Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 1

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 00:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:California Golden Seals - Cleveland Barons seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems unnecessary since all the season links are already in Template:Oakland Seals Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 1976–77 and 1977–78 season are not linked from Template:Oakland Seals. There is only a link to Cleveland Barons (NHL), not the seasons. Please try a new explanation. Flibirigit (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, the other two season links can be easily added. this is generally redundant navigation since most pages are using both templates. Frietjes (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Dark Pictures Anthology

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 2024 March 11. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 00:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dark_Pictures_Anthology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Campaignbox swedish altercation during world war ii

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 14:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox swedish altercation during world war ii (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused campaignbox with only one blue link. DB1729^talk 18:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the creator has indicated they had created the template in error.[1] --DB1729^talk 13:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above (and as unused). Respublik (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Niki Volos F.C. seasons

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 14:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Niki Volos F.C. seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with all redlinks DB1729^talk 17:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Respublik (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Akkadian V and VV glyphs and similar

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. No prejudice against a future WP:REFUND to userspace for potential listification. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 00:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Akkadian V and VV glyphs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Akkadian VCV syllabic glyphs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Akkadian CV and VC syllabic glyphs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparent article content with no template parameters. No transclusions or incoming links. Created in 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The material is important and, although I agree that the Template space may not be the right place for it, it should be preserved somehow (by merging into List of cuneiform signs or conversion into an article List of Akkadian syllabic glyphs?)Furius (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:API Platform version

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:API Platform version (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions. The main article no longer exists, and there is no mention of this software at either of the Comparison of web frameworks articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2-ary truth table

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. The rationale for deletion has been soundly rebutted. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 00:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2-ary truth table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions or incoming links. Created in August 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still intend to use it, and will start within the next days. Watchduck (quack) 18:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is in use now. Case closed, I suppose. --Watchduck (quack) 16:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In use now. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Robert De Niro sidebar

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 00:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Robert De Niro sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A sidebar that is almost the same as the navbox minus the links that include De Niro's family members. Every link outside of what's displayed as "Quotes", "Gallery", and the link to Travis Bickle, is verbatim a copy of the navbox. The sidebar does not differ much in terms of navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY TO ALL ACTORS/ACTRESSES BELOW: (except REH Bibl./AFI) In several instances, the sidebar is a quicknav between the main, filmography, and awards article; links to quotes and gallery not just from main article, but also while in said other articles, making it an easy jump from filmography to gallery, for example. In such, these could be sufficient even to replace bottom templates. One comment I read, stated that these were more aesthetically pleasing–thumbnail and colors I'm sure. I'll have to locate that comment, because I saw it over 2 months ago, and can't recall which article's talk page contained it.

Vanessa Redgrave's sidebar was the initial sidebar that I used to base things off of, and oddly hers is not nominated. But nevertheless, I think they're worth keeping and open to discussing ways to improving them. Perhaps expanding sidebars to list films of these actors, all of whom are amongst the most-nominated Oscar nominees; specifically their nominated performances. Just contemplating. I actually was always worried it would be considered too BIG, so I kept the links no more than 2 lines' worth. Figured most would consider it an intrusion otherwise......

This reply is applicable to all nominated w/ exception of "REH Bibliography", no clue about that. But I created all of the others. I do wonder if any could warrant being kept or what their purpose COULD be. Not saying this means keep them all, but perhaps for a few of the actors, it would be applicable. And thus, give a better understanding moving forward as to who warrants one/requires in order to maintain one. What would make it worthwhile versus a bottom nav template; their distinct purposes.

When I first saw the Vanessa Redgrave template, I thought the idea was that it was a quick connection between main article, filmography, awards, and family tree pages. So I copied that and modified it per person. Some have the family tree, like Hepburn, Chaplin, etc., in distinct articles; De Niro does not, so I didn't include his. As has been stated, his is on the nav temp on the bottom. Others I added characters they're known for originating, such as Brando w/ Stanley Kowalski, Pacino w/ Michael Corleone, et al. Some have achievements, like Bette Davis and the Hollywood Canteen or Paul Newman with his company + charity.

But looking at some more complex sidebars, what distinguishes them seems to be highlighting some more individual achievements. So that's why I brought up listing select films of theirs. Perhaps instead of the same links as bottom nav templates, why not list selected filmographies on the sidebars w/ Oscar nominations. Anyway, I'll leave it at that for now. I apologize for jumbling this all together, as this took me by surprise right before going to sleep. I can't do individually-based assessments/defenses presently, but if need be, tomorrow. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 05:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep sidebar Redonefifty (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The higher article placement is efficient for quick navigation to related articles, including Tribeca Film Festival, which he helped establish; additional benefits of jumping from filmography/awards to Commons/Quotes (rare as latter may be); and aesthetic is pleasing, though this is irrelevant.

As per discussion w/ @Historyday01, who is open to retooling if desired, we could always expand inner sidebar content to include actors' Oscar-nominated films so that it pertains to more than just the basic, with it being in a collapsible list within the sidebar. That would differentiate it from the bottom navbox. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 09:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like in the other discussions, I agree with your comment here, and I completely support retooling this sidebar if desired. In order to ensure that such retooling is possible, I vote to keep this article. Historyday01 (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Charlie Chaplin sidebar

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 00:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Charlie Chaplin sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All links are featured in his navbox making this redundant. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but how is it redundant? Couldn't this sidebar be useful for readers? Historyday01 (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All links are in the navbox. The usefulness to readers is being done with the navbox. And this sidebar is the bare minimum you could do without adding the rest of the navbox links. There is no need for this. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's fair. I just wish this had been mentioned in the original comment. Historyday01 (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I feel about all of them, @Historyday01. A few of the actors in question do not have navboxes at the bottom, #1. #2, it allows users to flow from the top of their article from main bio to awards to filmography, back and forth if desired; #3 they can hop directly from filmography/awards to Commons/Quotes if desired. #4, there are extra pages, such as characters (very minor in some, but in Chaplin's, The Tramp is tantamount; albeit yes, also from the bottom navbox), family trees, or statues/halls/etc., and finally, I just find them more aesthetically pleasing with the border and the thumbnail. If you look into some that were previously deleted, others have said the same. So that's my opinion on all of them.

And I feel as if they got nominated immediately after I reversed an alteration on Robert De Niro's sidebar template, because it was done without a discussion and was a radical difference. The timing seemed rather suspicious, but it must've caused some notice.

However, like I said in my dissertation above, if it would somehow make it more relevant, then in an effort to model it after, let's say, Clint Eastwood's....I could at least add all of their Oscar-nominated films to enhance the necessity of the navigation. I was trying to keep it simple, but if it needs to be distinct in its purpose from the bottom of the page, then that's my suggestion. And it could also be collapsible in that sense. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 16:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. Perhaps it did cause some notice. I'm not even sure how I came across this discussion in the first place... I may have come across it by accident. But, I'd be fine with retooling/change the sidebar, as is necessary. Historyday01 (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The higher article placement is efficient for quick navigation to related articles, which include The Tramp (unlike others' film characters I included, this is his iconic alterego); additional benefits of jumping from filmography/awards to Commons; and aesthetic is pleasing, though this is irrelevant.

As per discussion w/ @Historyday01, who is open to retooling if desired, we could always expand inner sidebar content to include his Oscar-nominated films so that it pertains to more than just the basic, with it being in a collapsible list within the sidebar. That would differentiate it from the bottom navbox. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 08:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right. In order to ensure that such retooling is possible, I vote to keep this sidebar, plus for the reasons that you mentioned in your comment. Historyday01 (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a concise and valuable navbox. By nominating quite a few of these useful navboxes at one time may overwhelm as a time sink, they all should be kept as both usable and allowed (sidebar navboxes are not an anomaly, they are part of the navbox program). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Al Pacino sidebar

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Of course, this should not preclude further editing to improve the template. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 00:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Al Pacino sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only four links to articles. All of which are in the navbox for Pacino. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The higher article placement is efficient for quick navigation to related articles, which include the additional benefits of jumping from filmography/awards to Commons/Quotes (rare as latter may be); and aesthetic is pleasing, though this is irrelevant.

As per discussion w/ @Historyday01, who is open to retooling if desired, we could always expand inner sidebar content to include actors' Oscar-nominated films so that it pertains to more than just the basic, with it being in a collapsible list within the sidebar. That would differentiate it from the bottom navbox. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 08:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having a higher article placement for this sidebar is important, having the benefits, as you point out, of jumping from award and filmography to commons/quotes, and surely it could be retooled. In order to ensure that such retooling can happen, I vote to keep this sidebar. Historyday01 (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Bette Davis sidebar

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Of course, this should not preclude further editing to improve the template. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 00:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bette Davis sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only four links to articles. Not enough to navigated with for a sidebar. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The higher article placement is efficient for quick navigation to related articles, which include Hollywood Canteen, co-founded by Davis; additional benefits of jumping from filmography/awards to Commons/Quotes (rare as latter may be); and aesthetic is pleasing, though this is irrelevant.

