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) 17:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:Buddy Jewell ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template got some pruning. Two singles were redirected for being permastubs, and the rest were taken off for being cover songs of his that didn't chart. With the irrelevant clutter gone, this template now links only four articles which are all sufficiently interlinked, thus failing WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 00:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• keep used in plenty of articles. Frietjes ( talk) 23:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Four is "plenty"? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 02:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC) reply
    • what links here shows 7, so keep per WP:NENAN. Frietjes ( talk) 16:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep does provide some navigation value. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:55, 1 June 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 ⚡ 02:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:Non-free image to be reduced ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

JJMC89 bot, the current bot handling oversized non-free images, does not notify uploaders since, per its BRFA RonBot's notifications appear to be mostly ignored, meaning that this template is no longer necessary. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Its legacy will live on in talk page subsitutions. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 02:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:NOTBURO. What a way to deter editors and uploaders. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:55, 1 June 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:Colleges and universities in Washington (state). (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert ( talk) 19:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:Private colleges and universities in Washington (state) ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate content of another template ( Template:Colleges and universities in Washington (state)). Rytyho usa ( talk) 15:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge and redirect accordingly. PPEMES ( talk) 21:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge, clearly. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 22:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge per above.-- Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:55, 1 June 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 June 2. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert ( talk) 19:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:Distressing_article ( 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:Eiei-year-table ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Eiei-decade-table ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Eiei-decade-range ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Eiei-century-table ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Eiei-century-range ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates are all now unused. They are part of a series listed at {{ Eiei}}, which are category header templates used to create the subcats of Category:Educational institutions by year of establishment, Category:Educational institutions by decade of establishment, and Category:Educational institutions by century of establishment.

I have today restructured {{ Eiei-year}}, {{ Eiei-decade}}, and {{ Eiei-century}}. The changes make those templates parameterless, and they now use {{ navseasoncats}} (and its siblings) rather these topic-specific navigation templates. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• delete, assuming BrownHairedGirl or someone else will fix Category:Educational institutions with year of establishment missing. Frietjes ( talk) 16:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ Frietjes: done. [1]. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:02, 30 May 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:Wikipedia essays. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert ( talk) 13:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:Wikipedia essays ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Essays on building Wikipedia ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Civility ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Essays on notability ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Humorous essays ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Essays on building Wikipedia, Template:Civility, Template:Essays on notability, and Template:Humorous essays with Template:Wikipedia essays.
The four more specialized essay lists each contain a warning in their documentation that it's probably better to just use {{ Wikipedia essays}} with the relevant section expanded. They also include a (futile) plea to please also update {{ Wikipedia essays}} to keep them synced. Let's just merge them, and turn the specialized templates into wrappers that expand the relevant section. My second choice would be to have WP essays transclude the content from each of the specialized templates. But something needs to be done to make these easier to maintain. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 10:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. PPEMES ( talk) 10:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment I tried to merge them in 2012! I suggest reading the discussion from back then. I haven't closely followed the proliferation and re-fragmentation since then, but I hope your fresh eyes can find a solution that works. Quiddity ( talk) 03:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ Quiddity: Thanks for the link; I think you were very much on the right path. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 04:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 06:08, 28 May 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:Abraham Lincoln. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert ( talk) 13:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:Lincoln memorials ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Abraham Lincoln ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Lincoln memorials with Template:Abraham Lincoln.
Already some overlapping content. Irrespectively, would it all fit into the larger biographical scope altogether? PPEMES ( talk) 10:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• merge, a quick petscan search shows that there are probably 5 articles that are using the "Lincoln memorials" navbox but not using the "Abraham Lincoln" navbox (in comparison there are 29 articles that use both). this indicates that ca 5 memorial links would need to be added to the "Abraham Lincoln" navbox for the merge, which is not that many. Frietjes ( talk) 16:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge intent of templates is the same -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:55, 1 June 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. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert ( talk) 13:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:Brazilian Imperial Family (present) ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no Brazilian imperial family, and hasn't been since 1889. The titles are a fantasy: "His Imperial and Royal Highness" is not a recognised title in Brazil, and the sources supporting these fanciful claims are, in the main, terrible: a culture of blogs and deprecated fan sites (per WP:RSN) devoted to royal succession, rather than actual reliable sources. Guy ( help!) 09:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. This seems relevant as royal stuff, irrespecive of status in contemporary Brazil. PPEMES ( talk) 10:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC) reply

  PPEMES, there is no Brazilian imperial family, there is no Brazilian empire, the titles are hypothetical and not used, there are even two completely separate competing sets of claims (and further divisions within those) which will never be resolved because there is no Brazilian empire and no Brazilian imperial throne so no mechanism for settling them and no reason to do so. The further we get from the 19th Century, the more vague and fanciful this gets. You could make a case for two templates for the two competing houses, but this would not be either of those templates. Guy ( help!) 14:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Cf. Template:Pretenders to the Brazilian throne since 1889. Should that be deleted as well according to your rationale? PPEMES ( talk) 19:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Wikipedians should not be inventing royal titles for people, and Wikipedia should not be in the business of indulging their private fantasies. Brazil's monarchy was abolished and there is no Brazilian imperial family. The idea that this fact is somehow irrelevant is absurd. Kahastok talk 17:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Utterly ridiculous fantasies and I think all the listings are BLP violations, it is an insult to these people to imply that they are so delusional as to refuse to accept that the Brazilian Empire was abolished well over 100 years ago. Smeat75 ( talk) 17:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• delete, not needed and takes up too much screen real estate as compared to a more compact navbox, or even more compact category link. Frietjes ( talk) 16:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per JzG and nom. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:55, 1 June 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).