Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 20

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) 01:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time, Citadel Communications owned five TV stations. Now it has one. There are no longer enough links to justify a template. Raymie (tc) 19:53, 20 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).
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) 01:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contents entirely included at Template:Ultima and seems redundant. It feels appropriate to just use the consolidated template at relevant articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When I originally created the template back in 2008, the idea was to keep the single-player Ultima and the MMO Online separate. However, since the Online content has since been merged into the main Ultima template, we don't need this one anymore. --Koveras (talk) 21:21, 20 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).
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. — JJMC89(T·C) 00:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template has not been transcluded anywhere but its parent page and should be re-merged into that page. If and when necessary it can be either transcluded by section or spun back out as a separate table. Izno (talk) 14:46, 20 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).
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:OMIM. — JJMC89(T·C) 00:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:OMIM2-6 with Template:OMIM.
There are 6 in total OMIM templates, most of which differ in only small ways and apart from OMIM 1-2 are only used on a handful of pages.

All templates exist to link to a numbered OMIM page

From my understanding:

  • OMIM: displays "Online mendelian inheritance in Man (OMIM)" before link, and has an optional parameter for the link name
  • OMIM2: just links to the page, no intro
  • OMIM3: does the same as OMIM2, but displays an external link icon
  • OMIM4: seems to do the same as OMIM2-3, "designed for use in infoboxes", but not used
  • OMIM5: displays the prefix: "OMIM" and then the number with an external link icon
  • OMIM6: displays "OMIM" followed by the title followed by the number

I propose merge all to the same template with the following options:

  • parameter "title" for the page title (with a default value of empty)
  • parameter "form" with options 'short' (for 'OMIM'), 'long' (for 'Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man') and 'none' (with no preceding intro), set to default of 'long' for OMIM, 'short' for OMIM5-6, and otherwise defaulting to none.

I think that will help editors by making it easier to select a template, and make the reading experience more consistent, and also help future editors / readers by ensuring that it is easier to maintain links.

In this circumstance, I think it would be most useful to "Replace and delete" so that the templates and form of templates to use is most clear to editors, rather than use wrappers etc. Tom (LT) (talk) 09:32, 20 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).
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) 15:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created 14 years ago, still used once. I propose this is replaced with a plain external link on that page. Tom (LT) (talk) 09:20, 20 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).
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:A note. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:A note with Template:Note2.
These templates are almost identical in content and purpose. The distinction between these templates and the unrelated Template:Note is unclear, so we need to determine the name at which the merged template should be. I cannot tag the templates because they are both template-protected. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 09:09, 20 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).
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) 15:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template is only used on States and territories of Australia and doesn't really serve any significant role or role that can't be replaced by a hatnote. ItsPugle (talk) 07:42, 20 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).
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:Spanish colonization of the Americas. Then delete after merger completed. (non-admin closure) Bsherr (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Functional, if not exact, duplicate of Template:Spanish colonization of the Americas that's only used on a single page Vahurzpu (talk) 03:01, 20 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).
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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template is not used in article space. It lists drugs which have been associated with depression as a side-effect. Firstly, such a symptom is both common and non-specific and may not be directly attributable to the action of the drug. Inclusion criteria are unclear and contents are unsourced. Lastly, it's unusual to link medications by their side-effects. In summary medications can certainly include this information within their text, and this list could be included if reliably sourced within depressogenic, but I do not think that this should be a navbox. I therefore propose deletion of the template. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:26, 20 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).
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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia is not censored, there is no reason to have a template which only exists to censor. Although it could be useful out of articles space, it has still been misused to censor Naleksuh (talk) 01:21, 20 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).
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:Sensation and perception. Izno (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Sensation and perception with Template:Sensory system.
These are clearly the same templates; the sensation and perception template is only used once. Ping to Veritas cosmicus who created the template. The "Sensation and perception" template does have some improvements but these clearly should be the same template - the improvements can also be made on the merged template. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:09, 20 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).
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. — JJMC89(T·C) 00:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template contains a single image and is unused. I propose that the template is deleted. This is in no way a comment on the quality of the image or the creator, and for clarity this nomination does not mean the image will be deleted, but just that the template which contains the image will be. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:04, 20 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).