< July 9 July 11 >

July 10

Template:Hassan Rouhani

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) 04:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hassan Rouhani (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless template - only links to 2 articles. Farhikht (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly true. It is used in only two articles but has links to ten. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you've added this template to all links of the template even those without any direct relation. The main article apart, this template should be used only in these 2 articles: National Security and Nuclear Diplomacy (book by Rouhani) and Hassan Rouhani presidential campaign, 2013.Farhikht (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case the template should be removed from the articles and the links removed from the template. We probably need to look at ((Mahmoud Ahmadinejad)) as well, because it has similar links. Navboxes should only include links to articles in which they are used. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:57, 14 July 2013 (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:Design 1037 ships

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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Design 1037 ships (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template with no backlink and absolutely unclear what it is about. The Banner talk 09:29, 10 July 2013 (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:2001–02 Honduran Liga Nacional squads

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) 23:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2001–02 Honduran Liga Nacional squads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hopelessly incomplete template used in only one article. Info can be included in the article The Banner talk 08:56, 10 July 2013 (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 tractor

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. I will see about merging some of the hacked parameters, but feel free to relist this at a later date if you still feel it should be deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to ((Infobox automobile)) (which covers buses and trucks also). Only 25 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant, lots of templates have near-identical parameters. If this was "infobox internal combustion engine vehicles" it would be different. But tractors aren't automobiles. Montanabw(talk) 20:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Is your only problem the name of the template? It is already used for trucks. Would you like it to be renamed Template:Infobox automobile and truck and tractor? Not really! Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is deleting a needed infobox. The argument that a tractor can be identified the same as a car is, once again, a poor argument for deletion. Things evolve, take infobox person; we also now have infobox officeholder, infobox artist, etc... they probably all started out with similar parameters (date of birth, death, etc.) and still have many similar fields, but over time they have evolved to add or subtract necessary parameters to be customized to the topic. I see no policy guideline or effective argument for deletion other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Montanabw(talk) 23:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I edited my !vote to clarify that I do not intend to keep as is, waiting for someone else to expand it. As is, it's redundant. I want to be involved in the expansion. As for the parameters, here is my opinion:
  • Redundant to automobile template: name, caption, manufacturer, production, length, width, height, weight are redundant.
  • Potentially needed from automobile template: Many tractors could use predecessor, successor, engine, aka, related, wheelbase parameters that the automobile template has, as well as microformating. I'm not sure that model years or platform would be that useful, but maybe.
  • Potentially needed in tractor (or automobile if merged) with some wikilinks: propulsion (just add wikilink), power (rated for both drawbar and PTO/similar, if appropriate), (hitch and PTO transmission could be added, too, but they are not as important, like speed for cars, which isn't in the automobile infobox), steering (cars and trucks have different steering, of course, but it's not something I would think to put in their infobox), and maybe hydraulics specs (another practical but secondary characteristic) are some of the more basic things I want to know about a tractor. I also like to know other things, such as the color(s), because they have meanings, or wheel type(s), cab styles, or electrical things, though they wouldn't need to be in the infobox, in my opinion. Specialized areas for each type can be handled in the article, rather than in the infobox, of course.
  • Potential differences from automobile options: The image guidelines may not be suitable for tractors. If this is only a recommendation, not a rule, then image is redundant. The wikilinks for car classification/tractor type, body style, and layout should go to appropriate pages for tractors/heavy equipment.
  • Other: I don't really know about designer or assembly for tractors. I'm not sure how similar the majority of tractor sources describe transmissions, but I assume the automobile template guidelines would work. This is only a preliminary assessment. Criticisms are welcome.
