Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 16: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 19:49, 26 March 2021

< February 15	February 17 >

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2021 February 28. Primefac (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Module:PassMath (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Math (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Medicine at Midnight tracks

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. Izno (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Medicine at Midnight tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

More complete navigation is provided by {{Foo Fighters}}, and per Template:Extra track listing: "track listings should not be added to infoboxes if there is a navigation template or navbox at the bottom of the article which already lists the songs." Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the problem with the above argument is that there is not actually a template or navbox which already lists the songs, because {{Foo Fighters}} only lists singles and three other songs by the band. It does not list all the songs on this album.QuintusPetillius (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except these templates are intended for navigation; if someone wants to see the full track listing, they can simply link to the article for the album. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary, redundant, and infobox cluttering. Sergecross73 msg me 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. redundant. Nigej (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 01:04, 19 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).

Template:Members of the First Legislative Yuan

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. Consensus is that the template does not offer good navigational value. It may be more suited as a list article or category. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Members of the First Legislative Yuan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a massive template, with only a small fraction of the entries bluelinked. There is no reason to have something this large that does this little. Primefac (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm in the process of creating articles for around 85 of the people listed (who were the first women MPs in China). They're all valid redlinks as the people in question pass WP:NPOLITICIAN and 575 of them were linked to the zh.wiki articles using {{ill}}, but this has been removed for some reason. The zh.wiki template has a majority of bluelinks. It's fairly common to have these kinds of navigational templates (see e.g. {{Members of the 5th Bundestag}} which also appears to have a majority of redlinks) Number 5 7 11:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to userfy until the majority of those pages are created. As per the usual arguments, the existence of one redlink-bloated template isn't a good reason to create another. Primefac (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend procedural withdraw and replace with wider RFC, without prejudice to re-listing in light of outcome of that RFC on issue of templates like these which are likely to have non-English blue-links available. If I had to take a position on this particular one case, I would say keep, as useful if it has or soon will have inter-language links assuming the 575 links are restored. However, this class of templates - templates which are mostly filled with links that will "always be red in English, not due to notability but due to lack of writers with the interest or the language skills to create a page, or if a page is created, it will be very small compared to the non-English page," should have a wider discussion. As for cases where there likely will NOT ever be inter-language links or English links, I usually prefer list-ification or category-ification. I say "usually" because there are some things, like Nth legislature of the state of Y or Yth parliament of the country of Z, where may of the "Nth" in the series are well-developed, but a few are not. In those cases, for the sake of consistency, I prefer keeping them all in the same format, even if many of the "older" (pre-20th-century?) ones are full of redlinks. As above, I'm also open to a wider RFC on cases like this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't put {{ill}}s in navboxes, and we don't create navboxes that are 90% redlinkes (whether there are 50 or 500 total). Primefac (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAV is pertinent. --Izno (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surely this should be a list article, eg. List of Members of the First Legislative Yuan. It serves no useful purpose being turned in a vast template, much too large to useful for navigation. Nigej (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the template is mistaking being complete from being navigation. Just strip the template of all redlinks, and reformat into a single listgroup of the exiting bluelinks. Thus it wil function to navigate between extant articles. Just as how musical band templates only list extant album articles and not every album the band published. -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This navbox fails several points at WP:NAV. The majority of its links are red and provide no navigational aid; with >800 entries, it's too big. Several links point to a wrong target. It's also malformed, not using hlist properly. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: but cut all redlinks template is useful in the quite a few articles it is used in. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with davidwr. We should figure out whether we should link to other languages if it's the best option, especially now that browsers can translate pages as you read them. Now for something else: If it does get kept, some of the subsections should get merged, e.g. the "Frontier Ethnic Groups" section. That would reduce the length, which is definitely a problem. --Xurizuri (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have no problem merging the district rows, so the list appears by province. Number 5 7 16:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for size per WP:NAV and WP:NAVBOX. A constellation of navboxes might be reasonable from a NAV/NAVBOX perspective to resolve the size concern, but while WP:RED has a consensus that 'actively being worked on' be permitted, I still sit here and say 'what good is this navbox to me (in English, on that point)?' So I also tend toward removal of the redlinks not actively be worked either, should such a constellation be developed. --Izno (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete, too large for a useful navbox. A better idea would be to create List of members of the First Legislative Yuan (per above), and/or subcategories for navigating between the pages. Frietjes (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete enormous template with many, many red links. How does this contribute to a good reader experience? Should be deleted with no prejudice to restoration when the articles this template links get created. -FASTILY 22:02, 25 March 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).

