Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 14

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 13 August 15 >

August 14 edit

Template:Black Pink 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) 00:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Way too soon for a navbox. This girl group just debuted and they don't have enough articles yet. The album article is currently a redirect. Random86 (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, only navigates one article. Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not enough links to provide navigation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to navigate, they've released one single and none of the members are individually notable. Fences&Windows 17:21, 18 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:Catholic mysticism 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) 00:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Catholic mysticism with Template:Christian mysticism.
Since User:Jujutsuan failed to gain WP:CON to rename Template:Christian mysticism in this discussion, he chose create Template:Catholic mysticism as a duplicate of it instead (see WP:FORK). While he has added some new Catholic-related links to the (already long) Christian Template, the template itself is added to the bottom/top of some pages that already have the first template. It just makes no sense to have two template on the same pages with most link duplicated in both. One obvious fix would be to only keep the currently duplicated links in just one template or the other, Jujutsuan objects to this as unnecessary. Jujutsuan has (so far) mostly added the Template:Catholic mysticism template to pages (that he thinks are) about mysticism literature, but has never given a reason to have the two similar templates. tahc chat 16:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is WP:SUBPOV. This was actually Chicbyaccident's idea, not mine. The original version of this, which was quickly redirected to {{Christian mysticism}} to let the RM finish, was deleted to make way for the un-userfying of the current version, but you can check out its talk page and the RM to see that it's true. I'd say I added a lot of new links, to plenty of people as well as literature. I don't just think they're relevant, they were all (or virtually all) in categories that indicated their relevance. I mean, we could merge Christian mysticism into Catholic mysticism, but then the template would be undeniably Catholic-oriented. (Tell me, are any of the links in the Catholic one not about Catholicism?) So here's the choice, Tahc: change the name to "Catholic mysticism" and merge, or have two separate templates, one as an overview, one more comprehensive about the Catholic SUBPOV. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either merge into the Christian mysticism template or, better, change the Catholic template to a footer. Side and footer templates are used on the same page, even if they contain duplicate listings, so to differentiate the two that would be one solution. As said, if not a footer, merge into Christian mysticism (maybe some of the literature should be in both templates as well). Randy Kryn 13:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:33, 14 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:WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo 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) 01:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated and unused. ~ Rob13Talk 16:22, 14 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:UK trademark 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 27. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:00, 27 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:§§ 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) 00:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Complex external links template, supporting eleven jurisdictions, but with only three transclusions in all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. way too complicated for just three articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question how many articles would need to link to it in order for it to be retained? --Bermicourt (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bermicourt, what is the point of {{§§|URL|2=http://www.buzer.de/gesetz/7831/l.htm|3=Synopse der Änderungen und Texte der EnEV 2007, 2009 und 2013}} when you can just write [http://www.buzer.de/gesetz/7831/l.htm Synopse der Änderungen und Texte der EnEV 2007, 2009 und 2013]? the problem here is that if this template were only used for linking to pages at bundesrecht.juris.de, the code would be one line, and far more useful. Frietjes (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • For example, the links in Kreditwesengesetz would be much less complicated without this template. Frietjes (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The template links to the laws of 11 countries or states and I created it in anticipation of it being used on many of their articles (as on de.wiki). The original reason given for deletion was a lack of links. That problem is easily fixable, but I don't want to waste time fixing that unless there is a consensus against deletion. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bermicourt, the links in Kreditwesengesetz would be much less complicated without this template, so deploying it in that manner would be a bad idea. a better idea would be to create one just for bundesrecht.juris.de. Frietjes (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • someone should look at Template:German law section as well. the documentation is not particularly helpful if you don't speak German. Frietjes (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it isn't really plausible that someone is going to remember all the parameter quirkiness for several different national jurisdictions – almost all lawyers, legal scholars, and law students (the most likely people to be using such a template) are specialists, not generalists in the legal codes of a swath of countries. It could conceivably be the case that someone will have a paper source on hand providing the details needed to fill in the template, but it would take less time, probably, to find it online and provide the URL than it would to read the template documentation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:04, 20 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:FC Baden 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) 01:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current squad is outdated, the last modification was in July 2012. The club plays in Swiss third tier nowadays and has very few notable players. No transclusions. Kq-hit (talk) 13:55, 14 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:UD Salamanca 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) 01:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Club dissolved in 2013 Kq-hit (talk) 13:26, 14 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:CS Otopeni 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) 01:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Club dissolved in 2013 Kq-hit (talk) 13:24, 14 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:Latest preview software release/Internet Explorer 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) 01:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Empty template. Will never be used again. (For the original purpose, please see Template:Infobox software/doc § Moving release data outside the article.) Codename Lisa (talk) 06:36, 14 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:WikiProject Arkansas 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 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:31, 31 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:Secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach 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 no consensus to delete. But, there is consensus to fix the redundancy by either (a) having multiple non-overlapping templates or (b) merging everything into one navbox. Please feel free to continue the discussion at Template talk:Johann Sebastian Bach, or renominate this template, or renominate this template for merging with other templates. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant fork of {{Bach cantatas}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — logical subset of Bach's cantatas, see List of secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: when the template was created it was not a subset of Bach cantatas, but the cantatas listed in the template for discussion were removed from the traditional template. I reverted that because I believe all cantatas should be in one template. NOW it is a subset. I don't think it's necessary, but also not harmful when shown in addition to the other. It has (more than the other) a lot of German titles, which I don't think will help the average reader. Nice, but not needed, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you don't have problem with "shown in addition" why did you remove them from
instead of just re-adding the general template?
The rest of the reasoning (and in fact also the nomination) is undiluted WP:IDONTLIKE. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attempt to speak for me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bach's secular cantatas form a meaningful set, see List of secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach and Category:Secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach. Your argumentation reads: "redundant fork ...", then see WP:NOTDUP: "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided. etc."
So I stand with my assessment of the arguments in favour of deletion that were brought to this discussion: WP:ATA/WP:ATADP, in particular WP:IDONTLIKE. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being a forked navbox, the navbox under discussion is redundant to the navbox from which it was forked; not to a category, and not to a list. Your overly verbose, hectoring responses and attempt to paint my logically-reasoned argument for deletion as a matter of mere personal distaste are facile, if not transparently dishonest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A navbox with all cantatas by number, without context or even names, is entirely unpractical for navigating the secular variant subset. A navbox that accomplishes that is not "redundant". --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as redundant. if it's useful to split the list, then split the list in the main template, or split the main template. however, this is clearly redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – following the suggestion in the previous !vote, the template has been split (see also discussion on the talk page of that template). No cantata article is in both templates any more, so redundancy has been reduced to zero, meaning that this discussion can be closed without further action. Can someone do so, we don't need the "at TfD" message lingering on all the secular cantata articles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your edit there has - rightly - been reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re. "- rightly -"... which brings us straight back to WP:IDONTLIKE, all that is left of the reasons opposing that split. For me, {{Secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach}} is viable, whatever happens to {{Bach cantatas}}, which never has provided adequate navigation for Bach's secular cantatas (and probably will not do so in the foreseeable future). It is a navbox with some 250 numbers, meaningless to an average reader. Which ones of these numbers represent secular cantatas? Nobody can tell, so, whether that template contains the numbers of the secular cantatas or not, a navbox that does the navigation of the secular cantatas of Johann Sebastian Bach in a more suitable way has a right to existence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your overly verbose, hectoring responses and attempt to paint my logically-reasoned argument for deletion as a matter of mere personal distaste remain facile, if not transparently dishonest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • This was extremely facile: "Oppose per Gerda" is the only text you contributed to the talk page that discussed the split. Gerda's reasoning was a verbose WP:IDONTLIKE, to which you subscribed. That's all there is to say about your opposition to the split. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as redundant per WP:CSD#T3. We don't need multiple navboxes to link the same articles. If further clarity or separation is required, this should be dealt with at {{Bach cantatas}}, although this is probably unnecessary as anyone specifically looking for the secular cantatas will find a list article linked anyway. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems a few other recently created templates should probably be deleted under the same rationale. Couldn't all his compositions be merged into a single template {{Works by Johann Sebastian Bach}}? I don't think this would be too large. See {{Bach's short vocal works and mixed collections}}, {{Church cantatas, motets and oratorios by BWV number}}, {{Organ compositions and contrapuntal works by Johann Sebastian Bach}}, {{Masses and Magnificats by Johann Sebastian Bach}}, {{Bach's church cantatas up to first cycle}}, {{Bach's third cantata cycle and later}}, {{Chorale cantata cycle}}. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That had been my first approach, this is what it would look like:
(note: 2014 version – I think that in the mean while there was a substantial growth of articles on compositions by Bach). The idea was soundly rejected at the time. Quoting from the rejection reasons: "I still think that any "navigation" template with more than ~30 entries fails to serve as a navigational tool; I count >300 in the proposed template. Bach's compositions ought to be covered in several navigation boxes, organised by category." For composers like Bach (or Beethoven etc.) all compositions in one box is not feasible (if the 2014 consensus on several composers still stands). My attempt to break down Bach's "cantatas" navbox in 4 subboxes (each 40 to 80 links) still follows from what I learnt in that discussion in 2014. I understand that some editors still think that navigation by the (for cantatas meaningless) BWV numbers should be possible for all cantatas: that can only be realised by combining 2 navboxes on every cantata article page: the general one + one of the subtemplates. Alternatively I'd discuss the 250-link "general" cantata navbox at TfD, and see whether it is an option to do away with that general template with the "meaningless" numbering sequence, in favour of the four navboxes which allow "meaningful" navigation (in which case any cantata article would have only one of those four boxes). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a perfectly reasonable navbox to me, and by no means one of the largest that we currently have... --11:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Here's the twist: we can't start deleting "break-down" templates, developed according to the outcome of the discussion at Template talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#Update before we know consensus has changed ({{Beethoven templates}}, {{Haydn templates}} and {{Mozart templates}} show it apparently hasn't). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gave the mega-navbox idea a fresh try:
(vocal works only, a similar one could be developed for Bach's instrumental music) --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the instrumental music one:
--Francis Schonken (talk) 16:39, 21 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_14&oldid=1122670838"