Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 16 September 18 >

September 17[edit]


Template:Infobox Nigerian States[edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to support deletion. JPG-GR (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Nigerian States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}. Only 9 transclusions, with no more than 37 envisaged. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am seeing way too many of these open TFD discussions for the exact same reason. A better alternative would have been to open up a WP:RFC or a WP:CENT and debate once and for all whether all of these templates should be merged/delete/deprecated in favor {{Infobox settlement}}. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is appropriate to discuss them individually rather than globally because there are "local" issues with some of them. They may have features that aren't accommodated in the more general template, for example. This way interested parties for each template can raise their specific concerns, and in some cases a localized template may stay because of issues raised by people who probably would not have participated in a centralized discussion on some project-level page that they don't follow. --RL0919 (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Himalayan 12:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on principle that the multitude of settlement template deletion discussions is being handled in an ass-backwards manner. Put together an RFC and hash out in a centralized discussion forum whether the community in general wants {{Infobox settlement}} to be the single master template for all settlement types. older ≠ wiser 13:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid per WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nonsense. What precisely in WP:POINT are you referring to? In fact, the process by which these multitude of templates are being nominated for deletion without having previously established any general community support for using {{Infobox settlement}} is also invalid per WP:POINT. 14:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. A state is not a "settlement".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:33, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: According to its documentation (emphasis added), {{Infobox settlement}}: "should be 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". Can you say why you think {{Infobox settlement}} is not currently suited to doing this job? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment: The template redirect {{Infobox state}} can now be used. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate - nothing that can't be handled by {{Infobox settlement}}, so no reason for a separate template to fulfil the same function. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with {{Infobox settlement}}. Most articles on Nigerian states don't use this template, so there does not appear to be any strong "local" preference for it, and the general template provides all its features plus more. --RL0919 (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These Tfds are getting tiresome.DCmacnut<> 19:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, better suited to the particular situation than the generic and overly complicated template suggested as a replacement. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep only 37 more articles will need to use this template, surely that enough reason to have a location specific template. Gnangarra 13:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure I understand this comment. There are 37 relevant articles total, not 37 more. But more importantly, how does a relatively small number of uses justify having a separate template? I would think that the limited usefulness of the template would count against keeping it, not for keeping, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding the reasoning. --RL0919 (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll explain it again this template is specific to the needs of specialised subject matter within Wikipedia, can you please link to the policy that specify how many articles are needed before we create subject specific templates. Gnangarra 22:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing specialized about this template beyond its name. Can you point out the specialized functionality that it has which is not supported by the general template? Nor did I make any claim about a "policy" regarding subject-specific templates, so I do not know why you would ask me to link to one. Can you please link to the policy that calls for keeping as many redundant infobox templates as possible? --RL0919 (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Possibly useful.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
(ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 11:38, 24 September 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Liberia County[edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to support deletion. JPG-GR (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Liberia County (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}. Only 15 transclusions, with no more envisaged unused. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and redundant per nom. See the obvious improvment here [[[User talk:Himalayan Explorer| Himalayan]] 12:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep on principle that the multitude of settlement template deletion discussions is being handled in an ass-backwards manner. Put together an RFC and hash out in a centralized discussion forum whether the community in general wants {{Infobox settlement}} to be the single master template for all settlement types. older ≠ wiser 13:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid per WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nonsense. What precisely in WP:POINT are you referring to? In fact, the process by which these multitude of templates are being nominated for deletion without having previously established any general community support for using {{Infobox settlement}} is also invalid per WP:POINT. 14:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. A county is not a "settlement". {{Infobox Settlement}} is already overbloated enough without trying to make it fit every possible division type "below the level of a country" out there. I mean, c'mon, why stop at "the level of a country" at all? Why not just rename "Infobox Settlement" to "Infobox Whatever" and use it for whatever infobox needs folks would have? Standardization only makes sense up to a point.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:37, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: According to its documentation (emphasis added), {{Infobox settlement}}: "should be 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". Can you say why you think {{Infobox settlement}} is not currently suited to doing this job? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment: The template redirect {{Infobox county}} can now be used. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate - nothing that can't be handled by {{Infobox settlement}}, so no reason for a separate template to fulfil the same function. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for the same reason we keep {{Infobox U.S. state}} even though it only is used in 50 articles and "no more envisaged", that reason being it is customized for Liberia's version of a state. As in you go from 35 fields used max to I'm guessing around 200+, most of which are not relevant in anyway to these first level subdivisions. This is why we don't have just the {{Infobox}} infobox that can handle anything, and I mean anything and not just human habitation related. Thepoint of having infoboxes is: to consistently present a summary of some unifying aspect that the articles share and to improve navigation to other interrelated articles. To this end, do people think these are interrelated to a Census Designated Place in Nebraska or are they more interrelated to other counties in Liberia, or even other first level political subdivisions like a US state? I think the interrelated articles are the other counties in Liberia, thus why we have the infobox. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... that reason being it is customized for Liberia's version of a state". Having "customized" versions of generic templates is currently a speedy deletion criterion. From a metadata perspective, which is what the infoboxes are there to present, a Census Designated Place in Nebraska and a County in Liberia are interrelated, so the localisation argument is generally irrelevant. They both have population, location, size, government, etc. For historical reasons the U.S. states are halfway houses between administrative divisions and countries (see also Federal subjects of Russia). They may be strictly subnational, but it's probably more accurate to call them paranational. Hence why they have been made a special case for now. I could understand the opposition if there were some functionality in this template that both isn't in the general one and can't be added, or if there were some good reason to deny access to parameters that aren't listed on the specific template. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 10:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong on the speedy part. You have to read the first part of the sentence: "Templates that are not employed in any useful fashion" and then your part (they are joined by AND not an or). This template is used 15 times in a useful fashion, otherwise their appearance on the county pages would be vandalism and need to be removed. And as to functionality, then as I said, why not use {{infobox}} for everything? Understand? There are valid reasons why we have developed infoboxes beyond {{infobox}}, as a one-size-fits-all for a global encyclopedia does not work. Can we reduce these sure, but just "Settlement" is too few. I'd be fine with a "sub-national political subdivision" one that could be used for US states, Canadian provinces, Swiss cantons, Liberian counties, German states, Mexican states, etc. But lumping these with towns, unincorporated communities, metropolitan areas, and cities does not go with the reason we have infoboxes: consistently present a summary of some unifying aspect that the articles share and to improve navigation to other interrelated articles. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Who is proposing "just "Settlement""? Can you say why you think {{Infobox settlement}} is not currently suited to doing this job? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Same question right back at you then - Can you say why you think {{Infobox Liberia County}} is not currently suited to doing this job? Or {{infobox}}? But more importantly, those are not the questions, nor the arguments. Infobox Generic could be used for everything on Wikipedia, but we do localisation/specialisation. The reason we do this in part, as someone else in one of these debates said (and I alluded to with the 200+ fields in the settlement infobox), is that when you have such large templates in becomes difficult for newbies to come in and work with it in an article. Further, within a group such as Liberian Counties, you can lose standardization where someone comes in and uses a different field for an article or two. Or see the guideline's take on all of these optional fields that will never be used if all "settlement" related articles are forced into the single infobox. Look at the documentation for "Settlement" and the length of that page, that's not conducive to casual editors using it, nor even long-term, high volume editors like myself. And those concerns far out-weigh having a single infobox. For me, there should be one for a country, one for country subdivisons (i.e. states and their equivalents as well as the next level down such as US counties/parishes), and one for actual settlements, with each being intuitive in their usage for an editor coming across each to edit so they don't need a phonebook-think user manual. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is nothing to stop you or anyone else from creating type- or location- specific cut&paste pro-forma blank templates, with only a subset of the parameters available (see for example Template:Infobox football biography/doc#Usage). Your arguments don't seem to support having separate templates for each type/country combination, such as the 15-instances-only version under discussion here. (Beside which, we are unlikely to add any further instances, so worrying about whether newbies will be able to do so is irrelevant in this case.) You have only said why you do not like using {{Infobox settlement}} for that purpose; you cannot show that it cannot do it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • First, as to your argument against my newbie argument, first, although there are only 15 currently, 2 were created as recently as 2000 and four others in the 1980s. Secondly, my argument on that is this "settlement wide" debate as to why we don't use just a single infobox. See, if everything is transformed to the settlement infobox, how many transclusions are there going to be? Each of those instances could be edited by a newbie, and unless we bite them and simply revert every change they make, there will be changes whether they are trying to add an anthem or figure out how to add a coat of arms to their region. Not to mention, at least with Liberia and I would assume much of the third world, we are not actually done creating all the articles needed for political sub-divisions. The next level down from county in Liberia is district (equivalent to a US county) and many of those have yet to be created. Next, I don't need to show it can't be done. I never said it couldn't be done, and frankly that is not really a valid argument. Just because something can be done does not mean we do it. As I have said several times now, we could move every-single-infobox-on-Wikipedia-to-a-single-infobox, but just because we can do it doesn't mean we should. As the US state infobox debate showed, we may decide to not do things even though we could adapt the settlement infobox to handle even US states. Further, we could delete every article on Wikipedia that I don't like, or you don't like or Bob the plumber doesn't like, but again, its not about can we do it. Its about should we do it. And to that effect, I have, and others too, made many valid points, and as I will now echo what others have said, you seem to have predetermined in your mind that this must be done and in your own way, instead of being open to alternatives. I personally have thrown out alternatives, you seem to be stuck that because we can do it, therefor we must, and it must be done in your way. As I will now make perfectly clear, my preference is for this particular template to remain, my second choice would be for a sub-national sub-division infobox. And these are based on why we have infoboxes (similar presentation of like items for our readers), and not based on because we can do it. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm practically the only person working on Liberian articles on here and having seperate templates from my perspective is not really neccessary. Himalayan 14:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Notwithstanding the generalized "it's not a settlement" arguments, there is nothing in this template that can't be provided by {{Infobox settlement}}. --RL0919 (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These Tfds are getting tiresome.DCmacnut<> 19:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, better suited to the particular situation than the generic and overly complicated template suggested as a replacement. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I find it rather concerning that you have obviously not even looked to see what the tmeplate actually. is. See User:Himalayan Explorer/Template. It is far more simplified than the original bloated fat Liberian county templates which had loads of empty parameters and spread half way across the page. This is pretty simple. a far cry form the overly complicated subject you refer to. Himalayan 20:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:OR please source you claims no more envisaged. Apparently we are in the presence of a great person or one who has access to such a person being to so definitively assert the future political of so many countries. Gnangarra 13:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please source your claim that anyone has tried to "so definitively assert the future political of so many countries". Alternatively, familiarise yourself with the meaning of envisage. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Possibly useful.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
(ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 11:39, 24 September 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Solomon Islands Province[edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to support deletion. JPG-GR (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Solomon Islands Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}. Only 9 transclusions, with no more than one other, if that, envisaged Unused. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused and redundant . Himalayan 12:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on principle that the multitude of settlement template deletion discussions is being handled in an ass-backwards manner. Put together an RFC and hash out in a centralized discussion forum whether the community in general wants {{Infobox settlement}} to be the single master template for all settlement types. older ≠ wiser 13:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid per WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nonsense. What precisely in WP:POINT are you referring to? In fact, the process by which these multitude of templates are being nominated for deletion without having previously established any general community support for using {{Infobox settlement}} is also invalid per WP:POINT. 14:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. A province is not a "settlement". {{Infobox Settlement}} is already overbloated enough without trying to make it fit every possible division type "below the level of a country" out there. I mean, c'mon, why stop at "the level of a country" at all? Why not just rename "Infobox Settlement" to "Infobox Whatever" and use it for whatever infobox needs folks would have? Standardization only makes sense up to a point.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:38, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: According to its documentation (emphasis added), {{Infobox settlement}}: "should be 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". Can you say why you think {{Infobox settlement}} is not currently suited to doing this job? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment: The template redirect {{Infobox province}} can now be used. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate - nothing that can't be handled by {{Infobox settlement}}, which has more features, so no reason for a separate template to fulfil the same function. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with {{Infobox settlement}}, which has all the features of this infobox plus more. --RL0919 (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These Tfds are getting tiresome.DCmacnut<> 19:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, better suited to the particular situation than the generic and overly complicated template suggested as a replacement. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep WP:OR please source your basis for with no more than one other, if that, envisaged apparently you have information that will resolve much of the political tension in this country and enable many service/police personal from a number of countries in the Pacfic to return home. Gnangarra 13:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The OR policy applies to article content, not TfDs. Solomon Islands states "For local government, the country is divided into 10 administrative areas, of which nine are provinces administered by elected provincial assemblies, and the 10th is the town of Honiara". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Possibly useful.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
(ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 11:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd like to suggest that the practice of removing all instances of this infobox during the debate (eg [1], [2]), then changing the nomination statement from "Only 9 transclusions" to "Unused template" [3] is, to put it mildly, not in the spirit of this process. - Bilby (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Normally it is discouraged. However, we have people arguing against the various infobox TfDs who are saying that the templates should be replaced in the articles first, to prove that the generic template really works for those articles. Meanwhile, others argue that there should be a centralized discussion first before any TfDs or replacements are done. It's a no-win situation: adopting any approach will draw objections from those who think it should be done a different way. --RL0919 (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps. I think it is a given that the templates can do the job. The question is about whether or not they should be used, not whether or not they can be, especially as none of the !votes in this discussion relate to the ability of the template to work. Even then, to show that it works it only needs to be used once. To replace the templates during the discussion and then state that it is unused seems like an odd process. - Bilby (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Papua New Guinea Infoboxes[edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to support deletion. JPG-GR (talk) 01:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Papua New Guinea District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) Only 5 transclusions with not many more envisaged.
Template:Infobox Papua New Guinea Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) Only 20 transclusions with no more envisaged.

