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 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:Ifarticle
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) 02:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a strange template. A mixture of ((Main other)) and ((Userpage otheruse)). A left over from a much earlier time. Currently only used in one user's user pages. Replace with a ((User page)) (or ((User page)) and ((For))). Gonnym (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a strange/redundant template. Convert existing usages as appropriate first, generally with ((Main other)) (as this one makes sense in the contexts I checked). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:33, 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).
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. Editors cited accessibility reasons, and usage on prominent project namespace pages, as the main reasons to keep. Some editors said that the template should not be used in mainspace, and indeed the template documentation instructs the same. (non-admin closure)ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non standard interface component, used on just 93 (out of ~50 million) pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not helpful to users, new or otherwise, to teach them a non-standard interface which they will never find on the rest of Wikipedia. The alternative is to have such navigation added to the core wiki. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing any harm in having additional navigational aids on our big help pages. You may not find it useful but others might...especially those with disabilities and those that dont use a keyboard. Till there is some sort of core solution we should not go out of our way to make it hard to navigate huge administration pages on a whim with no policy bases for deletion.--Moxy🍁 20:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the first to call for us to show more care for the needs of people with disabilities; where is the evidence that this template serves that need? How does having it on 93 pages (many of which are not help pages) out of ~50 million help such people? And please try to make your case without dismissing my considered analysis of this template as a "whim". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not on many pages as we dont have that many directories of giant size. Why is usage a reasons for deletion over its accessibility purpose on the pages in question? . ..if its placed improperly then that should be fixed not a reason for deletion. What is done for those with disabilities. I call it a whim because there is no way an experienced editor has not seen these "take backs" before as we have many. --Moxy🍁 21:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of usage is an issue, because "It's not helpful to users, new or otherwise, to teach them a non-standard interface which they will never find on the rest of Wikipedia". And thanks for the link, but I didn't ask for a general accessibility guide; I asked "where is the evidence that this template serves that need" (emphasis added for clarity). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A (deletion) notice on a dashboard is not a reason to keep a template; if it were, we would never delete any. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from mainspace as a minimum. This should be used nowhere there per nom. I think also tend toward removal from non-mainspace as well per nom, and accordingly delete. --Izno (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OR Keep until replacement is abso-freakin'-lutely ready to take its place per everything Moxy said. I'm hella disabled, and removing it without having a replacement would make those pages so burdensome that I would be in such extra pain that I wouldn't use them... Argh, sorry. I already pushed myself too far today on WP—because I wanted to, not for any fake-saint reason, but because I was enjoying it—that I am not at my best communication-wise, but my real-life limitations will likely get in the way of me coming back here so I tried for a limit break. :P So sure, eventually remove it, but PLEASE don't remove the crappy curbcuts until you've got the new ones ready to go! 93 pages or 93 street corners, the number doesn't matter when you are the one trying to defy your body trying to get through that one right there! —Geekdiva (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standardization is not a sufficient reason since it is used on very prominent pages and no alternative currently exists. The usage on the Dashboard alone is a necessary keep. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 17:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:27, 4 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).
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 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:Strauss 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).
delete, redundant navigation. the footer navbox is better in terms of layout and not crowding the main prose content. Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per nom. These sidebars are both redundant and inferior to the footer navbox in terms of layout. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 28 September 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:Stravinsky 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).
delete, redundant navigation. the footer navbox is better in terms of layout and not crowding the main prose content. Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per nom. These sidebars are both redundant and inferior to the footer navbox in terms of layout. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 28 September 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:Villa-Lobos 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).
delete, redundant navigation. the footer navbox is better in terms of layout and not crowding the main prose content. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per nom. These sidebars are both redundant and inferior to the footer navbox in terms of layout. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 28 September 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:Wagner 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).
delete, redundant navigation. the footer navbox is better in terms of layout and not crowding the main prose content. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per nom. These sidebars are both redundant and inferior to the footer navbox in terms of layout. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 28 September 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:Wallace 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).
delete, redundant navigation. the footer navbox is better in terms of layout and not crowding the main prose content. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per nom. These sidebars are both redundant and inferior to the footer navbox in terms of layout. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 28 September 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:Walton 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).
delete, redundant navigation. the footer navbox is better in terms of layout and not crowding the main prose content. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per nom. These sidebars are both redundant and inferior to the footer navbox in terms of layout. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 28 September 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:Weber 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).
