Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 4 October 6 >

October 5

[edit]

Template:R from historic name

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 October 17. (non-admin closure) St3095 (?) 10:11, 17 October 2020 (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:Topical talk archive

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 October 17. Primefac (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2020 (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:Gounod operas

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. The claim that the sidebar stops images on mobile being a reason for deletion was given little weight, as of course the image can just be moved out of the sidebar and embedded in above, thus fixing the issue. Similar for it preventing a unique per-page image, as that functionality can easily be implemented in the template. So merit was determined based on arguments for whether there should be a sidebar at all. Although Nikkimaria raised a fair point in the narrower scope of navigation, it did not sway editors in the discussion, who overall believe the sidebar does not provide helpful or better navigation on top of the bottom navbox.

Deletion of this template should be preceded by replacing the transclusions with the image directly at minimum (and any caption, as appropriate), or {{Infobox opera}}. In addition, the nominator may wish to read WP:BUNDLE. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment following discussion: Noting the fractured and forked nature of these discussions, any future nominators of these templates are encouraged to consider bundling any closely related nominations, as far as is practicable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on five articles; fails WP:NENAN. Redundant to {{Charles Gounod}}. 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 21:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. Leave these articles alone. Smeat75 (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template is deliberately narrower in scope to the one to which it is claimed to be redundant; it serves a useful navigational purpose for this set of articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is indeed narrower in scope; it is nonetheless redundant to the navbox template, which adequately satisfies the navigational purpose. Same goes for all the other composer sideboxes, nominated below. I'm not clear on your basis for thinking that hiding images in mobile is "useful". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The template is redundant to the bottom navigation template about the same composer. Additionally because of the use of the template, the image does not appear on mobile. --Gonnym (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I find a narrower scope for a sidebar an unconvincing reason to keep. For composers that have other kinds of works (concertos, etc), this would hint at creating sidebars for every combination of composer and type of work. That way lies madness. Granted, a sidebar could be created that includes all the other information, but at that point, it truly is redundant. I'm also skeptical that an article on an opera even needs a picture of the composer, and forcing it to have one by way of a sidebar seems inappropriate. But if one really is desired, it can either be included separately or as part of an infobox as appropriate, both of which will actually work on mobile, unlike a sidebar.
    Note to closer: please consider this !vote for all the related opera-by-composer sidebars listed below. I don't want to paste this in umpteen times. Thanks. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NikkiMaria and Smeat75.
    Note to closer: please consider this !vote for all the related opera-by-composer sidebars listed below. I don't want to paste this in umpteen times. (Thanks for this formulation Deacon Vorbis!) --Smerus (talk) 09:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your comment in a previous, batch, TfD that included this template, and others nominated on this page, was that the sidebar templates are designed to display an image and that the navboxes at the foot of the page do not; and that "If you are going to delate any of these, it should be done on a one by one basis and not wholesale" How does the current nomination not address both of these points? And on the former point, how is hiding the article's primary (and sometimes only) image from ~50% of our users of benefit, and why do you object to change that would display it to everyone? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant to footer navboxes which is the preferred and expected location for such links. These sidebars are not "deliberately narrow". That is simply an artifact of when WikiProject Opera started creating these back in 2006/2007, when footer navboxes were not all that common. There is nothing sacred about this 14 year-old design which in my view is now a detriment to article presentation. The alleged advantage of “narrowness” is far outweighed by the disadvantages of these sidebars. They are invisible and consequently so are the images they contain to half of the article’s readers. They clutter the top of the article and prevent the use of more apt and illustrative images of the particular opera in question at the top of the article. Voceditenore (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, the footer provides superior navigation since it doesn't crowd the prose and works better with right-floating objects like images. Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Becomes an excuse for not having a unique lead image in each article. Doesn't appear on mobile, crowds the text and redundant. Aza24 (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2020 (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:Bizet operas

