Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 September 4



Template:Infobox former subdivision

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Infobox former subdivision with Template:Infobox settlement.
 * Infobox former subdivision
 * Infobox settlement

A former settlement just has a couple extra parameters that a current settlement doesn't have. No need to have them as separate templates, per this discussion. PK2 (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me. I don't have strong feelings about it either which way.--Discott (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as there's almost no overlap between the parameters of the two templates, and per the outcome of the discussion the previous time this proposal was brought up: Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 3. – Uanfala (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The outcome of that discussion was "no consensus". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A quick Python script on the parameters of each template yields the following:
 * Number of parameters in Infobox settlement = 467
 * Number of parameters in Infobox former subdivision = 426
 * Number of parameters in common = 41
 * Number of parameters in the union = 852
 * per Uanfala, merging would take a large amount of work compared to the benefit of having one fewer template. The combined template would be gigantic. — hike395 (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The numbers alone are misleading; there are a great deal of reundant parameters, with synonymous names (for example leader_name1/leader1; leader_name2/leader2 etc.). A comparison table is at Template:Infobox former subdivision/Parameters. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The numbers alone are misleading; there are a great deal of reundant parameters, with synonymous names (for example leader_name1/leader1; leader_name2/leader2 etc.). A comparison table is at Template:Infobox former subdivision/Parameters. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose as the common parameters are way too low from the stats above — DaxServer (talk to me) 09:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the proposer and merge voters think this is viable, please create a wrapper for Infobox settlement in this template's sandbox in order to demonstrate that it can work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: Infobox subdivision and Infobox former settlement both redirect to Infobox settlement. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I note that infobox subdivision was first created as a redirect and is only transcluded in 4 articles - so that is basically irrelevant. MB 17:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No; it is relevant, because it shows that we don't need a separate template for subdivisions; and that the template that does the job is Infobox settlement. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Category:Pages using infobox settlement with unknown parameters already has >10,000 articles. Merging would only make that worse. Category:Pages using infobox former subdivision with unknown parameters has zero. Status quo is more manageable. MB 17:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are some of the following test cases below: -- PK2 (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2021 (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:Hurricane Ida series

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2021 September 13. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hurricane_Ida_series
 * 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:Puerto Rico Democratic primary polls, 2016

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Unused after I merged the table into the Statewide opinion polling for the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries article. Was the only one created as a separate template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Puerto Rico Democratic primary polls, 2016

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  04:44, 4 September 2021 (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:Bangladesh–Pakistan relations

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2021 September 13. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 22:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Bangladesh–Pakistan_relations
 * 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:Pakistan–Russia relations
<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(s) or module(s) 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 2021 September 13. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 22:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pakistan–Russia_relations
 * 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 struttura militare
<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(s) or module(s) 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 as G7 by AnomieBOT ⚡  15:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC) Not sure if this is really necessary to take to TfD, but better safe than sorry. Page was created blank but seemingly meant as a redirect to Infobox military installation, but it doesn't make sense there as it's from a foreign language not particularly associated with the concept of a military installation (so fails WP:RFOREIGN). Would've taken to RfD if this was actually a redirect, but feels wrong to edit a page only to be able nominate it for deletion via a different venue. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Infobox struttura militare


 * Tagged for speedy deletion. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:37, 4 September 2021 (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).