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) 00:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox settlement (Albanian) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete after replace in articles with ((Infobox settlement)). These kind of templates created en masse by user:Markussep are a burden for anyone not familiar with them. Use the standard template directly as is done by all other articles about such entities in the Balkans north of Greece. 78.54.44.99 (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete some of these wrappers make sense. If you are calling custom subtemplates or have lots of custom wikidata calls. This template has neither. No reason this cannot be subst and replaced. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Used by 1,000+ articles, documented, no complaints on its talk page. Wrappers like this certainly have a value in standardising the infobox content for related articles, like in this case settlements in Albania. See also this discussion. BTW I did not create masses of infobox templates, maybe 5 (Cape Verde, Brazil, 2 for Portugal, Albania). Markussep ^Talk 21:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Markussep, while I support deleting the template, I would like to say that this IPs comment about you creating templates en masse being a burden was unfair, unwarranted and unhelpful. It also borders on WP:NPA.

  Setting that aside, I'm curious if you can elaborate on why you think this particular wrapper is helpful? Regarding the TFD you linked to for ((Infobox German location)), full disclosure I'm the one who initiated that discussion. You will also recall that you turned me around on that one. So I'm not above having my mind changed.

  You stated Used by 1,000+ articles, documented, no complaints on its talk page. While I agree with all those points, those aren't (in my opinion) reasons to keep it. I'm not questioning that the template is good, I'm just saying that it can easily be folded into ((Infobox settlement)). My challenge to you is (this is meant kind of as a joke but mostly seriously) convince me otherwise! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I have given reasons for keeping this wrapper, and several others. I think the burden is on the nominator (or you) to demonstrate why this template is a burden for someone not familiar with it. I think we can expect of someone who tries to edit an infobox that they read the documentation. Infobox settlement is not easier to use than this wrapper. The wrapper makes it easier for users because they don't have to decide whether the municipality is subdivision type 2, 3 or 4. Markussep ^Talk 22:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Markussep, that is a fair point. I would argue that WP:INFOCOL pretty well spells out the issue here...

  • Why is having lots of similar infoboxes a bad thing? The more infoboxes we have, the greater the maintenance burden. For example, we're still adding alt text parameters to infobox templates. The more templates, the longer it takes.
  • What infoboxes should be merged? For example, those covering the same subject; those which lack clearly distinct parameters from one another.

