Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 2



Various Cape Cod S-line templates

 * 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 - F ASTILY   02:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC) 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)
 * S-line/Amtrak left/Cape Codder
 * S-line/Amtrak right/Cape Codder
 * CC&HR color
 * CC&HR lines
 * CC&HR stations
 * S-line/CC&HR left/Attleboro
 * S-line/CC&HR left/Braintree-Cape Cod
 * S-line/CC&HR left/Falmouth
 * S-line/CC&HR left/main
 * S-line/CC&HR right/Attleboro
 * S-line/CC&HR right/Braintree-Cape Cod
 * S-line/CC&HR right/Falmouth
 * S-line/CC&HR right/main
 * CCCR color
 * CCCR lines
 * CCCR stations
 * S-line/CCCR left/Cape Cod Central Railroad
 * S-line/CCCR right/Cape Cod Central Railroad
 * Cape Cod Central Railroad stations
 * Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (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).

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

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC) unused navbox with no parent article. WP:EXISTING  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Northern Cyprus women basketball teams in Turkey's leagues
 * Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (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).

Template:Northern Ireland prime ministers

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC) unused navbox.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Northern Ireland prime ministers
 * Delete per nom. Information already contained within an existing template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (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).

Template:Northern Territory regions

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC) unused navbox with no parent article.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Northern Territory regions
 * Delete per nom. Information already contained within an existing and used template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (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).

Template:Northern hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC) unsued navbox.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Northern hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons
 * 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

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC) unused navbox. WP:EXISTING  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nuu-chah-nulth-aht peoples
 * Delete per nom. Information already contained within an existing and used template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (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).

Template:Nyborg Municipality

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC) unused navbox with mostly redlinks and plaintext  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nyborg Municipality
 * Delete per nom. Information already contained within an existing and used template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (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).

Template:Off-season Australian region tropical cyclones

 * 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) Unused navbox. WP:NENAN  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Off-season Australian region tropical cyclones
 * Keep potentially useful. Currently a set of templates for each decade are used. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep We have tmeplates for all of the other regions with an off-season including the Atlantic and the South Pacific and i suspect that this one can be deployed very very quickly across a number of articles as well.Jason Rees (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep since we have the corresponding article, a navbox is useful. --B dash (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2019 (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).

Template:OlivierAward NewPlayActor

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC) Unused navbox. WP:NENAN  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OlivierAward NewPlayActor
 * Delete per nom. Unused, and WP:NOT#Almanac. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (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).

Template:OlivierAward RevivalActor

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC) Unused navbox. WP:NENAN  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OlivierAward RevivalActor
 * Delete per nom. Unused, and WP:NOT#Almanac. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (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).

Template:Omaha Mavericks men's ice hockey coach navbox

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC) Unused navbox with only 2 links. WP:NENAN.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Omaha Mavericks men's ice hockey coach navbox
 * Delete per nom. Two entries, unused, and WP:NOT#Almanac. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (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).

Template:Omani League

 * 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. has added it to multiple articles. No reason to delete now. (non-admin closure)  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC) unused navbox  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Omani League
 * Use links relevant articles in a sports league, a good use for a navbox.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I've updated it and linked to the relevant articles. No longer unused. Borgarde (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * this shows the template is still unused... -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because he also moved the template, so your link now checks the redirect. --Gonnym (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes that's correct, the template was renamed to Template:Oman Professional League per the current name of the league.Borgarde (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - these types of templates are useful and standard. GiantSnowman 13:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, why not help add this navbox to related articles instead, ? Hhkohh (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , using now, please consider withdrawing TfD Hhkohh (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , for sure!  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:12, 18 March 2019 (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).

Template:Oriental Orthodox Christianity in Europe

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC) Unused navbox that violates WP:EXISTING  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oriental Orthodox Christianity in Europe
 * Delete, and superceded by a "Christianity in" template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (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).

Template:Os Garridos

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC) Unused navbox with mostly redlinks. Violates WP:EXISTING  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Os Garridos
 * Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Os Garridos and Garridos were deleted last year making this template useless. Nigej (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2019 (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).

Template:Osaka University academic alliances

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC) Unused navbox. WP:NENAN  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Osaka University academic alliances
 * Delete per nom. Even if this were used it should be deleted. Inappropriate list to be kept here, can be posted on the Osaka university website.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Osaka University mentions some but this template list is clearly excessive. Nigej (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2019 (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).

