Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78.54.186.169 (talk) at 06:37, 6 March 2019 (→‎Template:Infobox U.S. state: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< March 1 March 3 >

March 2

Various Cape Cod S-line templates

S-line templates for the Cape Cod and Hyannis Railroad, Cape Cod Central Railroad, and Amtrak's Cape Codder. Replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Cape Cod and Hyannis Railroad, Module:Adjacent stations/Cape Cod Central Railroad, and Module:Adjacent stations/Amtrak. All transclusions replaced. Mackensen (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northern Cyprus women basketball teams in Turkey's leagues

unused navbox with no parent article. WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northern Ireland prime ministers

unused navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Information already contained within an existing template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northern Territory regions

unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Information already contained within an existing and used template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northern hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons

unsued navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nuu-chah-nulth-aht peoples

unused navbox. WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Information already contained within an existing and used template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nyborg Municipality

unused navbox with mostly redlinks and plaintext Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Information already contained within an existing and used template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Off-season Australian region tropical cyclones

Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep potentially useful. Currently a set of templates for each decade are used. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have tmeplates for all of the other regions with an off-season including the Atlantic and the South Pacific and i suspect that this one can be deployed very very quickly across a number of articles as well.Jason Rees (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OlivierAward NewPlayActor

Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OlivierAward RevivalActor

Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Omaha Mavericks men's ice hockey coach navbox

Unused navbox with only 2 links. WP:NENAN. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Omani League

unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - these types of templates are useful and standard. GiantSnowman 13:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, why not help add this navbox to related articles instead, Zackmann08? Hhkohh (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oriental Orthodox Christianity in Europe

Unused navbox that violates WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, and superceded by a "Christianity in" template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Os Garridos

Unused navbox with mostly redlinks. Violates WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Osaka University academic alliances

Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Even if this were used it should be deleted. Inappropriate list to be kept here, can be posted on the Osaka university website.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Osaka University#Academic alliances mentions some but this template list is clearly excessive. Nigej (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Other Cricket tours of Sri Lanka

unused navbox with mostly redlinks. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Beginning a template with Other is a bad idea for one. Plus the template is unused. Ajf773 (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Other Radio Stations in Arkansas

unused navbox with only 3 links. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also all three links pipe to the same article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Other templates link into this template; radio stations change formats all the time; deleting it would default the page to Spanish stations in Arkansas as the do with other “Other radio stations in x state” templates.Stereorock (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional: There are more link’s now.Stereorock (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'd like to point out that this has actually 2 radio station links - KLRG and KABF and the other links just duplicate these. A very useless template. --Gonnym (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are 3 tiers: by frequency, by format, & community of license.Stereorock (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Our Peak

unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Use. Has a set of linked articles that don't have a current navbox. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PE-FedRep

unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:POV/subpage

unused subpage that seems to be replaced by /sandbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PPDpresidents

unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Use? seems to link subjects in a notable fashion, should this be used?--Tom (LT) (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Palestine NFT results

unused navbox with only redlinks. Violates WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Panamanian mobile network operators

unused navbox with only 3 links Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Panchayats in Patna District

Unused navbox with mostly redlinks and plaintext. Violates WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Panchen Lamas PRC

Unused navbox with only 1 link Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Panchsheel Nagar district

unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Paraguay squad 2012 FIFA Futsal World Championship

unused navbox with only redlinks. Violates WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Parliamentary constituencies in Masvingo

unused navbox with no parent article and mostly redlinks Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No useful navigational value--Tom (LT) (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Patriots1967DraftPicks

unused navbox that violates WP:ACCESS Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Navbox is now fully used. As far as this entire class of navboxes as a concept, a broader discussion would have to take place at WT:NFL before we should be taking any action there. Additionally, any WP:ACCESS concerns that may exist here actually involve a different template, not this one. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Penthouse Pets of 2005

unused navbox with no parent article Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Navbox with no navigation left. Only use comes from previous/next year template links. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:People's Party MP 2006–2010

Unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Surface Railroad S-line templates

Replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Boston Surface Railroad. All transclusions updated. Mackensen (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dfn

We currently have the <dfn> tag being used on about 40 pages, and Template:dfn used on about 80 pages. This tag is apparently just for semantic web purposes, and doesn't benefit readers directly. Sometimes we do put semantic web markup inside templates and things, but it seems like most of the time we try not to clutter up the article text; the Manual of Style says to use HTML markup sparingly. The template adds <dfn> tag, but also has the capability of producing a nice tooltip.

