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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Please see (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Discussion notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Please see with Template:Discussion notice.
Very similar templates, for the same purpose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No comment right now. Can I Log In (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep separate the templates are similar in goal but very different in tone; I think there is a risk of removing either the kindly version or the impersonal version, and I can see uses for both. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than one template says "please", the other "thank you", how are they "very different" in tone? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tom (LT). --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 10:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose These are serving entirely different purposes. ((Discussion notice)) is like a generic ((ANI-notice)) where as ((Please see)) is like a generic ((Talkback)). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:03, 28 October 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 November 5. Primefac (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:No_talkback (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:Userspace disclaimers. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:User talk pages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Userspace disclaimers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:User talk pages 'into Template:Userspace disclaimers.

UD contains a subset of UTP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good idea, and what's more having all these in the same navbox may help speed along consolidation. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The templates serve a different purpose. The talk pages template contains other templates related to several uses of talk pages. The disclaimer template contains templates that are to do with userspace disclaimers. An appropriate merge might be Template:Userspace disclaimers to Template:Disclaimers as they share a common purpose. SilkTork (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ((Userspace disclaimers)) already includes a "User talk pages" row, which ends "More can be found at ((User talk pages))". There are pages, such as Template:Usercomment using both navboxes. I've just nominated ((Disclaimers)) for deletion, as unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. WP:CONSOLIDATE. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Struggling to see any sense in having the two templates. Nigej (talk) 12:51, 4 November 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Musicals and operas of Leonard Bernstein (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. Redundant to ((Leonard Bernstein)), also a navbox, which contains all of the links in the nominated template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 15 October 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Vaughan Williams operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox. Redundant to ((Ralph Vaughan Williams)), also a navbox, which contains all of the links in the nominated template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: that every single one of the articles using ((Vaughan Williams operas)) is also using ((Ralph Vaughan Williams)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 1 November 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. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Licht (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox. Redundant to ((Karlheinz Stockhausen)), also a navbox, which contains all of the links in the nominated template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – This is a targeted navbox for the opera cycle and its components. The navbox ((Karlheinz Stockhausen)) is too big and unwieldy for easy navigation. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ((Karlheinz Stockhausen)) is transcluded on 83 articles; the community at large clearly does not feel that it is "too big and unwieldy", otherwise someone would have nominated it for deletion on that basis (though, if they did it would undoubtedly be kept). Those 83 articles include all of those in the nominated template, where the two templates sit adjacent to each other. In other words, there is not a single article using ((Licht)) which is not also using ((Karlheinz Stockhausen)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the navbox is huge, whereas the navbox links a well defined set of articles together. It's useful for navigation, so I vote keep. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:18, 24 October 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).