Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 1 March 3 >

March 2

[edit]

Various Cape Cod S-line templates

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete -FASTILY 02:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S-line templates for the Cape Cod and Hyannis Railroad, Cape Cod Central Railroad, and Amtrak's Cape Codder. Replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Cape Cod and Hyannis Railroad, Module:Adjacent stations/Cape Cod Central Railroad, and Module:Adjacent stations/Amtrak. All transclusions replaced. Mackensen (talk) 22:40, 2 March 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).

Template:Northern Cyprus women basketball teams in Turkey's leagues

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox with no parent article. WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:27, 2 March 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).

Template:Northern Ireland prime ministers

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:27, 2 March 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).

Template:Northern Territory regions

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:27, 2 March 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).

Template:Northern hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unsued navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:27, 2 March 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).

Template:Nuu-chah-nulth-aht peoples

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox. WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:27, 2 March 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).

Template:Nyborg 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox with mostly redlinks and plaintext Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:26, 2 March 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).

Template:Off-season Australian region tropical cyclones

[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).

The result of the discussion was keep. NPASR if a different rationale is used. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:26, 2 March 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).

Template:OlivierAward NewPlayActor

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:24, 2 March 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).

Template:OlivierAward RevivalActor

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:23, 2 March 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).

Template:Omaha Mavericks men's ice hockey coach navbox

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with only 2 links. WP:NENAN. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:23, 2 March 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).

Template:Omani League

[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).

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Borgarde has added it to multiple articles. No reason to delete now. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:49, 4 March 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).

Template:Oriental Orthodox Christianity in Europe

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox that violates WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:22, 2 March 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).

Template:Os Garridos

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with mostly redlinks. Violates WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:22, 2 March 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).

Template:Osaka University academic alliances

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:21, 2 March 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).

Template:Other Cricket tours of Sri Lanka

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox with mostly redlinks. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:21, 2 March 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).

Template:Other Radio Stations in Arkansas

[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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 March 21. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:34, 21 March 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).

Template:Our Peak

[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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 March 21. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 09:47, 21 March 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).

Template:PE-FedRep

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:19, 2 March 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).

Template:POV/subpage

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused subpage that seems to be replaced by /sandbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:19, 2 March 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).

Template:PPDpresidents

[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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 March 24. Primefac (talk) 14:36, 24 March 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).

Template:Palestine NFT results

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox with only redlinks. Violates WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:49, 4 March 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).

Template:Panamanian mobile network operators

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox with only 3 links Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 2 March 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).

Template:Panchayats in Patna District

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with mostly redlinks and plaintext. Violates WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 2 March 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).

Template:Panchen Lamas PRC

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with only 1 link Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:17, 2 March 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).

Template:Panchsheel Nagar district

[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).

The result of the discussion was keep. The template was renamed to Template:Hapur district among other things. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:17, 2 March 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).

Template:Paraguay squad 2012 FIFA Futsal World Championship

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox with only redlinks. Violates WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:49, 4 March 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).

Template:Parliamentary constituencies in Masvingo

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox with no parent article and mostly redlinks Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:16, 2 March 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).

Template:Patriots1967DraftPicks

[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).

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox that violates WP:ACCESS Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:16, 2 March 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).

Template:Penthouse Pets of 2005

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox with no parent article Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:16, 2 March 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).

Template:People's Party MP 2006–2010

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:15, 2 March 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).

Boston Surface Railroad S-line templates

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete -FASTILY 02:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Boston Surface Railroad. All transclusions updated. Mackensen (talk) 15:42, 2 March 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).

Template:Dfn

[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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 March 9. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:01, 9 March 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).

Template:Costliest U.S. Atlantic hurricanes by wealth normalization

[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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 March 9. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:01, 9 March 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).