Template:/row

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 G2 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:/row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another attempt to use mainspace subpages in violation of Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed usage of subpages point 3. Previously: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 10#Template:/Subdivisions * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete, looks like a failed experiment to me. Frietjes (talk) 01:05, 19 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).

Template:Sullivan operas

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. Izno (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sullivan operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed; and {{Italic title}} added). Readers would be better served by a horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles; or perhaps by expanding {{Gilbert and Sullivan}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 16 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 these sidebars 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) 11:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above and previous discussions/comments. Navboxes at the end of articles are preferred style and what reader expect to find. Nigej (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacing with a composer navbox and {{italic title}} where appropriate. footer navboxes are better in terms of layout, since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating content. Frietjes (talk) 01:01, 19 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).

Template:Strauss II operas

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 per this discussion and other related discussions Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Strauss II operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Johann Strauss II}}. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed; and {{Italic title}} added). Readers are better served by the horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The proposed replacement is a massive sea of links, overwhelming to the typical reader; the current template is a more usable design for this specific targeted subset of articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The operettas are at the very top of the "sea". The sidebar has been found unsuitable for various reasons in previous discussion, so delete. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I'm fine with deletion without replacement. Though I note that in several cases {{Johann Strauss II}} is already on the articles which use the sidebar, with no previous complaints having been raised that it it not suitable for such use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As is to be expected, since there is currently a more usable option available; I wouldn't expect anyone to complain about what they likely don't look at, when their navigational needs are already met. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"likely don't look at" seems to be pure supposition; we default to footer navboxes; that's where our readers expect to find them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"likely don't look [further], when their navigational needs area already met" Seems pretty logical. Plus, it has as much evidence behind it as the opposing claims. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More unsubstantiated supposition. There is no evidence, which suggests that a reader's need is to navigate to a new article before they've read the current article, rather than once they reach the end of it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 19 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 these sidebars 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. Re the objection above The operettas are at the very top of the footer box, very visible and not remotely lost in a "sea" of links. Voceditenore (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above and previous discussions/comments. Navboxes at the end of articles are preferred style and what reader expect to find. Nigej (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sidebars are used in hundreds of thousands of articles; they're by no means outside of the realm of reader expectation. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said that sidebars should not be used. They are just inappropriate for navboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both are navigational template designs. What would they be used for if not navigation? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacing with a composer navbox and {{italic title}} where appropriate. footer navboxes are better in terms of layout, since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating content. Frietjes (talk) 01:01, 19 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).

Template:Oscar Straus operas

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. Izno (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oscar Straus operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only three inclusions, so fails WP:NENAN. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed; and {{Italic title}} added). Readers would be better served by a horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles, if sufficient articles exist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete after replacing with a composer navbox (or see also links) and {{italic title}} where appropriate. footer navboxes are better in terms of layout, since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating content. Frietjes (talk) 01:01, 19 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 these sidebars 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) 16:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete, now redundant to {{Oscar Straus}} --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 20 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).

Template:Storace operas

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. Izno (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Storace operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only four inclusions, so fails WP:NENAN. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed; and {{Italic title}} added). Readers would be better served by a horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles, if sufficient articles exist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete after replacing with a composer navbox (or see also links) and {{italic title}} where appropriate. footer navboxes are better in terms of layout, since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating content. Frietjes (talk) 01:01, 19 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 these sidebars 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) 16:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{Stephen Storace}} now in place; delete — these articles are not interconnected the same way operas for something like Der Ring des Nibelungen are so I see no reason why links to the other operas should be so prominently displayed. A horizontal nav box keeps the connection but removes the unreasonable visibility. Aza24 (talk) 00:33, 21 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).