Of course, if I were to expand the template, I'd work with the ag project or whoever else wanted to help, so the end result of consensus may be different from what I imagine. If it's still redundant, I'd support a merge. I'd also like to consider something similar to what I !voted above for dot-com companies, making this a front-end of the automobile infobox so it's easier to judge. -PC-XT+ 00:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I basically agree with Montanabw regarding the classification of tractors and automobiles, but I see it like a species problem. (For instance, American bison are in genus bison, but are sometimes included in genus bos (cattle) of the same subfamily. They can technically be bred together to produce viable offspring, but this is limited.) Tractors are motor vehicles, but their categorization in relation to cars and trucks is controversial, or dependent on context. Going by automobile:
"An automobile, autocar, motor car or car is a wheeled motor vehicle used for transporting passengers, which also carries its own engine or motor. Most definitions of the term specify that automobiles are designed to run primarily on roads, to have seating for one to eight people, to typically have four wheels, and to be constructed principally for the transport of people rather than goods."
and tractor:
"A tractor is an engineering vehicle specifically designed to deliver a high tractive effort (or torque) at slow speeds, for the purposes of hauling a trailer or machinery used in agriculture or construction. Most commonly, the term is used to describe a farm vehicle that provides the power and traction to mechanize agricultural tasks, especially (and originally) tillage, but nowadays a great variety of tasks. Agricultural implements may be towed behind or mounted on the tractor, and the tractor may also provide a source of power if the implement is mechanised."
the distinction I would use is as follows: Automobiles are more for transport of passengers. Like trucks, (which are designed more for transporting goods,) they are primarily for use on roads. Tractors are multipurpose transporters and heavy "tool" power suppliers/controllers. They can be used to transport passengers and goods, but often spend little time transporting even themselves between sites, because most are poorly suited for modern roads. Tractors are named after their traction, which is a specialized area of transport, but the main interest for them was originally plowing, which I consider use as a tool. The end result is usually to put the tractor and implements back where they started. On the other hand, traction power obviously does come in handy for some tough loads, so they are certainly vehicles. Talk:tractor contains some discussions on what the definition and categorization should be. There are also many grayer areas. Trucks can have PTOs and carry/power auxiliary equipment, and there have been conversion kits to transform trucks/tractors into each other. Allis Chalmers tractor-trucks, Bean equipment carriers, and many others have been difficult to classify, though most have been forgotten. A more popular example may be Minneapolis Molines, which looked more like automobiles for a while, though not very successfully. Some modern tractors also have cabs that more closely resemble car interiors. Ultimately, we should follow sources, then decide with consensus. If consensus disagrees with my suggestion, and only wants the general vehicle specs of tractors for this infobox, the name doesn't matter so much because it can be changed. We could move the automobile template, or otherwise make a redirect. Infobox motor vehicle would be a more accurate name, anyway. I'll still refine my suggestion, though, hoping it's used. -PC-XT+ 01:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One can quibble over the name of the merge target, but is simply false to assert that it is inherently unsuitable for use with all motor vehicles. Quite frankly, a title chance and a merge could already have been carried out in the time wasted on verbiage in this TfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to argue. I said the name doesn't matter, the template is suitable for tractors as simply vehicles, and I want what's best for Wikipedia. I offered several options to define and clarify the gray areas to help resolve the discussion, which I agree is too long for comfort. Hopefully, it will close, soon. If I didn't find this template by TfD, I would have been working on it, already, but I understand editing templates while they are listed here is frowned upon. -PC-XT+ 05:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't intend that comment about this closing soon to influence the one making that decision. If more consensus is needed, I offer to make a sandbox, if it will help. -PC-XT+ 04:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the uncited cruft in that article (and the article itself is just as bad: "legendary", "the real star of [the movie]") is not actually in ((Infobox tractor)), but in an embedded: 

<code>
((Infobox|child=yes
| label1 = Engine model
| data1  = CAT C18 ACERT (D9T) <br/> 3408 HEUI (D9R)
| label2 = Gross power
| data2  = 464 [[horsepower|hp]] (346 [[kilowatt|kW]]) D9T <br/>
474 hp (354 kW) D9R
| label3 = Flywheel power
| data3  = 410 hp (306 kW) D9T<br/> 410 hp (306 kW) D9R<br/>375 hp (280 kW) D9N <br/>460 hp (343 kW) D9L
| label4 = Drawbar pull
| data4  = 71.6 tons
| label5 = Speed
| data5  = 7.3 MPH (11.9 km/h) Forward<br/> 9.1 MPH (14.7 km/h) Reverse
| label6 = Blade capacity
| data6  = 17.7 yd³ (13.5 m³) 9 SU blade<br/>21.4 yd³ (16.4 m³) 9 U blade
))
</code>

