Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 16 March 18 >

March 17[edit]

Template:Infobox folk song[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 to Template:Infobox musical composition. While I can understand the concerns expressed by the "keep separate" camp, there has long been a precedent that a (relatively) small number of disparate parameters is insufficient to prevent a merger when the majority are similar. There's no issue with leaving this as a redirect. Primefac (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox folk song with Template:Infobox musical composition.
The folk song template, used just twice, is a fork of {{Infobox musical composition}}, into which it should be re-merged. Note also that {{Infobox song}} exists, Into which a previous template for folk songs, {{Infobox standard}}, was merged some time back. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The current template {{Infobox musical composition}} doesn't have many fields that are important for any piece of folklore, e.g. first_mention, first_time_recorded_by, recorded_on_date, way_of_recording, place_of_origin, notable_song_books/ collections (see here), whereas many of its existing fields (such as key, dedication, duration, libretto, all Premiere fields) are useless for any folk song. Moreover, I think that other folklore articles (about folk legends, fairy tales, proverbs, etc.) lack some special infobox template(s) providing information rather about a piece of folklore than about a work of literature — strictly speaking, most of the above articles could have no infobox at all (see here, e.g., 1, 2, 3). Of course, the newly created template could be changed and improved, however, I hope it could be useful as one of first Folklore infobox templates. --Tamtam90 (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the useful parts The new template was created without any input from other editors at WP:SONGS. Help:Designing infoboxes includes "You are well-advised to seek the opinions of other editors before embarking on a design of a new infobox or redesign of an existing one. If your ideas are welcomed, consider prototyping your new design. Once prototyped, propose the infobox changes to the appropriate WikiProject and gain consensus before deploying your new design." If the creator had done so, he would have learned that the similar Infobox standard parameters were dropped because of ongoing problems. What one person thinks is important for one small set of songs may be excessive detail or misused by others.
Parameters like |notable_song_books=, |in_music=, etc., are appropriate for discussion in the article, but not for an infobox, which is supposed to summarize "key facts". Also, parameters like |performer= (for "Popular performers of the song) and |artist= (for "Artist(s), performed and recorded the song") are magnets for long lists of performers and recording artists and maybe contrary to WP:SONGCOVER. Some wordings (|way_of_recording=, |first_label_record=, |writer_of_melody=, |sound=, etc.) are awkward and don't follow terminology used in other music infoboxes. |place_of_origin= is explained as "Place where the first record was made" – something more self-explanatory, like |recording location= is clearer (Infobox musical composition uses |first_recording=). Infobox musical composition also has several other parameters that are useful for folklorists, such as |period=, |based_on=, |related=, |text= (for lyrics/lyricist), and |catalogue= (for Roud Folk Song Index and other popular identifiers). Obviously, not all of the parameters are applicable; a subset for folk songs could be created, similar to the existing examples.
—Ojorojo (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We can add much more important (for folklorists) parameters to a separate template (e.g., to {{Infobox_folk_tale}}) than to a non-special music infobox becoming bigger and bigger (and awkward). You say:

    some wordings are awkward and don't follow terminology used in other music infoboxes

    — a few of them, probably, yes, but, in fact, they are important for the folklorists (as well as for other ethnographers, cultural antropologists, ethnologists, etc.) and could be appropriate and used in other Folklore templates. Moreover, |notable_song_books= must be regarded as a key parameter for any piece of folklore (you can use instead |collections= for non-musical elements, such as proverbs, fairy tales, etc.). While |artist= is a part of the section First released record, it cannot be "a magnet for long lists of performers", whereas |sound= — (you say: it doesn't "follow terminology used in other music infoboxes") — it is used in {{Infobox anthem}}. About "long lists of smb./ smth." — we could avoid that problem, using only the facts based on reliable sources (see description for |genre= in Infobox song). You wrote:

    What one person thinks is important for one small set of songs...