If we were to decide that this tag should be used for its intended purpose, that would mean a campaign of adding it to millions of articles, at least to the bolded term in every intro, and possibly to other terms in the article that define important terminology. The fact that it's used on so few articles after 7 years or so of this template being around indicates to me there's not much support for doing that. While I'm an active user of the semantic web, in this case I think it might be better just to go in the other direction and scrub the project of this tag on the theory that it's unnecessary markup.

There remains the question of what to do about the tooltips. As the template documentation warns, the tooltip contents are not accessible to all users. I think that's an argument for not using that functionality at all, and integrating any definitions into the main article text in all cases. The fact that a tooltip aids understanding is probably an indication of sub-optimal writing, which I think is another argument for scrubbing this template.

So here are the options I can think of:

  1. Declare (by not deleting them) <dfn> and {{dfn}} are beneficial, and advocate putting them on millions of articles.
  2. Declare (by not deleting them) <dfn> and {{dfn}} are OK to use, but don't promote them.
  3. Convert all instances of <dfn> and {{dfn}} for consistency, more control over rendering, and easier parsing. Declare (by not deleting it) {{dfn}} as the preferred form.
  4. Delete all instances of <dfn> and instances of {{dfn}} that don't involve a tooltip.
  5. Delete all instances of <dfn> and {{dfn}} and integrate tooltip contents into the main article.

I think these are actually ranked from least to most preferable in my view. I'm open to other suggestions if I've missed something or if people don't like any of these choices or have some clever ideas. -- Beland (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (option 2) as potentially useful, and as the correct markup to use for the purpose in question. WP needs to be doing more not less semantic Web stuff as we move into the future and as repurposing of our content broadens, and as we get closer to proper HTML 5 compliance and the site thus gets increasingly easy to machine-parse. Option 3 wouldn't be terrible, but we actually have no real reason to try to get people to stop using plain HTML if they want to. TfD even has a history of deleting HTML-wrapper templates some editors don't think are strictly necessary (albeit that's mostly a very old history, and consensus could have changed, especially given the frequency with which people are using custom CSS and JS these days – we need templates for classes).
    Also, wrong venue: Whether or not <dfn> and {{dfn}} should at this time be used more broadly, as a matter of the guidelines advocating them directly, is a matter probably for an RfC at WT:MOS, not a TfD (and probably also advertised at WP:ACCESSIBILITY, WP:VPTECH, and various other venues). "We're not using it much" isn't really a deletion rationale. And buried at the bottom of a TfD is not the place for a discussion of whether the tooltip system should be dismantled; that's definitely an RfC at VPTECH.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC); clarified, 19:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sit somewhere in #2 or #3 for now. I think it would be nice if we could get a wikitext version of this tag, so that we could use it in the lead of an article. --Izno (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Costliest U.S. Atlantic hurricanes by wealth normalization

