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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Zuri-Metzgete (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with just two links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:52, 16 July 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).

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 -FASTILY 02:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Caltrain color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Caltrain lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Caltrain stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Caltrain style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

((S-line)) templates for Caltrain. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Caltrain. All transclusions replaced. There are four dependent s-line data modules which should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and past consensus to migrate to Adjacent stations module. BLAIXX 13:00, 22 July 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).

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:FPO number (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:FPOC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:FPOC link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:FPOCClosed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:TFD#REASONS, 3 - The templates are not used after Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138#RfC about marking the Featured portals process as "historical". Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:51, 16 July 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).

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Portal nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:TFD#REASONS, 3 - The template is not used. Redundant with Template:Portal information sidebarGuilherme Burn (talk) 16:39, 16 July 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).

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Portal navbar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Portal navbar no header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Portal navbar with header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Portal navbar with header 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Portal navbar with header 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:TFD#REASONS, 3 - The templates are not used in any portals. Only used is Template:Portal navbar no header2 Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:23, 16 July 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).

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. Already deleted by Fastily. (non-admin closure) -- Trialpears (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:AAF roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The Alliance of American Football folded in April, so active roster templates are no longer applicable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:03, 17 July 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).

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:User OTRS. (non-admin closure) -- Trialpears (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:User wikipedia/OTRSAccess (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:User OTRS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:User wikipedia/OTRSAccess with Template:User OTRS.
practically the same.. with only logo different. Viztor (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:WPUBX#Merge. Please consider using more recongnizable in the result of the merge. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andrybak: What about ? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @MJL: I don't have a preference either way. I'm just used to seeing the orange ticket-like rectangle with monospace serif font on Commons, like in Template:PermissionOTRS. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Technically this is the WP:WRONGVENUE (Userboxes are for MFD's remit) but WP:NOTBURO applies. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Though I'm using it now! --Mhhossein ^talk 11:53, 24 July 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).

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ironman Heavymetalweight Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

recently tagged for deletion by the author. not a serious title. list of champions are in the main article. Frietjes (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, obviously. APM (talk) 20:52, 19 July 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).

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 -FASTILY 02:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:BART color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:BART icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:BART infobox header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:BART lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:BART stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:BART style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

((S-line)) templates for Bay Area Rapid Transit. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/BART. All transclusions replaced. There are 24 dependent s-line data modules which should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; redundant and no longer in use. Jc86035 (talk) 14:36, 16 July 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).

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) 03:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Decades (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Millennium sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused Hddty. (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin note previously nominated for deletion, the outcome allowed for renomination if unused. Primefac (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused, still after the last TfD. --Gonnym (talk) 21:20, 18 July 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).

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Hierarchy of the Catholic Church (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use template. The contents can easily be added to the article Hierarchy of the Catholic Church The Banner talk 10:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - that template is so cluttered and hard to read and is just a mess. I see no reason for it to exist in its current form and since it was just created yesterday, there is no inherit "keep" here. --Gonnym (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Could it be merged somehow with Template:Catholic Church hierarchy sidebar? PPEMES (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think that there are also factual inaccuracies. One thing that stands out is that I don't think that it is right to show 'Lay' at the very bottom, because I think that this is not the position of the catholic Church. In fact, sacramental marriage ranks above consecrated life in the Order of precedence in the Catholic Church. If at all the template is retained, this needs to be corrected. The Discoverer (talk) 16:37, 18 July 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).

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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Previous deletion talks

• 2009 (keep)
• 2009 (keep)
• 2013 (no consensus)

Replace and delete

Province or territory of Canada-specific wrapper for ((Infobox settlement)), with limited transclusions (13!), 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.

Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country".

1. No other ((Infobox settlement)) wrapper has that few transclusions
2. Only two wrappers for first-level country subdivisions exist (the other has 89 transclusions)
3. Except for provinces and territories, Canada already uses ((Infobox settlement))

