Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 January 24

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 23 January 25 >

January 24

edit

Template:Free Scotland Party/meta/color

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2021 February 1. Primefac (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2021 (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:Hiller operas

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Primefac (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only four entries. Fails WP:NENAN. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above and similar discussions. This is a navbox pretending to be an infobox, not our normal style. List of operas by Johann Adam Hiller has a list of his operas of which four are currently separate articles. A normal navbox can be created if new articles appear to justify it. Nigej (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and same goes for the rest of these. Same rationale I gave in the previous round of these (it's about the same as what Nigej is saying above, with more detail).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am of the opinion that readers are ill-served by these sidebar nav boxes. 1) The erase the possibility of having (by taking the place of) a unique lead for each opera, or unique infobox. 2) They do not appear on mobile devices, resulting in no lead image of any kind. 3) They are often redundant to horizontal nav boxes. 4) They are overkill; sidebar nav boxes are often useful for large topics, say Renaissance art, or Medieval philosophy, where it may be beneficial to traverse extremely large topics rapidly; with smaller topics, like operas of a specific composers, the navigation is less helpful as it is easier to find one's way around, often by use of a horizontal nav box. Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2021 (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:Halévy operas

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Primefac (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Fromental Halévy}}. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed). Readers are better served by the horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above and similar discussions. Perfectly good template already, as noted above. Nigej (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Concerns with image placement/selection can be addressed by means other than deletion. No valid evidence-based rationale for deletion has been put forward, just personal preference for a different design. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I told you in similar deletion discussions on 14 January: There is ample evidence that the community holds this to be the case; every single such opera composer nominated for deletion in recent months - many with that in the rationale - has been deleted (including batches on September 28, October 5, October 8, December 20, December 28). Not a single one of them has been kept. Every one of those 14 January nominations also resulted in deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I told you there, all that is evidenced is that a handful of editors personally prefer one style, not a cause for deletion. Similarly WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a deletion rationale. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • And again, as I told you there, this does not fail WP:OTHERSTUFF because, as is clear, it evidences that community believes that Readers would be better served by a horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. And still, every single nomination of such a template in the last few months - several dozens of them - has resulted in deletion. On not one single such occasion have the arguments you make here resited in anything else. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not by personal preference but the convincing argument in the last such discussion by SMcCandlish ("not our normal, expected way of navigating ... This particular thing appears to be some weird pseudo-infobox"). For explanation: this sidebar was created in 2007, while {{infobox opera}} was developed in 2013. - This argument goes for all opera templates on this page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That argument is incorrect; this navigation design is used in hundreds of thousands of articles, meaning that while it is not the most common, it certainly is not outside the bounds of "normal" range of designs. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Showing my stupidity perhaps, but I can't find other examples (outside this classical music sphere) where we use navboxes masquerading as infoboxes. Nigej (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Examples of navboxes with this design, not masquerading as anything: Angst, Achilles (demonstrating that they can in fact be used with a unique lead image), Abugida (ditto), Prehistoric art (ditto), Book of Alma (ditto)... If you want more, start here and then move to the more specific templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am of the opinion that readers are ill-served by these sidebar nav boxes. 1) The erase the possibility of having (by taking the place of) a unique lead for each opera, or unique infobox. 2) They do not appear on mobile devices, resulting in no lead image of any kind. 3) They are often redundant to horizontal nav boxes. 4) They are overkill; sidebar nav boxes are often useful for large topics, say Renaissance art, or Medieval philosophy, where it may be beneficial to traverse extremely large topics rapidly; with smaller topics, like operas of a specific composers, the navigation is less helpful as it is easier to find one's way around, often by use of a horizontal nav box. Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Point 1 is incorrect; nothing prevents someone from adding something above (or below, to address point 2) this template, making these issues that can be addressed by normal editing rather than deletion. Point 4 is, as above, personal preference for a different design, which is why point 3 is not a cause for deletion - having both allows editors at these articles to select by consensus there what design to use. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2021 (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:Keiser operas

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Primefac (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only three entries. Fails WP:NENAN. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above and similar discussions. This is a navbox pretending to be an infobox, not our normal style. Just three of his operas are currently separate articles. A normal navbox can be created if new articles appear to justify it. Nigej (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am of the opinion that readers are ill-served by these sidebar nav boxes. 1) The erase the possibility of having (by taking the place of) a unique lead for each opera, or unique infobox. 2) They do not appear on mobile devices, resulting in no lead image of any kind. 3) They are often redundant to horizontal nav boxes. 4) They are overkill; sidebar nav boxes are often useful for large topics, say Renaissance art, or Medieval philosophy, where it may be beneficial to traverse extremely large topics rapidly; with smaller topics, like operas of a specific composers, the navigation is less helpful as it is easier to find one's way around, often by use of a horizontal nav box. Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2021 (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:Kálmán operas