Violates project consensus that inflation will not be used. Discussions have taken place here and here. Inflation values should not be given for storms considering they can't be calculated for areas outside of the US. Not to mention differences in calculations (pop. density, building codes, etc.) that would make such calculations impossible. Both discussions also raise valid points as to why inflation adjustment should not be used. NoahTalk 01:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this template is wealth normalization, not inflation adjustment. You can very well calculate those for non-US regions, in fact Wikipedia has dozens of lists with countries' GDP (i.e., its current flow of wealth) denominated in US Dollar, even though that isn't the currency those numbers originated in. Those numbers come from agencies like the IMF, the CIA, the Worldbank, and others, who have an army of economists figuring those numbers out. I don't know where this alleged consensus of not using inflation- and/or wealth-adjustment was established, but it's one moronic decision if there ever was one. The only thing this template needs is an update to Weinke et al. (2018). --bender235 (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template contains useful encyclopedic information, which is an attempt to rank hurriacens by most costly to the society at the time. It's used in several articles so serves its purpose as a template. It shouldn't be deleted just because of a content dispute, ie. an argument about which way of comparing costs is best. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tom (LT):Might I inform you that wealth normalization has been removed from EVERY TC article except some (not even all) of the ones on that list. The project quit using wealth normalization a few years ago because it is misleading. NoahTalk 11:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is a project consensus not to use it, I'm not sure why the 5 transclusions can't be deleted/replaced manually. Nigej (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Nigej. Would support deletion if these weren't actually used. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where was this consensus established, and what was the main concern with using wealth normalized damage figures? Sure these numbers aren't perfect, but comparing hurricanes by nominal GDP damage is utter nonsense. If we want to delete those "most costly hurricanes" rankings, we should start with the ones that use nominal damage. --bender235 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Im going to ask about the specific consensus later since I am out of town, but your post (second to last) here shows exactly why wealth normalization is not even close to accurate. All it is is a PREDICTION about what that storm would cause TODAY, not what it ACTUALLY did. To have a list of these in an article is simply misleading. This either needs a serious explanation to clear up that this isn't inflation adjustment or simply removed to alleviate confusion. NoahTalk 02:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: LOL, of course these numbers are estimates, but so are unadjusted damage figures. How do you imagine these are established? You think someone from the NOAA roams around Texas and Louisiana after a hurricane and collects receipts from repairs?
I'm still waiting to see where this supposed consensus to not include adjusted damage figures was established. Until then, these templates stay put. --bender235 (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've updated this template to 2018 using Weinke et al. (2018). Also, I've tried to trace back this supposed "consensus" not to use wealth normalization or any kind of adjustment of nominal damage figures. What I found was the unilateral removal of the wealth normalization table from List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes. I will re-add the (updated) information immediately. --bender235 (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there is no specific consensus. If you aren't even going to read what I actually said, there is no point in me arguing. You saw the word prediction and jumped to a conclusion despite the fact that I said wealth normalization is a "prediction about what that storm would cause today, not what it actually did". Nowhere in that did I mention opposing it because it was an estimate. I said it is inaccurate because it stems too far from what the storm actually did in its day. Since nobody seems to care anymore, this discussion is over and the template may stay for now. NoahTalk 02:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand, at least in principle, that comparing nominal damage figures from a storm in 1918 with a storm in 2018 is pointless? For the same reason oil price comparisons can only be reasonably done after adjusting for inflation. But then again, a barrel of oil in 1918 is not different from a barrel of oil in 2018, whereas a typical single-family home in 1918 was much cheaper, and contained much less valuable goods, than a typical single-family home in 2018. That's the logic behind wealth normalization, and while it's not a perfect method, it is far better than comparing nominal figures. --bender235 (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do. In this case, regular inflation adjustment would be much better as it simply takes what the storm did and adjusts it today's money value rather than predicting the amount said storm would cause today. As I said earlier, please explain what wealth normalization is in the article as it might baffle or confuse readers who have not experienced it before. A simple note on the column header would work. NoahTalk 03:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think both questions (1 "how costly was this 1915 storm in today's money?" and 2 "how costly would it be given today's population and wealth density?") are interesting. The answer to the second question is particular useful when comparing whether storms have become more costly over the past century. --bender235 (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Trillium Line route diagram detailed

