Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 10

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< July 9 July 11 >

July 10 edit

Template:Hassan Rouhani edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). 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]
  • KeepComment template is now included in all articles to which it has links. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:46, 13 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]
  • delete, most of the articles included in this template should not include this template, hence, it should only connect two articles, so it should be deleted. Frietjes (talk) 13:59, 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 edit

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

  • Keep - it's a ship class template, which are used in many articles. There's no reason to delete this just because the class article hasn't been created yet. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most navigation template that I have encountered without backlink were straight removed. So removal is the standard course of action. The Banner talk 09:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and change the title link to Category:Design 1037 ships until the article is created. Frietjes (talk) 16:11, 19 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 edit

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

  • Merge content to the article and delete template. The template is being used as a pseudo table. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:10, 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 edit

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

  • Keep May be significantly different, like {{Infobox dot-com company}}, even though Andy made the same assertion about it.--Elvey (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "May be" cuts no ice. Why is this template needed? What does it have, that {{Infobox automobile}} lacks? You appear to have made the same pointy comment on a number of discussions on this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand - First, I agree that it is mostly redundant, even lacking some of the relevant parameters the automobile template has, however, I believe the tractor template needs expansion, rather than merging. The problem I see with a merge is that we may need to fork it, again, to add more parameters that only apply to tractors (hydraulics, PTOs, hitches, or even historic things like belt pulleys). I think trying to put them in the automobile template could make it more confusing. If we are sure we won't be needing these other options, then we could merge, but I'd like it to expand separately, myself. Also, I notified the ag project, which has the template marked top importance. -PC-XT+ 03:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: About the only thing tractors have in common with cars and trucks is an internal combustion engine. They don't go down roads. I would agree that the template could be improved. In theory, other heavy equipment such as backhoes and such could also go into a template like this, but that's a different issue. Montanabw(talk) 01:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We are not discussing what this could be if someone else would do other things with it. The question here is can Template:Infobox tractor be replaced by Template:Infobox automobile. Yes it can! Yes it should be! What parameters are you not happy about? They are almost all identical and redundant. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:30, 1 July 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]
  • Are people really arguing that tractors aren't automobiles? Or engaging in whataboutery regarding random person templates? (A hint: {{infobox person}} has had dozens of templates merged to it.) The question is: what are the defining characteristics of a tractor? And the answer is, unsurprisingly, pretty much all the same things as with any other random road-going vehicle: propulsion system, dimensions, designer, popularity. Montanabw's rather half-hearted attempt to define exceptions (none of which anyone has seen fit to actually employ in an article) speaks to that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Define "automobile" in this context. Seriously. I basically agree with PC-XT on this, that the real issue is that tractors and other heavy equipment have a lot of other things that may be relevant to an infobox template. I suppose renaming the "automobile" template to something like "motor vehicle" would also be OK with me. But until you show me a car with a PTO and a front end loader, (Other than in an episode of the Red Green Show, anyway) I'm not going to agree that a tractor is an "automobile." Fix it, rename it, add parameters to the other one, the technical fix is not where I have any particular agenda, but it is patently ridiculous to put a template labelled "automobile" on a tractor. Montanabw(talk) 17:11, 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]
  • Delete in favour of Infobox automobile. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To simplify closing this TfD, I retract my expansion idea from this discussion. I think most of us basically agree to my new !vote. Many of us probably agree to also move infobox automobile to infobox motor vehicle, but that's not really part of this nomination. I may consider suggesting new parameters or a front-end on the relevant talk page, instead. -PC-XT+ 23:28, 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]
  • Redirect: A tractor is not an automobile, it is a vehicle and not all vehicles are automobiles. I can't believe that people are arguing about that. Maybe there are a few rednecks about, although I thought they all drove pickup trucks. Using {{Infobox automobile}} for a tractor seems as alien as using it for diesel-electric locomotives. They're automobiles aren't they? - they carry people, have an internal combustion and an electric motor and wheels - that makes them a hybrid just like the Toyota Prius so shouldn't we be using Infobox automobile for them? If you're still not convinced, I haven't seen many D9's on local roads. Please try to convince anyone they are an automobile. That said, Infobox tractor is redundant to Infobox automobile but we need to use at least a modicum of common sense here. By all means convert articles to use Infobox automobile but at least give editors some help by leaving Infobox tractor as a redirect. That way we don't have to worry about moving Infobox automobile. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect seems to be the sensible option -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Automobiles and tractors are far to different. It's counter intuitive (to me) to use an automobile template for a tractor article, even if there are some fields in common. The main points about a tractor are too different to an automobile and that should be expanded in the template. As a reader, the first things that I would be looking for would be: horsepower at drawbar, horsepower at PTO, engine information such as number of cylinders, years manufactured, and manufacturer. Royalbroil 03:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a debate about how much or how little tractors differ from other automotive vehicles, but about whether (and, of so, why) the current tractor infobox is sufficiently different to the automobile infobox as to justify its separate existence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:14, 18 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]
  • Keep, expand and then merge - I've changed my mind with this one. For the most part this infobox appears to be redundant to Infobox automobile but Caterpillar D9 demonstrates that's only the case because there are tractor specific fields that are missing from the infobox. These fields need to be identified and then incorporated into Infobox automobile before this template can be deleted. A merge discussion on the template talk pages (something the nominator seems to avoid at all costs - see the Template:Infobox garden discussion) is more appropriate, since changes to Infobox automobile may affect 5,000 articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:10, 19 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 edit

