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 mergetoTemplate:Mass of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. A discussion about the overall content of the target template is a little bit outside the scope of this discussion, but it does sound like there is some trimming that could/should be done to make it a little less unwieldy. Primefac (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't even understand the request. Why would you want to merge chants here, and liturgy there? Apples and pears, it seems, common noun only that they have to do with the Catholic Church. What I'd suggest is getting rid of "Roman" in the titles, - our prime topic for Catholic Church is that one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked closer, I don't understand "Gregorian" in this template title, because Kyrie is chanted many melodies in today's Catholic mass, not only Gregorian, - and perhaps that way - just as part of the mass - a merge might make sense. On the other hand, Kyrie is also part of Lutheran masses, it's more general than merely Catholic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The "Roman" in the titles refers specifically to the Roman Rite, which is the most common form of liturgy in the Catholic Church, but not the only one, and omitting it would render the names of the navboxes inaccurate. That said, I think we can leave out the "of the Latin Church" part as overly wordy and unneeded. As for the second template, it's purpose is to highlight the parts of the mass that have standard Gregorian Chant settings. But those are just the parts of the Mass and already included in the more general template (indeed, I don't think there's any link in the Gregorian Chant template that is not in the Mass template. I don't really think we need both. More than a merge, should just delete the Chant template as a redundant template. oknazevad (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (as creator of chant template). Per Oknazevad, I think they all appear in the Mass template, but you should verify (there might be ones that have text and music as separate articles, in which case the template should have both). But I do think the Mass template is a bit unwieldy, so I agree with moving some of the content less directly related to the mass (particularly the calendar). Rigadoun (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2019 (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 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 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 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 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 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).
No need for a discussion, the template was a direct copy of the older template. --Gonnym (talk) 07:55, 15 May 2019 (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).
Province-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.
Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country".
TerraCyprus (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replace and delete per nom.--Darwinek (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2019 (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 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) 03:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just a collection of all the other navboxes. There is no article where it would be appropriate to place every single one of these navboxes on per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, so this should never be used. --woodensuperman 10:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's also placed on the top of talk pages for some reason. Never seen a navbox placed like that. --Gonnym (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2019 (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 per prior discussion at TfD and elsewhere Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:32, 24 May 2019 (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 per prior discussion at TfD and elsewhere Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:33, 24 May 2019 (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 per prior discussion at TfD and elsewhere Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:33, 24 May 2019 (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 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 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).
Province-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.
Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country".
Replace and delete per nom. Simplify editing and maintenance. TerraCyprus (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replace and delete per nom.--Darwinek (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2019 (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).