Ununsed template, no reason to keep it around. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Template:Trillium Line route diagram. Useddenim (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The template is not unused, it is linked to from the less detailed template. I think this is an appropriate setup and the template should not be deleted or merged. BLAIXX 00:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaixx: where are you seeing that the template is used? this clearly shows that it isn't... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That shows it is not transcluded, but it is linked to from Trillium Line: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Trillium Line route diagram detailed. —Kusma (t·c) 20:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: that fact that it is linked is not relevant. The template is not used on any pages. If you want to use the content, then it should be transcluded on a page. Templates are meant for reuse, not to be linked to as stand alone pages. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it is not transcluded is not relevant, seeing that the template is being employed in a useful fashion, supplementing an article. —Kusma (t·c) 18:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Blaixx. —Kusma (t·c) 20:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Blaixx. Mackensen (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma and Mackensen: your !votes to keep neglect to actually address the point that the template is not used. LINKING to a template is not a valid use of a template. Templates are meant to be transcluded, not linked to as standalone pages. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the template is arguably main space content masquerading as a template. It's fulfilling a useful function in that respect, how would you suggest handling this differently without degrading the user experience? Mackensen (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Zackmann08: I disagree with your unproven assertion that this is "not a valid use". It may not be documented anywhere, but having diagrams in template space instead of article space has been a traditional and widely accepted practice for a long time. The information is not in article space because it is not an article, and we no longer have article subpages. It is not in file space because it is editable. It is in template space because it is similar to Template:Trillium Line route diagram. Some templates are useful as standalone pages, and there is nothing wrong with that. Deleting this template deletes useful information for no benefit. —Kusma (t·c) 18:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Zackmann08: Forget about WP:DONTGETIT. The template has valid content and is not “Unused”. It's perfectly acceptable for route diagrams to link to a more-detailed sub-diagrams, just as there's no prohibition against stand-alone templates: see Template:East Coast Main Line diagram, for example (or are you now going to nominate that for deletion, too?). Useddenim (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or actually use - Templates should not be used as links which replace articles. If that template is useful, then use it on the page. If if it isn't useful and you need to hide it, then it should be deleted. Linking it as if it were an article should not be acceptable. --Gonnym (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: And where is the directive that says that? Useddenim (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not used as a link that replaces an article. It is a diagram. We would not delete a diagram in file space if it is linked to from an article. This diagram has the advantage of being editable and including wikilinks, much better than an equivalent-looking SVG. —Kusma (t·c) 08:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is used as a link, which for any unknowing reader (and to most editors) would seem like a link to an article. There is a blue text link that leads to this diagram. I would have no issue with this diagram if it were actually placed on that article, but this is not the case. --Gonnym (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDL is not a valid argument. Useddenim (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Blaixx and others above. Just because it is not transcluded does not mean it is not fulfilling a useful purpose. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox U.S. state

