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 no consensus. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 17:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose mergingTemplate:Historical Arab tribes with Template:Arab tribes.
A number of entries in Template:Historical Arab tribes seems to be described as "is" rather than "was". Perhaps a merge would be just as good? Perhaps even merging to embedded templates of Template:Arab tribes into one single template divided by contemporary countries as sections? Historical tribes in the sense of non-existant could be indicated by some small symbol, with legend describing the symbol in the below bar of the template? PPEMES (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the relevant area ("state") they were present in, and split and delete {{Arab tribes}}. Oppose using a symbol with a legend, just use a sub-section. There is no connection between a tribe Iraq and one in Morocco, other than they are both Arabs. If there are exceptions where one tribe from one zone has a connection to another, then that can be said in the article or in a see also section. --Gonnym (talk) 10:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't mind that alternative solution. PPEMES (talk) 10:18, 14 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) 17:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. I think Template:Islam in Europe by country should only be used on Islam in Europe, as that is the only place where it's necessary to show the percentage of Islam in each country. It should be removed from all other articles.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 19:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree. Then it should be extracting from the template form at and movied into its proper article realm location. PPEMES (talk) 10:17, 14 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 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 no consensus. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 17:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad idea. The Template:Islamic holidays is a list of days considered special in the Islamic calendar. It is not a collection of Eid-specific articles. Mar4d (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:56, 11 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 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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I was initially about to vote in support of a merge, I'm not quite sure. Yes, {{States of Austria}} is small and can fit logically in the wider template. Yet we also have {{Principal cities of Austria}} and maybe others, which are the same size. This seems like it needs more research to find the correct way to handle these. Maybe the place templates should be handled together? Maybe they can both fit? I don't know without more information. Voting oppose until more information is presented. --Gonnym (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: The idea is rather simple: that the states of Austria relates to Austria, and that it relates to Austria in a fundamental way, which merits inclusion in the general topic template. Afterwards, other templates could be evaluated separately. PPEMES (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We actually do need to be more circumspect. The geography section contains the links "Administrative divisions, Cities, Districts, Lakes, Mountains, Rivers, States, World Heritage Sites". All of these obviously have individual constituents. Do we expand the template to incorporate all of them? Choosing "states" for merging just because it's first come, first served, would be arbitrary. --Bsherr (talk) 22:30, 16 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) 17:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "songs written" section should not be included since Brandy Clark did not perform these songs. It would be like including all the songs that Kris Kristofferson wrote on his template, or including every film an actor has acted in on their template. Take that away and you only have three albums which fail WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TenPoundHammer, Why shouldn't songs written be on there? She's a songwriter for other artists. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Because those songs are primarily associated with the singer, not the songwriter. Also see below where other songwriters such as Diane Warren do not have navboxes for their writing credits. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TenPoundHammer, Note that there are now four album articles, the songs written, and the main article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It seems a little overkill to start creating navboxes for songwriters and then the possible bloat of navboxes to the articles with songs written by multiple people. I certainly don't see a need for templates for Diane WarrenorDr. Luke, who've written dozens of songs for other artists. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when the majority of the info in the template is for stuff that isn't even her own recorded and released work, it seems largely unnecessary. CloversMallRat (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in my opinion the list of notable songs written by a songwriter is certainly something that should be included in this infobox, much as buildings by an artchitect may be included although they were constructed by someone else. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't explicit about a !vote before: keep. It now has four albums and the main article in addition to songs written. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I suppose that we may not find a consensus here, but I'd still like to add my opinion that deletion is the right call. As stated above, the possibility of bloat is rather dangerous since multiple individuals have written dozens of songs for other individuals. I also fundamentally think that there's something wrong here since songs are broadly associated with the performer and not with the original songwriter not only in the public mind but by music critics doing specific reviews, reliable source commentary on musical trends, et cetera. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 18:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough articles linked in the template (even you remove the songs she has only written). ArmbrustTheHomunculus 13:41, 23 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) 17:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We have separate templates on mayors and cities themselves. No need to merge all together to one gargantuan template.--Darwinek (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Darwinek, alright, so how about we separate the Politics section away (with the "Related" links added), still consolidate the Polish, andGerman mayors in one template (with no dead links)? Since it's about the very same town (I did just that with Mayors of Warsaw). I've long noticed consolidation of templates improves UX (navigation), and performance of the articles (more internal links), hence users' education. [And about gargantuan: check out similar approach here ;-)] – Kochas (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merging the Gdańsk and Danzig mayors into one template doesn't sound like a bad idea.--Darwinek (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 18:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Seems like too separate topics. PPEMES (talk) 10:23, 14 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. NPASR. Primefac (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as not all links are included into the new template, and if they ever e included it will be a pure mess. --Andrei (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andrei, alright, so what do you say we separate the districts from the main template, in one consolidated two-level template, with just the districts (just like I did with Mayors)? — we really don't need so, so many of these, especially when most of them have hardly any articles existing. – Kochas (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andrei, I've separated the districts. My initial proposal: Template:Districts of Warsaw. Also, please see my argument here. Consolidating these dozens of templates is really way more efficient, in terms of overall usefulness for users. – Kochas (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 18:21, 11 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).