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Primefac (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed). Readers would be better served by a horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace per above and similar discussions. This is a navbox pretending to be an infobox, not our normal style. Currently no suitable horizontal-style navbox replacement exists but one could readily be created. Nigej (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    {{Emmerich Kálmán}} in place --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am of the opinion that readers are ill-served by these sidebar nav boxes. 1) The erase the possibility of having (by taking the place of) a unique lead for each opera, or unique infobox. 2) They do not appear on mobile devices, resulting in no lead image of any kind. 3) They are often redundant to horizontal nav boxes. 4) They are overkill; sidebar nav boxes are often useful for large topics, say Renaissance art, or Medieval philosophy, where it may be beneficial to traverse extremely large topics rapidly; with smaller topics, like operas of a specific composers, the navigation is less helpful as it is easier to find one's way around, often by use of a horizontal nav box. Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2021 (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:Hahn operas

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Primefac (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only two entries. Fails WP:NENAN. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above and similar discussions. This is a navbox pretending to be an infobox, not our normal style. Just two of his operas are currently separate articles. A normal navbox can be created if new articles appear to justify it (or if other non-operatic works are added). Nigej (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am of the opinion that readers are ill-served by these sidebar nav boxes. 1) The erase the possibility of having (by taking the place of) a unique lead for each opera, or unique infobox. 2) They do not appear on mobile devices, resulting in no lead image of any kind. 3) They are often redundant to horizontal nav boxes. 4) They are overkill; sidebar nav boxes are often useful for large topics, say Renaissance art, or Medieval philosophy, where it may be beneficial to traverse extremely large topics rapidly; with smaller topics, like operas of a specific composers, the navigation is less helpful as it is easier to find one's way around, often by use of a horizontal nav box. Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:59, 25 January 2021 (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:Huszka operas

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Primefac (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only five entries. Fails WP:NENAN. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed). Readers would be better served by a horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above and similar discussions. This is a navbox pretending to be an infobox, not our normal style. Just five of his operas are currently separate articles. A normal navbox can be created if new articles appear to justify it. Nigej (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am of the opinion that readers are ill-served by these sidebar nav boxes. 1) The erase the possibility of having (by taking the place of) a unique lead for each opera, or unique infobox. 2) They do not appear on mobile devices, resulting in no lead image of any kind. 3) They are often redundant to horizontal nav boxes. 4) They are overkill; sidebar nav boxes are often useful for large topics, say Renaissance art, or Medieval philosophy, where it may be beneficial to traverse extremely large topics rapidly; with smaller topics, like operas of a specific composers, the navigation is less helpful as it is easier to find one's way around, often by use of a horizontal nav box. Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2021 (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:Hagen operas

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Primefac (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed). Readers would be better served by a horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above and similar discussions. This is a navbox pretending to be an infobox, not our normal style. Doesn't seem to be used anyway since it is surplus to {{Daron Hagen}}. Nigej (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am of the opinion that readers are ill-served by these sidebar nav boxes. 1) The erase the possibility of having (by taking the place of) a unique lead for each opera, or unique infobox. 2) They do not appear on mobile devices, resulting in no lead image of any kind. 3) They are often redundant to horizontal nav boxes. 4) They are overkill; sidebar nav boxes are often useful for large topics, say Renaissance art, or Medieval philosophy, where it may be beneficial to traverse extremely large topics rapidly; with smaller topics, like operas of a specific composers, the navigation is less helpful as it is easier to find one's way around, often by use of a horizontal nav box. Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no transclusions in Main space, {{Daron Hagen}} was already in place for all operas --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2021 (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:Grétry operas

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 18:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed). Readers would be better served by a horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:30, 24 January 2021 (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:Hadley operas

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Primefac (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only six entries. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed). Readers would be better served by a horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I am of the opinion that readers are ill-served by these sidebar nav boxes. 1) The erase the possibility of having (by taking the place of) a unique lead for each opera, or unique infobox. 2) They do not appear on mobile devices, resulting in no lead image of any kind. 3) They are often redundant to horizontal nav boxes. 4) They are overkill; sidebar nav boxes are often useful for large topics, say Renaissance art, or Medieval philosophy, where it may be beneficial to traverse extremely large topics rapidly; with smaller topics, like operas of a specific composers, the navigation is less helpful as it is easier to find one's way around, often by use of a horizontal nav box. Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    {{Henry Kimball Hadley}} is now in place --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2021 (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:Handel