Replace with {{Infobox settlement}}. At the very least this should be converted to a wrapper template. Yes this was previously nominated 10 years ago, but lots has changed since then. Additionally, it is not likely that there will be any new US states so shouldn't need to be maintained on new pages. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete after replacement as redundant; but if there is no consensus for that, at least make it a wrapper, per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Puerto Rico could very possibly become a state. I oppose for the replacement as there are unique parameters such as "admission to union". Wrapper would be better than deleting to allow consistency without having to patrol 50 articles. IWI (chat) 23:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge - the infoboxes should use the same code and have the same visual presentation to other settlement articles. The unique field mentioned above can be used by other countries which have joined a union. --Gonnym (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Can you sandbox several examples for various U.S. states? I'm not 100% that fields like "Capital," "Largest city," "Largest metro area," "U.S. Senators," "Before Statehood," "State song," and as mentioned "Admission to Union" have direct replacements in Template:Infobox settlement. We'd certainly need to use a number of custom fields, or add code to the template, which given the high number of pages that use Infobox settlement, should probably get a wider discussion. Federalism, the sort in the U.S. and Switzerland, is not that popular a system globally and U.S. states in many ways have more in common with countires (and fields in Template:Infobox country) than cities.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 18:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am curious about the wrapper suggestion. I do see that Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada is done as a wrapper, and provides several of the fields I'd noted Infobox Settlement doesn't include above. Again, showing it done in a sandbox might help convince other editors.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 20:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep States are not settlements. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{Infobox settlement}}, per its own doc page, is 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 .... US states clearly are subdivision[s] below the level of a country. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would argue then that this falls under usefulness. Notability cant apply here, and arguments seem to be centered around essays. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just as we still have Template:Infobox French region and Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada, etc, which oddly aren't being proposed for merger. I'm not quite sure what "wrapper" means, but if it means updating the coding to match Infobox settlement, that seems fine. I'm assuming all the infoboxes at Category:Templates calling Infobox settlement are wrappers, so there should be no problem doing that for "Template:Infobox U.S. state". - BilCat (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such arguments can be discounted, on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NODEADLINE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those basis are countered by WP:PRECEDENT and WP:YESDEADLINE though. We should be trying to tie this with policy and guidelines when possible. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Knowledgekid87, have you read the essays you linked to? YESDEADLINE does not say what you think it does and is not an opposite argument to NODEADLINE, even if the name appears to be. Also, if you want to invoke PRECEDENT, then just look at the recent few months of TfD discussions where wrappers and stand-alone settlement templates are being converted or merged back into {{Infobox settlement}}. Both "counters" are in fact, not. To the actual argument made by Bilcat, experience has shown that when nominating many templates of the same type in a group, the result is usually a no-consensus as the discussion fragments into too many pieces and as a result, the tendency is either to deal with one template one at a time, or with very small groups. Slowly all of the templates that should be merged, will get nominated. Opposing because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not contribute to any discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Should be merged" is a matter of opinion, if the template serves its purpose then why fix what isn't broken? My point is that essays contradict other essays which are not always based on community consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please when quoting me, use the full sentence so it will not be taken out of context. I said, Slowly all of the templates that should be merged, will get nominated, I specifically said nominated, which was in response to Bilcat, who said Just as we still have Template:Infobox French region and Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada, etc, which oddly aren't being proposed for merger. As I said, slowly the big list is being nominated, whether those pass or not is a different story, but opposing as two templates haven't been nominated yet is just missing the whole point. --Gonnym (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the earlier statements that U.S. states are not settlements. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you not see the response to that claim: {{Infobox settlement}}, per its own doc page, is 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 ...? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would argue that consensus can change, as the template documentation was placed there by editors. If we were going by Merriam-Webster the term for settlement is as follows [1]:
        • a : occupation by settlers
        • b : a place or region newly settled
        • c : a small village
      • I don't see how a state fits this criteria. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are, of course, at liberty to argue that consensus can change; however, you offer zero evidence that it has changed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Irrelevant claim Bokmanrocks01, your I agree with the earlier statements that U.S. states are not settlements. - it was not claimed in the proposal that they are. 78.54.186.169 (talk) 06:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. No reason this shouldn't at least be a wrapper, if not replaced entirely. Only users who truly fail to understand the purpose of Infobox settlement would think "a state isn't a settlement" is a valid argument against this. --Bsherr (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per previous precedent on merging templates similar to "Infobox settlement", as well as merging its wrapper templates. Template:Infobox settlement needs renaming, though. Might "Infobox subdivision" work better? Subdivisions are not settlements, but settlements are subdivisions (in some sense). Templates should have meaningful names. --Inops (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeep I like to find out when states were established, and this infobox is very useful, and condenses information into a nice little box. --Rubensbathsheba (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The parameters of {{Infobox U.S. state}} are all included in {{Infobox settlement}}, no reason to keep the former -- Jesuiseduardo (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Metadata Population BE

