Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 January 14

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

< January 13	January 15 >

January 14

Template:2020 Lanka Premier League

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) 13:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2020 Lanka Premier League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary, uses a single article heavily. Morever, Template:Lanka Premier League already exists. Empire AS ^Talk! 09:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems unnecessary. It's trancluded on 5 articles which are there at AfD. Empire AS ^Talk! 08:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Most of the links are to the same article, so it's overly complicated. The remaining ones are the 5 team articles which people might want to navigate between. Nigej (talk) 10:29, 15 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:Street grid of landmarks in the 19th-century Los Angeles business district

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. There is a weak consensus here to delete. There is no prejudice against nominating the other related maps, nor is there prejudice against re-making this map using something other than the table format currently being used. Primefac (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Street grid of landmarks in the 19th-century Los Angeles business district (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a procedural nomination, as the template in question was originally in the article space; upon moving, the AFD that was open was closed as a moot point. Many of the concerns expressed about this page as an article also hold true as a template ("WP is not a map", "improper as a table", etc). Primefac (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Keizers, Hog Farm, Reywas92, and Power~enwiki: you have been pinged here as the primary contributors to the above-mentioned AFD. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's equally as pointless as a template and practically unreadable. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 18:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it’s embedded on several pages as a map-based guide to the architecture (current and former) in Downtown Los Angeles. It most certainly not “pointless”.Keizers (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not sure yet. It was clearly inappropriate as a stand-alone page; I'm less convinced it's inappropriate in articles. It's unwieldy, but an image map wouldn't be unreasonable. {{Street grid of landmarks in Los Angeles Plaza area}} should probably be bundled here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also created templates for the Financial District and Historic Core, in addition to the Plaza and the Victorian CBD. FWIW, I've changed my focus to starting up my own site dedicated to the Victorian CBD. The main issue here is, to me, that a street grid adds a HUGE understanding to understanding what was where, and the geographical relationships of the buildings. All of this in a city (the Victorian CBD) that existed and is 99% obliterated. I can't think of a way to do it except for tables, where after I move on, someone else could keep it updated. Well, a Vector map with links is possible, but I started that and just wasn't willing to invest the man-days in creating it. On my own site I'll be freer, at least. If the current table-based map is unwieldly I wonder if it would help to have a separate map for each of the 3 major thoroughfares - Main, Spring, Broadway. It would make it narrower and there would only be two column of information to read. I'd be willing to do that.Keizers (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks confusing and hard to follow. Agree with prax that it's practically unreadable. If a reader actually wants this info, they'd just go to Google Maps. Far easier format to follow. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:41, 23 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:NFL Hall of Famers by team

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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NFL Hall of Famers by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only four out of the 32 teams have dedicated lists, thus this template fails to be useful for navigation. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep, connects more than 5 articles, which is enough per WP:NENAN. but, we should reformat it as a flatlist without all the unlinked text. Frietjes (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:48, 14 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).

