Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 4



Template:IMSLP2

 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge. There is consensus that merging the templates is useful, at least in the short term. Concern has been expressed and seconded about the technical details of the merge, which should, as always, be addressed before the merge is actually implemented. Concerns about redundancy to wikidata have also been voiced, but not to the point of opposition against someone performing the merge. No preferences on merge source and target have been expressed, and as a technical detail of the close I have arbitrarily chosen IMSLP as the merge target. This is not an outcome of this discussion, and may still be switched around in implementing the merge. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * IMSLP2
 * IMSLP

Propose merging Template:IMSLP2 with Template:IMSLP.

We should merge these two templates into one. Spliting to  and. Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 16:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  Support  Neutral The multiplication of very similar templates is sometimes a burden for contributors. This is a good example. --Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Second thoughts. I was looking at this request from the perspective of wikidata and not from a formatting perspective (citing multiple works,the output of the template), which is more a question of personal taste or conventions.
 * Wikidata is already importing ISMLP (direct page for a work and category page for creators; https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/13#P839). Once the IMSLP parameters are available on the corresponding Wikidata page, it should be feasible to pull directly the parameters needed from it to produce the references (like the template Template:Authority Control can already do). I would agree with Francis. I think it would make more sense to create the corresponding templates for www.bach-digital.de. For example, would link to http://www.bach-digital.de/receive/BachDigitalWork_work_00001228. Wikidata then import this information into its corresponding page https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1538977; the wikipage Gottes Zeit ist die allerbeste Zeit, BWV 106 could then have its IMSLP ref corrected automatically (it now points to Cantatas,_BWV_101-110_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian) instead of http://imslp.org/wiki/Gottes_Zeit_ist_die_allerbeste_Zeit,_BWV_106_%28Bach,_Johann_Sebastian%29). Tedious process at first but could be used to enrich, mutatis mutandis, wikipages in other languages. We may then keep IMSLP and IMSLP2 as they will any become eventually obsolete and focusing on standardising the input to other majors sources like www.bach-digital.de and others. --Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support one flexible template and the simple name, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for the reasons stated above.—Finell 22:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for the reasons given, this is one of those cases where a single flexible template makes sense.-Graham1973 (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see considerable technical difficulties in the proposal. Which bot is going to transform id into author and work? How is the continued use of these templates during the transition to be handled? The different text emitted by the current templates will require some if/then/else logic depending on which parameters are present – which will require some error checking for contradictory parameters. How is IMSLP2's capability of linking up to 5 works going to be implemented? Oppose until a sandbox version is presented and can be tested. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless and until Michael Bednarek's reservations are addressed.--Smerus (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose for Michael's reasons. Was this really proposed without thinking about the technicalities or producing a sandbox/test version? I'd propose a speedy close to give proponents time to work out technicalities, otherwise the current two-template approach works fine. I'm not bothered whether it's one or two templates either way. Choralwiki and Mutopia links could all be combined in a single template too as far as I'm concerned, as long as usability is optimal (which is usually a downside when trying to combine too much). What bothers me most about the current templates (IMSLP's, CPDL, Mutopia) is: why do they necessarily need to state the scores are "free"? Maybe that was important in the early days (although then one had to explain the difference free/dom vs free/beer GNU style over and over again), now I see them rather as a repository. We're not talking about "free" when linking to schubert-online.at, www.bach-digital.de or dme.mozarteum.at either are we, although they have lots of "free" scores too. Maybe this is not the place to bring that up, but I think that a way more important issue than whether or not they are one, two, three or four templates. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, seems fairly straightforward. Not overly concerned about "which bot", and combining should not be an issue. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral I'm mostly agreeing with Alberto Fernández Fernández about using Wikidata instead of manually adding those 2 templates in long term (perhaps inserting Wikidata into infoboxes for composers and works). For short term, it would be cleaner to adjust the templates to use Wikidata, or create newer templates using Wikidata and migrate manually for safety. Current usage seems to indicate Template:IMSLP for composers while Template:IMSLP2 is for works, but one might want to double check if this is 100% the case. In that case it might not warrant any big merges right now, because in the end they would fetch different set of items from Wikidata.
 * On the other hand, the oppositions above are some of the ugliest I've seen, totally using out-of-topic reasons. They are not based on whether the changes have technical or semantic merit, but with reasons like "Wikipedia site is not pretty with the warning!", "I don't know how it would look, ban it altogether!" or outright yelling like


 * That's not discussion at all. It's a shame to join opposing side like that. AbelCheung (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to be accurate here, the concerns expressed by Michael Bednarek and myself in opposing the merge do not deal, as implied, with whether the change is 'pretty' or or what it would look like, but with the consequences of the merger for WP information. I don't see how dismissing these consequences assists the discussion. Whether other editors WP:SHOUT or not - and indeed whether AbelCheung shouts in response to them - is of course beyond our control.--Smerus (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Super Bowl Champion coaches

 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete as unnecessary Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Super Bowl Champion coaches

WP:NENAN. There is no corresponding list-article that lists these Super Bowl-winning head coaches (nor would it pass GNG). This is also WP:LISTCRUFT in navbox form. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Speaking as a writer who has edited Wikipedia football articles for nearly six years, and someone who is a long-time member of WP:NFL, I feel completely comfortable saying the NFL navboxes are completely out of control. It is far past time that WP:NFL  adopt (a) a written set of criteria for new navboxes, and (b) a procedure for reviewing whether new navboxes are appropriate.  Pursuant to the WP:NAVBOX guidelines, one of the basic Wikipedia-wide criteria is that the specific subject of every navbox is supposed to be supported by a stand-alone article or list.  This one does not have a supporting article on topic, and even if it did, I would still register my !vote to delete this and most of the other NFL navbox cruft that clutters the bottom of our NFL bio articles.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete this template is unnecessary. The coaches are on the team navbox for the Super Bowl champions. That is all that is necessary.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX #4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." And even if that article did exists, it would fail #3 "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent." It's OK to have readers click on a link to an article; not everything needs to be made into a navbox.—Bagumba (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * delete Frietjes (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.