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).
Merge. Per nominator. --Bsherr (talk) 16:23, 12 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).
Merge. Infobox settlement can smoothly take over here.--Darwinek (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear what there is to be merged. Simple replacement should suffice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Per nom there are only 37 articles using this IB, what's the point of its seperate existence. GN-z11☎★ 20:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Indeed, a settlement is a settlement (but not a country subdivision). -DePiep (talk) 21:25, 12 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems the parent template itself, Template:Cite jstor, is marked as deprecated and has no main-space uses and should also be deleted. --Gonnym (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The template is deprecated but not deleted so you get references that make a bit of sense when you browse page histories. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Matters not to me, I don't believe in leaving dead code that can still be used by other editors. By your rational, we shouldn't ever delete any template, including this, as all article histories will be better understood with them. References are not some special piece of content. --Gonnym (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Nigej (talk) 12:38, 13 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems the parent template itself, Template:Cite pmid, is marked as deprecated and has no main-space uses and should also be deleted. --Gonnym (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The template is deprecated but not deleted so you get references that make a bit of sense when you browse page histories. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Nigej (talk) 12:39, 13 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yeah, sadly that isn't a speedy delete option. Seems like an abandoned template, no doc and no usages. --Gonnym (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Nigej (talk) 12:39, 13 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).
Unnecessary wrappers 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.
Support in principle however it may be more logical taking into account editors who use these templates, to have these merge into something along the lines of "Infobox region" as to me settlement isn't a very logical term to describe these places.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
{{Infobox region}} (rightly) redirects to {{Infobox settlement}}. Note that the latter's documentation explains that it is for "for human settlements... as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Commented here but have moved to Infobox settlement - support merge in general--Tom (LT) (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of templates not included in this nomination
Oppose for {{Infobox Province of China (PRC)}}. There is no need for the overhead language formatting with {{nobold}} and {{lang}} (both required for a non-Latin/Cyrillic writing system such as Chinese) to be present within each of the over two dozen articles and thus vulnerable to vandalism. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think deleting the wrappers might well make it harder to maintain articles. If they are deleted, making a change to articles about German states for instance would require changing 16 pages instead of one.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of the nominated templates is used on articles about German states. We have, though recently reached consensus to do away with a large number of similar 'Infobox settlement' wrappers; for example here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you missed this. --Gonnym (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, the template still wraps {{Episode list}} to allow for the formatting of Kanji, which was only added 4 or 5 days ago. This discussion is to do away with all wrapping. And there is nothing "inconsistent" about the parameter names here (simply complaining that they are, without providing examples, does not make that a fact), only crusading from those intending on pushing a rigid uniformity across the site. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No; but neither does your saying that make it not a fact. Consider, for example, the PCC template's code:
It is clear that such parameter names are inconsistent with those in the parent template, not to mention other wrappers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Flag can be removed outright, as, in the PRC, subnational flags are disallowed outside of the two SARs of Hong Kong and Macau. The others can be easily renamed with an AWB run, which I have done. Strutting around on a crusade and bringing this matter to TfD is not a productive tactic. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tone policing does not alter the fact you still are lacking an argument for the unnecessary introduction of the language formatting as well as the links to the ranked provincial articles, such as List of Chinese administrative divisions by GDP, both which are taken care of with the wrapper. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see you found the inconsistency in names I was referring to. I was sure that linking to the specific template with the problem would be obvious, as most of the parameter names are inconsistent both in using a different parameter name than the original template and also inconsistent with other parameters in the same template using Pascal case instead of Snake case. Also, if you look at the actual closing comment and not how Alex (the one who did the conversion) interrupted it, it said to merge the template, not to create a wrapper. I'm assuming Alex did it as a compromise. --Gonnym (talk) 11:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Loose with the facts yet again, as it was the closer, who interpreted "merged" as a wrapping. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support all, including china - the current "wrapper" style is not a programatically correct way of doing these such of things. While it may seem to work, the cons outweigh the benefits it brings, such as the maintenance burden of making sure that every change, fix or addition to the parent template gets trickled down to the countless other templates and the lack of documentation and inconsistency of parameter names (looking at you {{Infobox Province of China (PRC)}}) which, as Andy says, are a cognitive burden for editors which need to learn a new template style for each country. --Gonnym (talk) 13:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to clear really old log day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, merge into an "administratice region" infobox instead. As Tom (LT) already noted (first !vote): "... merge into something along the lines of "Infobox region" as to me settlement isn't a very logical term to describe these places". Per definition, a settlement (human) is not a region (administrative unit). Whatever non-vetted wiki documentation may say: we cannot change RL concepts, so future editors will be confused ever. -DePiep (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't what you are suggesting a WP:RM then? This is more of a technical change from a wrapper of a template, to a direct invocation of that same template. --Gonnym (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, {{Infobox region}} already corrupted. Basically, same topic as in this TfD: settlement and country are not the same concepts, full stop. So should not be merged. The specifiers in all but one of the templates here are administrative parts of a country not (human) settlements, Canton, Latvian district, Maldives atoll, Province of China (PRC), region of Italy, Ukrainian oblast, Venezuelan state: none is a settlement. (Vienna district is the exception here). No reader or article-editor is helped when an object type A is described as being an object type B. Documentation cannot undo this. -DePiep (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FFS DePiep, you've already derailed the 'Infobox former subdivision' discussion (currently on the same page as this discussion); there's no need for you to derail this one as well. As you've been told several times in that discussion: "Infobox settlement is for 'settlements [and] other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country'; per its own documentation." and "if you wish to change the way {{Infobox settlement}} is used - and has been used for over a decade - start a discussion on its talk page.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 7 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).
Template is unused, deprecated and replaced by {{IMDb event}}. Should be deleted so it won't be used incorrectly. Gonnym (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Nigej (talk) 18:34, 6 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 Per nom. Nigej (talk) 17:50, 6 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).
support - especially considering the information is highly unlikely to change. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 19:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not used or needed. Nigej (talk) 08:32, 13 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).
Template was broken away from Monday Night Wars only to be transcluded back to just that one page. No reason to break it out Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not used or required. Nigej (talk) 08:31, 13 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).
Template has been deprecated for over 5 years and replaced by {{Periodic table legend}} and not used. Should be deleted so as to not be incorrectly used. Gonnym (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not used in mainspace and superseded. Nigej (talk) 08:29, 13 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).
Template has been tagged as deprecated and been replaced by {{Chess diagram}}. It should be replaced by the newer template where used then redirected. Gonnym (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No articles in main space use it. About 100 in user space. I'd have thought we could leave the users to convert over if they want to, probably most won't. Nigej (talk) 12:59, 13 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).
A deprecated and unused template replaced by {{RadioTranslators}}. Should be deleted so it won't be incorrectly used. Gonnym (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Unused. Nigej (talk) 17:26, 7 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 Per nom. Nigej (talk) 17:49, 6 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 Per nom. Nigej (talk) 17:49, 6 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 Per nom. Nigej (talk) 17:49, 6 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 Per nom. Nigej (talk) 17:49, 6 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:58, 14 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).
Propose mergingTemplate:BS-table3 with Template:Routemap.
This template has been deprecated since April 2017 and still has 101 transclusions. The documentation says to use {{Routemap}} instead which is used on over 10k articles and is better supported. There is no reason to keep this template if there is an actively supported alternative that does the same thing. Gonnym (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Considerable work required, however. Nigej (talk) 08:26, 13 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).
Template is deprecated by {{Jctint}} and has no transclusions. It should be deleted as there is no reason to leave it, allowing it to be incorrectly used. Gonnym (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 17:46, 6 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 Unused too. Nigej (talk) 17:44, 6 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).
Unused and folk of previous season Hhkohh (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused and unnecessary. GiantSnowman 09:05, 6 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).