2014 Asian Games women's football game templates

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 after subst'ing. Primefac (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2014 Asian Games women's football game A1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2014 Asian Games women's football game A2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2014 Asian Games women's football game A3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2014 Asian Games women's football game A4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2014 Asian Games women's football game A5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2014 Asian Games women's football game A6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2014 Asian Games women's football game A1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2014 Asian Games women's football game B1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2014 Asian Games women's football game B2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2014 Asian Games women's football game B3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2014 Asian Games women's football game B4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2014 Asian Games women's football game B5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2014 Asian Games women's football game B6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2014 Asian Games women's football knockout stage bracket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2014 Asian Games women's football group A standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2014 Asian Games women's football group B standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2014 Asian Games women's football group C standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2014 Asian Games women's football 3rd place standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Do we really need separate templates for every single match while most of them never used in any other article? I think it's better to merge them all with the main page. the same as this case or this one. Mohsen1248 (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will add that they also have been added on the x at the 2014 Asian Games as well so it's not just one single article. HawkAussie (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete These ought to be in Football at the 2014 Asian Games – Women's tournament. There is no need for eg {{2014 Asian Games women's football game B5}} to be in Japan at the 2014 Asian Games and Chinese Taipei at the 2014 Asian Games, it's just duplication. Chinese Taipei at the 2014 Asian Games for instance simply repeats the Chinese Taipei details that are already in Football at the 2014 Asian Games – Women's tournament. There is no need for this duplication, if we did it elsewhere in Wikipedia we'd have a billion articles. Nigej (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these are currently valid templates because the same content is used on multiple pages. If they were deleted without substitution, the articles would be basically useless (if they are indeed useless, as Nigej says, send them to AfD). If they're deleted with substitution, maintainability is made harder. Due to usage, section transclusion appears to be unsuitable as there is no clear parent page. So long as they remain valid templates, which they are, they should be kept. Again, no comment on the content itself, which should be discussed elsewhere. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete This is purely static information that needs no maintenance; there is no reason for including content in a template if that content is not going to change. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:46, 23 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:Vivaldi operas

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. after replacement with a navbox and either an image or infobox as appropriate. Primefac (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vivaldi operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

List is collapsed by default. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed). Redundant to {{Antonio Vivaldi}} - readers are better served by that horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant, and not our normal, expected way of navigating. While some sidebars exist, they are for top-level topics and their key articles of most encyclopedic importance. We don't use them for things like an individual composer and their individual works. That's what page-bottom navbars are for (when even those are justified, which is less often than people try to create them, given the frequency of their deletion at TfD). This particular thing appears to be some weird pseudo-infobox. Just use an infobox, or just use an image, don't invent a confusing and redundant infobox–image–nav hybrid. It just looks like a broken, confusing infobox that is missing all the information it should have. Same goes for all of the same sort of templates nominated below. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

But they didn't sign their accusation, nor do they offer any evidence.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, per similar articles (Falstaff (opera)), and per the convincing reasoning by SMC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and similar discussions. This is a navbox pretending to be an infobox, not our normal style ,and we already have a perfectly good navbox, ie {{Antonio Vivaldi}}. Nigej (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above and MOS:PRECOLLAPSE. ~ HAL333 01:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, above comments, and the fact that these templates have an unfortunate habit of becoming an excuse not to have unique lead images. Aza24 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete, after replacing with a horizontal navbox. a horizontal navbox would be much better for layout since it leaves more room for other right-floating content (such as infoboxes and images). Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 19 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:Ferrero operas

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. after replacement with a navbox and either an image or infobox as appropriate. Primefac (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ferrero operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hides the image (if one is provided) on mobile. Redundant to {{Lorenzo Ferrero}} - readers would be better served by that horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with standard navbox (with separate image and/or infobox, as at any other article); see Vivaldi entry above for rationale details. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, SMC and the look at high quality articles on the subject - see Falstaff (opera) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

But they didn't sign their accusation, nor do they offer any evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, above comments, and the fact that these templates have an unfortunate habit of becoming an excuse not to have unique lead images. Aza24 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and similar discussions. This is a navbox pretending to be an infobox, not our normal style ,and we already have a perfectly good navbox, ie {{Lorenzo Ferrero}}. Nigej (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete, after replacing with a horizontal navbox. a horizontal navbox would be much better for layout since it leaves more room for other right-floating content (such as infoboxes and images). Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 19 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:Erkel operas

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 after replacement with a navbox and either an image or infobox as appropriate. Primefac (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Erkel operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