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

  • Delete no need for all these infoboxes that do the same thing. --Rschen7754 16:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on! - This nothing like the standard Infobox station. This is the front end of a whole system of templates in Category:Monterrey Metro templates. Again - did any of you really look at this? Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • refactor as a fronted for {{infobox station}}, then reconsider it for substitution/deletion. Frietjes (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep May be significantly different, like {{Infobox dot-com company}}, even though Andy made the same assertion about it.--Elvey (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "May be" cuts no ice. Why is this template needed? What does it have, that {{Infobox station}} lacks? You appear to have made the same pointy comment on a number of discussions on this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs): Pointy? In what way do my comments "try to discredit [a] rule or interpretation thereof"? I think you need to read the rule you're accusing me of violating! WP:POINT is a commonly used shortcut. "However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that s/he is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it. As a rule, someone engaging in "POINTy" behavior is making edits which s/he does not really agree with, for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition." Care to take back your accusations? You should, unless you can point out some basis for it that I'm missing. The point I'm trying to make is that you are saying these should be deleted, without any indication of having, so to speak, done your homework first. I also had noted the comment, "Again - did any of you really look at this?" by Secondarywaltz (It looks like Secondarywaltz later did the homework; I'm happy with his takes on this.) As I read it, the {{Infobox dot-com company}} discussion suggests you hadn't done your homework prior to saying it was redundant to see if it was redundant. If I've misread it, I'm sorry. If you think I have, please let me know and I'll take another look. I was simply making the point that if no one comments, any would be deleter still should make an independent determination first - should look to see if the template really is redundant, if there's nothing but a bald assertion of redundancy.--Elvey (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refactor and reconsider per Frietjes -PC-XT+ 04:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in favour of Infobox station. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:12, 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) 05:12, 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 edit

