Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 18/Template:Infobox England place

Template:Infobox England place

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

The result of the debate was DELETE after all the templates to be deleted have been replaced. Until this takes place I'll refrain from deleting any of the templates. -- Nick  t  00:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (0 articles currently use this template)
 * (175 articles - 98% of those in use in Scotland - currently use this template)
 * (0 articles currently use this template)
 * (164 articles currently use this template)
 * (0 articles currently use this template)

These templates have been superceded by Template:Infobox UK place which works for any place in the UK. (see also: TFD Template:Infobox UK place) — MRSC • Talk 17:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary discussion break 1

 * Weak Keep See here. It says to wait until the articles with the old templates have been converted over to the new infobox until we delete them. - Nick C 18:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - either convert all the articles that use them or replicate the new infobox code in the old specific infobox templates (can redirects work in template space?). Attempting to delete templates used in over 1000 articles before this has been sorted is just going to break the most visible thing in these 1000+ articles - not good. SFC9394 18:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I should have made it clear, I am not suggesting these templates be deleted until after the conversion has been completed (which is ongoing at a rapid pace with 1,600 of the 3,000 articles already converted). I am looking to this TFD as a mandate for that conversion as there has been edit warring on this in the Scotland and South Yorkshire areas. MRSC • Talk 18:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - "I am looking to this TFD as a mandate for that conversion", then that strikes me as an entirely different reason from the impression given in your nomination which implies that they are all redundant - now it looks like you are attempting to use the result of this vote to snuff out any opposition to the move. This doesn't sit well at all I'm afraid. SFC9394 20:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The UK template is, and has always been, presented as a replacement for all the others. It was nominated for deletion when created and received a unanimous vote to keep with several editors commenting it should replace the existing templates in the vote. There have been extensive discussions on the talk page and consensus from a wide range of editors that is should be used to replace the others. However, two users have been reverting the template with no reason other than "no consensus"   or "unexplained"    while failing to explain the substantive issues other than they beleive there is not consensus for change. I do not see how the TFD could be perceived as anything other than attempt to achieve a mandate for change, or how this is somehow subversive. MRSC • Talk 22:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - "how this is somehow subversive", because you state in your nomination "These templates have been superceded by", implying that these are redundant - then say that the decision made here (on the presupposition that it would be a delete) would enable " a mandate for conversion" - those two statements are add odds - the templates cannot be "superseded" by something else if the resultant of this vote would be used as a piece of evidence to support that superseding. Templates for deletion should be used to decide whether a template should be deleted or not - not decide which of a number of templates should be used - that should exist as a separate decision and consensus reaching process from any deletion vote.  It strikes me this nomination should be closed as a Trainwreck as the aim here is at cross purposes and proper discussions are just going to be short circuited. SFC9394 23:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - So you have no substantive reasons to argue against standardisation, only procedural arguments? MRSC • Talk 06:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * SFC9394 is totally correct; the new superior features can easily be incorporated into the Scottish, N. Irish, Welsh templates without needing a new Whitehall-style "UK is everything" template. And look at Portree, where supporters of the new UK template are rolling back Mais Oui!'s explained edits with pop-ups! Really! Is this really the future? And why wasn't this vote advertised on the Scottish wikipedians' noticeboard. Some might imagine supporters of this template were trying stage a quick coup-like fait accompli. I'm afraid neither the latter nor the Portree article inspire much good faith in myself. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The changes were advertised on the Scottish infobox and at the Scotland WikiProject. It's hard to assume good faith that this isn't anti-UK trolling. There is not a single constructive conjecture for not deleting the template here. Jhamez84 20:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Why can't you just redirect to the new infobox template? Addhoc 18:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - That is not possible as the templates are set up with significant differences to each other. MRSC • Talk 19:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keepas above -- Barry O'Brien   entretien  18:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons above: at the very least, will be useful redirects. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete once all instances of these templates have been replaced with Template:Infobox UK place. Adambro 19:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Once the conversions are done. UK Infobox obsoletes these. Most of the arguments to keep these boxes seem to revolve around nationalistic political beliefs of having a box named UK (although not nec displaying that) as opposed to "Scotland", "England", etc. (In the present context such beliefs should be irrelevant and left firmly at home).   Pit-yacker 19:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you sure about the motivation? Essentially, I agree with Adambro, in this case "keep for now" is the approximate equivalent of "delete once all instances of these templates have been replaced". Addhoc 19:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The motivation is unclear as to why the template was reverted on Scottish articles as no substantive issues were raised on the talk page, despite multiple invitations to comment. "keep for now" sounds like "do not delete" to me. MRSC • Talk 20:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep What precisely is that is broken that needs to be fixed? The communication here has been rather poor - and some of the remarks I have come across so far (e.g.Template talk:Infobox UK place) frankly patronising. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with last user; no need to fix something which works. Dogwatch2.
