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) 23:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:User GenerationAlpha (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

According to Generation Alpha, members of this age group were born in the early 2010s, making them currently at most 10 years old. This is way too young for them to be displaying their age in a userbox like this. We may be able to recreate this userbox in a decade or so, but as of now, we should not encourage these users to reveal anything about their personal information. Mz7 (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Any usage of this template would be subject to suppression, so let's not use it. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this userbox is self identifying as 10 years old, which is information that should be suppressed. Clearly a bad idea for a userbox. PhilKnight (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. User privacy and children's safety must be protected. Nerd271 (talk) 14:16, 9 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).

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) 23:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:GroupAMF2013MG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:GroupBMF2013MG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:GroupAMWP2013MG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:GroupBMWP2013MG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 17:07, 4 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).

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 April 12. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:3iC-alQaeda (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Al-Qaeda (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 relisted on 2020 April 12. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Al-Qaeda_and_direct_affiliates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Al-Qaeda (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 relisted on 2020 April 12. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:AQChiefs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Al-Qaeda (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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Islam and other religions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Islam topics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Islam and other religions with Template:Islam topics.
While admittedly Template:Islam topics is already a sizable template, is there any clear reason why the few entries in Template:Islam and other religions that are not already covered in Template:Islam topics should not be merged there? PPEMES (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose well for starters, one is a sidebar and one is a navbox. They play different roles in assisting navigation. I see no convincing reason for a merge and no clear problem presented with the current setup. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I'm such trangressing merges have occured before? PPEMES (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above reasoning. A convincing reason is still needed for the merge to be absolutely necessary. I don't see one at the moment. Mar4d (talk) 19:47, 6 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).

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Rashidun Caliphs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Caliphs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Rashidun Caliphs with Template:Caliphs.
See below. PPEMES (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The current template does a fine job of representing its content with a clear scope. I fail to see the benefit of merging into a super Middle Easter history template. In particular, I think a giant super template is very difficult to use and navigate and editors who wish to know about a certain time period will have more difficulty seeing, be more overwhelmed, and also have an extra click to access content. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 6 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).

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Umayyads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Caliphs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Umayyads with Template:Caliphs.
See below. PPEMES (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The current template does a fine job of representing its content with a clear scope. I fail to see the benefit of merging into a super Middle Easter history template. In particular, I think a giant super template is very difficult to use and navigate and editors who wish to know about a certain time period will have more difficulty seeing, be more overwhelmed, and also have an extra click to access content. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 6 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).

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Abbasids (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Caliphs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Abbasids with Template:Caliphs.
See below. PPEMES (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The current template does a fine job of representing its content with a clear scope. I fail to see the benefit of merging into a super Middle Easter history template. In particular, I think a giant super template is very difficult to use and navigate and editors who wish to know about a certain time period will have more difficulty seeing, be more overwhelmed, and also have an extra click to access content. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 6 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).

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Fatimids (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Caliphs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Fatimids with Template:Caliphs.
See below. PPEMES (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The current template does a fine job of representing its content with a clear scope. I fail to see the benefit of merging into a super Middle Easter history template. In particular, I think a giant super template is very difficult to use and navigate and editors who wish to know about a certain time period will have more difficulty seeing, be more overwhelmed, and also have an extra click to access content. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 6 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).

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 do not merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Sultans of the Ottoman Empire (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Caliphs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Sultans of the Ottoman Empire with Template:Caliphs.
Would it make sense to merge this and/or one of the above templates? Pretty similar information that could at least be consolidated with information presented in a more coherent way? Note that the sidebar Template:Caliphate deals with the scope in one merged template. PPEMES (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as in a way the templates are already merged. ((Caliphs)) is just a wrapper for this and several other navboxes, to be used on the four most general articles on the topic. ((Sultans of the Ottoman Empire)) is perfectly appropriate as it stands for the articles that it's used on: replacing it with a gigantic template that covers a millennium-long succession of rulers is not going to be helpful. – Uanfala (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The current template does a fine job of representing its content with a clear scope. I fail to see the benefit of merging into a super Middle Easter history template. In particular, I think a giant super template is very difficult to use and navigate and editors who wish to know about a certain time period will have more difficulty seeing, be more overwhelmed, and also have an extra click to access content. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose if it merges anywhere, it should be to ((Ottoman Empire topics)). I will note that many Ottoman Sultans were not Caliphs, the Ottomans did not become Caliphs until well later in their dynasty. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 19:41, 6 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).

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:The Fourteen Infallible (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Twelvers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:The Fourteen Infallible with Template:Twelvers.
Redundancy. PPEMES (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Twelve Imams are separate from the Fourteen Infallibles. And while the latter includes the twelve imams, the two categories are not the same. How would you propose naming the new template, even if for argument's sake, the two are merged? Mar4d (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not as is: Template:Twelvers? Template:Twelvers already contains the information in its preexisting state. Template:Twelvers is not about The Twelve Imams, but about "the largest branch of Shia Islam", as described in Twelver (the article on the branch as whole, not the Imams solely). PPEMES (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: They're not actually the same. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:52, 7 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).

