Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 26 April 28 >

April 27[edit]

Template:Habesha peoples[edit]

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 to delete entirely, but there is consensus/precedent for removing the extra boxes at the bottom Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not sure this template realistically serves any useful purpose. Depending upon how it's used and by whom, the term "Habesha" can variously exclude people who feel it includes them, or conversely, include people who feel they aren't or shouldn't be. For example the link to "Most Cushitic Peoples" implies that Somali people are "Habesha" although I can imagine some or most Somalis feeling very differently (particularly about being connected to Ethiopian nationalism as this template also suggests). But I also don't know that, which is part of my point. I would not suggest rolling back to an earlier version (for example) as that draws the line another way, with which many or perhaps most would disagree. It is hard enough to hash this out in the Habesha peoples article (see Talk:Habesha peoples and its archives) where we might at least cite sources for one view or another. It is another matter to make this template a baseline or benchmark for some(one's) definition of "Habesha." Currently this template transcludes five other templates, with a lot of overlap, so I'd imagine using one or more, or all 5, of those templates, as necessary in place of this one. (It occurred to me to take the actual content out of the template, and just use it as a wrapper for the others, but again that creates a superset where not everything is necessarily within the set.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: "refer to both Ethiopians and Eritreans" is the accepted definition. Non-problematic, also as reflected in a template. PPEMES (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split. This template containts useful material. However, it and its many sub and subtemplates are confusing and make navigational difficult. I think it may be better to split into subtemplates. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think all of these, except perhaps {{Eritrean diaspora}}, existed independently before being rolled into this template. They can be, and have been (and I'm pretty sure, still are) used on their own. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PPEMES: I could see "refer to both Ethiopians and Eritreans" being an accepted definition, but the accepted definition? According to whom? If it's widely, or even universally, used that way in one context or another, that's one thing, but applying it as "the accepted definition" for any and every context is another. That's more a job for Habesha peoples to explain, but it has its own problems. The edits to, and issues with, this template are a follow-on from that article's: see WP:NPOVN#Long-term issues at Habesha peoples (or, if you really have time on your hands, Talk:Habesha peoples/Archives/2016/September#Various formations of the term 'Habesha' usage by various group of people which, I believe, is where/when the current editing pattern started, or at least escalated). But, again, this template effectively endorses a problematic version of that article (same goes for older versions of this template, and that article). Again I think it's better to use one or more of the constituent templates, as applicable. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]



  • Keep —-

Habesha Identity is fluid and has multiple definition and all should be included because there is a lot of credible literature back both sides. What has been happening lately is that hardline Wikipedia editors want to and have been deleting certain definitions to suite their own purpose, they have been pushing their own point of view and have been denying the various usages of the term within the Habesha culture. Here are quotes from deleted versions of the Habesha peoples page that had been deleted by hardline editors that want to push their own one sided view. The most accepted definition used in the Habesha community is that Habesha “refers to Ethiopians and Eritreans as a whole” and then from that people usually go on to use different definitions by breaking it down it these groups are Habesha instead of these other groups and so on and so on. The most common definition used today is that Habesha “refers to Ethiopians and Eritreans as a whole”.

“ Habesha peoples (Ge'ez: ሓበሻ, ሐበሻ, ሀበሻ, ሃበሻ, romanized: Ḥabäša, Habesha, Abesha, ḥābesha; or rarely used exonym, Abyssinian people or Greek: Αἰθίοψ, romanized: Aithiops ("Ethiopian")[1]) is a common pan-ethnic and meta-ethnic term used to refer to both Ethiopians and Eritreans as a whole [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] .

In a more narrow, archaic definition, the Ethiosemitic-speaking and Agwa-speaking Cushitic peoples inhabiting the highlands of Ethiopia and Eritrea were considered the core linguistically, culturally and ancestrally related ethnic groups that have historically constituted the pan-ethnic group Habesha peoples.

In a broader, more contemporary sense the pan-ethnicity includes all Ethiopian and Eritrean ethnic groups[3].[11][12]

There are varying definitions of who identifies as an Abyssinian (more accurately known as an "Habesha"). These definitions vary from community to community, from Western anthropological theories to day-to-day usage, from generation to generation, and between the various diaspora groups and communities that still reside in their ancestral homeland. Differences in usage can be found among different communities and people within the same constituent ethnic group.