Template:Other Cricket tours of Sri Lanka
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC) unused navbox with mostly redlinks. WP:NENAN  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Other Cricket tours of Sri Lanka
 * Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Beginning a template with Other is a bad idea for one. Plus the template is unused. Ajf773 (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2019 (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).

Template:Other Radio Stations in Arkansas
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Other_Radio_Stations_in_Arkansas
 * 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
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Our_Peak
 * 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
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC) unused navbox  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * PE-FedRep
 * Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2019 (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).

Template:POV/subpage
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC) unused subpage that seems to be replaced by /sandbox  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * POV/subpage
 * 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
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Popular_Democratic_Party_(Puerto_Rico)
 * 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
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC) unused navbox with only redlinks. Violates WP:EXISTING  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Palestine NFT results
 * Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - not needed or useful. GiantSnowman 13:51, 4 March 2019 (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).

Template:Panamanian mobile network operators
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC) unused navbox with only 3 links  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Panamanian mobile network operators
 * 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
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC) Unused navbox with mostly redlinks and plaintext. Violates WP:EXISTING  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Panchayats in Patna District
 * 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
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC) Unused navbox with only 1 link  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Panchen Lamas PRC
 * Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2019 (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).

Template:Panchsheel Nagar district
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC) unused navbox  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Panchsheel Nagar district
 * Keep - cleaned template and added it to relevant pages. --Gonnym (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2019 (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).

Template:Paraguay squad 2012 FIFA Futsal World Championship
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC) unused navbox with only redlinks. Violates WP:EXISTING  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Paraguay squad 2012 FIFA Futsal World Championship
 * Delete per nom. All redlinks.--Tom (LT) (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - not needed or useful. GiantSnowman 13:51, 4 March 2019 (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).

Template:Parliamentary constituencies in Masvingo
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC) unused navbox with no parent article and mostly redlinks  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Parliamentary constituencies in Masvingo
 * Delete per nom. No useful navigational value--Tom (LT) (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2019 (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).

Template:Patriots1967DraftPicks
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) unused navbox that violates WP:ACCESS  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Patriots1967DraftPicks
 * Oppose. Navbox is now fully used. As far as this entire class of navboxes as a concept, a broader discussion would have to take place at WT:NFL before we should be taking any action there. Additionally, any WP:ACCESS concerns that may exist here actually involve a different template, not this one. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, agree with above. No use deleting a single template out of the series. <b style="color: #329604">B</b><b style="color: #FD8F42">L</b><b style="color: #0096FF">A</b><b style="color: black">IXX</b> 21:46, 19 March 2019 (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).

Template:Penthouse Pets of 2005
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC) unused navbox with no parent article  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Penthouse Pets of 2005
 * Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Navbox with no navigation left. Only use comes from previous/next year template links. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2019 (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).

Template:People's Party MP 2006–2010
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC) Unused navbox  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * People's Party MP 2006–2010
 * Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2019 (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).

Boston Surface Railroad S-line templates
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 - F ASTILY   02:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC) Replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Boston Surface Railroad. All transclusions updated. Mackensen (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * BSR lines
 * BSR stations
 * S-line/BSR left/Main
 * S-line/BSR right/Main
 * Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2019 (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).