So I'm not sure what problem you're seeing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I tried converting the infobox, nothing in the child displayed and I couldn't figure out why. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that ((Infobox automobile)) doesn't yet have a facility for embedding child infoboxes; that's easily and quickly remedied if needed, and highly unlikely to be controversial, but a better solution in this case would be to delete the child as it's full of, as I said, uncited cruft. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So Infobox tractor is not yet redundant. If you knew something about tractors you'd realise that what's in the child infobox isn't cruft. Specs for heavy machinery are somewhat different and more exhaustive than they are for the average car. Have a look at some aircraft articles, you'll see similar content, although it's usually further down the article but then, planes aren't tractors (or automobiles either). --AussieLegend (✉) 14:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your attempt to telepathically determine what I know was admirable, but failed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted to my original !vote, per AussieLegend's keep, expand, then merge, and prefer to discuss the details on relevant talk pages, rather than TfD. I think many of the articles that could use the infobox also need work, such as the mentioned citations, which may be why the template is not so well defined. -PC-XT+ 08:00, 20 July 2013 (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 Monterrey metro

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) 04:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Monterrey metro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox station)). Only 31 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:12, 10 July 2013 (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 NI station

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 Merge with ((Infobox Ireland station)). This discussion and the one below have many of the same participants and a shared line of argument. RL0919 (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox NI station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox station)). Only 54 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The code in the sandbox takes your concerns into account. It does require addition of a symbol parameter (as used in ((Infobox GB station))) where |symbol=ni or ie, but that's easy to implement using AWB. I've made a few dummy runs to make sure it works. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:30, 17 July 2013 (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 Ireland station

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 and merge with ((Infobox NI station)). This discussion and the one above have many of the same participants and a shared line of argument. RL0919 (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Ireland station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox station)). Only 120 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:54, 10 July 2013 (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 London bus route

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) 04:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox London bus route (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox UK bus route)) (also nominated) or ((Infobox bus line)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:40, 10 July 2013 (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 professional association

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) 13:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox professional association (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox organisation)). Only 48 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:30, 10 July 2013 (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 Serbia municipality

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 after replacement in the transcluding articles. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Serbia municipality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox settlement)). 144 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is already a wrapper for Infobox settlement. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with the citations is really trivial. It's just a matter of deleting a couple of lines in the wrapper and applying the citations manually to the articles, which would have to be done anyway. The wrapper doesn't just pass parameters, it generates some labels and data so editors don't have to. This is automation that infobox settlement needs to do if it is to replace other templates, instead of expecting editors to have to manually add everything. ((Infobox road)) manages to do it. That's the price you pay for trying to be one size fits all. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to new infobox templates for 200+ sovereign states. Frietjes (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That won't be necessary. It only applies to countries that haven't been converted to IS. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:11, 10 July 2013 (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 Greek Dimos

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Greek Dimos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox settlement)). No response, since 2009(!) to request on talk page for suggestions of any changes needed to the latter before this is done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if... I think that this template would be helpful if it was used only for the Greek municipalities. But the problem is that it's being used for settlements as well, even if they don't form a municipality, and in this case it lacks several important parameters. I think that it should be kept, used either in articles about municipalities (without those parameters referring to urban-metro areas) or in articles about every Greek settlement with the addition of more parameters used in ((Infobox settlement)). In any case, I think that it's more well organised than the ((Infobox settlement)), so what about reorganising the latter? 94.67.98.124 (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. Being a "one size fits all" template, Infobox settlement is considerably less user friendly and more confusing than country specific templates. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? There are plenty of country specific templates. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:40, 23 July 2013 (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 Papua New Guinea place

