Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JJMC89 (talk | contribs) at 05:53, 14 February 2019 (→Template:Cite journal/Edit: Closed as delete (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< February 5 February 7 >

February 6

Template:Infobox fictional ship

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge Template:Infobox fictional ship to Template:Infobox fictional vehicle. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox fictional ship with Template:Infobox fictional vehicle.
Only a few missing params that can be easily added. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox feature on Mars

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge all to Template:Infobox feature on celestial object. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox feature on Mars with Template:Infobox feature on celestial object.
Virtually identical, only 1 harcoded parameter is passed in by the wrappers (|globe=) and that can simply be passed into the base template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox district of Iraq

Propose merging Template:Infobox district of Iraq with Template:Infobox settlement.
I don't see any reason for a custom wrapper on 9 transclusions. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I understand that. I oppose. What actually does not make sense is that people keep mixing up objects' definitions. A country is not a settlement, and so are not their subdivisions nor their historical parts.
The notion that you claim "but wikipedia does so" is OR, nonsense actually, and indicates more bad stuff. -DePiep (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to read this guideline just now (not a user's perception then, nor a /doc suggestion): "(MOS:when article name in plural)": Articles on groups of country subdivisions (states or provinces), such as States of Austria, States of Nigeria, States of Mexico, Provinces of Sweden. (That is, by shortcut: our Guideline notes that country subdivisions are classes. Settlements are not). -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Zackmann, you might know SAP software? They keep abstracting things into "number of people", mathematicaly very correct and unusable. In WP this would trranslate to: "One meta infobox with all parameters we might need". OTOH, it is called "orthography" in Wikidata: define objects by asking the right questions. Then organise (=relate) these objects by more questions. -DePiep (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]
@DePiep: I think this is a case of agree to disagree. lol. It seemed (in Italics because I now see it is more than that) that your objection was that the template is called a "district" so it shouldn't use "settlement". My only point was that it already does use the settlement template. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not disagree about current Wikipedia facts. I claim that these WP situations are misguided. Even {{Infobox region}} is misguided. One cannot deny real life facts (i.e., the diff between objects 'human settlement' an 'administrative org'). -DePiep (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Belgium settlement

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Infobox settlement. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Belgium settlement with Template:Infobox settlement. I don't see any reason for a custom wrapper template for only 37 articles. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Cite jstor/subpage

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated for CSD G8 back in September because this was an "unused subpage of cite jstor template", but Primefac (talk · contribs) declined, saying ""being used" is not one of the reasons to G8 a template". Not really sure what the logic was behind that, but since G8 was declined, here we are. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The template is deprecated but not deleted so you get references that make a bit of sense when you browse page histories. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Matters not to me, I don't believe in leaving dead code that can still be used by other editors. By your rational, we shouldn't ever delete any template, including this, as all article histories will be better understood with them. References are not some special piece of content. --Gonnym (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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).

Template:Cite pmid/subpage

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated for CSD G8 back in September because this was an "unused subpage of cite pmid template", but Primefac (talk · contribs) declined, saying ""being used" is not one of the reasons to G8 a template". Not really sure what the logic was behind that, but since G8 was declined, here we are. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The template is deprecated but not deleted so you get references that make a bit of sense when you browse page histories. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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).

Template:Cite journal/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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated for CSD G8 back in September because this was an "unused subpage of cite journal template", but Primefac (talk · contribs) declined, saying ""being used" is not one of the reasons to G8 a template". Not really sure what the logic was behind that, but since G8 was declined, here we are. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox former subdivision

