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

The result of the discussion was delete after converting existing transclusions to ((sockpuppet)). (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Puppet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Sockpuppet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Puppet with Template:Sockpuppet.
The old template is not necessary as there is another template called Sockpuppet which contains similar (if not more relevant) content. I don't want this template deleted, but I would like it to be redirected to Template:Sockpuppet. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 23:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge. Template:Puppet only has 18 transclusions and doesn't appear to have been used since 2006. I suspect this could have been redirected WP:BOLDly without controversy. Mz7 (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I know I said "merge", but in my head I was also thinking the same update and redirect thing Callanecc was saying below, i.e. no need to merge any underlying template code or anything, just update all of the ((puppet)) instances to ((sockpuppet)) and then redirect. Mz7 (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom, duplicate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Delete or redirect per nom and Mz7. Note that Template:Puppetmaster is already a redirect to Template:Sockpuppeteer. GMXping! 13:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator and Mz7. Based on a selection of the existing transclusions, Template:Sockpuppet should be a good fit for wherever this template is currently used. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support as Template:Puppet appears to be an alternate version of Template:Sockpuppet that provides no extra context. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 16:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, it's redundant. SMB99thx my edits! 17:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, unneeded template that does the same thing as sockpuppet. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Update and redirect delete No reason to merge these per se. It would be better (and clearer) just to update the transclusions of the puppet template to the sockpuppet template. After removing the ones which had been duplicated, it looks like there's only one master that they are being used for. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Update and delete basically per Callanecc, but leaving the old title is not necessary and this generic name might be useful in a different context. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Update these few transclusions should be updated to the much more widely used template. I don't think merging the templates is useful, as ((Sockpuppet)) already does everything needed and more. After that is done, I don't see why it can't be deleted, but would also support redirection. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all the above. Hurricane Tracker 495 20:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Sock strike. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Update and delete. Per Ivanvector. Given that the number of people who tag socks is fairly limited (and most of them use scripts to do it anyway), I don't think the redirect would be useful – but it may come in handy somewhere else. Blablubbs|talk 11:09, 26 December 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).

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) 17:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Debussy operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Looking at this template, in its own merits, I think it should be deleted. Debussy only completed one opera in his lifetime, having such a prominent navigation to three other things, which are all incomplete sketches, is not helpful to the reader. The sidebar also takes up considerable space on the articles it's used on and is redundant to Template:Claude Debussy Aza24 (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant to bottom navbox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's better suited to its current position than the bottom navbox, since it provides a tightly focused collection of links to related works that a reader is likely to be interested in, meriting its prominence. Aesthetic concerns can be addressed by means other than deletion - for example, by making the image smaller. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd like to ask our readers (if they really want to know at that point - on arrival at the article - what else Debussy wrote, instead of focusing on the work they came for. Sometimes I'd like to ask them if they ever look at navigation, because I don't, unless making changes to a series of works). The operas by Mozart and Verdi do well without such device for five to seven years now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Given the small quantity of constituents in the set, and the lack of coverage on the topic of Debussy operas generally, criterion 4 of WP:NAVBOX, I agree that the sidebar is redundant to the navbox. --Bsherr (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Remove from Pelléas et Mélisande (opera) - whatever use it has is linking the obscure, half-finished operas. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 03:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep for what? I think in the obscure operas, a pic of the composer that all can see would be better than the sidebar that doesn't help mobile users. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is visually intrusive, in violation of Wikipedia:Navigation_template#Navigation_templates_are_not_arbitrarily_decorative. Even when the artist's photo is removed, what remains is a poorly conceived sidebar on a topic of unclear importance. Navigation requirements are well fulfilled by ((Claude Debussy)) and Category:Operas by Claude Debussy, this is just the oh-so-typical wikipedian clutter. No such user (talk) 09:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant to ((Claude Debussy)); unfriendly to mobile users, failing WP:NENAN, and per consensus at past TfD for similar opera-by-composer sideboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 26 December 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).

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G8 by Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WikiProject Barrie (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Banner created for a WikiProject that is now defunct. Has been removed from all Talk pages it had been applied to. PKT(alk) 17:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Nominator incorrectly de-linked banner before resolution of this TfD. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The WikiProject itself was deleted over a year ago, no need for its template to exist either. Username6892 04:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as G8 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:23, 22 December 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).

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) 17:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Districts of the Zone 5 (Afar) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete The only live link on this navbox is a mislink. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom, no navigational assistance is provided anymore. Lacking any context, it's unclear what this was ever supposed to help navigate between in the first place. -- 2pou (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and replace transclusions with Template:Districts of the Afar Region, which this template appears to be a broken semi-duplicate of. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:50, 28 December 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).

