The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 13:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Blood (Monolith Productions) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template. Blood and Priest (manhwa) shouldn't be sharing a template; they have no mutual creators, developers, publishers, or intermingling intellectual properties. The only link between the two seems to be that the author of Priest claimed to be inspired by Blood, which IMO isn't a substantial enough connection for two separate IPs to be married together under one template. Individually, neither Blood nor Priest have enough mainspace articles to warrant a unique template; Blood has articles for its first and second games, and Priest has articles for its manhwa and movie adaption, with no other articles focused heavily on either. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Blood and Priest have a lot in common even if it is inspiration. There are enough links for the navbox to remain. Four links in the video game section that is not a redirect to a main article or article section. Both articles for Priest in the navbox are related to the Blood series. The entire related section can go as there is no direct relationship to this series of games. Lost Saga doesn't mention Blood or Priest in the article, so it's not related at all at this point. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really follow your argument; Priest isn't an unauthorized adaptation or spinoff of Blood, it's a completely separate work with its own story, which was only in part inspired by elements of Blood - having the two share an infobox gives the impression that they have a more substantial relationship with each other. The one citation which is used to substantiate this strained connection in Blood and Priest's articles reads: Starting since 1996, Hyung created a Weird Western of horror, gun-fu combat, and fantasy inspired by the old computer game “Blood.”

Even if the two have superficial similarities, this really isn't enough to give credence to a significant enough cultural link for the two to share an infobox. Indeed, I'm considering moving any information about Blood out of the lede for Priest's articles, because it seems to be giving readers the misimpression that Priest is a Nosferatu-esque unauthorized adaptation of Blood. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I believe the existence of a template dedicated to Blood would be justified if there were at least 3 installments of the saga (at the moment only two). I agree that with the current structure Blood and Priest seem like a directly related work, which they are not. The Priest reference could be included in the same template under the "related" category. There are already similar templates with just 3 games per saga... (Example: F.E.A.R. template) Sergeant Batou (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering the arguments provided by colleagues and especially the existence of Template:Monolith Productions which already includes a section dedicated to Blood, I update my vote to Delete. If in the future the saga is revitalized and more installments are released, the creation of this template could be rethought again, for the moment I fear that it is unnecessary. Sergeant Batou (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've made a modification today that would be satisfactory to me even taking into consideration the OP's discussion (someone can maybe go further). I agree that there was too much unrelated content. What's left doesn't inspire confidence that this fits the expectations for WP:NENAN, so delete. Izno (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added some entries to your update, let's see if we can "save" the template. I still miss a third installment of the saga to justify the template, but let the community decide... Sergeant Batou (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That looks like an ok adjustment, I eyeballed things. I don't think it saves the template for me. Izno (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Let's look at this: there are only two games. A franchise would usually have a navbar, but there are extra articles to bloat it up. The articles are not a cohesive bunch. The relationship of the game engines to the games goes only one way. The engines are already linked in the infoboxes of their respective games, and so are their developers. Template:Monolith Productions is a better navbox. SWinxy (talk) 04:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, better to just use prose and see also links for linking the two games. Frietjes (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Izno (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Taxonomy/Dinanthropoides (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary and unused taxonomy template, because it is relates to a taxon no longer used. 蕭漫 (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 Speedy close, per wrong venue. As noted, userboxes are nominated at WP:MFD. - jc37 16:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:User singular they:No (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template only functions to permit users to display beliefs hostile to trans people on full view in their profile, and indicate a lack of respect for nonbinary Wikipedia editors. See MOS:GENDERID and WP:EDPRONOUNS. There's no positive value in this template existing, so I'd propose its deletion. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 12:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm pretty sure that, as a userbox, this needs to go to MFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 , recommend re-nominating each template separately. This proposal has about four different sub-proposals going in different directions. Some folks want to delete ((summary style section)) outright, some feel it should be merged into ((split section)), some want to keep it. The same is also true about ((summarise section)) into ((overly detailed)) (with one outright call to delete that last template even though it was not part of the initial nomination). Primefac (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Summary style section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Summarize section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Summary style section with Template:Summarize section.
Two maintenance tags for the same issue. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 23:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are not the same issue, or at least, not the same solution. One is "use summary style in this article and move some of its content to new articles" (which is a lesser form of ((split)) to some degree), the other is "summarize what's here better, without moving stuff around". (The latter has specific sub-templates ((long plot)) and ((lead too long)) as examples.) Izno (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. I would actually be in favor of deleting Template:Summary style section as it's essentially the same as Template:Split section. One is advocating for a section summary while the other suggests moving the content elsewhere (aka split). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That adjustment looks good to me. Izno (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Template:Summary style section  // Timothy :: talk  01:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ((Summary style section)) should merge to ((split section)); while ((summarize section)) should merge with ((overly detailed)) -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Couple of competing ideas here, relisting for a bit more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Template:Summary style section. I don't think the others were tagged, but in case they do: Merge Template:Split section and Template:Summarize section to Template:Summary style section. Delete Template:Overly detailed - There's a touch of irony in that the commentary in this template is too " overly detailed"/focused on a particular assumption about the text. - jc37 16:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Note - As we're talking about merging, basically I support merging all (most) to Template:Summary style section. I prefer that due to WP:SS being a guideline. If no consensus for that name/target, then I can weakly support Template:Split section as the next best target. Template:Overly detailed, is, well, overly detailed, and should be deleted and not merged to anything. - jc37 18:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If there is a way to flag whether a template is being used in a section or over the whole article, then merging all (most) to Template:Summary style, would seem to be even better. - jc37 18:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said in my initial reply to Sdkb, there are two issues here. One is: you did a shit job summarizing. Do better. (((copyedit)) would go further, though I don't know how often that evokes summary rather than "move 5 words here, 3 words there, and make sure everything is spelled right".) The other is: there's too much to summarize, let's split some (section) content. I think if we end up with 2 templates, one for each issue, we're in the right spot.

  As for whether a template is meant for a section, yes, they can be if necessary. Izno (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you were re-stating that to me - I think my initial comment was quite clear in what I thought should happen. My follow up to try to help consensus if there was no outright consensus for what I initially proposed. That's what I presume we do when we discuss, try to find middle ground.

  Anyway, I do agree with you that I think what's holding all this back is the text of each template. When really these just are pretty much comments wrapped in template syntax. I'd be fine with tossing the lot and starting over fresh with with 1 or 2 more clearly written templates concerning WP:SS action. - jc37 14:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It wasn't (isn't?) obvious to me which path forward to reduction you support, is all. Izno (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, my initial comments stated: Keep A; Merge B and C to A; Delete D.

  My follow-up: Merge all (except D), to A; If no consensus for that, weakly support Merging all (except D) to B. Still Delete D. If there's a way to flag, then Merge all to E.

  Maybe without all the similarly-sounding names it'll be easier to understand.

  My overall point is that the guidelines are at Summary Style, and so whatever the target, that term/phrase should be (in) the name.

  But whatever the case, the text for all three should be addressed. Normally we can worry about that at editorial discretion, but if wanted, I can write up proposed target text. - jc37 18:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Someone might want to close this as no consensus and relist it at WP:VPR for a broader community input. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  TFD is the correct place to discuss this topic. That it went less than smoothly is because Sdkb missed the best merge targets. Izno (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/delete ((summary style section)) in favor of ((split section)), the same as IP67. Maybe do the same for ((summary style)). Merge ((Summarize section)) and ((overly detailed)), the same as IP67. Izno (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.