The result of the discussion was merge Template:Infobox Simpsons character into Template:Infobox character. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Propose merging Template:Infobox Simpsons character with Template:Infobox character.
At the very least should be a wrapper for Template:Infobox character Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
|ullmanappearance=
as a "first" appearance should only be for the first appearance. If we start supporting multitude of firsts depending on medium and series, we can end up with a giant lists of firsts (Example: Should Arrowverse characters have a "first appearance" for every series in the Arrowverse? Should we have for Simpsons a first game? first comic?). --Gonnym (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)The result of the discussion was merge Template:Infobox Doctor Who character into Template:Infobox character. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Propose merging Template:Infobox Doctor Who character with Template:Infobox character.
At the very least should be made into a custom wrapper for Template:Infobox character. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
|predecessor=
and |successor=
are unused and I oppose their addition. --Gonnym (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)The result of the discussion was merge to Module:Listen. Primefac (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Propose merging Template:Synthlisten with Template:Listen.
Modules have almost entirely the same functionality. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 January 31. Primefac (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 January 31. Primefac (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
This is already covered in Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Wikipedia is not censored (Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link
), and it's bordering on original research to have editors be determining what is and isn't safe for work in articles. Pretty glaring policy concerns here. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
It is hard to define which articles [links] should have a disclaimer (e.g., what defines an "adult content" article [link], which varies dramatically by culture and individual). Allowing some disclaimers would generate a significant overhead of disputes regarding where to draw the line; this draws editors away from more productive tasks.applies here well.
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 January 30. Primefac (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 January 30. Primefac (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Divine mercy (why all caps?) might be the most important thing in the universe besides love and the everpresent physical fabric of quantum strings, but it doesn't seem like the proper scope of a topic for a sidebar. Narrow topic sidebars seem to have limited usage and an misplaced promotion of notable names who have pioneered the topic. The all caps suggests branding, that is the branding of a theological idea that's supposed to be a concept and not a trademark.-Inowen (nlfte) 03:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)