    — well, I can only say, that set is extremely large ("tens of thousands of folk songs" were collected only in China; [1], [2]; and "hundreds of thousands... must have been recorded"; [3]). --Tamtam90 (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • And how many of those Chinese folk songs have Wikipedia articles? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify: the template is designed for a small set of folk songs that one editor has worked on, namely a small number of Russian folk songs that use Cyrillic titles. For example, many songs by Bob Dylan and other folk revival musicians identified as "folk songs" are modern compositions and clearly many of the parameters don't apply. Also, "'long lists of smb./ smth.' — we could avoid that problem, using only the facts based on reliable sources" – experience has shown that regardless of the parameter guidance/explanations, some people will always add their favorites without any refs. The template simply does not take into account the many uses of "folk songs" and the parameters may be easily misunderstood and misused. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • No need to answer for me (in spite of my native Russian, I could read and write in English). Of course, no. I've created the above template, already using its sibling in ru-wiki (where the template is already used for the articles about the folk songs of 5 different languages, including English). I think, the above template could be improved and could help to develop other Folklore infoboxes (i). Today we have 131 pages in Category:Irish folk songs and more than 300 pages in Category:Folk songs by nationality (or even more than 500: see Category:American folk songs). No doubts, their number will increase and, no doubts, any useful tool (such as a special infobox) could simplify our work in creating new articles (ii). In fact, I tried to add the most important parameters (that any ethnographer or other antropologist, including me, takes into account). We could discuss, change, add or remove some parameters, without deleting the nominated template (WP:BROKE) (iii). --Tamtam90 (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • The numbers don't reflect traditional or historical folk songs. Category:American folk songs contains all the songs (with articles) by Bob Dylan, Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, Neil Diamond, Glen Campbell, etc., regardless of whether an individual song is rock, country, pop, or folk (it's a flaw of the WP category scheme). Also, modern folk songs such as "Blowin' in the Wind", "Catch the Wind", and "Suzanne" would not benefit from the additional template parameters. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • I tried adding a subset for "Traditional folk songs" to the template sandbox, but it shows up on the documentation page (Template:Infobox musical composition#Example 4 - Traditional folk song). Suggestions/comments? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC) Removed example (shouldn't be on documentation page). —Ojorojo (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • It seems to be more appropriate for the folk songs whose songwriters/ lyricists are known. However, many parameters that are important for traditional and historical songs are omitted. I guess, we could add 3-4 parameters for both traditional and historical songs, in the folk song infobox: catalogue(s) — from the {{Infobox musical composition}}; country (or areas) — from the {{Infobox folk tale}}, and 1-2 params for the field recordings. We also could note in the doc of the {{Infobox folk song}} that the template is more appropriate for traditional and historical folk songs (we already have in en-wiki hundreds of such songs). The {{Infobox folk song}} could exist and be useful, as well as {{Infobox anthem}}, though the latter has much more "common parameters" with {{Infobox musical composition}}. --Tamtam90 (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many of the parameters are fundamentally different. Low usage can simply be a matter that most editors do not even know that such specialized templates exist or how to find/ identify which ones exist.North8000 (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge parts or refactor as a module. no need for an entirely new infobox here. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Why was this created? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The parameters in each infobox are completely different. Dreamy Jazz (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as we merged the specialized "hymn" before. We don't have to mirror ru-templates one to one. The general template has already ways to mention a recording or more, basis for text, language(s) of text. - Comment: I see little change to {{infobox musical composition}}, - can we avoid having the merge discussion mentioned wherever it appears? Several of the articles will be on DYK these Passion and Easter days, and it looks ugly, especially with more than one template, such as Herr Jesu Christ, du höchstes Gut. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • RE: "We merged the {{Infobox anthem}}". But who and when, and how has made it? And why (as I can see) this template exists per se and is used in various articles? (i)
    • Maybe, several infoboxes of one type in one article "looks ugly" (see, e.g., here). But, with {{Infobox folk song}} we have no such problem: only one such template for a separate page (whether the article is too big or not) (ii).
