< September 16 September 18 >

September 17


Template:Infobox Nigerian States

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

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

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

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

Comment: I am seeing way too many of these open TFD discussions for the exact same reason. A better alternative would have been to open up a WP:RFC or a WP:CENT and debate once and for all whether all of these templates should be merged/delete/deprecated in favor ((Infobox settlement)). Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is appropriate to discuss them individually rather than globally because there are "local" issues with some of them. They may have features that aren't accommodated in the more general template, for example. This way interested parties for each template can raise their specific concerns, and in some cases a localized template may stay because of issues raised by people who probably would not have participated in a centralized discussion on some project-level page that they don't follow. --RL0919 (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Himalayan 12:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on principle that the multitude of settlement template deletion discussions is being handled in an ass-backwards manner. Put together an RFC and hash out in a centralized discussion forum whether the community in general wants ((Infobox settlement)) to be the single master template for all settlement types. older ≠ wiser 13:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll explain it again this template is specific to the needs of specialised subject matter within Wikipedia, can you please link to the policy that specify how many articles are needed before we create subject specific templates. Gnangarra 22:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing specialized about this template beyond its name. Can you point out the specialized functionality that it has which is not supported by the general template? Nor did I make any claim about a "policy" regarding subject-specific templates, so I do not know why you would ask me to link to one. Can you please link to the policy that calls for keeping as many redundant infobox templates as possible? --RL0919 (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Possibly useful.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
(ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 11:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Liberia County

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

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

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

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

Delete. Unused and redundant per nom. See the obvious improvment here [[[User talk:Himalayan Explorer| Himalayan]] 12:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep on principle that the multitude of settlement template deletion discussions is being handled in an ass-backwards manner. Put together an RFC and hash out in a centralized discussion forum whether the community in general wants ((Infobox settlement)) to be the single master template for all settlement types. older ≠ wiser 13:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I find it rather concerning that you have obviously not even looked to see what the tmeplate actually. is. See User:Himalayan Explorer/Template. It is far more simplified than the original bloated fat Liberian county templates which had loads of empty parameters and spread half way across the page. This is pretty simple. a far cry form the overly complicated subject you refer to. Himalayan 20:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Possibly useful.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
(ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 11:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Solomon Islands Province

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

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

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

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

Delete as unused and redundant . Himalayan 12:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on principle that the multitude of settlement template deletion discussions is being handled in an ass-backwards manner. Put together an RFC and hash out in a centralized discussion forum whether the community in general wants ((Infobox settlement)) to be the single master template for all settlement types. older ≠ wiser 13:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Possibly useful.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
(ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 11:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps. I think it is a given that the templates can do the job. The question is about whether or not they should be used, not whether or not they can be, especially as none of the !votes in this discussion relate to the ability of the template to work. Even then, to show that it works it only needs to be used once. To replace the templates during the discussion and then state that it is unused seems like an odd process. - Bilby (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Papua New Guinea Infoboxes

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

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

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

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

Delete per nom. Himalayan 12:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on principle that the multitude of settlement template deletion discussions is being handled in an ass-backwards manner. Put together an RFC and hash out in a centralized discussion forum whether the community in general wants ((Infobox settlement)) to be the single master template for all settlement types. older ≠ wiser 13:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial concern. You could make the same template under Infobox Province/state which include the relevant parameters and use that for all articles about provinces/state. These template are redundant in all but an argument over whether or not "settlement" or "province2 is an approporiate naming. Himalayan 11:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is cool and probably useful, but creating a redirect with a different name doesn't really address the problem. - Bilby (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concern raised by User:Ezhiki is that the name "settlement" is inappropriate. I'd say that creating appropriate redirects addresses that concern perfectly. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, while I can't speak for Ezhiki, the concern seems to be that Infobox settlement wasn't design to cover administrative divisions, and to make it cover both settlements and divisions you need to keep adding extra fields that are only applicable to one use, and not the other. This is a design issue, not a naming issue. To add a redirect so that it can be called something else completely fails to address the issue. - Bilby (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Possibly useful.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
(ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 11:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Windows 98

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

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

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

What series? Two of three links are red, only two articles use it. Vossanova o< 19:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:New Wave music

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

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

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

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

Subject matter expert has now offered to revamp, so !vote withdrawn Archivey (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox U.S. state

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Australia state or territory

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

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

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

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

Keep on principle that the multitude of settlement template deletion discussions is being handled in an ass-backwards manner. Put together an RFC and hash out in a centralized discussion forum whether the community in general wants ((Infobox settlement)) to be the single master template for all settlement types. older ≠ wiser 13:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada

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

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

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

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

The process is a perfectly valid issue to discuss. And nobody has "attacked" you - I simply pointed out that you were taking on everyone who disagreed with you. Please stop making silly accusations. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Burmesestatedivision

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

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

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

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

Comment How many transclusions are necessary for a template to be kept?--23prootie (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe what Andy was trying to show is that it will be possible to replace this infobox with the more general ((Infobox settlement)) without it being a large project. There's not a specific threshold for how much a template "needs" to be used. --RL0919 (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So if a particular template is used in 61 articles, would that be a large project?--23prootie (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain, try again. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per older ≠ wiser's rationale. This scattershot process is not the way to go. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Provinces of Indonesia

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

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

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

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

sample conversion Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Regency of Indonesia

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

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

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

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

  • True enough. But alternatively, users can take Infobox Regency of Indonesia and use that, which then requests only the needed data, in a tidy and intuitive form (for example, "county=", "province=" and "capital=" instead of "subdivision_name=, subdivision_type=, subdivision_name1=, subdivision_type1=, subdivision_name2= and subdivision_type2=") and feeds that into settlement automagically. That seems good to me, and something that should be encouraged if we go down the Infobox Settlement for all things path. :) - Bilby (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox East Timor District

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

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

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

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

Comment How many transclusions are necessary for a template to be kept?--23prootie (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the price of fish. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be missing the point. The fact that we can make the same comment in each discussion is exactly the problem that has been identified. And it isn't really up to you to insist that the issues be framed in a particular way or that we need to speak to a template "in particular". No good rationale has been put forward that we need a common template across the board, nor has anyone pointed to any consensus that standardization is desired or required. It is perfectly valid for people here to suggest that if some editors wish to see the implementation of a standard template, that they should have a centralized discussion where there can be a general discussion of the pros and cons of that approach, rather than forcing people to make identical comments in a series of scattershot TfD discussions. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Venezuelan state

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

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

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

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

[[Image:(({image-map))}|250px|center|(({name))}]]
(({name))}
Area (({area))} km²
Population (({population))} hab.
Capital (({capital))}
Governor
(mandate)		 (({governor))}
(({mandate))}
I just fixed the double redirects. Thanks for pointing out the error. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This template seems sufficiently different from the previous one that I don't think speedy deletion would apply. (But I'm still in favor of deletion on the basis that the generic template can do the job better.)
Agreed. This is a substantially different template. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More