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 2020 December 28. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:College_color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Sports_color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

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

The result of the discussion was delete after appropriate replacement. Numerically close, but policy and ACCESS concerns on the deprecation side trump "it's easy to use" (and as always, the fact that if implemented properly, nothing will be "broken"). For redundancy sake, please note the comment stating Template:Columns/styles.css should not be deleted as a subpage of Template:Columns. Primefac (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Columns (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We are long past the date where there are other solutions to columned material. This should be deprecated/deleted/replaced by one of the column templates listed at the bottom.

I don't have a personal preference of which besides NOT the other table solution. FWIW, probably the most similar to this one are the CSS float solutions, but probably the optimal ones are the flex or the column solutions. Izno (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If this is a delete, closing admin needs to be careful not to delete Template:Columns/styles.css, which is actually not used by this template. --Izno (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there any concrete problem with these? I agree that usually something like div col is better since the number of columns can be made adaptive and often makes use of space better, but is there more? --Trialpears (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the caveat listed in the documentation is sufficiently convincing. We're up to 65% on mobile these days. We deprecated and removed fixed width column systems a long time ago in other parts of the wiki; that this template has survived is somewhat surprising for that. --Izno (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright, thanks! --Trialpears (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support While looking at quite a few of these on mobile and a very thin desktop window showed that they worked well for most cases having tons of different templates for the same purpose is sub optimal. Especially when this templates never seems to be the optimal choice. --Trialpears (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps best to notify the pump as this affects thousands of page and should be looked at by content editors that are familiar with its use......as in what is the best replacement that will not break thousands of pages.--Moxy 🍁 03:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No pages should break as a result of changing these templates around. A bot should be suitable to sort this out in the general case. --Izno (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is a very simple and intuitive tool, and content I have posted years ago will break. Imo it is better to have more options that will do slightly different things, than to delete an entire framework and have thousands of cleanups on every corner of the site. I instead propose to link to the new options on the template page. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The alternatives are all already listed on the template page. They have made little budge in whether appropriate accessible structures are used and applied in most cases. This is something of a test TFD for the more-used alternative, which is Template:Col-begin.

  The alternatives are just as intuitive. Template:Columns-start works in very much the same way as this template, though it too should probably be migrated to Template:Col-float or ((div col)).

  As for "thousands of cleanups", this is a nonissue. These changes could probably be made today and be 1-for-1 replacements in most cases.

  content I have posted years ago will break I do not understand this objection. I anticipate that exactly 0 things will "break". --Izno (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. For the reasons Double Plus Ungood already stated. GameRCrom (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Deprecate and replace each transclusion with more accessible, more responsive options. Each replacement will depend on which features are used in a given situation. For example, this replacement at Edward Albee was straightforward; there were two well-defined columns, so I used the ((col-begin))/((col-2)) family. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  As I noted above, col-begin is the next target since it too uses tables for columns, it's just used a lot more :^). This would have been the preferable. --Izno (talk) 03:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deprecation - the alternatives work well (based on preview of replacements at C shell), and I will take the word of the others who have posted that they are more accessible. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's easy to use. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Its alternatives are just as easy. ((div col)) can be used if you don't care about the number of columns that pops out and that's a two-liner; ((columns-start)) or ((col-float)) or ((flex columns)) can be used if you do; see re to Jonesey above about the columns-start replacement version of this particular template. --Izno (talk) 03:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Deprecate and Replace. Sadly, the old template needs to say goodbye, there are better alternatives for creating columns. There are disadvantages of using this template than others, as stated above. PyroFloe (talk) 15:21, 29 December 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).

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) 17:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Nyman operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Michael Nyman)). 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 11:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Becomes an excuse not to have a specialized lead image; redundant to the horizontal template. Aza24 (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful for navigation, providing a focused collection of links likely to be of interest to readers of the set. Concerns around image placement/selection can be addressed by means other than deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ((Michael Nyman)) also provides a focused collection of links likely to be of interest to readers of the set; as noted the nominated template is redundant to it: there is not a single article using the nominated template which is not also using ((Michael Nyman)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Aza24, no reason to treat this composer unlike Mozart, Verdi and Rossini. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and my comments at #Template:Debussy operas above. No such user (talk) 09:19, 25 December 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).