Not a valid way to store data. The population should either be directly placed on the page or stored in WikiData. Not maintained in this sort of template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete most per nom. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pppery: I wasn't done with the nomination, wanted to do in bulk. Can you confirm your vote still applies now that I've added the rest? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its not possible to store such population data on Wikidata due to licence problems. Wikidata requires CC0. Data sets from statistical offices of most European countries are published under cc-by, otherwise they would be on Wikidata since at least 2015. --Septembermorgen (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was a short discussion about this on deWP some time ago ([2] (in German, maybe some translation tool can help you). The result of this discussion was more or less the same as what I wrote before, but maybe things have changed on Wikidata since 2016. --Septembermorgen (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same for Destatis as for Statistik Thüringen [4] "Vervielfältigung und Verbreitung, auch auszugsweise, mit Quellenangabe gestattet". --Septembermorgen (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding maintained – compare population data for North Rhine-Westphalia:
  • from {{Metadata Population DE-NW}}: 18,139,116 (31 December 2022)
  • from Wikidata: 17,932,651 (31 December 2018)
-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's what happens when a community maintains data in multiple venues - they get out-of-sync. Far better to maintain data in one place, and transclude it as required. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the perfect is the enemy of the good. Yes, ideally we should use Wikidata for data (which, at least for Belgium, does not have population data for each entity as of now). For now we have this very useful system where we can easily put data, instantly updating all relevant articles where the data is transcluded. We shouldn't give up efficiency out of principles like "not a valid way to store data". SPQRobin (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "very useful system where we can easily put data, instantly updating all relevant articles where the data is transcluded [...] efficiency" Yes, you describe Wikidata perfectly. Multiple templates on individual Wikipedias is not efficient. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would support the nomination to delete the templates after their data is transferred to a similar database/table in Wikidata. Maintaining hundreds of individual entities there seems prohibitively laborious. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • You appear not to understand how Wikidata works. It is a database, it does not host databases, nor data tables. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - at least until there is a good, and equally well maintained alternative in Wikidata. The current population data templates are referenced, up to date (December 2016 and 2017) and I can't remember ever having found an error in the data. Markussep Talk 18:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I do not particularly like these templates (not intuitive to use, require updating on several wikis) but until there is a workable Wikidata alternative, de-centralising the updating of population data looks like a step backwards or two. —Kusma (t·c) 14:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a workable Wikidata alternative, already. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • As you probably noticed, it is currently of significantly inferior quality. Transferring the data in these templates to Wikidata wholesale would probably violate copyright, as most of the data is CC-BY or similar, not compatible with Wikidata's CC0. While I believe that population data should not have any usage restrictions, that does not seem to be the case. The templates are a workaround for the copyright situation, so they are currently the best way we have to store the data. —Kusma (t·c) 20:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • No: the alternative is of a much superior quality. That the data is not yet uploaded does not detract from the merits of the technical solution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Deleting these templates and using the data currently stored in Wikidata would degrade the quality of our articles. I do not care too much how the data arrives in the articles (whether from templates here or from Wikidata), but making information in our articles deliberately less accurate or less up-to-date is in my personal view significantly worse than using a "non-valid way to store data". Store the most up-to date data in a valid way, if that is possible, then come back. The theoretical technical superiority of the alternative is irrelevant if it means a practical decrease in quality of our articles. —Kusma (t·c) 21:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not one person is suggesting anything that would "degrade the quality of our articles" nor "making information in our articles deliberately less accurate or less up-to-date" and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Then I don't understand what it is you are suggesting. I see some "delete, the data should be on Wikidata" votes above that you seemed to agree with, as you started arguing with all of the keep voters. What do you think we should do? —Kusma (t·c) 21:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE the precedent has been established with Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_22#Metadata_population_AT_templates... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given how comparatively poorly attended that discussion was (2 deletes, 1 keep), it does not establish any sort of precedent. —Kusma (t·c) 19:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am not at all happy about what happened to the Austrian population templates. At the discussion about Infobox Town AT here there was no talk yet of substituting the population templates as well. But they were, and hence the templates were unused, and deleted. I strongly disagree with this procedure! Since this substitution, the populations are as of January 2016. In German wikipedia they have the populations as of January 2018, using templates. With the now deleted templates, we could have copied those (well referenced) data with 10 edits. Now we need 2,400 edits to achieve the same result. I don't call that progress. Let's not make the same mistake with the German and Belgian population templates. Markussep Talk 09:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I dislike the existence of all of these "database" templates, I agree that the Zackmann08 improperly pre-empted the result of the Metadata Population AT- discussion when executing the Infobox Town AT discussion. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_2&oldid=886431175"