Template:2015 J2 League table
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus in prior deletion discussions and at WT:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:33, 8 December 2019 (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 Sydney New Year's Eve
- 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 speedy delete. All articles related to this infobox have been deleted and redirected to the general Sydney New Year's Eve article, which uses a different infobox. RL0919 (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Template specific to individual articles for a single event. All individual editions are currently up for deletion per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney New Year's Eve 2008–09, which found that individual instances of this event are not notable. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This could have been speedy deleted when all articles have been deleted at AfD. Anyways, delete only after the articles are deleted, not before. --Gonnym (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2019 (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:Adams operas
- 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 keep. There is significant opposition to deleting these in a mass nomination and some opposition to deleting them at all. No prejudice against individual renominations. RL0919 (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
per discussion on my talk page with Jay and per prior discussion at WT:WikiProject Opera, the sidebar opera templates are now deprecated and are being replaced by horizontal navboxes. This nomination includes most/all of the sidebars where there is a horizontal navbox with the same set of links. please feel free to point-out/add any that I missed (if there is an existing horizontal navbox with the same links). Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – Random checks (Adams, Balfe, Bernstein, Birtwistle, Bizet, Chabrier, Cherubini, … Walton, Weber) shows that at least some of these templates are being used. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- When the new templates (horizontal) were created and placed in the article, the authors should have removed the old one but they did not - Jay (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TFDH exists for a reason ... * Pppery * it has begun... 05:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Redundant, 2 opera navigation boxes. Listed above are old templates. The new templates have been created and placed at the bottom of all articles and were supposed to replace these. However, some of the old templates were not removed from the articles - Jay (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not aware of any particular discussion that declared that obvious navigation was inferior to obvious, clearly-identfiable navigation, but more importantly, shouldn't we at least try to preserve page history for archival reasons? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 06:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Adam, many of old templates were created by me. For the past 6-7 years, I have received nomination for deletions (2-3 a year) and am sure will receive more future nominations every year. I support the deletion because we already have the new format of navigation templates now. The old templates are now redundant or no longer in-use. The last nomination was last week for Template:Purcell operas and Template:Mascagni operas. I posted this tFD in Project Opera talkpage for discussion. - Jay (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, whatever the intent, at least a number of these are still in use so Oppose such bundling. They aren't labelled on the pages they're being used on as being up for deletion, so this could easily go against consensus on at least some pages. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 08:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with your point on that part. Some templates are still in-use although there are redundant with the new one at the bottom of the article. Perhaps we will have to do the clean-up by removing it from the article. - Jay (talk) 08:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:TFD#REASONS2 and prior consensus from WikiProject Opera and original creator. Yet again we have editors who voice their "oppose" opinion without caring to even read or understand how TfD works.
at least a number of these are still in use so Oppose
- how does that even matter? We routinely delete templates that are still in use - that isn't a reason for not deleting them. As the nominator pointed out, the reason they are still in use, is because they are redundant, as in, they duplicate another template on the same page. Also I'm not sure which page you saw was missing the TfD notice, but I've just checked all templates and they are all tagged. --Gonnym (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Opposed I agree with Adam Cuerden and strongly oppose deleting these old templates. It is not a good idea to do so, because it degrades the History function of the Wikipedia. Old versions of pages which use this template will no longer be displayed correctly. Instead of deleting them, I would suggest labelling these templates as "deprecated" at the top. --Robert.Allen (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - in several of the cases I've checked, the footer templates with which these are being replaced are not "opera navigation" boxes, but rather much larger templates covering a composer's life, other works, etc. In that context I don't agree that opera-specific templates are redundant. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also noting that the ongoing mass-removal of these templates from articles is also removing the title italics and in some cases the article's only image of the composer, both of which are supplied by these templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If the image is important, I'd think it be important to mobile users also. These templates don't appear on mobile, which means that the image doesn't either. Better use the relevant infobox where needed. Gonnym (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The mass-removal of these templates left many article titles without italics; that's not an improvement. I also agree with Nikkimaria's observation that the full composer's template is not always a better replacement. This ought to have been decided for each article, but that train has now left the station. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest possible oppose to deleting these templates and I also fiercely object to the way they have been bundled together like this. I saw the Meyerbeer template had a notice that it was being considered for deletion and a note to click to go to the discussion page. But there was no discussion page, so I took the notice off. These should be discussed one by one, if at all, not together like this. There are some I don't care about but I have written and maintained lots of the Handel and Meyerbeer articles for years and I consider what has happened to them vandalism. The editor did not wait for discussion, he just went through and deleted the templates leaving the articles with no leading image. It took me ages to find this discussion, who would think to look for Handel operas under a template for Adams? Contemptuous behaviour. Smeat75 (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all This is causing a lot of disruption and should be withdrawn to allow any actual problem to be calmly discussed. Recent edits to remove ((Handel)) from articles have damaged articles and in a manner similar to WP:ARBINFOBOX, it is not helpful for template editors to force their view onto the content editors who maintain the articles. The most recent discussion at Template talk:Handel was in August 2016. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. The 'new templates' (at the foot of the page) do not serve the same purpose as some of the old ones. E.g. for Giacomo Meyerbeer the 'old' template was designed to give a pic of GM himself or a pic related to the opera concerned together with a list of all GM's operas at the head of the page (so that users could quickly look up any of the other operas). The 'new' template simply contains the same list of operas, but is without a picture and not immediately locatable as it is at the foot fo the page. Deleting the 'old' template unthinkingly deletes an image which is part of the aricle (which in the case of Robert le diable is a GA). If you are going to delate any of these, it should be done on a one by one basis and not wholesale.--Smerus (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It would seem that instead of actually reading other editors comments, some of the above, just like repeating the same nonsense without at least acknowledging they've read one of the previous comments. The image these editors are vindicating, does not appear for mobile users, which is a big percent of our user-base. You know what template does show the image? ((Infobox opera)). You know what template also handles italics for operas? ((Infobox opera)). Instead of fighting for a template that works for only half our users, use the image in the infobox and use the bottom navigation for related topics, like every other article does. For individuals there is ((Infobox person)). --Gonnym (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If I look at the articles in mobile view I don't see the bottom navigation either. I use my mobile a lot for WP and always switch it over to desktop view.Smeat75 (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2019 (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:Vehicle manufacturing in Ukraine
- 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 2019 December 14. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:43, 14 December 2019 (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:Banks of Ukraine
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NAVBOX, see similar discussion. Störm (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2019 (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).