 * Note to users: This is Dogwatch2s 7th edit to a unique page from an account created on the day of the straw poll. Jhamez84 11:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

* Keep until conversion done properly. I've just reverted the conversion on Marsden, West Yorkshire because of the way the conversion lost lots of information, and oddly scewed the rest (it kept the ambulance service link, for example, but lost those for police and fire services). -- Waterstones 12:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's best to have this system as simple as possible. If infobox UK place works for all of them, then the rest are redundant. It would be nice to only have one infobox place template, but that has the problem of being too complicated. These four templates, however, can snugly fit into the one that subsumes them. Grace notes T  § 00:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Places in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should not be covered by the same template. Such proposition is preposterous. Besides language differences (Gaelic in Scotland, Irish in N. Ireland and Welsh in Wales are co-official languages), government structure is different as well as a variety of other things that may be important enough to go in a template. Am I seriously being asked to make wikipedia templates more cumbersome and wikipedia in general more confusing (which is what this complicated new template entails)? What answer can any reasonable person be expected to give? Exactly. Keep. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with infoboxes? Because you can feed them whatever parameters you want, which can be optionally displayed. The differences between the countries are insignificant. They should not be a factor. They are ideologically close enough, not in content, but in structure. And this template does not provide content, but rather the structure for content. In general, yes, infoboxes are that complicated. If it's confusing, tell me what's confusing you. As for the code... that's much more complicated than it needs to be. It can be simplified quite easily&mdash;the main reason why it's so complicated appears to be an artifact from the merge, and one that can be gracefully removed. Seriously: please compare this, this, this, and this. I hope that I have understood your post correctly, and addressed your concerns. Grace notes T  § 03:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "The differences between the countries are insignificant"
 * Of course they aren't. See above. I'm also waiting for the argument about why it is necessary to replace national templates with a UK - nay, a Great Britain - template. Why stop there? Why all this work for just the legally non-existent island of Great Britain? Why not have a British Isles, or even an EU or Europe template? Or, why not go for the whole world? Slippery slope working here. Just improve the England template and all will be well. If lots of revert wars over pointless content disputes are desired, the Nicolaus Copernicus article already exists. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 03:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment- The new template is able to deal with the localised arrangements of England, Scotland, Wales and Nothern Ireland with a consistent output. It also based on Template:Infobox City to give a consistent look-and-feel with other place infoboxes on WP. 06:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not true. For instance, as far as I can see, on language one is going to have to decide whether to include either Gaelic or Scots in each template. Wow! Come on ye content disputes! The naivety involved here is awesome. And even if it could deal with all countries - which it can't - why bother complicating things for the average user? It's so much better just to keep individual national templates and work on improving them, rather than wasting time trying to Whitehall the templates for Whitehallings sake. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why can't we have the language parameter equal to the text ? Parameters are strings, not concepts. If you put "Catholic" in the population parameter, it won't spit out an error.  Grace notes T  § 22:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just keep. --Smerus 10:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - the newer infobox has massively improved functionality to this version. It has no affects on how the counstituent countries are presented so these statements are void. This version is more consistent on an international level. Jhamez84 11:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is interesting. The conversion has just been redone by User:MRSC using AutoWikiBrowser, and it fine this time around. The original conversion was done on the 16th by User:Pit-yacker also using AutoWikiBrowser. I wonder why the difference?. Do we need to review User:Pit-yacker's other conversions?. -- Waterstones 12:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the concerns of those that oppose this TFD is whether the conversion should be done at all, so implementing conversation before it's over seems kind of not good-ish. Grace notes T  § 13:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I guess there is a chicken and egg problem there! Without conversion the templates cant be deleted.  Without a stronger mandate one or two (one now?) user(s) will continue to attempt to prevent roll out via a campaign of reversion.  AFAICT there appears to be a implication that we should ask for permission on each article's talk page to implement the change. That situation is clearly absurd and the logical conclusion and precedent would lead development of Wikipedia to grind to halt turning it from "Wikipedia: The encyclopedia anyone can edit" into "Wikipedia: The encyclopedia written by the world's biggest committee (or attempts to write but can never quite agree on)".
 * I think this issue brings in an issue over who "owns" articles. The current situation suggests that although a number of people have tried to change South Yorkshire articles, one editor in his role as a member of a WikiProject whose juristiction (being called "Sheffield") dubiously covers all of South Yorkshire, has a greater say over what should be in articles on South Yorkshire than any other editors (I am ignoring a single case of unexplained reversion by another editor (using eerily the same edit summary)  which as it was unexplained we cant take any meaning from).  Again this situation is absurd as the precedent and logical conclusion is that it removes the "right" of people otherwise un-connected with an article to make edits that are in disagreement with the article's "editor-in-chief's" opinions, who will no doubt use the library of community rules and traditions to frighten off less experienced editors. Pit-yacker 14:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that many voters here don't understand TFD that well, hence the notice at the top. Which isn't helping, clearly. The idea is:
 * Vote.
 * If the consensus from the TFD is to delete, then replace all instances of the templates.
 * Then delete the templates.
 * The structure may not be intuitive (although it is to me), hence the explanation. Well, you can lead a horse to water... Grace notes T  § 16:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep (until merging is complete). The UK infobox has progressed speedily but it is still not a viable substitute. For example, the fire and police force subpages will need to be completed so there are no empty spaces on the article infoboxes and not all fields (for example from the Scotland infobox) have been merged yet.
 * Once merging is complete then deletion is appropriate so that there are not two competing infoboxes. Some of the regional infoboxes do not get worked on that often (for example the Scotland infobox has seen only 14 edits since December 1st 2006 other than my own). A UK infobox will see a quicker evolution in the long run as more wikipedians will be working on it at any given time than a regional one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobbacon (talk • contribs) 15:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Comment: User:Gracenotes raises a valid point. Some of the above votes for keep are redundant as several users are misinterpreting what the plan is here; we then also have other editors who have voted as keep per above on the same grounds which also confuses! The plan is to delete the infobox after it is orphaned! Furthermore, at least one editor has voted to keep the England infobox because it missed a part out - it was corrected and he is now happy it seems for this template to go. Some votes may therefore need a strikethrough for the benefit of an administrator. Jhamez84 18:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Anglocentrism has little place on wikipedia. --MacRusgail 18:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The proposal is to delete the English template, not to keep it and promote it further! The new UK infobox has all the functionality and look of the previous Scottish version (it even has its own map still and potentially distances from Edinburgh). This was a totally unhelpful, an uncontructive reason to vote. Jhamez84 19:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The template does not have all the functionality of the Scotland template- there are still a couple of (minor) issues which I added to the discussion today. They should be fixed soon though. Bobbacon 19:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree with you, Jhamez84. There is no English template anymore, only a "UK" one; and this vote is about deleting the "provincial" templates in favor of a new, unnecesssarily convoluted Whitehall-esque "UK" template. The new features of the template are admittedly better, but it would be even better to incorporate them into the existing Welsh and Scottish templates that to use these features as an excuse to delete them. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, because those infoboxes as they exist don't have the right syntax coding to allow for this type of flexibility. By rolling this out we also stop content forking, found particularly amoungst articles related to Cornwall and Northern Ireland and the "traditional counties" advocates. As for Whitehall, well the UK version has the options for Scottish and Welsh assembly constituencies! I would ask, how can you disagree with me that is no English template anymore(?) - we're here debating it's deletion!!! This conversation as a whole needs a cleanup. Jhamez84 19:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So, why isn't changing the syntax coming up then? Seems to me that the improved content of the "UK" template is simply being used as an excuse for Whitehalling Wikipedia. BTW, if the English template still exist, how come all that's there is a message to use the UK template? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Change for change sake and with no real benefit. --Bill Reid | Talk 19:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as superseded by Infobox UK place, without regard to the possible motivations of the developers.