Each redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Himalayan 12:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on principle that the multitude of settlement template deletion discussions is being handled in an ass-backwards manner. Put together an RFC and hash out in a centralized discussion forum whether the community in general wants {{Infobox settlement}} to be the single master template for all settlement types. older ≠ wiser 13:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid per WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nonsense. What precisely in WP:POINT are you referring to? In fact, the process by which these multitude of templates are being nominated for deletion without having previously established any general community support for using {{Infobox settlement}} is also invalid per WP:POINT. 14:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Neither a district or a province are a "settlement". {{Infobox Settlement}} is already overbloated enough without trying to make it fit every possible division type "below the level of a country" out there. I mean, c'mon, why stop at "the level of a country" at all? Why not just rename "Infobox Settlement" to "Infobox Whatever" and use it for whatever infobox needs folks would have? Standardization only makes sense up to a point.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:40, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
Trivial concern. You could make the same template under Infobox Province/state which include the relevant parameters and use that for all articles about provinces/state. These template are redundant in all but an argument over whether or not "settlement" or "province2 is an approporiate naming. Himalayan 11:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: According to its documentation (emphasis added), {{Infobox settlement}}: "should be 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". Can you say why you think {{Infobox settlement}} is not currently suited to doing this job? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment: The template redirects {{Infobox district}} and {{Infobox province}} can now be used. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is cool and probably useful, but creating a redirect with a different name doesn't really address the problem. - Bilby (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concern raised by User:Ezhiki is that the name "settlement" is inappropriate. I'd say that creating appropriate redirects addresses that concern perfectly. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, while I can't speak for Ezhiki, the concern seems to be that Infobox settlement wasn't design to cover administrative divisions, and to make it cover both settlements and divisions you need to keep adding extra fields that are only applicable to one use, and not the other. This is a design issue, not a naming issue. To add a redirect so that it can be called something else completely fails to address the issue. - Bilby (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate in favour of {{Infobox settlement}}, a couple of fields which may need to be added, but this alone is no reason for a separate template to fulfil the same function. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both and replace them with {{Infobox settlement}}. I'm not seeing anything special here and no local-specific concerns have been raised, just generalized arguments about process and the name of the settlement template. --RL0919 (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These Tfds are getting tiresome.DCmacnut<> 19:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am entirely unconvinced that replacing a stable, specifically tailored, streamlined local template with a generic, general purpose, bloated and relatively unstable template is a gain for the encyclopedia. Certainly the proponents of standardisation don't even appear to be willing to make the case as is the case here in the nomination. This mass listing of templates is entirely unhelpful and will lead to cookie-cutter comments supporting and opposing nominations. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Our deletion policies explicitly forbid duplication or redundancy in templates. Please backup your statements here. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, better suited to the particular situation than the generic and overly complicated template suggested as a replacement. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - WP:OR please source with no more envisaged and not many more envisaged you have access to some very interesting and apparently very powerful sources to make such claims. Anyway why would it matter anyway what changes are likely to occur in a country that would warrant deletion of a template on Wikipedia. Gnangarra 13:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Possibly useful.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
(ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 11:40, 24 September 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Windows 98[edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Windows 98 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

What series? Two of three links are red, only two articles use it. Vossanova o< 19:39, 17 September 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:New Wave music[edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep at this time, as template is being improved. If, after a reasonable period of time, the community feels that the template still warrants deletion, please feel free to renominate. JPG-GR (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Wave music (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Poorly researched and presented Navbox, featuring a handfull of articles, some of which bear no relation to the subject. Requires deleting and starting again (if required) by a knowledgable editor. Laestrygonian3 (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Not very well done, but it seems a reasonable topic for a navbox. Is there a specific reason it can't just be improved? --RL0919 (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have the same question. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All but two of those entries have nothing to do with New Wave Music, strip them away why do we need a Navbox? Archivey (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject matter expert has now offered to revamp, so !vote withdrawn Archivey (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - somewhat confused template. As Archivey notes, only two of the linked articles are actually relevant, and so a template is unnecessary. Robofish (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Based on the feedback that several of the articles are not relevant, it appears that the navbox is not necessary. --RL0919 (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The template looks like crap now, but it can be useful if revamped. There's actually a number of New Wave subgenres that can warrant a navbox. I'll rework it and you can judge for yourself. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:42, 19 September 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox U.S. state[edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy keep as was just discussed about a week ago. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox U.S. state (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}.--23prootie (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. This template was just discussed earlier this month and the result was "keep." Is this a WP:POINT nomination? --RL0919 (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Per above.DCmacnut<> 18:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination was made less than 36 hours after the last one was closed. Perhaps the nominator could let us in on the clear and compelling new evidence they have for doing this? Otherwise speedy close. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Australia state or territory[edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. Daniel (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australia state or territory (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - only 8 uses, no more envisaged

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}.--23prootie (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Previous deletion discussions over Infobox U.S. state seem to indicate that some regionalization is warranted. Other than that, a state/territory is not a settlement, and is therefore not redundant to Infobox settlement.DCmacnut<> 18:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: According to its documentation (emphasis added), {{Infobox settlement}}: "should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, etc. - in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. States and Territories are different from cities and villages. Would be closer to Infobox Country, or why not a new {{Infobox Federal State or Territory}} for all federal countries, i.e. Australia, Canada, Germany, US, etc. Elekhh (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • We're trying to rationalise templates, for the reasons RL0919 outlines below; not create yet more! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agree on rationalising templates, but I don't see merging them all into one as necessarily rational if the outcome is less flexibility for future improvements and developments... and on the long term why would the infobox of a hamlet be identical to that of a state? Furthermore, it certainly would need to be renamed since large territorial divisions (regencies, states, provinces, etc.) do not fall within the concept of settlement. Elekhh (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • So, what's your point? The argument that different things need different infoboxes is nonsense, since the previous discussions have already demonstrated fairly well that the same infobox template works equally well for both. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 08:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • If that would be the case, than still you would need to be consequent and call it simply infobox, or as suggested by others on this page infobox whatever. If you call it infobox settlement and use it for let's say national parks, even if technicaly possible, is confusing. Elekhh (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate - doesn't appear to have any exclusive fields. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Abstain. Though clearly redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}, and used in only 8 articles, with no more envisaged, I fear that this proposal, at this time, will generate more heat than light. Sadly. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with {{Infobox settlement}}. Although the nomination is probably disingenuous, the fact is that there is nothing special about this template that can't be handled by the more general template, and with the small number of applicable articles it would be an easy migration. I'm fine with regionalization, if it is jusified by some unusual cultural or political difference that isn't readily accommodated in the generic template. Otherwise, what purpose does regionalization serve? People need to understand that replacing "their" specialized infobox with the generic one is not a slight against their country/province/wikiproject/etc. It is simply bringing standardization to the infoboxes for different geopolitical entities, so that an editor who has worked on one will know what to expect in another, readers who see the infobox in one will see something similar in another, and enhancements made are immediately available to all. In terms of migration effort, it makes sense to work up from the less-used specialty templates to the more-used, and this particular one is not heavily used. --RL0919 (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on principle that the multitude of settlement template deletion discussions is being handled in an ass-backwards manner. Put together an RFC and hash out in a centralized discussion forum whether the community in general wants {{Infobox settlement}} to be the single master template for all settlement types. older ≠ wiser 13:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid per WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nonsense. What precisely in WP:POINT are you referring to? In fact, the process by which these multitude of templates are being nominated for deletion without having previously established any general community support for using {{Infobox settlement}} is also invalid per WP:POINT. 14:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Enough with the point-counterpoint already. I mentioned WP:POINT above because an editor who opposes deletion of localized templates started nominating more of them himself, apparently just to draw attention, including a template that survived TfD just a few days before. Just having a disagreement over process is not WP:POINT. --RL0919 (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've no interest with persisting with pointy counterpointing, so long as Andy also behaves. But it also well demonstrates the problem with having so many separate discussions about specific templates when there should really first be a general discussion about whether the one template should be the preferred template for all settlements (or whether there might be some other solution that is more generally acceptable, such as using wrapper templates for localization). And BTW, for what it's worth, I am actually supportive of some sort of standardization -- I just this the way it's being carried out is making it more complex than necessary as well as raising opposition that could have been averted with a more well-thought out strategy. older ≠ wiser 15:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Admission of pointy behaviour noted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Comment So the mass listing of nominations is not POINTY, but mass opposing is? I think this makes it pretty clear that your only interest is in silencing dissenting opinion. I await the cries of CANVASS next when the opposes keep coming through. Honestly, not everyone has to agree with you. --- Mattinbgn\talk 12:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think there is a false assumption in the idea of centralizing the discussion, which is the notion that the result of this process will be or should be replacing all local/regional settlement templates with {{Infobox settlement}}. The individual TfDs have produced several cases where the local templates were kept because of concerns raised by the editors that use those templates. These sorts of specific concerns could be buried in a single global discussion, but come to the forefront in an individual TfD. On the flip side, doing individual TfDs also allows us to replace many little-used and not-so-special templates without having to overcome objections involving other templates that might preclude a global replacement of all of them. --RL0919 (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is likewise a false assumption that the only outcome of a centralized discussion would be a decision to keep or replace all with a single template. Other options, such as using wrapper templates for localization, might be determined to be preferable, as well as a strategic approach for how to go about deleting/modifying/replacing specific templates. older ≠ wiser 16:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Australian states/territories are not "settlements". {{Infobox Settlement}} is already overbloated enough without trying to make it fit every possible division type "below the level of a country" out there. I mean, c'mon, why stop at "the level of a country" at all? Why not just rename "Infobox Settlement" to "Infobox Whatever" and use it for whatever infobox needs folks would have? Standardization only makes sense up to a point.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:43, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: According to its documentation (emphasis added), {{Infobox settlement}}: "should be 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". Can you say why you think {{Infobox settlement}} is not currently suited to doing this job? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per all my comments on related Tfds. This exercise is getting tiresome.DCmacnut<> 19:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid per WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My many reasoned views on other Tfds in favor of keeping these types of templates aren't valid? You're the one trying to make a WP:POINT by your incessant refusal to WP:AGF and take this discussion out of Tfd and to the appropriate template/project pages where it belongs. All of these Tfds violate WP:POINT.DCmacnut<> 20:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Again, attempting to silence dissenting opinion does you no favours. How about leaving it to the closing admin to decide whose comments are valid or otherwise. Personally, I think most of your additions to this conversation are entirely unhelpful. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; replace the template first, hence showing consensus on the ground, then delete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - replacing a comparatively simple, effective and well supported template with a generic design that has greater complexity and more room for user error isn't a wise move. - Bilby (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Stating that the template is redundant, as these TfDs keep doing without actually bothering to show proof of redundancy, simply is not enough reason to delete a functional, easy to use template. Even if the IS proponents finally do produce an example showing that {{Australia state or territory}} can actually be replaced by IS, templates exist to make life easy for editors and I don't see how replacing a simple, easy to use and compact (<6kB) template with a bloated (38kB+) generic one does this. As for standardisation (another war-cry of the IS proponents), the fact that "delete this template and use IS" TfDs continue to fail shows that attempts to standardise on IS are failing, making the standardisation argument somewhat fallacious. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am entirely unconvinced that replacing a stable, specifically tailored, streamlined local template with a generic, general purpose, bloated and relatively unstable template is a gain for the encyclopedia. Certainly the proponents of standardisation don't even appear to be willing to make the case as is the case here in the nomination. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep replace an 6K template with a 38k+ template isnt an improvement for the reader or for the WP servers it making it worse. If the argument of its used on 8 articles and wont be used on any more is the basis then why not just subst the template in those 8 articles and not use any template, less pressure on the servers lower susceptibility to vandalism across multiple articles. The IS template is too difficult for the average editor to use, its bias in the use of US terminology and spellings as per WP:MOS article should use the local version of english. Gnangarra 12:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gnangarra. There is no standardisation necessary. Bookscale (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per arguments above, the Infobox Settlement is wholly inferior to the localised template in this particular case. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:55, 23 September 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada[edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. JPG-GR (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - only 13 uses, with no more envisaged

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}.--23prootie (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Previous deletion discussions over Infobox U.S. state seem to indicate that some regionalization is warranted. Other than that, a state/territory is not a settlement, and is therefore not redundant to Infobox settlement.DCmacnut<> 18:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: According to its documentation (emphasis added), {{Infobox settlement}}: "should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, etc. - in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country" Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for the moment, states and provinces of the U.S. and Canada would appear to be special cases. Certainly look at deprecating in the long-term though. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Abstain. Though clearly redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}, and used in only 13 articles, with no more envisaged, I fear that this proposal, at this time, will generate more heat than light. I should be happy to be proved wrong about that. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on principle that the multitude of settlement template deletion discussions is being handled in an ass-backwards manner. Put together an RFC and hash out in a centralized discussion forum whether the community in general wants {{Infobox settlement}} to be the single master template for all settlement types. older ≠ wiser 13:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid per WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nonsense. What precisely in WP:POINT are you referring to? In fact, the process by which these multitude of templates are being nominated for deletion without having previously established any general community support for using {{Infobox settlement}} is also invalid per WP:POINT. 14:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Provinces/territories are not "settlements". {{Infobox Settlement}} is already overbloated enough without trying to make it fit every possible division type "below the level of a country" out there. I mean, c'mon, why stop at "the level of a country" at all? Why not just rename "Infobox Settlement" to "Infobox Whatever" and use it for whatever infobox needs folks would have? Standardization only makes sense up to a point.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:44, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: According to its documentation (emphasis added), {{Infobox settlement}}: "should be 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". Can you say why you think {{Infobox settlement}} is not currently suited to doing this job? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I support Infobox Settlement. I do not support the way these mergers are being performed. Other than that, that particular section has been in the documentation for less than one year, as of September 28, 2008.[4] The specific comment that is is for "anything below a country" is a huge red herring. That statement has been in the documentation for just 1 year, and you, Andy Mabbett, were the editor that added it.