Cf. Wikipedia:List_of_infoboxes/Geography_and_place#Place 77.11.163.184 (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If it isn't broken then don't fix it as this looks to be a solution in search of a problem. I fail to see this maintenance issue per the template's sparse editing history [1], [2] What exactly is the maintenance issue? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  As pointed out in the nomination it is broken, because out of thousands of articles about territorial entities in Canada, 13 use an extra template that is not used anywhere else. The others use ((Infobox settlement)) which is used in 500 000+ articles about places all around the world, i.e. thousands of editors know the standard template. TerraCyprus (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Knowledgekid87, I fail to see this maintenance issue per the template's sparse editing history - If you failed, why you voted Keep? If new features are implemented in the infobox that is wrapped by the one in discussion, namely ((Infobox settlement)), then they might be needed to be implemented in the wrapper too. Thus, a "sparse editing history" could also be a proof that nobody is implementing new features here. 78.54.200.249 (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there are only 13 transclusions because that's how many provinces and territories there are in Canada. Like Knowledgekid87 I don't see what the problem is. I doubt that subst:ing this infobox (so that the template's complex code is added to the page in place of the transclusion) would reduce the cognitive or maintenance overhead. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Ivanvector, Like Knowledgekid87 I don't see what the problem is - then why did you vote? 78.54.200.249 (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  IP, this is a community discussion. Do you have a point to make or are you just trolling? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Ivanvector, this actually applies to you. Why did you vote if you didn't even see the reported problem? 78.54.200.249 (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm pretty sure I can't expand on my earlier comment. It's not that I don't see the reported problem as you put it, I don't believe the problem as stated by the nominator actually is any kind of problem, and thus I see no compelling need to fix it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Ivanvector, why should there be a dedicated template for 13 Canadian items? It is inconsistent with the usage elsewhere in the English Wikipedia. Of course, one could have one infobox per type, (here it is actually one infobox for two types, province and territory), but how many types exist? In Canada alone, since types are defined by provincial law, and there are also federal entities, maybe 10? Or 20? Or in the USA, just on some higher levels there could be 10+ types. The UN has 193 member states, some country-like entities that are not UN members exist, and then assume 10 types for each, so 200 * 10 = 2000 templates. But 2000 such templates don't exist. Why an extra template for 13 (!) Canadian entities?

• 
  10 Standard Federal Regions
• 
  US Census Bureau Regions
• 
  US Census Bureau - 4 official regions, 9 official divisions
• 
  9 Regional Areas of the Forest Service
• 
  6 time zones
• 
  12 geographic Court of Appeals districts, incl. 1 for D.C.
• 
  10 ZIP code zones
• 
  Local access and transport area (LATA) used in U.S. telecommunications regulation.
• 
  Boy Scouts of America regional division
• 
  10 EGRID NERC Regions,
• 
  24 EGRID Subregions
• 
  10 FEMA regions
• 
  12 Federal Reserve Banks
• 
  122 regions of the National Weather Service

77.11.201.49 (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple .....only on 13 pages so that the Wikiproject involved can change parameters for the articles under their purview with ease. I take it those involved in all these types of mergers are nor aware that this type of merger is one of the reasons Wikiprojects are in decline. Projects spend countless hours working what parameters are relevant.....just to have them mergered by non editors.--Moxy 🍁 21:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I warn you about IP-hopping just yesterday? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector not to my knowledge. 77.11.201.49 (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace and delete per nom. Good catch, no other wrapper seems to exist in the list Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Geography and place#Place with that few transclusions. Re Ivanvector - 1) there are other sets of entities with fewer members, but they all use ((Infobox settlement)) directly; 2) thousands of places in Canada already use ((Infobox settlement)) directly, so hundreds of editors of Canadian articles know the interface of that one already plus the thousands of others that edit articles about places around the world that use ((Infobox settlement)). JelgavaLV (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace and delete per nom. The standard template, in fact the only template, for all other types of territorial entities in Canada is ((Infobox settlement)). An extra wrapper for 13 transclusions is superfluous. TerraCyprus (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Copied from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 24#Template:Infobox Austrian district and changed to show the situation in Canada:

Visualisation of Canada place infobox usage

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Infobox usage on articles about places in Canada 3659+ https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=10057754 13 https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=9395381