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 April 11. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Historical_Arab_tribes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Arab_tribes (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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Islamic state (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Islam topics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Islamic state with Template:Islam topics.
Merge into subsection "Politics", "Government", or something to that effect? PPEMES (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose My view is that Template:Islam topics is for general overview articles and major topics only. It would not cover the more specific articles like the ones covered under Template:Islamic state, because of capacity restraints, and because not every single subject covered under "Islam" can be lumped into one template. The more concise, separate templates, the more easier the navigation and relevance. We should generally avoid very large templates. Mar4d (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree generally. Not sure about this particular template, though. If this template should be separate, in fact consequently rather more topics from Template:Islam topics should be separated then? I am open to such a descussion as well on the basis of this nomination. Let's see what the users say. PPEMES (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Absolutely not as per Mar4d. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 6 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).

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 April 11. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Islam_in_Europe_by_country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Islam_in_Europe (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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Islamic structures on the Temple Mount (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Temple Mount (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Islamic structures on the Temple Mount with Template:Temple Mount.
Significantly overlapping. Isn't this information best merged into one, consolidated template? PPEMES (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose templates do a great job with well defined scopes. What is the benefit of a super template here?--Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I think this would make the Template:Temple Mount even more dizzying and confusing, defeating the purpose of convenient navigation. Maybe this template should be better organized and perhaps trimmed to reduce redundancy? Al Ameer (talk) 00:08, 10 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).

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:European Muslims (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Islam in Europe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:European Muslims with Template:Islam in Europe.
Pretty much overlapping scope. Would it be fair to consolidate the contents into one single template? PPEMES (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose because the first template is a collection of ethnicities. It may not be a good idea to merge them into a template listing history-related articles. Mar4d (talk) 10:13, 6 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).

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 April 11. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:IslamicMonths (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Religious_year_in_Islam (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 relisted on 2020 April 11. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Muslimmonths (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Religious_year_in_Islam (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 relisted on 2020 April 11. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Eid (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Islamic_holidays (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 relisted on 2020 April 12. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:The_obligatory_prayers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Islamic_prayer (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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ten companions of Muhammad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Muhammad footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Ten companions of Muhammad with Template:Muhammad footer.
Template:Muhammad footer contains several entries of third persons. Is there any reason why the contents of Template:Ten companions of Muhammad must absolutely be separated in a standalone tmeplate? PPEMES (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Same reason as the oppose for Template:Wives of Muhammad below. Better to have a more specific template. Mar4d (talk) 10:10, 6 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).

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Wives of Muhammad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Muhammad footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Wives of Muhammad with Template:Muhammad footer.
Duplicate, redudant standalone template contents. PPEMES (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I don't see what benefit using the latter more general template would have in articles pertaining to the former. Mar4d (talk) 10:08, 6 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).

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 April 12. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Chant (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Christian_music (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 keep. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Quranism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Quran (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Quranism with Template:Quran.
While ultimatedly perhaps a footer template mirroring Template:Quran could be relevant, until that exists, would it make sense to consider merging the contents of Template:Quranism into Template:Quran for consolidation purposes? PPEMES (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Quranism is a school of thought. It is not a sub-article of Quran, or a subject that conflates with it for it to be merged under one template. There's a difference between the two. Mar4d (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cf. Template:Bible sidebar. Lots of entries on thought subtopics around the Bbible. However, I am open to arguments that this particular template should not be merged if considered too off-topic. Thanks for your comment! PPEMES (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. They are two completely different topics. 92.9.146.82 (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 6 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).

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. Feel free to renominate if there has been a redesign of the involved templates. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Prophets in the Quran (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Characters and names in the Quran (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Prophets in the Quran with Template:Characters and names in the Quran.
How relevant is it to offer a standalone template with duplicate content from the prophets section in Template:Characters and names in the Quran, with Arabic translations in English Wikipedia? Not sure, though. C.f. Template:Extra-Quranic Prophets of Islam and Template:Islamic prophets. How to handle that as a separate template? PPEMES (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would oppose because Template:Characters and names in the Quran is already large enough, and Template:Prophets in the Quran is more practical for navigation purposes, given it is focusing on only the prophets. Mar4d (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am also cautious about it. I would be open also to a discussion on a separation then of preexistingly collected information, as seen also here above in Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_4#Template:Islamic_state, as result of this nomination to try to achieve a coherent strategy. PPEMES (talk) 10:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above. These are well defined already! --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 6 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).

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 April 11. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Educational_years (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Schools (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 relisted on 2020 April 11. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Education_stages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Schools (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 relisted on 2020 April 11. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:States_of_Austria (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Austria_topics (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 delete. Noting that the data has been updated twice during the nomination period, but still isn't used on English Wikipedia. If there is a desire to use this template I am more then happy to relist this discussion if requested on my talk page. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Automatically updated cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2019-20 coronavirus outbreak data/Automatically updated cases (redirect page) ‎
• Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Automatically updated cases (redirect page) ‎
• Template:2019-20 coronavirus pandemic data/Automatically updated cases (redirect page) ‎

Not used or updated Moxy 🍁 06:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The template uses Module:CoronaTable and Module:CoronaTable/local to retrieve and display the data stored in a JSON data table at Commons as c:Data:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak.tab. The talk page there, c:Data talk:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak.tab tells how to run the code that updates the table from the Johns Hopkins site. The last time someone did this was March 22. I suspect there are now better ways of keeping things up-to-date. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Delete Module:CoronaTable as well, for the same reason. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:40, 5 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).