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

  • Delete no need for all these infoboxes that do the same thing. --Rschen7754 16:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on! - This more closely related to {{Infobox GB station}} rather than {{Infobox station}}. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Happy for instances to be replaced with {{Infobox GB station}} if that's deemed appropriate. If so, the latter may need to be renamed, or a redirect created, due to political sensitivities. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • political sensitivities? The last time I checked NI was part of the UK of GB and NI. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. As you yourself note (I see that you corrected an earlier version of your comment), NI is not part of GB. (And in case you hadn't noticed, its inclusion within the UK is not without objections.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Template:Infobox Ireland station. The railways of Northern Ireland have much more in common with those of the Republic than those of England, Scotland and Wales. Major upheavals in the railways of Great Britain like the Railways Act 1921 did not apply to Ireland, and the Transport Act 1947 did not apply to Northern Ireland; thus, terms like "grouping" don't really fit in.
    Down to row 38, there is very little difference between Template:Infobox NI station and Template:Infobox Ireland station - the presence or absence of {{rail-interchange|ni|rail}} and the coordinates region (GB or IE). From row 39 on, the differences are greater (links to station lists and portals), but can surely be merged with the addition of a parameter - say |NI=yes - to control the behaviour depending upon which side of the border the station lies. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{Infobox Ireland station}} is equally redundant; and nominated for deletion below. However, if it is kept, I agree this merger is sensible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are specific links that can be selected depending on a type parameter |type=ni, ie or gb. I don't think a merge of all three templates is out of the question. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Redrose. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in favour of Infobox station. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:12, 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) 04:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to {{Infobox Ireland station}}. There are some minor differences but I don't see why a merge isn't possible and only 172 articles are affected. After that the combined template should probably merged to {{Infobox GB station}}. If that happens, the template can then be moved back to {{Infobox UK station}}. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to {{Infobox Ireland station}}. Most sensible course of action as it can describe the stations on the whole island of Ireland. Even more sensible because the rail networks are interconnected. The Banner talk 09:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer I've created code to merge Infobox Ireland station and Infobox NI station and put it in the sandbox for each template. If the outcome of this TfD is merge, I'm happy to do the work. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was involved in the creation of this template (about five years ago!), as well as the ones for Great Britain and for the Republic of Ireland. IIRC, the reason for having the separate templates was that to allow for appropriate internal/external links to be included (and inappropriate ones to be excluded): for instance, the GB template linked to relevant pages on the National Rail website, which wasn't appropriate for NI; also, links to Iarnród Éireann or Translink should appear on relevant pages. It was nothing to do with the Railways Acts of 1921, 1947 or 1993, or the Irish Question: it was to do with ensuring links are relevant. However, this was back in the days when template syntax was much simpler, so having optional fields or displaying certain links only on certain pages was far more difficult. If there is a more generic template (such as {{Infobox station}}) that would do the job of this one, along with the GB and RoI ones, if that's an improvement we should go for it. But merging the NI and RoI station templates merely for the sake of doing so seems rather like a waste of time. --RFBailey (talk) 19:50, 16 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]
  • Comment A lot of the articles that use {{Infobox Ireland station}} used redundant parameters and many fields were formated incorrectly or contained errors. The sandbox code was moved into the live template and all articles have been checked and cleaned up where necessary. After doing that, I started the same work at articles using {{Infobox NI station}}, successfully converting them to use Infobox Ireland station in the process. As a result, no articles use Infobox NI station anymore. The documentation for Infobox Ireland station has been updated accordingly and Infobox NI station is now redundant. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after replacing with {{Infobox station}}. there seems to be no problem with adding any missing parameters to the main infobox. Frietjes (talk) 17:03, 29 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 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). 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]
  • Merge with {{Infobox NI station}}. There are some minor differences but I don't see why a merge isn't possible and only 172 articles are affected. After that the combined template should probably merged to {{Infobox GB station}}. If that happens, the template can then be moved back to {{Infobox UK station}}. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with {{Infobox NI station}}. Most sensible course of action as it can describe the stations on the whole island of Ireland. Even more sensible because the rail networks are interconnected. The Banner talk 09:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer I've created code to merge Infobox Ireland station and Infobox NI station and put it in the sandbox for each template. If the outcome of this TfD is merge, I'm happy to do the work. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: see my comment above [1]. --RFBailey (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lot of the articles that use {{Infobox Ireland station}} used redundant parameters and many fields were formated incorrectly or contained errors. The sandbox code was moved into the live template and all articles have been checked and cleaned up where necessary. After doing that, I started the same work at articles using {{Infobox NI station}}, successfully converting them to use Infobox Ireland station in the process. As a result, no articles use Infobox NI station anymore. The documentation for Infobox Ireland station has been updated accordingly and Infobox NI station is now redundant. Ultimately, a merge with {{Infobox GB station}} may be possible but there are various issues with GB articles that require local input, and a merge discussion on that template's talk page is really necessary. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after replacing with {{Infobox station}}. there seems to be no problem with adding any missing parameters to the main infobox. Frietjes (talk) 17:04, 29 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 edit