    • More then 15 different parameters — is it "a little difference"? (iii)
    • As other users mentioned here, most of the parameters are "completely different". RE: "can we avoid having the merge discussion?". I guess, the community has its own right to discuss the infoboxes that can be useful in hundreds (or even in thousands) articles (iv). --Tamtam90 (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
English is not my first language, but I feel misunderstood more than normally here.
  1. I said hymn (not anthem) and meant hymn. There was {{infobox hymn}}, and yes, all parameters were different, but we worked on the transition. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 22
  2. Not several infoboxes look ugly, but several notices "The template Infobox musical composition is being considered for merging." look ugly. - Can we avoid the notice for "Musical composition"? We have it for a while, with little impact on this discussion.
  3. Do we really need 15 parameters? Performer of first recording? Really? - If we do: there's |misc= for extras.
  4. I didn't mean not having the discussion, - only the notice of the discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, what exactly you need, but there is some difference between a popular song (written by or for a separate perfomer) and a traditional/ historical folk song. If you propose to use instead of all "ethnographic" parameters only one field ("extra"), why don't you do the same for other songs, in the {{Infobox musical composition}}, for "non-ethnographic" parameters? --Tamtam90 (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, we do have a different {{infobox song}}, - no point telling that there's a difference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Allison Gross"
Ballad
(description)
Illustration by Vernon Hill
CatalogueChild Ballad 35
Published1783 (1783): Tytler-Brown MS[1]
Recorded1783 (1783): by Robert Eden Scott
Just looking at the last example:
  • I don't like the repetition of English.
  • I think parameter names that take two lines are too long.
  • Having "by" in the second line of the parameter name, but the name in the first line of the value, is particularly strange.
  • An image-alt ahould not be a repetition of the caption, but describe the image for someone blind.
  • No fixed image sizes please, per WP:IMAGESIZE.
Even more reason to merge, and not mention all these details in an infobox. My take at this one.
  1. ^ Jamieson, Robert (1806). "Alison Gross". Popular Ballads and Songs. Vol. II. Edinburgh.
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my "bad English", but (as ethnographer and "fan" of folk songs) I lack some important facts about the song in your sample. You removed several parameters, and, probably, you think, they are redundant or meaningless. But: there is some difference between:
1) the first publication (for many readers, here: a printed version) and the first edition (here: the manuscript, without or with a few of copies);
2) the first recording (by a folklorist) and other recordings (the first one is, usually, the most important for ehnographers, musicologists, etc., unlike the later ones: see, e.g., |field_recordings=, here) and often becomes the first written source of the song;
etc., etc., etc. --Tamtam90 (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I let others speak now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since this discussion began, the template creator has added an additional five parameters, bringing the total to 32. Other editors have not any input into their selection/definition and, like the original template, appear to reflect the what one editor considers important for "folklore articles" (as opposed to an article about a piece of music). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors (see above) already mentioned that both templates have "completely different" parameters. And, instead of discussing some "trouble" (in your opinion) parameters or proposing some useful ones, you say here about some new params in {{Infobox_folk_song}}. But we can consider any of the existing/ redundant/ possible parameters in each template right here, I think. --Tamtam90 (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Completely different" is overstatement. Many of the parameters are the same or could be adapted from the existing Infobox musical composition. Other parameters such as |in_music=, |first_label_record=, |place_of_origin=, |area=, etc., are not sufficiently self-explanatory and may be misunderstood and misused. General readers and even song editors do not always refer to the template documentation for the explanations. As one of the first things a reader sees, an infobox should only summarize key facts as presented in the article (see WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). This was one of the shortcomings of the deprecated {{Infobox standard}}. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(i) — Well, if so, why don't you use such "interchangeable" parameters of {{Infobox musical composition}} in your own edits? Compare 3 "song infoboxes" in one article, for the same text:
1) with {{Infobox song}} ([4]);
2) with {{Infobox musical composition}} (your edits: [5], [6]);
3) with {{Infobox folk song}} (my edits: [7], [8]). --Tamtam90 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ii) — About key factors: I can repeat it one more time: the folk songs (in particular, traditional and historical ones) usually have many parameters (or key factors) that are different from the fields of the other songs. Yes, they could be redundant or useless for an anthem or an opus, but they are important for a traditional song: area(s), first mention, first time recorded by, field recording(s), culture, first edition and first publication (see above about the difference), notable song books (we often cannot say that notable song books = catalogue(s)), etc., etc., etc.