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. See close statement here. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on five articles unused; fails WP:NENAN. Redundant to {{Georges Bizet}}. 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 21:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Citing WP:NENAN is disingenuous when another navbox is preferred. Only used on five articles – there are only 8½, so 5 is the majority. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template is deliberately narrower in scope to the one to which it is claimed to be redundant; it serves a useful navigational purpose for this set of articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The template is redundant to the bottom navigation template about the same composer. Additionally because of the use of the template, the image does not appear on mobile. --Gonnym (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comment at #Template:Gounod operas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deacon Vorbis (talk • contribs) 16:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nikkimaria. NENAN is an essay and these are sidebars, not navboxes. I personally think these are useful. Because this nomination is not batched, like the other commentators, I will copy and paste this for the large set of similar proposals. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • From WP:NAVBOX Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia. Navigation templates are generally presented in one of two formats: (1) Horizontal, placed at the bottom of articles and also called navboxes (2) Vertical, often found at the top-right corner of articles and called sidebars NENAN discusses both types (the opening two words are "Navigation templates", linked to Wikipedia:Navigation templates). How are these not navigation templates?
      The nominations are not batched, because when a batch nomination was made, it was objected to on that basis.
      Again: how is hiding the article's primary (and sometimes only) image from ~50% of our users "useful"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The template is no longer used. There was no point in having it for small works, some never performed, when Bizet's masterworks don't have it, such as featured article Carmen. Tom (LT), sorry, I can't follow for which purpose it would have been useful. (I saw your comment only after changing the articles.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Nikkimaria reverted the changes to the articles, saying I need to wait for the discussion to be closed. Compare infobox to side navbox. My argument, however, stands: why have an infobox for the masterworks, and a side navbox for small works? Deleted or not, the side navbox makes no sense to me when not applied consistently to all works by Bizet. I will not go and repeat this for every composer. Waste of time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant to footer navboxes which is the preferred and expected location for such links. These sidebars are not "deliberately narrow". That is simply an artifact of when WikiProject Opera started creating these back in 2006/2007, when footer navboxes were not all that common. There is nothing sacred about this 14 year-old design which in my view is now a detriment to article presentation. The alleged advantage of “narrowness” is far outweighed by the disadvantages of these sidebars. They are invisible and consequently so are the images they contain to half of the article’s readers. They clutter the top of the article and prevent the use of more apt and illustrative images of the particular opera in question at the top of the article. Voceditenore (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, the footer provides superior navigation since it doesn't crowd the prose and works better with right-floating objects like images. Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Becomes an excuse for not having a unique lead image in each article. Doesn't appear on mobile, crowds the text and redundant. Aza24 (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2020 (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:Monteverdi operas

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. See close statement here. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Single use unused; fails WP:NENAN. Redundant to {{Claudio Monteverdi}}. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the article when the template is removed). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Nikkimaria in similar discussions going on above and below today. NENAN is an essay and these are sidebars, not navboxes. I personally think these are useful. Because this nomination is not batched, like the other commentators, I will copy and paste this for the large set of similar proposals. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see a transclusion except in user space. Monteverdi's operas (featured topic) don't use it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unused and in any case redundant to footer navboxes which is the preferred and expected location for such links. These sidebars are not "deliberately narrow". That is simply an artifact of when WikiProject Opera started creating these back in 2006/2007, when footer navboxes were not all that common. There is nothing sacred about this 14 year-old design which in my view is now a detriment to article presentation. The alleged advantage of “narrowness” is far outweighed by the disadvantages of these sidebars. They are invisible and consequently so are the images they contain to half of the article’s readers. They clutter the top of the article and prevent the use of more apt and illustrative images of the particular opera in question at the top of the article. Voceditenore (talk) 11:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, the footer provides superior navigation since it doesn't crowd the prose and works better with right-floating objects like images. Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Becomes an excuse for not having a unique lead image in each article. Doesn't appear on mobile, crowds the text and redundant. Aza24 (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2020 (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:Mussorgsky operas

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. See close statement here. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on three articles; fails WP:NENAN. Redundant to {{Modest Mussorgsky}}. 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 21:12, 5 October 2020 (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:Nielsen operas

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. See close statement here. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Single use; fails WP:NENAN. Redundant to {{Carl Nielsen works}}. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the article when the template is removed). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The template is redundant to the bottom navigation template about the same composer. Additionally because of the use of the template, the image does not appear on mobile. --Gonnym (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comment at #Template:Gounod operas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deacon Vorbis (talk • contribs) 16:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no longer used, - the other opera by Nielsen didn't use it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unused and in any case redundant to footer navboxes which is the preferred and expected location for such links. These sidebars are not "deliberately narrow". That is simply an artifact of when WikiProject Opera started creating these back in 2006/2007, when footer navboxes were not all that common. There is nothing sacred about this 14 year-old design which in my view is now a detriment to article presentation. The alleged advantage of “narrowness” is far outweighed by the disadvantages of these sidebars. They are invisible and consequently so are the images they contain to half of the article’s readers. They clutter the top of the article and prevent the use of more apt and illustrative images of the particular opera in question at the top of the article. Voceditenore (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, the footer provides superior navigation since it doesn't crowd the prose and works better with right-floating objects like images. Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Becomes an excuse for not having a unique lead image in each article. Doesn't appear on mobile, crowds the text and redundant. Aza24 (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2020 (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:Offenbach operas