Historically, Habesha represented northern Ethiopian Highlanders (who were predominately Orthodox Tewahedo Christian) while the Oromos and "Shanqella" ethnic groups, as well as Muslims adherents, were considered outside the periphery[13]: 342–345 [14][15][16][17] Predominately Muslim ethnic groups in the Eritrean Highlands such as the Tigre have historically opposed the name Habesha and have had preferences for the title Jabarta.[18] According to sociologist Asafa Jalata, past Abyssinian regimes had once attempted to create a form of "Habesha identity" which had entailed converting various ethnic groups to Orthodox Tewahedo Christianity and forcing them to adopt Amharic or Tigrayan languages.[19]


On the other hand, according to more contemporary studies done by S. M. Oliphant on Ethiopian Immigration Experiences in the United States at the Catholic University of America in conjunction with Catholic Charities Migration and Refugee Services which works with Ethiopian and Eritrean immigrants, the study shows that Habesha identity — more evidently in the context of diaspora communities — is used as an inclusive pan-ethnic identifier for Ethiopians, Eritreans, and the various ethnic groups they comprise; some non-exhaustive examples are the Tigre and Oromo ethnic groups as stated in the study.[3]


Statements made by Hannah Giorgis of The Atlantic[20], Heran Mamo of the University of Southern California[21], and The Washington Post[22] who are heavily connected with the Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Habesha communities also corroborates this same sentiment found in the studies published about the term Habesha as used within the community itself, with Mamo and Giorgis showing its wide use among the community and the Washington Post explaining it as “an umbrella [term], a way to describe the various ethnic groups hailing from the northeast corner of Africa ... an insider's phrase, a badge of pride and kinship among Ethiopians and Eritreans”[22].


Mary Goitom, a researcher at York University studying the usage of the term "Habesha" among Ethiopian and Eritrean youth in the Toronto, Ontario, Canada area, also had similar findings as Oliphant’s study in that Ethiopian and Eritrean youth use 'Habesha' as a "supra-national" multi-ethnic term to signify their shared cultural identity but in contrast, Goitom does mention the existence of an older narrow definition for the term even though her current findings show that a more broader "supra-national", multi-ethnic, and inclusive definition has emerged. According to these studies, neither Oliphant nor Goitom make the assertions that non-Highlander ethnic groups would have to abandon the non-Amhara or non-Tigray aspects of their culture and identity under the contemporary usage of the term "Habesha", while Goitom's study shows the generational tension between the ‘only Ethiopian and Eritrean Highlanders are Habesha' faction vs. 'all ethnic groups of Ethiopian and Eritrean ancestry are Habesha’ factions of the cultural debate.[2][10]

Best Wishes — — HornAfricanHistory (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