Template:Spohr operas

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. Izno (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spohr operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two inclusions, so fails WP:NENAN; also redundant to {{Louis Spohr}}. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed; and {{Italic title}} added). Readers are better served by the horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete after replacing with a composer navbox (or see also links) and {{italic title}} where appropriate. footer navboxes are better in terms of layout, since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating content. Frietjes (talk) 01:01, 19 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 these sidebars 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) 16:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete, redundant to {{Louis Spohr}} which shows four operas, not only two. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 20 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).

Template:Solomon operas

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. Izno (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Solomon operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

If an 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. ({{Italic title}} should be added to articles from which this is removed.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The only "problem" noted in the nomination does not currently exist, same with the "solution"; theories are not rationales for deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{Edward Solomon}} is now in place. In all his operas, the sidebar was somewhere in the middle or at the bottom. No advantage to a normal navbox, delete. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Variation in placement demonstrates a simple solution to the purported problem: even if there were an image being hidden by this template, which there is not, the existence of this template would not prevent a different lead image from being presented. It also improves accessibility compared to the redundant template just created. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is ample evidence that the community holds the very real issues (plural) identified in the rationale to be problematic; every single such opera composer sidebar 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, January 14, January 24 & February 7 ). Not a single one of them has been kept. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perfectly good template now exists. Navboxes at the end of articles are the preferred style and what the reader expects to find. Nigej (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacing with a composer navbox and {{italic title}} where appropriate. footer navboxes are better in terms of layout, since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating content. Frietjes (talk) 01:01, 19 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 these sidebars 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) 16:16, 19 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).

Template:Smyth operas

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. Izno (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Smyth operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Ethel Smyth}}. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed; and {{Italic title}} added). Readers are better served by the horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Perfectly good template exists. Navboxes at the end of articles are the preferred style and what the reader expects to find. Nigej (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacing with a composer navbox and {{italic title}} where appropriate. footer navboxes are better in terms of layout, since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating content. Frietjes (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to {{Ethel Smyth}} and 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 these sidebars 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) 16:17, 19 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).

Template:Smareglia operas

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. Izno (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Smareglia operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only three inclusions, so fails WP:NENAN. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed; and {{Italic title}} added). Readers would be better served by a horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles, if sufficient articles exist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Now redundant to {{Antonio Smareglia}} and 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 these sidebars 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) 10:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacing with a composer navbox (or see also links) and {{italic title}} where appropriate. footer navboxes are better in terms of layout, since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating content. Frietjes (talk) 01:01, 19 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).

Template:Shostakovich operas

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. Izno (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shostakovich operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Dmitri Shostakovich}}. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed; and {{Italic title}} added). Readers are better served by the horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Now redundant to {{Dmitri Shostakovich}} and 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 these sidebars 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) 10:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacing with a composer navbox and {{italic title}} where appropriate. footer navboxes are better in terms of layout, since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating content. Frietjes (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to {{Dmitri Shostakovich}} and 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 these sidebars 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) 16:18, 19 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).

Template:Serov operas

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. Izno (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Serov operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only three inclusions, so fails WP:NENAN. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed; and {{Italic title}} added). Readers would be better served by a horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles, if sufficient articles exist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 16 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 these sidebars 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. Will shortly create a replacement footer. Voceditenore (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacing with a composer navbox (or see also links) and {{italic title}} where appropriate. footer navboxes are better in terms of layout, since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating content. Frietjes (talk) 01:01, 19 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).