List is collapsed by default. 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 21:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No evidence that readers would be any better served by a theoretical replacement; concerns about default behaviour or image placement can be addressed by means other than deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That other stuff at best demonstrates that some editors prefer one acceptable style over another; that neither demonstrates cause for deletion nor proves that one is better for readers than the other. Nothing has changed in that regard since Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_16#Template:Composer_sidebar. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - That 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. The November 16 discussion showed "no consensus" (and the closer advised that "templates be nominated on per-composer basis", as done here), but the subsequent discussion, and those before then, have without exception all showed consensus to delete every single such opera composer sidebar nominated for deletion in recent months. Just as it is beginning to become apparent that the same consensus holds for all the individual opera sidebars nominated on this occasion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with standard navbox (with separate image and/or infobox, as at any other article); see Vivaldi entry above for rationale details. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, SMC and the look at high quality articles on the subject - see Falstaff (opera) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look at other high quality articles on the subject, such as Rinaldo (opera). While you may personally prefer one design over the other, that's not a reason for deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sidebar template on Rinaldo (opera) is redundant to {{George Frideric Handel}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

But they didn't sign their accusation, nor do they offer any evidence.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, above comments, and the fact that these templates have an unfortunate habit of becoming an excuse not to have unique lead images. Aza24 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with standard navbox. per above and similar discussions. This is a navbox pretending to be an infobox, not our normal style. Nigej (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete, after replacing with a horizontal navbox. a horizontal navbox would be much better for layout since it leaves more room for other right-floating content (such as infoboxes and images). Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made a horizontal navbox. Half of the articles are one-line stubs, and the sidebar with a large image looks out ridiculous next to it, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:23, 21 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:Meyerbeer operas

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. after replacement with a navbox and either an image or infobox as appropriate. Primefac (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Meyerbeer operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

List is collapsed by default. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed). Redundant to {{Giacomo Meyerbeer}} - readers are better served by that horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No evidence that readers are any better served by the proposed replacement; concerns about default behaviour or image placement can be addressed by means other than deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There is ample evidence that the community holds both issues to be the case; every single such opera composer sidebar 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. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That other stuff at best demonstrates that some editors prefer one acceptable style over another; that neither demonstrates cause for deletion nor proves that one is better for readers than the other. Nothing has changed in that regard since Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_16#Template:Composer_sidebar. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - That 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. The November 16 discussion showed "no consensus" (and the closer advised that "templates be nominated on per-composer basis", as done here), but the subsequent discussion, and those before then, have without exception all showed consensus to delete every single such opera composer sidebar nominated for deletion in recent months. Just as it is beginning to become apparent that the same consensus holds for all the individual opera sidebars nominated on this occasion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I stand by my interpretation. As to the discussions on this occasion, all that is apparent so far is the problem of votestacking. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Please provide evidence to support your very serious allegation, or strike it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Samples: 1 2. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and confusing; see Vivaldi entry above for rationale details. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, SMC and the look at high quality articles on the subject - see Carmen --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look at other high quality articles on the subject, such as Rinaldo (opera). While you may personally prefer one design over the other, that's not a reason for deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You know that the reason to keep the sidebar for Rinaldo is that one editor threatened to leave Wikipedia. That is no reason to keep a template with with all the disadvantages listed by Andy and SMC for other works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know that. I do not know why one example would be more valid than another. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion (2016) was held at Talk:Handel's lost Hamburg operas#Infobox?. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion does not clarify matters. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It clarifies for me that Brianboulton defended the uniform sidebar for that composer (while his opera articles have infoboxes), possibly due to the plea "The template, with the same picture of the composer, is a unifying image for the series and allows easy exploration of one work to another. Please, please leave it there on Handel opera articles." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That same argument applies for several different templates where a uniform sidebar has been used. It rather underlines the question of why one example would be more valid than another, rather than resolving it. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sidebar template on Rinaldo (opera) is redundant to {{George Frideric Handel}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

Delete per nom, above comments, and the fact that these templates have an unfortunate habit of becoming an excuse not to have unique lead images. Aza24 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and similar discussions. This is a navbox pretending to be an infobox, not our normal style ,and we already have a perfectly good navbox, ie {{Giacomo Meyerbeer}} Nigej (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete, after replacing with a horizontal navbox. a horizontal navbox would be much better for layout since it leaves more room for other right-floating content (such as infoboxes and images). Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 19 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:Messager operas