  1. ^ Hatke, George (2013). Aksum and Nubia: Warfare, Commerce, and Political Fictions in Ancient Northeast Africa. NYU Press. pp. 52–53. ISBN 978-0-8147-6066-6.
  2. ^ a b Goitom, Mary (2017). "'Unconventional Canadians': Second-generation 'Habesha' youth and belonging in Toronto, Canada". Global Social Welfare. 4 (4). Springer: 179–190. doi:10.1007/s40609-017-0098-0.
  3. ^ a b c Oliphant, S. M. (2015). The impact of social networks on the immigration experience of ethiopian women (Order No. 3705725). Available from Ethnic NewsWatch; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1691345929).
  4. ^ https://dailybruin.com/2016/05/05/habesha-students-strengthen-cultural-ties-through-community-organization/
  5. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/our-favorite-dc-takeout-spots-for-nights-when-dinner-must-be-had-in-pajamas/2018/01/03/0305db7a-e438-11e7-833f-155031558ff4_story.html
  6. ^ https://www.seattleglobalist.com/2014/11/21/facebook-tech-diversity-year-up-intern-eritrea-refugee/30813
  7. ^ http://www.uscannenbergmedia.com/2019/04/08/habeshas-around-the-globe-mourn-nipsey-hussle-it-hit-our-community-a-different-way/
  8. ^ Diversity makes a differences. (2012, Feb). Northwest Asian Weekly. Available from ProQuest
  9. ^ Hoang, A. (2016, May 05). Habesha students strengthen cultural ties through community organization. University Wire. Available from ProQuest
  10. ^ a b Afeworki, N. G. (2018). Eritrean nationalism and the digital diaspora: Expanding diasporic networks via twitter (Order No. 10745022). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2015164934).
  11. ^ Miran, Jonathan (2009). Red Sea Citizens: Cosmopolitan Society and Cultural Change in Massawa. Indiana University Press. p. 282. ISBN 9780253220790. Retrieved 14 August 2017. 'Abyssinian,' a common appellation of the Semitic-speaking people inhabiting the highlands of Ethiopia or Eritrea.
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference :0 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ Makki, Fouad (2006). Eritrea between empires: Nationalism and the anti-colonial imagination, 1890–1991 (PhD). SUNY Binghamton. UMI 3214765 – via ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
  14. ^ Epple, Susanne. Creating and Crossing Boundaries in Ethiopia: Dynamics of Social Categorization and Differentiation. LIT Verlag Münster. p. 194.
  15. ^ Historical Dictionary of Eritrea. Scarecrow Press. p. 279.
  16. ^ Making Citizens in Africa: Ethnicity, Gender, and National Identity in Ethiopia. Cambridge University Press. p. 54.
  17. ^ Ethiopia: The Last Two Frontiers. Boydell & Brewer Ltd. p. xiv.
  18. ^ Dalby, Andrew. Dictionary of Languages: The definitive reference to more than 400 languages. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 23.
  19. ^ Cultural Capital and Prospects for Democracy in Botswana and Ethiopia. Routledge.
  20. ^ Giorgis, Hannah (2019-04-04). "Nipsey Hussle's Eritrean American Dream". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2020-04-30.
  21. ^ Mamo, Heran. "Habeshas around the globe mourn Nipsey Hussle: "It hit our community a different way"". University of Southern California’s Annenberg Media Center.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  22. ^ a b staff, Washington Post. "Review | Our favorite takeout in D.C. for nights when there's no chance we're cooking". Washington Post. Retrieved 2020-04-30.
  • Oh my, a lot of issues here. Firstly, to be clear, this navbox transcludes the following other navboxes, which exist independently: {{Ethnic groups in Ethiopia}}, {{Ethnic groups in Eritrea}}, {{Ethiopian diaspora}}, {{Eritrean diaspora}}, {{Medieval Horn of Africa}}. Between them, a lot of these links appear more than once. So I have some questions, mostly because there seems to be a broader definition of the term that includes all of Ethiopia and Eritrea, and a narrower definition that limits it to certain ethnic groups. So, firstly, the list of ethnic groups that appears at the top of the template, have these been chosen to the exclusion of others appearing in "Ethnic groups in Ethiopia" and "Ethnic groups in Eritrea}}" intentionally or unintentionally? If unintentionally, can these be deleted so we can rely on the existing lists in the two aforementioned templates? Secondly, what is the significance of "Kingdoms and dynasties of the medieval Horn of Africa" to the subject? Because "Habesha peoples" doesn't seem to be an entry in that template, and neither do all the articles in that template appear to be a subset of "Habesha peoples", or are they? --Bsherr (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bsherr: If "Habesha" is synonymous with "Ethiopian" or "Eritrean" -- what you described as the broader definition -- then an earlier version of this template (as of 02:13, 16 April 2020) was even more broad in its inclusion. If the most basic purpose of a navbox is to aid in navigation, then I do not believe that version served its purpose at all. That particular version was reverted due to sockpuppetry (diff) as opposed to any content dispute or preference for that particular version. If we were to revert to a version before all the associated accounts became involved (e.g. 00:50, 14 August 2018), we'd arrive at what you called the narrower definition which (as I mentioned in the nomination) has its own problems. It does occur to me that just because a topic area is contentious, that doesn't mean that we should delete material. But maintaining some sort of balance between the broad and narrow versions of this template will be, I am quite certain, a thankless task if the template edits continue to reflect the editing patterns at the Habesha peoples article. (I would not say I'd reached the point of exasperation, but if I had, I would not be the first.) If this discussion were taking place at WP:AFD, I might point to WP:NUKEIT and/or WP:NORESCUE, but I'm not sure they apply here at WP:TFD. I'm not sure any of that answers your questions or clarifies anything, but I hope it's of some kind of help. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So it comes down to this for me. If one sets aside the included five navboxes and any redundant links, is what's left really substantial in any way? In other words, is this template better than simply transcluding its five constituents? Alas, it's not. --Bsherr (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • split, removing the independent navboxes and adding them as needed to the transcluding articles to avoid overnavboxing. Frietjes (talk) 15:19, 11 May 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).

Template:Shostakovich concertos[edit]

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 May 7. Primefac (talk) 01:21, 7 May 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).