 * Being based on Infobox City, Infobox UK place promotes an internationally standard design for settlement infoboxes.
 * A template covering all four home nations guarantees a standard layout and cross-referability of data, in addition to quartering the effort needed to maintain and improve these/this boxes/box.
 * Infobox UK place represents an accumulation of the best features of the candidate templates, not an averaging or lowest-common-denominator version. In my experience, requested features from the candidate templates have been rapidly assimilated by Infobox UK place.
 * The only data field present in the candidate templates and not present in Infobox UK place is historic county, a long-disputed field, whose presence in an infobox (as opposed to the article text, under History) is questionable. I find that this omission is insufficient for me to raise an objection to the deletion of the candidate templates.  Reproduction of functionality is asymptotically close to 100%, and the candidate templates are therefore indeed redundant.
 * Other objections I have seen above do not appear to be valid. Infobox UK place does not seem anglocentric to me, nor is the occasionally tactless behaviour of one or two of the developers of Infobox UK place a valid reason for opposing here. I find that the Infobox UK place developers have acted in utmost good faith, and any charges laid against them of using "their" infobox to railroad through changes to the maps used, or to remove the home nations' flags, (or even some charges I don't fully understand: "Whitehallisation"?) are unfounded. — mholland 19:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, I still haven't heard the reason for not replacing the content of the existing "Home nations" (and you wonder why the word "anglocentric" comes up) templates with the new content from the UK template. I'm still waiting to hear why new content necessitates deletion. If the UK article got promoted to FA status, would you rather the Scotland and Wales articles were deleted, or the content improved? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I don't fully understand your objection. If you are suggesting that instead of implementing Infobox UK place, that the relevant fields and design elements are implemented in the four candidate tamplates, then I would respond that such an implementation (a "devolved" implementation, if you will) would look identical on the face of an article, but would be much less efficient behind-the-scenes. If you wanted to tweak the design, or add or remove a field, you'd have to have four talk-page consensuses instead of one, and more likely than not, the designs would diverge over time.  Are you opposing because you don't want want to get metaphorically into bed with the Sassenachs, even when your alternative suggestion would produce zero ostensible change on the face of the encyclopaedia?  I apologise if I've misunderstood you. — mholland 19:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no reason why there has to be only one for the four countries. Decisions on template content should be left on a template to template basis; that arrangement works fine. Improve the syntax and whatnot on each template as is seen fit, judging each one on its individual needs. I'm still waiting to hear an argument against this. I see absolutely no necessity for a UK template for its own sake (i.e. Whitehalling), no more than I see a necessity for an EU template. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that content decisions should be confirmed on a template-by-template basis (with the caveat that design standardisation across the board is usually a good idea). The argument that I'm advancing is that the natural level for a settlement template like these is at UK-national level rather than constituent country or EU level.  In the latter case, comparing Cantons with Kreise is like comparing apples and oranges; in the former case (the situation as of last month), the four candidate templates coexist in an uneasy group, with sub-national POVs slowly making similar templates dissimilar, and allowing for double standards to develop.  My argument in favour of a common UK template (and the concomitant deletion of the candidate templates) is that 200 years of political history makes it a rational balance between the urge to "templatify" (combining all possible settlements into one huge Template:Places-of-the-world) and the urge to individualise (diversifying into Template:Suburb of Edinburgh, Template:Towns in Gloucestershire with more than one Doctor etc.). — mholland 20:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad we've finally gotten down to what this proposal is actually about. The argument is then about UK POVs and "sub-national POVs". I don't mind this reasoning, perfectly logical in its own ideological framework. I just don't like the attempt being made to pass the argument over using improved content on one as an excuse to enforce a UK POV. If this was made clearer on the intro I would prolly have abstained, and let others argue it out. As it is, the choice is whether or not one regards, the UK as the most appropriate "national" sphere, or the individual "constituent countries". The latter should have been made clearer. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It should be noted that the above is only an argument advanced by me. Like I said, my TfD opinion here makes no claims as to the motivations of the various players. — mholland 20:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm for the deletion, as Mholland says the same info is being displayed in a common infobox. To appeases some people you could always add the "historical county" option. If the template is "rolled out" currently i don't see what loss of data/etc the concerned editors are complaining about. Pickle 20:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the most complained about point by users of the existing infoboxes. By including an optional historical county option it would appease a lot of people and make those who just want a 100% migration happy. Bobbacon 20:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete since superseded by Infobox UK place - WOSlinker 20:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete the new template standarises Wikipedia and gives it a sense of consistency. I added the Infobox Northern Ireland place template to the list. -- Mal 01:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary discussion break 2

 * Strong Keep The most important reason why they should be kept is it should be up to people to adopt the template or it could have been changed on mass if it had the due discussion and proper consensus.  This has not happened.  However, it has also lost information, which I spent some time adding (as others have), if the same has occured on all articles, so I can understand another reason why it should have been adopted and not implemented or why people should be able to revert.  I agree with the idea of a UK template eventualy for several reasons.  However, the majority of people should come to a consensus on this, not several people dominating the format.  Until such a time, I think that all national boxes should exist.  I also note that this is not a template for approval section, the usefulness of the Infobox UK place is not the key issue.  These four templates are not abandoned, they are being replaced on mass by the people that created the new template.  (Also, my interpretation of eventualy and until such a time is longer than in the long run.  Therefore one should not interpret this as a delete even if another then comments that it was: it is not up to them to reinterpret my position.  I am not stupid and understand the difference between keep and delete and also the spirit of the process.  If you believe otherwise please send a message to my talk page and I will clarify that I mean keep, should this still be in doubt.)   Ksbrown talk 21:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Each template's talk page was posted with a request to voice objections and concerns before editors went ahead with this template. Also, virtually every single WikiProject relating to the geography of the United Kingdom was asked to voice concerns at the UK infobox project page. We also had a straw poll as to whether we should keep the UK template. Nothing came back to this project, apart from an editor wanting a better map, an editor who wanted to keep a Sheffield specific infobox and an editor who wanted historic counties included. Hense, a "proper" consensus was infact formed!
