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).
Redundant to {{nutshell}}. As for the “This section” display, it can easily be replicated with the “title” parameter of that template. Only transcluded on 3 pages. Delete/redirect and replace remaining uses with {{Nutshell|(text)|title=This section}} PorkchopGMX (talk with me - what i've done) 23:09, 17 February 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).
Replace with {{Navbox}} - this template was deprecated over 2 years ago in favor of {{Navbox|subgroup}} since it was less efficient, but still has too many pages still using it. Gonnym (talk) 17:49, 17 February 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).
Delete, for the same reasons as the article it was based on was recently deleted for. Synthesis with no firm definition of what constitutes "East Central Minnesota". --Sable232 (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the definition of East Central Minnesota is being firmed up, there is not a day that goes by without the region mentioned in the media, whether it is for politics, weather, economics, etc. This region is one of the most referenced regions of the state in recent newspaper coverage. More so than "Central Minnesota", "The Arrowhead Region" etc., all of which have their own pages.--John2690-john2690 (talk) 21:51, 21 February 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).
Delete. None is used in mainspace. (I have created the replacement {{Periodic table legend}} back then, and deprecated these). -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 17 February 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).
Subst and delete - this template is used only in Red vs. Blue and uses a standard table which a lot of other television shows use. No need for a template, when this code is always placed in the article itself. Gonnym (talk) 10:52, 17 February 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).
Place information in relevant places and delete - The template is only used in one article, the "judges" and "presenters" section can be placed in the {{Infobox television}} template (which is setup for that) while the winners should be written in prose in the lead. No need for a template for that. Gonnym (talk) 10:50, 17 February 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).
So far as I can tell, this wrapper only exists to facilitate the use of a large number of non-English parameters. I can't see any reason that every one of these transclusions cannot simply use a direct implementation of {{Infobox settlement}}. (WP:INFOCOL)
I also think it is worth noting that of the 2,411 transclusions, 2,328 of them contain unknown parameters. To be clear, the unknown parameters issue is NOT a reason alone for deleting the template! Not saying that it is, but I think it might be indicative of the larger issue. Use the standard template and you won't have so many unknown parameters. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Markussep: that template is a whole different can of worms. Personally I think it is an absolutely disaster that should be removed. That being said, there is no reason it cannot still be used with a direct call to {{Infobox settlement}}. What you are talking about is a separate issue. To be clear, this specific TFD is NOT discussing removing the use of {{Metadata population AT-6}}. That would be discussed in a separate TFD. So if that is your only concern, that you need not worry about it. These pages can simply make a direct call to that template. If that doesn't make sense let me know and I can show you an example of what I'm talking about. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so fond of how it is done here with {{Infobox Town AT/key}}, which looks up the municipality code, personally I prefer the way it is done at {{Infobox German location}}, where the code has to be given as an infobox parameter. Still I think these metadata templates are a nice way to store and reproduce population data in a controlled and verifiable way. Anyway, I guess you have a point if you want to replace wrappers that only serve a few dozen articles, but this is something else. I'm leaning towards keep. MarkussepTalk08:41, 18 February 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 mergetoModule:String. Although Module:String is fully-protected. Feel free to ask an admin to reduce protection or just use {{edit protected}} template to let admins assist with the module. Since Module:String is being merged with more modules, so it is necessary to use sandboxes for many tests before actually mergingnot merge with Module:String2 and no consensus to merge others I missed to read Module:String2 was created per WT:Lua outcome while closing. Although I did not count !votes while closing. Note that Module:String is currently under Cascading protection. So this module can only be edited by admins and override any other common protection. Hope RexxS becomes an admin. (non-admin closure)Hhkohh (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As long as all current uses continue to work and proper documentation is added, I don't think this is an issue. A working sandbox with testcases should be created before any change happens. --Gonnym (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - with caveat that the module protection is reduced to Template-protected (OR is it possible that a new Module-protected level can be created?) so previous creators can still edit and maintain their code. In RexxS's specific module, the last addition was specifically something that I asked for at Wikipedia talk:Lua, so without him being able to edit the module, I'd either not have that piece of code, or it would be in a new module, which brings us here again. --Gonnym (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems like a very sensible suggestion. The only reason I can't support with the current wording is that the three modules have different maintainers and different levels of protection:
Module:String is fully-protected and is maintained by two or three admins;
Module:String2 is template-protected and is maintained by me;
Module:StringFunc is unprotected and has been maintained by Falconjh.
If String2 and StringFunc are merged into the fully-protected module String, none of the template-editors will be able to maintain them, unless the protection level of the merged module is altered. --RexxS (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's true: they don't need much maintenance. But when they do, it's not a good idea to prevent the editors who know them best from editing them. I assume that whoever performs the merger will clean up all of the #invokes that will break? --RexxS (talk) 16:20, 17 February 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).
Unnecessary Lua module, can be implemented in Wikitext using Module:String ({{#if:{{#invoke:String|match|{{{1}}}|MassMessage|ignore_errors=1}}|[[Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery]]}}{{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:03, 17 February 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).
Template used for a short period in 2008 and is unused. Should be deleted, as there is no reason to keep it for historical reasons (there isn't even a page on Wikipedia dedicated to this event, which shows how notable it was). Gonnym (talk) 00:43, 17 February 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).
