list's talk page (for this reasen I hat this aside, so we don't have the discussion about this list in this discussion about a navbox). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NAVBOX: "... article series boxes need to be self-evident ...". Including a motet under the header "Cantatas by..." is not self-evident. Either include no motets in the "cantatas" navbox, or include all motets in a "cantatas & motets" navbox. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
...
Re. "has served well from 2008" – no reason not to improve it, e.g. making it simpler and shorter by removing what doesn't belong under the header "Cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach". --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Brilliant Classics' 2000 edition of the complete works:
  • There are 12 boxes with cantata recordings, BWV 118 is included in none of these: it is included in the box "Vocal Works Vol. II"
  • In the accompanying "Register" booklet BWV 118 is listed in the section "Motetten", not "Kantaten".
If even a budget series of recordings can get it right, why can't Wikipedia? Because it is wrong in a 19th-century publication, and Wikipedia chooses to perpetuate the error? (for clarity: these are rhetorical questions). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can't simply accept that a budget boxed set represents a canon. If you don't accept that BWV is canonical you need to present more arguments, as it is self-evidently a catalogue of Bach's works. As for the fact that there are one or two hybrid works between cantata and motet, that can be discussed in the context of the individual works.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the BWV (=Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis), the catalogue, the same one that assigns the number 118 to the motet, the motet is no longer listed in the section of the cantatas, but in the section of the motets. For that purpose the BWV changed (in its 1990 second edition) the number of the motet officially to "BWV 118/231->", meaning, "BWV 118 now inserted after the motet BWV 231" ([2]) BTW, it is not a "hybrid form". Bach himself called it a motet "Motetto a 4 Voci", see [3] – note that that description of the autograph also carries the correct BWV number "BWV 118 / 231->"). The Bach Digital website (see link above) calls it a motet. As said, the error, signed BGA, happened in the second half of the 19th century. it took about a century to set it straight in (the second edition of) the BWV.
I never implied that Brilliant Classics "sets" the canon. I said that this budget release knows how to "follow" the canon, so why can't we? (PS: don't delete my replies if you don't like them, that is disruptive) --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is of course hardly a remedy: these compositions have been called motet and oratorio since the first half of the 18th century, in the composer's autographs (the oratorio also in the composer's son legacy if I remember well), so telling the reader that this is something that happened "now" is misleading, and almost insults the composer for not knowing how to qualify his own compositions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, some text evidently went missing, and I am sorry if I accidentally deleted it. I trust that your edits are now restored.
Thanks for the information about Bach's nomenclature. Given that Bach didn't use the term cantata often, I still think we have to defer to some sort of official list of these works. I am not saying that BWV is perfect, but it has the merit of existing and it is useful for indicating thematically related works.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, that's why "by BWV number" in the title makes more sense for the navbox than unsightly amendments at the bottom --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point. My main concern would be to achieve a consensus if possible. --Thoughtfortheday (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus will always be reached I suppose, per WP:TIND. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think devising wikipedia content based on liner notes for CDs that people happen to own is a good idea. Normal sources that I expect to see used are books by experts; or equally the long prefaces to published Urtext editions of the score. In many cases the same musicologists are responsible for both. I am not aware of any specialised books on the cantatas that also cover the motets. Dürr does not discuss the 6 cantatas that make up the Christmas oratorio (BWV 248) or the Easter Oratorio (BWV 249); Cantagrel discusses both, not separately but integrated into the liturgical calendar. I have no experience editing the Motet articles. There is one book by a recognised Bach scholar on the subject, Melamed's "J.S. Bach and the German motet" C.U.P. (1995/2005). It has not been used as a source for the wikipedia articles on BWV 225–230. Mathsci (talk) 10:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Already answered above ("I never implied that Brilliant Classics 'sets' the canon. I said that this budget release knows how to 'follow' the canon, so why can't we?") and/or off-topic: this is not a discussion about mainspace content and references in lists and articles (BTW motet (Bach) uses the Melamed source). A navbox can't have footnotes with references, nor external links of any kind. Its content and links need to be self-evident. This is a discussion about a navbox. Please resist the temptation to try throwing this discussion off-topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...and no doubt: Melamed lists BWV 118 with the other motets, so, again, why can't Wikipedia? The Melamed source only confirms the approach I'm proposing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much simpler: the present navbox by BWV number is long enough without additions. Thank for streamlining it, Francis. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
<squeeze>Making the best of {{Bach cantatas}} (which BTW still has a lot of clutter at the bottom, too much for my taste) is not really relevant to this discussion, nor a response to my comment above: {{Church cantatas, motets and oratorios by BWV number}} contains all three oratorios, {{Bach cantatas}} contains only one of these three, randomly selected as a consequence of a 19th-century error. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jones is just the translator, not the author. Dürr does not discuss the Christmas or Easter Oratorios. Cantagrel does. Mathsci (talk) 10:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "Jones is just the translator" – incorrect: "Revised and translated by Richard D. P. Jones" (bolding added). Off-topic (for the nth time in this discussion). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2016 (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/2016_August_22&oldid=736876778"