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. Primefac (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox French commune (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Proposing merging this with ((Infobox settlement)). Taken directly from the Infobox settlement documentation: It should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera. Precedent also established with the merging of Infobox Belgium settlement (tfd) & Infobox Hungarian settlement (tfd). Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Used in 30,000+ articles, substituting this wrapper has the following disadvantages (which I also gave at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_7#Infobox_settlement_wrappers:
  • Loss of consistency between articles about similar topics (municipalities of Austria, settlements of Cape Verde, etc.), e.g. links to higher administrative divisions. Several wrappers link to higher administrative divisions and use specific detailed pushpin maps based on their official geographic code
  • Loss of country-specific maintenance tools: several infobox wrappers place articles with (unintentional or vandalic) bad infobox content (like "state = disneyland") in a maintenance category
  • Loss of the facility to update population data for hundreds of settlements in one edit, see also this discussion. Markussep ^Talk 22:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per all the arguments I stated on the Infobox German location TfD below.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Abstain because of the two examples given. Editors recall that they saw a certain template used in a certain situation, or they figure there must be such a template, so they search for it. But the template about, say, Belgium has been merged with a template without a single mention of Belgium. This is why we leave behind a redirect when we merge one page into another. Neither one of the given examples of templates for discussion (TFD) gave enough weight about the above two cases where people search for the appropriate template by what they have seen before. One of the TFDs resulted in a merge and the other resulted in a deletion. However, neither left behind a redirect! It seemed to me like some editors thought leaving behind a redirect gave too much validity to the previous template. I'm all for simplification, and in general I think the idea of working towards one template that can cover a lot of ground—here, someone literally—could be the best idea. But that's only true if these merges investigate the meanings behind the parameters to make sure they make sense to merge and then leave redirects or soft redirects (which might be better in this case; the "Keep side" should not make the same mistakes if merge succeeds by demanding to have a redirect if it might cause problems). Sorry that I have to dump this info out of my head and run, but if I can come back I will. However, since I could not take the time to refine my argument, I'm changing my "keep" to "abstain". PS. I'd love to see a spreadsheet that compares the parameters of both templates in question and examine whether there is a one-to-one correspondence for each parameter in the original template. It would show the kind of research that has been done. And in my mind that's a necessary level of research. Geekdiva (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. This has France-specific parameters, and if you merge it into infobox settlement, you force editors to start using an infobox that's becoming ever more complex. Start thinking of editors who use infoboxes on a daily basis instead of deciding that they're all close enough to merge. Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (original nominator) Well time to admit when I'm wrong. Markussep makes a few excellent points. I think that we currently have far too many custom wrappers for ((Infobox settlement)) but I have been painting with too broad a brush. This template is a perfect example of when wrappers SHOULD be used. I would withdraw the nomination but I actually think it will carry more weight if to let this TFD play out to the inevitable keep. Happy to address any other questions/concerns about my change of heart! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Specialised templates for specialised articles requirements is what is needed. scope_creep^Talk 00:51, 20 March 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 keep. Primefac (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox German location (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Proposing merging this with ((Infobox settlement)). Taken directly from the Infobox settlement documentation: It should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera. Precedent also established with the merging of Infobox Belgium settlement (tfd) & Infobox Hungarian settlement (tfd). Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Used in 10,000+ articles, substituting this wrapper has the following disadvantages (which I also gave at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_7#Infobox_settlement_wrappers):
  • Loss of consistency between articles about similar topics (municipalities of Austria, settlements of Cape Verde, etc.), e.g. links to higher administrative divisions. Several wrappers link to higher administrative divisions and use specific detailed pushpin maps based on their official geographic code
  • Loss of country-specific maintenance tools: several infobox wrappers place articles with (unintentional or vandalic) bad infobox content (like "state = disneyland") in a maintenance category
  • Loss of the facility to update population data for hundreds of settlements in one edit, see also this discussion. Markussep ^Talk 22:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Markussep, Appreciate you restating the arguments against. The TFD you referenced above was a bit of a cluster because it involved SO MANY different templates. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Zackmann08, I would appreciate it if you would show the advantages of substituting these (widely used!) wrappers. I asked the same question here, and haven't seen an answer yet. You quoted above "It should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera". Well, these wrappers do use ((Infobox settlement)), and substituting them doesn't change anything on the "front end" of the articles that transclude them. Markussep ^Talk 08:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Markussep, that is a very good point. I'm going to be honest with you... I've been completely turned around on this and French Commune. Given the huge number of articles using these wrappers, I actually now think they should stay. I would withdraw the TFD but I think it will carry more weight if the full discussion plays out resulting in keep. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I can say, to add to the points stated by Markussep above, that based on the precedents of Infobox Town AT and similar recent nominations, deleting wrappers increases the maintenance burden, instead of reducing it.
