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) 22:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Administrative divisions of the Philippines sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant with ((Administrative divisions of the Philippines)) and ((Politics of the Philippines)). Please see Template talk:Administrative divisions of the Philippines#Template:Regions of the Philippines for more information. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The template was created since no Philippine administrative division sidebar existed at the time of its creation. If it is not deemed very useful, then I have no objections if ever it gets deleted. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The argument on Template talk:Administrative divisions of the Philippines#Template:Regions of the Philippines was that the Administrative divisions template was too broad, so the same logic would suggest that this template is not redundant to ((Politics of the Philippines)), as it serves a much more specific purpose. CMD (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 1 February 2021 (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) 18:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Best Model of the World (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

this seems like a rather pointless template considering the competition (whatever it is) doesn't even exist as an article CUPIDICAE💕 21:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article first, then navbox if it is useful. Nigej (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2021 (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⚡ 03:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:International membership (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A highly complicated template system to display a country's membership of various international organisations. All sorts of sub templates, eg ((International membership/Data/Qatar)), containing the data for each country, and files like Wikipedia:International membership templates/1981. Never got off the ground it seems. Nigej (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2021 (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 after replacing transclusions. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image is purely decorative; if a more meaningful image were added, the template would hide it from users on mobile. Readers would be better served by a horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep. Should not be nominated for deletion until a navobx to replace it has been added to all the linked articles. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you misunderstand the process, sorry. When a decision is made that the sidebar is no longer wanted, per the flaws detailed in earlier nominations, it will NOT actually be deleted until a navbox is in place, no matter when that will be. It can be after the consensus, But I'll provide them one by one if nobody beats me to it. (Please, someone beat me, it's boring and uncreative work.) - delete, per the flaws. - This goes for all sidebars on this page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I found this one particularly useless, and removed it in a stub where it was double the size of the article. ((Hugo Weisgall)) is in place in composer and the 5 operas with an article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I refer you to our exchange in the previous discussion where you made that suggestion, in which you concluded "Perhaps it's a good idea to get consensus before making all those edits" (all the nominations on that occasion resulted in "delete" decisions). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pigsonthewing: I have no objection to replacing these opera templates with a navbox at the bottom. If it is indeed true that they are not deleted before the relevant navbox at the bottom is added, then I would not vote to keep them. But why are you only saying this now? What is the guarantee that will happen? I still believe that the best way to handle this is for someone to add the navbbox, then remove the opera template. After there are no longer any articles linking to the opera template, then nominate it for deletion. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not only saying this now. And I again refer you to your conclusion in the previous discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The only response you have made that I find the least bit persuasive is that adding these navboxes is boring and tedious, so I am going to try to help you out. For instance, I've added Template:Francesco Cavalli to the bottom of Ercole amante, where its addition was overlooked, even after the opera template was removed. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks to User:Gerda Arendt, I can now change my vote. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I've said nothing to that effect. As for "overlooked", you'd need to address that comment to the editor who removed it in this edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, apologies, I see now, Gerda said it. I must have been speed reading. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per previous arguments. In my view having a navbox at the bottom is much better. The current navbox discourages the use of an infobox, like ((Infobox opera)), which would be more useful to readers. OK, we can have two, one on top of the other, but a horizontal navbox with an infobox seems to me to be a better solution. Nigej (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments at numerous other deletion discussions for these sidebars. Footer navboxes are the preferred and expected location for such links and are much less obtrusive. These sidebars are simply artifacts from 2006/2007 when WikiProject Opera started creating these and footer navboxes were not all that common. (I created many of them myself.) There is nothing sacred about this 14 year-old design which in my view is now a detriment to article presentation and reader experience. They are invisible and consequently so are the images they contain to half of the article's readers (mobile version). In the desktop version, they clutter the top of the article and prevent the use of more apt and illustrative images of the opera in the lede. Voceditenore (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete them all, per several previous rounds of these. We do not need "pseudo-infoboxes" that are really nav sidebars masquerading as infoboxes with most of the features stripped out. Use a standard page-bottom navbar as the navbar. If there's consensus at the article to use an infobox, then use one. Don't half-ass it with this weird stuff. It's confusing both to readers and to editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete after replacing with ((italic title)) (where needed) and with a composer navbox footer (where missing). footer navigational boxes facilitate a superior page layout since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating items like images and infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2021 (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 after replacing transclusions. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