As per discussion w/ @Historyday01, who is open to retooling if desired, we could always expand inner sidebar content to include actors' Oscar-nominated films so that it pertains to more than just the basic, with it being in a collapsible list within the sidebar. That would differentiate it from the bottom navbox. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 08:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with changing the sidebar and retooling in the ways that you proposed. As such, I cast my vote for Keep.--Historyday01 (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Katharine Hepburn sidebar

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Of course, this should not preclude further editing to improve the template. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 00:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Katharine Hepburn sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to the navbox for Hepburn where all articles links are already featured. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The higher article placement is efficient for quick navigation to related articles, such as Hepburn/Tracy page & her library; additional benefits of jumping from filmography/awards to Commons/Quotes (rare as latter may be); and aesthetic is pleasing, though this is irrelevant.

As per discussion w/ @Historyday01, who is open to retooling if desired, we could always expand inner sidebar content to include actors' Oscar-nominated films so that it pertains to more than just the basic, with it being in a collapsible list within the sidebar. That would differentiate it from the bottom navbox. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 09:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the discussion about the sidebar for Bette Davis, I'd be fine with changing the sidebar and retooling in the ways that you proposed. As such, I cast my vote for Keep.--Historyday01 (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Paul Newman sidebar

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Of course, this should not preclude further editing to improve the template. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 00:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Paul Newman sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to the navbox for Newman as all links here are featured in the navbox. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I agree that it is somewhat redundant, it is toward the top of a very long article and guides the reader to the many related articles, especially on mobile devices. Coretheapple (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The higher article placement is efficient for quick navigation to related articles, which include Newman's Own, his charity, and his wife/screen partner (detailing their on-screen pairings); additional benefits of jumping from filmography/awards to Commons/Quotes (rare as latter may be); and aesthetic is pleasing, though this is irrelevant.

As per discussion w/ @Historyday01, who is open to retooling if desired, we could always expand inner sidebar content to include actors' Oscar-nominated films so that it pertains to more than just the basic, with it being in a collapsible list within the sidebar. That would differentiate it from the bottom navbox. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 08:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the discussion about the sidebars for Bette Davis and Katherine Hepburn, I'd be fine with changing the sidebar and retooling in the ways that you proposed. As such, I cast my vote for Keep.--Historyday01 (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Spencer Tracy sidebar

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Of course, this should not preclude further editing to improve the template. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 00:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spencer Tracy sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A small sidebar with the bare minimum to navigate with. The article on the John Tracey Clinic has very little connection to Tracy himself. Outside of that just four links. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As with the Paul Newman sidebar and other sidebars up for deletion, this is a useful finding aid. Coretheapple (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The higher article placement is efficient for quick navigation to related articles, which include Hepburn/Tracy pairings; additional benefits of jumping from filmography/awards to Commons/Quotes (rare as latter may be); and aesthetic is pleasing, though this is irrelevant.

As per discussion w/ @Historyday01, who is open to retooling if desired, we could always expand inner sidebar content to include actors' Oscar-nominated films so that it pertains to more than just the basic, with it being in a collapsible list within the sidebar. That would differentiate it from the bottom navbox. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 08:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the discussion about related sidebars, I'd be fine with changing the sidebar and retooling in the ways that you proposed. As such, I cast my vote for Keep.--Historyday01 (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Ingrid Bergman sidebar

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Of course, this should not preclude further editing to improve the template. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 00:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ingrid Bergman sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A small sidebar that does very little for navigation. All links can be found through the main article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A useful finding aid, as are most of the other sidebars of a similar character. Coretheapple (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The higher article placement is efficient for quick navigation to related articles; plus additional benefits of jumping from filmography/awards to Commons; and aesthetic is pleasing, though this is irrelevant.