NAVBOX without a single link with only one link to a WP article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. And it's important as a starting point for creating those case articles that are yet to be filled in. Wikidea 17:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made a mistake it is one link but NAVBOX are for naviagation. They serve no purpose without links and the long held consensus (here[1], here[2], here[3], for just three examples around here is that Boxes that few links are deleted....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure what the purpose of this navbox even is. It's old is unclear as it doesn't even link to a main article in the header that would describe what these items have in common. Without that it's completely useless for navigation, which means it shouldn't be a navigational box. oknazevad (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I see there are dozens of these.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 17:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 18:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. External links belong in the external links section per WP:External links. This template is just an EL template, as it doesn't navigate between any articles. --Gonnym (talk) 10:47, 12 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. Primefac (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 17:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 18:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep actually this template seems to do a fine job of listing the members of that family. I do not feel interested readers will benefit from deleting the template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom (LT): Consequently; any other family articles you insist on be deleted and transformed into templates instead? PPEMES (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None at the moment. But sometimes it is easier to have a template on multiple articles that can be updated once, rather than making the same change multiple times on different articles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the content is encyclopedic as prose, it is encyclopedic as a diagram. I'm not sure it's best in navbox style, but that alone is not a reason to delete. --Bsherr (talk) 22:23, 16 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. If and when there are a significant number of links and/or Morocco returns to Eurovision again (which would bring about more links etc) there is no prejudice against restoration/recreation. Primefac (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template only contains four article links and three of these pages have been merged into one page due to overlapping information. Overall, the template is rather cumbersome to use with little chance of it being expanded in the future. Grk1011 (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Morocco's ESC article includes a mention that the country might return with a new broadcaster, however unlikely that may be (especially given the frequent claims of debuts or returns from many countries), and deleting this template before an answer becomes apparent may result in fruitless extra work. I'm also not sure if deleting this will break anything in the larger ESC structure. However, it is correct that this template doesn't aid in navigation of anything, since all articles that are currently (or formerly) in it already link to each other by default. —烏Γ(kaw)│ 04:59, 05 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's been two years since that article and I haven't found any sort of update. Not even what happened of the supposed application. There are 4 links in this navbox and they only link to 2 articles (the rest being redirects). It would be possible to simplify it and remove the subsections, but then it would not match its sister navboxes. Lebanon (no navbox) is in a similar situation (even though it never went through with its participation), but it has a similar depth of history, and frankly the same unlikely chance of a return to the contest. Grk1011 (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's unlikely, and I'm not opposed to deletion. The simple solution would be to point any links that would reach this template or its articles to either the larger "Morocco in ESC" article or directly to the song or artist, bypassing the template level entirely. I'm mostly concerned about breaking uniformity with the rest of the ESC templates, since this would make it the only actual participant without a nav template. I'm not sure about restructuring this template, since as I said every page that would go in it naturally links to each other, so merely making the template smaller doesn't change its lack of navigational use. I'm also surprised no one else from WP:ESC has come here yet. —烏Γ(kaw)│ 23:30, 09 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 18:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The scope of the template, that being one single participation of the country in the event, is far too narrow to justify a standlone navbox. The navbox contains just four links, of which two are even redirects to another article already listed in the template. Arguing that the template should remain available because the country could return in the future (this idea has been floated for years) is just WP:CRYSTAL. IceWelder [✉] 18:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly keep: "I'm mostly concerned about breaking uniformity with the rest of the ESC templates, since this would make it the only actual participant without a nav template." I think you've made my point for me here. Every so often, ESC articles and templates are nominated for deletion and chosen to be kept, as there's a general debate as to whether ESC is notable for one-event notability. And the general consensus is it is. Spa-Franks (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from consistency though, the article has little use. If Morocco does return at some point in the future the template could easily be recreated. It's just clutter right now. Grk1011 (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That quote is my only argument against deletion. I agree with every argument in favor, even though I remain neutral overall. —烏Γ(kaw)│ 22:50, 13 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 after replacement as discussed. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be confused with PAGE1. For USE2, see PAGE2.