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 18:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{George Frideric Handel}}. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed). Readers are better served by the horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Concerns with image placement/selection can be addressed by means other than deletion. No valid evidence-based rationale for deletion has been put forward, just personal preference for a different design. Readers are not any better served by the massive sea of links that is the proposed replacement, and this longstanding design has been included in high-quality articles that have received careful review from the community. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Featured article Messiah (Handel) has been fine with an infobox instead of the sidebar from 2015. The review for Rinaldo (opera) dates back to 2011, Agrippina was in 2009, before the alternative, {{infobox opera}}, now common and widely accepted, was available, - in 2013, as explained above, and not immediately welcome. Should we ask the community once more, or just try making these works look like the majority of other featured articles in Classical music and opera? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is certainly not a requirement to make cookie-cutter articles. The template you mention is, as you have previously noted, presented as an option, not the only potential design. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I don't understand what cookie-cutter articles would be. I know that the sidebar is an option unfair to readers on mobile devices which is a rather objective reason not to go for it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See wikt:cookie-cutter#Adjective. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and similar discussions. This is a navbox pretending to be an infobox. As noted in the nom, there is a perfectly good navbox already. Indeed, there's perfectly good infobox too for the operas, eg {{Infobox opera}}. However this isn't used (see eg the opera Almira) because we have the Handel template filling up the space where the infobox should be with a picture of the man and three hidden lists. Nigej (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am of the opinion that readers are ill-served by these sidebar nav boxes. 1) The erase the possibility of having (by taking the place of) a unique lead for each opera, or unique infobox. 2) They do not appear on mobile devices, resulting in no lead image of any kind. 3) They are often redundant to horizontal nav boxes. 4) They are overkill; sidebar nav boxes are often useful for large topics, say Renaissance art, or Medieval philosophy, where it may be beneficial to traverse extremely large topics rapidly; with smaller topics, like operas of a specific composers, the navigation is less helpful as it is easier to find one's way around, often by use of a horizontal nav box. Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Point 1 is incorrect; nothing prevents someone from adding something above (or below, to address point 2) this template, making these issues that can be addressed by normal editing rather than deletion. Point 4 is, as above, personal preference for a different design - not to mention, have you seen the proposed replacement? It's basically the definition of "overkill". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after replacing with a navbox footer per all the other recent opera sidebar discussions. I don't see this as any different than the rest. Frietjes (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    horizontal navbox was in place when nominated --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2021 (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:Cui operas

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 18:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed). Readers would be better served by a horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{César Cui}} is now in place. I noticed that many of his works have already other navboxes, all horizontal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2021 (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:Dvořák operas

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 18:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Antonín Dvořák}}. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed). Readers are better served by a horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Concerns with image placement/selection can be addressed by means other than deletion. No valid evidence-based rationale for deletion has been put forward, just personal preference for a different design. Readers are not any better served by the sea of links that is the proposed replacement. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and similar discussions. This is a navbox pretending to be an infobox. As noted in the nom, there is a perfectly good navbox already. Indeed, there's perfectly good infobox too, ie {{Infobox opera}}. However this isn't used (see eg the opera Alfred (Dvořák)) because we have the Dvořák operas template filling up the space where the infobox should be with a picture of the man and a list of his other operas. Nigej (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am of the opinion that readers are ill-served by these sidebar nav boxes. 1) The erase the possibility of having (by taking the place of) a unique lead for each opera, or unique infobox. 2) They do not appear on mobile devices, resulting in no lead image of any kind. 3) They are often redundant to horizontal nav boxes. 4) They are overkill; sidebar nav boxes are often useful for large topics, say Renaissance art, or Medieval philosophy, where it may be beneficial to traverse extremely large topics rapidly; with smaller topics, like operas of a specific composers, the navigation is less helpful as it is easier to find one's way around, often by use of a horizontal nav box. Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point 1 is incorrect; nothing prevents someone from adding something above (or below, to address point 2) this template, making these issues that can be addressed by normal editing rather than deletion. Point 4 is, as above, personal preference for a different design, which is why point 3 is not a cause for deletion - having both allows editors at these articles to select by consensus there what design to use. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2021 (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:Donizetti operas

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Primefac (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Gaetano Donizetti}}. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed). Readers are better served by a horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I am of the opinion that readers are ill-served by these sidebar nav boxes. 1) The erase the possibility of having (by taking the place of) a unique lead for each opera, or unique infobox. 2) They do not appear on mobile devices, resulting in no lead image of any kind. 3) They are often redundant to horizontal nav boxes. 4) They are overkill; sidebar nav boxes are often useful for large topics, say Renaissance art, or Medieval philosophy, where it may be beneficial to traverse extremely large topics rapidly; with smaller topics, like operas of a specific composers, the navigation is less helpful as it is easier to find one's way around, often by use of a horizontal nav box. Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no transclusions in Main space --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:09, 27 January 2021 (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:André Cardinal Destouches stage music