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 after replacement with a navbox and either an image or infobox as appropriate. Primefac (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Messager operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

List is collapsed by default. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed). Redundant to {{André Messager}} - readers are better served by that horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No evidence that readers are any better served by the proposed replacement; concerns about default behaviour or image placement can be addressed by means other than deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There is ample evidence that the community holds both issues to be the case; every single such opera composer sidebar 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. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That other stuff at best demonstrates that some editors prefer one acceptable style over another; that neither demonstrates cause for deletion nor proves that one is better for readers than the other. Nothing has changed in that regard since Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_16#Template:Composer_sidebar. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - That 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. The November 16 discussion showed "no consensus" (and the closer advised that "templates be nominated on per-composer basis", as done here), but the subsequent discussion, and those before then, have without exception all showed consensus to delete every single such opera composer sidebar nominated for deletion in recent months. Just as it is beginning to become apparent that the same consensus holds for all the individual opera sidebars nominated on this occasion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and confusing; see Vivaldi entry above for rationale details. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, SMC and the look at high quality articles on the subject - see Falstaff (opera) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look at other high quality articles on the subject, such as Rinaldo (opera). While you may personally prefer one design over the other, that's not a reason for deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sidebar template on Rinaldo (opera) is redundant to {{George Frideric Handel}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

But they didn't sign their accusation, nor do they offer any evidence.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, above comments, and the fact that these templates have an unfortunate habit of becoming an excuse not to have unique lead images. Aza24 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and similar discussions. This is a navbox pretending to be an infobox, not our normal style ,and we already have a perfectly good navbox, ie {{André Messager}} Nigej (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete, after replacing with a horizontal navbox. a horizontal navbox would be much better for layout since it leaves more room for other right-floating content (such as infoboxes and images). Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 19 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:Méhul operas

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 after replacement with a navbox and either an image or infobox as appropriate. Primefac (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Méhul operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

List is collapsed by default. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed). Redundant to {{Étienne Méhul}} - readers are better served by that horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No evidence that readers are any better served by the proposed replacement; concerns about default behaviour or image placement can be addressed by means other than deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There is ample evidence that the community holds both issues to be the case; every single such opera composer sidebar 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. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That other stuff at best demonstrates that some editors prefer one acceptable style over another; that neither demonstrates cause for deletion nor proves that one is better for readers than the other. Nothing has changed in that regard since Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_16#Template:Composer_sidebar. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - That 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. The November 16 discussion showed "no consensus" (and the closer advised that "templates be nominated on per-composer basis", as done here), but the subsequent discussion, and those before then, have without exception all showed consensus to delete every single such opera composer sidebar nominated for deletion in recent months. Just as it is beginning to become apparent that the same consensus holds for all the individual opera sidebars nominated on this occasion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and confusing; see Vivaldi entry above for rationale details. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, SMC and the look at high quality articles on the subject - see Falstaff (opera) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look at other high quality articles on the subject, such as Rinaldo (opera). While you may personally prefer one design over the other, that's not a reason for deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sidebar template on Rinaldo (opera) is redundant to {{George Frideric Handel}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

But they didn't sign their accusation, nor do they offer any evidence.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, above comments, and the fact that these templates have an unfortunate habit of becoming an excuse not to have unique lead images. Aza24 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete, after replacing with a horizontal navbox. a horizontal navbox would be much better for layout since it leaves more room for other right-floating content (such as infoboxes and images). Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 19 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:Lully operas

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 after replacement with a navbox and either an image or infobox as appropriate. Primefac (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lully operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

List is collapsed by default. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed). Redundant to {{Jean-Baptiste Lully}} - readers are better served by that horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant and confusing; see Vivaldi entry above for rationale details. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, SMC and the look at high quality articles on the subject - see Falstaff (opera) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