TerraCyprus (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC) // TerraCyprus, in the caption I changed "Austria" to "Canada". 78.55.133.168 (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation 78.54.200.249 (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is just a Canadian variation of USA's ((Infobox U.S. state)) and England's ((Infobox English county)). —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:OTHER 89.14.114.19 (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace and delete Totally unnecessary, infobox settlement works perfectly. No need to copy the U.S. state infobox mindlessly. TrailBlzr (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace and delete per above and per most of the recent discussions. I'll just repeat my sentiment from previous discussions: the wrapper system is not the correct way this should be handled, and instead a new module system similar to how the french wiki does this should be worked on. As it stands at the moment, I support the one template model for the reasons stated above by others. --Gonnym (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikiprojects make theses so they don't have to deal with unwanted parameters being filed. --Moxy 🍁 02:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Moxy, can you relate your statement to the numbers presented above that 3659+ articles about territorial entities of Canada alone do not use a wrapper around Infobox settlement and only 13 do? It seems "Wikiprojects" didn't "make theses" for most - does that mean they have other ways "so they don't have to deal with unwanted parameters being filed" or are they filled but they do not deal with them? Also, why is there no other Infobox settlement wrapper with that few transclusions in the English Wikipedia? 78.55.155.203 (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : General consensus in the English Wikipedia seems to be to delete the wrappers that have few transclusions:

78.54.117.60 (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace and delete per nom. Ythlev (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : tens of thousands of pages about items in the Americas use ((Infobox settlement)) directly.

77.11.201.49 (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin note - closer please note that the various IPs in the 77.11.x.x, 78.5x.x.x, and 89.14.x.x ranges, are all very likely being used by one editor to badger this discussion with graphics about the situations in other geographic areas and similar unrelated points. See [3] for more info. Please weight accordingly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Admin note 2 - closer please note that the claim by Ivanvector graphics about the situations in other geographic areas and similar unrelated points [4] seems to have no substance, since the documentation for ((Infobox settlement)) has: It should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country, for which ((Infobox country)) should be used." - which has no restriction on the geographical context and there is also no single rule that general design decisions should no be applied to items related to Canada.
• Admin note 3 - closer please note that the adhominem statement by Ivanvector from 14:31, 30 July 2019 [5] which may be a violation of WP:AGF is likely based in the fact that he voted "keep" and was asked about how his favored special treatment for Canada would scale, with a ping 12:31 [6] . Also, to my knowledge there was no warning "about IP-hopping just yesterday". I am only aware of please do not rapidly change your IP address if you are able to control it, it makes it very difficult to contact you. I realize that you may not have control over it [7] . A bit weird that Ivanvector is now turning the content discussion into a fight against me. 77.11.201.49 (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JJMC89 could you have a look at this one? 77.11.201.49 (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is enough content unique to these regions to warrant a seperate infobox, primarily the sections about federal representation and legislature. This template also use wikidata to fetch certain information which won't be appropriate if the template is deleted. Regarding the arguments for deletion I think "cognitive burden" related arguments are far outweighed by having custumization parameters such as blank2_info_sec1 and demographics1_title3 directly in text which will understandably confuse editors not familiar with the intricases of this specific infobox. The more convincing argument about changes performed to infobox settlement won't apply here has some merits, but is severly overstated. The template is already a wrapper making many updates apply directly without editor intervention including copyedits, parameter removal, field re-arrangement, plural logic changes and most other common changes. In the unlikely event new parameters are added to IB settlement that are desirable for these articles they would indeed have to be added here manually, but this is so rare that it isn't even close to outweighing all the negatives. --Trialpears (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  content unique to these regions? - Trialpears, could you provide more weight to that claim? How are the 10 provinces and 3 territories more unique than, e.g. the provinces of Argentina, the states of Mexico, the townships in the United States, the divisions of Pakistan, the regions of Chile, the cantons of Ecuador, the departments of Honduras, the federal district of Brazil, the district municipalities of South Africa, the regional municipalities in Canada, the regional county municipalities in Canada, ... 77.183.70.51 (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Sad, no substance provided. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Trialpears, do you know how many classes of territorial entities exist on planet earth? Can you explain what would be your rule for when a certain type gets an extra template? You support it for Canada based on "content unique to these regions" - but that surely would apply to each "region" on planet earth? Shall there be a template for each "region" (500000+) or for each set? So far, you provided no evidence why 10 provinces and 3 territories of Canada should have a combined template seperate from the standard solution. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  This template also use wikidata to fetch certain information which won't be appropriate if the template is deleted - Trialpears, it only fetches population related information, what do you mean by "won't be appropriate if the template is deleted". Are you aware of "Category:Template:Metadata Population", i.e. the fetch code could be outsourced to a data template, which then can be re-used in other places? 77.183.70.51 (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Trialpears - any comment to this section? 77.183.70.51 (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  This will be my last comment on this page as I believe the current conversation take us no closer reaching consensus on this issue. If you have something important to tell me regarding this discussion pleas tell me on my user page as I will unwatch this page.