Template:Kings of Israel[edit]

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) 00:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Archive_7#Templates:Kings_of_Israel_(Samaria)_and_Kings_of_Judah, it was agreed on August 2019 to remove it from pages in favor of Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel. Template:Kings of Israel was removed from pages around that time after an agreement. It has not been used since. Jerm (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rather than just improving template of whatever defect-- the idea seems to be to remove them instead-- for no clear reason. The so-called replacement template will only work at the page bottom. I propose these both be kept instead. tahc chat 21:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tahc: Removing the template is exactly the idea. It is no longer in use. It is also quite large and takes a great amount of space in an article. Improving the template is also not required because as it was agreed in the discussion to replace it with Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel which had solved every issue that was mentioned in the discussion. Both Template:Kings of Israel & Template:King of Judah are just duplicates now of Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel. Two similar templates shouldn't be in the same article, just Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel. Other than myself, the participating editors in the discussion were @Debresser: & @JohnThorne:. Jerm (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole point is you need consensus here to remove the templates... which you do not have. You also do not have any good reason to remove these two templates.
You also have removed the template from all the pages it is used and needed before having a consensus here or giving any reason here on how removing these two templates makes Wikipedia any better-- and further you have been reverting efforts to show how the templates are used before discussion here is done. All of these action on your part are against Wikipedia policy and goals.
Instead of disruptive editing there, why don't tell use here why Wikipedia would be better if we agreed to your plan? tahc chat 23:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tahc: Actually, I got consensus to remove it with no opposition in the discussion. Here is the link to the discussion again: Archive_7#Templates:Kings_of_Israel_(Samaria)_and_Kings_of_Judah. When you say "you need consensus", what you really mean is I have to go through you even though this was discussed already. And here is a copy for my merits to remove:

"Both of these templates have created a common misconception of succession after Rehoboam's rule as the last king of the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy). In the template concerning rulers of Judah, it seems that the rulers of Judah are continuing the reign of a United Kingdom of Israel (Saul, where's Ish-bosheth?, David, Solomon, and Rehoboam) Likewise, the rulers of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (should've been called "Kingdom of Samaria") do the same. In the template, it seems like Jeroboam is succeeding Rehoboam when Jeroboam was the first king of a Northern Kingdom of Israel (Samaria). On the templates themselves, they are a clutter of links and take an unnecessary amount of space in a article. Not only that, they diminish the purpose of Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel. I'm not asking suggestions to improve these templates, I'm asking for consensus to remove them. There is no need for multiple navigational boxes, Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel is very-well organized/sufficient and already resolves all the issues." — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Jerm (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again-- rather than just improving template of whatever defect-- the idea seems to be to remove them instead-- for no clear reason. If we needed to remove them because the "common misconception" then why are they not just improved. They already seem to have this "misconception" eliminated, but if they havn't, I am sure they could have. tahc chat 00:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These rubber-stamp comments still ignore all objections I have raised. tahc chat 00:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tahc: I've already provided the issues concerning the templates. You haven't raised a single thing. The only thing you did is WP:VOTE. At this point, you just want to be catered but that's not happening. Jerm (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have quoted old issues-- and refused to answer why old, fixable, and fixed issues would be any reason to remove these templates. Then only referred to them same old issues again. That is not a discussion, nor a consensus. tahc chat 01:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tahc: I've already explained why they should't be fixed in the quote (in green). I don't need to be reiterating myself. Jerm (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. You must mean this...

"On the templates themselves, they are a clutter of links and take an unnecessary amount of space in a article. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This makes even less sense. Template:Kings of Israel and Template:Kings of Judah are the old (good) small nav-boxes that only link to the other kings of each kingdom and nothing else, but can sit up in margin where that are needed. It is Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel that links to many other kings and other pages that are not needed thus only fix at the bottom.

"Not only that, they diminish the purpose of Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel. " — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This sounds like you want to get rid of the better smaller template only because you like the newer oversized actual clutter of links template better and think that is a reason all by itself to make Wikipedia worse.