E.g., |area= tells to readers about the regions/ countries where the song has been collected or was/ is popular. Whether it is not important for a piece of folklore? And |first_label_record= tells about the first label released the song, and all first label params tell us about the first studio record — the first sound publication that, probably, made the song much more popular in contemporary world than any paper editions. --Tamtam90 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any important parts. No need for entirely separate template here. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Musical composition" is not a great merger target because the composition of most folk songs is completely unknown. That's why they are folk songs -- their composers are unknown, and their origins are lost in the mists of unknown and unrecorded history of generally non-literate peoples. Softlavender (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rather lyricists than composers. The folk songs could have arrangements/ melodies made by composers, but its lyrics must be traditional. --Tamtam90 (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both are generally unknown for traditional folksongs, and my point concerns the proposed target infobox of "Musical composition", which is not even about lyric-based songs, but about music. If there were any logical merge target, it would be infobox "Song". Softlavender (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, no. The folk songs become popular in many cases (probably, almost always) due some arrangements of definite musicians, though their lyrics could have no changes at all. Your conclusions (see, e.g., here and here; Sea shanty), your edit war and your comments (WP:CIV), however, say much more than you wish. --Tamtam90 (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2018 (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:Maynard James Keenan[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) 23:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No solo releases, just links to bands he was in, which, if necessary, will have navboxes of their own. --woodensuperman 14:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{Puscifer}} has its own navbox. --woodensuperman 09:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2018 (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:Jeff Scott Soto[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 2018 March 24. (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 19:59, 24 March 2018 (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:2017–18 in Asian football (AFC)[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 2018 March 24. (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 19:59, 24 March 2018 (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:Vegas 16 navbox[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. (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 19:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a navbox for a basketball tournament that was canceled after one year. There is no reason for a navbox with only one event. Fbdave (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - no need for a navigation aid when there is one article to navigate. Rikster2 (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2018 (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:Collab-us/month[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. While the templates are not currently used, at least one instance showed that they can be used. I would recommend posting a notification at each WikiProject's talk page, and if support (or no reply) is given they could probably be moved into the project space (but not deleted). NPASR for individual templates, but a future batch-renomination is likely to not be useful. Primefac (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hasn't been updated for several years; if the history is important, it could be saved as a subpage of the WikiProject. if the banners are needed, we can them directly to the project banners. Frietjes (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep collaborations were good at getting broader articles improved. This is doing no harm where it is and preserves the history which makes it easier to reactivate. It is not article space. Can be marked 'historical' but this seems needlessly destructive - nothing to be gained and something to be lost by deletion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is doing no harm where it is unless you consider the fact that it's being transcluded, giving the false impression that there is an active collaboration. Frietjes (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to project space per nom. None of these are active. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 11:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I don't understand whats going on with these templates, nothing there and they seem pointless. Govvy (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I can only speak for the Collab-dinosaurs: Our collaboration is currently very active and we need this template to draw new editors to our collaboration. But on a more general note: Most of these templates might not have been updated for some time, but that does not mean that editors are not encouraged to continue working on that article. Collabs can be reactivated at any time when there is renewed interest, but such reactivation will get a bit more unlikely to happen if these templates are being deleted. I suggest to let the WikiProjects decide, and only delete if the template has been removed from the Project pages. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 02:26, 17 March 2018 (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/2018_March_17&oldid=848584550"