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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Is there something against forks? I've attempted to discuss adding those two parameters for six weeks (first attempt), but to no avail and no replies. Alex|The|Whovian 14:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edokter. Rowspans and colspans hurt accessibility. You could simply repeat the numbers. Alakzi (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In response, I'm not seeing the removal of rowspans when it comes to awards tables, and colspans when it comes to series overviews? Alex|The|Whovian 16:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being. If this template can be merged with another then it can be deleted after the merge but not before. Djonesuk (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In attempt to inject some sanity into the 'accessibility' debate I would point out that the best standard for creating accessible content is the W3Cs Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. There is nothing in WCAG to prohibit rowspan or colspan provided they are used correctly. If you are unsure what correctly means, the W3Cs Web accessibility initiative provide an irregular headings tutorial. Djonesuk (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no solid reasons for its deletion. Alex|The|Whovian 01:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The primary reason is the redundancy; a secondary reason is the use of harmful rowspans. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Template in question is far from redundant, and rowspans are executed properly, and far from harmful. Alex|The|Whovian 11:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean they're far from harmful? We're telling you that they hurt accessibility; you can't just deny a fact. Alakzi (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How do you claim that "they hurt accessibility"? I've seen nothing to back this. Alex|The|Whovian 12:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A screen reader would read the story number only once for multiple episodes. For a more thorough explanation, see RexxS' comment here, dated 00:49, 3 July 2015. Alakzi (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Far from harmful. (What happened to not editing posts once someone replied to it?) Alex|The|Whovian 12:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not bother me with disputes you've had with other editors. Alakzi (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've had no such issues with other editors. We digress. Alex|The|Whovian 12:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The harm done by rowspans was explained to you on 26 June by User:Edokter: "No rowspans please; they hurt navigation for screenreaders." on the talk page of the template from which you subsequently forked this one. You replied, so saw that post. The redundancy is clear; you forked the template, just to add two parameters, rather than use the solution presented to you in that discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would request that you don't edit my posts, bullet points aren't necessary. And apparently all that hurts it is that the story number would be read once. Alex|The|Whovian 14:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "edit your post", which reads exactly as it did previously; I merely fixed the indentation, as I have done here, for respectively, clarity and accessibility. That changes the underlying markup, of which bullet points are just an incidental manifestation, for some users. You may learn more at WP:LISTGAP and WP:TALKOAndy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made a non-admin close of this as No Consensus. At the request of the nominator (see User talk:BethNaught#Doctor Who episode list) I have withdrawn the close in favour of closure by an uninvolved administrator. BethNaught (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Explain your request for reopening reconsidering the close of this discussion - the result is clearly no consensus. Alex|The|Whovian 10:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
<col>s and <colgroup>s can't be used on Wikipedia, so Djonesuk's argument about accessibility is not any argument at all; and if a table is not linearly navigable by screen readers, it is fair to call it "harmful". There's no question that ((Doctor Who episode list)) impedes accessibility. The question is whether we care; or whether we care more about collapsing a couple of rows to please the eye. Alakzi (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Kevin/.0/mckinney in 1931
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
All redlinks, nothing to navigate, all in Japanese. In Japanese, it's a navbox between lists of articles which are featured articles in their home wikipedias. Might be useful to have something similar on en:wp if such lists existed here, but this navbox is of no help for that purpose. NSH002 (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 08:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With only four sub-articles, this template isn't particularly large enough to be of any navigational use.The pages are all comfortably linked, where appropriate, from the main Eureka Seven article and within each other. KirtZJ (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, connects five articles. Frietjes (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:04, 26 July 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Callimachus
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Not enough links to provide useful navigation Rob Sinden (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of material to base future articles on. I've done a cursory search and found the following for Aetia:
Acosta-Hughes, B. & Stephens, S.A. 2002, "Rereading Callimachus' 'Aetia' Fragment 1", Classical Philology, vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 238-255.
Hutchinson, G. O. 2003, "The 'Aetia': Callimachus' Poem of Knowledge", Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, vol. 145, pp. 47-59.
Knox, P.E. 1985, "The Epilogue to the 'Aetia'", Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 59.
Nappa, C. 2004, "Callimachus' Aetia and Aeneas' Sicily", Classical Quarterly, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 640-646.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Hudson River corridor
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:2012–13 NBL Canada Standings
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete - uncontested. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, redundant template... JMHamo (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
DART maps
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support - If they're they've got decent replacements (and it's clear we do), we should let these go. Wasn't there also one for the DART Orange Line too once? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.