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 18:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed). Readers would be better served by a horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is with mobbile view. The template is rendered correctly on my phone and iPAD in desktop view. Before nominating the template for deletion, you should create and add the horizontal navbox at the foot of the articles, then delete the template from each article, while adding back an appropriate infobox or image. Once you have done that, and it is no longer in use, then nominate this template for deletion. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You assert rules ("Before nominating the template for deletion, you should create and add the horizontal navbox at the foot of the articles, then delete the template from each article...") which are not only bogus, but which have not prevented the deletion of dozens of similar templates in similar circumstances, in recent weeks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's a good idea to get consensus before making all those edits. By the way, I also find the Wkipedia mobile app is nearly useless. The text is far too large and I have never been able to figure out how to make smaller. Perhaps I'm missing something? --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Robert.Allen. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Astute readers will have noticed that Robert.Allen made a procedural objection based on the sequence of events, which was refuted, and that he subsequently acknowledged "it's a good idea to get consensus before making all those edits". He also acknowledged the problem in mobile view; and called for us to "create and add the horizontal navbox at the foot of the articles". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with a standard horizontal navbox, per similar discussions. This is a navbox pretending to be an infobox. There's perfectly good infobox for the "stage works", ie {{Infobox opera}}. However this isn't used (see eg the opera Issé (opera)) because we have the André Cardinal Destouches template filling up the space where the infobox should be with a picture of the man and a hidden list of some of his other works. Nigej (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    {{André Cardinal Destouches}} is in place --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am of the opinion that readers are ill-served by these sidebar nav boxes. 1) The erase the possibility of having (by taking the place of) a unique lead for each opera, or unique infobox. 2) They do not appear on mobile devices, resulting in no lead image of any kind. 3) They are often redundant to horizontal nav boxes. 4) They are overkill; sidebar nav boxes are often useful for large topics, say Renaissance art, or Medieval philosophy, where it may be beneficial to traverse extremely large topics rapidly; with smaller topics, like operas of a specific composers, the navigation is less helpful as it is easier to find one's way around, often by use of a horizontal nav box. Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after replacing with a navbox footer per all the other recent sidebar discussions. I don't see this as any different than the rest. Frietjes (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    horizontal navbox is place --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2021 (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:Dalayrac operas

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 18:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only three entries. Fails WP:NENAN. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed). Readers would be better served by a horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Concerns with image placement/selection can be addressed by means other than deletion. No valid evidence-based rationale for deletion has been put forward, just personal preference for a different design. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete similar issues to those noted above. Replace with standard horizontal navbox when it becomes useful for navigation. Nigej (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am of the opinion that readers are ill-served by these sidebar nav boxes. 1) The erase the possibility of having (by taking the place of) a unique lead for each opera, or unique infobox. 2) They do not appear on mobile devices, resulting in no lead image of any kind. 3) They are often redundant to horizontal nav boxes. 4) They are overkill; sidebar nav boxes are often useful for large topics, say Renaissance art, or Medieval philosophy, where it may be beneficial to traverse extremely large topics rapidly; with smaller topics, like operas of a specific composers, the navigation is less helpful as it is easier to find one's way around, often by use of a horizontal nav box. Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Point 1 is incorrect; nothing prevents someone from adding something above (or below, to address point 2) this template, making these issues that can be addressed by normal editing rather than deletion. Point 4 is, as above, personal preference for a different design, which is why point 3 is not a cause for deletion - having both allows editors at these articles to select by consensus there what design to use. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after replacing with a navbox footer per all the other recent opera sidebar discussions. I don't see this as any different than the rest. Frietjes (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want a footer navbox for the 3 entries, please make it, - I made several others but found this not worth it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2021 (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:4/8/16/32TeamBracket-Compact-NoSeeds-Byes

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 Refactor to use LUA. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

same usage as Module:RoundN, you can use {{#invoke:RoundN|main |columns=1 |widescore= |bold_winner= |omit_blanks=yes |RD1= ||<!-- team1 -->||<!-- team2 -->| }} instead. Hhkohh (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that if the result is delete, we will convent the template to Module:RoundN before actual deletion. Hhkohh (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2021 (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:Infobox actor performances

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

0 to none usage beyond documentation and redirects. Template is already covered by Template:Infobox filmography list. Even though, the documentation states it's for discography articles, Template:Infobox artist discography already covers that. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 12:04, 24 January 2021 (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:Sapari Game

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be an abandoned test attempt at creating an infobox for use in one specific article. The target article in question, SAPARi, is currently using {{Infobox VG Online Service}} which works just fine. I'm not sure if we even allow single-purpose templates like this, but regardless, now it has no use whatsoever. Delete please. TarkusABtalk/contrib 06:18, 24 January 2021 (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/2021_January_24&oldid=1005905382"