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. See close statement here. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Jacques Offenbach}}. 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 21:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NO DO NOT DELETE THIS TEMPLATE. I have written or rewritten many of these articles on Offenbach and feel the template is very useful. I wish editors who neither know nor care anything about these articles and never edit anything to do with operetta, like the proposer, would leave them alone.Smeat75 (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You did not actually to respond to the issues raised by the nom. The template duplicates the navbox and causes the image to be hidden. Also, no one is talking about deleting the articles. Please calm down. --Gonnym (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We just had to stop this template and all the other opera composer templates being deleted in December [1] [2]. Are these editors who fuss around with formatting and technical stuff and have never edited an article on opera or classical music except for this sort of bollocks going to keep trying to delete the templates until they browbeat us into submission or drive the editors who write and maintain these articles away?Smeat75 (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From the closing statement in the 2019 deletion discussion (emboldening mine): "There is significant opposition to deleting these in a mass nomination and some opposition to deleting them at all. No prejudice against individual renominations." Your comment in that disussion included "These should be discussed one by one, if at all, not together like this." This is the discussion you advocated.
Your insinuation that I have "never edited an article on opera or classical music except for this sort of bollocks", is false and unacceptable and I invite you to strike it.
As for driving you away, you recently threatened on your talk page "I am going to be kicked off because I just won't accept the composer templates being deleted". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:30, 7 October 2020 (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:Oswald operas

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. See close statement here. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on three articles; fails WP:NENAN. Redundant to {{Henrique Oswald}}. 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 21:09, 5 October 2020 (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:Pacini operas

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. See close statement here. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on five articles; fails WP:NENAN. Redundant to {{Giovanni Pacini}}. 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 21:08, 5 October 2020 (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:Pergolesi operas

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. See close statement here. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Single use unused; fails WP:NENAN. Redundant to {{Giovanni Battista Pergolesi}}. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the article when the template is removed). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 5 October 2020 (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:Prokofiev operas

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. See close statement here. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on three articles; fails WP:NENAN. Redundant to {{Sergei Prokofiev}}. 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 21:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Redundant to footer navboxes which is the preferred and expected location for such links. These sidebars are not "deliberately narrow". That is simply an artifact of when WikiProject Opera started creating these back in 2006/2007, when footer navboxes were not all that common. There is nothing sacred about this 14 year-old design which in my view is now a detriment to article presentation. The alleged advantage of “narrowness” is far outweighed by the disadvantages of these sidebars. They are invisible and consequently so are the images they contain to half of the article’s readers. They clutter the top of the article and prevent the use of more apt and illustrative images of the particular opera in question at the top of the article. Voceditenore (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, the footer provides superior navigation since it doesn't crowd the prose and works better with right-floating objects like images. Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Becomes an excuse for not having a unique lead image in each article. Doesn't appear on mobile, crowds the text and redundant. Aza24 (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2020 (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:Puccini operas

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. See close statement here. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; fails WP:NENAN. Redundant to {{Giacomo Puccini}}. 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 21:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The template is redundant to the bottom navigation template about the same composer. Additionally because of the use of the template, the image does not appear on mobile. --Gonnym (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comment at #Template:Gounod operas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deacon Vorbis (talk • contribs) 16:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nikkimaria. NENAN is an essay and these are sidebars, not navboxes. I personally think these are useful. Because this nomination is not batched, like the other commentators, I will copy and paste this for the large set of similar proposals. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain why you vote to "keep" a template that is not used? How useful is that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nikkimaria has not commented on this nomination. See my reply to your other points, under #Template:Bizet operas, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I refer to her reply on your other template nominations above.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Gerda Arendt In my opinion, the usage of a template, and whether it is useful, are separate concepts. A template that is not useful AND not used is a great candidate for deletion in my books. However, a template is potentially useful should not be deleted; instead it should be used. This is however just my opinion. I think these opera sidebars are in the latter category, however I can see that other editors disagree.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      It looks to me as if you missed the previous discussion to delete all these templates summarily, which was closed - as Andy explained above - as no, we have to do it for each individual one, which was done here. We do no longer talk about concept, but usage. We may arrive at some being useful, but I believe this template isn't because it isn't used today, and will not be used in the future because Puccini couldn't even finish his last opera ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unused and in any case redundant to footer navboxes which is the preferred and expected location for such links. These sidebars are not "deliberately narrow". That is simply an artifact of when WikiProject Opera started creating these back in 2006/2007, when footer navboxes were not all that common. There is nothing sacred about this 14 year-old design which in my view is now a detriment to article presentation. The alleged advantage of “narrowness” is far outweighed by the disadvantages of these sidebars. They are invisible and consequently so are the images they contain to half of the article’s readers. They clutter the top of the article and prevent the use of more apt and illustrative images of the particular opera in question at the top of the article. Voceditenore (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, the footer provides superior navigation since it doesn't crowd the prose and works better with right-floating objects like images. Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Becomes an excuse for not having a unique lead image in each article. Doesn't appear on mobile, crowds the text and redundant. Aza24 (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2020 (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:Rachmaninoff operas