 * Assuming for a second there was no consensus, what serious grounds are there to keep this template anyway? - The UK version is more than an improvement upon the England version; flexability, compatibility, function, form, anti-content forking... Nothing is lost in the conversion to the UK version other than POV flags, massive waste of white space ,and fixed repetative content fields. There isn't any preference to UK over England, Wales etc! Jhamez84 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I do wonder if some editors are being distracted by whatever opinions they have of independence. Please remember that we are supposed to keep to a neutral point of view. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland exists, and I can't see this changing in the near future.
 * The intention of the UK infobox is to improve consistency and simplify maintenance, both of which I suggest are honourable intentions. This isn't an attempt to waste "time trying to Whitehall the templates", that is nonsense.
 * There has been a suggestion that there might be an English bias. I would highlight the figure shown at Demographics of the United Kingdom, in particular that 83.8% of the population of the UK is in England. This, I would suggest, means it is highly likely that most UK editors will be from England. This means that the voices of editors from outside England are of great importance but it would be much more constructive if they provide feedback on the template as opposed to implying this is part of some ploy to favour England. Adambro 23:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither subordinating Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to the UK, nor subordinating the UK to them is NPOV; one is not more POV than the other I'm afraid. The only people who'd want to make that out, either way, are the ones who'd support one POV or the other. Let's not try to distort the issues please. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 23:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly suspect your trolling here; the UK infobox does nothing to the integrity of the United Kingdom's presentation, or the presentation of the constituent nations! Deacon's contention is wholly ideological, mentioning nothing about the greater encyclopedia benefits (or even disbenefits) this infobox brings to Wikipedia. 86.133.75.207 00:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Err ... yeah. Please identify yourself. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you're not implying that the user's argument is invalid because he or she anonymous. Grace notes T  § 00:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The user doesn't have an argument; but that aside, read the sentence, I'm asking the user to identify himself. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 86.133.75.207 did have a point, even if it was jumbled up. Anonymous editing is perfectly fine on Wikipedia... no reason to point that out when other things were more worthy of pointery. And I did read the sentence, but I also read that "Err ... yeah". But this conversation is going nowhere (and can't go anywhere useful)... Grace notes T  § 00:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh my goodness, read his post. It wasn't jumbled up, it was meaningless and on the verge of being a WP:Personal Attack. What am I seriously supposed to say, "no, honestly, I'm not trolling" or "no, my contention is not wholly ideological"? Lol. And if this conversation is going nowhere, why are you trying to sustain it? I mean, seriously, you posted a preposterous piped link to Ad hominem, addressed at me, after I did no more than request he identify himself, after being attacked myself. The laughter! BTW, I'm asking him to identify himself (not that it's any of your concern that I ask him) because there's very little likelihood he doesn't have an account. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 01:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And yeah, please tell me what you thought his point was? I'm curious. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 01:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ← In response to your points:
 * His post seemed related to content to me, or at least the way the IP thought that you interpreted the content. He was merely being bold (not in the sense of the guideline) by claiming that you were trolling, aka trying to get a strong emotional reaction (as a generalization). There's no point in going into more detail about this. It is not an accusation that I support, merely because I believe that you're acting in good faith, or at least for the subjective good of Wikipedia.( User:Gracenotes )
 * No, which makes me wonder why you tried/are trying to make it seem more lofty than it was. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your contention is somewhat ideological. If we moved the template to "Infobox group of islands in North-western Europe", I'm sure that this would assuage a couple of your objections.( User:Gracenotes )
 * Do you even know what my contention is? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The link to ad hominem was due to the fact that I thought that you were concentrating your rebuttal on him, not what he had to say. Ad hominem need not be invective. At base, it's a logical fallacy, and I thought that you intended your response to be a logical response (as is common in on-wiki conversation).( User:Gracenotes )
 * Lol. This is preposterous. I asked him a question. Didn't have a rebuttal. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He didn't call you a troll, but merely doubted your intentions. Assuming good faith isn't a suicide pact&mdash;if you did converse in bad faith, it was a bit bold of him to use such strong language, but why not mention that possibility. (Hell, you don't even know my intentions, if I have any.) It also wasn't a personal attack, by the letter of WP:NPA. Maybe it was somewhat incivil, but debates like this can naturally get quite heated, and you don't seem to show any attempts to de-escalate heated conversation or compromise, but nor is anyone else, really.( User:Gracenotes )
 * His words --> I strongly suspect your trolling here;. You give an interesting - though spurious - interpretation of them. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if that IP had an account, posting as an IP doesn't violate WP:SOCK, from what I've extracted from his comment.
