Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 15 July 17 >

July 16

[edit]

Template:Urologic disease

[edit]
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 Split. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are three distinct and localised topics that are held disparately within this template. They are glomerulonephritis, kidney disease, and urinary tract disease.

I want to propose that this vast template is split into three smaller templates. I think this will help the reading experience, but better presenting a list of relevant articles, and also improve the editing experience, helping the navboxes be more tended to.

My specific proposal is to split the template into three: {{Kidney disease}}, {{Glomerular disease}}, and {{Urinary tract disease}}. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Generally splits don't require consensus at TFD. Be bold and go forth. --Izno (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Izno A split will require a significant amount of work (Which I'm happy to do if there's consensus). I definitely do NOT want to put in a lot of work if someone is going to emerge out of the woodwork and object after I spend time doing this, hence my proposal here first. Usually Murphy's law states that this person will only emerge for nominations that haven't been discussed earlier :P. This venue is nice central venue for discussion and is called "templates for discussion". If you could please indicate whether you agree or not that would be really helpful. Thanks! --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:46, 29 July 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:Cerebral palsy and other paralytic syndromes

[edit]
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 July 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:44, 31 July 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:Anatomy navs

[edit]
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 July 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:44, 31 July 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:2020–21 Moldovan National Division table

[edit]
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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

template not required after table moved to season article 2020–21 Moldovan National Division Boothy m (talk) 22:30, 16 July 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).

Module:Protest Attendee Timeline

[edit]
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; deleted as G7 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support (page creator; unfortunately nobody has time to keep this up to date :( ) Mouthpity (talk) 07:03, 18 July 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).

Module:Medical cases data/California

[edit]
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 Withdrawn by nom * Pppery * it has begun... 02:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: This is a work-in-progress module that already works, but it isn't quite ready to be displayed in COVID-19 pandemic in California in place of Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/California medical cases by county, because the underlying Wikidata statements aren't in place yet. You can see what it currently outputs in Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/California medical cases by county/sandbox, but once Wikidata is sorted out, it would look similar to the table in COVID-19 pandemic in the San Francisco Bay Area#Prevalence. I'm willing to move this module to another location to make clear that it's a draft, but it would need to remain in the Module: namespace, and I'll need to make changes to Module:Medical cases data to accept a configuration module from any arbitrary location rather than a subpage. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 21:52, 16 July 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).

Module:Ws

[edit]
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 Delete. This is a  procedural close. I, the module author and only editor, blanked the module and tagged the doc page with CSD G7. Seems modules can't be thus tagged as they're expected to contain source code, so I put a big fat warning on the doc page to the deleting admin to also delete the parent module. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 21:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request to use module declined at Template talk:Ws#Now a module * Pppery * it has begun... 20:47, 16 July 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:West Cumbrian Railways

[edit]
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. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that is an amalgam of several others that are in use e.g. {{Whitehaven, Cleator and Egremont Railway RDT}}, {{Cumbrian Coast Line RDT}} and {{Carlisle and Silloth Bay Railway}} Nthep (talk) 19:41, 16 July 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:Doha British School Organization

[edit]
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; deleted as G6 by Deb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

contains only a single link, no likelihood of being used -- AquaDTRS (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Looks like a straightforward housekeeping deletion, which I will do. Deb (talk) 07:42, 17 July 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:Sandwich text

[edit]
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; deleted as G7 by Maile66 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template with no transclusions. OhKayeSierra (talk) 16:37, 16 July 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:Uw-archive