Template:Dfn
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Dfn
 * 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
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Costliest_U.S._Atlantic_hurricanes_by_wealth_normalization
 * 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
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) Ununsed template, no reason to keep it around.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Trillium Line route diagram detailed
 * Merge into Template:Trillium Line route diagram. Useddenim (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="color: #329604">B</b><b style="color: #FD8F42">L</b><b style="color: #0096FF">A</b><b style="color: black">IXX</b> 00:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * where are you seeing that the template is used? this clearly shows that it isn't... -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Keep per Blaixx. —Kusma (t·c) 20:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Blaixx. Mackensen (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * And where is the directive that says that? Useddenim (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> 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)
 * 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)
 * 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? -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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). 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) 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.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * 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).
 * Infobox U.S. state
 * Delete after replacement as redundant; but if there is no consensus for that, at least make it a wrapper, per nom. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Puerto Rico could very possibly become a state. I oppose for the replacement as there are unique parameters such as "admission to union". Wrapper would be better than deleting to allow consistency without having to patrol 50 articles.  IWI  ( chat ) 23:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Would seem that other places, like Canadian provinces (Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador, etc.) could use such a parameter. --Gonnym (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support merge - the infoboxes should use the same code and have the same visual presentation to other settlement articles. The unique field mentioned above can be used by other countries which have joined a union. --Gonnym (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Can you sandbox several examples for various U.S. states? I'm not 100% that fields like "Capital," "Largest city," "Largest metro area," "U.S. Senators," "Before Statehood," "State song," and as mentioned "Admission to Union" have direct replacements in Template:Infobox settlement. We'd certainly need to use a number of custom fields, or add code to the template, which given the high number of pages that use Infobox settlement, should probably get a wider discussion. Federalism, the sort in the U.S. and Switzerland, is not that popular a system globally and U.S. states in many ways have more in common with countires (and fields in Template:Infobox country) than cities.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 18:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am curious about the wrapper suggestion. I do see that Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada is done as a wrapper, and provides several of the fields I'd noted Infobox Settlement doesn't include above. Again, showing it done in a sandbox might help convince other editors.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 20:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep States are not settlements. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Infobox settlement, per its own doc page, is an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country .... US states clearly are subdivision[s] below the level of a country. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would argue then that this falls under usefulness. Notability cant apply here, and arguments seem to be centered around essays. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That documentation is thoroughly wrong. The concept of 'country' differs from the concept of 'settlement'. Both in RL and so in WP. They cannot be be mixed up or "merged". (What's next? merge "", because well, it is a place on Earth too?). Obviously, that documentation is wrong in this, with horrible consequences for all readers and editors. -DePiep (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Just as we still have Template:Infobox French region and Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada, etc, which oddly aren't being proposed for merger. I'm not quite sure what "wrapper" means, but if it means updating the coding to match Infobox settlement, that seems fine. I'm assuming all the infoboxes at Category:Templates calling Infobox settlement are wrappers, so there should be no problem doing that for "Template:Infobox U.S. state". - BilCat (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Such arguments can be discounted, on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NODEADLINE. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Those basis are countered by WP:PRECEDENT and WP:YESDEADLINE though. We should be trying to tie this with policy and guidelines when possible. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Knowledgekid87, have you read the essays you linked to? YESDEADLINE does not say what you think it does and is not an opposite argument to NODEADLINE, even if the name appears to be. Also, if you want to invoke PRECEDENT, then just look at the recent few months of TfD discussions where wrappers and stand-alone settlement templates are being converted or merged back into Infobox settlement. Both "counters" are in fact, not. To the actual argument made by Bilcat, experience has shown that when nominating many templates of the same type in a group, the result is usually a no-consensus as the discussion fragments into too many pieces and as a result, the tendency is either to deal with one template one at a time, or with very small groups. Slowly all of the templates that should be merged, will get nominated. Opposing because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not contribute to any discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Should be merged" is a matter of opinion, if the template serves its purpose then why fix what isn't broken? My point is that essays contradict other essays which are not always based on community consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please when quoting me, use the full sentence so it will not be taken out of context. I said, Slowly all of the templates that should be merged, will get nominated, I specifically said nominated, which was in response to Bilcat, who said Just as we still have Template:Infobox French region and Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada, etc, which oddly aren't being proposed for merger. As I said, slowly the big list is being nominated, whether those pass or not is a different story, but opposing as two templates haven't been nominated yet is just missing the whole point. --Gonnym (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with the earlier statements that U.S. states are not settlements. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you not see the response to that claim: Infobox settlement, per its own doc page, is an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country ...? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would argue that consensus can change, as the template documentation was placed there by editors. If we were going by Merriam-Webster the term for settlement is as follows :
