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) 22:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:Shared Template Warning ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The bot responsible for syncing changes to other wikis that this template was supposed to warn about was never approved, and is currently blocked for operating without approval. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Interesting idea. Unused template. -- Bsherr ( talk) 23:54, 4 August 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) 22:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:American Crime Story ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough links per NENAN. All links given here are available in the parent article. -- / Alex/ ₂₁ 13:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I agree that there aren't enough links to justify the navigation box. -- Bsherr ( talk) 23:56, 4 August 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. The Manx Electric Railway template now has 0 usage on the mainspace. (non-admin closure) Techie3 ( talk) 04:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:Manx Electric Railway ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; duplicates information in {{ Manx Electric Railway (Main) }}. AlgaeGraphix ( talk) 03:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• One is linked once and one is linked once. Oh boy, both are pretty not useful. :) -- Izno ( talk) 04:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Linking fixed; now 0/2. AlgaeGraphix ( talk) 21:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Missing stops between Ballabeg & Baldrine added. AlgaeGraphix ( talk) 21:55, 2 August 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) 22:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:Grand Ducal Family of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template only has one item listed, making it effectively useless as a template. 73.110.217.186 ( talk) 18:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Smeat75 ( talk) 18:19, 2 August 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 merge to Signaling peptide receptor. As a note, there are parallel histories and a histmerge would not be appropriate. Primefac ( talk) 22:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:Signaling peptide/protein receptor modulators ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A lot of work has been put in to this very, very large navbox. I don't think it serves a useful value as a navigational aid, but I do think the content should be preserved.

What I propose is that it is moved to a list, List of signaling peptide/protein receptor modulators (or a more simple title if there is one), and the content of the template is preserved as just the section titles and {{ List of receptors involved in intracellular signalling}}. Ping to Medgirl131 who has maintained this list and will likely have an opinion. Tom (LT) ( talk) 02:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Agreed, this is unwieldy. Delete. I don't think a new list is necessary however at this time; the same data could just go in Signaling peptide receptor until that article is sufficiently developed to necessarily spin out a new list. -- Izno ( talk) 01:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge content to Signaling peptide receptor, then delete template. I agree that there is a lot of useful content in the template that could have gone into the article. Perhaps a history merge can be done to preserve the editing history too. -- AquaDTRS ( talk) 17:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not familiar with histmerges personally, but I do think proper attribution should be given (even though this is just a list) if we're going for deletion, but given the histories are completely different I'm unsure if a histmerge would work here? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 16:39, 18 August 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) TheTVExpert ( talk) 14:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:Sunday Times Rich List ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apart from Sunday Times Rich List, all the other articles on this template are now at AfD as copyvios, listed in the same discussion. The retention or deletion of the template depends on the outcome of that discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunday Times Rich List 1989. The Category is also part of the deletion Fiddle Faddle 14:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. For the same reason stated in the AfD. -- Bsherr ( talk) 18:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. A standard UK reference tool for estimated wealth of prominent people.-- Mervyn ( talk) 06:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep if the AfD is closed as Keep, Delete otherwise. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:01, 7 August 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) 22:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:SGCOTW article ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused template -- AquaDTRS ( talk) 00:54, 2 August 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 split and rename as discussed in the discussion; no significant opposition. Primefac ( talk) 22:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

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

I propose this template is deleted, and replaced by three smaller templates:

• {{ Ischaemia and infarction}}
• {{ Bleeding}} {{ Bleeding and clotting disorders}}
• {{ Edema}} {{ Disorders of volume state}}
• Hyperemia can be moved to Inflammation

As a broad term to categorise the navbox contents, "Disorders of blood flow" or "Hemodynamics" makes sense. However as a navbox lumping these things together really makes no sense at all. I think it is much more logical, and would be easier for readers, as well as let more appropriate things be linked together in navboxes, to split this overly broad template up. Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment: I'm not in a position to comment on the contents of the navbox, but this looks like an appropriate size for one. Would it make sense to keep the template if the header was kept as it is, but the links were first subdivided into the 3 subgroups you've described instead of starting with decreases/increases? -- AquaDTRS ( talk) 18:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ AquaDTRS not really. The topics really don't have much in common at all, like edema and bleeding. It's much easier to integrate the three smaller topics with more appropriate topics, in my mind. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 06:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I have amended above to point instead to {{ Disorders of volume state}} and {{ Bleeding and clotting disorders}}, two existing templates.-- Tom (LT) ( talk) 06:59, 17 August 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 merge to Template:Myeloid blood cells and plasma. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 12:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:Myeloid physiology ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Myeloid blood cells and plasma ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Myeloid physiology with Template:Myeloid blood cells and plasma.
I propose a merge between these two templates. There is a significant amount of cross-over, and it would be much easier for readers and editors to have things placed on the one template.

The only exception would be the tiny section of hemostasis, which should be split into a small template called {{ Physiology of bleeding}} (which can later be expanded) Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Support merge good idea, more logical organization. Spicy ( talk) 02:07, 2 August 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).