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. There's nothing to merge here, since all the links at ((Grace Potter)) are a subset of the links at ((Grace Potter and the Nocturnals)). (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 04:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Grace Potter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN to the extreme. Nothing here has a link. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Well there's two links but both are better covered by Template:Grace Potter and the Nocturnals. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need more information on what is deletion criteria. Are the template navigation boxes, or information boxes. The original proposal uses the criteria WP:NENAN, which implies templates are navigation boxes. If the templates are navigational and not informational, then yes, the template should be deleted. If the templates are informational, then there is an argument for keeping them. The two albums listed on the Grace Potter template are solo albums, and should not be listed within Template:Grace Potter and the Nocturnals. If the criteria for templates is that templates requires links, then yes, we should delete the template. If the only reason to delete the template is because the thought is that the albums should be listed in the Grace Potter and the Nocturnals template, then no, we should keep the Grace Potter template in order to separate out the solo albums from the group albums. If the solo albums can be listed in the group template in such a way to indicate that they are solo albums by one of the members of the band (albeit, the titular member of the band), then yes, we should delete the Grace Potter template. If the merging of templates creates confusion then it is better to have two templates to keep the data distinct. The question is what action improves the information flow for Wikipedia, although some of the various deletion requests appear to be more about saving data space, so maybe that is an issue as well. Mburrell (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not that complicated. The template links to two articles none of which are separate from the full band's article and none of which aren't already in that template. Creating an entirely separate template doesn't improve any information flow, it just add clutter. There's no evidence that Potter's solo albums are notable by themselves (or at least they don't have articles) so I don't see the need for a separate template about them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• merge with Template:Grace Potter and the Nocturnals. Frietjes (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2016 (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 don't merge (non-admin closure). ~ Rob^Talk 00:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Digestive system and abdomen symptoms and signs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs with Template:Digestive system and abdomen symptoms and signs.
No reason to separate named and unnamed medical signs and symptoms (confusing in fact). Would benefit readers to have these located in the same navbox, making navigating less confusing. Tom (LT) (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. I can't see how complicated this thing would be but I don't see any reason to object to the idea. It's not showing up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts strangely. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon further evaluation, weak oppose per Scottalter's comments below. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• comment not certain what the benefit of doing so would be, though I would go along with it if there were more "support"--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. These templates are for 2 different things, even though the templates' titles don't suggest this. Template:Digestive system and abdomen symptoms and signs truly is for signs and symptoms. These are all based on what a patient may experience and not based on diagnoses. Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs is not really just signs. This template contains any eponymous thing relating to the abdomen and digestion. It is more from a medical provider's prospective on signs, points, syndromes, laws, bodies, spots, tests, etc. For example, nausea and Councilman body have no reason to be grouped together in any way. I think Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs should be renamed to something like Template:Eponymous terms for digestive system and abdomen - which is a better description of its actual contents. Looking in Category:Medical symptoms and signs templates, there are 6 "Eponymous medical signs for X" categories. Whatever the outcome here, all of these categories should be consistent. --Scott Alter (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2016 (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. Izkala (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Eligible Class Records (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:JWTM songs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:JWTM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Monstaa Piranhas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Four templates that are just part of a series of WP:WEBHOST violations. All link to non-notable draftspace pages and nothing in mainspace. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Eligible Class Records. 103.6.159.79 (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above mentioned MFD. Massive series of WP:NOTWEBHOST articles/templates. ~ Rob^Talk 15:38, 17 April 2016 (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) ~ Rob^Talk 00:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:English diaspora (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Scottish diaspora (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Welsh diaspora (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The navboxes for the diasporas of the British constituent countries of the United Kingdom are redundant to Template:British diaspora. Graham (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Izkala (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2016 (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. Izkala (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Shimane/Population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no need to keep this is a separate template. just merge it with the article and delete it. Frietjes (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• merge content and delete per Frietjes --NSH002 (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2016 (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).