  I have no problem with any type of region having specific infoboxes if they have useful specific fields or features as this template do. If someone were to create a well desinged infobox with improvements over using infobox settlement directly for departments of honduras or even bouroughs of New York I would be all in. This is not about some wouldn't-it-be-elegant-having-only-a-few-infoboxes-for-everything idea but about improving the encylopedia which this template do. --Trialpears (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  blank2_info_sec1 - Trialpears, that is a misuse anyway. Template:Infobox region symbols is the standard way here. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Trialpears - any comment to this section? 77.183.70.51 (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  demographics1_title3 - Trialpears, "Per capita" - why would GDP per capita not be something applicable to 400 000+ other entities that use Infobox settlement directly? 77.183.70.51 (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I have clearly explained that there is content unique to these regions through political representation and their legislature. Regarding the other stuff argument I can very well see that these may also have unique things that should be in their infoboxes, but that is not a relevant question. For wikidata I see that it's definitely possible to do it without the specific templates, but I still find that as a small loss in accesibility since most editors don't know how to use it, and more importantly: it's not unlikley that these templates are removed in favour of hard coded values. There are also other automatic calculations that would have to be put in other templates if they are to be kept, such as percentage area and percentage senate seats. For infobox regional symbols I think it should be called instead of the blank options, but it would still be more complicated then it is now for editors not familiar with that 100 transclusion template using a different parameter naming scheme than the main template. Finally I think adding GDP to infobox settlement would be good and encourage you to discuss it at Template talk:Infobox settlement. --Trialpears (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Trialpears, do you know how to use indention of comments? GDP was at "*:" to reply with ":::" moves your reply out of the whole "*" block. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I do, however interweaving responses to individual points is generally discouraged per the talk page guidelines which states: "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what" I therfore prefer leaving my entire comment in one block. --Trialpears (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Trialpears thanks for moving it into the "*" block. Now your reply goes to "*:'''demographics1_title3'''" but includes text related to Wikidata, a topic addressed in "*:'''This template also use wikidata to fetch certain information which won't be appropriate if the template is deleted'''" which belongs to a seperatly signed message. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I wouldn't normally advocate a separate infobox template for just 13 articles, but I really don't see any tangible benefit in the merge here: the template has a large number of specific parameters, and replacing it with the generic one will result in hugely bloated wikicode. – Uanfala (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Technical issues with the current template: Currently the display is Flower, Tree, Bird - but no section header. What do they mean? The standard solution is to use Template:Infobox region symbols, which displays the section header "Symbols" 77.183.70.51 (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Follow up: Code is in sandbox 77.183.70.51 (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that is actually a problem and not intentional, it is easily fixed and does not prescribe deletion. Seems to me that it is intentional, though, since none of the other subsections of the infobox have section headers, and readers ought to be able to infer from context that the article Ontario listing "Flower White trillium" in its infobox is communicating that the white trillium is the provincial flower of Ontario. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace and delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparent canvassing: [8]. – Uanfala (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm getting rather tired of Uanfala's bad-faith and baseless accusations. I came to this discussion after being pinged in an unrelated discussion (about protection levels) on the template's talk page. After reading that, I clicked on the "Template" tab and found the standard TfD banner. Besides, the template is also on my watchlist, as are many infoboxes about places. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not accusing you, but the IP: their canvassing is obvious. Although you really could have noticed that showing up in the discussion hours after the IP asked you to (when you hadn't participated for the two weeks in which it had been open) will not look good. – Uanfala (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I spent the last two weeks travelling overseas to advocate for Wikimedia projects; travelling to attend a funeral; and having surgery. I'll be sure to worry about what you think looks good before I do any of these again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace and delete per nom.--Darwinek (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• keep unless there is a solution that doesn't use ((infobox|child=yes)) in articles which is what I am currently seeing in the sandbox. Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Frietjes inserted it [9], the template is template protected and a very simple edit request is hanging for two days now, so maybe Frietjes could remove it themselves? 78.54.131.159 (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  my link is to the sandbox which is open for anyone to edit. I have no problem with ((infobox|child=yes)) in templates, I have a problem with ((infobox|child=yes)) in articles directly. Frietjes (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Frietjes, done. Also largest_city in seat1 seems wrong. Infobox settlement should get largest_city and largest_metro for this. Legislature etc. is also relevant for other sets, e.g. U.S. states and should also be implemented more directly in Infobox settlment, than misusing leader1. Parameter misuse is common. 78.54.131.159 (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  checking the testcases the new version looks much worse: (1) the footnote shouldn't be above the symbols, (2) the largest metro should be grouped with the largest city and capital, (3) the government data should be together in one block, ... so I still oppose. Frietjes (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Frietjes, looks worse, but is semantically more correct. But as a template editor you can help to improve Infobox settlement, another template protected template. 78.54.131.159 (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, agreed with User talk:Uanfala. Oeoi (talk) 14:36, 5 August 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).