 * a : occupation by settlers
 * b : a place or region newly settled
 * c : a small village
 * I don't see how a state fits this criteria. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, at liberty to argue that consensus can change; however, you offer zero evidence that it has changed. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant claim Bokmanrocks01, your I agree with the earlier statements that U.S. states are not settlements. - it was not claimed in the proposal that they are. 78.54.186.169 (talk) 06:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge. No reason this shouldn't at least be a wrapper, if not replaced entirely. Only users who truly fail to understand the purpose of Infobox settlement would think "a state isn't a settlement" is a valid argument against this. --Bsherr (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge per previous precedent on merging templates similar to "Infobox settlement", as well as merging its wrapper templates. Template:Infobox settlement needs renaming, though. Might "Infobox subdivision" work better? Subdivisions are not settlements, but settlements are subdivisions (in some sense). Templates should have meaningful names. --Inops (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I like to find out when states were established, and this infobox is very useful, and condenses information into a nice little box. --Rubensbathsheba (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Infobox settlement will do that for you, equally well. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge - The parameters of Infobox U.S. state are all included in Infobox settlement, no reason to keep the former -- Jesuiseduardo (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge I don't see any substantial differences with IB settlement in either form or application. A wrapper can be retained, if that is better for its implementation.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom Colonestarrice (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. A 'US state' is not a settlement. State and city are different concepts. -DePiep (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As you well know - because I tell you every time you raise this facile objection, which has several times in recent weeks been disregarded by consensus - and as has been the case for over a decade, Infobox settlement is "for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have replied to that documentation-argument before, most recently here in this thread above (you choose not to read?). You can quote it a dozen more times, the point stays: Wikipedia documentation cannot change the real life concepts of 'country' versus 'settlement' (and then again, it's a documentation snippet, not an RfC). So far, this has been your only argument, repetitive while being WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. More troublesome is that way more often if not every time you divert from arguing and start spoiling the discussion with jabs and personal attacks. Calling an argument 'facile' without adding substance (ever) is derogative not a discussion. -DePiep (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, DePiep, it is you - in this very post - not I, who is making "personal atttacks". And you have been warned about that, more than once recently. Indeed, I recall telling you: "You've been warned before, more than once, about making unwarranted insinuations of bad faith against fellow editors. Desist." Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are coming across as belittling by saying "I tell you every time", and I don't think I am the only one who notices this. One can also argue that consensus can and has changed for things on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * FUD. No one claimed that 1) a 'US state' is a settlement 2) "state" and "city" are not different concepts. The word "settlement" appears in the proposal text only in the name of the target infobox. 89.12.172.247 (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why judge off-reason before you even understand my statement? Please ask unprejudiced for clarification instead. Your non-substantial judgement is personal and disruptive, not helpful. -DePiep (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or Convert to Wrapper . I think US States are special. Really though, I just think it's odd just to single out them as a redundant template. Those are very high trafficked articles, and new users will be slightly confused about that template. Even as a wee WikiInfant I was editing the parameters for these kinds of templates (just not knowing much about them tbh). &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, for the record,, all of these pages independently exist: Statehood movement in Puerto Rico, Statehood movement in the District of Columbia, Partition and secession in California, 51st state, Annexation movements of Canada, and List of U.S. state partition proposals. I am not saying any are likely or unlikely, but these are all articles considered to be notable. – MJL  ‐Talk‐☖ 19:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what your point is? I'm not disputing that there may be a 51st state at somepoint... That's not the point here. My point is that this isn't something like Infobox song or Infobox actor where new uses are added every day. These are VERY stable templates that are not likely to change anytime soon. Could they? Of course they could and they will be updated accordingly... -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I was more-so refuting this part of the nomination statement: Additionally, it is not likely that there will be any new US states so shouldn't need to be maintained on new pages. . I don't consider it to be as valid a reason to replace as the arguement that it is redundant. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your comment is totally valid. I don't think I expressed myself very well with the initial statement so I will concede that. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I probably shouldn't be talking all things considered. On a good day I am able to express a coherent thought lol &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 21:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * lol! All good. I appreciate your insight. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I just think it's odd just to single out them as a redundant template - is that the reason behind your vote? It has not been done, so you can change your vote. To the contrary, the articles about the U.S. states belong to the very few articles about territorial entities that have an infobox which is not rendered by Infobox settlement. 89.12.172.247 (talk) 09:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, I responded by asking a question on the IP's talk page. No response was given as of now. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've struck the "Convert to wrapper" because it seems to me that is pretty much what a merge entails. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - why would one have an extra box for 50 items, whilst 495 000 items use Infobox settlement?