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

  • Delete no need for all these infoboxes that do the same thing. --Rschen7754 16:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are a few links engrained into the template that would have to be added manually (e.g. performance data) if we switched to the more general template. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.  Tentinator  09:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has some London specific features. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk) @ 09:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in favour of Infobox bus line. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rewrite as a frontend for {{Infobox bus line}}, then reconsider deletion if the frontend is very weak. Frietjes (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite per Frietjes -PC-XT+ 22:41, 7 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) 04:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment It's not clear everyone actually checked the code for the template, which is already a simple frontend for {{Infobox bus line}}? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did look at the source before !voting, but see no reason for such a front end to exist. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or redirect after substitution, there nothing unique here. Frietjes (talk) 16:27, 11 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 edit

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). 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]
  • Delete per nom, replace with standard. It's 2013 now, c'mon.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - see my comments below about Infobox Swiss town. mgeo talk 08:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is standard practice when we can provide all fields/info by a larger more popular infobox. Let's make life easier for everybody. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Firstly, to get it out of the way, "It's 2013 now, c'mon" is not a compelling argument for deletion. As I said below,[2] indeed it is 2013 and yet, despite this, {{Infobox settlement}} has still not been upgraded to use {{Infobox}}. If "It's 2013" was a valid argument, we might be suggesting that Infobox settlement be deleted. That said, this infobox is already a wrapper for Infobox settlement and it makes no sense to delete it. Below there are recommendations to convert other templates into wrappers (#Template:Infobox Swiss town, #Template:Infobox Papua New Guinea place, #Template:Infobox Kibbutz) and yet this wrapper is being nominated for deletion, which is inconsistent. The wrapper provides some automation that is sadly lacking in Infobox settlement, because of its attempt to be a "one size fits all" template and we really should not be deleting functionality. I must admit to being confused by another of the delete votes, as "let's make life easier for everybody" is a reason not to delete the template. Deleting it makes it harder as all information must be added manually. The proposals at other templates to convert them into wrappers, rather than completely deleting them, acknowledge the benefit of automation which in itself ensure consistency. There is absolutely no benefit to Wikipedia in deleting this template. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The usual process here is
      1. convert idiosyncratic infobox template to a wrapper for a more general infobox
      2. cleanly substitute the wrapper template into the articles where it is used
    • — This, that and the other (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitute and delete. All good here (although it will need safesubst on the #ifs before substituting it into articles). The removal of this wrapper will also mean that the statistical data reference can be updated on a per-article basis. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • substitute and delete, this is a very weak wrapper, which simply passes parameters through to infobox settlement. it's also problematic, since it automatically adds footnotes for the area and population fields, but does not automatically generate the data. hence, it is very likely that these numbers do not correspond to the citation. by substituting the template, this will expose the citations in the article, making it possible to change the sourcing. Frietjes (talk) 18:37, 7 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]
  • Update: {{Infobox settlement}} is now built on {{Infobox}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BUT under one condition, to everyone help in converting to standard one. I've already done with my home town Ivanjica. Since all the parameters in Serbia municipality infobox are just pieces of the original one, then why not converting. But if no one wants to heavily contribute (we should make group of 10 people to convert all the 143 municipalities for one or two day), then what's the point of deleting this template?! AirWolf (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • no need for any hard work here, you just let a bot replace 'Infobox Serbia municipality' with 'subst:Infobox Serbia municipality' and the infobox is replaced. Frietjes (talk) 23:19, 18 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 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). 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]