[5] It appears that such a major change was made after a brief exchange between you and one other editor.talk page at the time. That does is insufficient for consensus, and I'm surprised it wasn't discovered or reverted sooner. Documentation can be changed, so what it says today isn't necessarily what it will always say. You may believe it should the master infobox for everything, but multiple editors are now expressing throughout these mass Tfds their belief it is highly inappropriate to use this template for state/province/territory divisions. I would argue that it should be reserved for only those areas below the County level (in the U.S.) or whatever similar 3rd order subdivision exists in other countries, particularly if another template already exists. Again, I don't object to making this the standard, I object to the process. WP:BRD demands in good faith that all Tfds of regional infoboxes be stopped until a workable consensus can be reached.DCmacnut<> 01:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, no. The wording "as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, etc" was present before that edit; I merely added "in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country, for which {{Infobox Country}} should be used.", to clarify that and confirm that the template should not be used for countries. For "just one year" read "for a year next week, with no revert and objections". Thus is consensus demonstrated. Besides which, that wording describes the template's usage as it was at that time, and ever since; and as it is now. It is already used for all the types of sub-divisions listed. If you have any evidence that I "believe it should [sic] the master infobox for everything", please provide it - otherwise, stop trying to misrepresent me. The majority of TfDs for templates redundant to {{Infobox settlement}} have passed and the templates have been deleted without drama. This is not the place to object to TfD as a process; and BRD makes no such demand. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did you not read my comment? I said that the "as well as other administrative districts" was there before your edit, but your edit was the very next one 3 hours later. Those particular lines was added as a direct result of you and one other editor unilaterally deciding is should be for "everything below country." It's less than a year. Quit nitpicking. The lack of reversion does not mean consensus. This is a documentation page, and documentation can be changed. This template has been defacto used, regardless of the documentation, for only settlements, villages, cities, or other low-level administrative districts. In fact, I use it for townships in the U.S.. Just because that language has been there -- as added by you -- doesn't mean it should stay. I could very well delete that phrase. Documentation can change, so you shouldn't use it to back up your statements. Just because it "has been there without reversion" does mean something, but it is not iron clad. The multitude of other regional templates that exist shows that people don't think Settlement should be used for high-level subnational entities, like states or provinces. It doesn't matter if people failed to object in the past, the fact remains that we are objecting now. You need to step back and take this debate to a more centralized location. Otherwise, we will continue to oppose these Tfds.DCmacnut<> 16:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • "This template has been defacto used, regardless of the documentation, for only settlements, villages, cities, or other low-level administrative districts" Poppycock. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Now who's not assuming good faith. If everyone's supposed to know that Settlements is the king of all location infoboxes to be used for anything an everything, then why aren't people doing that, hmm? Why then are people fighting these Tfds for exactly that reason - states and territories are not settlements? Oh, and why does {{Geobox}} exist? I think {{Infobox Settlement}} should be put up for Tfd in favor of {{Geobox}}. But that would be foolish.DCmacnut<> 19:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • You, apparently. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Quit the persona attacks. Just because editors think there's a better way to debate this doesn't mean we aren't assuming good faith.DCmacnut<> 21:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • What personal attack? You asked who was exhibiting bad faith and, based on your recent comments and behaviour, not least the above straw man and the preceeding falsehood, I replied that it seems to be you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You've accused me of lying, of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and for dismissing my viewpoints simply because you disagree with them. Those are personal attacks. There is such a think if disagreeing without being disagreeable. If you feel like I've been the disagreeable one, I apologize, but so far I have not seen any willingness on your part to move the debate over merging templates into {{Infobox Settlement}} to a different venue, hence my responses.DCmacnut<> 01:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Thank you for the apology, but I have made no personal attacks; and to say that I have accused you of lying, or that I have dismissed your points simply because I disagree with them, is in each case a lie. I take it that you also view your own - wrongful - accusations that I have breached WP:POINT as personal attacks. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • We are done here. You cannot be reasoned with.DCmacnut<> 02:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing has changed since the consensus was to keep this past January at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 2#Template:Infobox Province or territory of Canada. And just like that discussion, Andy seems to want to take on everyone that disagrees with him. In addition to the points raised above and in the recent deletion discussion, I'm not sure that there is any consensus that {{Infobox settlement}} is to serve all purposes ({{Infobox U.S. state}} is evidence of that). As suggested above (thank you, older ≠ wiser), it would be far more productive to engage in a higher level, centralized discussion on how to make centralized template(s) work (if there is, in fact, consensus to do so). That would be more useful than having this discrete debate every few months. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ad hominem. Would you now like to try to say why you think this particular template is better than its proposed replacement, rather than criticising the process or attacking a fellow participant? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The process is a perfectly valid issue to discuss. And nobody has "attacked" you - I simply pointed out that you were taking on everyone who disagreed with you. Please stop making silly accusations. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; replace the template first, hence showing consensus on the ground, then delete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Skeezix1000 who voiced my opinion exactly. I don't see anything wrong with using a separate specific infobox for Canadian provinces or any other major territory if one so wishes, it's an editorial decision based on style. -- œ™ 20:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above (especially considering Skeezix's argument above) - the Settlement Infobox is not specific enough to replace this template. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am entirely unconvinced that replacing a stable, specifically tailored, streamlined local template with a generic, general purpose, bloated and relatively unstable template is a gain for the encyclopedia. Certainly the proponents of standardisation don't even appear to be willing to make the case as is the case here in the nomination. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nomination to prove a WP:POINT the replacement of local templates in favour of IS via TFD has already seen nominations close with the nominators told to discuss with the people using the template first. Gnangarra 12:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think it should be noted that this particular nomination was made by a user who opposes replacement of localized templates with {{Infobox settlement}}. Therefore it is indeed a WP:POINT nomination, but not by someone actually trying to promote standardization. That's the main reason the argument on this particular TfD is so one-sided. --RL0919 (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Burmesestatedivision[edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to support deletion. JPG-GR (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Burmesestatedivision (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}. Only 14 transclusions, with no more envisaged. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How many transclusions are necessary for a template to be kept?--23prootie (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe what Andy was trying to show is that it will be possible to replace this infobox with the more general {{Infobox settlement}} without it being a large project. There's not a specific threshold for how much a template "needs" to be used. --RL0919 (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So if a particular template is used in 61 articles, would that be a large project?--23prootie (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain, try again. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate - very limited set of parameters, all replaceable by the generic solution. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with {{Infobox settlement}}. Doesn't appear to have anything that can't be handled in the more general template, and the small number of articles should make for easy conversion. --RL0919 (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on principle that the multitude of settlement template deletion discussions is being handled in an ass-backwards manner. Put together an RFC and hash out in a centralized discussion forum whether the community in general wants {{Infobox settlement}} to be the single master template for all settlement types. older ≠ wiser 13:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid per WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nonsense. What precisely in WP:POINT are you referring to? In fact, the process by which these multitude of templates are being nominated for deletion without having previously established any general community support for using {{Infobox settlement}} is also invalid per WP:POINT. 14:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep on principle that a state division is not a "settlement". {{Infobox Settlement}} is already overbloated enough without trying to make it fit every possible division type "below the level of a country" out there. I mean, c'mon, why stop at "the level of a country" at all? Why not just rename "Infobox Settlement" to "Infobox Whatever" and use it for whatever infobox needs folks would have? Standardization only makes sense up to a point.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:45, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: According to its documentation (emphasis added), {{Infobox settlement}}: "should be 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". Can you say why you think {{Infobox settlement}} is not currently suited to doing this job? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment: The template redirects {{Infobox district}} can now be used. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate. I am one of the main contributors to articles about places in Burma and am a member of WP:Burma itself and this template is redundant. The template has the inability to store information on important subjects that should be included but does not merit you to at present. Himalayan 14:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per all my comments on related Tfds. This exercise is getting tiresome.DCmacnut<font{ color="blue"><> 19:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid per WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My many reasoned views on other Tfds in favor of keeping these types of templates aren't valid? You're the one trying to make a WP:POINT by your incessant refusal to WP:AGF and take this discussion out of Tfd and to the appropriate template/project pages where it belongs. All of these Tfds violate WP:POINT.DCmacnut<> 21:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure WP:POINT is applicable here, and it's unclear to me why such accusations are necessary or relevant. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per older ≠ wiser's rationale. This scattershot process is not the way to go. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; replace the template first, hence showing consensus on the ground, then delete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the process-based objections disagree with one another: some call for a centralized discussion first, others for editing the individual articles first. Any process used can be objected to by saying some other process should be used. --RL0919 (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no compelling argument for standardisation made, and proposed replacement is prohibitively complex and difficult to use. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • So difficult to use that it is transcluded on well over 100,000 articles! As to the argument for standardization: standardization of the infoboxes across different geopolitical entities allows an editor who has worked on one to know what to expect in another, readers who see the infobox in one will see something similar in another, and enhancements made are immediately available to all. --RL0919 (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nomination based on WP:OR 'with no more envisaged or do you have a source to support such a claim? I would have thought that given Burma or is that Myanmar has in all likely hood a changed to its political coming in the future or do have sources that can attest that it will never happen. Gnangarra 13:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OR is about what can be included in encyclopedic content, not about what can be raised as an argument on project and talk pages. If the number is 14, 15 or even 25 hardly makes a difference to the point of Andy's comment, which is that the small number of transclusions helps to make for an easy replacement process. --RL0919 (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • …and that the overhead of maintaing a separate template, for such a small number of uses, when a generic equivalent in available, is disproportionate. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep -Possibly useful.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
    (ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 12:30, 24 September 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Provinces of Indonesia[edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to support deletion. JPG-GR (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Provinces of Indonesia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}. Only 32 transclusions, with no more envisaged. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sample conversion Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How do you know that there are no more changes envisaged to provinces of Indonesia(please cite your source and what does this have to do with the use on WP of a template any way? Gnangarra 13:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you aware of a province in Indonesia which does not have an article with an infobox? 81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How many transclusions are necessary for a template to be kept?--23prootie (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Previous deletion discussions over Infobox U.S. state seem to indicate that some regionalization is warranted. Other than that, a state/territory is not a settlement, and is therefore not redundant to Infobox settlement.DCmacnut<> 18:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: According to its documentation (emphasis added), {{Infobox settlement}}: "should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, etc. - in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate - nothing here that can't be converted, the discussion suggested {{Infobox U.S. state}} seems to be a special case. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with {{Infobox settlement}}. Doesn't appear to have anything that can't be handled in the more general template, and the small number of articles should make for easy conversion. --RL0919 (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on principle that the multitude of settlement template deletion discussions is being handled in an ass-backwards manner. Put together an RFC and hash out in a centralized discussion forum whether the community in general wants {{Infobox settlement}} to be the single master template for all settlement types. older ≠ wiser 13:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on principle that a province is not a "settlement". {{Infobox Settlement}} is already overbloated enough without trying to make it fit every possible division type "below the level of a country" out there. I mean, c'mon, why stop at "the level of a country" at all? Why not just rename "Infobox Settlement" to "Infobox Whatever" and use it for whatever infobox needs folks would have? Standardization only makes sense up to a point.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:46, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: According to its documentation (emphasis added), {{Infobox settlement}}: "should be 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". Can you say why you think {{Infobox settlement}} is not currently suited to doing this job? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment: The template redirect {{Infobox province}} can now be used. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Deprecate' Himalayan 14:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a template specifically made and suited to Indonesian provinces. There has been no valid reason put forward for removing it, and no alternative template suggested that can provide a suitable replacement. (Caniago (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    • Could you explain what specifically you think this template provides that is not available using the proposed replacement, {{Infobox settlement}}? --RL0919 (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • More specifically, I have made a sample conversion here; can you explain in what you believe that it is not "suitable"? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per older ≠ wiser's rationale. This scattershot process is not the way to go. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; replace the template first, hence showing consensus on the ground, then delete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am entirely unconvinced that replacing a stable, specifically tailored, streamlined local template with a generic, general purpose, bloated and relatively unstable template is a gain for the encyclopedia. Certainly the proponents of standardisation don't even appear to be willing to make the case as is the case here in the nomination. This mass listing of templates is entirely unhelpful and will lead to cookie-cutter comments supporting and opposing nominations. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Palsu asumsi bahwa Indonesia tak mungkin mempunyai tambahan lebih lanjut yang mana pun sampai penggunaan kerangka, waktu sebenarnya Indonesia mempunyai di 30 yang terakhir yang dilihat sejumlah provinsi mereka berubah secara signifikan dengan baik dimasukkannya provinsi tambahan, pembagian orang lain maupun beberapa kemerdekaan penuh yang memperoleh. in short a false assupmtion Gnangarra 12:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...and in English..? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did include a short summary, surely you understand the subject matter sufficiently to know what the likelyhood of changes to provinces in Indonesia are going to be anyway your nomination is a false assumption that any there wont be any alterations to provinces of Indonesia given the changes that have taken place recently. Gnangarra 11:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no compelling argument for standardisation made, and proposed replacement is prohibitively complex and difficult to use. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • keep -Possibly useful.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
    (ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 12:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I cannot see the advantage in being shoe-horned into a wiki-wide one-size-fits-all standard. I'm not saying there isn't one, maybe, I just don't see it. --Merbabu (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Regency of Indonesia[edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to support deletion. JPG-GR (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Regency of Indonesia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, to which it is in any case redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unused and redundant. --RL0919 (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How many transclusions are necessary for a template to be kept?--23prootie (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • How few should there be to consider deletion? Is zero low enough? --RL0919 (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since it's unused. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on principle that the multitude of settlement template deletion discussions is being handled in an ass-backwards manner. Put together an RFC and hash out in a centralized discussion forum whether the community in general wants {{Infobox settlement}} to be the single master template for all settlement types. older ≠ wiser 13:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid per WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nonsense. What precisely in WP:POINT are you referring to? In fact, the process by which these multitude of templates are being nominated for deletion without having previously established any general community support for using {{Infobox settlement}} is also invalid per WP:POINT. 14:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
        • As I note below, I don't see any WP:POINT in these arguments. But I would say that a generalized argument about process related to templates in general is a very bad reason to keep a specific template that is entirely unused. --RL0919 (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the principle that a "settlement" infobox should be used for higher administrative division, but the ultimate call is, of course, up to WP:WikiProject Indonesia. If they believe {{Infobox settlement}} works for them, I would support deletion as well. Delete as redundant an unused.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:49, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: According to its documentation (emphasis added), {{Infobox settlement}}: "should be 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". Can you say why you think {{Infobox settlement}} is not currently suited to doing this job? Also, the "ultimate call" is most certainly not "up to WikiProject Indonesia". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps as important as anything in its documentation is the fact that {{Infobox settlement}} is in fact successfully used in a number of articles about administrative divisions above the city level. --RL0919 (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Replied here. In response to RL0919: if they are used because of a consensus that they work and with an input from an appropriate regional WikiProject, I have no problem with that whatsoever. If they are used because folks in charge of {{Infobox Settlement}} unilaterally decided it's "acceptable" and "works just as well", that would be a practice I would severely object to.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:48, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