But they didn't sign their accusation, nor do they offer any evidence.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, above comments, and the fact that these templates have an unfortunate habit of becoming an excuse not to have unique lead images. Aza24 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete, after replacing with a horizontal navbox. a horizontal navbox would be much better for layout since it leaves more room for other right-floating content (such as infoboxes and images). Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 19 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:Lehár operas

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 after replacement with a navbox and either an image or infobox as appropriate. Primefac (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lehár operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

List is collapsed by default. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed). Redundant to {{Franz Lehár}} - readers are better served by that horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant and confusing; see Vivaldi entry above for rationale details. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, SMC and the look at high quality articles on the subject - see Falstaff (opera) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

But they didn't sign their accusation, nor do they offer any evidence.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, above comments, and the fact that these templates have an unfortunate habit of becoming an excuse not to have unique lead images. Aza24 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete, after replacing with a horizontal navbox. a horizontal navbox would be much better for layout since it leaves more room for other right-floating content (such as infoboxes and images). Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 19 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:Cherubini operas

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 after replacement with a navbox and either an image or infobox as appropriate. Primefac (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cherubini operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

List is collapsed by default. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed). Redundant to {{Luigi Cherubini}} - readers are better served by that horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No evidence that readers are any better served by the proposed replacement; concerns about default behaviour or image placement can be addressed by means other than deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There is ample evidence that the community holds both issues to be the case; every single such opera composer sidebar 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. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That other stuff at best demonstrates that some editors prefer one acceptable style over another; that neither demonstrates cause for deletion nor proves that one is better for readers than the other. Nothing has changed in that regard since Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_16#Template:Composer_sidebar. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - That 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. The November 16 discussion showed "no consensus" (and the closer advised that "templates be nominated on per-composer basis", as done here), but the subsequent discussion, and those before then, have without exception all showed consensus to delete every single such opera composer sidebar nominated for deletion in recent months. Just as it is beginning to become apparent that the same consensus holds for all the individual opera sidebars nominated on this occasion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and confusing; see Vivaldi entry above for rationale details. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, SMC and the look at high quality articles on the subject - see Falstaff (opera) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look at other high quality articles on the subject, such as Rinaldo (opera). While you may personally prefer one design over the other, that's not a reason for deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sidebar template on Rinaldo (opera) is redundant to {{George Frideric Handel}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

But they didn't sign their accusation, nor do they offer any evidence.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, above comments, and the fact that these templates have an unfortunate habit of becoming an excuse not to have unique lead images. Aza24 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete, after replacing with a horizontal navbox. a horizontal navbox would be much better for layout since it leaves more room for other right-floating content (such as infoboxes and images). Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 19 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:Charpentier operas

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 after replacement with a navbox and either an image or infobox as appropriate. Primefac (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Charpentier operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only six inclusions. List is collapsed by default. 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 21:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with standard navbox (with separate image and/or infobox, as at any other article); see Vivaldi entry above for rationale details. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, SMC and the look at high quality articles on the subject - see Falstaff (opera) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

But they didn't sign their accusation, nor do they offer any evidence.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, above comments, and the fact that these templates have an unfortunate habit of becoming an excuse not to have unique lead images. Aza24 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete, after replacing with a horizontal navbox. a horizontal navbox would be much better for layout since it leaves more room for other right-floating content (such as infoboxes and images). Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
a horizontal navbox is now in place --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 23 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:Chapí operas

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 after replacement with a navbox (to be created?) and either an image or infobox as appropriate. Primefac (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chapí operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only six entries. Lists are collapsed by default. 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 21:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with standard navbox (with separate image and/or infobox, as at any other article); see Vivaldi entry above for rationale details. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, SMC and the look at high quality articles on the subject - see Falstaff (opera) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

But they didn't sign their accusation, nor do they offer any evidence.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, above comments, and the fact that these templates have an unfortunate habit of becoming an excuse not to have unique lead images. Aza24 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete, after replacing with a horizontal navbox. a horizontal navbox would be much better for layout since it leaves more room for other right-floating content (such as infoboxes and images). Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 19 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:Cavalli operas