 * Grace notes T § 01:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * When did I say it did? You seem to be having half this conversation with yourself. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete England, London, Wales but leave Scotland for the time being. There are serious concerns being raised by Scottish article contributors and they should be addressed before (or if) proceeding. Regan123 00:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * General comment There seems to be a lot of POV accusations being thrown around above by a lot of people, which aren't really necessary. Regan123 00:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. If these templates had neither UK nor England/Scotland etc in their titles, would we be having this debate? If, for example, they were portrayed as 4 slightly altered infoboxes or one standard one from which all the fields from the 4 individuals ones are included but used in a common layout and syntax there would be no argument. As mentioned several times above, any criticisms of the actual template that has been created have all been dealt with and included with good faith and without any difficulty. Most of this entire thread stems from arguements that are geo/politically centred, rather than on the actual infoboxes themselves. Therefore I am voting delete, as I am in favour of a standard template that is easy to use and understand, and that applies for the majority of articles. Show me an instance (other than the flag or historic county debate) in which the nominated infoboxes are inferior in any way, and I will consider again. –MDCollins (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

See last vote before first arbitrary section break. Struck it out. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete . I don't know why this second vote/discussion section is here, but I may as well stick my delete call here too.. for the same reasons as above(!). -- Mal 01:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate if you struck your second vote - merely because this new section is to make editing more easy, not to mandate consensus all over again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gracenotes (talk • contribs) 02:17, 20 March 2007
 * No need to strike, this user has not voted here before, but has voted in previous discussions related to the infobox. Jhamez84 11:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The user has voted previously on this TfD discussion at 01:43, 20 March 2007. See end of previous section. Adambro 12:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * User has already voted
 * Sorry I missed that. Apologies. Jhamez84 22:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete when they have all been converted. --A Cornish Pasty 11:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. From the point of view of simplifying editing and reducing template bloat, it is clearly better to have fewer templates. The point of an infobox template is to have a standard bit of code to insert a standard table into as many articles as possible. Having a single UK place box instead of separate ones for the constituent nations is clearly preferable, for the same reason we have (for example) an England infobox template rather than one for each region/county/city/village/house.... Now, it would be better still if a single template could be used for all settlement infoboxes, but the proposed consolidation will be a step in the right direction! --Casper Gutman 14:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If the outcome for this discussion is delete, then first all instances of the deleted templates will be replaced, and then they will be deleted.". So, why are certain user deleting every England infobox in sight without consensus?   L.J.Skinner wot 16:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Keep Scotland and Wales - until the concerns of the users and projects members of those countries have been fully discussed and a consesnsus for those countries has been reached.  DDStretch    (talk)  20:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)  once they have all been converted, now that the concerns of Scottish Wikipedians seems to have been resolved. And could we have less of the POV accusations and wrangles in this discussion?   DDStretch    (talk)  16:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. In what way 'resolved'? Did someone change their vote? I think it would be helpful if there was some appreciation of the difficulties involved here. Scotland's unusual constitutional status creates complications that may not always be fully appreciated as the above debate suggests. Perhaps this new infobox is simply wonderful, and if these benefits had been explained in an open and sympathetic way in advance perhaps things would be different. I do not know every Wikipedian who is either Scottish or active on Scottish topics, but a glance at the list above suggests the current level of support in that quarter is nil or next to nil. Given that all of the old English infoboxes have been removed without apparent difficulty, perhaps Regan123's idea above, or some variant of it, is sensible. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, despite several requests, I still don't see why all these fabulous new changes mean there has to be a UK template instead of improved versions of the old national/provinicial templates. I can't see any harm keeping them, as they always have been, separate. In fact, that seems better, as there are large, active, dedicated communities to each nation, as there will be fewer content disputes (and what ones there will be will be more limited in effects), and as it will be easier for those relatively inexperienced in template editing to make changes. Failure by the proponents to point out what the options actually are (they imply that the only way these improvements can work is by one pan-UK template), the low-profile given to this vote (not advertised on WPProject Scotland or the SWNB; no Jhamez84/86.133.75.207, you didn't advertise the vote! though Regan123 had earlier requested discussion of ongiong changes) and the terrible treatment of Mais Oui! on Portree, Broadford, Isle of Skye and Kyle of Lochalsh, have rather encouraged a little cynicism to enter my heart. I can only speak for myself, but I'm still under the impression that some supporters proponents of this template were trying stage a quick coup-like fait accompli. And my good faith has been further undermined by proponents waging a mini-propaganda campaign against me here, calling me POV and describing my comments as "trolling", just because I've been raising what I regard to be valid objections and asking valid questions. The way this vote has been carried out is rather slimey. Credit to guys like User:Mholland, who actually addressed one of my concerns with a reasonable response. As I said earlier, I would prolly have just abstained if it weren't for the way the proponents went about this development. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of this language highly inflamatory. Please note, it is convention to discuss content, not contributors. I did not advertise this vote to any WikipProject - agressive cross posting for voting is considered a no-no. As an Anglo-Scot (I'm not a Brit identifier you may be interested to know), I see no valid point in treating Scottish editors differently to others; the threshold for inclusion should be equality. Hense why a pan-UK collective of Wikiprojects were requested to join in formulating the UK infobox, but I personally (its not my job to do it by anymeans - why doesn't a plaintiff do this?) didn't post to any WikiProjects about votes. Why don't we post this to the WikiProject Frogs Noticeboard? or the WikiProject Pakistan - they have just as much right to the vote as any other - it's not a nationalist dispute being made here - its one about removing 4 unused (in the case of England), repetative, space wasting templates. See the Aberdeen for a fantastic Scottish transclsion also. Unless editors have contructive debate to make about the infobox rather than making accusations of back room decisions (despite them being here), I suggest we let the vote run a natural, civil course. Jhamez84 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of this language highly inflamatory. Please note, it is convention to discuss content, not contributors. 