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. See close statement here. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on three articles; fails WP:NENAN. Redundant to {{Sergei Rachmaninoff}}. 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 21:04, 5 October 2020 (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:Ravel operas

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. See close statement here. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Single use; fails WP:NENAN. Redundant to {{Maurice Ravel}}. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the article when the template is removed). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Redundant to the footer navbox which is the preferred and expected location for such links. These sidebars are not "deliberately narrow". That is simply an artifact of when WikiProject Opera started creating these back in 2006/2007, when footer navboxes were not all that common. There is nothing sacred about this 14 year-old design which in my view is now a detriment to article presentation. The alleged advantage of “narrowness” is far outweighed by the disadvantages of these sidebars. They are invisible and consequently so are the images they contain to half of the article’s readers. They clutter the top of the article and prevent the use of more apt and illustrative images of the particular opera in question at the top of the article. Voceditenore (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and unhelpful considering that there are only two operas... Aza24 (talk) 04:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, the footer provides superior navigation since it doesn't crowd the prose and works better with right-floating objects like images. Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2020 (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:Respighi operas

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. See close statement here. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Ottorino Respighi}}. 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 21:01, 5 October 2020 (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:Rossini operas

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. See close statement here. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Gioachino Rossini}}. 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 21:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No.Do not delete. Useful. Smeat75 (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2020 (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:Milhaud operas

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. See close statement here. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on five articles; fails WP:NENAN. Redundant to {{Darius Milhaud}}. 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 20:58, 5 October 2020 (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:Tchaikovsky operas

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. See close statement here. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky}}. 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 20:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion of this useful template. Smeat75 (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2020 (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:Saint-Saëns operas

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. See close statement here. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on two articles; fails WP:NENAN. Redundant to {{Camille Saint-Saëns}}. 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 20:55, 5 October 2020 (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:Sallinen operas

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. See close statement here. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on five articles; fails WP:NENAN. Redundant to {{Aulis Sallinen}}. 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 20:53, 5 October 2020 (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:Holst operas

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. See close statement here. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on four articles; fails WP:NENAN. Redundant to {{Gustav Holst}}. 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 20:51, 5 October 2020 (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:Chabrier operas

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. See close statement here. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on three articles; fails WP:NENAN. Redundant to {{Emmanuel Chabrier}}. 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 20:49, 5 October 2020 (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:Perspectives of New Music

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All this does is act as a wrapper for {{cite journal}} with the name of the journal filled in (and many possible parameters not passed). I can't see why this should exist. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:32, 5 October 2020 (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:Lenny

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't really seem to be appropriate. The Lenny face is (as far as I know) almost entirely used to make something sexually suggestive. Appears to be used twice other than when {{Done/See also}} is transcluded - once on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1035#Exclusive economic zone where it does appear have been meant to be sexual, and once on Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 35#The Question of Origin where it doesn't.

There's no reason this should exist if we want an inclusive environment. – Frood (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2020 (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:Archive nav

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 October 17. Primefac (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2020 (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:Campaignbox Conquest of Aden

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template contains only two links: Aden Colony and Aden Expedition. Both articles currently link to each other, rendering this template entirely redundant. Koopinator (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2020 (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:Protestant Zionism

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 October 17. (non-admin closure) Techie3 (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2020 (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:Radio Free Roscoe

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox for a television series without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant a navbox. This previously consisted primarily of character bios that were deleted five years ago for being poorly sourced, and of the three "related" articles left two have also now been put up for deletion as poorly sourced -- literally the only things that pass muster at allr are the television series itself and the episode list, and a navbox isn't necessary for that since the episode list is already linked in body of the series article anyway. Bearcat (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2020 (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/2020_October_5&oldid=983980964"