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Izno (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline has changed - there is no longer any basis for this template (also see its talk; merely asking for an update did not trigger any discussion; hopefully this will). CapnZapp (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_8#Template:Verylongtalk and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_8#Template:Archiveme. Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote myself for your convenience - this is the relevant section of the talk page discussion: The bigger problem is that the template currently copies the article talk page length guideline. As you can see in the guidelines, the user talk page guidelines were semi-recently spun off into its own section. It's therefore possible to question having this template at all. Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The problem is one of clarity at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. That page too narrowly uses "article talk pages" when what is really meant in most instances is any talk page. It remains good advice to archive talk pages exceeding 75KB, regardless of namespace, because of the risk of users experiencing performance problems viewing large pages. This template merely provides that advice. --Bsherr (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Uw-archive is only for user talk pages, so please let's limit discussion to only that namespace. Furthermore, the change in guideline was preceded by a long discussion. Consensus was that editors have no place telling other editors how to handle their user talk pages. To verify this I suggest you start here: WT:Talk page guidelines/Archive 13#Summary so far. (If you disagree with that Bsherr, fine, but lets discuss it at the appropriate place). Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree we should limit discussion to user talk pages. In my opinion, general guidance for talk pages applies to user talk pages. Your conclusion that it doesn't is based on user talk pages having a separate section, but I believe the page can be interpreted that both sections apply to user talk pages. Again, as I said, there is no functional distinction between user talk pages and any other talk pages concerning length. I think your point is that we shouldn't behead people for refusing to archive their talk pages. I get that. This template contains no such threat; it only provides advice, and it is good advice. --Bsherr (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    At best a good-faith interpretation of this would say the guideline is sloppily written, allowing for these wildly different interpretations. But is this really the case here? The reason I'm having trouble with this, is because I was personally involved. I initially (and still) share your belief. Not your interpretation; your belief - I assume what you're saying is that if it were up to you editors should be (gently or not) nudged into pruning their user talk pages to meet the recommended size limitations for all talk pages, and eventually brought into compliance. But when I tried to actually make that happen, several longstanding editors went bananas, their admin pals were brought in, and I got nearly banhammered. So instead I took the initiative to at least make the guideline match what the community actually believes. It turned out the overwhelming consensus was for editors to leave long (and I do mean looong) user talk pages well alone. Now then, the relevant general section (WP:TALKCOND) begins with the following hatnote:
For the guideline on pages in article space, see WP:TOOLONG. For the guideline on user talk pages, see WP:OWNTALK.
To me this clearly denotes that the following (which include everything said by the template for deletion in question!) does not apply to user talk space. That was at least my intention when I wrote it. If you can't agree with this, I do understand your opinion here. But we better head on over to the talk page to hash out a better phrasing, since clarity of how user talk pages don't follow the same rules was the entire reason for my involvement in the first place! Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, it sounds like you've had a rough go of the issue. Were you just leaving a banner or a talk page message or a particular user talk page, or had you taken it upon yourself to implement archiving? I'm happy to discuss the guideline and its contents on its talk page. --Bsherr (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bsherr Thanks, but you are asserting the guideline is not clearly telling us the current text of uw-archive is obsolete. I would say the onus on you, since I can't imagine how it can be any more clear - the guideline clearly tells the reader to go elsewhere for guidance in the user talk namespace. (I should clarify - you don't actually need to do anything. I'm just envisioning the closing admin to disregard your keep if it is deemed based on old/incorrect assumptions) CapnZapp (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @CapnZapp: I'll lay out my interpretation in more detail. (1) Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Archiving says As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions; (2) Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines says about the guidelines on that page, They apply not only to article discussion pages but everywhere editors interact, meaning all talk pages; (3) hatnotes are not a substantive part of a guideline, but a navigational tool only, per WP:LEGITHAT; (4) there is no basis to assert that the problems affecting long pages do not affect user talk pages, and thus the advice should be applicable to talk pages in any namespace; and (5) Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages can be (and should be) read consistently with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Archiving. --Bsherr (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Can I ask you to post this at the talk page? I'll start a new talk section. I could even post it there for you (with your permission). My specific intent for my edits of the guideline was to make it clear that user talk pages are not bound by that rule of thumb - to match the actual consensus. It came about after an exhaustive extensive battle to achieve the opposite - that is to change the nebulous rule of thumb into an actual (enforceable) guideline. If your interpretation stands, we are still(!!!) left in the quagmire* where the guideline says one thing, but does not allow editors to act upon it (in the namespace of other users' talk pages). *) A case of eatcakeism of both being able to point to a restriction (like 75K) and not have it apply to select customers. Or in other words, something utterly useless that needs to go. CapnZapp (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Here: Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#The policy on user talk pages (length, organization). CapnZapp (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for now. I believe this is the best of our four please archive templates since it actually explains why people should archive and is less intrusive than others that plaster a banner on top of someone's talk page. I'm not a fan of these templates either but deleting this while only having the worse alternatives would be strictly worse than the status quo. If this gets nominated in the future with a different situation I may be inclined to support however. --Trialpears (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But, but... You do know you're not responding to a single one of my arguments, right? Yes, it actually explains the why, but it's based on outdated policy. At best, I'm hearing (good) arguments why we should salvage the general gist - and design of - this template... for when we create a new one, with a basis in actual guidelines. I sincerely hope you see my point, and that I am in no way making a personal attack against you. (I guess I'm baffled both responders so far decided to just fly right over my rationale for deletion... when engaging with and confronting the current situation was what I hoped would be the real gain from this TfD, regardless of coutcome) CapnZapp (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've updated the quote it used. You could have done the same since it wasn't protected. --Trialpears (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk about missing the point of this TfD, Trialpears... CapnZapp (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done some more digging since you believe I was not addressing the issue appropriately. I think that this template existing and The length of user talk pages, and the need for archiving, is left up to each editor's own discretion. As mentioned elsewhere (WP:OWNTALK), users are allowed to delete talk sections instead of archiving them - this still counts as having read and acknowledged them. are reconcilable. This template (at least with some minor modification) can be used to inform users of community standards for when it is appropriate to archive. It cannot, per the above quoted section, be used as justification for forced archiving which is prhibited by the guideline. My viewpoint seems to be represented at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 13#Rule of thumb with quotes such as If you think that someone may not be aware of this rule of thumb then of course you can point it out once politely, but it is that editor's choice whether to take any action and "Rule of thumb" means that yes, you can point to TALKCOND to ask people to archive their user talk page, but also that they can reply with "no".. I believe this shows how I can find this template compliant, at least in most usecases. If I still haven't found your argument please tell me and I will take yet another look. --Trialpears (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for taking a second look. You're right, for new users there's a point to this template. But the justification needs to comply with the actual guideline for user talk pages, skipping any mention of "75K" or "stale discussions". I would furthermore suggest the advice for experienced editors - in the docs - be changed to, maybe, For experienced editors, do not use this template. Consider instead leaving a personalized message or simply leaving their user talk page be without comment., deleting the See Also section. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All fair suggestions. I think we actually agree on a lot of things here. My reason for not wanting this deleted isn't that I think it's a great template, just that it has the most potential of the 4 templates we do have since we can give a proper explanation of the problem, not just one or two sentences. Perhaps we all could get behind a two template solution as a step in the right direction. First an improved version of {{uw-archive}} for User talk pages and {{Archiveme}} for other namespaces which doesn't work in User talk space since slapping a banner is possibly the rudest way to tell someone to archive. --Trialpears (talk) 23:03, 19 July 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:Commission on HIV/AIDS and Governance in Africa