These templates consolidate two different types of hatnotes, and even though this comes out of a legitimate concern for concision, it leads to a loss of clarity. As this discussion of 2016 clarified, it's usually preferable to have each different type of hatnote on a separate line. Of course, these templates can be modified to insert a new line, but then they immediately become redundant to a combination of {{other uses}} and {{distinguish}}.
Noting that this reverses the order of the two hatnotes compared to how they're displayed in the nominated templates – it's generally clearer when hatnotes proceed from the more to the less similar to the article's title, so that "For other uses of X" comes before "Not to be confused with Y".
As for the rare circumstances where it might be desirable to display two hatnotes on the same line, then I don't think a good solution is to have a separate new template for each pair of existing hatnote templates. The same effect of eliminating the newline can be achieved either by using the two standard templates inside a {{hatnote group}}, or by using one of the hatnote temples with its custom text parameter set to the text of the other template.
I've examined around a dozen transclusions of these templates in an attempt to track down editors who have used them; most were due to the template's creator, but two were by Omnipaedista and Nihiltres. – Uanfala (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/replace—I wrote {{hatnote group}} with the express purpose of being able to make hatnotes more modular and eliminate awkward constructions like these templates, but I left it marked as experimental and omitted it from {{hatnote templates}} because its wider use would mark a change in hatnote style that I think needs a consensus to implement … and then I never properly got around to seeking that consensus. As an editor who's done a lot of cleanup/modernization work on hatnotes, I wholeheartedly support removing these awkward constructions in favour of a more modular approach: it'll simplify the hatnote landscape (fewer overall templates to confuse newbies), remove some of the constructions that use wikitext (modern hatnotes should be using the Lua modules, which add lots of standardized diagnostic and formatting goodness), and it doesn't hurt if this is a broader step towards grouped/modular hatnotes over compound ones. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 17:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replace, delete it is very confusing to have so many templates lying around. I do not feel these templates should be merged as that means they are still around to confuse editors - in my opinion it's better just to replace them with the standard template then delete them so they aren't around any longer. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replace, delete per above. I've been lost in the hatnotes section many times, as all these x2, x3 template names and redundant templates are helpful to no one. Elimination redundancy is a win here. --Gonnym (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after substitution as proposed above. I agree that these are better understood as two separate hatnotes. --Bsherr (talk) 22:17, 16 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) 17:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. These templates do clearly different things and have a wonderfully defined scope. Additionally, no clear reason other than "could this be done?" is proposed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. First Sino-Japanese War#Imperial Japanese Army shows an effective use of this template separate from the military units template, particularly for an article that is not centered on a military unit. I do, however, think that its usage should be clarified as it looks a mess in some usages. In Southern Expeditionary Army Group, the nested list widens the infobox to an unflattering width, while 23rd Infantry Division (United States) stacks a bunch right under the infobox without really adding any clarity to the history section. If anything, I think that the clause "it should generally be used in conjunction with
Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 11
Military unit
" should be removed, as the better uses of it are not used with the military unit infobox. Koanium (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These are clearly different templates. Infobox command structure is used to implement a drop-down order of battle in military unit articles while the sidebar is for previous/next unit. Kges1901 (talk) 13:03, 13 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).
