Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 9

< September 8	September 10 >

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:User page. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User page mbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:User talk page mbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:User page (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:User page mbox and Template:User talk page mbox with Template:User page.
Template:User page/sandbox can now support this style with the parameter |style=no. See Template:User page/testcases#Default Mbox look for examples. Gonnym (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am only familiar with Template:Userpage, which I have been satisfied with. As long as I end up with some template that has the "no index" option on it, I'll be happy. — Maile (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As you can see from the /testcases, all previous versions are still there. I haven't touched the no index parameter, so whatever it did before, it should still do. --Gonnym (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Good to go; as long as this doesn't complicate the template's main use; which ideally it shouldn't in this case. I don't expect much issue. We might want to redirect things though so people using the old name might be able to repair their Userpages before long; if that isn't already normal procedure. ♥ Melody ♥ 19:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect won't work as the parameter will need to be added, but it's only ~30ish transclusions. That's a minute with AWB. --Gonnym (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. As the creator of the template, I see no issues with the merge. The new syntax seems simple enough. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to proposed merge. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge looks better. OK to go. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Best, MTATransitFan^Chat! 00:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge, and consider also {{User talk page mini}}; the barley-used {{User page 1}}; and the presumably-redundant {{Userpage (no table)}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 15 September 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:Use Harvard referencing

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 September 17. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Template:ONGC F.C.

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 September 20. Primefac (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ONGC_F.C. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs

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:Digestive system and abdomen symptoms and signs. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Digestive system and abdomen symptoms and signs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs with Template:Digestive system and abdomen symptoms and signs.
In line with the general approach to merge eponymous medical signs and symptoms templates, I propose that these are merged. Benefits are:

Remove the arbitrary division between signs and symptoms that a person has given their name to, compared with those without
Help readers navigate the topic more easily
Reduce duplication

A merged template can be well organised and, whilst expanding in size, is likely to be of much greater help to readers than the current unhelpful division. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As I've said before them being eponymous doesn't make them special in anything but the name. This does not warrant a separate navbox and merging with the related non-eponymous navbox is probably the best solution. --Trialpears (talk) 06:54, 16 September 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:Neuro procedures

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 as proposed, reasonable nomination and no opposition. Primefac (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neuro procedures (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This very broad template should be deleted and split into two smaller templates with a more narrow range. This will help the content be organised, help narrow the scope, and make the navboxes easier for readers to access and use:

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:Small blue round cell tumors

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 soft delete. Reasonable nomination, no opposition. 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. Primefac (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Small blue round cell tumors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template should be deleted. It is a list of tumours that, when viewed under a microscope, appear small and blue. This does not lead to any meaningful links between the topics and only really helps as an aid to diagnosis for histopathologists. In doing this, it violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. This template should simply be deleted. The contents are already contained within the article Small-blue-round-cell tumor. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:45, 9 September 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:Lesions of spinal cord and brain

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 as proposed; no opposition, reasonable nomination. Primefac (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lesions of spinal cord and brain (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I propose this template is deleted, because it is very broad and difficult to use to navigate. That's because it contains two conceptually different concepts. It should be split to reflect this into:

{{Spinal cord lesions}}
{{Stroke syndromes}}
Anything extra can be moved to {{Central nervous system disease}}, which is already super broad, but in order to fix up this set I think this template is an easier place to start.

Following this, the template will be much easier to use for navigation, as well as more targeted. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:32, 9 September 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).