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure about this template. Last edited in 2014, this lists members of a particular commission at the time. I don't think this commission is a defining characteristic of the members, so I think this template should be deleted and the links within the individual articles should suffice. Tom (LT) (talk) 05:07, 16 July 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:Birth weight

[edit]
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Used once, and last edited in 2015. Could this be placed in the parent article? Tom (LT) (talk) 05:03, 16 July 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:Osteo-med

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what this template does; it's only used on one article and a stub template for the same thing exists. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – looking at the history of the template, its only content has ever been the categories to which it was assigned. It does not contain any useful information. DferDaisy (talk) 13:50, 25 July 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:Veterinary specialties

[edit]
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:Veterinary medicine. Izno (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Veterinary specialties with Template:Veterinary medicine.
Better placed in a single template. Easier to read and the template will not be too big. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:51, 16 July 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:Orthopaedic surgical approaches

[edit]
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. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links are either redlinks or redirect to Hip replacement Tom (LT) (talk) 04:44, 16 July 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:Myeloid innate immune system

[edit]
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:Myeloid blood cells and plasma. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Myeloid innate immune system with Template:Myeloid blood cells and plasma.
These templates seem to have the same scope. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:35, 16 July 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:Inflammation

[edit]
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 July 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:43, 31 July 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:Arthropod infestations

[edit]
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.

Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Arthropod infestations with Template:Acari-borne diseases.
This set is a mess, with five templates all with mutual cross-over. As a start, to establish some clear scope and reduce duplication and navbox spread, I propose that this template:

  • Per commentary elsewhere, these changes can be made without WP:TFD involvement. --Izno (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge is a clear indication for TfD. Additonal mostly copy/pasted reply for editors who haven't read my replies to these comments earlier - template work is very time-consuming and I don't want to put that work in only to have an editor revert it and then require discussion; here is a good central venue and quite active, and should be renamed "Templates for deletion" if discussion requests are to be considered inappropriate. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:56, 29 July 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:Congenital lymphatic organ disorders

[edit]
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:Lymphatic organ disease. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Congenital lymphatic organ disorders with Template:Lymphatic organ disease.
Very similar scope; some cross-over, and I think it may be easier for readers and editors if the contents are contained within the same template Tom (LT) (talk) 03:36, 16 July 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:Gonadal tumors, paraganglioma, and glomus

[edit]
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template is duplicated by {{Female genital neoplasia}}, and {{Male genital neoplasia}}, so it is unnecessary. Tom (LT) (talk) 03:32, 16 July 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:Allergic conditions

[edit]
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 July 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:39, 31 July 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:Lymphatic vessel disease

[edit]
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:Lymphatic organ and vessel disease. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Lymphatic vessel disease with Template:Lymphatic organ disease.
I propose a merge to {{Lymphatic organ and vessel disease}}, as the templates are quite small and it would probably benefit readers to have the content covered in the same place. Tom (LT) (talk) 03:27, 16 July 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:Cognition, perception, emotional state and behaviour symptoms and signs

[edit]
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 July 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:38, 31 July 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:Complications of surgical and medical care

[edit]
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:Transfusion medicine with some content being merged to Template:Drug reactions if appropriate to do so. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Complications of surgical and medical care with Template:Transfusion medicine.
I propose a merge to {{Transfusion medicine}}, as that is what almost all content relates to. The sundry content (eczema, herxheimer, GVHD) can be removed and moved to other templates. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I wonder if this wouldn't be better to merge with {{Medical harm}}. The transfusion-related stuff should definitely be merged with {{Transfusion medicine}} too, though. Spicy (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The items "Serum sickness Malignant hyperthermia Herxheimer reaction Graft-versus-host disease" are kind of randomly there and to me don't really have any clear association with one another - we have in order a transfusion, anaesthetic, antibiotic to spirochete and stem cell transfusion related event... I think these are better placed within appropriate templates as readers are unlikely to use the navbox to go between them. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a fan of a merge to {{medical harm}}; that looks much more specific than the material in the present navbox. Do merge the transfusion content to {{transfusion medicine}}. The vaccinatum link does look like it can be removed entirely. I think the rest can generally go to {{drug reactions}}. GVHD no comment but it looks like there are already navboxes for that page. I think I tend toward "not a cohesive group" delete per WP:NAVBOX. --Izno (talk) 14:03, 28 July 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:Hematological symptoms and signs

[edit]
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:Abnormal clinical and laboratory findings for blood. Feel free to pick a different merge target between the two (or a third name); 'with' is unfortunately ambiguous. Izno (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Hematological symptoms and signs with Template:Abnormal clinical and laboratory findings for blood.
Templates appear to have the same scope, and have significant cross-over. Haematological 'signs' are actually laboratory findings. It's easier for readers and editors to have these in the same template. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I've been thinking about merging these for a while. {{Hematological symptoms and signs}} was originally titled "Eponymous medical signs for hematology", and is still organized that way, but that doesn't seem to be a logical grouping; these things are notable for their diagnostic implications, not the fact that they are named after someone. So they should be merged with all the other diagnostic signs for blood. Spicy (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Spicy, and well said! (these things are notable for their diagnostic implications, not the fact that they are named after someone).--Tom (LT) (talk) 08:55, 16 July 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:Ear symptoms and signs

[edit]
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:Hearing and balance. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Ear symptoms and signs with Template:Ear tests.
Suggest a merge and move to {{Hearing and balance}}. For these reasons: it is easier to have all these things together (signs, symptoms and tests), and the new title is better reflective of the contents Tom (LT) (talk) 02:40, 16 July 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:Symptoms concerning nutrition, metabolism and development

[edit]
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 split. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a WP:SPLIT (this is not included in the Twinkle options) to {{Thyroid symptoms and signs}} and {{Nutrition, metabolism and development symptoms and signs}}

It is confusing to have thyroid symptoms and signs lumped together with these other elements, and I think it would be easier for readers (and editors, because the scope will be clearer) to have these separated. The new titles are for consistency with other symptoms/signs templates (see Category:Medical symptoms and signs templates) Tom (LT) (talk) 02:37, 16 July 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:Eponymous medical signs for muscles and soft tissue

[edit]
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not serve a useful navigational purpose at all; particularly when linking arbitrarily defined eponymous titles. This should be deleted and anything related to muscle integrated into {{Myopathy}}.

Past discussions relating to eponymous signs / symptoms template:

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_July_16&oldid=1187892072"