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).
This template was only used on Ghana national football team, but I've removed it there because there were (AFAIK) no Akan special characters on that page. Also, as far as I can find (we don't have a lot of info about the Akan alphabet onwiki), the Akan language only uses Latin characters and some IPA symbols, which are probably well supported on almost all platforms. rchard2scout (talk) 10:52, 6 May 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).
Template:Contains Ashanti text
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 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).
Keep We still use all of these templates at SPI (except LEG? and Question). I don't see an issue with keeping shorthand templates, might as well remove ((=)) and use HTML syntax directly. The key differentiator is user experience. --qedk (t桜c)15:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's just pointless having the same exact template 5 times in this example (there are others of this kind with even more). Just write what you want in the free-form text like any other template is made to work. This system just leads to endless versions. --Gonnym (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: How is it pointless? If they're being used with the default text, they're not pointless. It's not more convenient to type more text if you used to have a shorthand. On the large scale, it might simplify the user experience by having less templates to choose from, but it certainly doesn't seem to simplify the experience for the existing users.
@Gonnym: As an additional note, I'm in favor of template simplification where templates are functionally equivalent or identical in purpose. I just don't think that's the case here. eπi (talk | contribs) 16:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@QEDK: You said We still use all of these templates at SPI, but that is inaccurate. ((moreinfo)) is the only one that has been used at SPI. However, this doesn't appear to affect the rest of your point. eπi (talk | contribs) 16:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@E to the Pi times i: If you're saying so, I'm going to agree with you. I could swear I am right but I'd probably be wrong, and this ping thing really gets me, goddammit. Thanks for the thorough check either way! --qedk (t桜c)13:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ((moreinfo)) is used frequently at SPI. LEG? seems to be a very specialized template for List of Ediacaran genera. Overall, I don't see any harm in keeping these around – merging them seems to create more work than it saves. Mz7 (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with one caveat((LEG?)) merits separate discussion as part of a set of 4 similar unused subst-only templates; I'll open a TfD after this one is closed, if no one else beats me to it. For the other four, here's the number of direct transclusions:
((notsure)) and ((investigating)) are rarely used, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're worth deleting. I suppose we could go back and replace all the transclusions with ((question|label=Not sure.)) and ((question|label=Investigating)), but I don't think template simplification outweighs the costs of disturbing already-completed discussions or denying these options to future users. ((moreinfo)) should clearly remain a separate template. eπi (talk | contribs) 12:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep((moreinfo)) for the reasons already stated by others. Also, that stupid "considered for merging" message is appearing at SPI, and it's ugly. Someone should close this discussion--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 30 May 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).
Merge or delete: the functionality of adding the disambiguation suffix is somewhat needless; I'd support deleting ((Template:Other uses2)) entirely, merging its uses to ((other uses)) with manual addition of "(disambiguation)" as necessary. The former saves some effort for power users, but it's otherwise needless maintenance bloat and extra confusion for newbies. If the template is to be kept, then yes, I've got no problem with simply merging the functionality into the other module—its separate nature is just an artifact of piecemeal Lua-fication of the templates. That said, I strongly oppose implementing the template as a wikitext injection to ((other uses)) in the way that Pppery proposed in the earlier TfD, with the same rationale as I mentioned there. As reference, I'm currently the sole author of both modules. ((Nihiltres |talk |edits))03:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I think this needs a bit more input on how a merger/offboarding-of-purpose ought to take place
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't know much about the topic area, but since the intellectual property rights template has a section for design rights already, having a separate small design rights navbox seems superfluous. I did a spot-check and added the one missing link Hague Agreement from ((Design-EU)) to ((Intellectual property laws of the European Union)). eπi (talk | contribs) 00:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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).
Delete and replace. When it takes basically the same amount of typing to use two templates as one, there's no reason to split the code between two. eπi (talk | contribs) 00:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See User:Nigej/sandbox which shows that the replacement is not actually identical to the original, just similar. The "score" field is more compact in the replacement and in addition the replacement causes some wrapping issues for me, again being more compact (see Charles Whitcombe/Ernest Riseborough). Nigej (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigej: Can you take a screenshot of the wrapping issues you refer to? I don't see any from the sandbox example you gave, but I probably missed them.
In any case, ((32TeamBracket-Compact|seeds=no)) can probably be revised to remove these differences, but this was good to bring up. eπi (talk | contribs) 12:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to upload a screenshot. In any case the issue seems to be that the column is created somewhat narrower than the original and when displayed, my browser decides to split Charles and Whitcombe, so they appear on different lines. Nigej (talk) 13:03, 19 May 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).
Template:Transit visibility table
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).
I'm neutral on this one but you might want to check whatever tool you used to emplace the Deletion Notice as it messed up the link to this discussion. I've fixed it but you might also like to check any other templates you've nominated just in case. —Phil | Talk14:17, 8 May 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).
Template:Infobox Venezuelan 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).
Municipality-specific wrapper for ((Infobox settlement)), with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.
Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce 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".
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 townlands
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).
Northern Ireland townland-specific wrapper for ((Infobox settlement)), with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.
Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce 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".
Counties, towns, villages etc. already transclude ((Infobox settlement)) directly.
Visualisation of Northern Ireland place infobox usage
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Infobox usage on articles about places in Northern Ireland
((Infobox UK place)) doensn't feature in the pie chart because it wasn't included. Using the same type of petscan query the chart is based on [1], you can see that this template has 638 transclusions on Northern Ireland articles, that's three times more than ((Infobox settlement)). – Uanfala (talk)09:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No - the nominated template is a wrapper for Infobox settlement, not a wrapper for Infobox UK place. "is the template used for settlements in Northern Ireland" - No, only for some. 89.12.191.4 (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The closing summary of that debate said "Perhaps a good first step would be to refactor the template as a frontend, and then discuss the merits of having the template as a frontend vs. substituting it.". The refactoring has been done; this is the discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits14:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replace and delete, same reason as for London borough [2], too many different boxes for the UK, all with low number of transclusions. JelgavaLV (talk) 20:02, 21 May 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).