August 20
Template:Subst check top
- 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 Relist (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
- Category:Templates using the substitution check templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Misuse of *top/*bottom templates causing extremely confusing behavior in which categories and other non-visible elements in the template that should have been substituted but wasn't still appear, but the visible content doesn't. Pppery (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This is part of a template coding and documentation system (see Template:Subst check top#Related templates) that the nom doesn't seem to have figured out. The nomination isn't cogent, anyway. "Misuse of top/bottom templates" isn't a real thing; since there is no prescribed use of them, there cannot be a violation of such a prescription. If the nom is meaning to suggest that the template isn't functioning as intended or expected, this is a bug report to raise on the template's talk page. "I don't understand, and you'd better change this template immediately or else" isn't what TfD is for. It is possible that the template might not be needed or might be broken and irreparable in some way, but there is no demonstration of this. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @SMcCandish: However, the issues I mentioned above are not fixable - there is no way to code ((x)) and ((y)) such that
((x))[[Category:Example]]((y)) does not result in the article appearing in Category:Example. In a similar type of issue, these templates rely on a CSS hack to hide the contents of the template that should be substituted, which causes accessibility issues. Pppery (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I welcome suggestions on how to correct an accessibility issue on the template's talk page, but the solution to an accessibility issue isn't to nuke it from orbit. This template is undeniably useful, and it's not meant to be transcluded for any long period of time, so the issue is minimal. ~ Rob13Talk 09:41, 30 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).
- 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 snow keep (non-admin closure) Pppery (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Bach cantatas with Template:Cantatas, motets and oratorios by BWV number.
This came up as a side topic at Template talk:Bach cantatas#Split off secular cantatas?, where someone wrote: "... a navbox Bach cantatas should have the cantatas, not more, not less ...", but several of the composition articles linked from the box are not cantatas (including a motet and an oratorio), or not by Bach (e.g. by Telemann). Also ((Bach cantatas)) nowhere indicates that the numbers in the box represent BWV numbers. So proposing to merge to the more accurate and complete ((Cantatas, motets and oratorios by BWV number)) (with an accurate name). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose merge. Actually I think that we do not need ((Cantatas, motets and oratorios by BWV number)) at all. Francis, you argued that ((Bach cantatas)) is too large, and want to make it larger, by including other sacred works, but rather arbitrarily so? Template Bach cantatas reflects the pieces listed in the corresponding article List of Bach cantatas. I vote for keeping it that way. I like the simple title, and the plain easy to understand listing established in 2008. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose merge, per Gerda. This appears to be a bad-faith nomination, by the editor who has only just created
((Cantatas, motets and oratorios by BWV number)), with the edit summary "combining Template:Bach cantatas and Template:Church cantatas, motets and oratorios by BWV number"
rather than a TfM proposal. It is also in breach of WP:POINT. We should delete the new template as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Andy Mabbett and Gerda Arendt above. The new template ((Cantatas, motets and oratorios by BWV number)) seems to be arbitrary wikiclutter - I would support Andy's suggestion of deletion if it is proposed.--Smerus (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose merge. I created the original template years ago. Since there are so many cantatas, the simpler the better. The more you add, the harder it will be to read. It's a lot like the Haydn Symphony template. That said, if you want to add the words "by BWV number" to the header bar of the old template, that can easily be done without page moves.DavidRF (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I cannot see any reason to merge. I like the old template and see no particular reason for the new one (per Gerda, Andy Mabbett and Smerus). Yes, BWV 15 is by Johann Ludwig Bach. Yes the Christmas Oratorio is a collection of cantatas. Bur equally well the B minor Mass has material originally composed in cantatas. The self-borrowings by Bach and mis-attributions to Bach are subjects in themselves. I cannot see how they can be used to justify either introducing a new (possibly confusing) template or
abandoning merging an established template. Mathsci (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: Seems very nitpicky and not needed. The first is fine, the second seems too confusing. Montanabw(talk) 07:39, 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).