 * 89.12.172.247 (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 18:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Why make it that complex though, shouldn't we be more user friendly? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 02:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * So where do we put,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , and  ? 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 16:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 08:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 16:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Metadata Population BE
 * Metadata Population DE-BB
 * Metadata Population DE-BW
 * Metadata Population DE-BY
 * Metadata Population DE-HB
 * Metadata Population DE-HE
 * Metadata Population DE-MV
 * Metadata Population DE-NI
 * Metadata Population DE-NW
 * Metadata Population DE-RP
 * Metadata Population DE-SH
 * Metadata Population DE-SL
 * Metadata Population DE-SN
 * Metadata Population DE-ST
 * Metadata Population DE-TH
 * Metadata Population Dominican province
 * Metadata Population Turkish province
 * Population Germany

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.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Subst and delete most per nom. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't done with the nomination, wanted to do in bulk. Can you confirm your vote still applies now that I've added the rest? -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Its not possible to store such population data on Wikidata due to licence problems. Wikidata requires CC0. Data sets from statistical offices of most European countries are published under cc-by, otherwise they would be on Wikidata since at least 2015. --Septembermorgen (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There was a short discussion about this on deWP some time ago ( (in German, maybe some translation tool can help you). The result of this discussion was more or less the same as what I wrote before, but maybe things have changed on Wikidata since 2016. --Septembermorgen (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Where is the open licence on the citation given for, say, Metadata Population DE-TH? All I can see at is "© Thüringer Landesamt für Statistik, Europaplatz 3, 99091 Erfurt – Postfach 90 01 63, 99104 Erfurt".  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And thankfully, our servers are in the USA, where we're immune to oppressive European laws permitting the copyrighting of mere data. Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * European copyright laws don't copyright mere data, but data collections (e. g. "Datenbankwerke" in German copyright law). Look here for example, Statistics Austria point 4.2, which states that attribution is required. Same here "Reproduction and distribution, also of parts, are permitted provided that the source is mentioned." for Destatis.de. Similar conditions can be found from official statistics offices in other European countries as well. --Septembermorgen (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the examples, but I was asking about a specific datum. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the same for Destatis as for Statistik Thüringen "Vervielfältigung und Verbreitung, auch auszugsweise, mit Quellenangabe gestattet". --Septembermorgen (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't Population Germany, which would be useless if its data pages were deleted, be included here too? ( for the avoidance of doubt, I !vote delete on it as well) &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * right you are! added -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Template:Metadata Population Turkish province as premature without a TfD on Template:Infobox province TR. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep – The nominated templates have a few thousand transclusions. Why is storing data in these templates, which seem to be properly maintained – unlike the property "population" on Wikidata – not valid? There are hundreds of similar templates in Category:Data templates. Having a central database for these figures makes maintaining the articles that use it clearly simpler. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This is what Wikidata is for, and where's the evidence that these particular data are not being maintained there? Please provide evidence about these particular data without merely repeating a tired "WD is bad" argument.  Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding maintained – compare population data for North Rhine-Westphalia:
 * from : 0 (undefined)
 * from Wikidata:
 * -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * 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)
 * "very useful system where we can easily put data, instantly updating all relevant articles where the data is transcluded [...] efficiency" Yes, you describe Wikidata perfectly. Multiple templates on individual Wikipedias is not efficient. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support the nomination to delete the templates after their data is transferred to a in Wikidata. Maintaining hundreds of  there seems prohibitively laborious. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You appear not to understand how Wikidata works. It is a database, it does not host databases, nor data tables. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * There is already a good, and equally well maintained alternative in Wikidata. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikidata might become a good alternative, but right now it isn't. See for instance the municipalities Netphen (no pop. data), Oelsnitz, Vogtland (pop. from 2008), Wabern, Hesse (no pop. data), Halver (no pop. data), Gütersloh (no year given), Calw (pop. from 2014, no reference). Is anyone going to check this for all 11,000+ municipalities of Germany? Markussep Talk 10:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * There is a workable Wikidata alternative, already. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * NOTE the precedent has been established with Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_22... -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Given how comparatively poorly attended that discussion was (2 deletes, 1 keep), it does not establish any sort of precedent. —Kusma (t·c) 19:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am not at all happy about what happened to the Austrian population templates. At the discussion about Infobox Town AT here there was no talk yet of substituting the population templates as well. But they were, and hence the templates were unused, and deleted. I strongly disagree with this procedure! Since this substitution, the populations are as of January 2016. In German wikipedia they have the populations as of January 2018, using templates. With the now deleted templates, we could have copied those (well referenced) data with 10 edits. Now we need 2,400 edits to achieve the same result. I don't call that progress. Let's not make the same mistake with the German and Belgian population templates. Markussep Talk 09:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Although I dislike the existence of all of these "database" templates, I agree that the improperly pre-empted the result of the Metadata Population AT- discussion when executing the Infobox Town AT discussion. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk)  19:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, after moving all the figures to Wikidata. WD now allows for an easy way to upload and maintain statistical figures for thousands of subnational entities, which was not the case when those meta-templates were created.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 and  (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)
 * Population statistics are stored in the individual pages of each city/town (for instance, . As for how to retrieve them, see the wikicode of this example: Population of (as of ): . 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)
 * As Septembermorgen mentioned above: There is a licence problem. I won't update at Wikidata. NNW (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Is licensing the actual issue here? If so, when uploading just use ->,  -> 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)


 * 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. ), 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)
 * Keep until the data can be easily transferred/stored on Wikidata. Number   5  7  01:16, 16 March 2019 (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).