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 after replacement. The general consensus is that this template is mostly redundant to ((Infobox settlement)), and any features not supported by ((Infobox settlement)) could be handled using other weather or geographic location templates. If there are any overlooked features missing from ((Infobox settlement)), please discuss on the talk page. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Papua New Guinea place (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox settlement)). Only 74 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't intend answering your question. I just assumed that if you were confident in the belief that this template is redundant to IS, you'd be able to do a quick conversion to demonstrate that it is redundant. I hope all goes well tomorrow. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added IS to the testcase page. Except for the compass-like table with "Districts around ..." at the bottom I think we can convert all parameters to a wrapper for IS. De728631 (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that. I've added a side by side comparison of the two infoboxes. Quite apart from the fact that everything now has to be added manually (a significant loss of functionality), the city is missing and, as pointed out, the table at the bottom is missing. A wrapper might be able to restore some (not all) of the functionality, but a wrapper is still a template, so you'd be writing another template to compensate for the lack of functionality that you've introduced by converting to Infobox settlement, just so the template would look like Infobox settlement, which is going to change its appearance to look more like this template when it is eventually upgraded to use Infobox. I really don't see what we'd be achieving. It seems an entirely redundant effort. The side by side comparison also shows that this template is more compact than Infobox settlement, as they are the same length and Infobox settlement is missing the bottom table. This is significant when you consider that the infobox takes up most of the articles that use this template. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've coded a wrapper in Template:Infobox Papua New Guinea place/sandbox that is almost working apart from a few minor bugs that I haven't yet figured out. You can also see its output at the testcases page. And the point in having wrappers for Infobox settlement is actually having a standardised look for such infoboxes. While I'm not very happy with some aspects of the current layout, IS is probably the most widely used infobox for geographic locations, and we shouldn't confuse the general reader with customised colours and additional features like tables of neighbouring districts and such. De728631 (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox standard is ((Infobox)), which is used in 1.36 million articles. Infobox settlement doesn't use this. Infobox uses Lua code, as does this template, while Infobox settlement does not. Given our push towards using Lua, that's a strike against Infobox settlement. I don't see how the average reader would be confused by the layout of this infobox. There are thousands of infoboxes and they're all different, but this doesn't seem to confuse readers too much. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I saw that, but how long is it going to take? Until such time as it's done, no templates that use Infobox should be converted to use non-Lua code. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is, so why isn't Infobox settlement based on ((Infobox)) yet, and where's the Lua code that everyone else is implementing? --AussieLegend (✉) 21:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a very convincing argument for deletion. The nominator has merely said the template is redundant, but he hasn't demonstrated that and the testcases don't support the claim. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To borrow the comments of another editor at another TfD, to be redundant, the replacement template should convey at least the same information in at least as clear a manner as the existing template, and Infobox settlement doesn't do that. In fact, some of the content can't be displayed at all, as the testcases demonstrate, so Infobox settlement doesn't actually "do", while the existing template does "do". --AussieLegend (✉) 14:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
((Geographic location)) is huge compared to what is in the infobox and is unnecessary bloat. ((Weather box)) is also huge and excessive considering what is in the article now. There is only limited data available for most locations and the current infobox handles that quite well. Above, User:Nero the second has said "no reason to keep two templates when one will do". What you're proposing will force articles to use three templates instead of one. It doesn't make sense. The instructions for ((Geographic location)) explain how it can be nested in an infobox, so the claim that "those same fields shouldn't appear in an infobox in the first place" don't seem supported by the very template you're recommending, or, for that matter, by any policy that I know of. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"nest next to an infobox" is not the same as "nest in an infobox". 74.203.127.2 (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does. I misread. So you're stuck with 2 huge templates and an infobox instead of just one infobox. How is that redundancy? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:52, 25 July 2013 (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