"I'm not asking suggestions to improve these templates, I'm asking for consensus to remove them." — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes-- you did ask for consensus last Aug in the wrong location-- but the only reason is to not "fix" the current state is that you want bigger harder to find template over two smaller more focused templates. Most people think of Samaria, Judah, and the Hasmonean dynasty has three different political states. We don't need to have just one template for all the different sets of kings in (only) one template. tahc chat 01:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cherrypicking from my quote and twisting it to manipulate other editors won't do you any good. Here is the quote again:

"Both of these templates have created a common misconception of succession after Rehoboam's rule as the last king of the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy). In the template concerning rulers of Judah, it seems that the rulers of Judah are continuing the reign of a United Kingdom of Israel (Saul, where's Ish-bosheth?, David, Solomon, and Rehoboam) Likewise, the rulers of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (should've been called "Kingdom of Samaria") do the same. In the template, it seems like Jeroboam is succeeding Rehoboam when Jeroboam was the first king of a Northern Kingdom of Israel (Samaria). On the templates themselves, they are a clutter of links and take an unnecessary amount of space in a article. Not only that, they diminish the purpose of Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel. I'm not asking suggestions to improve these templates, I'm asking for consensus to remove them. There is no need for multiple navigational boxes, Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel is very-well organized/sufficient and already resolves all the issues." — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


— Jerm (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.
Re-re-posting and adding false accusations is still not a discussion. tahc chat 06:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete thank you for your good work on superseding these templates. We should make room for the new hotness. Elizium23 (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, the footer is a better design since it doesn't crowd the content in the article (e.g., images, navboxes and other sidebars). Frietjes (talk) 22:29, 5 May 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).

Template:Kings of Judah[edit]

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) 00:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Archive_7#Templates:Kings_of_Israel_(Samaria)_and_Kings_of_Judah, it was agreed on August 2019 to remove it from pages in favor of Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel. I just removed it from the last pages Kingdom of Judah & Davidic line. Other than those two which I just noticed, Template:Kings of Judah was removed from pages around the time of the agreement. It has not been used since. Jerm (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rather than just improving template of whatever defect-- the idea seems to be to remove them instead-- for no clear reason. The so-called replacement template will only work at the page bottom. I propose these both be kept instead. tahc chat 21:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These rubber-stamp comments ignore all objections I have raised in the attempted discussion above.
I likewise move that this discussion be continued above as just one discussion. tahc chat 00:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Both of these templates have created a common misconception of succession after Rehoboam's rule as the last king of the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy). In the template concerning rulers of Judah, it seems that the rulers of Judah are continuing the reign of a United Kingdom of Israel (Saul, where's Ish-bosheth?, David, Solomon, and Rehoboam) Likewise, the rulers of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (should've been called "Kingdom of Samaria") do the same. In the template, it seems like Jeroboam is succeeding Rehoboam when Jeroboam was the first king of a Northern Kingdom of Israel (Samaria). On the templates themselves, they are a clutter of links and take an unnecessary amount of space in a article. Not only that, they diminish the purpose of Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel. I'm not asking suggestions to improve these templates, I'm asking for consensus to remove them. There is no need for multiple navigational boxes, Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel is very-well organized/sufficient and already resolves all the issues." — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


— Jerm (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete thank you for your good work on superseding these templates. We should make room for the new hotness. Elizium23 (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, the footer is a better design since it doesn't crowd the content in the article (e.g., images, navboxes and other sidebars). Frietjes (talk) 22:28, 5 May 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).

Template:Symptoms involving head and neck[edit]

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) 14:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template is a weird jumble of symptoms and signs. I think readers would benefit more if it were split into two templates: signs and symptoms relating to speech and voice, and signs and symptoms relating to the head and neck. I think this will logically divide the contents and help better organise and structure what is in the infobox. It is weird to have Neck mass in the same template as Expressive aphasia or Hypersalivation, the only commonality being their ICD grouping. Tom (LT) (talk) 07:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - All articles are easily placed in other templates. Kori (@) 16:15, 27 April 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).

Template:Wrap[edit]

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:Wrap. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Wrap with Template:Allow wrap.
{Wrap} and {Allow wrap} may have been different from each other in the past, but they appear to be the same now. Pinging Nardog, who made the most recent change to {Wrap}, and Edokter, who has edited both of them and may know why they should or should not be merged. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge (i.e. redirect) {{allow wrap}} to {{wrap}}. The former has far more transclusions, but the latter now has the same functionality in addition to the ability to stand on its own (which will result in a breaking space). The merger will achieve greater harmony with {{nowrap}} (wrap and nowrap being the names of the CSS classes invoked). Nardog (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect {{allow wrap}} to {{wrap}} and merge the documentation. These templates do not have identical behaviour ({{allow wrap}} can't be used without a parameter for example) but {{wrap}}'s code should be usable wherever {{allow wrap}} is used. --RexxS (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above, same purpose. Frietjes (talk) 22:26, 5 May 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_27&oldid=956826414"