Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 March 22

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< March 21 March 23 >

March 22

Warsaw

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 April 2. Primefac (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Warsaw landmarks

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Culture in Warsaw. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to the new Template:Culture in Warsaw. Kochas (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:German law section

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 April 2. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Seneca the Younger's plays

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Seneca the Younger. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

Template:Seneca the Younger's plays with Template:Seneca the Younger
.
Duplicate content. Redundancy. PPEMES (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lean support. All the content of this template seems to be in the main Seneca template, and that's not too big. P Aculeius (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supporting merging Both templates deal with the same subject after all. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:Milecastles

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Hadrian's Wall. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

Template:Hadrian's Wall forts
.
Surely these contents are too close not to consider a merge? PPEMES (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Suggest under the name 'Forts & Structures of Hadrian's Wall'. Forts being merged into the Milecastles template, positioned above existing blocks. Sammy_r (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Hadrian's Wall per Andy. More inclusive name, more intuitive, easy to add onto. P Aculeius (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:Provinces of Roman Anatolia

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Ancient monuments in Rome

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

The result of the discussion was do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Ancient monuments in Rome with Template:Infobox monument.
Is it really motivated with a specific, separate template like that? PPEMES (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Maury family tree

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 April 2. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Roman religion (festival)

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

The result of the discussion was do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Roman religion (festival) with Template:Roman religion.
Would it be possible to collect this information into one single template? C.f.

Template:Norse paganism topics etc. PPEMES (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Template:Ancient Tiber bridges

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Roman bridges

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

The result of the discussion was do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Roman bridges with Template:Roman roads.
Would be possible and desirable to merge this into some "Roman roads and bridges by contemporary country" kind of template? PPEMES (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Existing templates are appropriately scoped; a merged version would be too large. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nikkimaria. The bridges template is quite large; adding a large section that doesn't deal with bridges wouldn't make sense, and you wouldn't want to mix roads in with the various regions; it doesn't help that most of them would go under Italy. P Aculeius (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:Late Anatolian Roman provinces

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

The result of the discussion was do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

Template:Late Roman provinces
.
Same time period? PPEMES (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: I'm generally not a big fan of mergers. I created Late Anatolian Roman provinces 8 yrs ago, and as I state there, it was intended to be a subset of Roman provinces. Surely the latter can simply link to the former. We don't need to clutter up pages dealing with Roman Anatolia with lists of provinces covering the entire Roman Empire! (as long as navigation between the two is relatively simple) Are there separate templates for other prefectures or dioceses? --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 20:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Michael Goodyear. If the smaller one links to the larger, I think that'd be enough; it's big enough by itself, and it looks useful to limit the scope of a template to related topics, even though larger templates are available to cover the entire empire. P Aculeius (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:Epochs of Roman Emperors

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

The result of the discussion was do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

Template:Roman Emperors
.
Redundant duplification? With just a couple of links needing merge? PPEMES (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merge. There's little duplication going on (the five major epochs figure in both, that's all). Other than that, the "Emperors" template is only suitable for biographical articles of individual emperors, and the "Epochs" template is only suitable for articles on epoch subdivisions (e.g. Year of the Six Emperors, which should *not* have a template with hundreds of names of individual emperors spreading over 15 centuries).
The "Emperors" template is also fairly unworkable for size and number of links, and I'd propose to split it, at least in two separate templates, but probably better in four or five separate navboxes, no more than one per major subdivision of the epochs. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Francis Schonken. The Roman Emperors template is quite large, and useful in its way, although I agree that it might benefit from splitting. There are a few ways to do this, but I would suggest following Michael Grant's approach, and splitting it at 476, so that the earlier list includes both eastern and western emperors through the fall of the Western Empire. The eastern emperors on this list could also be in the other template; I don't think a slight overlap would hurt anything. P Aculeius (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:The Jackson 5 singles

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

The result of the discussion was do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:The Jackson 5 singles with Template:The Jackson 5.
Could this material somehow be merged? PPEMES (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Existing templates are appropriately scoped; a merged version would be too large. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. The resulting template would be rather unwieldy. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:Family tree