 * This strikes me as the kind of waste of space propaganda response that's getting this discussion nowhere, and heightening my opposition. Speaking of waste of space, why make separate templates for the four nations out to be that, when you could easily make them out to be more focused, relevant and less convoluted (see above post)? Maybe, Jhamez84, a discussion of the issues would be more useful than trying to slander my contributions with innuendo about civility, nationalism, and unconstructiveness? What d'ya think about that? Too radical? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You mention nothing about the template; so I think nothing. Jhamez84 22:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This page is about a decision to delete or not delete three-five templates and the replace them with anohter; and yeah, I noticed you've got more to say about me than this vote. Any explanation for that? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * NB Please keep on topic and think of the poor admin that is going to have to read through all the bickering at the end of the TfD! Please do not continue to discuss issues unrelated to the template, it makes this process more difficult and less effective. Comment on the subject of the TfD, not other editors. Adambro 22:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - I like the new British one it is a much better infobox than the previous ones. El.Bastardo 19:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be a little contentious to describe it as the British infobox. Don't forget our friends in Northern Ireland! :) Adambro 19:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete when full conversion has been done correctly. ipridian 13:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Anglocentric political agenda has no place on wikipedia.  Indeed, there was a Sheffield infobox as well.  Folk in Yorkshire, Scotland, Wales etc have their own identities, and need not be subjected to Westminster-centric propaganda.  If so many articles have been converted so quickly with AWB, why was this TfD not posted on all England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London place-articles initially.  I doubt whether many wikipedians have this template in their watch list!  indeed, I only found out about this TfD when insulted by various users.  May I ask why, for example, Stainforth, South Yorkshire seems now to make no reference to the fact it is in Doncaster borough council?  And doesn't give longitude and latitude so I cannot look it up?  An improve England box will be fine.   L.J.Skinner wot 16:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please also see "If the outcome for this discussion is keep or no consensus, then all templates will continue as they were 
 * Comment: Ignoring the political "Westminsterisation propaganda" you give which should be irrelevant to a decision. In the case of Stainforth, I suggest you check a bit harder - Both co-ordinates and Grid Ref are still available.  In the case of Co-ords, a duplicate reference has been removed as they are already in the de-facto Wikipedia standard of top right.  On the subject of Metropolitan borough. Firstly the old infobox is wrong, it says Doncaster is a "District" as opposed to a "Metropolitan borough".  In the last version that the new infobox was present it appears that due to the ongoing edit war, metropolitan borough has been lost altogether.  However, neither sides are guilt free on this.  Yourself and Captain Scarlet have reverted numerous non-infobox edits done at the same time or between the infobox conversion and you decideding to revert. Pit-yacker 16:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is unfortunate that phrases such as Westminster-centric propaganda are being used in a discussion about the way information is presented in the geography articles of an encyclopedia which is constructed as a community project. These kinds of things should have been left at the door and this discussion should be focussed on substantive issues such as Which works better?. MRSC • Talk 17:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm disappointed that lewisskinner views this as part of a "Anglocentric political agenda". As I've said previously, that is complete nonsense, especially trying to bring the Sheffield issue into this. The whole intention of any template is to ensure consistency, changing to a UK template furthers this aim. Please see my comments I made at 23:28, 19 March 2007 as I've already commented on this. Adambro 17:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment while I support all the national templates, rather than a UK one, there is a case for having a slightly different one for Cornwall, in order to incorporate the Cornish language translations of various names. --MacRusgail 19:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The UK infobox is able to incorporate names in Scots, Gaelic, English, Colloquial, Welsh and Cornish languages. Jhamez84 21:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary discussion break 3
Regarding the Sheffield infobox, which some people are currently removing. This shows the suburbs or Sheffield and villages within the City of Sheffield metropolitan borough. This was very useful for a reader who linked to the page from the Sheffield article. The England and the UK infoboxes do not work here, since all the village will appear to be in the same place on the UK map.  L.J.Skinner wot 01:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, when they have all been replaced by the new one. G-Man  * 20:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per G-Man. - Erebus555 20:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is poor compared to the new one. Gem 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The country all these places are in is the United Kingdom, England ceased to have significance over 300 years ago. Dmn € &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 00:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I see what you're getting at, though I think saying England "ceased to have significance " is being simplistic and plain wrong (many people would say they are English rather than British, as would Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish). But Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own devolved governments.  Also, come May, there may be a mandate for Scotland to break the union with England, so then we will need to reintroduce the the Scotland template again!  This seems potentially very short-sighted.