delete, redundant navigation. the footer navbox is better in terms of layout and not crowding the main prose content. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per nom. These sidebars are both redundant and inferior to the footer navbox in terms of layout. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 28 September 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 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. Regarding the point raised on moving for title consistency, compared to other nominations Template:Weill operas seems to focus solely on a specific area by the individual, rather than a more broad person navbox. Noting this important distinction, a move may not necessarily be appropriate, at least not in the same sense. There is no prejudice against a discussion on the move. (non-admin closure)ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete, redundant navigation. the footer navbox is better in terms of layout and not crowding the main prose content. if this is deleted, we should move ((Weill operas)) to this title for consistency. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per nom. These sidebars are both redundant and inferior to the footer navbox in terms of layout. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 28 September 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:Hindemith 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).
delete, redundant navigation. the footer navbox is better in terms of layout and not crowding the main prose content. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per nom. These sidebars are both redundant and inferior to the footer navbox in terms of layout. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 28 September 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:Glass 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).
delete, redundant navigation. the footer navbox is better in terms of layout and not crowding the main prose content. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per nom. These sidebars are both redundant and inferior to the footer navbox in terms of layout. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 28 September 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:Ginastera 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).
delete, redundant navigation. the footer navbox is better in terms of layout and not crowding the main prose content. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per nom. These sidebars are both redundant and inferior to the footer navbox in terms of layout. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 28 September 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:Delius 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).
Only used on two articles; fails WP:NENAN. Redundant to ((Frederick Delius)). 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 13:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete, redundant navigation. the footer navbox is better in terms of layout and not crowding the main prose content. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per nom. These sidebars are both redundant and inferior to the footer navbox in terms of layout. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 28 September 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:Bernstein 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).
Only used on two articles; fails WP:NENAN. Redundant to ((Leonard Bernstein)). 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 13:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete, redundant navigation. the footer navbox is better in terms of layout and not crowding the main prose content. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per nom. These sidebars are both redundant and inferior to the footer navbox in terms of layout. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 28 September 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:Balfe 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).
Only used on two articles; fails WP:NENAN. Redundant to ((Michael William Balfe)). 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 13:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete, redundant navigation. the footer navbox is better in terms of layout and not crowding the main prose content. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per nom. These sidebars are both redundant and inferior to the footer navbox in terms of layout. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 28 September 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: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).
delete, redundant navigation. the footer navbox is better in terms of layout and not crowding the main prose content. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per nom. These sidebars are both redundant and inferior to the footer navbox in terms of layout. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 28 September 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:Birtwistle 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).
delete, redundant navigation. the footer navbox is better in terms of layout and not crowding the main prose content. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per nom. These sidebars are both redundant and inferior to the footer navbox in terms of layout. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 28 September 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:Kwun Tong Future
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 template doesn't provide navigation, as a 'navigation template'. Sun8908──Talk 09:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete, provides no navigation. Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 28 September 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:Argentine films
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. Izno (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Convenient side template, perfect for lists like this, Template:Cinema of Argentina is the one which should be deleted, how is going to see the template sandwiched down there?† Encyclopædius 09:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sidebar. I support deletion if the sidebar remains unchanged. As it is these are both lists with links of years, one in vertical and one in horizontal format. No need to have both. If the Argentine sidebar was changed to be more useful, such as directing to a few key articles, then I would support keeping it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ((Cinema of Argentina)) is much more user friendly at the bottom. No need to duplicate the same exact template on these lists. --Gonnym (talk) 10:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete the sidebar. the footer navbox provides more consistent navigation. Frietjes (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment I personally think ((Argentine films)) is better than the bottom navbox (of readers - who actually reads those bottom ones anyway). I think it may be neater to uncollapse it, and delete the navbox rather than the sidebar. Topics quite closely related. Not too strong on this, though, and not really opposed to keeping the navbox instead of the sidebar as some of the above editors prefer. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:19, 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:Year Zero alternate reality game
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) 03:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template used to group together separate pages for the Year Zero ARG, all of which are heading for deletion as being WP:FANCRUFT and WP:GAMEGUIDE. All of the pages in the template will then be able to be linked from the album's page, leaving the template redundant. fuzzy510 (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Close nomination. This nom is dependent on whether the other pages are deleted. If they are, then the template can be speedy deleted using WP:G8. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete template as is. All Year Zero links are available in ((Nine Inch Nails)) so either completely delete, or convert into a bottom navbox (with only relevant links). I prefer deletion, as the template will be a duplication of a group of subset links. --Gonnym (talk) 14:04, 28 September 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:Ds/extended-confirmed-editnotice
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. Izno (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Low-usage duplicate of ((Ds/editnotice)) and EN templates in Category:Standardised Wikipedia arbitration enforcement templates (for the 500/30 part), e.g. ((IPA AE/Edit notice)). Proposed to replace usages with appropriate template, and delete. In some cases no substitute is desirable, as 500/30 is now enforced by technical means (ie ECP protection), thus doesn't need a notice telling people not to edit if they have less than 500/30. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These articles under ECP don't need a unique form of warning as compared with other articles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:07, 28 September 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 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 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).