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

The result of the discussion was merge to

(non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Propose merging

Template:Family tree with Template:Tree chart
.
It says in the top of
Template:Family tree that it is "deprecated", and that "Please use Template:Tree chart instead". However, I can't identify a proper merge request having been carried out for this purpose. Could this request be of help to get one step closer? Please note that there are wrapper templates belonging to both main templates. See also: Template:Tree_chart#Migration_from_familytree. PPEMES (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Just to be clear since the proposal isn't explicit, I think Template:Tree chart is the better one, so Template:Family tree should be merged into it. Agricolae (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What's the real reason of merging? The family trees should be kept separate because they give a quick and clear overwiew of the family members (like infoboxes or categories), while in the article itself they are often hidden and lost within content. Furthermore, the articles of notable families are often very large and the family tree chart at the end of an article would unnecessary make it even larger. --Silverije 00:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to misunderstand the proposal. There are currently two separate templates,
Template:Chart, which I didn't even know had happened until right now) that do exactly the same thing, make family tree-like charts that look exactly the same, but with minor differences in the coding. It is easier to keep track of the specific code for just one, rather than having to learn two different ones (and if you are like me, keep them straight rather than mistakenly using the code specific to one tree type on the other template, then having to redo it). There have also been several times when I have wanted to make a new tree by combining aspects of two existing trees, but I couldn't without a whole lot more work replacing code because they happened to have been made with the two different templates. Any useful trees (and any unnecessary ones) will still be in the same place they were before, just coded uniformly. Agricolae (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, I partially misunderstood the proposal, because I didn't notice what happened to Trpimirović family tree until the day before yesterday (it was merged with the article). But still, Agricolae, are you sure that two separate templates,
Template:Family tree is appropriately scoped and should be kept. I'm not sure what should be done with Template:Tree chart and whether a proposed merged version would be appropriate. --Silverije 00:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
If you want to label a tree created with Template:Chart tree "Family tree of Chinese monarchs (late)", you can do that the same way you give a title to a tree created with the Family tree template. If you want a Category:Family tree templates to point to pedigrees made with Template:Chart tree pedigrees, that is just as easy to do as to have the category point to Template:Family tree pedigrees. If the name Template:Family tree is preferable, then we can consider giving a merged single template that name, but is it really worth having two separate templates to make the same type of chart just because one person who uses it to make family trees wants it to be called Template:Family tree, while another using it to make organizational charts wants it to have a different name? If you think people making a family tree with it are more likely to search for the Template under the name Template:Family tree, a simple redirect takes care of that. To answer your question, they are not exactly the same thing, but they do exactly the same thing, but they use code that is just different enough to trip you up and make merging trees made with the two different templates inconvenient, when instead we could have a single unified template , whatever name it is given. Agricolae (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought that was evident from the proposal. Thanks anyway. And if support here is evident, if the top note of this nomination affects lots of pages disproportionately, perhaps a snowball close could be motivated for this case? PPEMES (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. PPEMES (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete per nom and intended template documentation. Easier to have a single consistent template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I previously initiated a successful merge of previously scattered and competing templates preceding Template:Ahnentafel. Two main where first merged, and the the small embedded tempaltes where too. Perhaps also the future merge Template:Tree chart might also benefit from merging with its satellite embedd templates likewise for convenience? PPEMES (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:Ripper victims

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

The result of the discussion was Delete the sidebar.

Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Ripper victims with Template:Jack the Ripper.
That's one small sidebar. Better keep it together in the navbar? PPEMES (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:PlayboyPlaymateTimeHeader

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:PlayboyPlaymateTimeHeader with Template:Playboy Playmates by year.
See below. If necessary, decades could be rendered in row sections in the merged destination template. PPEMES (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The Decade header one is for categories and not articles. These templates should never be on the same pages. That said, the category template is not in use, so if it's not needed, delete. --Gonnym (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:Playboy Playmate template list

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Playboy Playmates by year. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Playboy Playmate template list with Template:Playboy Playmates by year.
One template location for this information should suffice? PPEMES (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - exact same template. Can support the nested template if needed. --Gonnym (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:US Army tabs

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

The result of the discussion was do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:US Army tabs with Template:US Army badges.
Seems like we could use a template which collects this all together? PPEMES (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose That's definately possible. But not all tabs are badges, and very few badges are tabs. Which makes the merging slightly odd. Do we duplicate the awards that are both tabs and badges on the same template in both categories? Plus, as it stands now, the badge template is a large bottom of entry template whereas the tab template is a narrow column template that appears in the top right of entries. Merging them would require us to bury the badge info in the giant bottom-of-entry badge template and think that would be a real loss to the nice tight tab template that figures on the tab entries. Lastly, tabs and badges are different awards in the US Army. Really, the only reason tabs appear as badges is because on dress uniforms sometimes the tab patches don't appear so they had to invent a way to include the tabs on those uniforms as badges. The Army's use of 'tabs' as a unique form of award seems odd, but it really is its own unique thing seperate from badges or medals or unit patches and I don't think conflating the tab template with the badge template is the best decision (although, it isn't a terrible idea. I see the thinking.). Atfyfe (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I agree with Atfyfe's statement above. --McChizzle (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:USCG decorations

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 April 2. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:USServiceMedals

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

The result of the discussion was delete after substitution Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contents may better be merged into Awards and decorations of the United States Armed Forces. PPEMES (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete - each template is used once in one article. Subst the tables into those articles and delete the template. Templates should not hold content. --Gonnym (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:Infobox tribe