Propose merging Template:Infobox former subdivision with Template:Infobox settlement.
I'm curious as the whether it makes sense to simply merge this to Infobox Settlement. it seems like the majority of parameters overlap. The few that don't can quite easily be added. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The "former subdivision" obviously pertains to a country, not a settlement. Merging into {{Infobox country}} could be considered (but is not proposed so cannot be concluded). -DePiep (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DePiep: Interesting. I actually didn't think that this did obviously pertain to a country until you mentioned it. Just curious how two people can read the same thing and see things differently. Your note about merging to {{Infobox country}} is a great point. Personally I don't see any reason that can't be discussed here? No that wasn't what I initially proposed, but if that is a more appropriate solution I think it absolutely warrants discussion. I'm curious whether others in this thread would support that solution. I'm happy to discuss it here, or just let this TFD play out and then submit a new one. Either way. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Me saying "not proposed here so ..." is my idea of due TfD. {{Infobox country}} could be brought in maybe, but by then all existing argumentations here are confusing (directed at an other proposal, the first one). After such a change of proposal, it is hardly possible to have the !votes rewritten/reconsidered. IMO if this proposal does not lead to changes, soon after a new different merge proposal can be cleanly proposed. -DePiep (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • And below, as a Comment, I have described my preference to stick to the useful intuitive concepts of "Settlement" and "Country", also for derivatives like 'subdivision of' and 'former'. -DePiep (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above user's reasoning. This shouldn't be done. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 09:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:R9tgokunks There is only Template:Infobox person, no Template:Infobox former person. Only a few parameters regarding dissolution/death are the difference. Why an extra template in case of subdivisions? 78.55.20.3 (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While convincing, this is just not enough justification to get rid of this infobox. I am seeing great potential for this infobox. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose IB former subdivision has a clear scope of application, where using settlement would not be appropriate.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The original objection, and those following it, are based on bogus reasoning; subdivisions are not countries (we have {{Infobox former country}} for those) and Infobox settlement is for "settlements [and] other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". Note that {{Infobox subdivision}} redirects to Infobox settlement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pigsonthewing Please clarify how the first argument is "wikt:bogus reasoning". So far, it is only unqualified drive-by judging, not adding an argument.
Re your partial quote from documentation. For starters, by template names, "settlement" pertains to "settlements", and "country" pertains to "countries". Probably this documentation detail is substandard, and not a normative point anyway just descriptive especially not re other templates. In this guideline (i.e., a much tougher policy), it says "country subdivisions (states or provinces), such as States of Austria, ...", the link redirecting to Administrative division, which to me very clearly and flawlessly says it is about country organisation, not settlement features. -DePiep (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"only unqualified drive-by judging" I believe you've been warned before, more than once, about making unwarranted insinuations of bad faith against fellow editors. Desist. Andy Mabbett (); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pigsonthewing "unqualified" is a judgement of the argument you used (while accusing another editor of being illogical without base, so far). So please reply. -DePiep (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Several of these subdividions were subordinate state and provinces, while "settlements" is supposed to covers cities, towns, and villages. Dimadick (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per DePiep's logic. —Ntmamgtw (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per Pigsonthewing. There's no reason to have separate navboxes for current and former subdivisions. Note that Template:Infobox former country and Template:Infobox country were merged in December of 2016.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 19:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For all the excellent "Oppose" reasons already presented above. Mercy11 (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - since {{Infobox subdivision}} already redirects to {{Infobox settlement}} and has most of the parameters, including ones for an end date of the settlement, it seems that if there are missing parameters there are very few and could be easily added. The main difference is in the names of the parameters themselves - that makes this merge even more important as having articles about the same topic differ in the naming style makes editing harder for no reason. The merge would also ensure that all articles on the same topic would have a consistent look and any updates would be gained for all articles. --Gonnym (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose That one calls the other is not material because people use the two templates on different types of articles and it is counter-intuitive to look for a template settlement when writing about a former county or district of Whateverland. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • And again: Infobox settlement is for "settlements [and] other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country"; per its own documentation. Also, {{Infobox county}} redirects to - your guessed it, {{Infobox settlement}}. As does {{Infobox district}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • And again: the documentation is incorrect. "settlements [and] other administrative districts" (italics added): "other" states that settlements are "administrative districts" too. But that is not part of the concept. "Settlement" = where people live together. The admin organisation is not a requirement, just an non-defining property. -DePiep (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • A longer quote, without ellipses, is "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". HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • My point is right in there!: why "other administrative districts" while settlements are *not* an administrative district? How or why "other"? That is like: "elephants and other motorcycles": two different concepts. -DePiep (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose More curious is that you thinks that a more specific infobox are "unnecessary". Waste of time this thread. --WikiInspector42 (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, about concepts of "settlement" and "country". We have good concepts of both "settlement" (say, a unity inhabited by people) and "country" (say, an administrative geographic region). While hard to define, they are easy to grasp, to distinguish, and are intuitively recognised by article editors. Sure there is an overlap area (eg, when a city is a administrative region), but this is not prohibiting their distinctive concept. From this, it follows that we should build supportives (like templates) on this concepts.
    There is no use in making a super-generic template "place on earth where something happens", because well, 'a city is also a subdivisdion of a country'. Instead, we are helped with templates that handle for "settlement" also 'subdivision of' and 'former'. (They might be merged into their concept parent, but only when helpful for the editor and article; no use for a 500 parameter template). Same with a "country" set. Nor does overly smart fusion of parameter sets help. Instead, parameters and their names should easily follow from or be associated with the concept.
    With this, there might be a topical overlap in an article between "settlement" and "country" (eg, municipality borders). This already is covered by having similar parameters in both templates (like pop density), so editors can pick the most obvious concept template for an article instead of having to rethink a "city" being a "country subdivision". -DePiep (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • TL;DR: Infoboxes for Settlements and their subdivisions and historical ones should be tied to the concept of "Settlement".
    Infoboxes for Countries and their subdivisions and historical ones should be tied to the concept of "Country". -DePiep (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • TL;DR: Your wishes are at odds with both current practice and current consensus. This is not the place to change either. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No not "wishes", description. I did not create those concepts. (Please stop turning, after a third time now here, my arguments into personal jabs or throwaways. You are supposed to engage on content). BTW, why do you use this TL;DR construct, a special meaning? -DePiep (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A settlement is different from a regional subdivision, and is different from a country. Parameter overlap should not be a requirement for merging, because different infoboxes have different parameters and purposes not used by the other infobox. -Mardus /talk 10:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Former subdivision means a change happened in that place and the article is about the change, e.g., the Gadsden Purchase of 1853. Former subdivision infobox suits that article perfectly. Infobox settlement is about a place now in existence, its features and its history, like Chicago or Detroit. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Already good reasoning given by many. It seems quite clear that the documentation for Infobox settlement needs appropriate changes. Jazze7 (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion If it will be merged, can we use bots to substitute one infobox for another? If this is the main concern of changing 2000 infoboxes, then a bot can solve it (I believe). :)--Biografer (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So I don't have a strong opinion either way on the template merge, but I don't think that "this is how we've always used this template" is a fair argument for merging. Our job as editors is to create content based on how it should be, not based on how it is. If there's not a good reason why Template:Infobox settlement has been used to represent subdivisions for over a decade, then we should change our usage; if there is a good reason, then that reason for the tradition should be the basis of this discussion, not the tradition itself, and the reason should be stated here, not on a separate talk page. Someone the Person (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me this comment makes some more sense when read as a reply to Andy's describes how it is used-post two bullets above. -DePiep (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No-one is arguing based on "tradition". There are indeed good reasons why we use the same template for various types of settlements and administrate districts (note least that many of our articles are about subjects that are both settlements and administrate districts), and we do not need to re-litigate them every time someone objects to merging very similar templates. As I said above, if an editor wishes to change the way we use, or describe, Infobox settlement, this is not the place to do so. I note also that no proposal to do so has been made, on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I find the merging of these Infoboxes unintuitive, unnecessary, and likely to make a mess. No matter how similar the templates are, merging templates with 2 different subject matters will make a mess when it comes to actually merging them, and will be confusing to those unfamiliar with the merge. Overall, it feels counterproductive to spend effort merging 2 templates to have 1 template for a bunch of things but with hundreds of different variables, when there's plenty of space for both to exist. Hecseur (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might find it "confusing", but those of us who have been merging templates for more than a decade, including many into {{infobox settlement}}, do not. And after the merger instances of {{Infobox former subdivision}} will work just as they do now, so no "mess" will occur. We have plenty of precedence for this. There are not "hundreds" of variables involved in the proposed merger. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • re Pigsonthewing. "those of us who ... do not": please do not speak for others. I have been merging just as well and not merging all those years, your statement does not hold. Hecseur is to the point when saying that this merge proposal is confusing (not so-called "confusing") because it is about "2 different subject matters". That is confusing, especially for the article editor who is invited to actually use the infobox (and let's not forget those having to write the documentation for such a chaotic situation). Describing a city with a country infobox is trying to square a circle. And yes those unnatural parameters and their presentation is unintuitive, unnecessary, and a mess. I'd still like to read why merging two different concepts is a good idea, other than 'was done before' and 'documentation says so'. (We are not talking about a merge like {{Infobox UK school}} into {{Infobox school}}, obviously). -DePiep (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Describing a city with a country infobox..." Readers will note that not one person has suggested doing this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I repeat, for thos unwilling to understand: 1. Speak for yourself, 2. Yes it is about mixing up concepts. What's next? Infoboxing vulcans as a country subdivision? You still have not replied to this fundamental issue information. -DePiep (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I have already said above: "you've been warned before, more than once, about making unwarranted insinuations of bad faith against fellow editors. Desist.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Just a comment on this argument, I'm pretty sure warning a user with bold letters and using the fact that they were warned before against them really isn't addressing the problem of the conceptual division. Anyway, as I see it, the problem of different parameters is still a huge deal. The documentation states that the template is to be used in "any subdivision below the level of a country", having the names of the upper and lower houses of the legislature in a settlement infobox, doesn't make sense by that regard, at all. If there are so many variables in common, Template:Infobox former subdivision could be rewritten with Module:Template wrapper. But in my opinion, an outright merge isn't a good idea, especially since that merge isn't necessary, and isn't as obvious as it is to you to others. Hecseur (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Hecseur what is your point? The only difference is having information about the end of the entity. Dissolved, date, reason. ~ 500 000 articles use the IB settlement. It is a standard, a lot of editors know the template. Why to have an extra one for the same type of entities (type: territorial entity)? 78.55.20.3 (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't really understand what you're trying to argue. Just like infobox settlement is used for settlements AND subdivisions, infobox former subdivision is used for subdivisions AND countries. The matter of fact is, you don't add variables which are specific for countries, such as for the upper and lower houses of the legislature, to a template that should never be used for countries. It's like having a variable for kilowatt hours in an infobox about fungi species, it doesn't make sense for it to be there, and therefore it shouldn't. If I misread your arguement, because I didn't really understand it, let me know. Hecseur (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose just too many useful and unique parameters that will end up deprecated in the proposed target.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As clear by the first sentences of each template’s article, both templates are for the purposes of all non-country human settlements, just one is for former and one is for current. Why the distinction between current and former needs to be made is beyond me. Benica11 (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A country is not subdivided into settlements. The country is about administrative geographical organisation (and so are its subdivisions), a settlement is a place where humans live together. Just reusing overlapping parameters is not a "merge". The documentation page(s) corrupt these concepts which can not work out well. -DePiep (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @DePiep: What exactly are you trying to refute from this argument? A country may not be "subdivided into settlements," but it is clear that the purpose of the template is to provide an infobox that universally serves the needs of every subdivision, province, state, department, and standard settlement with status below that of a country. Benica11 is not arguing that country subdivisions "are" settlements.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 09:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • re Molandfreak (ec). "purpose of the [target] template is to provide an infobox that universally serves ...": this describes the problem. The idea of a country is some administrative organisation, geographically defined (subdivisions are provinces, regions, overseas areas, ...). A settlement is where people live together, with scales like metropolitan area, neighbourhood, ...). All this also applies to "former" ones. But a country is not "devided" into settlements as a pizza is devided into constituing parts.
Now stuffing all parameters and formatting and layout and priorities for two different concepts into one template does not help anyone. It's good enough to use similar parameters (like population number), but that does not mean they should be applied the same (eg, order position in the infobox). There is no need to do so, it only leads to compromises that are unhelpful for the reader (and also confusing for the article editor having to trawl scores of parameters with wide descriptions & limitations; and that is when the documentation is up to date & complete). What is the end? One "universal" infobox for the whole of enwiki, and let the editor search?
The notice that 'documentation says so' and 'it's being used like that' is not an argument, but a bug. Why would a province be primarilly described as a settlement? Why would a cross-border metropolitan area (=settlement) be primarilly tied to a single country?
The opposite, an example. I work with templates {{Infobox drug}}, {{Chembox}}, {{Infobox element}}. All for chemicals, and no one seriously wants to merge them. That is because sure there are similar parameters (think, in a Venn diagram), but design requirements are different by concept (e.g., for a drug, chemical poperties are way less important so are below). -DePiep (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox country, Infobox settlement, Infobox former subdivision - each is meant for a territorial entity. The differences are small. In the case of the latter, it is only adding information about the end of the entity. There is only Template:Infobox person, no Template:Infobox former person. 78.55.20.3 (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Usage of infobox templates for articles in Category:Administrative territorial entities
Namespace Category:Administrative territorial entities by type Category:Former administrative territorial entities (Current) Category:Proposed administrative territorial entities
Category Category:Countries Category:Former countries Category:Proposed countries
Template {{Infobox country}}
used independent of time 		{{Infobox country}} {{Infobox country}}
few redirects, no(?) calls, less than 4000 transclusions [1] 		{{Infobox country}}
Category Category:Country subdivisions Category:Former subdivisions of countries Category:Proposed country subdivisions
Template {{Infobox settlement}}
used independent of time 		Two infoboxes are used:
{{Infobox settlement}}
{{Infobox former subdivision}} - less than 2000 transclusions[2] 		{{Infobox settlement}}
several redirects, at least 79 calls by other templates (wrappers cf. Category:Templates calling Infobox settlement), ca. 500 000 transclusions 		{{Infobox settlement}}

77.13.148.190 (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion for this seems to still be ongoing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I would like to say that I don't think it's really important whether they are merged or not merged. However, I would like to request that someone help me find someone who would import the "other_name" parameter from 'Infoxbox settlement' into 'Infobox former subdivision' so that I can add some of the old names of Hankou on that page in the way you see other names in the infobox on pages like Beijing and Chongqing. Also, under the normal English meaning of the terms, I don't consider Hankou primarily as a "former subdivision". Hankou is a living, breathing geographical concept in modern Wuhan, despite the fact that it is no longer an official subdivision. Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox settlement wrappers

Unnecessary wrappers for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.

See also a recent batch of similar wrappers, which were all deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of templates not included in this nomination
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No; but neither does your saying that make it not a fact. Consider, for example, the PCC template's code: 

| image_flag              = {{{Flag|}}}
| image_map               = {{{Map|}}}
| mapsize                 = {{{MapSize|}}}

| population_total        = {{{Pop|}}}
| population_as_of        = {{{PopYear|}}}

It is clear that such parameter names are inconsistent with those in the parent template, not to mention other wrappers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flag can be removed outright, as, in the PRC, subnational flags are disallowed outside of the two SARs of Hong Kong and Macau. The others can be easily renamed with an AWB run, which I have done. Strutting around on a crusade and bringing this matter to TfD is not a productive tactic. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Strutting around on a crusade"? Mind your tone. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tone policing does not alter the fact you still are lacking an argument for the unnecessary introduction of the language formatting as well as the links to the ranked provincial articles, such as List of Chinese administrative divisions by GDP, both which are taken care of with the wrapper. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see you found the inconsistency in names I was referring to. I was sure that linking to the specific template with the problem would be obvious, as most of the parameter names are inconsistent both in using a different parameter name than the original template and also inconsistent with other parameters in the same template using Pascal case instead of Snake case. Also, if you look at the actual closing comment and not how Alex (the one who did the conversion) interrupted it, it said to merge the template, not to create a wrapper. I'm assuming Alex did it as a compromise. --Gonnym (talk) 11:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Loose with the facts yet again, as it was the closer, who interpreted "merged" as a wrapping. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all, including china - the current "wrapper" style is not a programatically correct way of doing these such of things. While it may seem to work, the cons outweigh the benefits it brings, such as the maintenance burden of making sure that every change, fix or addition to the parent template gets trickled down to the countless other templates and the lack of documentation and inconsistency of parameter names (looking at you {{Infobox Province of China (PRC)}}) which, as Andy says, are a cognitive burden for editors which need to learn a new template style for each country. --Gonnym (talk) 13:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to clear really old log day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, merge into an "administratice region" infobox instead. As Tom (LT) already noted (first !vote): "... merge into something along the lines of "Infobox region" as to me settlement isn't a very logical term to describe these places". Per definition, a settlement (human) is not a region (administrative unit). Whatever non-vetted wiki documentation may say: we cannot change RL concepts, so future editors will be confused ever. -DePiep (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't what you are suggesting a WP:RM then? This is more of a technical change from a wrapper of a template, to a direct invocation of that same template. --Gonnym (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • OMG, {{Infobox region}} already corrupted. Basically, same topic as in this TfD: settlement and country are not the same concepts, full stop. So should not be merged. The specifiers in all but one of the templates here are administrative parts of a country not (human) settlements, Canton, Latvian district, Maldives atoll, Province of China (PRC), region of Italy, Ukrainian oblast, Venezuelan state: none is a settlement. (Vienna district is the exception here). No reader or article-editor is helped when an object type A is described as being an object type B. Documentation cannot undo this. -DePiep (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • FFS DePiep, you've already derailed the 'Infobox former subdivision' discussion (currently on the same page as this discussion); there's no need for you to derail this one as well. As you've been told several times in that discussion: "Infobox settlement is for 'settlements [and] other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country'; per its own documentation." and "if you wish to change the way {{Infobox settlement}} is used - and has been used for over a decade - start a discussion on its talk page.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all perfect case of Infobox consolidation. The articles are stable and substituting the templates in and then deleting the wrapper will remove overhead. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IMDb award

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template is unused, deprecated and replaced by {{IMDb event}}. Should be deleted so it won't be used incorrectly. Gonnym (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:KBS Historical Drama

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Topic deemed not notable per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KBS historical drama so we shouldn't have a navbox for a non-notable subject. --woodensuperman 13:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Raw vs. Impact ratings

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Table was broken away from TNA Impact!'s move to Monday nights only to transclude back to only that one page. No reason for its own template Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not required per nom. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
support - especially considering the information is highly unlikely to change. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Monday Night Wars ratings

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template was broken away from Monday Night Wars only to be transcluded back to just that one page. No reason to break it out Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not required. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Periodic tables key

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template has been deprecated for over 5 years and replaced by {{Periodic table legend}} and not used. Should be deleted so as to not be incorrectly used. Gonnym (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (speedy). Replaced by Template:Periodic table legend. (I worked extensively with those legend templates). -DePiep (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Chess position

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template has been tagged as deprecated and been replaced by {{Chess diagram}}. It should be replaced by the newer template where used then redirected. Gonnym (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:RadioSimulcast

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A deprecated and unused template replaced by {{RadioTranslators}}. Should be deleted so it won't be incorrectly used. Gonnym (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:SBS Daily dramas

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

promo, WP:NOTTVGUIDE The Banner talk 10:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:SBS weekend special dramas

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

promo, WP:NOTTVGUIDE The Banner talk 10:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Formosa Television Sunday Drama

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

promo, WP:NOTTVGUIDE The Banner talk 10:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:SBS Drama Special

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

promo, WP:NOTTVGUIDE The Banner talk 10:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:IPA audio filename

{{IPA symbol}} {{IPA audio filename}} has been deprecated for {{IPA symbol}} and is not used. Template should be deleted so it won't be incorrectly used. Gonnym (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guess you meant to say: [3] {{IPA audio filename}} has been deprecated for {{IPA symbol}}. If so, deletion is OK. Might need replacement in {{IPA symbol/check audio}}? (I am the creator). -DePiep (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for the correction. --Gonnym (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then. -DePiep (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Check done: {{IPA symbol/check audio}} is useless, not maintained Deleteable. -DePiep (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then {{IPA symbol/check audio (row)}} should be deleted as well as its use is only for that page. --Gonnym (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BS-table3

Propose merging Template:BS-table3 with Template:Routemap.
This template has been deprecated since April 2017 and still has 101 transclusions. The documentation says to use {{Routemap}} instead which is used on over 10k articles and is better supported. There is no reason to keep this template if there is an actively supported alternative that does the same thing. Gonnym (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:INinttop

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template is deprecated by {{Jctint}} and has no transclusions. It should be deleted as there is no reason to leave it, allowing it to be incorrectly used. Gonnym (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:Majical Cloudz

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template is rather short and made redundant by the creation of this template: Template: Devon Welsh Koyyo (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:2018–19 Bangladesh Premier League (football)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and folk of previous season Hhkohh (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_6&oldid=883248256"