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).
Comment: I'd rather see a RfC to deprecate the usage of all navboxes. All of them are unverifiable as none have references. Not sure why this one is being singled out. As far as the contradictory part, you know as well as I do that most bat articles are in terrible shape. I wouldn't be surprised if most of them are very outdated taxonomically. Is the problem the template or the articles? Enwebb (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is with the existence of the template. There was no particular reason I started with this one, and I've done all I can to gather opinions before starting to build precedents. I would like an RfC that affirmed what people just went ahead and did, unless someone spoke up and did not get railroaded by those who only create navboxes and think they look fabulous. They are always created outside of wikipedia processes, so getting them removed will meet with fierce opposition in that constitutes an editor's approach to plug and play templates which can be as right or wrong as they like. The onus is on others to fix them, WITHOUT citations. They have always been largely unwelcome and thoughtless but ignorable contributions, a way to make a big splash, but the evidence is they dont get watched, maintained, or created except when the conscientious and still active editors attempt to fix them. They contain deliberate content forks, I was denied in the article but no one can say anything in template space. This one, as it happens, is an odd fusion of competing taxonomies, better shown and cited in the articles rather than misdirecting readers with a phylogeny that is contradicted by the article and the TAXOBOX. The bat articles are not improved by adding the contents of categories into the article, it is confusing noise, excuse where I am trying to shout above that. cygnis insignis15:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as noted, its not verifiable maintained, and is not actually watched or likely used by anyone outside of the creator.--Kevmin§16:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are certainly sources for the families within Chiroptera, for example[1][2][3]. It is possible that this template has gotten out of date, but the solution would be to fix it, not delete it. Rlendog (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please, someone might like it? Or fix it, well we are obliged to try and fix the content fork best we can. Ultimately it can't, wehn it comes to the crunch. User A uses source X, User B uses source Y, how is that resolved? Create another nav box? I know how that works in article space, but think how that plays out when anyone can create and weight content one source. A keep rationale could be applied to any permutation of sources, or obviously can't be fixed fusion of sources. This is not a link farm, like those fake sites that profit from clicking as the bewildered user dashes around in circles. cygnis insignis22:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Taxonomy navboxes are inherently redundant. Linnean taxonomy is a structured hierarchy of categories; if anybody wants to see all the bat families listed in one place, they can go to the bat article. Taxonomy navboxes pose a maintenance burden, and are often outdated. Navboxes presuppose that a reader wants to navigate content in one particular way (the way that the navbox is organized). We can't possibly accomodate all the ways readers might want to navigate content. Plantdrew (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Plantdrew: better to use the myriad of other navigation methods like categories, list articles, and the links within the infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 16:15, 2 June 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).
South Korea dong-specific wrapper 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.
Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country".
Counties, provinces, and several entities of other types already transclude {{Infobox settlement}} directly.
Visualisation of South Korea place infobox usage
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Infobox usage on articles about places in South Korea
Most settlements of Asia and Latin America and all of continental Africa use only the standard infobox.
green : Infobox settlement (only)
turquoise: 1 Infobox settlement wrapper having less than 10000 transclusions (light 0-99, medium 100-999, dark 1000-9999 transclusions) and optionally Infobox settlement
blue : >1 Infobox settlement wrapper and optionally Infobox settlement (light: 1 wrapper [>10000 transclusions], medium : 2 wrappers, dark : 3+ wrappers)
red : other infobox(es) (light: 1, medium : 2, dark : >2 infoboxes) and optionally Infobox settlement and wrappers
Comment on type and replacement procedure: The transclusions are restricted to the type "dong". The wrapper could state in the code "type= dong". Also, "pushpin_map = South Korea" could be hardcoded. Then the dongs could go through replacement / subst:itution. 89.12.170.179 (talk) 13:28, 18 May 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).
