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

The result of the discussion was delete. — ξ^xplicit 01:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philippine Official (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, abandoned, unnecessary, orphan. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unused, redundant to ((Infobox officeholder)). PC78 (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unused, and simply useless. As said above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 11:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was close. No actual templates have been tagged for discussion, and TfD is not the venue to discuss userboxes anyway. PC78 (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by the hundreds of userboxes that state that the user is from some place.

What does it mean when a template states that "This user is from Maine"?

1. This user is a native of Maine, but no longer lives there.
2. This user was once a citizen of Maine, but is no longer.
3. This user is still a citizen of Maine, but no longer lives there.
4. This user once lived in Maine, but no longer does.
5. This user is a native of Maine, and may or may not live there still.
6. This user was once a citizen of Maine, and may be or may not be still.
7. This user once lived in Maine, and may or may not still.
8. This user has visited Maine.

Yours aye,  Buaidh  17:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's purely based on self-identification. In my opinion, all but the last example would apply. By the way, I don't think this is necessarily the best place to be discussing this for two reasons: (1) Userboxes are discussed at WP:MFD and (2) You aren't proposing these for merger or deletion. Thanks! 134.253.26.9 (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn

Template:Infobox New Zealand suburbs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Effectively a copy of Template:Infobox settlement. Although it has some unique fields not found in Infobox settlement, these fields would be better suited to main article text or a eight-way direction template (can't think of the template name). With reorganisation of Auckland governance effective today, would require major work on the template and articles to bring up to date. An example of how it works for suburbs is at North East Valley. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 03:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Query - with nearly 300 articles using this template, what is the process for ensuring that this won't cause some major work in case this template does get deleted? Schwede66 03:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  A bot would convert the templates in the 300 articles, if the decision is to replace this template with another before deletion. We have a couple bots that routinely take care of this task. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The eight-way direction template is ((Geographic location)). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment / Oppose Well, I think it has in fact a couple of unique fields that should be retained, such as for hospitals, train stations etc... which are suitable for an infobox, rather than just migration into the main article body - if I may say so as the creator of the template. The fact that over 300 articles use it when I myself added it to barely 50 (?) also shows that it has some popularity. Not sure either why the new Auckland governance has anything to do with it (quite a few non-Auckland articles use it already, so this is an update issue re Auckland governance - but unrelated to the template).

In short, I see no reason (especially no hurried reason) for abandoning the template. About the only reason there could be for moving to infobox settlement is standardisation across Wikipedia (which I normally support - but in that regard, I would actually probably ask for the infobox settlement template to be updated/expanded first so it can cover the extra elements). Ingolfson (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the "geographic location" template is in my opinion pretty cumbersome, because it is a non-infobox width extra thing tacked on at the bottom of pages, rather than within the settlement infobox. The beauty of the current template is that it contains the info in the same box, which makes a lot of sense for suburbs. This template was always intended for suburbs first anyway, rather than cities/general settlements. Ingolfson (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess after thinking some more, and in summary, and even trying to not be defensive just because it is "my" template, I think that even with extensions to the "infobox settlement" template, some crucial elements would be lost or scattered (as in breaking the info up into two different templates ("infobox settlement" AND "geographic location") which don't mesh well together and would look very cluttering, especially on some of the smaller suburb articles). I guess it comes down to why we would standardise - just to standardise, or is there not a place for a separate template? Ingolfson (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The differences between Template:Infobox settlement and Template:Infobox New Zealand suburbs can be seen here or here. It is clear that Template:Infobox New Zealand suburbs has parameters that Template:Infobox settlement doesn't have. However, I suggest that Template:Infobox New Zealand suburbs be refined so that uses Template:Infobox settlement and the eight-way direction template mentioned above, so long as it looks and works exactly as it does now. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 275° 36' 45" NET 18:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As long as the main infobox can't do what the NZ does, we should keep it. I'm open to it being transferred to the main infobox once it has the same functionality. Schwede66 20:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with modifications - the infobox does need a bit of a tidy, but otherwise reading through the posts, it is an okay template. I've made my recommendation for the box at User:Lcmortensen/Infobox New Zealand suburbs redesign - all the fields are retrospective (except city2), and I've added Local Board, Board Subdivision, population source, Postcode, and railway stations in addition to train stations (they're train stations in Auckland, railway stations elsewhere - it's like Auckland and the rest of New Zealand have two different dielects!). Schools, as suggested on the talkpage of the template, may be added at a later date.

Still having problems with Geolocatoin template - embedding it and adding text widens the box, so have resorted to existing list at the moment. One major problem I have with the list is it is linear, and shows the northwestern surrounding being further away from the northern surrounding than it actually is. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 15:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw - modified template should be sufficient until we figure out a way around the linear surrounds list. All articles with the template need to be checked for the new Auckland council and some changed fields. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 00:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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