As per discussion w/ @Historyday01, who is open to retooling if desired, we could always expand inner sidebar content to include Oscar-nominated films so that it pertains to more than just the basic, with it being in a collapsible list within the sidebar. That would differentiate it from the bottom navbox. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 08:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the discussion about similar sidebars, I'd be fine with changing the sidebar and retooling in the ways that you proposed. Expanding the inner sidebar content to include Oscar-nominated films is a good idea. As such, I cast my vote for Keep.--Historyday01 (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Vanessa Redgrave sidebar

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts ^she/_they^talk/_stalk 15:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vanessa Redgrave sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only four links to articles. Too little for navigation for a sidebar. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is not as long as, say, Paul Newman so it can dispensed with. Coretheapple (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The higher article placement is efficient for quick navigation to related articles, mainly being the family tree; additional benefits of jumping from filmography/awards to Commons/Quotes (rare as latter may be); and aesthetic is pleasing, though this is irrelevant.

As per discussion w/ @Historyday01, who is open to retooling if desired, we could always expand inner sidebar content to include actors' Oscar-nominated films so that it pertains to more than just the basic, with it being in a collapsible list within the sidebar. That would differentiate it from the bottom navbox. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 08:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the discussion about related sidebars, I'd be fine with changing the sidebar and retooling in the ways that you proposed. As such, I vote for Keep in this discussion. Historyday01 (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that the article is not quite as long as the others, so as a finding aid it is less necessary. However, it would not be a great tragedy to keep it. Perhaps there should be a length criterion for this finding aid, or for that matter it can be used for all biographies of a similar caliber. Coretheapple (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Maggie Smith sidebar

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Of course, this should not preclude further editing to improve the template. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maggie Smith sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only four links. Two are articles on notable characters she has played. There's not much here. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The higher article placement is efficient for quick navigation to related articles; plus additional benefits of jumping from filmography/awards to Commons/Quotes (rare as latter may be); and aesthetic is pleasing, though this is irrelevant.

As per discussion w/ @Historyday01, who is open to retooling if desired, we could always expand inner sidebar content to include actors' Oscar-nominated films so that it pertains to more than just the basic, with it being in a collapsible list within the sidebar. That would differentiate it from the bottom navbox. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 09:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the inner sidebar is a good idea. And as such, I cast a Keep vote. Historyday01 (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Angela Lansbury sidebar

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Of course, this should not preclude further editing to improve the template. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Angela Lansbury sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Three article links. One is to a notable character. The other link is a redirec to an article section. Not much use for navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The higher article placement is efficient for quick navigation to related articles (of which I'd argue, if not Mrs. Potts, at least Jessica Fletcher is an iconic creation relevant to her history, having been the only actress to portray her for all 12 seasons, w/ matching Emmy noms and winning 4 Golden Globes); plus additional benefits of jumping from filmography/awards to Commons/Quotes (rare as latter may be); and aesthetic is pleasing, though this is irrelevant.

As per discussion w/ @Historyday01, who is open to retooling if desired, we could always expand inner sidebar content to include actors' Oscar-nominated films so that it pertains to more than just the basic, with it being in a collapsible list within the sidebar. That would differentiate it from the bottom navbox. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 09:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comment. I think that if the inner sidebar is expanded and the sidebar itself is placed higher in the article, then that would be better. And surely, it would differentiate from the bottom navbox. As such, I cast my vote for Keep. Historyday01 (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Laurence Olivier sidebar

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Of course, this should not preclude further editing to improve the template. (non-admin closure) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 01:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Laurence Olivier sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Four links to articles. Not much for navigation. All article links are featured in his navbox making this redundant. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the length of the article I think it is a useful finding aid. While not always desirable, in this case it is. Coretheapple (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The higher article placement is efficient for quick navigation to related articles, which include Olivier Awards, named in his honor; additional benefits of jumping from filmography/awards to Commons/Quotes (rare as latter may be); and aesthetic is pleasing, though this is irrelevant.

As per discussion w/ @Historyday01, who is open to retooling if desired, we could always expand inner sidebar content to include actors' Oscar-nominated films so that it pertains to more than just the basic, with it being in a collapsible list within the sidebar. That would differentiate it from the bottom navbox. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 09:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in similar discussions, I am fine with retooling it. However, I do not support deletion of this sidebar. As such, I vote for keep, and especially agree with Coretheapple that this article is a useful finding aid. It's always important to have those for users and editors alike. Historyday01 (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:REH bibliography

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 14:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:REH bibliography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Four links and all links are featured in Howard's navbox which features all articles on his work. A sidebar for this isn't needed if it just going to list his prose and poems list articles. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete, this sort of thing can be handled with "see also" links, which are visible on mobile, unlike sidebars. I have added the see also links at the top. Frietjes (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

AFI templates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 2024 March 20. Primefac (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFI's_10_Top_10 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:AFI's_100_Years...100_Stars (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.