Template:Trillium Line route diagram detailed

[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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. From the discussion, it appears that this template (or at least its content) are (or could be) useful, and the debate is really about whether said content should be "properly" transcluded (not linked) or merged/integrated into a different location. On this front no one seems to agree; a wider audience may be required to make that decision. Primefac (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ununsed template, no reason to keep it around. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Template:Trillium Line route diagram. Useddenim (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The template is not unused, it is linked to from the less detailed template. I think this is an appropriate setup and the template should not be deleted or merged. BLAIXX 00:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaixx: where are you seeing that the template is used? this clearly shows that it isn't... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That shows it is not transcluded, but it is linked to from Trillium Line: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Trillium Line route diagram detailed. —Kusma (t·c) 20:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: that fact that it is linked is not relevant. The template is not used on any pages. If you want to use the content, then it should be transcluded on a page. Templates are meant for reuse, not to be linked to as stand alone pages. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it is not transcluded is not relevant, seeing that the template is being employed in a useful fashion, supplementing an article. —Kusma (t·c) 18:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Blaixx. —Kusma (t·c) 20:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Blaixx. Mackensen (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma and Mackensen: your !votes to keep neglect to actually address the point that the template is not used. LINKING to a template is not a valid use of a template. Templates are meant to be transcluded, not linked to as standalone pages. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the template is arguably main space content masquerading as a template. It's fulfilling a useful function in that respect, how would you suggest handling this differently without degrading the user experience? Mackensen (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Zackmann08: I disagree with your unproven assertion that this is "not a valid use". It may not be documented anywhere, but having diagrams in template space instead of article space has been a traditional and widely accepted practice for a long time. The information is not in article space because it is not an article, and we no longer have article subpages. It is not in file space because it is editable. It is in template space because it is similar to Template:Trillium Line route diagram. Some templates are useful as standalone pages, and there is nothing wrong with that. Deleting this template deletes useful information for no benefit. —Kusma (t·c) 18:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Zackmann08: Forget about WP:DONTGETIT. The template has valid content and is not “Unused”. It's perfectly acceptable for route diagrams to link to a more-detailed sub-diagrams, just as there's no prohibition against stand-alone templates: see Template:East Coast Main Line diagram, for example (or are you now going to nominate that for deletion, too?). Useddenim (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or actually use - Templates should not be used as links which replace articles. If that template is useful, then use it on the page. If if it isn't useful and you need to hide it, then it should be deleted. Linking it as if it were an article should not be acceptable. --Gonnym (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: And where is the directive that says that? Useddenim (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not used as a link that replaces an article. It is a diagram. We would not delete a diagram in file space if it is linked to from an article. This diagram has the advantage of being editable and including wikilinks, much better than an equivalent-looking SVG. —Kusma (t·c) 08:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is used as a link, which for any unknowing reader (and to most editors) would seem like a link to an article. There is a blue text link that leads to this diagram. I would have no issue with this diagram if it were actually placed on that article, but this is not the case. --Gonnym (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDL is not a valid argument. Useddenim (talk)
Wasn't my argument so please don't put words in my mouth, also essays mean nothing, so don't bring them up. --Gonnym (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Blaixx and others above. Just because it is not transcluded does not mean it is not fulfilling a useful purpose. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: well by definition the purpose of a template is to be transcluded on multiple pages. If it isn't transcluded then why is it a template? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it uses template formatting and is part of a series of templates, and so is easiest to find and maintain in the template namespace. It also can be transcluded at some future point. Your arguments throughout this and related nominations haven't really been about the individual templates but about RDTs being in the template namespace regardless of transclusion count - if you want to change the existing consensus around this then you should be discussing it in a relevant location (probably Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template with notifications to the trains, waterways, roads and any other projects that use them). Thryduulf (talk) 00:51, 21 March 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).

Template:Infobox U.S. state

[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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus for outright deletion, consensus for a wrapper. There are several arguments being made on both sides of this discussion, some more relevant than others (listed below).

  • The argument that a US state is "not a settlement" falls in the latter category - even if the template is "deleted" (i.e. turned into a template redirect) it can still be used directly to avoid any confusion (and if participants feel that IB Settlement needs a name change, they can do so elsewhere)
  • The OTHERSTUFF arguments can likewise be discounted, though I will note that {{Infobox French region}} has now been nominated for deletion and there are a couple of times where "convert to wrapper" nominations have failed (slightly muddling both the "you didn't touch this one" argument as well as the PRECEDENT argument).