  • Delete per nom, replace with standard. It's 2013 now, c'mon.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - see my comments above about Infobox Swiss town. mgeo talk 09:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and standardise, on condition that no relevant data is lost (as is always the case with my comments in infobox standardisation TFDs). — This, that and the other (talk) 07:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Is "No response, since 2009(!) to request on talk page" really a valid reason for nomination? A week ago the nominator posted a request at Template talk:Infobox settlement that {{Infobox settlement}} be updated to use {{Infobox}} as its core and yet, despite a suggestion by another editor that I be approached, there has been no response and no work in the sandbox to this end. This despite the fact that Infobox settlement, the template to which this infobox is supposedly redundant, is supposedly "the standard". "It's 2013 now, c'mon" is not a compelling argument for deletion. As I said below,[3] indeed it is 2013 and yet, despite this, {{Infobox settlement}} has still not been upgraded to use {{Infobox}}. If "It's 2013" was a valid argument, we might be suggesting that Infobox settlement be deleted. This infobox seems to work well in the 1,951 articles that use it, and at least it looks like {{Infobox}} (the actual standard), which Infobox settlement does not. There is country specific automation in this infobox that is sadly lacking in Infobox settlement, so there is more benefit to Wikipedia in upgrading this template to use {{Infobox}}, since it doesn't seem that's going to happen to Infobox settlement. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to work well so far. Although it is supposed to be used for municipalities, it can also be used for municipal units and municipal communities as well, without confusing and it also presents a fair amount of information in a nice way.Hansi667 (talk) 19:27, 8 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]
  • Keep This template is very helpful. All good here. --Makedonier (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more practical, it used in too many pages --Odythal (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rewrite as a template which calls {{infobox settlement}}, then reconsider at a later date. Frietjes (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this template can be easily replaced by IS.--Nero the second (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and standardise, though keeping it as a wrapper could be an option too.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourty four days and fourty four nights with no consensus in sight → KEEP! DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:53, 10 August 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 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). 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]
  • Delete per nom, replace with standard. It's 2013 now, c'mon.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:55, 2 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]
    • We can't predicate every bit of cleanup on every other bit of cleanup. {{Infobox settlement}} obviously needs work, but the best way to ensure that it's eventually migrated properly is to ensure that it has comprehensive coverage of all of the required edge cases in the first place, rather than having to hack them into a hopefully clean migration later. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per eloquent arguments by AussieLegend above. --ELEKHHT 07:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and standardise per testcases subpage. It looks like we are losing the purple color (good riddance), the surrounding towns (I'm not sure what the usual procedure is with these), and ... nothing else that I can see. The climate stuff should come out of the infobox and go into the Climate section of the article (see e.g. Cincinnati#Climate). So there's no need to keep the old infobox around. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your comments at #Template:Infobox Greek Dimos, where you said "Delete and standardise, on condition that no relevant data is lost (as is always the case with my comments in infobox standardisation TFDs)", seem at odds with your vote here, as you acknowledge that the surrounding localities (not just towns, this varies depending on setting of type) will be lost, and that is relevant data. As for climate information, it's not always possible to get a whole year's climate data so your proposal to move it into the prose would result in an entire table being created for just three figures. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The key word is "relevant". Surrounding towns data is, in my view, not relevant for an infobox. As I said, I cannot remember what our usual practice for this is - I used to know, but cannot find other articles that contain surrounding towns anymore, so maybe the general trend has been to remove it altogether from articles. I would welcome some more information on this. As for climate data, it can just go in the prose ("The maximum average temperature is X°C..."). Doesn't have to have a full-on climate table, although that would be nice. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Surrounding localities provide geographical context for the location of a place, so it is relevant. Climate data is also relevant. In articles where there is a climate table, per your example, the infobox entries provide a summary of that table, so it seems more than appropriate to include it in the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just adding that the testcases page doesn't demonstrate that the templte is redundant. A number of articles that should have been using this template were found to be using a different template. A few minor edits to this template to include required fields has resulted in another 36 articles now using it. There are still hundreds of articles lacking an infobox and it's not clear whether other fields will be required. It's unlikely whether these would ever be added to Infobox settlement. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - A week ago the nominator posted a request at Template talk:Infobox settlement that {{Infobox settlement}} be updated to use {{Infobox}} as its core and yet, despite a suggestion by another editor that I be approached, there has been no response and no work in the sandbox to this end. This is despite the fact that Infobox settlement, the template to which this infobox is supposedly redundant, is supposedly "the standard". "It's 2013 now, c'mon" is not a compelling argument for deletion. As I said above,[4] indeed it is 2013 and yet, despite this, {{Infobox settlement}} has still not been upgraded to use {{Infobox}}. If "It's 2013" was a valid argument, we might be suggesting that Infobox settlement be deleted. By comparison, this template does use {{Infobox}} as its core and it includes automation not possible in Infobox settlement so it is clearly NOT redundant to the outdated Infobox settlement. A wrapper has been created in the sandbox, but a wrapper is still a template and the wrapper is almost as complex as this template is, so there is no benefit to using that in lieu of deletion. For further justification, please see my previous comments in this nomination. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to wrapper/delete There is no reason that PNG places are so different from all other geographic places that they require their own non-IS template. I agree with Thumperward that it's better to migrate everything to IS and then improve IS as needed with better code. Also, I don't think the climate and location parameters are terribly useful and IMO we should not bother accommodating them in whatever wrapper is eventually used. (My surmise would be that PNG has relatively less climatic variation compared to other countries esp in terms of temperature -- why are those so important that they need to be listed in each infobox?) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If somebody actually seemed interested in updating Infobox settlement you might have an argument, but nine days after the proposal there is still no demonstrated interest in upgrading that template to 2013 standards. We simply should not be replacing updated infoboxes based on {{Infobox}}, complete with Lua code, with templates using outdated code. There's no guarantee that Infobox settlement will ever be updated. The correct procedure would be to update Infobox settlement and then propose deleting templates. Proponents of {{Infobox road}} claim that template can be updated to incorporate new requirements, so there's no reason Infobox settlement can't. Replacing this template now is wrong for so many reasons. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:28, 8 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]
  • Delete Aussie is right in that some fields will be lost in the transition to IS, but those same fields shouldn't appear in an infobox in the first place. The 'districts around x' space should be replaced by Template:Geographic location, and the temperatures by Template:Weather box. With 74 transclusions, checking each page and fixing it shouldn't take too long.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:12, 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]
  • delete after replacing with {{infobox settlement}}. we should see about adding a specific 'languages' parameter to {{infobox settlement}}, or just use the existing demographics parameters. as for the climate information, in many cases this is either listed twice, or not supported by the prose. the neighboring location links can be easily handled by {{geographic location}}. we can always see about adding a 'embed' feature to {{geographic location}} if there is a need to wedge it into the infobox. Frietjes (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The latest votes demonstrate that the original nomination is flawed. If editors are suggesting that it is necessary to replace this infobox with two or three templates then clearly the infobox is not redundant to Infobox settlement. Clearly, the project that created this template saw reason to include the climate and surrounding locations in the infobox; their reasons shouldn't be discarded just to get a few more places using another infobox that doesn't support the content that this one does. This discussion has been open for a month now, having been relisted once, while other nominations with as much, or less, discussion including far more recent nominations have been closed. Is this nomination going to remain open until there are enough votes to delete it? --AussieLegend (✉) 18:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as it's redundant to a better designed template.--Tusslemon (talk) 04:56, 30 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_10&oldid=1138535210"