        • Per WP:OWN, there are no "folks in charge of {{Infobox Settlement}}", nor any other template; nor do articles "belong" to projects. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Very true. Also, there isn't some unilateral, can't-turn-back substitution being performed without allowing input from interested parties. If there are editors actively participating in these projects, then they are presumably going to see the TfD notice when it appears next to the templates in the articles they work on. Sometimes these editors have in fact raised objections that led to a template being kept. The TfD process for the individual templates is working. It is the generalized objections that don't reflect anything particular about a given template/project that are out of place. --RL0919 (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Andy, your comments continue to astound me. There are mighty plenty of other meanings of the phrase "folks in charge" (here's one), yet you select the one that presents my comments in the worst possible light. Similarly, "belongs" (a word which I did not even say) also means "falls in scope of" (each WikiProject has a scope of its own, you wouldn't argue against that)? In response to RL0919's concern, a good-faith attempt of explicit notification of a WikiProject which is clearly affected is yet to hurt anyone. It's simply a matter of common courtesy. Are we in such an urgent rush to merge all these templates that we can't afford a few minutes to solicit a qualified opinion? Not to mention that it may be very easy for a small and undermanned WikiProject to overlook something like a TfD; a note on the project's page is much harder to miss. WP:OWN is not a blind mandate to justify ignoring opinions of people who happen to be more involved with a certain area than others.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:33, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
            • To be clear, I'm not in any way saying that it is inappropriate to notify them. By all means let's have notices to relevant parties (Wikiprojects, editors who made major contributions to the template, etc.) I mean that they can come here for the discussion and that theirs are not the only opinions to be considered. Basically I'm saying that it is not necessary to get prior approval from each relevant Wikiproject before a template is nominated, which what I had the impression you were suggesting above. If I've misunderstood your point then my apologies. --RL0919 (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yet more evidence that the process being followed to implement standardization of these templates (as well as the supposed consensus that is claimed to exist) is at the very least problematic. The splitting of threads addressing similar issues across multiple deletion discussions is ineffective as well as irritating and confusing. older ≠ wiser 20:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, of course theirs are not the only opinions to be considered, but, probably, due to the nature of WikiProjects, it's pretty important that we make an extra effort to solicit and consider them. From the encyclopedic point of view, specialization (fostered by WikiProjects) is just as important as standardization (fostered by folks like Andy). When either side's view is summarily discarded (and, with these TfD scattered all over the place, it is mostly the "specialization" side), Wikipedia suffers, is all... By the way, no apology was necessary, but I appreciate it all the same..—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:22, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
  • Back to topic please. If you want to keep bickering about wider principles, feel free. Meanwhile, those of us that are (quite correctly) focusing on the merits of this specific template have noticed that at this time it is not actually transcluded in any articles. The catfighting can go somewhere else. Try Talk:Gdansk, there hasn't been any good drama there for a while. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unused and redundant. Not much else to say. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate per Plastikspork Himalayan 14:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per all my comments on related Tfds. This exercise is getting tiresome.DCmacnut<> 19:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid per WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My many reasoned views on other Tfds in favor of keeping these types of templates aren't valid? You're the one trying to make a WP:POINT by your incessant refusal to WP:AGF and take this discussion out of Tfd and to the appropriate template/project pages where it belongs. All of these Tfds violate WP:POINT.DCmacnut<> 21:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm going to actually agree on this one, if it's unused that pretty much indicates that it's not required. Can be recreated later if it later proves to be needed. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • keep -Possibly useful.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
    (ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 12:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this template was specifically designed to make it easy to add and maintain Infoboxes across the Indonesian regency pages. There is no valid reason to delete it. The only reason that no pages reference it is because someone recently made the mistake of writing a bot to replace references to this template with an alternate template, less suited to the task of providing Infoboxes for Indonesian regencies (Caniago (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Deprecate in favour of {{infobox settlement}} based on the evidence provided by User:Caniago above. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no evidence you have provided to demonstrate anything. This template is a wrapper around {{infobox settlement}} which standardizes some of the parameters so they are consistent across all regencies, and so that less information needs to be provided when a template needs to be added to a new regency. This is why {{infobox settlement}} is less suited to being used for Indonesian regencies and why this template should not be deleted. (Caniago (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep - Given Caniago's point above, the much reduced complexity of Infobox Regency of Indonesia both in size (35 fields vs. 108 fields) and application seems to warrant keeping the simpler solution. - Bilby (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Slight correction - it seems I counted the fields in the "ready to use, cut-and-paste" version. The Infobox settlement documentation lists 214 fields in the template, and refers to a number of extra (numeric optional fields) beyond that. I'm pretty much convinced that Infobox Regency of Indonesia is a simpler alternative to the raw Infobox settlement. :) - Bilby (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • All of which are optional. It's perfectly possible to produce a copyable blank with only those suited to Indonesia (or anywhere else) and put it on a project page; indeed, even the blank at the top of {{Infobox settlement}}'s documentation only includes a subset. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • True enough. But alternatively, users can take Infobox Regency of Indonesia and use that, which then requests only the needed data, in a tidy and intuitive form (for example, "county=", "province=" and "capital=" instead of "subdivision_name=, subdivision_type=, subdivision_name1=, subdivision_type1=, subdivision_name2= and subdivision_type2=") and feeds that into settlement automagically. That seems good to me, and something that should be encouraged if we go down the Infobox Settlement for all things path. :) - Bilby (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Caniago, I wouldn't call this repairing damage! I have spent the last two hours sorting out this massive mess caused by "repairing damage". I had spent a day going through each of these and double checking the area figures, population figures, etc.. and now you have blindly reverted that work. Thanks for helping me waste yet another day fixing another mess. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this demonstrates that having a one size fits all process is fundamentally flawed in that people fixing/repair an issue will result in thousands of article needing to be fix. The nomination also demonstrates the lack of discussion with people using the template before claiming it was redundant to another template. Gnangarra 22:52, 24 September 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox East Timor District[edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to support deletion. JPG-GR (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox East Timor District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}. Only 13 transclusions, with no more envisaged. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How many transclusions are necessary for a template to be kept?--23prootie (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the price of fish. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate - redundant, conversion looks trivial. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with {{Infobox settlement}}. Doesn't appear to have anything that can't be handled in the more general template, and the small number of articles should make for easy conversion. --RL0919 (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on principle that the multitude of settlement template deletion discussions is being handled in an ass-backwards manner. Put together an RFC and hash out in a centralized discussion forum whether the community in general wants {{Infobox settlement}} to be the single master template for all settlement types. older ≠ wiser 13:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid per WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nonsense. What precisely in WP:POINT are you referring to? In fact, the process by which these multitude of templates are being nominated for deletion without having previously established any general community support for using {{Infobox settlement}} is also invalid per WP:POINT. 14:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep on principle that a district is not a "settlement". {{Infobox Settlement}} is already overbloated enough without trying to make it fit every possible division type "below the level of a country" out there. I mean, c'mon, why stop at "the level of a country" at all? Why not just rename "Infobox Settlement" to "Infobox Whatever" and use it for whatever infobox needs folks would have? Standardization only makes sense up to a point.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:50, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: According to its documentation (emphasis added), {{Infobox settlement}}: "should be 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". Can you say why you think {{Infobox settlement}} is not currently suited to doing this job? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is another example of the sort of thing in which a centralized discussion beforehand could prove beneficial. That is, to establish a general consensus (with supporting evidence) that the template can and should be used for X types of entities. Once some general agreement is established, processing individual templates can proceed more expediently. older ≠ wiser 17:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Such consensus, de facto, already exists. This is stil not the place for such meta-discussion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • De facto in that you and a handful of others have agreed without consulting any of the projects that created or use the templates? What a lark. older ≠ wiser 20:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, to avoid copy-pasting the same response in every thread, my response to Andy is available here.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:52, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
