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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Commonwealth Games Medals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Same as Template:RankedMedalTable and Template:Medals table – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 22:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've already converted the transclusions of this template so there is no reason for it to stick around. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:35, 30 September 2018 (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 relisted on 2018 October 1. Primefac (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2014_IAAF_World_Indoor_Championships_Schedule (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).

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:Loop. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Repeat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is the exact same as Template:Loop but the parameters are switched. I think a bot should switch all usages of this template to Template:Loop and make this a redirect to Template:Loop. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 22:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Giggle. Merge, clearly. I have a minor preference for keeping Template:Repeat as the canonical name since the module's function is "rep" but prefer keeping Loop's implementation since that has many more transclusions... changing those transclusions should be trivial however, so... --Izno (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Caveat: Is it possible that Repeat is involved in NumBlk? See here, please. Purgy (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Purgy Purgatorio, I replaced it with a direct call to the string module. Frietjes (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Repeat" is more obvious to "Loop" for a non-programmer. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 23:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  And that means both templates should be kept because ... {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge duplicate. The merged templates could always be RMed {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2018 (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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Theme Churches of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Limburg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is the English Wikipedia. Not a good idea to point to articles in other languages. The Banner talk 19:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also wondering about this template. Shouldn't its contents be translated rather? Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Useless until more article are in the English Wikipedia, and per nom. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 22:15, 20 September 2018 (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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Theme Churches of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Limburg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is the English Wikipedia. Not a good idea to point to articles in other languages. The Banner talk 19:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also wondering about this template. Shouldn't its contents be translated rather? Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Useless until more article are in the English Wikipedia, and per nom. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 22:16, 20 September 2018 (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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Medieval Scottish Diocese (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox diocese (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Medieval Scottish Diocese with Template:Infobox diocese.
Redundancy. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong to say it's redundant, since the Scottish template has parameters unique to the Scottish dioceses. What's the need for this, is Wikipedia being charged rent per unique template? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13 elctro-groats per lunar month. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    
    • What? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Why reduce granularity. More granularity makes it easier to sort and classify information. This slow push to make infoxbox's generic is misguided, and show a complete misunderstanding of what there purpose is. What is their purpose outside mobile phone display, you ask, of course it is find pattern in knowledge at a higher abstraction. Keep. scope_creep (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it has parameters unique to Scotland. scope_creep (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If so, I would say there are either relevant enough to be merged, or not relevant enough to stand independently. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That might sound good in some Big Book of Yoda Wisdom, but how does it apply here? Scotland is one of the only parts of Europe where bishops were abolished (at least in theory), & the Scottish church has a range of distinct features. Articles about it have also been edited in much more depth than other subject areas, and this Scottish template is in some ways much more advanced in the details it allows to be presented. Go and look at the application of the template in a historical Scottish diocese, e.g. Diocese of Dunkeld or Diocese of Galloway, and explain to us the logic and purpose of this change and how it will affect these articles, and how you will merge the two templates in practice. Please also explain the need to rationalize here, it still isn't clear. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good examples you brought up. Abolished episcopacy is by no means anything unique to Scotland. Yor examples do indeed seem to confirm even WP:NPOV issues with some of the variables. Yes, different perspectives on the answers to the variables are encyclopedically relevvant, but would be more relevant if contained in the text rather than in the infobox. To add to that, they simple make the infoboxes larger than what convention generally accepts. Nah, all in all, the articles on Scottish dioceses would benefit from geting their act together, fitting infobox-relevant information in the default diocese infobox. Again, though, if there are certain of these variables that just have to be kept, they ought better be merged into that very default one. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the church in Scotland didn't have archbishops between 1100 and 1472, and between the latter and the 12th century it was considered a 'special daughter' of Rome, which is not just rhetoric but entailed a peculiar (almost unique) administrative arrangement. Then there was the creation of an archbishopric of St Andrews, and then a few decades later Glasgow, during which the metropolitans of the Scottish sees shifted. The template we have have presents pertinent information about this. Also, while a small number of other places abolisheed episcopacy (a VERY small number), the succession in Scotland is pretty distinct, with episcopal succession being closest to de facto continuity but with Catholic reestablishment creating dual claims. I understand one or two users in this board like rationalizing for the sake of it, but's that's not Wikipedia policy and the desire is very irrational when all it will accomplish is, in essence, the vandalism of multiple articles. It's alright saying that another template can cope with all this in theory, problem is that it does not in practice and you need to get that fixed if you want to use it as an argument. I don't see the purpose of wasting time with this deletion thread unless you or someone else edits the intended beneficiary template to accommodate the template you seek to delete. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Favor. Aren't the differences already covered in detail in Christianity in Medieval Scotland (and other articles listed in that page's "History of Christianity in the British Isles" link collection)? An infobox is not for the purpose of displaying differences and distinctions, but for collecting essential information-at-a-glance. The Infobox is not a summary of the article (that's what the Lead does), nor is it an index to the article (which is automatically generated). The ecclesiological and ecclesiastical differences can be explained, where necessary, by a boilerplate paragraph, or by reference to other articles. There are, after all, only thirteen dioceses in the category. Many infobox templates I see are already too overloaded. What are the parameters that are claimed to be essential to this Infobox? --Vicedomino (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The generic diocese infobox does not present all essential information in that box. The Scottish infobox, which was modelled on the information presented in the standard reference work on the medieval Scottish church, does present essential information-at-a-glance (please look at the template for details), essential information that will be lost if it is deleted to be replace by the broader one. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Seams to different to merge. Note: The page title is capitalized in places it shouldn't be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandonXLF (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that that might be an argument that the Scottish box is too different to be significant, or essential. That would suggest dropping the whole Scottish template.--Vicedomino (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Can it really be argued that "Canons; Mensal churches; Common churches; Prebendal churches; Catholic successor" pertain to the essence of the Medieval Scottish Church?? The first three items were common to all churches in Europe after the 10th century, by imperial decree and papal synodal decree. That seems to argue in favor of combining the two templates. And they do not represent "essential" information. Can we really imagine a reader coming to the affected pages, with the burning question, "Now how many mensal churches were there?" They are interesting details at best. "Catholic successor" is so vaguely worded that it is liable to lead to mischief. I suppose that the one person who is defending the whole knows what it means, but Wikipedia does not belong to one person, and we are all mortal. Either make it specific, or delete it, IMHO. I still Favor the merger, but I am moving toward deleting the Scottish Medieval Template entirely. --Vicedomino (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2018 (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).