 * Comment:Re:Sheffield Infobox. This is a different TfD and is the wrong place to discuss it.  Also see my previous comments about local maps at that TfD, numerous areas using this template DO have local maps.  I seem to remember reading that User:Jhamez84 had offered to make an improved map for S Yorks/Sheffield but this offer was rejected, certainly the existing map could be included in a matter of seconds, but is a pale comparison to the other local maps, into which an extraordinary amount of work has been put in, stemming from large amounts of feedback. (You see thats one advantage of taking a UK wide approach ;) - there is a much wider community to give feedback, which can be used for the common good and then be applied to the benefit of other areas as well)
 * On the subject of Scotland, there has been a sensible suggestion, with which I agree, that Scotland's move-over shouldn't be done until all remaining issues (of which their appear to be significantly more than elsewhere - including various parameters that need adding, the chance of Independenceare resolved, etc, etc). FWIW, IMHO, I find it extremely unlikely whatever the election results that the government will allow Scotland to have independence.  If only because a) the next UK primeminister will be with virtual certainty be Scottish, and a Scottish primeminister of the UK giving independence to Scotland would be the longest personal political suicide note in history b) The Labour Party in the UK relies on Scottish seats to get it into government, so it would be suicide for the Labour party as well. Pit-yacker 01:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, I would have no problem (I would actally enjoy - quite sadly), making a city/county-region specific map for Sheffield/South Yorkshire, and have offered to produce this to help the WikiProject Sheffield before yes. Jhamez84 05:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Scotland should move over to the UK template once any technical issues have been solved. Scotland is another part of the UK and will stay so for the foreseeable future. I'm not sure what event in May it is that User:lewisskinner is referring to. I understand one party has said they will have a referendum on independence if elected. However, even if that was the case, I'd suspect it would still be years before anything came of it. Lets concentrate on the technical issues of making an encyclopaedia. Others have offered to come up with a solution in reference to lewisskinner's concern about the UK template. Can we loose what seems to be an "us" against "them" attitude to this template implementation. Adambro 07:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

..No. In my opinion the implementation of this new "GB"/"UK" (sic) template has been absolutely disgraceful. Zero effort was made to consult with the various English, Northern Irish, Scottish or Welsh WikiProjects and Noticeboards. In short: it is a big stitch-up, and should be rejected as such by the Wikipedia community. -- Mais oui! 18:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - no effort whatsoever was made to consult either WikiProject Scotland nor the Scottish Wikipedians' Noticeboard prior to the development of a "GB"/"UK" (sic) template (what happened to Northern Ireland by the way?). This shows very poor faith on the part of the creator. We were simply presented with a fait accompli. That is just not good enough. Wikipedia depends on consultation and consensus-building, not bullying centralisation. -- Mais oui! 17:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Surely you should be basing your decision in reference to this TfD on the templates in question, not on the behaviour of other editors in developing and implementing the UK infobox. Adambro 17:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You keep referring to it as the new "GB"/"UK" (sic) template, my understanding is that it was originally intended to cover Great Britain but expanded to cover the whole of the United Kingdom, what's the problem? What is the point you are trying to make by referring to it in that way? I am also very surprised that you are making your judgement on the suitability of the infobox in terms of how some editors have behaved, that seems very odd. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying but I would have thought that technical considerations should come before your opinions of other editors. I would also dispute that "zero effort was made to consult" with reference to the template, I understand that not be the case. Adambro 19:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Northern Ireland is included in the new infobox. IMHO, it wouldnt make much difference as somebody transfered the whole of the province to Template:Infobox Irish Place before development of UK place had even started. Pit-yacker 18:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Consultation has been carried out with Scottish editors, and, after suggestions, the infobox has been customised to contain effectively all the information that was contained in the old Scotland place infobox. This can be verified by reading the discussion page for the infobox.  DDStretch    (talk)  18:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no doubt that you honestly believe this to be true, and perhaps Scottish Wikipedians are at fault for not watching the existing infobox page en masse, but this is simply not my experience, or indeed what my reading of the archived discussion (which I think is now called ('Archive 2 - includes mostly discussions during roll-out of England/London') suggests. The first I, and I suspect most others, even knew of the existence of the discussion was an invitation to talk about "Template talk:Infobox UK place" posted on the Ides of March which does not mention anything about deleting the existing Scottish infobox. I fear that it may be this, rather than anything relating to forthcoming elections that is fuelling the current debate.Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In which case, maybe it might be appropriate for the developers of this template to apologise to those editors who feel they haven't been given suitable chance to discuss it, so we can get down to the real business that is making an encyclopaedia. We seem to have got caught up in a discussion about editors behaviour when in reality the real issue is what benefits Wikipedia readers most. Adambro 19:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok. Thanks for the comment. As a result of growing thoughts about all this, I have now come round to thinking that the Scotland infobox should be kept, along with the Wales one, until a consensus is reached after more discussion on the releevant project pages by Scottish and Welsh users and project members one way or another. However, I am not sure how to change my "opinion", which was delete. This change does not withdraw all of my comments, but it does recognise that a hold should be put on the changeover of Scotland and Wales infoboxes to the new one. (added after reading User:Adambro's message which conflicted with mine: I also am sorry to those editors on a personal basis for any part I may have had in "railroading" the new template through. I still think it is a good move, but it does need more discussion See my earlier comments Template talk:Infobox UK place for my realisation, earlier today, of what might have been a better course of action.)  DDStretch    (talk)  20:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have thought putting infront of and after your old vote ,which will cause it to be crossed out like this and add your new vote next to it would be satisfactory. Pit-yacker 20:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks ddstretch for recognising the concerns of other editors and choosing a suitable process of discussion to consider their views. I agree that there are some issues which have been raised which require further discussion and welcome ddstretch's recognition of this. Adambro 20:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok - Thanks to Pit-yacker for pointing out how registering a change in opinion might be done. I've done it now. And thanks to User:Adammbro for his kind words.  