If an image were added, would hide it from users on mobile. Readers would be better served by a horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Thanks to User:Gerda Arendt for creating and adding the navbox. Keep. Should not be nominated for deletion until a navobx to replace it has been added to all the linked articles. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I refer you to our exchange in the previous discussion where you made that suggestion, in which you concluded "Perhaps it's a good idea to get consensus before making all those edits" (all the nominations on that occasion resulted in "delete" decisions). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  ((Judith Weir)) is in place --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my comments at numerous other deletion discussions for these sidebars. Footer navboxes are the preferred and expected location for such links and are much less obtrusive. These sidebars are simply artifacts from 2006/2007 when WikiProject Opera started creating these and footer navboxes were not all that common. (I created many of them myself.) There is nothing sacred about this 14 year-old design which in my view is now a detriment to article presentation and reader experience. They are invisible and consequently so are the images they contain to half of the article's readers (mobile version). In the desktop version, they clutter the top of the article and prevent the use of more apt and illustrative images of the opera in the lede. Voceditenore (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete after replacing with ((italic title)) (where needed) and with a composer navbox footer (where missing). footer navigational boxes facilitate a superior page layout since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating items like images and infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2021 (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 after replacing transclusions. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to ((Anton Rubinstein)). 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 18:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Thanks to User:Aza24 for creating the navbox back on 5 January (probably in anticipation of this nomination?). Keep. Should not be nominated for deletion until a navobx to replace it has been added to all the linked articles. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I refer you to our exchange in the previous discussion where you made that suggestion, in which you concluded "Perhaps it's a good idea to get consensus before making all those edits" (all the nominations on that occasion resulted in "delete" decisions). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments at numerous other deletion discussions for these sidebars. Footer navboxes are the preferred and expected location for such links and are much less obtrusive. These sidebars are simply artifacts from 2006/2007 when WikiProject Opera started creating these and footer navboxes were not all that common. (I created many of them myself.) There is nothing sacred about this 14 year-old design which in my view is now a detriment to article presentation and reader experience. They are invisible and consequently so are the images they contain to half of the article's readers (mobile version). In the desktop version, they clutter the top of the article and prevent the use of more apt and illustrative images of the opera in the lede. Voceditenore (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete after replacing with ((italic title)) (where needed) and with a composer navbox footer (where missing). footer navigational boxes facilitate a superior page layout since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating items like images and infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2021 (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 after replacing transclusions. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only three entries. Fails WP:NENAN. 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 18:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. 'See also' sections added with links to his other operas. Keep. Should not be nominated for deletion until a navobx to replace it has been added to all the linked articles. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I refer you to our exchange in the previous discussion where you made that suggestion, in which you concluded "Perhaps it's a good idea to get consensus before making all those edits" (all the nominations on that occasion resulted in "delete" decisions). Furthermore, as this template fails WP:NENAN, no form of navbox should be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments at numerous other deletion discussions for these sidebars. Footer navboxes are the preferred and expected location for such links and are much less obtrusive. These sidebars are simply artifacts from 2006/2007 when WikiProject Opera started creating these and footer navboxes were not all that common. (I created many of them myself.) There is nothing sacred about this 14 year-old design which in my view is now a detriment to article presentation and reader experience. They are invisible and consequently so are the images they contain to half of the article's readers (mobile version). In the desktop version, they clutter the top of the article and prevent the use of more apt and illustrative images of the opera in the lede. Voceditenore (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete after replacing with ((italic title)) (where needed) and with a composer navbox footer (where missing). footer navigational boxes facilitate a superior page layout since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating items like images and infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2021 (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 after replacing transclusions. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Porpora 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 18:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Thanks to User:Gerda Arendt for creating and adding the bottom navbox. Keep. Should not be nominated for deletion until a navobx to replace it has been added to all the linked articles. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I refer you to our exchange in the previous discussion where you made that suggestion, in which you concluded "Perhaps it's a good idea to get consensus before making all those edits" (all the nominations on that occasion resulted in "delete" decisions). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ((Nicola Porpora)) is now in place. In short stubs, I removed the large sidebox right away. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments at numerous other deletion discussions for these sidebars. Footer navboxes are the preferred and expected location for such links and are much less obtrusive. These sidebars are simply artifacts from 2006/2007 when WikiProject Opera started creating these and footer navboxes were not all that common. (I created many of them myself.) There is nothing sacred about this 14 year-old design which in my view is now a detriment to article presentation and reader experience. They are invisible and consequently so are the images they contain to half of the article's readers (mobile version). In the desktop version, they clutter the top of the article and prevent the use of more apt and illustrative images of the opera in the lede. Voceditenore (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete after replacing with ((italic title)) (where needed) and with a composer navbox footer (where missing). footer navigational boxes facilitate a superior page layout since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating items like images and infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2021 (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 after replacing transclusions. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

If an image were added, would hide it from users on mobile. Readers would be better served by a horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Should not be nominated for deletion until a navobx to replace it has been added to all the linked articles. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I refer you to our exchange in the previous discussion where you made that suggestion, in which you concluded "Perhaps it's a good idea to get consensus before making all those edits" (all the nominations on that occasion resulted in "delete" decisions). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  ((Tobias Picker)) is in place. As the sidebar has no image, it looked pretty useless to me, so I took the liberty to remove it right away. The composer has an infobox, the works are also a good candidate for one, but another day. Rarely has the superiority of the footer navbox been more evident than in this case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my comments at numerous other deletion discussions for these sidebars. Footer navboxes are the preferred and expected location for such links and are much less obtrusive. These sidebars are simply artifacts from 2006/2007 when WikiProject Opera started creating these and footer navboxes were not all that common. (I created many of them myself.) There is nothing sacred about this 14 year-old design which in my view is now a detriment to article presentation and reader experience. They are invisible and consequently so are the images they contain to half of the article's readers (mobile version). In the desktop version, they clutter the top of the article and prevent the use of more apt and illustrative images of the opera in the lede. Voceditenore (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete after replacing with ((italic title)) (where needed) and with a composer navbox footer (where missing). footer navigational boxes facilitate a superior page layout since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating items like images and infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2021 (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 after replacing transclusions. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Piccinni 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 18:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Personal preference is not a valid rationale for deletion; layout concerns can be addressed by other means. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Accessibility problems as described in the nom are objective flaws of the design, - not "personal preference". delete --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The nomination claims that the horizontal navbox is an appropriate substitute. That design is also hidden from mobile readers, is typically collapsed, and is typically placed far to the bottom of articles - offering no accessibility benefit over this design. The only objective difference is the image placement which, as noted, doesn't require deletion of the template to address. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The nomination claims that the bottom navbox is superior, and I agree. You can have it uncollapsed if you like without being intrusive to the article content, as this one is, bleeding into the roles table. There are examples. The sidebar is a construction of the past, which project opera has described as such. Why waste more time? - delete --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  ((Niccolò Piccinni)) is now in place. Repeating:

  The sidebar, even collapsed, is too large for a stub.

  Uncollapsed, it is detracting at the top attention from the opera to the composer and his other works, while a navbox at the bottom is more modest in that respect.

  Four related topics already had a navbox or two, horizontal of course. It seems confusing to have navigation in two places.

