The result of the discussion was Split. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 July 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 July 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
template not required after table moved to season article 2020–21 Moldovan National Division Boothy m ( talk) 22:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Support (page creator; unfortunately nobody has time to keep this up to date :( ) Mouthpity ( talk) 07:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nom * Pppery * it has begun... 02:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was 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)
Edit request to use module declined at Template talk:Ws#Now a module * Pppery * it has begun... 20:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert ( talk) 21:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
contains only a single link, no likelihood of being used -- AquaDTRS ( talk) 19:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
Unused template with no transclusions. OhKayeSierra ( talk) 16:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep. Izno ( talk) 14:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 actionand
"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)
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)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 20:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Used once, and last edited in 2015. Could this be placed in the parent article? Tom (LT) ( talk) 05:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 05:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Veterinary medicine. Izno ( talk) 05:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert ( talk) 21:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Links are either redlinks or redirect to Hip replacement Tom (LT) ( talk) 04:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Myeloid blood cells and plasma. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 July 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Merge.
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:
The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Lymphatic organ disease. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 July 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Lymphatic organ and vessel disease. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 July 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Hearing and balance. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was split. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert ( talk) 22:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
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 result of the discussion was Split. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 July 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 July 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
template not required after table moved to season article 2020–21 Moldovan National Division Boothy m ( talk) 22:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Support (page creator; unfortunately nobody has time to keep this up to date :( ) Mouthpity ( talk) 07:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nom * Pppery * it has begun... 02:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was 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)
Edit request to use module declined at Template talk:Ws#Now a module * Pppery * it has begun... 20:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert ( talk) 21:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
contains only a single link, no likelihood of being used -- AquaDTRS ( talk) 19:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
Unused template with no transclusions. OhKayeSierra ( talk) 16:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep. Izno ( talk) 14:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 actionand
"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)
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)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 20:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Used once, and last edited in 2015. Could this be placed in the parent article? Tom (LT) ( talk) 05:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 05:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Veterinary medicine. Izno ( talk) 05:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert ( talk) 21:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Links are either redlinks or redirect to Hip replacement Tom (LT) ( talk) 04:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Myeloid blood cells and plasma. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 July 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Merge.
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:
The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Lymphatic organ disease. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 July 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Lymphatic organ and vessel disease. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 July 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Hearing and balance. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was split. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert ( talk) 22:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
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: