The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:President of Forza Italia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Papyrus siglum (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't think we really need this, and it's not good for screen readers. I can see showing the symbolic notation once in the article, but not every single time you write "Papyrus #". Frietjes (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. On the default MW configuration this is a plain MoS breach as we should not use images to represent text in the body (the MathML version is scarcely better). Should be replaced by plain text in the sole article that uses it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bee Gees top (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

single use template, so I "substituted" it in Bee Gees. Frietjes (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2008 EL South standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template, season articles for minor league teams are not notable per consensus – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2008 EL North standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template, season articles for minor league teams are not notable per consensus – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Movenotice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Movenotice template no longer serves a useful purpose given the current state of WP:title policy, WP:RM guidelines and practice. Movenotice as currently used populates the Category:Proposed moves which is in conflict with Category:Requested moves. Current guidelines allow editors to place a Movenotice template on an article page without actually creating a move discussion (RM or other) on the talk page. If an RM discussion is not created, then there is no follow-up mechanism to make or not make a move decision. Even if a normal discussion is created, there is no procedure for follow-up and closure. This allows the Movenotice to languish on the article forever with no action and thus Category:Proposed moves (a category that I suspect gets little scrutiny) gets bloated with old movenotices. When an RM discussion is created, movenotice is recommended but not required, thus Category:Requested moves is populated with far more articles than Category:Proposed moves. Currently it is 224 to 21. Eliminating movenotice will not be disruptive and the current reference to it in policy and the RM template can easily be removed. (Already has been by another editor) If the Movenotice template is not eliminated and there is consensus that all proposed title changes should be advertised on the article page (similar to AfD), then we will change the guidelines and RM templates to make its use mandatory in conjunction with RMs and RFCs dealing with title changes, as well as eliminate the Category:Proposed moves. See previous TFD here and current WT:Title discussion here. Mike Cline (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This template (in its current form) was created and documented without discussion. Its use, which is relatively rare, is subject to random editors' whims (reflecting no meaningful distinction) and can cause confusion (for the reasons noted above).
  As Mike stated, a mandatory article template might make sense, but there's never been consensus for such a practice (nor, for that matter, has there been consensus for this template's inconsistent use). A move request, unlike a deletion request, is of no interest to a vast majority of an article's readers. —David Levy 15:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The backlog for the move notice under a year old has finally been converted into ((requested move)), those over a year old were closed as stale. There is currently a window to remove this template before it starts to be placed at the top of random articles. There is a strong argument for not placing such a template in article space. Any editor who is watching the article will be also alerted to changes in the talk page if a RM request is placed there, so the number of editors who are going to chance across this template because they happen to read a page during the seven days it is up for moving are few and far between (this was empirically proven during the conversion of the backlog, very few editors added opinions to the talk page after the first few days, so the chances are that it was the page on their watch-list and not the template that attracted them, to comment). The opinions of new users and IPs are discounted from RM polls, and contentious page moves can be quite vitriolic, so the marginal benefit of attracting readers to participate in such polls is outweighed by their lack of ability to influence RM polls and the likelihood that they will see a side of Wikipedia editorial behaviour that will not encourage them to stay around. There are much gentler ways to be induced into contributing to Wikipedia! Having said all that it might be possible to restrict its usage to policy and guideline pages (see for example its use for the current requested move Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing (a how-to-guide) however before this was converted into a requested move, the ((movenotice)) had sat on the how-to guide for 2 months with not one person contributing to the conversation, which suggests it tends to be ignored. -- PBS (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the opinions of new users and IPs are discounted from RM polls (technically not polls) then that's a problem, not a justification. Skullers (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to a bot-only template. A bot can be used to automatically place and remove the template, in relation to the existence of a properly formatted move discussion, similar to how the current requested moves bot updates listings and posts notices on talk pages. As mergers and splits are tagged with subjectspace tags, moves should be as well. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no consensus for such a procedure, and TfD isn't an appropriate venue in which to establish one.
  Merger/split tags assist readers by directing them to pages on which related material exists or to which it might be relocated. Move tags serve no comparable purpose. —David Levy 20:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  But it does serve that purpose, since move requests can replace one page with another (multimoves, displacing pages with disambiguation and vice versa, primary topic disputes) A completely unrelated subject can end up usurping the pagename for the current subject in a primary topic replacement move. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  When this occurs, hatnotes and disambiguation pages direct readers to their intended destinations.
  However, the idea of tagging an article specifically in such an instance (when the move request, if successful, would result in the placement of a different page at its title) seems more likely to be accepted.
  But again, this isn't the correct venue in which to propose such a rule. As of now, there's no consensus that a move tag ever should appear in the article namespace, so the template should be deleted. If consensus changes, the tag (or one similar to it) can be restored/created at such time. —David Levy 21:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  In multi-moves the bot that formats the muiti-move template places a section on the talk page of the articles involved in the request. See for example Talk:Pham Duy#Move discussion in progress -- PBS (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It's been brought to deletion, so precluding discussion elsewhere unless it is kept. As for the example of PBS, it could also be used as a header template for those sections, that is removed when the move discussion is closed, thus indicating an active discussion, instead of making everyone check if the discussion has expired or not. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It's been brought to deletion, so precluding discussion elsewhere unless it is kept.
  Incorrect. If the template is deleted, discussion of potential process changes (including those entailing the template's restoration or the creation of a similar template) can continue unabated. —David Levy 04:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That'll end with a ((db-repost)) with a DRV, no? -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The template's proposed deletion is contingent upon the absence of consensus for its use. If a future discussion results in such consensus, it will supersede this one.
  In other words, when we decide to delete something, that doesn't mean that it can never be created again; it means that it shouldn't exist unless and until the deletion rationale no longer applies (because the community reaches a new decision or the relevant circumstances otherwise change). —David Levy 00:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - some titles are controversial, and it's needed to indicate so in the article itself. The template shouldn't be deleted based on occasional misuse. Currently there's 4 other templates on article title: ((Cleanup-articletitle)), ((Inappropriate title)), ((Disputed title)), ((POV-title)), but a generic one is needed. It matches the merge/split templates as well, which are related wrt article scope and similar issues. Skullers (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  some titles are controversial, and it's needed to indicate so in the article itself.
  That doesn't accurately describe the template's usage. In actual practice, no such distinction is drawn. The template is simply inserted when an editor arbitrarily decides to. No material difference exists between move requests in which the template is used (relatively few) and ones in which it isn't.
  If a title is believed to be problematic, the article can be tagged with one of the other templates that you mentioned.
  The template shouldn't be deleted based on occasional misuse.
  It should be deleted because its normal use doesn't reflect consensus.
  It matches the merge/split templates as well, which are related wrt article scope and similar issues.
  As noted above, merger/split tags assist readers (by pointing them to related articles). Likewise, it's helpful to notify readers of potential problems (as is done via the other templates that you mentioned). Conversely, a routine move request is an editor-facing matter. That's why there's never been consensus to tag the articles themselves. —David Levy 22:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  What is this editor/reader distinction? Editors read, and anyone can edit. By that logic most of the messages are "editor-facing". The other templates state problems with the current title while the new title may be in question, and a move worthy of discussion in the first place should be brought to attention. Moves are similar to merger/split tags in that a different title can change the scope of the article. They are needed for more than just (temporarily) pointing to related articles. Skullers (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  What is this editor/reader distinction? Editors read, and anyone can edit.
  Most readers don't edit, so editor-facing messages are of no relevance to them (and would merely clutter articles and cause distraction/confusion). That's why we place them on talk pages instead.
  By that logic most of the messages are "editor-facing".
  No, many templates inform readers of issues affecting them (e.g. those pertaining to articles' quality/reliability). That's why we place them in the articles themselves.
  The other templates state problems with the current title while the new title may be in question,
  That, along with a possible change in scope, doesn't impact readers unless and until the move is made (which won't occur unless there's consensus that the proposed changes aren't problematic). I see no material distinction between such a case and any other move request. Editors discuss the options and decide which is best.
  But it's perfectly reasonable for you to disagree. And you're welcome to propose that the template (or a similar one) be used in the manner that you've described (just as 76.65.131.248 is welcome to propose that it be used for multi-moves). That simply isn't what occurs now, nor is there consensus that it should. Until such time, there's no valid reason for the template to exist. —David Levy 01:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That, along with a possible change in scope, doesn't impact readers unless and until the move is made [...] Editors discuss the options and decide which is best.
  I absolutely oppose this kind of elitism, as it is contrary to our principles. We should be encouraging participation (and by extension an increase in "editors") rather than reinforcing the "most readers don't edit". Or the proportion of most for that matter. Editing in article space is not a requirement. A change in scope is in a way similar to deletion in that it affects the availability of information within the article. (to use your own words). Again, editors are readers as well and you shouldn't have to search talk pages for it. And where is this consensus for/against established? As far as I know, the procedure to proposing a move was[1][2] to place ((Movenotice)) on the article and ((Requested move)) on the talk page, and one would assume that the procedure reflected some kind of policy/consensus. Since the template's already been removed from all articles, there's nothing to draw additional feedback. I suggest opening an RfC or something before proposing deletion. Skullers (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I absolutely oppose this kind of elitism, as it is contrary to our principles.
  It isn't elitism. Indeed, anyone can edit. But most readers choose not to. This isn't about punishing them or deeming them inferior; it's about respecting and accommodating their preference by providing encyclopedia articles that aren't cluttered with irrelevant distractions.
  Or the proportion of most for that matter.
  "Only 6% of Wikipedia readers indicate that they have ever edited Wikipedia content." "The most prominent reason for not editing was readers feeling happy with simply reading the articles." [Source: Wikimedia Foundation survey]
  A change in scope is in a way similar to deletion in that it affects the availability of information within the article.
  This template doesn't indicate a proposed change in scope (which isn't an element of most moves and can occur without a move). Why aren't you arguing for the creation of a tag advertising a proposed change in scope?
  And where is this consensus for/against established?
  The matter has been discussed many times at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves and elsewhere. I don't have time to search the archives at the moment, but you're welcome to.
  As far as I know, the procedure to proposing a move was to place ((Movenotice)) on the article and ((Requested move)) on the talk page, and one would assume that the procedure reflected some kind of policy/consensus.
  Yes, one would assume that. In actuality, an editor inserted the instruction to use ((movenotice)) five minutes after repurposing a talk page template. All of this occurred without discussion.
  I suggest opening an RfC or something before proposing deletion.
  To date, no discussion has resulted in consensus to advertise move requests (whether all or some) in the article namespace. Why should this template exist before such consensus is established? —David Levy 04:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Title changes and Template:movenotice to draw additional input on this matter. Skullers (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I've responded there. —David Levy 21:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, with qualification, I'd be OK with keeping the template ONLY IF the RMbot operator (or another willing and able volunteer) built some logic 1) to check if the template is used when an RM is closed and removing the template and 2) to remove the template if there is no corresponding RM discussion. Without some built-in maintenance infrastructure, the template is of too little value. older ≠ wiser 12:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I find the evidence presented by PBS in the village pump thread compelling. It's clear that this template isn't helpful for generating discussion and might even be harmful. -CapitalQ (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above discussion. This template tends to add more confusion since it needs to be used in addition to the actual move request template on the talk page. While it might invite more editors to a move discussion, the bad effects outweigh the good. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Simply adds confusion, and does not add to the WP:RM procedure. Also it appears that half of the time it gets added to the talk page instead of to the article, which is just plain wrong. Apteva (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  See Template talk:Movenotice#Template Warning Needed - Don't Place on Talk Page–so in theory, this should no longer be a problem–but it amazes me that some editors ignore such messages (they don't bother to "show preview"?) and hit "save page" anyway. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Deprecate and move it to Category:Deprecated page name maintenance templates, which I recently created. Keeping it penned up with these will keep old links from becoming red links in page histories. These templates should be handled in a consistent manner and organized into one location. In the past, some have been tagged ((historical)) and categorized into Category:Inactive project pages (e.g., template:RMlink, others made soft-redirects (e.g., template:Move-specialized, others just left with a note (e.g., template:Naming, and others redirected. While it probably wouldn't be difficult for RMCD bot to post a message to article pages in similar fashion as multi-move talk pages, the trick would be removing the message. The Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions are already pretty involved (step #7 is Remove any relevant ((Movenotice)) tags off the page), and it may make sense to make this a semi-automated bot-assisted process, but that's not trivial and would take some effort. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Why is it important to "keep old links from becoming red links in page histories" (an impossibility, given the frequency with which transcluded items, particularly images, are deleted), let alone in the case of a message whose relevance is ephemeral? Has the matter been discussed somewhere?
  Templates are deprecated (instead of deleted) when a setup has changed and it's important to point editors in the correct direction. (That's when a red link would be harmful.) This isn't applicable to ((movenotice)), which was intended to optionally supplement the WP:RM process. Such usage, which never reflected consensus in the first place, hasn't been replaced with something else; it's simply been rejected. The WP:RM process is unchanged, so there's no need to provide any sort of notification. —David Levy 19:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not saying there's a need to preserve everything that might red-link, e.g., with images you see a file name *.jpg or something and it's immediately obvious that an image was deleted. With a deleted template, you leave people new to Wikipedia with a missing template and questions, what the heck did that template do? Why was it deleted? ... and no easy way to get answers. There seems to be a stage where templates for moving were created willy-nilly and there hasn't been a good effort at documenting and making sense of it all and what the difference between templates was. I think the functionality can be consolidated to where there are just a small number of general move-related templates. The deprecated holding-pen need not be permanent. But it's useful to keep while RM procedures are still a work in progress. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  With a deleted template, you leave people new to Wikipedia with a missing template and questions, what the heck did that template do? Why was it deleted?
  The percentage of "people new to Wikipedia" who examine revision histories and understand how our template system functions must be infinitesimal. In that context, a deprecation notice almost surely would cause more confusion than it would alleviate.
  The deprecated holding-pen need not be permanent. But it's useful to keep while RM procedures are still a work in progress.
  Again, this situation has nothing to do with changes to the WP:RM procedure. The template hasn't been superseded by something else to which we need to direct editors' attention. It's simply been rejected. —David Levy 21:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I know I'm part of an infinitesimal group. But I don't see how ((deleted template)) would cause confusion, and it would avoid the need for a non-admininstrator to request userfication to see it. The template does relate to procedures used to move pages.

  The template ((Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 11)) has been deprecated since 16 May 2024, and is retained only for old article revisions. If this page is a current revision, please remove the template.
  

  certainly seems self-explanatory to me, vs.

  Template:Movenotise (typo intentional)

  which leaves someone who has been using the template for years, and doesn't bother with reading documentation or these talk pages, scratching their head (huh, did I mistype that?) – Wbm1058 (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I know I'm part of an infinitesimal group.
  You aren't "new to Wikipedia". If, when you were new to Wikipedia, you viewed revision histories and understood how our template system functioned, you were part of an infinitesimal group at the time.
  But I don't see how ((deleted template)) would cause confusion
  Newcomers viewing old revisions are unlikely to know what a wiki "template" is (and therefore probably won't understand the message's significance). They're much more likely to know that a red link indicates that something doesn't currently exist.
  The template does relate to procedures used to move pages.
  It isn't (and never was) part of the actual WP:RM procedure, which is unchanged. The template hasn't been superseded by something else, so no notification is called for. Someone who used this template can simply stop using it. Every step of the WP:RM process (which always was to be followed, irrespective of whether this template supplemented it) remains the same.
  which leaves someone who has been using the template for years, and doesn't bother with reading documentation or these talk pages, scratching their head (huh, did I mistype that?)
  Simply following the red link leads directly to a page indicating that the template was deleted. —David Levy 19:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Template:Move notice and Template:Move to should also be deleted. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Also remove This page in a nutshell: instruction #7 (Remove any relevant ((Movenotice)) tags off the page.) and section #Removing any relevant ((movenotice)) tags from WP:RM/Closing instructions. – Wbm1058 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, when this template is deleted, we will need to go back through the appropriate policies, guidelines, essays, help and such to find and eliminate references and redirects as necessary. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment – I found a related template ((move header)), which was deleted a year ago. The deletion discussion doesn't make clear how it differs from ((movenotice)). It appears that it may have been designed for the headers of talk pages? Can an admin hanging out here userfy it for me so I can take a look at it? Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done You can find it at: User:Wbm1058/Template:Move header --Mike Cline (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep, since it is not clearly redundant, and no examples demonstrating the redundancy were provided. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to ((Infobox Settlement)) (for which it could sensibly be made a redirect). Only 64 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't see how it is redundant. It is meant only for electoral constituencies and is tailored specifically for such articles. At the very least, there are fields in this infobox that are not at all appropriate for Infobox settlement. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 16:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such as? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. if you want to refactor it as a frontend for infobox settlement, go ahead, but we should keep this as a distinct template. Frietjes (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a reason or is that just a personal preference? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think consistency is good, but that we should really start by merging as many of these templates first, then talk about killing this one. if you disagree, could you start by showing how you would change the infobox in Hong Kong Island (constituency) to use template:infobox settlement? I fail to see how this would be done without having something where every single field label has to be specified, which would essentially be no different from using template:infobox directly in the article. Frietjes (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. I'm busy now, but will make the conversion you request later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Are these really redundant semantically? A consitituency is a political entity: a settlement is a geographical one. I'm aware that there's overlap there, but it's not 100%. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't need separate templates, and increased maintenance overhead, just for semantic variances; hence my suggestion of a redirect (c/f ((Infobox officeholder)); ((Infobox Settlement))'s documentation says that it should be used for "...administrative districts ... in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". I'll wager that we already have many more than 64 articles about constituencies, which use the latter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. When creating an article on a constituency, it's much easier (and much more logical) to use the constituency template rather than a far more general template in which we'd have to wade through lots of off-topic fields and leave them blank. Let's avoid creating needless complication. Aridd (talk) 10:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.