Template:Schubert operas

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 per precedent from related discussions. The main objection to deleting this one was the lack of overlap with the {{Franz Schubert}} navbox. However, after the discussion was started, {{Franz Schubert stage works}} was created and placed on all the articles. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Schubert operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Franz Schubert}}. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed; and {{Italic title}} added). Readers are better served by the horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – excellent example of a series for which sidebar navigation works better. There is only one single work in the series where documentation (in the sense of files available at commons) is somewhat more than marginal, for which work a different lead image could be programmed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please distinguish lead image and navigation? {{Schubert symphonies}} is a horizontal navbox. I see no reason why his operas couldn't also be a horizontal navbox. If the lead image should be the composer for lack of something related to the work, why not, but not within a template that mobile readers can't see. delete sidebar. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "Can we please distinguish lead image and navigation?" – I did. Just also tried to explain that there is no real lead image issue with the sidebar in this case, contrary to what the OP contends. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A reader on a mobile device doesn't see Schubert in the template. What is your suggestion? Mine is to have the image on top, and the operas in a new bottom navbox, like the symphonies. I see no reason to navigate differently in operas and symphonies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Alfonso und Estrella: lead image visible on all devices; the Schubert image in the sidebar can be missed on mobile devices, as much as these devices also don't show the File:Bachsiegel.svg image included in Bach-related navboxes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My question is about the others, not the one that works. Why not - if the sidebar is kept at all, which would be an exception - take the image out? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because, in mobile view, that is on devices with limited screen space, the generic image, with no particular link to the work at hand, is not very suitable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As there is no overlap, {{Schubert operas}} seems complimentary to {{Franz Schubert}}, not redundant. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, the operas can be added to the footer navbox. Or a separate "Schubert operas" footer navbox can be created. Either way, a top-right navbox still hides the lead image and is still a suboptimal way or our readers to find related articles. There is ample evidence that community consensus holds this to be the case; every single such opera composer sidebar 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, January 14, January 24 & February 7 ). Not a single one of them has been kept. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose as a horizontal navbox at the end of the opera articles. Nigej (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reformat as a horizontal navbox per prior disussions. Frietjes (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reformat/Repurpose—these articles are not interconnected the same way operas for something like Der Ring des Nibelungen are so I see no reason why links to the other operas should be so prominently displayed. A horizontal nav box keeps the connection but removes the unreasonable visibility. Additionally, such a nav box becomes an excuse to not have a unique lead image and replaces that with an image of Schubert that could be 20 years after he wrote the opera in question. Adding a unique lead image in addition to this side bar is also a bad idea; it crushes the text in the next section. Aza24 (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have now a navbox {{Franz Schubert stage works}} in place. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 21 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).

Template:Sarti operas

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. Izno (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sarti operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed; and {{Italic title}} added). Readers would be better served by a horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete, per many previous reasonings - {{Giuseppe Sarti}} is in place, all operas are more or less stubs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacing with a composer navbox and {{italic title}} where appropriate. footer navboxes are better in terms of layout, since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating content. Frietjes (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to {{Giuseppe Sarti}} and 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 these sidebars 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) 16:20, 19 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).

Template:Salieri operas

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. Izno (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Salieri operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Antonio Salieri}}. Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed; and {{Italic title}} added). Readers are better served by the horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete after replacing with a composer navbox and {{italic title}} where appropriate. footer navboxes are better in terms of layout, since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating content. Frietjes (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to {{Antonio Salieri}} and 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 these sidebars 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) 16:22, 19 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).

Template:Sacchini operas

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. Izno (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sacchini operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hides the image on mobile (the image should be retained in the articles when the template is removed; and {{Italic title}} added). Readers would be better served by a horizontal navbox, at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete after replacing with a composer navbox and {{italic title}} where appropriate. footer navboxes are better in terms of layout, since they don't crowd the prose and leave more room for other right-floating content. Frietjes (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{Antonio Sacchini}} is now in place. Most of the operas are stubs, some had a navbox, horizontal of course. delete --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to {{Antonio Sacchini}} and 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 these sidebars 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) 16:23, 19 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).

Wikidata userwarnings

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. Izno (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-wikidata-notyet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Uw-wikidata-welcome (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Uw-wikidata-revert (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Uw-wikidata-del (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Uw-wikidata-add (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer useful, all interlanguage links have been added to Wikidata long ago. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 16:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, useless. --TheImaCow (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly no longer useful. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 10:01, 22 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).

