This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Merge
editI'd like to move forward with merging in {{Legal recognition of polygamy}}, and cleaning up after everything is done. I'd like to proceed with the following checklist.
- Done check if all links in Legal recognition of polygamy are on this template
- Done check if all pages in which Legal recognition of polygamy is transcluded have this template. If not, add it.
- Done delete the template Legal recognition of polygamy
Sounds good? Any additions? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm assuming you mean Template:Legal recognition of polygamy, not Template:Template:Legal recognition of polygamy, correct? —Asterisk*Splat→ 15:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- If I had a penny for every time I messed that up, I'd have 20, or 30 cent. Come to think of it, that's not all that much. But yes, that's what I meant (and fixed above). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Item 1 done. Regarding item 2, some articles use
{{Africa topic|Polygamy in}}
; perhaps that should also be merged here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)- Possibly, I haven't seen it yet. I've removed the first 10 transclusions and inserted this template where it wasn't yet present. Maybe give this a day or two to see if it's not going to attract reversions/screaming hordes? In the mean time I'll take a look at
{{Africa topic|Polygamy in}}
- I can see the case for using
{{Polygamous marriage}}
rather than{{Africa topic|Polygamy in}}
, but I think having both is for now the better solution. It's less likely to bring out the pitchforks, and more in line with the letter of the TfD. I don't know much about the subject anyway, and to make a call that's outside of my comfort zone in subject matter, and not directly in line with the outcome of a tfd decision makes me a little uncomfortable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- I can see the case for using
- Possibly, I haven't seen it yet. I've removed the first 10 transclusions and inserted this template where it wasn't yet present. Maybe give this a day or two to see if it's not going to attract reversions/screaming hordes? In the mean time I'll take a look at
India
editIndia now links to a disambiguation page. However, the articles suggest that neither polyandry nor polygyny are legal in India. Please can a subject expert sort the template out? Certes (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)