Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 8

< August 7	August 9 >

August 8

Template:Piano sonata in E major (D. 157)/Scores

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Piano sonata in E major (D. 157)/Scores (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A navbox whose entries are all either external links, or links to scores:wp (effectively also external links), and thus cannot serve any navigational function on en:wp. NSH002 (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no problem, can be deleted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That being said, the rationale for the proposed deletion seems unrealistic. Template:Piano sonata in E major (D. 157)/Scores uses navbox templates, but that doesn't make it a navbox. There's no rule that templates with a visual form derived from navbox templates should mainly/exclusively have entries that are not external links: template:Authority control can be given as example. I completely reject NSH002's rationale as it is apparently based on a misunderstanding, I see no indication for this in any of the related guidelines or policies (the nearest I could find was a warning regarding listing of internal links in templates, when the same can be done by categories/list articles/"see also" sections, see WP:TG 7th bullet — which is not the case for the scores template). If I overlooked something and the deletion rationale would be somewhere sound or founded, please direct us to guidance which states so. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  There is a very clear rule in WP:NAV: "Navigation templates do not provide external links to other websites."
  It is true that there is a small number of instances where {{navbox}} is being used as a wrapper for something other than internal navigation, but ideally someone should write a wrapper template for this purpose (maybe a job for Frietjes, but I don't see it as a high priority) or in some cases the content could be just be subst'd into articles. --NSH002 (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:NAV is an essay
  
  As said, Template:Piano sonata in E major (D. 157)/Scores is not a navigational template, it borrows the navbox layout, in order to achieve it's goal (structured presentation of the main locations of scores in a page on a piano sonata), so even if WP:NAV would be of guideline/policy level (which it isn't for obvious reasons) it wouldn't apply.
  
  That being said,
  Anyone wanting to assist in improving the template, make it generic, etc. would be very welcome. If "more eyes" on this would be the outcome of this TfD listing I'd be very glad!
  
  I created the template in order to test and discuss it at Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert, see section #Improvement suggestions for the table for the current discussion. That's where I would direct all further discussion.
  
  Music scores is rather technical. Being able to read (Western) music notation is no prerequisite for visitors of en:wp. Scores are also primary sources and so can hardly be used as standard references for the content of an article, nor is e.g. the location of Schubert's autograph of the discussed piece something that would normally go in a reception history section, etc. That's why I liked the possibility to collapse the content: doesn't take much place, and for those interested in the scores, only one click away. IMSLP is a befriended open-source project of en:wp, so I see no problem to give easy access to these sources - although it should be implied that these editions are missing out on over a century of Schubert scholarship, for which NSA is the current state of the art: failing to mention these editions would be a serious defect imho.
  
  There's a big difference between wanting to improve something that is in test phase, and outright annihilate it. I'd suggest a speedy-close for this TfD discussion (directing further discussion to Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert#Improvement suggestions for the table), or at least rephrase the rationale of this current TfD to make clear that this is a looking for ways to customise discussion, not a deletion discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  The same rule is also in WP:NAVBOX, which is a guideline, and is strongly enforced on en:wp: "external links should not be included in navigation templates". It is also eligible for deletion because it isn't actually used anywhere yet.
  
  If you want to test a template, you can create it in your own user space - it can still be transcluded for testing using {{User:xxxx/name of template|parameters if any}}.
  There are some more problems with this template:
  1. The use of "/" in the name means that you have effectively created a template as a subpage of a non-existent template {{Piano sonata in E major (D. 157)}}. This is bad practice - such subpage templates should normally only be used to carry out sub-functions of their parent template. In the case of navboxes, it messes up the "V T L" links at the top left.
  2. In addition to the sub-page problem, the name of the template is worrying, because it is so specific. Templates are more useful when they can be applied generally, if necessary using parameters to allow for variations.
  I have no objection if you want to userfy the template, as I've described above.--NSH002 (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:NAVBOX, a.k.a. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Navigation templates compares three systems of internal linking. Again, in this sense Template:Piano sonata in E major (D. 157)/Scores is not a navigational template. It doesn't link articles in a series. In the same way as {{Commons}} is not a navigational template, or the above cited template:Authority control is not a navigational template: none of these are subject to any of the sections of WP:CLN (which only compares techniques to group Wikipedia articles). OTOH succession boxes are navigational templates in the sense of WP:CLN, and I agree they should never link outside. Also hybrid boxes (meaning a grouping of wikipedia articles mixed with external links in the same template) should be avoided, I agree with that.
  
  Above I was clear that the Template:Piano sonata in E major (D. 157)/Scores can be deleted. The complete code (without additional dedicated page in template namespace) is at Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert#Improvement suggestions for the table. I don't need to transclude anything from user (talk) namespace.
  
  That I took up this discussion nonetheless is that once a format of this template is agreed upon (preferably generic so that it can be used with parameters in multiple articles, and of course without unnecessary subpage slashes in the template name, a generic name etc.) it wouldn't be expelled from template namespace "on sight", with a link to this TfD discussion because I omitted to make a point here about the fact that templates can be used for external links. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  See {{Schubert scores}} for what I have in mind. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete, external links should be in the external links section, not in the navbox. the same applies to {{Schubert scores}}. Frietjes (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, er, no: not every relevant score (edition) has an external link, e.g.:
  Tirimo, Martino. Schubert: The Complete Piano Sonatas. Vienna: Wiener Urtext Edition, 1997

--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy while being tested and discussed. This looks like a navbox, so I expect these to be internal links when I click on them. The "scores:" links have no external icon, and the ones that do look strange in a navbox, so I don't think this should be out in the field, before further discussion. (I understand this is not a navbox, but it looks like one, so can be confusing.) Previous discussions have modified non-navboxes to look different, though I think there have been exceptions... —PC -XT + 01:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment - this one should be deleted. The creator has produced a new version of this template, {{Schubert scores}}, which is the one that should be userfied (maybe even deleted, I'm still pondering what to do). --NSH002 (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine with me. Maybe this other template should be tagged and listed at the top of this discussion. —PC -XT + 01:39, 16 August 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Ambedkar Nagar district,Nagar Panchayat

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; deleted as G2 by Smartse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ambedkar Nagar district,Nagar Panchayat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Totally unclear what the purpose is of this template. The Banner talk 08:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete as a fork of Ambedkar Nagar district, Nagar Panchayat, which should probably be redirected. Frietjes (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Green

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Green (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Previously deleted unused template. 117Avenue (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STRONGLY OPPOSED: I'm using it actually for the Federal election candidates specifically Elizabeth May and Bruce Hyer. I tried numerous times to find a way to get this to work without this and could not.--Jack Cox (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Canadian party colour. 117Avenue (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete now redundant to unified system. Frietjes (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now that a better solution has been found —PC -XT + 01:56, 13 August 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.