  • Austrian articles are now using outdated population figures, despite updated ones being available on Wikidata, and in order to do anything to change that there is now a need to go through a lengthy bot approval procedure.
  • Even once the change is implemented, it will be harder to keep track of the way specific fields are populated, and how consistently they draw data from a correct and up do date source.
  • Far from making anything easier, the change added a further bureaucratic layer to achieve what could previously be done in a single edit. I don't wish to see the same happen to Germany articles.
  • Rather than standardizing infoboxes (which are already wrappers anyway), we should strive to standardize data, encouraging the use of Wikidata as a central repository for reliable statistics. I feel that deleting wrappers is achieving the opposite result.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely agree! Actually, I think ((Infobox Town AT)) and its subtemplates should be restored. Markussep ^Talk 08:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with the above comment. Moving to a generic wrapper is a waste of time. scope_creep^Talk 19:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: How does the proposer suggest dealing with the large amount of custom code and custom parameter work that specifically supports German-language parameters and German locations? I wouldn't want to see this code inserted into Infobox settlement. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Jonesey. It's beyond time to stop merging all infoboxes into massive complex generic ones. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (original nominator) Well time to admit when I'm wrong. Markussep and Jonesey95 make excellent points. I think that we currently have far too many custom wrappers for ((Infobox settlement)) but I have been painting with too broad a brush. This template is a perfect example of when wrappers SHOULD be used. I would withdraw the nomination but I actually think it will carry more weight if to let this TFD play out to the inevitable keep. Happy to address any other questions/concerns about my change of heart! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for changing your mind! Do you also agree now that ((Infobox Town AT)) (see Tfd) was valuable too, and should be restored? Meanwhile, Underlying lk has been uploading 2018 population data for Austrian municipalities to Wikidata (with reference), see for instance Frauenkirchen. If they are ready with that, and there are no copyright issues provided the reference is given as well (@Septembermorgen:?), we could implement retrieving population data from wikidata for Austrian municipalities. Markussep ^Talk 09:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright issue should be discussed in Wikidata. Statistcs Austria does not publish under PD (CC0), so it might be (in my opinion it is) a problem to upload these data sets in Wikidata. --Septembermorgen (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Markussep, I am not above having my mind changed. :-) With regards to ((Infobox Town AT)) I standby my feelings there. There were a number of differences. One of the big deciding factors for me changing my mind here was your point about this being use on 10,000+ articles (13,367 transclusions at the moment). AT was MUCH smaller. Plus the fact that they have already been converted, etc... I wouldn't object to you opening a new discussion about it obviously, but my feelings on that one have not changed. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AT was not that much smaller, with 2,400+ transclusions. If I had had more time I would have opposed stronger against some of the incorrect arguments that were given for deletion. The infobox didn't only exist to facilitate non-English parameters (it also created consistent maps and links to higher administrative divisions, fed articles with invalid content to a maintenance category, fetched population numbers from a subtemplate), it wasn't a mess, it was easy to use and well documented. Yes, they have been converted, which makes it more tedious to revert it. Markussep ^Talk 19:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 23:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Markussep. This infobox is a good example of a well-functioning alternative infobox, and is well-maintained as well. I just wish the parameter "image_photo" would respond also to "image_skyline", then maybe we wouldn't have the current situation in which majority of infoboxes on German towns and municipalities are without a photo.--Darwinek (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, that should be an easy improvement. Markussep ^Talk 08:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Markussep & Darwinek let me know if that is something you would like me to tackle. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. Markussep ^Talk 10:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you--Darwinek (talk) 01:39, 23 March 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox U.S. county (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Proposing converting all of these to use ((Infobox settlement)). Taken directly from the Infobox settlement documentation: It should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera (emphasis added by me). I don't see any reason why this shouldn't use the same template as everything else. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't a DELETE announcement added inside the TALK section of the proposed deleted article? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. There is nothing particularly special about the parameters of this template, that it could not be changed into a wrapper of IB settlement.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a few minutes of trying, I'm more convinced than ever that this template could be converted into an IB settlement wrapper without any loss of functionality (see Template:Infobox U.S. county/testcases).--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Unlike the German infobox above, this one doesn't have any specific code. - Darwinek (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Do you have any idea how much US-specific, county-specific content is in here? For example, it pre-populates two separate maps, it automatically decides whether the largest city ought to be linked, and it has parameters specific to US time zones and congressional districts. Don't force 3000+ articles, and their regular editors, to use a generic template just because you don't see why it's convenient to include these features. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nyttend, Do you have any idea how much US-specific, county-specific content is in here? yes... Very little... Don't force 3000+ articles, and their regular editors, to use a generic template just because you don't see why it's convenient to include these features As an administrator you really should be better able to WP:AGF. Assuming that I don't see why it's convenient to include these features is NOT assuming good faith at all. If you want to discuss the merits of the template, I'd love to engage in such a conversation. I've had my mind changed many times before and am happy to engage in discussion, but don't presume that I'm just doing something because I don't like wrapper templates or because I want to force people to use a more complex template. Really as an admin you should know better. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I managed to implement both features (maps and automatic links) using IB settlement within a few minutes of trying. See Template:Infobox U.S. county/testcases.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Details are missing in your test case. 98.186.111.191 (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nyttend, I would appreciate a response. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      @Nyttend: still waiting.... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      • Why are you being passive-aggressive here? If you pinged him and he didn't respond there is a good chance he saw your reply. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Nyttend. Certain US-specific fields are useful, and we can't upmerge all the specific fields from every country into the generic template. However, making it inherit from ((Infobox settlement)) rather than ((Infobox)) would be a good idea. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nyttend.Coal town guy (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coal town guy & King of Hearts what US-Specific code is here that is so valuable? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Millions of years ago I had proposed a new county template which basically showed me that I had zero wish to become an emotional tampon here or anywhere else. Coal town guy (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • ((Infobox U.S. county)) is really clean and slick. The trick to show the county-within-state and state-within-US maps is clever, and becomes a lot more verbose when we use ((Infobox settlement)). When we use the latter, ZIP codes, area codes, and county seat require two lines, where one of the lines is entirely predictable for all US counties. Templates are meant to avoid duplicating effort; why do the same thing over and over again for each US county? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think a wrapper based on IB settlement would look much different (see Template:Infobox U.S. county/testcases).--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace with Infobox settlement - unlike the German/France discussions, which at least use settlement as a wrapper and have other specific needs, this infobox is no different than any other settlement infobox. --Gonnym (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Most of the world is moving to finer and finer granularity of data along with the software structures that represent that data and it is the only way that we can deeper meaning out the information. scope_creep^Talk 00:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is no net benefit from this proposed merge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Knowledgekid87, WP:INFOCOL pretty well spells out the reason for merging... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are citing an essay which is not policy nor is it a guideline, this really should be handled on a case by case basis. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Knowledgekid87, you said there is no net benefit... The essay spells out all the benefits. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Expand -MostlyTexasArticles (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • MostlyTexasArticles, for what purpose? You have WP:!VOTEed without any feedback or comments... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because I like it, it looks good, and I find your arguments uncompelling. Thank you. Have a wonderful day a pleasant tomorrow. -MostlyTexasArticles (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      MostlyTexasArticles, because I like it is not a valid argument... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace per nom, then delete, then recreate as a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Nyttend and Expand for international users per MostlyTexasArticles. I also Admonish Zackmann who seems to be on a deletionist spree throughout the project. I believe his powers to XfD should be removed as he is not actively participating in the project outside of userspace content and XfDs. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:36 on March 23, 2019 (UTC)
• Template merging / changing often results in loss of functionality. Nyttend has pointed out how much specific material there is in this template, and I remain unconvinced that converting the template will have a positive effect. Unless you can guarantee that all functionality is preserved (and in a way that doesn't necessitate redundant code / extra effort), I oppose changing the template. Master of Time (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I created an IB settlement wrapper of this template, visible in the test cases page, but nobody commented on it yet.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:11, 24 March 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Basketball change player (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused player table Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Rikster2 (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unused, and the name leaves no clue what it ever would be used for.—Bagumba (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unused. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 05:18, 21 March 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Single use raw link. No reason for a template. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - provides a broken link to an article in Gazeta Tema. Nigej (talk) 07:42, 20 March 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) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Version nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Article prose should not be put into a template. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The template is incorrectly constructed, invoking itself somewhere in the process (a "template loop"), so it can't really do anything. See this revision of WP:SAND, where I transcluded the template amid a little bit of text; it produces two sentences (1.9.0 was a major update for Bedrock Edition, released on February 5, 2019. It added some features from the Village and Pillage update that weren't added in 1.8.0.) and several technical errors. Regardless of whether article prose belongs in a template, this would have to be completely re-done in order to work. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 17 March 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) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:ICC Team of the Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not sure how useful this is to have a list of cricketers named in each ICC's team of the year in a navigation template. It's not a true squad template and isn't defining to the players listed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nomination. ~SS49~ {talk} 13:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - how long do we want this to be? One per year has potential, but just one for all three seasons is daft. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per reasons mentioned above. Sa Ga Vaj 18:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; why would someone specifically need to navigate among a year's top players? I'm not aware of this being ordinary in other sports, e.g. George Brett was a North American Major League Baseball All-Star in thirteen seasons, and he has a category for being an All-Star, but no All-Star navboxes. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 17 March 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) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Capitals in Pakistan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A navbox that only adds clutter to articles already cluttered with navboxes, without adding any value: the articles it navigates between are a subset of the ones in Template:Pakistani cities, which is structured in the same way (by provinces) and where the capitals are already clearly set off. – Uanfala (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. With a country the size of Pakistan, I'm surprised we have a template for all of the largest cities (it's not a small country like Lithuania, where a single template can easily list all major cities), but as long as we have another template that's serving this purpose, we don't need this template. It would help if the other template set off the capitals clearly; they're just marked with miniature asterisks, which are easy to overlook, unlike, say, bold type. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 17 March 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 keep. Note that this close goes against precedent set by at least three similar discussions. This might indicate a shift in consensus, but should not be read into too much. Primefac (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:B'Day (Beyoncé album) tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:4 (Beyoncé album) tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Beyoncé (album) tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Lemonade (Beyoncé album) tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Beyoncé songs)), which provides navigation to all the songs on these albums in one template, even displaying them by album in track order. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. These four are not redundant to the "Beyoncé songs" template because they serve different purposes. One is a complete Navbox and the other four are list shortcuts which get inserted into song Infoboxes. BLAIXX 11:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of each is to navigate to the other songs on the albums. No need for both and there is numerous precedent to delete the track list templates over the navigational boxes. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Navboxes are not viewable on mobile (which makes up over 50% of Wikipedia's traffic), I'd argue that these track listing templates still serve a purpose to many readers. BLAIXX 18:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

on mobile, you simply click on the album link to see the list of tracks. Frietjes (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep they serve different purposes. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per precedent (e.g., January 8): redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above and as they serve different purposes. TheKaphox T 00:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose is to navigate to other songs from the album which only one template does (the navbox, which is even more complete by allowing navigation to songs on other albums as well). The track listing templates aren't even included on all the song articles for the respective album, preventing navigation to and from every song on the album. The navigational box does do that. This has been the precedent that was set over 3 years ago (see WP:TfD/2015 Dec 16). Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You say that the track listing templates aren't included on every song in the album but is there any reason why they cannot be added? Just because a template isn't fully implemented, doesn't mean it's worse nor is it grounds for deletion. Regarding the 2015 discussion, I'd like to point out that consensus can change on Wikipedia, especially over a longer period of time. BLAIXX 12:05, 27 March 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 March 21. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Joe_Biden_series (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).

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) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Dinah Jane (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a discussion about whether the Novabox Template:Dinah Jane should be reverted or deleted. Feel free to place your thoughts and votes. She currently has only two singles is that enough to hold a stand alone Template? Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've taken the liberty of copypasting the nominator's comments at the corresponding AfD page, where the nominator originally (and erroneously) tried to place the nomination. As for me, having a template for a artist with two singles and no album seems questionable, but I'm insufficiently template-savvy to feel comfortable turning that into a formal !vote. --Finngall ^talk 15:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This template needs to be deleted ... She has only released two singles. As far as I am aware a strong novabox for it to be considered notable. Needs more than just two singles ... more so four singles plus, maybe an album, a supporting tour date, etc ... all these would qualify as notable for a novabox template. Ms. Jane I am afraid has not released the music that makes her box notable enough.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The items in the navbox already sufficiently link to and from one another without it. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:40, 15 March 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).