DDStretch    (talk)  20:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just Keep. Kanaye 18:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Why? Adambro 19:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Because I don't see what's so much better about this new template. It certainly doesn't appear to be anything that couldn't just be added to this one. And frankly I resent the way in which this new template is being pushed upon editors who are clearly uncomfortable with it. Kanaye 19:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for taking the time to explain your opinion. Adambro 19:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for the record - Virtually every WikiProject related to the UK (including Scotland) was contacted in an effort for users to raise their concerns (DIFF HERE). This contradicts User:Mais oui!'s contention, whom was infact contacted personally to share his thoughts (DIFF HERE), though he declined to comment. Votes against deletion on grounds of no contact should therefore be struck out/disregarded. Jhamez84 21:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'd agree that they should be struck out but it is certainly something for the closing admin to consider. Adambro 21:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is just incredibly frustrating, as someone who acted in very good faith to engage with as many users as possible for this template, that this reason of no contact to WikiProjects is being used to compromise the integrity of the straw poll. It's a falsification. I just wanted to make that clear, proove that contact was made, and thus votes cast on these grounds are not really fair grounds to do so. Jhamez84 21:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am also of the opinion that the projects were contacted, and I also agree that claiming that they simply were not is distinctly unhelpful here. My view is that a change in approach after the template had been written to a fair standard would have helped avoid some of the problems we have seen. And that holding some of the deletions (top the Scotland and wales infoboxes) and trying from the point of trying to persuade those projects of the advantages of the new infobox, together with any extra customisations required to address concerns - i.e., more persuasion-based, even more receptive-to-customisation consultative strategy, may be the best way of ensuring the future use of the excellent work done by many different people on the new infobox.   DDStretch    (talk)  23:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a simple mis-representation of the facts. Scottish Wikipedians were informed after the event (or, as I put it earlier, with a fait accompli). We were not consulted at all prior to the creation of the GB/UK infobox, or in the early stages of its development. Instead, someone just posted a very curt notice telling us that this is what is happening, effectively conveying "f*** you if you don't like it". Extremely unhelpful, and pretty much guaranteed to piss people off. -- Mais oui! 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I posted that notice. It was not curt and was not a f you or anything like that. It was simply, this is what is happening, this is the background page. Come and look at it and make your comments. You yourself had complained that no one had informed Scottish wikipedians a week before and didn't post a message - I did. Do you think that if contributors had descended on the new template talk and said no way this TfD would have included Scotland infobox? I know I would have voted keep on Scotland if that had been the response. The relevant complaint is here Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 1. Regan123 12:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Why bother? Surely the solution would be to apply the correct boxes elsewhere rather than apply boxes elsewhere and change the 98% of Scottish place articles that have had their boxes functioning for ages now? It seems an awful lot of effort that could be better spent elsewhere. The new box looks fine but I think it's wrong to say that existing boxes must be replaced. Nach0king 00:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Still not a single substantive reason from the Scottish wikipedians as to why we cannot standardise the infoboxes, aside from a perceived breakdown in Anglo-Scots relationships and communication within WP. If it helps I apologise for myself and any of my countrymen who have offended, but the purpose of the infobox was to improve things for everyone and be as inclusive as possible. Anyone, from any project was welcome to add to the infobox (and indeed has, take a look at the various regional options which include a whole raft for Scotland). There have been 286 edits made from a variety of editors to the template since it came into template space and a request for comment was made. If there are things you do not like about the infobox, please engage at the talk page. MRSC • Talk 06:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment- After editing the Scottish Infobox I was told it was being discontinued- totally out of the blue. I did read the comments on the talk page and it certainly didn't suggest deletion. However, after comparison between the two and having added in the fields that were missing from the Scottish box to the UK one (the historical county field and the Scottish flag are still missing) I have changed views.
 * From a technical aspect it is obviously superior- the auto generating code, especially the maps, will add auto-detail to the shorter Scottish articles that would unlikely receive the attention of a map for example. Having made the majority of edits in the last 3 months (there have been less than 20 others during this time) I can see that the Scottish Infobox template is unlikely to receive the kind of technical implementations that are happening on the UK infobox anytime soon and so will not evolve at anywhere near the same rate.
 * Also, I have noticed the reversion of UK infoboxes back to Scottish ones within a couple of days of implementation. Therefore it must be a one template or the other, if not there will always be a reversion war going on somewhere as thousands of articles are affected. If individual country boxes win, their references in the UK infoboxes must be removed as two boxes sharing the same jurisdiction will lead to endless conflict. Bobbacon 07:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I recognise that the new box is technically better, but it's going to be a lot of work to replace them all. If someone's willing to do all this then I don't really have a problem with the change (if not, perhaps, the way it was done.) Nach0king 12:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is a big task, but seeming the English infoboxes have almost been completely replaced (see statistics at top of the page) so I think it can be done and already is happening. However in some articles where a change has been made the new UK Infobox is being reverted back to the original country ones so consensus will need to be achieved before more people start putting the new infobox in because they don't want the work to be deleted/reverted back. Once there is agreement it should be a relatively swift task. Bobbacon 13:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would agree with Bobbacon, if agreement isn't reached it will cause us problems for a good while. Bobbacon has commented that the the UK infobox is a technically improved solution, there is also the benefit of improved consistency and a large group of contributors to maintain it. I welcome the comments by MRSC in recognising the problems in engaging with some editors in relation to the infobox, as has ddstretch, along with his apology where this has caused problems. I think the time has come to set the implementation concerns aside and concentrate on reaching a consensus based up the technical issues. Adambro 07:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would agree with Bobbacon, if agreement isn't reached it will cause us problems for a good while. Bobbacon has commented that the the UK infobox is a technically improved solution, there is also the benefit of improved consistency and a large group of contributors to maintain it. I welcome the comments by MRSC in recognising the problems in engaging with some editors in relation to the infobox, as has ddstretch, along with his apology where this has caused problems. I think the time has come to set the implementation concerns aside and concentrate on reaching a consensus based up the technical issues. Adambro 07:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - To those contributors asking about why have a new template, this is from the on the archive page:


 * 1) Consistency with template:Infobox City and this template uses the "infobox geography" class for consistency throughout WP
 * 2) Having one template means only a single update is needed instead of having to do all four (or worse updating only some)
 * 3) Having one template reduces the legitimacy of content forks
 * 4) The template is very flexible: it is easy to add sections without upsetting the rest of the template
 * 5) The output of this template is smaller but has a comparable amount of information
 * 6) The issues around some of the automation (police/fire/ambulance) not working properly in the old templates is resolved
 * 7) This template can handle places split between divisions much easier with second and third fields for everything from post town to constituency. It is also painless to add more if needed
 * 8) This template can add latitude/longitude top-of-screen information to all articles, even those with static maps
 * 9) This template received a uninanimous vote to keep in TFD
 * I think this is a very good summary of the new infobox.Regan123 12:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - for allthe reasons just stated by Regan123. A lot of effort went into codifying the new template so that the legacy features of any template superceded by it can be easily incorporated in the first instance, or at any subsequent point in time.   DJR  ( T ) 21:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete When full conversion has taken place. GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 22:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.