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]
          • Repeating that over again doesn't make it any less of an OTHERSTUFF argument. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's only necessary to repeat it, because you keep repeating your false claim; but - as I also told you in the 14 January discussion - "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 16:19, 28 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]

  • 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]
  • Replace with standard horizontal style navbox. Currently the main impact of the template is simply to show his picture on all his opera articles. Nigej (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a standard design used in hundreds of thousands of articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      not sure what "this" means, anyway, {{André Grétry}} is now in place --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      "This" being the vertical navbox design. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It has been explained that such vertical navigation is good for things covered by a substantial overview article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That explanation is not consistent with what WP:SIDEBAR says: the indication there to choose one design over the other is the relatedness of the entries, with vertical design being more suitable for series. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I now read WP:SIDEBAR - for the first time - and read there: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." Where is there a Wikipedia article on his operas? Looks as if not even a fundamental prerequsite is met here. Angst is a different story. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The works listed in {{Grétry operas}} do not constitute a "series". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 29 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]
      just for curiosity: can you show me a diff of an opera sidebox added to an opera article recently, which would tell me that a user made a decision to use the sidebar rather than a navbox + infobox or image? For this composer, I see sidebar created in 2007, Andromaque (opera) created in 2010, sidebar (called "navbox" in the edit summary) added two months later, and after that no substantial edits. That sidebar was not chosen over other options but at the time was the latest and only fashion. Now, in 2021, we have a choice, and I'd choose navbox + infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      There was always a choice; no one was required to create or use these templates. {{Keiser operas}} for example was created in 2016, well after the alternative was available. What you personally might prefer is not a reason to delete other options while calling it "choice". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for that one, I didn't know. In 2010, there was no choice, because the alternative wasn't there yet. I have little time right now to check for each case proposed here. What I observed over years was no abundance of a deliberate choice of the sidebar vs. the navbox. Look at Maritana: the choice was for just an image, not back to the sidebar, in 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That same choice - just an image - has always been available, even in 2010. Deleting this template results in editors having fewer options, not more. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Why should we leave an option with the flaws described in the nomination? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Nikkimaria, why should we allow an option with the flaws described in the nomination? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      This option is no more flawed than any other. Should we delete any template that it so happens some editors do not like? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 6 February 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) 18:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    horizontal navbox is in place, see further up --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:33, 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: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]
    • 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 fourteen, 14 January nominations also resulted in deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:01, 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]
        • What I see is that only a handful of editors have the patience to follow these individual proposals. User Viva-Verdi who supported navbox+infobox back in 2013 can no longer express his preference, same for Brianboulton who began using infoboxes for his featured articles that year, see L'Arianna. Editor Smeat75, the one defender of this sidebar I know of, spoke of being tired of discussions on 7 December 2020. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree that this series of deletions proposals is likely to be tiring, enhancing the skew of which voices appear. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 28 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 15:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Repeating that over again doesn't make it any less of an OTHERSTUFF argument. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's only necessary to repeat it, because you keep repeating your false claim; but - as I also told you in the 14 January discussion - "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 16:21, 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]
  • 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 in place, see just above --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:31, 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: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]
    • 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 fourteen, 14 January nominations also resulted in deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:01, 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 15:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Repeating that over again doesn't make it any less of an OTHERSTUFF argument. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's only necessary to repeat it, because you keep repeating your false claim; but - as I also told you in the 14 January discussion - "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 16:21, 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, 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]
  • 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 already in place when nominated, no inclusions of the sidebar are left --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    no inclusions of the sidebar were left until this edit - I restored the removed navbox --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 6 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: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]
    • 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 fourteen, 14 January nominations also resulted in deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 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 15:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Repeating that over again doesn't make it any less of an OTHERSTUFF argument. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's only necessary to repeat it, because you keep repeating your false claim; but - as I also told you in the 14 January discussion - "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 16:22, 28 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]
  • Comment does this Module:RoundN has a compact version? I can't see that. those 4 templates are being used in so many articles mostly because they are compact. Mohsen1248 (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep since I got no answer, so I think we should keep the current templates. that should happen when there is something similar. Module:RoundN is not at the moment. Mohsen1248 (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've previously advocated for this huge template series to be merged but I have some implementation things that I think are necessary for it to be better than the status quo. The main reason for this merger would be to make it easier for people to use which I don't think it would be if it's either inconsistent which method is used between types of tables probably making deletion of these four templates but leaving all the others in Category:Tournament bracket templates counterproductive. I also think having the invocation in a template makes it slightly simpler for editors without module experience to use them since the {{#invoke:}} parser function isn't required making a merger to {{Tournament bracket}} or something preferable. --Trialpears (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convent to module then delete these templates or modify these templates to a version using the module is both ok to me. Hhkohh (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the module can handle this usage, I have a preference for converting the template code to invoke the module for maintainability. Alternatively, a wrapper template around the module is okay (along the lines of Trialpears). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it looks to me like these could be switched over to use Module:TeamBracket if the "byes" feature were imported from Module:TeamBracket-Tennis. @Frietjes: how hard would that be to do? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plastikspork, I think it's already in Module:TeamBracket/sandbox but should be tested before moving to main (also supports legs). Frietjes (talk) 18:34, 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: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"