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) 14:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose mergingTemplate:Provinces of Roman Anatolia with Template:Roman provinces AD 117.
Any of the former that absolutely cannot be included in the latter scope? Perhaps also the final merged templates could section its contents just a little, distinguished by larger historical or contemporary regions? PPEMES (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The arguments here are similar to those of the proposed merger of the Diocletian provinces. One is clearly a subset of the other, and more appropriate to pages dealing with Anatolia alone. Thank you for letting me know --Michael Goodyear✐ ✉ 20:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michael Goodyear. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:10, 5 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) 14:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The scopes differ. "Roman bridges" is a behemoth that intimindates casual readers. "Tiber bridges" could be navigated as one would along a river: sailing from one bridge/article to the next. Breezy-easy. Plus, extra info of "Tiber bridges" like the upstream/downstream division would probably just be lost/ignored in the "merge", which presumably would be simply an erasure-redirect-finito. --Menchi (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Menchi. Different scopes and will not be an aid to navigation.
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) 14:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose mergingTemplate:Infobox tribe with Template:Infobox ethnic group.
What constitutes a tribe and how, if, it is distinguishable from an ethnic group has proved hard to determine. As is the case the other way around. Perhaps better merge? PPEMES (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. {{infobox tribe}} is for tribes defined narrowly as groups of people with descent from a shared ancestor, and so the infobox has fields for the name of the ancestor, for parent and daughter tribes, as well as for the surname (which is in many cases common to all members of the tribe). {{infobox ethnic group}} doesn't need these parameters, and conversely has a large number of other parameters that aren't relevant for tribes, such as the detailed per-region population fields. If {{infobox tribe}} is to be merged with anything, that would ideally be {{infobox clan}} (though there's still large non-overlap of parameters and the latter infobox appears to be fine-tuned for Scottish clans). – Uanfala (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! i apologize for not using the bold oppose/merge...i am still learning and moreover what i say in the following may only complicate the issue... to be honest i can't see any difference (in terms of layout, or structure or what you call page/template(?). of wikipiedia--i am 'computer' illiterate and hence i cannot in any way comment for either side..i do not even know what the issue is about so please ignore this and forgive me for this..but if the issue also covers the idea of tribe and ethnic then i would like to share the following problem.
if, or assuming that, we agree to take the following definitions of 1.Tribe and 2.Ethnic as:
1. a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader <ref>https://www.google.com/search?q=Tribe&oq=Tribe&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60j69i61l2.2887j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
2. relating to a population subgroup (within a larger or dominant national or cultural group) with a common national or cultural tradition <ref>https://www.google.com/search?q=ethnic&oq=Ethnic&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i60l3.3767j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
then i wish to present the following point as a Sumi Naga of Nagaland. Nagas are considered as Tribes from the NorthEast India. if we come to NorthEast: to Nagaland then there are many smaller Tribes, with totally different language and culture, that comprises as Nagas for example Angami Tribe, Ao Tribe, Lotha Tribe, Poumai Tribe, Sangtam Tribe etc., if we take this case then Nagas will no longer be a Tribe but rather an Ethnic group in NorthEast India and subsequently the smaller groups will be considered as Tribes of Nagaland since the smaller group fulfills the criteria of the Tribe definition given above, however the problem arises again because if we come within a particular Tribe we find differences in dialect (here i am not talking of slight differences but rather a completely different language such that the two speakers from the same tribe will not understand each other), and moreover most of the Tribes don't share "common culture" as such they too like Nagas will not be a Tribe but rather an Ethnic group within Nagaland...but again in all official and administrative usage the term Nagas as well as Aos, Angamis, Konyaks etc., are sometimes used as Tribe and sometimes as Ethnic...
i don't know if i make any sense or made any valuable/constructive inputs so i apologize once again. H.S.Naga (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - While this is a bit of a tricky issue, I'm inclined to agree that the definitions of "ethnicity" and "tribe" have particular distinctiveness to where merging seems rather unhelpful and illogical. We should probably leave things as they are. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above comments. Templates have different scopes, it is confusing to combine them and likely to also confuse future editors and readers.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - in the light of the above comments. Also, I'm in agreement with User:CoffeeWithMarkets. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 19:56, 6 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) 14:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merging would not be beneficial. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nikkimaria. No clear benefit to doing this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:10, 5 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) 14:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merging would not be beneficial. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The organization-based page has a fundamental distinctiveness when compared to the more general page on law. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nikkimaria. No clear benefit to doing this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per the above comments. It's better to have them as separate templates. Also, User:CoffeeWithMarkets has made a good point. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 15:52, 7 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).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable with a bit of redesign of the template. Teishin (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – It's better to merge them, however, do a little bit of work on Template:Skepticism as per requirements (there would be, I believe). Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to work on the Skepticism template to merge in Ancient Greek Skepticism. Teishin (talk) 21:51, 9 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) 14:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some pages with Good and evil would be better served by having just the Good and evil template. Probably all pages with the ethics template would be better served by having the Good and evil template transcribed as a (collapsible?) subsection within the ethics template.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm not exactly sure how this would work, but it seems rather clear that relative goodness in contrast to evil are fundamental topics in not just ethics but the broader discussion on rationality. I look forward to maybe seeing more back and forth on this idea, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good and Evil has a clear target and focus. Ethics is a very broad topic with an already large template. I don't see the benefit to readers in merging these and I think the focuses are different. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – They are different subjects, though some of the concepts studied under them intersects/touches each other at some points, still they are different in a number of ways. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 16:01, 7 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) 14:29, 9 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) 00:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mixing two more or less completely different topics. Christian75 (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Christian75. Different topics. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per Christian75. They are not the same topics, and differ significantly, and this is abundantly clear. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 16:05, 7 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).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – If these could be blended into one Template, then it's better to do that. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 16:08, 7 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).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Appear to be clear duplicates succeeded by a better template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:10, 5 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).