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Thomas A. Simone Award (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not everything needs a navbox. Only 10 entries out of 36 have articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Muboshgu's reasoning.-- Yankees10 20:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and remove non-links. It's a common practice that articles on awards can have a navigation template for the award winners. 10 + the award are quite a few links. --Gonnym (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think the list in the article Thomas A. Simone Award is more apt. No need to have a navbox for a metro-area high school football award. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, we don't need a navbox for every highschool football award. Frietjes (talk) 12:52, 16 July 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).

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Confucius Peace Prize (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A trivial template that fails WP:NAVBOX guidelines; basically nobody has actually accepted this prize, it's solely the pronouncements of one insignificant group. Only transcluded on one page now (disclaimer: after I removed it from some of the "winners"). Originally created by a now-banned editor. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_June_21#Category:Confucius_Peace_Prize . SnowFire (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and use. It actually does not fail the guidelines and is in fact an accepted practice to have a navigation template for winners of an award notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. See ((Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture)) as an example of an award that no one (or mostly no one) "accepted" and yet it has an article, a nav template and is placed on all articles. I have no idea how notable the Confucius Peace Prize is, but if you think it isn't, then nominate it at AfD and if it gets deleted, this will follow. --Gonnym (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gonnym: It's notable enough for an article, but its notability is not exactly as a prize if that makes any sense. I suggest you read the main article. The Confucius Peace Prize was notable as a reaction to the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobao and the "empty chair" and all, that China might set up a rival prize and was unhappy with the result there. Basically every "prize" post-2010 was a non-notable continuation that, to the extent it received any coverage, was considered a "news of the weird" ha-ha type thing. The Golden Raspberries... okay, to be honest, I think that template is borderline too, but the Golden Raspberries are very notable and legitimately are mentioned in retrospectives on movies, and they're also the kind of award you'd expect people not to accept. That's not the case here; this award is far less notable than the Raspberries (absolutely nobody will write a retrospective on Fidel Castro saying he won this award at age 88, by which we mean a statue was handed to a random Cuban student in China. I am not making that up. [10]) Basically, "has an article" is not a good standard here, this is closer to a political party that won a few seats in 2010 and still technically exists, but gets <1% of the vote ever since, they shouldn't have their later pronouncements subsisting on the fumes of legitimate older notability from 2010. SnowFire (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, we seriously don't need something as trivial as this at the foot of articles like Vladimir Putin and Fidel Castro. this is not useful for navigation. Frietjes (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As nominator says, it poorly adheres to the criteria at WP:NAVBOX. 1: Yes, it's a coherent subject. 2: No (only about half of recipient articles mention the prize) 3: No, these articles mostly don't refer to each other. 4: Yes there's an article on the prize. 5: No, if not for this navbox, it's not the case that editors would be inclined to link many of these articles in the "See also" sections of the articles. Such a navbox puts WP:UNDUE attention on an award that, for most of these winners, is not a remotely noteworthy aspect of their career. Colin M (talk) 01:20, 16 July 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).

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 redirect to Template:WikiProject Australia. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WikiProject Australian law (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian law, users are supposed to use ((WikiProject Australia|law=yes)) to assess articles. Therefore, this template serves no technical purpose.

It's currently existing uses could potentially be served by making this a wrapper, but I would say the safest bet is just to make it a redirect to ((WikiProject Australia)) as to avoid the redundancy. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• comment, a redirect doesn't require TFD. you can just "be bold" and do it. Frietjes (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Frietjes: I know, but I wanted to get feedback in case there was objections. Sometimes these things can go either way, and I wasn't 100% sure. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:48, 16 July 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).