Taking the above into consideration, there are about even numbers for keeping and deleting, with (oddly enough) about half of each camp stating that a wrapper might be an acceptable compromise. Since converting to a wrapper is fairly close to a "true merge" (i.e. converting to a redirect after merging any missing params), this swings the overall consensus in that direction. Per my standard suggestion for large/complex cases such as this one, I encourage both sides of the debate to discuss the implementation of the wrapper creation on the talk page in order to ensure that everything important is included in the final product. Primefac (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with {{Infobox settlement}}. At the very least this should be converted to a wrapper template. Yes this was previously nominated 10 years ago, but lots has changed since then. Additionally, it is not likely that there will be any new US states so shouldn't need to be maintained on new pages. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
495 765 transclusions of Infobox settlement in article space.
410 349 / 82.77 % directly and 85 416 / 17.23 % via wrapper.
  • 89.12.172.247 (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are definitely U.S. state-specific fields here, such as StateAnthem (referred to in {{Infobox U.S. state}} as State song, the correct term, as opposed to Anthem in {{Infobox settlement}}), ranking in area/population/density among U.S. states, AdmittanceDate, etc. We could definitely make it inherit from {{Infobox settlement}} rather than {{Infobox}} as it does now, but this template is useful. The purpose of a template is to avoid duplicating work across multiple places, and 50 is definitely large enough to be tedious to do manually in one sitting. Using {{Infobox settlement}} would require hardcoding an override of "Anthem" in 50 places, linking to List of states and territories of the United States by population in 50 places, and more. Senators is also a useful field that we want to retain; if we migrated everything to {{Infobox settlement}} and tried to retain local government entities, it would be a complete mess as we tried to merge different forms of government from all across the world. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments made by Patrick and King of Hearts above. A US state and IB US state has more (fields) in common with a country/IB country than a settlement/IB settlement. California has more people, land and GDP than many if not most countries. Merging with IB country is obviously not appropriate. So what would the IB settlement replacement fields be for StateAnthem, Capital, LargestCity, LargestMetro, AreaRank, PopRank, DensityRank, IncomeRank, AdmittanceDate, AdmittanceOrder, etc.? 50 is too many to do by hand. No benefit to deleting. So keep. Leviv ich 18:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • To answer your questions. StateAnthem -> |anthem= (could also make a |state_song= so it will replace the text when used); Capital -> |seat= (see Bavaria); LargestCity and LargestMetro can be relevant for a lot of other places and is not something unique to a US state; AdmittanceDate and AdmittanceOrder as been pointed out above are useful for other places and is not something that is unique to a US state; AreaRank, PopRank, DensityRank and IncomeRank might be the only unique parameters for a US state (haven't checked this, so this could also be relevant to other places). But these two can be added. --Gonnym (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why make it that complex though, shouldn't we be more user friendly? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • IB settlement is used on half a million pages, why would we modify its fields just for 50 US states? Why not leave IB settlement fields for the things that are common to settlements, and keep IB US State? Leviv ich 02:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • You calling it complex, does not make it complex. And we wouldn't modify it for 50 states, as I've said, some parameters are useful for others. Also, just noticed that |population_rank= already exists, as do |population_density_rank=, |area_rank=. For next time, if you argue a parameter does not exist, please actually check so others don't need to do it for you. Seeing as how all but income already exists or is useful for other locations and are not unique to a US state, your argument for uniqueness does not hold water. --Gonnym (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • So where do we put |OfficialLang =, |Languages =, |LargestCity=, |LargestMetro =, |MedianHouseholdIncome =, |IncomeRank=, |Former=, |AdmittanceDate =, |AdmittanceOrder =, |Legislature =, |Upperchamber =, |Lowerchamber =, |Senators =, |Representatives =, and |TradAbbreviation =? Or are you saying add those fields to IB settlement, where they will be used by 50 pages and not used by 499,950+? Leviv ich 16:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Are you seriously arguing that the only place in the world where a use for "OfficialLang" is important is for a US state? Almost all of them have exactly 1 and it is of course the obvious "English". Again, same argument for every one of your examples. Do some research instead of asking me to. Look at Ontario, see how it has all of what you deem unique to a US state. --Gonnym (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • AdmittanceOrder really is unique, nowhere else in the world does anyone care what order subnational divisions were admitted to the union (at least to the extent that it belongs in an infobox). The rank parameters in {{Infobox settlement}} do not link to pages like List of U.S. states by population density (or population, or area), forcing one to manually add such a link for every one of the 50 states. Copy-pasting code defeats the purpose of a template. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Gonnym, did you notice Ontario doesn't use {infobox settlement}? It uses {infobox province or territory of Canada}. That's such a great example. For the exact same reason that Ontario and the other Canadian provinces and territories need their own infobox, so do US states. Neither Ontario nor US states are appropriate for infobox settlement. (And yes, I do see that IB Canada is a wrapper, and perhaps US State should be a wrapper too, I don't really understand the implications of wrapping v. not wrapping, but the point is, we shouldn't be trying to squeeze US states into IB settlement.) Leviv ich 16:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • There is a huge difference between a wrapper and a non-wrapper. It would be useful if people commenting on technical template discussions first understand the fundamentals of what they are opposing before baseless voting. --Gonnym (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. States are not settlements. In addition, no need for a complicated wrapper situation when there is a perfectly fine template working right now. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:49, 31 March 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).