    • Further comment: The template redirect {{Infobox district}} can now be used. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate. What is the point of having this template to be used in a tiny number of articles when it can simply be achieved with a per-existing template. This defines redundancy on wikipedia. Himalayan 14:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per all my comments on related Tfds. And because I once had dinner with the President of East Timor.DCmacnut<> 19:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid per WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My many reasoned views on other Tfds in favor of keeping these types of templates aren't valid? You're the one trying to make a WP:POINT by your incessant refusal to WP:AGF and take this discussion out of Tfd and to the appropriate template/project pages where it belongs. All of these Tfds violate WP:POINT.DCmacnut<> 21:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per older ≠ wiser's rationale. This scattershot process is not the way to go. The fact that these same issues and comments are repeating themselves in various ongoing TfDs suggests that older ≠ wiser has a good point. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What issues and comments? Some users have trawled through every open TfD for settlement templates to complain about the TfD process being used to replace these templates on an individual basis rather than having a global discussion first. But to say that this is the "same issues and comments repeating themselves in various ongoing TfDs" and therefore there is a problem with the process is pure bootstrapping: the comments appear in multiple TfDs because the same users are placing them in every TfD to complain about the process. Is there anything particular about this template that you believe makes it in particular a good template to keep? --RL0919 (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be missing the point. The fact that we can make the same comment in each discussion is exactly the problem that has been identified. And it isn't really up to you to insist that the issues be framed in a particular way or that we need to speak to a template "in particular". No good rationale has been put forward that we need a common template across the board, nor has anyone pointed to any consensus that standardization is desired or required. It is perfectly valid for people here to suggest that if some editors wish to see the implementation of a standard template, that they should have a centralized discussion where there can be a general discussion of the pros and cons of that approach, rather than forcing people to make identical comments in a series of scattershot TfD discussions. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am entirely unconvinced that replacing a stable, specifically tailored, streamlined local template with a generic, general purpose, bloated and relatively unstable template is a gain for the encyclopedia. Certainly the proponents of standardisation don't even appear to be willing to make the case as is the case here in the nomination. This mass listing of templates is entirely unhelpful and will lead to cookie-cutter comments supporting and opposing nominations. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no compelling argument for standardisation made, and proposed replacement is prohibitively complex and difficult to use. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep deletion based on WP:OR Only 13 transclusions, with no more envisaged. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC) please cite your sources that confirm such a statement, Timor Leste was until recently a province of Indonesia, oh thats another template the nominator is claiming with no more envisaged. Wow I'd love to be able to review such powerful sources there maybe a lot of other information that should be contained with in Wikipedia. Gnangarra 13:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep -Possibly useful.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
    (ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 12:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I cannot see the advantage in being shoe-horned into a wiki-wide one-size-fits-all standard. I'm not saying there isn't one, maybe, I just don't see it. --Merbabu (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Venezuelan state[edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to support deletion. JPG-GR (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Venezuelan state (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The former {{Venezuelan state}} was successfully nominated for deletion on September 9 and deleted today. I have just discovered a fork of that template, {{Venezuelan state new}} and renamed it to {{Venezuelan state}}; but that is equally redundant and in need of removal. There are only 24 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[[Image:{{{image-map}}}|250px|center|{{{name}}}]]
{{{name}}}
Area {{{area}}} km²
Population {{{population}}} hab.
Capital {{{capital}}}
Governor
(mandate)		 {{{governor}}}
{{{mandate}}}
  • Delete as redundant to {{Infobox settlement}} and a substantial duplicate of a previously deleted template. (update: not really a duplicate per discussion below) However, in the meantime something needs to be done to fix or reverse the redirect, because it seems to have broken the transclusions. Every article I viewed that has this template now shows the phrase "1. REDIRECT Template:Venezuelan state" instead of displaying the template. --RL0919 (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just fixed the double redirects. Thanks for pointing out the error. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's a duplicate, or near-duplicate, speedy delete as the previous TfD applies. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The template discussed before had only 1 transclusion, so it's probably better to reconsider this one on its merits. Good idea though. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Any chance we can see the one that was deleted for comparison? 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I can even paste it here since it was so short, see above on the right. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This template seems sufficiently different from the previous one that I don't think speedy deletion would apply. (But I'm still in favor of deletion on the basis that the generic template can do the job better.)
Agreed. This is a substantially different template. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on principle that the multitude of settlement template deletion discussions is being handled in an ass-backwards manner. Put together an RFC and hash out in a centralized discussion forum whether the community in general wants {{Infobox settlement}} to be the single master template for all settlement types. older ≠ wiser 13:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid per WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nonsense. What precisely in WP:POINT are you referring to? In fact, the process by which these multitude of templates are being nominated for deletion without having previously established any general community support for using {{Infobox settlement}} is also invalid per WP:POINT. 14:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't see that WP:POINT applies to either. I don't think that generalized arguments about process are a good reason to keep specific templates, but it doesn't disrupt the encyclopedia to make that argument. Similarly, I see no disruption in nominating a number of templates for similar reasons. We routinely see TfDs for navboxes on the grounds that they have too few valid links, for example, and that doesn't mean more templates shouldn't be nominated for the same reason in the future. --RL0919 (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on principle that a state is not a "settlement". {{Infobox Settlement}} is already overbloated enough without trying to make it fit every possible division type "below the level of a country" out there. I mean, c'mon, why stop at "the level of a country" at all? Why not just rename "Infobox Settlement" to "Infobox Whatever" and use it for whatever infobox needs folks would have? Standardization only makes sense up to a point.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:51, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: According to its documentation (emphasis added), {{Infobox settlement}}: "should be 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". Can you say why you think {{Infobox settlement}} is not currently suited to doing this job? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment: The recent deletion of this template's identically-named predecessor would suggest that that's not a concern. Furthermore, the template redirect {{Infobox state}} can now be used. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate - nothing that can't be handled by {{Infobox settlement}}, so no reason for a separate template to fulfil the same function. Arguments to the name of other templates or the correct application of TfD are not relevant here. Those should be addressed at the talk page of the templates concerned and WT:TFD respectively. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate. What is the point of having this template to be used in a tiny number of articles when it can simply be achieved with a pre-existing template. This defines redundancy on wikipedia, there is absolustely no reason why Venezuela needs a seperate infobox. Himalayan 14:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per all my comments on related Tfds. This exercise is getting tiresome.DCmacnut<> 19:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid per WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My many reasoned views on other Tfds in favor of keeping these types of templates aren't valid? You're the one trying to make a WP:POINT by your incessant refusal to WP:AGF and take this discussion out of Tfd and to the appropriate template/project pages where it belongs. All of these Tfds violate WP:POINT.DCmacnut<> 21:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per older ≠ wiser's rationale. This scattershot process is not the way to go. The fact that these same issues and comments are repeating themselves in various ongoing TfDs suggests that older ≠ wiser has a good point. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What issues and comments? Some users have trawled through every open TfD for settlement templates to complain about the TfD process being used to replace these templates on an individual basis rather than having a global discussion first. But to say that this is the "same issues and comments repeating themselves in various ongoing TfDs" and therefore there is a problem with the process is pure bootstrapping: the comments appear in multiple TfDs because the same users are placing them in every TfD to complain about the process. Is there anything particular about this template that you believe makes it in particular a good template to keep? --RL0919 (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep -Possibly useful.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
    (ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 12:29, 24 September 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_September_17&oldid=1079913869"