Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 21 December 23 >

December 22[edit]

Template:Infobox hymn[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox hymn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (54 55 5 transclusions)
Template:Infobox musical composition (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (254 255 320 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox hymn with Template:Infobox musical composition.
Similar coverage; the musical composition box is better designed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been non-neutrally canvassed at WikiProject Christianity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My mention there may appear non-neutral, but it is not considered canvassing, it is standard notification to the relevant wikiproject(s). The fate of the hymn infobox should be decided by, and the TfD addressed to, editors who actually create articles on hymns -- not articles on musical compositions, motets, or classical religious compositions. I regret that you take offense at my wording, but in my opinion it is unfair to make a judgment/decision about this infobox without the participation of and notice to people actually involved in writing and editing hymn articles. If you can think of another way to get the word out to that cohort, please do as well. Softlavender (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I take no offence, but your non-neutral (indeed, misleading) wording is an unambiguous breach of our policy on canvassing, and is far from "standard". The people "who actually create articles on hymns" are invited to this discussion, by way of a prominent notice on the template page, and on every page which transcludes it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I've neutralized the header of that talk page section. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the excellent reasons given by those who appear to be more acquainted with the Hymn infobox, see below. (my previous comment: I think an infobox for musical compositions without an image inclusion option largely preferable, so if the merge results in a template that no longer allows images (like is the case for the current template:Infobox hymn) I have no objection, otherwise I oppose strongly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)) --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: No need for two closely related infoboxes. Option to add an image is crucial to all infobox designs, now let's not be silly; nothing would look stupider than an image immediately above or below but not IN an infobox. Montanabw(talk) 17:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: There is indeed no need for two closely related infoboxes. The musical composition box, which I have used for the about 40 Bruckner's motets and other religious works, is better designed. I agree with Montanabw that the option to add an image is crucial to the infobox design. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 20:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: No need to have an Infobox with a subset of options. Infobox musical composition supports more options. Bgwhite (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Less is more in this case. --Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge: it's pointless to have a template just to force the omission of parameters that are already optional in the other. An editor can (almost) as easily change the choice of template as add or subtract a parameter. Just have the richer template and keep the parameters optional. --Stfg (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the template richer in options, could not have said it better than Stfg, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge for many of the same reasons already given —PC-XT+ 09:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also support the below replacement, where I also commented. —PC-XT+ 08:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The Template:Infobox hymn is uniquely composed specifically for hymns, and to merge it with Template:Infobox musical composition will just create a complete mess with nearly 90 parameters for both hymn-article writers and musical-composition article writers to wade through. Is that what we really want? I think not. I'm curious as to why the nominator feels the "the musical composition box is better designed", especially as concerns hymns. Softlavender (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see my reply below about a dedicated subset with the few parameters of "hymn", no need to "wade". I am writing on hymns, and I was not happy with the limits of the template. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This proposal has been made non-neutrally and without providing information. It is insufficient to say that one template is better designed; there needs to be a description of differences. What is more, the impact is all one-sided, as uses of the musical composition template will not be impacted, whereas users of the hymn template will. Apparently, that is. Is not information on that called for also? I object to this specific vote as flawed and biased. If the proposal still seems beneficial to some, then it is only right to begin again with a statement of reasons, the info I have called for (and anything else, especially what is pertinent to users of the hymn template), and even what is meant by "design" (are you talking merely about the user interface, or about the template implementation underneath?). "Better" is always in the eye of the beholder. Let what is better in the eye of one be seen to be better in the eyes of all. Then a reasonable community decision can be rendered. Evensteven (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a Vote, and there is no requirement that template merger nominations be "made non-neutrally". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh give me a break. A community decision is indeed the point, is it not? And how can that be done with blinds on? Is there really something to hide here? Your response is defensive. Instead, why not open up with a bit of information? Evensteven (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • All the information you need is in the nomination (feel free to ask specific questions if you believe otherwise). The rest is up for discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • While we're on an information kick here, has anyone considered that a hymn is not necessarily musical? Many prayers can be considered such, whether sung or not, whether or not there is any music to be sung at all. And many such prayers have multiple musical settings as well. It is both a current and an ancient practice. Consider the Psalms themselves: sometimes read, sometimes intoned or chanted in a church service, sometimes sung to special settings. And that's only an example. How does your merge impact this consideration? Evensteven (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know what an information kick is but ready to learn. No, I thought a hymn is sung, the psalms were sung in history. - Do you have an example for a hymn without music? - Do you realize that all parameters can have multiple values? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, I must be using some of my *old* slang. :) Psalms were sung, but were also said; still are. The Orthodox Church has whole categories of such hymns: dismissals, entrances, a Theotokion for each day, Kontakia, resurrectional hymns for each Sunday (in each of 8 modes), hymns of each feast, and more. Some are specific to a service, some more general. Most are chanted in a public service, but many can also be used in private prayer, where they can be chanted or spoken. Hymns are prayers first. They may have an individual author, but may be the combined work of several, and often (not always) of unknown or unrecorded authorship. Music may be written, or may be improvised. Orthodox hymnology is in church modes, not keys, and are not metered. Byzantine chant is a whole discipline outside developments in western music. Russian chant was an adaptation of some western musical practice from the 16th century, but is its own thing. Some western hymns (poetry or prayers) have various melodies written for them, and sometimes tunes written for other such prayers are used with another hymn (where the poetic scan matches the musical). This kind of thing goes on all over in Orthodoxy as well, even more commonly. Key, meter (time signature - what's the diff?), translation, composition, publishing, scoring, etc, just don't really enter in. Everything is sung, and that's largely the case in the churches in the west also, once you go back before 1600. A little organ in the 1500s, no keys (hadn't been invented), a little note-against-note style that eventually turned into homophonic texture: that's the original stylistic character of Luther's hymns. There's a lot the templates just don't touch. Evensteven (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • How many of our articles; are about hymns that are not musical? If there are any, feel free to use {{Infobox poem}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, it's a fair point. Not enough Orthodox writers, no template support if there were. But the articles we have about hymns are about specific compositions created by individuals, etc, in a western manner. Nothing wrong about that - it's just different from the organization and usage of Orthodox sources. Poems wouldn't work there either. But you're supporting a specific need. Just be aware that it's specific, and doesn't entirely cover western church practice either. How would you support an article on a particular Gregorian chant, for example? Sometimes it's worth thinking outside the infobox. Evensteven (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you think of having in the template documentation a section with the few parameters hymn has, - no wading through the others? At present there is a subset of few parameters which are enough for most compositions. I started using that infobox because "hymn" doesn't offer an image, example Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I have no adequate information to decide if this would be sufficient or not, but it seems like a minimal requirement if a merge is to happen. I still wouldn't support a merge until there is more info here about why. Evensteven (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have the links to the two templates on top. Did you compare? Why is it not sufficient, - or what else do you need to know? Did you look at the example? Does it work for you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would have to say that both templates are limited in scope, and a merge would do no better, but that comment stands both for hymns and for musical compositions generally. It covers most of the commonplaces of western music during the last 4 or 5 hundred years, and I suppose for hymnology of similar time and origin. I'm not seeing anything objectionable or more limiting than what has been there until now. I'm just still wondering why the tight-lipped reception here? Can no one else honestly see that there are questions, or limitations at all? Is the reason for the merge in order to get rid of duplicate technology in another template? Does the musical composition template have a superior or updated underlying implementation that will allow it to run faster (or "better" somehow, less drain on servers)? Has there been a thorough examination what hymn-template users need to see that they are covered? And wouldn't part of that need be the need to communicate to them in particular, both in regards to this discussion, and in regards to template documentation? Honestly, this is why it has looked like a railroad job to me from the start. But I'm not trying to point fingers or find a scapegoat. I just want to see it open up. So tell me it's ok, and why, and what was done to prepare so that everything is covered, and I'm sure it will all turn out fine. And then there will be a little piece of writing that can be shown to all who need to know, and everyone will be happy. And that's the way things should be done. Evensteven (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Can we please keep it simple? I wrote about several hymns, see example above, and {{infobox hymn}} didn't work for me. I looked around if we have one which does, and found {{infobox musical composition}} useful, that's all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • That, and the other things I mentioned, are also useful for others to know, that's all. Evensteven (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • More next year, 13 minutes from now, and then I will travel, cheers, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pigsonthewing:Re your response above, Andy: "all the information you need is in the nomination" - I have been telling you that it is not. If you don't think so, that is your privilege, but I still think it is inadequate, and I am hearing no answers to the many questions I have raised above. Re "feel free to ask specific questions", I do indeed feel free, but if I have not been specific enough in what I have already said, here's another: Why do you consider a hymn to be a subcategory of musical composition, when it is in fact a subcategory of prayer? And a follow-up: Why then do these templates belong merged; should