  Your point is not without merit but it opens a can of worms... For example I could create 58 wrapper templates for each of the 58 counties in California that provide the Country of United States, the State of California and then each of the counties in turn... Yes that saves people from having to type in 3 parameters, but that also adds 58 additional wrapper templates to be maintained... ((Infobox settlement)) is (I'm pretty sure) the most used infobox on here. If and when parameters are added, each wrapper has to manually updated in turn (or at least checked). Just recently hike395 & Jonesey95 did some work to get (({nickname))} & (({nicknames))} to both work together on the template. Each wrapper has to manually be updated to get those changes. Now that's not a HUGE deal and for things like ((Infobox German location)), the benefits of having the wrapper far outweigh the relative cost, but things like this are why I resist smaller wrappers that don't add as much value. As I said, if you are calling multiple subtemplates or custom wikidata, then i'm for it. If it is just to save time entering a few params... Not so much. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You would have a point if it were a totally separate infobox template, but it's a wrapper, using only the functionality of Infobox settlement. Major changes in Infobox settlement are rare, and I've only seen updates on the wrappers I watch once a year on average. I don't really see the relevance of your Californian example. I guess each Californian county has about the same government structure etc. Markussep ^Talk 22:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for the record I don't think 78.54.44.99's comments about user:Markussep should be part of this. They border on WP:NPA and this is not the first time that this user has engaged in this sort of behavior. (They hop IPs constantly) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a wrapper is easier to maintain then 1000+ articles. E.g. who is going to fix/readd the subdivision_type1 ,2 and 3 in the 500,000 pages using infobox settlement when editors remove them? Should we use a bot everytime a link should be changed, or is it easier to maintain with a wrapper. I say wrapper... Christian75 (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Christian75, well based on that logic every time you link to something it should be a template... If the link changes you get a redirect. That is how it has always worked? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Offtopic : Christian75, "a wrapper is easier to maintain then 1000+ articles." - it depends. But why are you saying this? The proposal is to remove the wrapper, the number of articles will not change. A deleted wrapper is easier to maintain than an existing wrapper. 89.12.52.186 (talk) 06:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have cleaned up the template, because several parameters were not recognised anymore after edits by someone who apparently isn't very familiar with template code. I also introduced a maintenance category. This wrapper can cover all settlement and subdivision types of Albania. See these TFDs Infobox French commune and Infobox German location, that resulted in "keep", for further arguments. The wrapper is rather self-explanatory, but if needed, I can expand the documentation after this TFD is finished. Markussep ^Talk 08:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll comment on the documentation part. This is not a documented template, even if you think it is self-explanatory, it isn't. Not everyone understands how templates work and what to put in it. Giving two examples that I myself don't understand without needing to go to the base template and see what they are - |parts= and |skyline=. Also, even more important, this template does not work with TemplateData. These issues are always going to be a problem with wrapper templates, and this is one of the better documented ones. --Gonnym (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  When I'm sure this template is not going to be deleted, I'll put effort into expanding the documentation (thanks for your TemplateData suggestion) and cleaning up non-intuitive parameter names. "parts" is also in the mother template Infobox settlement; as you can see in ((Infobox settlement (Albanian)/doc)), it's used for subdivisions. I'm not happy with "skyline" myself, that was introduced by Kj1595, who apparently didn't notice that articles that still had "image_skyline" lost their picture. I repaired that. Markussep ^Talk 11:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The template is custom made to fit the description of Albanian municipalities and settlements. It is quite useful and is being used in hundreds of articles already. Deleting it is irresponsible and would cause major disruption on the content it's associated with. Kj1595 (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per convincing rationale above. Removing the wrapper makes articles harder to edit, but doesn't have commensurate benefits. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Pfam2PDBsum (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, which its documentation states it has been disabled since 2013 as it is too big. Gonnym (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A 1.7 MB template is just not practical; also unused for 5 years. BLAIXX 18:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ash Brannon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two entries. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 10:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - 3 links is too few for a navbox. --Gonnym (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:EntrezGene2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate of ((EntrezGene)) which had only 1 talk use which I replaced. Gonnym (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. --woodensuperman 13:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Mogho Naba (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A whole sea of unlinked text is excessive for only four active links. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 10:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If cleaned up, this template has 6 links for a navbox for rulers of a kingdom/group of people. That seems like a valid scope and number. --Gonnym (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only count four active entries, although there are some redlinks also. --woodensuperman 12:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, I've found a couple more from the list article that weren't correctly linked from the navbox. Maybe just about enough to warrant keeping, but we'll have to do something with the see of unlinked text in the middle. --woodensuperman 13:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually meant the title links which were also relevant, but since you found others even better. I removed the non-links and redlinks. So 6 individuals and the list article. --Gonnym (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just taking the middle chunk out is a bit misleading, but leaving it in makes it impossible to navigate. Two groups? Anyway, I'll withdraw this, and have another look at the navbox, if you want to chat at the relevant talk page! --woodensuperman 13:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 soft delete. No opposition. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:GO code links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Enzyme links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated (since 2009) and unused templates that have had their functionality replaced with ((Infobox enzyme)). Gonnym (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Template has been expanded over the typical "minimum bluelinks" level. NPASR if other reason(s) given. Primefac (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:CCNY Beavers football navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Defunct college football team with only 2 entries in the navbox. Unlikely to be expanded upon or used much. Natg 19 (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The nominator did not post a notice on @MisterCake:'s talk page.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment One of the sport's oldest teams, added a season. Cake (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - has only 3 links - 1873 CCNY Beavers football team, two redirects to City College of New York#Athletics (from CCNY Beavers football and 1936 CCNY Beavers football team) and 1875 CCNY Beavers football team which redirects to 1875 college football season. Doesn't really offer navigation from these limited links. --Gonnym (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a useful navbox. With no connection to this TfD, I happened to create 1925 CCNY Lavender football team which I am adding to the template. Cbl62 (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 5 links. Cbl62 (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cbl. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 May 20. Primefac (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Chronology_of_military_events_in_the_American_Civil_War (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).