NFL team season templates

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 keep. There is also consensus that the main teams' templates should have the seasons removed. Editors may freely do so, citing this discussion if necessary for proof of consensus. Izno (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arizona Cardinals seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Atlanta Falcons seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Baltimore Ravens seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Buffalo Bills seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Carolina Panthers seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Chicago Bears seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cincinnati Bengals seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cleveland Browns seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Dallas Cowboys seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Denver Broncos seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Detroit Lions seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Green Bay Packers seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Houston Texans seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Indianapolis Colts seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Jacksonville Jaguars seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Kansas City Chiefs seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Las Vegas Raiders seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Los Angeles Chargers seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Los Angeles Rams seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Miami Dolphins seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Minnesota Vikings seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New England Patriots seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New York Giants seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New York Jets seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Philadelphia Eagles seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pittsburgh Steelers seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Rock Island Independents seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:San Francisco 49ers seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Seattle Seahawks seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Tennessee Titans seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Washington Football Team seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Baltimore Colts seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Boston Yanks seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Brooklyn Dodgers (NFL) seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Canton Bulldogs seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cincinnati Reds (NFL) seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cleveland Bulldogs seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cleveland Tigers/Indians seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Columbus Tigers seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Dayton Triangles seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Duluth Kelleys seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Evansville Crimson Giants seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Frankford Yellow Jackets seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hartford Blues seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Kansas City Cowboys seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Louisville Brecks seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New York Yankees (NFL) seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New York Yanks seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Newark Tornadoes seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nominating for deletion on the grounds that these templates are redundant. Each individual team template (e.g. {{Arizona Cardinals}}, {{Atlanta Falcons}}, etc.) already has a list of seasons with links at the bottom of the template. These season lists are present on every team template, which renders these above listed templates, whose only purpose is to list that team's seasons, unneeded. The complete set of Arena Football League team season templates was deleted for the same reason. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yeah, this is all redundant. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC) to make it clear, my opinion here has shifted towards keeping after seeing further discussion about development about these templates. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplication like this is unsatisfactory and often causes maintenance issues. As I write this, {{Arizona Cardinals seasons}} has 2021 but {{Arizona Cardinals}} doesn't, highlighting the issue. Nigej (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the lists of seasons should be removed from the main team-specific navboxes instead. – Pee Jay 07:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as PeeJay mentioned above, the team infoboxes (such as {{Green Bay Packers}}), should have the seasons removed, thus making these templates relevant. See short discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Unnecessary duplication of team season navboxes. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove them from the main template instead. However, I would also accept these being deleted and all the seasons being kept in the main template too if consensus leans that way. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. In addition, I started a discussion back in 2018 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 16#NFL teams' navboxes regarding the content in teams' navboxes, but the discussion just died down. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the active franchises, the general team navbox is already cluttered. They already have a link to a list of seasons, e.g. List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons, so the individual seasons don't need to be enumerated there, and should be removed. That is what happens for NBA teams, e.g. Template:Los Angeles Lakers and Template:Los Angeles Lakers seasons. No prejudice for a different nomination for the defunct franchises, if the same logic doesn't apply.—Bagumba (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delete from main team navbox to free up some of the clutter of team navbox.--Rockchalk7 17 20:22, 22 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).

Template:Dallas Woods

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) 14:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dallas Woods (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary navbox for only 2 related articles. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete need way more articles than this for a useful navbox. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only 2 links. WP:TOOSOON. Nigej (talk) 06:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that this template should be deleted; however I'm questioning the nominator's rationale for doing so (I mean, I made the template nearly four months ago). At this point in time, I'm starting to feel hounded on here due to past misunderstanding of navigation-related guidelines. Sean Stephens (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take it personally because we tend to both work in article on musicians, albums, and songs. We will cross paths often, I'm sure. Because you tend to create articles, categories, templates in this area, they show up at User:AlexNewArtBot/AlbumSearchResult, which I monitor regularly. However, for this one, I happened to be doing some maintenance in Category:Discographies of Australian artists and saw that Dallas Woods discography was a redirect (which is not common for discographies). It took me to Dallas Woods, I noticed the navbox and nominated it. It doesn't matter if it's been there for 4 months or 4 years. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: That makes sense – I apologise if my initial response was a bit of an overreaction. I think I'll have a look at the aforementioned bot subpage more frequently, that seems like a helpful tool. (Also, the fact that it's 4 months old only seemed pertinent because I'm surprised it hasn't been deleted yet as per the relevant guidelines). Sean Stephens (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This should be tagged with {{Db-g7}}, as I agree with the deletion. Sean Stephens (talk) 07:36, 21 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).