not a separate hymn template be retained in order to reflect the differences, and perhaps be extended later when a greater need arises? To me, this merge does not look forward well. Evensteven (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Evensteven, you are beginning to cross the line into personally attacking the individual and not focusing on the content. You are also being tendentious and putting up a wall of text that detracts from the practical issue at hand. We clearly have a situation where a poorly-designed template can be easily merged into a far better one that is more widely used. Your "questions" are really quite tendentious and in this context, rather ridiculous. (Or do find us all ONE use of infobox hymn on something that is not musical, eh?) Montanabw(talk) 02:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Montanabw, that is not the case. You are seeing a personal attack where it is not. Evensteven has pointed out the flaws in the nomonation he sees, and states that they have not been answered for. It is his good right to note that. I add that for me too, the nomination does not have any reasoning into details or contant comparision, and Andy has not made the slightest effort to add that later on. I second Evensteven's note that "it is not". On top of this, it is you who introduces the PA notion. The critique on the proposal is to the point, and could have been addressed. -DePiep (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I honestly see this in a quite different light, which is not so simple. My apologies to anyone I have offended, but really, no one has been willing to consider anything that doesn't just look simple, so I wasn't being tendentious, just trying to be heard by a group that doesn't want to hear. I made no personal attacks; I just was shut out. I'll go away now, and leave you to do what you like. Sheesh. But no hard feelings here; it's not worth fighting about - never was. Have a happy new year. Evensteven (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Why do you consider a hymn to be a subcategory of musical composition, when it is in fact a subcategory of prayer?" - Where did I say that? However, the hymn infobox parameters are largely overlapping with musical composition infobox parameters: they include |MusicBy=, |Key=, |TimeSignature=,|TradMelodyName=, |Audio sample?=. "Why then do these templates belong merged" - That is explained in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. "should not a separate hymn template be retained in order to reflect the differences" No. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Evensteven, it looks like we need to clearly distinguish category and infobox template. The category is something a reader sees, the template is something a reader doesn't see, only an editor. To the reader, it doesn't matter how the template is called and its parameters. One template has |MusicBy=, the other |composer=: the result is the same. (I confess that I don't like the old-fashioned camel case parameter names too much.) - Also: let's imagine we wanted to add a parameter, - if we have two templates we had to change two, if one, only one, - it's easier. - I use one infobox template (person) for all people, no matter if they are a composer, a conductor or a hymn poet. One template to maintain, one to remember, - for simplicity. Why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, goodness folks! I wasn't speaking of WP categories, just plain simple everyday categories. If you do a template merge like this proposed one, you're essentially saying that you can cover hymns with the same thing as you use to cover musical compositions in general, which presumes they fall into the same general category, sharing the same characteristics. If that's the way you all want it, fine, go ahead. It's just that it's not that simple if you look at what hymns are, and it is apparent that there is a whole real-world situation that doesn't begin to match up the way you want the templates to. I was trying to bring that to your attention, and to let you know that it might not be a good idea for template support to do the merge because, looking forward, the time can easily come when the real-world mismatch will bite you and you'll need to separate them again. By all means make the templates simple. But you can't simplify the real world, and if you don't look there first, you can stumble into misalignments and cause support problems. Just please be aware of what you're doing, or try to. I am quite frustrated with trying to tell all of you about it, and I give you leave to ignore me if that is what you wish. Fare well. Evensteven (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I asked you above "How many of our articles; are about hymns that are not musical?" Although you posted a response, you don't seem to have given a figure. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I noted: Editor has left the thread frustrated. Response: more of the same. -DePiep (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some things seem to have been overlooked:
    • Here is the OED entry for hymn, n. It includes two definitions (my italics, and I'm omitting "hymn of hate", which is an outlier): "1. A song of praise to God; any composition in praise of God which is adapted to be chanted or sung ..." and "2. a. An ode or song of praise in honour of a deity, a country, etc.". Note that these definitions emphasize praise and singing, but are not exclusive to God or even to deities in general. Definition 2.a quotes the 1880 edition of Grove in calling La Marseillaise a hymn. The claim that hymns are "prayers first" is tosh. Hymns are always designed for singing, but are not universally addressed to deities or sentient beings that might hear prayers.
    • Even in the sub-genre of religious hymns, Christian hymns, or even hymns of the Abrahamic religions, are not the whole story. There are also Hindu hymns, for example. The equation of "editors who actually create articles on hymns" with WikiProject Christianity strongly implied above is at best a case of systemic bias, at worst a claim of ownership.
    • "the impact is all one-sided, as uses of the musical composition template will not be impacted, whereas users of the hymn template will": remains to be seen. The idea of merge is to merge, not to supersede. If either template has features in it that the other lacks, these features should be added. The decision to merge is independent of who implements changes to affected articles; nobody has said that WikiProject Christianity would be expected to do it. Articles, even when of interest to particular WikiProjects, are still the property and the responsibility of the whole community.