  Useful sidebars - ((Sudan culture)) - don't have an image as their key feature, and don't hide their navigation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No: The nomination points out that the horizontal navbox at the foot of the artilce serves our readers better than the nominated template. This has been supported in closing statements in every one of the sets of nominations listed above. Unlike the nominated template, a horizontal navbox will not hide the lead image; a clear accessibility benefit over the nominated design. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Astute readers will note that the rationale for deletion given here is not "personal preference", but what will best serve our readers, as has been determined by consensus: There is ample evidence that the community holds this to be the case; every single such opera composer nominated for deletion in recent months - with similar rationales - has been deleted (including batches on September 28, October 5, October 8, December 20, December 28, 14 January, & 24 January). Not a single one of them has been kept. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The plural of anecdote is not data, and otherstuff is not evidence of cause for deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  But these are not "anecdotes", they are findings of consensus; and WP:OTHERSTUFF does not apply, for the reason which I have pointed out to you on multiple occasions in some of those discussions; in every one of which your invocation of it made no difference to the eventual outcome, which was always and invariably "delete". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my comments at numerous other deletion discussions for these sidebars. Footer navboxes are the preferred and expected location for such links and are much less obtrusive. These sidebars are simply artifacts from 2006/2007 when WikiProject Opera started creating these and footer navboxes were not all that common. (I created many of them myself.) There is nothing sacred about this 14 year-old design which in my view is now a detriment to article presentation and reader experience. They are invisible and consequently so are the images they contain to half of the article's readers (mobile version). In the desktop version, they clutter the top of the article and prevent the use of more apt and illustrative images of the opera in the lede. Voceditenore (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Thanks to User:Gerda Arendt for creating the new bottom navbox and adding it to the relevant articles. Delete for reasons cited by other editors, esp. User:Voceditenore. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete after replacing with ((italic title)) (where needed) and with a composer navbox footer (where missing). footer navigational boxes facilitate a superior page layout since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating items like images and infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2021 (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 after replacing transclusions. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Philidor 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 18:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still would suggest to you that these templates not be nominated for deletion until the horizontal navboxes that replace them have been added to the bottom of the linked articles and this template has been replaced by an image. When the templates are not longer linked, then they can be nominated. I would request that you refrain from nominating them until that has happened. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How would I know this template otherwise. I can make the navbox tomorrow. Today is Sunday, and I'm working on an thing with a deadline. It's a rather simple mechanical task, no special knowledge involved, - just copy an existing similar one. I think the number of my clicks from an opera sidebar in my wiki-life of eleven years is zero. Who wants to navigate away from an article just entered. Delete therefore, and per nom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The navbox is in place ((François-André Danican Philidor)) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to our exchange in the previous discussion where you made that suggestion, in which you concluded "Perhaps it's a good idea to get consensus before making all those edits" (all the nominations on that occasion resulted in "delete" decisions). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Personal preference is not a valid rationale for deletion; layout concerns can be addressed by other means. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Astute readers will note that the rationale for deletion given here is not "personal preference", but what will best serve our readers, as has been determined by consensus: There is ample evidence that the community holds this to be the case; every single such opera composer nominated for deletion in recent months - with similar rationales - has been deleted (including batches on September 28, October 5, October 8, December 20, December 28, 14 January, & 24 January). Not a single one of them has been kept. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Navbox was added. --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Keep. Should not be nominated for deletion until a navobx to replace it has been added to all the linked articles. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I again refer you to our exchange in the previous discussion where you made that suggestion, in which you concluded "Perhaps it's a good idea to get consensus before making all those edits" (all the nominations on that occasion resulted in "delete" decisions). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still think this process is not working well. For instance, even after Template:Cavalli operas was deleted, quite a few of his operas linked in the new bottom navbox Template:Francesco Cavalli did not have it added at the bottom. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • And again, you need to address that comment to the editor who disruptively removed the now-deleted template, without adding the footer navbox, in edits such as this one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and previous arguments. We now have a ((François-André Danican Philidor)), much clearer for navigation in my view, at the bottom where readers expect to find it. Nigej (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments at numerous other deletion discussions for these sidebars. Footer navboxes are the preferred and expected location for such links and are much less obtrusive. These sidebars are simply artifacts from 2006/2007 when WikiProject Opera started creating these and footer navboxes were not all that common. (I created many of them myself.) There is nothing sacred about this 14 year-old design which in my view is now a detriment to article presentation and reader experience. They are invisible and consequently so are the images they contain to half of the article's readers (mobile version). In the desktop version, they clutter the top of the article and prevent the use of more apt and illustrative images of the opera in the lede. Voceditenore (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete after replacing with ((italic title)) (where needed) and with a composer navbox footer (where missing). footer navigational boxes facilitate a superior page layout since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating items like images and infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2021 (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 after replacing transclusions. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image is purely decorative; if a more meaningful image were added, the template would hide it from users on mobile. Readers would be better served by a horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Should not be nominated for deletion until a navobx to replace it has been added to all the linked articles. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I refer you to our exchange in the previous discussion where you made that suggestion, in which you concluded "Perhaps it's a good idea to get consensus before making all those edits" (all the nominations on that occasion resulted in "delete" decisions). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments at numerous other deletion discussions for these sidebars. Footer navboxes are the preferred and expected location for such links and are much less obtrusive. These sidebars are simply artifacts from 2006/2007 when WikiProject Opera started creating these and footer navboxes were not all that common. (I created many of them myself.) There is nothing sacred about this 14 year-old design which in my view is now a detriment to article presentation and reader experience. They are invisible and consequently so are the images they contain to half of the article's readers (mobile version). In the desktop version, they clutter the top of the article and prevent the use of more apt and illustrative images of the opera in the lede. Voceditenore (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete after replacing with ((italic title)) (where needed) and with a composer navbox footer (where missing). footer navigational boxes facilitate a superior page layout since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating items like images and infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  ((Thomas Pasatieri)) is in place. Only one of five operas is well developed, infobox, roles, synopsis. Of the four stubs, one had no sidebar, and I boldly removed it from the others also. The image had nothing to do with any of them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2021 (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 after replacing transclusions. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only four entries. Fails WP:NENAN. 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 18:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Personal preference is not a valid rationale for deletion; layout concerns can be addressed by means other than deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Astute readers will note that the rationale for deletion given here is not "personal preference", but what will best serve our readers, as has been determined by consensus: There is ample evidence that the community holds this to be the case; every single such opera composer nominated for deletion in recent months - with similar rationales - has been deleted (including batches on September 28, October 5, October 8, December 20, December 28, 14 January, & 24 January). Not a single one of them has been kept. The rationale here also refers to WP:NENAN, and you offer no refutation of that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments at numerous other deletion discussions for these sidebars. Footer navboxes are the preferred and expected location for such links and are much less obtrusive. These sidebars are simply artifacts from 2006/2007 when WikiProject Opera started creating these and footer navboxes were not all that common. (I created many of them myself.) There is nothing sacred about this 14 year-old design which in my view is now a detriment to article presentation and reader experience. They are invisible and consequently so are the images they contain to half of the article's readers (mobile version). In the desktop version, they clutter the top of the article and prevent the use of more apt and illustrative images of the opera in the lede. Voceditenore (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete after replacing with ((italic title)) (where needed) and with a composer navbox footer (where missing). footer navigational boxes facilitate a superior page layout since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating items like images and infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2021 (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 after replacing transclusions. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only four entries. Fails WP:NENAN. Image is purely decorative; if a more meaningful image were added, the template would hide it from users on mobile. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Navbox added. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Keep. Should not be nominated for deletion until a navobx to replace it has been added to all the linked articles. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I refer you to our exchange in the previous discussion where you made that suggestion, in which you concluded "Perhaps it's a good idea to get consensus before making all those edits" (all the nominations on that occasion resulted in "delete" decisions). Furthermore, as this template fails WP:NENAN, no form of navbox should be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A horizontal nav box has now been created. Aza24 (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments at numerous other deletion discussions for these sidebars. Footer navboxes are the preferred and expected location for such links and are much less obtrusive. These sidebars are simply artifacts from 2006/2007 when WikiProject Opera started creating these and footer navboxes were not all that common. (I created many of them myself.) There is nothing sacred about this 14 year-old design which in my view is now a detriment to article presentation and reader experience. They are invisible and consequently so are the images they contain to half of the article's readers (mobile version). In the desktop version, they clutter the top of the article and prevent the use of more apt and illustrative images of the opera in the lede. Voceditenore (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete after replacing with ((italic title)) (where needed) and with a composer navbox footer (where missing). footer navigational boxes facilitate a superior page layout since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating items like images and infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2021 (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 after replacing transclusions. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only three entries. Fails WP:NENAN. Collapsed by default. 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 18:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Added links to articles on his other two operas to 'See also' sections. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Keep. Should not be nominated for deletion until a navobx to replace it has been added to all the linked articles. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I refer you to our exchange in the previous discussion where you made that suggestion, in which you concluded "Perhaps it's a good idea to get consensus before making all those edits" (all the nominations on that occasion resulted in "delete" decisions). Furthermore, as this template fails WP:NENAN, no form of navbox should be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments at numerous other deletion discussions for these sidebars. Footer navboxes are the preferred and expected location for such links and are much less obtrusive. These sidebars are simply artifacts from 2006/2007 when WikiProject Opera started creating these and footer navboxes were not all that common. (I created many of them myself.) There is nothing sacred about this 14 year-old design which in my view is now a detriment to article presentation and reader experience. They are invisible and consequently so are the images they contain to half of the article's readers (mobile version). In the desktop version, they clutter the top of the article and prevent the use of more apt and illustrative images of the opera in the lede. Voceditenore (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete after replacing with ((italic title)) (where needed) and with a composer navbox footer (where missing). footer navigational boxes facilitate a superior page layout since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating items like images and infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2021 (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 after replacing transclusions, including with an appropriate footer navbox, which should be created if it doesn't already exist. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Mondonville 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 18:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Personal preference is not a valid rationale for deletion; layout concerns can be addressed by other means. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Astute readers will note that the rationale for deletion given here is not "personal preference", but what will best serve our readers, as has been determined by consensus: There is ample evidence that the community holds this to be the case; every single such opera composer nominated for deletion in recent months - with similar rationales - has been deleted (including batches on September 28, October 5, October 8, December 20, December 28, 14 January, & 24 January). Not a single one of them has been kept. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Should not be nominated for deletion until a navobx to replace it has been added to all the linked articles. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I refer you to our exchange in the previous discussion where you made that suggestion, in which you concluded "Perhaps it's a good idea to get consensus before making all those edits" (all the nominations on that occasion resulted in "delete" decisions). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments at numerous other deletion discussions for these sidebars. Footer navboxes are the preferred and expected location for such links and are much less obtrusive. These sidebars are simply artifacts from 2006/2007 when WikiProject Opera started creating these and footer navboxes were not all that common. (I created many of them myself.) There is nothing sacred about this 14 year-old design which in my view is now a detriment to article presentation and reader experience. They are invisible and consequently so are the images they contain to half of the article's readers (mobile version). In the desktop version, they clutter the top of the article and prevent the use of more apt and illustrative images of the opera in the lede. Voceditenore (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete after replacing with ((italic title)) (where needed) and with a composer navbox footer (where missing). footer navigational boxes facilitate a superior page layout since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating items like images and infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2021 (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 after replacing transclusions, including with an appropriate footer navbox, which should be created if it doesn't already exist (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only three entries. Fails WP:NENAN. If an image were added, would hide it from users on mobile. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Should not be nominated for deletion until a navobx to replace it has been added to all the linked articles. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I refer you to our exchange in the previous discussion where you made that suggestion, in which you concluded "Perhaps it's a good idea to get consensus before making all those edits" (all the nominations on that occasion resulted in "delete" decisions). Furthermore, as this template fails WP:NENAN, no form of navbox should be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments at numerous other deletion discussions for these sidebars. Footer navboxes are the preferred and expected location for such links and are much less obtrusive. These sidebars are simply artifacts from 2006/2007 when WikiProject Opera started creating these and footer navboxes were not all that common. (I created many of them myself.) There is nothing sacred about this 14 year-old design which in my view is now a detriment to article presentation and reader experience. They are invisible and consequently so are the images they contain to half of the article's readers (mobile version). In the desktop version, they clutter the top of the article and prevent the use of more apt and illustrative images of the opera in the lede. Voceditenore (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete after replacing with ((italic title)) (where needed) and with a composer navbox footer (where missing). footer navigational boxes facilitate a superior page layout since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating items like images and infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2021 (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 after replacing transclusions. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Gaztambide zarzuelas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only four entries. Fails WP:NENAN. 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 18:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep. Should not be nominated for deletion until a navobx to replace it has been added to all the linked articles. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I refer you to our exchange in the previous discussion where you made that suggestion, in which you concluded "Perhaps it's a good idea to get consensus before making all those edits" (all the nominations on that occasion resulted in "delete" decisions). Furthermore, as this template fails WP:NENAN, no form of navbox should be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am changing my vote here to 'Delete', since User:Voceditenore created the bottom navbar and added it to the articles on the composer's works. I agree there is a consensus to make these changes, and I am not against it, but it seems like when the old templates have been deleted it has sometimes resulted in a deterioration to the affected articles, because a new navbar has not always been added. Also, I don't agree that WP:NENAN applies. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only example of the new footer navbox not being added when a sidebar is to be deleted, is this edit. How do you suggest we deal with such disruptive behaviour? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I fixed it, and the edit has not been undone, so should be OK. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments at numerous other deletion discussions for these sidebars. Footer navboxes are the preferred and expected location for such links and are much less obtrusive. These sidebars are simply artifacts from 2006/2007 when WikiProject Opera started creating these and footer navboxes were not all that common. (I created many of them myself.) There is nothing sacred about this 14 year-old design which in my view is now a detriment to article presentation and reader experience. They are invisible and consequently so are the images they contain to half of the article's readers (mobile version). In the desktop version, they clutter the top of the article and prevent the use of more apt and illustrative images of the opera in the lede. Voceditenore (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete after replacing with ((italic title)) (where needed) and with a composer navbox footer (where missing). footer navigational boxes facilitate a superior page layout since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating items like images and infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2021 (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 G7 by Liz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blanked, only contained three links other than the 'parent' page SouthComm Communications beforehand. Not useful for navigation. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 17:14, 7 February 2021 (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) 21:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:The KLF singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a redundant one, which repeats a purpose of Template:The KLF, only to exeplify the singles' timeline which itself is complicated, if not convoluted, hence numerous repeated links to the same articles. — Kochas 14:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - The main template is sufficient. Nigej (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2021 (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) 16:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Station bullet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Helper template for an obsolete Route diagram template format. Only used on abandoned (last edited 10+ years ago) user pages. Subst and delete. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2021 (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) 16:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:About me (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template containing only an instance of Template:User info. Useless. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 13:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unused unnecessary wrapper for User info, 3 different colors hard wired. Nigej (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2021 (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) 16:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Summary of theprevious seasons of Zamalek fc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Now blanked, but previously contained a brief history of Zamalek_SC, an Egyptian football club. Content not suitable for Template: space, and there's nothing here not covered in the article. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 13:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Currently blank. Blanked content adequately covered by existing articles. Nigej (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2021 (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) 16:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Idol Series grading schemes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in only one page. Subst and delete. Izno (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst & delete Used in Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Idols task force/Assessment#Quality scale, an inactive project relating to Pop Idol, and should be substituted there. No other possible usage. Nigej (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2021 (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) 16:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:New Orleans grading scheme (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in only one page. Subst and delete. Izno (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst & delete Used in Wikipedia:WikiProject New Orleans/Assessment#Quality scale, an inactive project, and should be substituted there. No other possible usage. Nigej (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2021 (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) 16:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Houston grading scheme (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in only one page. Subst and delete. Izno (talk) 06:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst & delete Used in Wikipedia:WikiProject Houston/Assessment, an inactive project, and should be substituted there. No other possible usage. Nigej (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2021 (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) 16:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:International membership/Sub/Infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, the purpose of which is entirely opaque. Izno (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly part of ((International membership)), a highly complicated template to display a country's membership of various international organisations. This sub-template doesn't seem to be used and it's not clear to me that the "International membership" template idea got off the ground. Nigej (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close - I have nominated the parent template for deletion, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No, thank you. I am interested in tracking this specific subtemplate's fate. --Izno (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It will be fun to see what happens, when my nomination results in delete, if yours results in no consensus, or keep, then. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You should consider !voting delete to make it clear to prevent that then. ;) --Izno (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2021 (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) 16:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Dungeons & Dragons Grading scheme (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used only once. Subst and delete (or possibly into the related assessment page, wherever that lives). Izno (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't seem to be used. Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Assessment#Quality assessment has a more up-to-date version. Nigej (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2021 (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 merge to Template:Infobox place geography. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:State Geography IN (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox place geography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:State Geography IN with Template:Infobox place geography.
Used in only 2 pages. I assume there is at least one other settlement or geography infobox which will serve as a replacement. Izno (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Found it, should probably be Template:Infobox place geography. --Izno (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• merge, clear duplication. Frietjes (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2021 (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) 17:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WP India Grading scheme (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Transcluded in only one page. Subst and delete. Izno (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst & delete Used in Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Assessment#Quality scale and should be substituted there. No other possible usage. Nigej (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2021 (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) 17:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WP Law Grading scheme (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Totally unlinked. I am fairly certain if it were desired it would be used. Izno (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unused. Seems to have been superseded. Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/Assessment#Quality scale uses ((Grading scheme)). Nigej (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2021 (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) 17:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Argentine legislative election, 2009 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; results are presented in a better formatted table at 2009 Argentine legislative election. Yilku1 (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Nigej (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2021 (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).