Template:Metadata Population BE

[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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus with a lean towards keeping (6 to 3 for keep with the opposition making valid points). There is NPASR if the RFC on storing template data determines that these sorts of templates should not be used. Primefac (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid way to store data. The population should either be directly placed on the page or stored in WikiData. Not maintained in this sort of template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same for Destatis as for Statistik Thüringen [4] "Vervielfältigung und Verbreitung, auch auszugsweise, mit Quellenangabe gestattet". --Septembermorgen (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding maintained – compare population data for North Rhine-Westphalia:
  • from {{Metadata Population DE-NW}}: 18,190,422 (31 December 2023)
  • from Wikidata: 17,932,651 (31 December 2018)
-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's what happens when a community maintains data in multiple venues - they get out-of-sync. Far better to maintain data in one place, and transclude it as required. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the perfect is the enemy of the good. Yes, ideally we should use Wikidata for data (which, at least for Belgium, does not have population data for each entity as of now). For now we have this very useful system where we can easily put data, instantly updating all relevant articles where the data is transcluded. We shouldn't give up efficiency out of principles like "not a valid way to store data". SPQRobin (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - at least until there is a good, and equally well maintained alternative in Wikidata. The current population data templates are referenced, up to date (December 2016 and 2017) and I can't remember ever having found an error in the data. Markussep Talk 18:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I do not particularly like these templates (not intuitive to use, require updating on several wikis) but until there is a workable Wikidata alternative, de-centralising the updating of population data looks like a step backwards or two. —Kusma (t·c) 14:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a workable Wikidata alternative, already. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • As you probably noticed, it is currently of significantly inferior quality. Transferring the data in these templates to Wikidata wholesale would probably violate copyright, as most of the data is CC-BY or similar, not compatible with Wikidata's CC0. While I believe that population data should not have any usage restrictions, that does not seem to be the case. The templates are a workaround for the copyright situation, so they are currently the best way we have to store the data. —Kusma (t·c) 20:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • No: the alternative is of a much superior quality. That the data is not yet uploaded does not detract from the merits of the technical solution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Deleting these templates and using the data currently stored in Wikidata would degrade the quality of our articles. I do not care too much how the data arrives in the articles (whether from templates here or from Wikidata), but making information in our articles deliberately less accurate or less up-to-date is in my personal view significantly worse than using a "non-valid way to store data". Store the most up-to date data in a valid way, if that is possible, then come back. The theoretical technical superiority of the alternative is irrelevant if it means a practical decrease in quality of our articles. —Kusma (t·c) 21:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not one person is suggesting anything that would "degrade the quality of our articles" nor "making information in our articles deliberately less accurate or less up-to-date" and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Then I don't understand what it is you are suggesting. I see some "delete, the data should be on Wikidata" votes above that you seemed to agree with, as you started arguing with all of the keep voters. What do you think we should do? —Kusma (t·c) 21:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please point to the Wikidata entity where these numbers are now stored, and advise a method how to extract them for individual invocations of location templates, similar to the current treatment in e.g. {{Infobox German location}}? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose copying the population data to wikidata would work for now (it would be nice if someone would show how to pick the most recent data from wikidata, including year and reference), but who is going to update the populations in wikidata in 6-7 months from now, when the December 2018 data will be available? The German templates are updated by @Septembermorgen: and @NordNordWest: (and maybe others), are they willing to update wikidata every year as well? The main benefit of these templates IMO is that it’s very easy to update the data every year. I think it’s absurd to delete a fine working system without offering an alternative solution for that. Markussep Talk 06:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Bednarek: Population statistics are stored in the individual pages of each city/town (for instance, Frankfurt (Q1794). As for how to retrieve them, see the wikicode of this example: Population of Frankfurt (as of 2022-12-31): 773,068.[1] I implemented a similar system for {{Infobox Swiss town}} and {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}}, and they seem to work well, naturally enough only if the figures for all towns are kept up to date. I want to emphasize that until the updated figures are uploaded to WD, the current metatemplates should not be deleted.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As Septembermorgen mentioned above: There is a licence problem. I won't update at Wikidata. NNW (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is licensing the actual issue here? If so, when uploading just use publisher (P123) -> Thuringian State Office for Statistics (Q18119617), reference URL (P854) -> https://statistik.thueringen.de/. This takes care of the attribution issue, and is good practice anyway.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So there is no central database on Wikidata for all municipalities in the German states? Who would ever updates hundreds (thousands?) of data points? The current scheme allows for swift bulk updates from one Wikipedia language to others. No wonder the number above for Frankfurt is out of date, unlike the articles in DE and EN. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"there is no central database on Wikidata " Wikidata is a database; as I told you in this very thread, on 23 February. It includes data on all municipalities in the German states, and much more besides. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't express my concern clearly enough. A database that consists of a single file (template) that can be updated from the published data by simple cut/paste is much easier easier to maintain than Wikidata where the value for each municipality must be added to that municipality's entry. That's what I meant by "single database", as opposed to atomic data points spread across hundreds of entries. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You still copy-paste a single file, the difference is that instead of pasting it into an en.wiki template you paste it into QuickStatements, where it is made available to all Wiki projects. There are some valid concerns about using Wikidata, but the ease of updating figures isn't really one of them.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is. Adding P123 would mean that I know the source but Wikidata's CC-0 allows to ignore it completely. That's not the way how it works. NNW (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Bednarek: I'm uploading the population figures for Belgian municipalities right now. It doesn't take very long, if there is a unique identifier for the administrative divisions (such as NIS/INS code (P1567) for Belgium), I tried to explain the process on this page. But if there isn't (and I couldn't find one for Turkey so far) that's a whole different story.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The methods you describe are above my pay grade; I prefer KISS. Further, the <ref>...</ref> generated are bare and not in line with best practice formatting of references. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Alle politisch selbständigen Gemeinden mit ausgewählten Merkmalen am 31.12.2022 (in German), Federal Statistical Office of Germany, 21 September 2023, Wikidata Q122987347, archived from the original on 7 October 2023, retrieved 7 October 2023
  • Comment: Wikidata has a limitation, which has not been mentioned so far. Namely, QuickStatements cannot (yet) change statement ranks, meaning that there is no quick way to automatically fetch the most updated values. As a workaround, it is possible to manually ask the Wikidata template to fetch statements about a given date (e.g. {{wikidata|reference|P1082|P585=2018-01-01}}), but if more updated values are available, and the wikicode is not changed on the en.wiki side, they will be ignored. Because of this, Wikidata-based solutions may be less automated than some template-based implementations.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until the data can be easily transferred/stored on Wikidata. Number 57 01:16, 16 March 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_2&oldid=1072192640"