    • All that stuff about the 8 modes of Orthodox chant, absence of time signature, no organ before 1500, etc, etc, etc, is red herrings. The hymn template doesn't address these matters any more than the musical composition one does.
    --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for good comments! It occurred to me (independently) that - if "musical" is regarded as not proper - a simpler name for the template might be "infobox composition"? Perhaps better suited to works - such as the psalms - where we don't know a composer and not even the original music. - I created several articles on hymns without being a member of project Christianity, and certainly a Verdi hymn (not by me) has the general infobox. - Please compare hymns in List of hymns by Martin Luther: some have one, some the other, some none at all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Composition can refer to an essay or photograph as easily as it could refer to a piece of music. Removing the word musical is bound to get confusing. Ibadibam (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I inserted a new parameter "melody" in "musical composition" (derived from parameter "TradMelodyName" in "hymn"), used here. Please check if the infobox is able to cover what you want for this hymn, and others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merger, with a preference for "Infobox composition" over "Infobox musical composition", as suggested above by Gerda Arendt, if that addresses the concerns voiced here. Ham II (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I now also inserted parameters "meter" (as in hymn), and added a parameter "written". "Infobox Composition" can now handle all parameters of "infobox hymn", a hymn example is supplied in the documentation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, since I just said merge, above, I'll support replacement with the new Infobox Composition (if it's not reverted, of course.) —PC-XT+ 08:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I started to change some hymns, always said "revert if you don't like it", and improved the documentation, to make it easy to copy only the parameters typically used for a hymn. Comments and improvements welcome. - So far I didn't add parameter "translator", because if an English version is to be covered in details, a second infobox is probably better than squeezing information of a foreign language and its translation all in one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: now that there have been improvements to Musical composition (IMC), there's really nothing that Hymn (IH) does that IMC doesn't do. In fact, IMC parameters like based_on are very appropriate to hymns. Including a hymn example on the IMC documentation is sufficient to help editors working specifically with hymns. A separate infobox that is essentially a stripped-down version of IMC doesn't make sense. Also, despite canvassing in the original proposal, that in itself is not a reason to reject the merge. Ibadibam (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I looked at inclusions of "hymn", to get a better understanding for the needs of articles using the template. Some of the articles are no hymns, some are both hymn and song. One argument against using "composition" I noticed was that "hymn" is no genre. Accepted, but then what is it? The present occurances don't mention at all that the article subject is a hymn, which I would find desirable, especially in the many cases of foreign language (Spanish, Swedish) hymns. A normal hymn shows two parameters at the top ("music" and "words"), different from all other infobox templates I know. This is how the same might look using "composition".
"I Surrender All"
Music: Winfield S. Weeden
Words: Judson W. Van DeVenter
Meter8.7.8.7.5.5.8.5
Published1896 (1896)
If the unusual design is really wanted, "composition" can achieve a similar appearance. The parameters for key and time are available, but I don't know why they would be used, time yes if different from the standard common time, key I would know no reason, because hymns are often transposed in various editions, no? Another question raised was that "music" doesn't show if melody, harmonization or both. Often music will be written after the text, - that doesn't show without dates for "music" and "words". I believe "composition" is more flexible, - I personally have no use for infobox hymn. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Softlavender. Hymns don't need all the specific parameters offered by the alternative, especially not images. What sort of image do you expect to show with a hymn: the sheet music (from which hymnal and by which arranger?), the composer? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace trasclusions of Infobox hymn and redirect the page to Infobox musical composition. Infobox hymn is an intuitive name, so a redirect would probably be beneficial. Whether or not to include an image is ultimately an editorial decision, and no convincing argument is made that either infobox shouldn't provide the option for those that do wish to make use of it. {{Infobox musical composition}} is missing the time signature parameter, which is used in one of the two remaining transclusions of {{Infobox hymn}}; would we want to add it to the former? Alakzi (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Para time was there but rather at the bottom, - I moved it higher up now, but recommend to use it only in the few hymn not in common time. - I suggest to leave infobox hymn as it is to show previous versions properly, but make a note in the documentation that it should no longer be used. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by 'show previous versions properly'? Alakzi (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that I am afraid that if you look at a version from last year the infobox (hymn) will not display as it did then, if it is a redirect. - Infobox Bruckner symphonies was deleted, this is what you get, while I might have liked to see how it looked back then, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But templates are deleted all the time. Is there a guideline about when to keep them for this purpose? Alakzi (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_22&oldid=1076218275"