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 after replacement with a navbox (to be created?) and either an image or infobox as appropriate. Primefac (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cavalli operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

List is collapsed by default. 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 21:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with standard navbox (with separate image and/or infobox, as at any other article); see Vivaldi entry above for rationale details. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, SMC and the look at high quality articles on the subject - see Falstaff (opera) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

But they didn't sign their accusation, nor do they offer any evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, above comments, and the fact that these templates have an unfortunate habit of becoming an excuse not to have unique lead images. Aza24 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete, after replacing with a horizontal navbox. a horizontal navbox would be much better for layout since it leaves more room for other right-floating content (such as infoboxes and images). Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 19 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:Campra operas

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 after replacement with a navbox (to be created?) and either an image or infobox as appropriate. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campra operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 21:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No evidence that readers would be any better served by a theoretical replacement; concerns about image placement can be addressed by means other than deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There is ample evidence that the community holds both issues to be the case; every single such opera composer sidebar 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. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That other stuff at best demonstrates that some editors prefer one acceptable style over another; that neither demonstrates cause for deletion nor proves that one is better for readers than the other. Nothing has changed in that regard since Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_16#Template:Composer_sidebar. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - That 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. The November 16 discussion showed "no consensus" (and the closer advised that "templates be nominated on per-composer basis", as done here), but the subsequent discussion, and those before then, have without exception all showed consensus to delete every single such opera composer sidebar nominated for deletion in recent months. Just as it is beginning to become apparent that the same consensus holds for all the individual opera sidebars nominated on this occasion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with standard navbox (with separate image and/or infobox, as at any other article); see Vivaldi entry above for rationale details. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, SMC and the look at high quality articles on the subject - see Falstaff (opera) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look at other high quality articles on the subject, such as Rinaldo (opera). While you may personally prefer one design over the other, that's not a reason for deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sidebar template on Rinaldo (opera) is redundant to {{George Frideric Handel}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

But they didn't sign their accusation, nor do they offer any evidence.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, above comments, and the fact that these templates have an unfortunate habit of becoming an excuse not to have unique lead images. Aza24 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete, after replacing with a horizontal navbox. a horizontal navbox would be much better for layout since it leaves more room for other right-floating content (such as infoboxes and images). Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 19 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:Marschner operas

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 after replacement with a navbox (to be created?) and either an image or infobox as appropriate. Primefac (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Marschner operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only four 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 21:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with standard navbox (with separate image and/or infobox, as at any other article); see Vivaldi entry above for rationale details. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, SMC and the look at high quality articles on the subject - see Falstaff (opera) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

But they didn't sign their accusation, nor do they offer any evidence.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, above comments, and the fact that these templates have an unfortunate habit of becoming an excuse not to have unique lead images. Aza24 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete, after replacing with a horizontal navbox. a horizontal navbox would be much better for layout since it leaves more room for other right-floating content (such as infoboxes and images). Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 19 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:Tunisia national football team series

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, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tunisia national football team series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's just a copy of the original navbox. And also really hard to navigate. And unnecessary. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 11:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary duplicate of {{Tunisia national football team}}. Giant Snowman 11:06, 15 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:Swiss-railway-routemap

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Swiss-railway-routemap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Obsolete & unused; replaced by {{Railway-routemap}}. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete, no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 19 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:Racing driver development

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 merge to Template:Driver development programs. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Racing driver development (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Driver development programs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Racing driver development with Template:Driver development programs.
Both navboxes cover the same topic (driver development programs). {{Racing driver development}} seems to be more complete but is not used as much as {{Driver development programs}}.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Clearly they need merging, the question is which one to keep. Driver development program is the main article which might lead us to conclude that {{Driver development programs}} is the better name. Nigej (talk) 10:48, 15 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).