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Aristotelian logic

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Aristotelian logic with Template:Aristotelianism.
Would a merged template make sense? PPEMES (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nest instead of merging It is possible to nest one navbar template inside another. At most I would recommend nesting the logic template inside the main one. That way the logic articles would appear on all Aristotelianism template pages, but the Aristotelian logic pages would not be overburdened with the Aristotelianism entries.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nesting. No current opinion on the actual merge proposal. The above nesting proposal is meaningless, as it will just act like two separate templates, just in the same page. The content is either relevent to all pages in the template or not relevant to all pages. --Gonnym (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not as familiar with how the wikiproject philosophy likes to do things, and already got my wrist slapped for adding navboxes to the articles I added to it (I thought that was the point of a navbox), so leaving my vote open, but it seems to me there are too many articles on Aristotelian metaphysics and so forth to not have a separate one for all the term logic. Also, his logic is dead, while not so for other aspects of his philosophy, hence the 'modern' part (though it should probably read 'contemporary', modern has a specific use in history of philosophy and it doesn't mean now). I would probably be for making an "Aristotelians" template, to remove the bloated "Followers" section. I suppose I'm a splitter rather than a lumper. Cake (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging into a super template makes these articles harder to reader. Aristotilean logic is notable enough to get its own navbox and its certainly adequately populated. I don't see a convincing reason to merge.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:Presocratics

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Ancient Greek schools of philosophy. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

Template:Presocratics with Template:Ancient Greek schools of philosophy
.
Someoverlap, although may result in a disproportionately enlarged destination section. Yet, would it still be considerable per
WP:NOTFINISHED with regards to the other sections in the destination template? PPEMES (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Support On the condition that the
Template:Presocratics whereby philosophers are organised by school of philosophy. I'd be happy to add and organise Socratic and Hellenistic philosophers so to balance it out. Mugsalot (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks, that would be great! PPEMES (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the distinction between these two templates is unclear. Also I'm not sure what the significance of Italian philosopers is given this is in a pre formation of Italy time period.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:International human rights instruments

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:International human rights organizations

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Tactile illusions

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

The result of the discussion was do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Tactile illusions with Template:Optical illusions.
Would it be an idea to merge these contents into a Template:Illusions? PPEMES (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The optical illusions template already links to other templates. Both Template:Auditory illusions and Template:Optical illusions contain a lot of examples and a lot of detail about two very different topic areas. I think a generalized "illusions" template would be more confusing and less useful than what we currently have. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No reason given for the proposed merge. Is the goal is to have a nav box is that is huge and unwieldy? "Auditory", "temporal", "tacticle", and "optical" are not synonyms. Hyacinth (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:Ancient Greek skepticism

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Good and evil

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Logical truth

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Informal fallacies

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox rebbe

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Infobox Jewish leader. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

Template:Infobox rebbe with Template:Infobox Jewish leader
.
Could this not be merged? PPEMES (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is possible, and even preferable. I see spouse2 and spouse3 parameters that need to be taken care of. Nevertheless, since this template has some 150 transclusions, we should think this over carefully. Debresser (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

Template:Infobox world university ranking

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 April 5. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox business school rankings

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 April 5. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox command structure

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox military memorial

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox military memorial with Template:Infobox monument.
Redundancy? PPEMES (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox Civil Air Patrol Wing

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Civil Air Patrol Wing with Template:Infobox military unit.
Redundancy? PPEMES (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox nuclear weapons test

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Infobox nuclear weapons test. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

Template:Infobox high explosive test
.
Redundancy? PPEMES (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. Seems reasonable. The latter isn't used much and could become a redirect to the former. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).

CTA s-line templates

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

The result of the discussion was Delete -FASTILY 03:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

s-line data modules

{{

Chicago 'L'. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/CTA. All transclusions replaced. There are 38 dependent s-line data modules which should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Template:US regiments sidebar

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Brandy Clark

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 April 2. Primefac (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:PitchforkVideo

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

The result of the discussion was delete most, but no-consensus for Billboard Year-End number one albums and Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award. Please feel free to renominate these if you would still like to see them deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Template:PitchforkDecade, etc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as per discussion. Any publication or organization can give awards. They may increase their visibility, web traffic, etc., but are not recognized as important by writers in biographies, encyclopedias, and other music references. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Billboard Year-End number one albums as that represents actual performance rather than a particular magazine's opinion of what is best. That topic is not like the others. No opinion on the rest. Rlendog (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only Billboard Year-End number one albums (which is statistical, not opinion) and Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award (career recognition), and Delete the rest of the templates. We have tons of music magazines and newspapers, and we certainly do not need "best xxx" opinion templates for each of this publications. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except BB Year-End and Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award. I'm not at all familiar with the latter accolade but by the sound of it, it might be best to treat that and the Billboard one as a separate issue. No question with regard to the opinion-based templates, though. As raised at WP Albums, the number of templates that could be created for similar critics' polls is substantial, meaning the most acclaimed albums and singles could have perhaps dozens of additional navboxes, each offering very little in the way of informational value. JG66 (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_22&oldid=949536660"