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) 17:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Bruneau operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed). Readers would be better served by a horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Becomes an excuse not to have a specialized lead image; redundant to the horizontal template. Aza24 (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – which horizontal template? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as noted there does not currently appear to be a feasible replacement, and vertical navboxes are a permitted alternative to horizontal generally. Concerns around image placement/selection can be addressed by means other than deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A replacement navbox can be created once there is consensus to delete this template. What is "permitted" is immaterial; what matters is what best serves our readers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A replacement navbox can be created …": cart before horse. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      I created the navbox (before seeing this comment). One of the stubs has one sentence, but the sidebar (three times as long) and an image. I wonder if defenders of the construction even looked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      • Yep. The navbox is barely bulkier than a plain image would be, never mind plain image + bottom navbox or some other replacement. As we don't have any evidence on what a reader may prefer, only what we as individuals prefer, we can't really assert that one is better for readers than the other. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        I am not sure what you mean, sorry. We distinguish sidebar (right corner) and navbox (bottom). I mean L'Enfant roi. For a stub like that, I'd have no image. Instead, we have the sidebar with image, three times as long as the article body even collapsed, worse when uncollapsed, + an image of a performer. I am a reader, and I don't like it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant to the navbox, and anyway too bulky for the mostly stub articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, inferior to navbox, not a way to do it. No such user (talk) 09:21, 25 December 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).

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Braunfels operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to ((Walter Braunfels)). Hides the image on mobile. Readers are better served by a horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Becomes an excuse not to have a specialized lead image; redundant to the horizontal template. Aza24 (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, inferior to navbox, not a way to do it. No such user (talk) 09:22, 25 December 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).

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 2020 December 28. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Bianchi_operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

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) 17:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Berwald operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only four transclusions. 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 11:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Becomes an excuse not to have a specialized lead image; redundant to the horizontal template. Aza24 (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Aza24, no reason to treat this composer unlike Mozart, Verdi and Rossini. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, inferior to navbox, visual clutter. No such user (talk) 09:22, 25 December 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).

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 2020 December 28. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Auber_operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

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 2020 December 28. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Arne_operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

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 2020 December 28. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Albinoni_operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

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) 17:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Antheil operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only three transclusions. 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 11:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Becomes an excuse not to have a specialized lead image; redundant to the horizontal template. Aza24 (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – which horizontal template? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The concerns raised about images by the nom and delete comment above appear to be erroneous, since this template does not contain any image. Additionally as noted there does not currently appear to be a feasible replacement, and given the scope of the template the number of transclusions makes complete sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no error; at least not in the nomination. A cursory examination of the template code (it is a wrapper for ((sidebar))) shows that it includes |image=. Any image added there is hidden on mobile. A replacement navbox can be created once there is consensus to delete this template; however, since the "scope of the template" is three articles, this fails WP:NEANN, as stated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A replacement navbox can be created …": cart before horse. ((WP:NEANN)) is an essay. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not in the least "cart before horse" - we regularly decide such things at TfD. WP:NENAN is an essay that describes the regular consensus about navboxes at TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Templates have the capacity to contain a great many things, but we don't delete things because of what could be in them. Let's debate the templates we have rather than the ones we don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Aza24, no reason to treat this composer unlike Mozart, Verdi and Rossini. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Equally no reason to treat this composer unlike Handel and Offenbach. Some articles use this model, others don't. That's not a rationale to delete one or the other. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The only reason we have Handel and Offenbach is the preferences of one editor and you, afaik. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Not true. But nevertheless, the general point still stands: the fact that other articles use a different model, doesn't make this model worthy of deletion. Both are acceptable. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, inferior to navbox, visual clutter, hides the image. No such user (talk) 09:23, 25 December 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).

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 2020 December 28. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Indian_martial_arts_sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

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) 01:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Masculine-Feminine traits (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This should be deleted. Never has there been a subject that is as both socially fraught and scientifically complex as gender. Researchers in fields relating to sex differences in psychology will tell you that traits that society considers gendered cannot be so simplistically divided into "masculine" and "feminine". Science has found that such traits are affected by both nature and nurture, and that there is significant overlap between men and women in the distribution of these traits. Even if it is claimed that it is merely reporting social stereotypes, this template gives the appearance of endorsing them, which is misleading in itself and would also lead to never ending controversy if kept. Information on what traits society considers masculine or feminine is already given in the leads of masculinity and femininity, so there is no need for this template on top of that. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Misleading and old-fashioned ideas. Based on an unclear source. Ow, and Katie Taylor as submissive and passive? The Banner talk 15:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Almost everything in the world sometimes overlap, that does not mean they are not distinctive. Male and female traits differ in animals—humans are also animals. But as humans live in an artificial environment they sometimes overlaps and may not show these traits at all, just like how a pet or caged tiger would behave differently than a tiger in the wild. Human male and female definitely have distinctive masculine and feminine traits.--137.97.93.186 (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC) — 137.97.93.186 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete First of all, I can't think of too many tmeplates that actually cite sources and carry around their own bibliography. Second, the involvement of one here reeks of WP:SINGLESOURCE. But even if not for that, I agree with those who have so far mentioned that this issue is not so black and white that gendered traits can be broken down in such a definitive way. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 23:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV-pushing; I've removed it from the one article it was on. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:19, 26 December 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).

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 2020 December 28. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Current_Cabinet_of_Greece (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).