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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:AFLLadderByesLine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:AFLLadderByesFooter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no longer needed now that ((AFLLadderLine)) and ((AFLLadderFooter)) have byes parameters Frietjes (talk) 20:14, 19 February 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 keep. General opposition to the template merger. It sounds like there might be a task force that could be dropped from the Mammals template as it exists, and while I think a discussion at WPMammals will suffice for determine where/how these templates are merged, there is NPASR if Mammals for some reason thinks it should be re-nominated. Primefac (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WikiProject Mammals/Bats Task Force (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:WikiProject Mammals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Mammals/Bats Task Force with Template:WikiProject Mammals.
Bats is a task force of the Mammals WikiProject. It seems that the separate and unnecessary bats template was created due to a failed attempt to update the mammals template. Jameboy (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yes, I ultimately created a new WP template because the Mammals template uses Template:WPBannerMeta which could not hold another task force. "WPBannerMeta can accommodate up to five task forces, each with its own image, links and importance scale, if desired." If merging this template would not affect the hot articles bot and quality/importance assessment bot, then I wouldn't be bothered either way. Another option is to migrate the Bats task force out to its own WikiProject similar to WP:CATS being a WikiProject with its own template, not a task force, despite being under the umbrella of WP:MAMMALS. Enwebb (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: I've given this some thought and I oppose a merge for several reasons. 1) It will create a lot of work. The bats template is already out on thousands of talk pages, with importance and quality scales that differ from the Mammals template. 2) The status quo is effective. Bat articles have seen a lot of growth and organization since the inception of the template, with a 7% reduction in stub frequency in the past 9 months and 30 missing bat articles created. No issues have been raised within the Tree of Life or Mammals WikiProject re: the separate talk page template (although they are certainly welcome to chime in now with any). 3) I'm not really seeing a merge rationale and you didn't really present one other than a subjective statement that it is unnecessary. Yes, there is overlap with WP:MAMMALS but that is the nature of taxonomy. There have been several offshoots from WP:MAMMALS. In short, as someone who spends the majority of my time on Wikipedia editing and creating bat articles, I find the template useful and necessary. Enwebb (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - per Enwebb. Merging the templates will not help if it is not possible to add another task force. Having a second template for the task force is an easy solution that has already been implemented in thousands of cases. Pagliaccious (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (from nominator) I suppose my rationale was that having some task forces as part of a wikiproject banner and one out on its own just seems inconsistent, especially as it appeared to be based on technical limitations that could be overcome rather than a genuine edge case that required an exception. Fair enough, I wasn't aware of the five task force limitation, possibly because I've seen several wikiproject banner templates that can accommodate more than that (Template:WikiProject Football has more than 30, for example), so I wrongly assumed that it was easy to add just one more. However, according to Template:WPBannerMeta#Task_forces, it is possible to support more than five task forces via the use of Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks. This would presumably require a rewrite of Template:WikiProject Mammals but I assume it would then make it easier to incorporate mammalian task forces in future? (Hopefully someone who knows more about templates than I do can comment on that). In terms of the work required, I can't help with template syntax but i would be willing to do a large share of the work in updating talk pages. Is it still worth doing? I don't know. --Jameboy (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Enwebb. The current situation may not be perfect, but it is not troublesome in any way, and merging will leave a hole, given current technology. Clearly making a WikiProject would be a solution, but to a problem that doesn't really need solving. Let's leave it alone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Through Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces it should be possible to add another taskforce. Isn't complicated to implement that I can see. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The mammals template lists 5 task forces maximum. The WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials is defunct, so remove it and replace it with the Bats Taskforce. William Harris • (talk) • 09:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The content of this message suggests you seem to support the merge, even though you've bolded oppose. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 02:54, 25 February 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) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:!Promo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:!Primary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:!Related (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:!IN (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:!Wiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:!Blog (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Promotional source)), ((Primary source inline)), ((Irrelevant citation)), ((Self-published inline)), and ((User-generated inline)) respectively. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 16:51, 19 February 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 March 3. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:!Cite (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:Distinguish. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Distinguish2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Distinguish (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Distinguish2 with Template:Distinguish.
Similar to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 February 18#Template:Redirect3 and Template:About2, the ability for custom text can be implemented in ((Distinguish)) as a text= option. feminist (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added ((tfm)) notices to the two templates. Given the high transclusion of the latter, I've opted to noinclude the notice on articles. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support same rationale essentially - as being nom of that previous discussion Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:23, 21 February 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).