Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 10



Template:Cerebral palsy and other paralytic syndromes

 * 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC) No longer necessary; the actual template for cerebral palsy is Template:Cerebral palsy and this just contains signs/symptoms, which I have integrated into Template:Movement and gait symptoms and signs.
 * Cerebral palsy and other paralytic syndromes

Per closing comments at the last TfD, with no particular quorum I have boldly gone about and merged the templates, updating links and removing inappropriate transclusions as required. This template is no longer linked in articles and no longer transcluded. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 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:Vulgate manuscripts

 * 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. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC) It is only a table, and all its content has been moved to Vulgate manuscripts. Moreover, this template is not used anywhere. Veverve (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Vulgate manuscripts
 * Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Maybe edit the article Vulgate manuscripts specifically to identify those manuscripts that are 'primary' sources for the Stuttgart Vulgate.  But agree that the template is now surplus to requirements. TomHennell (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 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:Infobox encyclical

 * 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:Infobox papal proclamation. Based on Papacy this seems like the most specific naming for the infobox, and would include potential uses for Apostolic constitutions as well. Primefac (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Infobox encyclical with Template:Infobox apostolic exhortation.
 * Infobox encyclical
 * Infobox apostolic exhortation

The Italian and French WP both use a common infobox template for all papal documents (i.e. here and here). Therefore, I propose we follow their example: we should merge those two templates into one template which would let the user choose between Encyclical or Apostolic exhortation, and if possible add the other types of papal official documents (apostolic letter, apostolic constitution, papal bull, and motu proprio) and put encyclical letter as the default. Veverve (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, sure. it's a functional move. Most of the necessary fields are similar, a little flexibility is better than two separate infoboxes cluttering maintenance.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment in case of merging please note that the hour of signature does not display correctly, as I tried to modify the code of the template to make the parameter clearer and broke said display of the hour. Veverve (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge as recommended in the nomination. Two very similar infoboxes for related content that can easily be merged. --RL0919 (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 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:Largest cities UA of West Godavari District UA

 * 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 subst and delete. Reasonable argument, no opposition. Primefac (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Superfluous template made for a subdivision (West Godavari District), based on revenue divisions, of a subdivision/state (Andhra Pradesh) of India. The Banner talk 09:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Largest cities UA of West Godavari District UA
 * Subst and delete Can be included as a simple table; no need for a template for this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 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:Transcription factor and coregulator deficiencies

 * 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 October 18. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Transcription_factor_and_coregulator_deficiencies
 * 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:Most Popular Castles of Scotland

 * 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. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Unused template. It looks like it was based on an article deleted at AfD (see Articles for deletion/Popular castles of Scotland). Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 00:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Most Popular Castles of Scotland
 * Delete Unused and what's more, does not require 49 citations. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unused and of questionable value anyway. --RL0919 (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 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).