- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Template:Rainbow ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
As the Rainbow article itself states, the division of colours in the spectrum is completely arbitrary, so this template can never reflect any scientific or cultural consensus. Besides which, it's redundant—its entries are already linked via other navboxes. Psychonaut ( talk) 20:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- delete, duplicates navigation provided by Template:Color topics. Frietjes ( talk) 22:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete, as it is nearly redundant, (the only link not on {{ Color topics}} is Indigo,) and arbitrary —PC -XT + 04:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Merge to {{ color topics}} ; the 7-color ROYGBIV color scheme is culturally relevant to the English-speaking and Western worlds, a separate line should exist linking to those colors. (call it Rainbow) -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 05:28, 11 March 2015 (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). 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 keep for near-future use. (nac) Alakzi ( talk) 16:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Template:2014–15 UEFA Champions League knockout phase bracket ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template not needed until April, it implies that we know what teams will meet in future rounds which we dont and in history it has never been added until all meetings are known (after last draw). Also template exists at 2014–15 UEFA Champions League knockout phase in code and is hidden as a comment for a reason. QED237 (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. QED237 (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - borderline one this, not a clear-cut case of WP:CRYSTAL, but we already know the teams in the last 16 so I see no harm. Giant Snowman 19:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - It may not be needed until April, but there's nothing that says we have to use it. Let's just leave it to sit idle until it is needed. – Pee Jay 15:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - I created this template in order for it to be used in future. It doesn't mean it has to be used now. Oldstone James ( talk) 16:28, 20 March 2015 (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). 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Now a thin wrapper around {{ Infobox settlement}}. There are far meatier {{ Infobox settlement}} invocations in article space. I propose that all transclusions be substituted and the template deleted; I've substituted one to demonstrate. Alakzi ( talk) 16:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. Why? A large number of the parameters are the same for all the regions (eg Sovereign state, country, status, EU Parliament constituency, map, map caption). The template ensures consistency. Rob984 ( talk) 19:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. Not worth keeping for just 7 transclusions.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
19:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Out of only 18 fields. Why delete? It's easier to coordinate edits and keeps the articles consistent.
Rob984 (
talk)
19:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's only really about where duplication of effort will occur. You've just now had to remove a bunch of fields from transclusions of this template.
Alakzi (
talk)
20:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well it doesn't reduce duplication because non of those parameters will change ever probably. But it's still useful to make sure they stay consistent. What is the problem with it?
Rob984 (
talk)
21:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please see
Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
22:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- This is a wrapper so there is no additional maintenance really. And it makes it easier to maintain consistency between the infoboxes. See MOS:INFOBOX: "Parameter names should be consistent between infoboxes". If an editor wants to change a field, it is easier because they can just change the template, rather then each individual article. Also, some editors may prefer a field to have a different name. Without the wrapper, an editor could change one regions' infobox but not all the others. This means we would end up with little inconsistencies. It would be more maintenance to modify the template and prevent inconsistency.
Rob984 (
talk)
22:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- There clearly is additional effort in maintaining this wrapper, as recent comments on its talk page show. Your comment about parameter names appears to be a red herring: this proposal would not generate additional nor different parameter names.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
08:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- There is effort in maintaining the wrapper however this is less effort then making those changes to each article individually (making a change to one template is easier then making a change to eight articles). And you misunderstood. Without the wrapper, overtime, it is possible that the current
parameters[field names] used on all eight regions could be changed on an individual article leading to inconsistencies. For example, compare Newcastle upon Tyne and Manchester. Both are metropolitan boroughs, and both use Infobox Settlement, however there are a number of inconsistencies in the style. For example, Manchester states "Constituent country", "Ceremonial county" and "Type", where as Newcastle upon Tyne states "Country", "County" and "Status". The template prevents that from happening. Rob984 ( talk) 16:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)- It is you, not I, who misunderstands. The parameter names in your examples are "subdivision_type1", "subdivision_type2", and "subdivision_type3"; and they are consistent between the articles.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
17:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ok yes but I think my point is pretty clear. Field names should be consistent.
Rob984 (
talk)
18:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- You two have been talking at cross purposes. You appear to be referring to labels, but Andy's been talking about the names of parameters.
Alakzi (
talk)
18:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Rob984's quote from MOS:INFOBOX, above, was unambiguously about parameter names. The section of that page from which he quoted, doubly so - and with examples.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
19:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, he seems to have misinterpreted that passage. Alakzi ( talk) 19:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Rob984's quote from MOS:INFOBOX, above, was unambiguously about parameter names. The section of that page from which he quoted, doubly so - and with examples.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
19:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- You two have been talking at cross purposes. You appear to be referring to labels, but Andy's been talking about the names of parameters.
Alakzi (
talk)
18:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ok yes but I think my point is pretty clear. Field names should be consistent.
Rob984 (
talk)
18:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- It is you, not I, who misunderstands. The parameter names in your examples are "subdivision_type1", "subdivision_type2", and "subdivision_type3"; and they are consistent between the articles.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
17:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- There is effort in maintaining the wrapper however this is less effort then making those changes to each article individually (making a change to one template is easier then making a change to eight articles). And you misunderstood. Without the wrapper, overtime, it is possible that the current
- There clearly is additional effort in maintaining this wrapper, as recent comments on its talk page show. Your comment about parameter names appears to be a red herring: this proposal would not generate additional nor different parameter names.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
08:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- This is a wrapper so there is no additional maintenance really. And it makes it easier to maintain consistency between the infoboxes. See MOS:INFOBOX: "Parameter names should be consistent between infoboxes". If an editor wants to change a field, it is easier because they can just change the template, rather then each individual article. Also, some editors may prefer a field to have a different name. Without the wrapper, an editor could change one regions' infobox but not all the others. This means we would end up with little inconsistencies. It would be more maintenance to modify the template and prevent inconsistency.
Rob984 (
talk)
22:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please see
Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
22:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well it doesn't reduce duplication because non of those parameters will change ever probably. But it's still useful to make sure they stay consistent. What is the problem with it?
Rob984 (
talk)
21:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's only really about where duplication of effort will occur. You've just now had to remove a bunch of fields from transclusions of this template.
Alakzi (
talk)
20:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Out of only 18 fields. Why delete? It's easier to coordinate edits and keeps the articles consistent.
Rob984 (
talk)
19:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- @ Rob984: thanks for your help with tidying up the template. Alakzi ( talk) 20:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- keep as a wrapper, seems useful due to the large number of pre-filled data labels. Frietjes ( talk) 00:29, 1 April 2015 (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). 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 replace and redirect. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox Scottish Parliament constituency ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (111 transclusions)
Redundant to {{ Infobox constituency}} (in favour of which the Northern Ireland equivalent has already been deleted) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- replace and redirect Frietjes ( talk) 00:29, 1 April 2015 (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). 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 replace and redirect. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox Welsh Assembly constituency ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (28 transclusions)
Redundant to {{ Infobox constituency}} (in favour of which the Northern Ireland equivalent has already been deleted) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- replace and redirect Frietjes ( talk) 00:29, 1 April 2015 (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). 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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Unnecessary wrapper for {{ Infobox UK constituency main}} (see TfM, below). Should be Subst: (once the TfM banner is gone) then deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Subst and delete. This does nothing except map old parameter names to new ones. Alakzi ( talk) 11:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support, agree with Alakzi. 88.104.110.65 ( talk) 17:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support, per nom — particularly as {{ Infobox UK constituency main}} has been already merged into {{ Infobox UK constituency}} in the accompanying TfD nomination immediately below this. — OwenBlacker ( Talk) 11:27, 31 March 2015 (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). 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 merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox UK constituency main ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (1883 transclusions)
- Template:Infobox UK constituency ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (42 transclusions)
Propose merging
Template:Infobox UK constituency main with
Template:Infobox UK constituency.
Same purpose. The shorter name is preferable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, same purpose. Delete the little-used {{ Infobox UK constituency}} as redundant, then move {{ Infobox UK constituency main}} in its place. I've created a substitution wrapper in the sandbox of the former, and replaced one transclusion to demonstrate. Alakzi ( talk) 11:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support, agree with Alakzi -- h2g2bob ( talk) 00:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support, agree with Alakzi and h2g2bob. 88.104.110.65 ( talk) 17:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support, and agree with Alakzi. Zangar ( talk) 06:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support, agree with Alakzi ATMarsden Talk · {Semi-Retired} 17:22, 24 March 2015 (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). 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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Template:Rainbow ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
As the Rainbow article itself states, the division of colours in the spectrum is completely arbitrary, so this template can never reflect any scientific or cultural consensus. Besides which, it's redundant—its entries are already linked via other navboxes. Psychonaut ( talk) 20:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- delete, duplicates navigation provided by Template:Color topics. Frietjes ( talk) 22:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete, as it is nearly redundant, (the only link not on {{ Color topics}} is Indigo,) and arbitrary —PC -XT + 04:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Merge to {{ color topics}} ; the 7-color ROYGBIV color scheme is culturally relevant to the English-speaking and Western worlds, a separate line should exist linking to those colors. (call it Rainbow) -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 05:28, 11 March 2015 (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). 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 keep for near-future use. (nac) Alakzi ( talk) 16:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Template:2014–15 UEFA Champions League knockout phase bracket ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template not needed until April, it implies that we know what teams will meet in future rounds which we dont and in history it has never been added until all meetings are known (after last draw). Also template exists at 2014–15 UEFA Champions League knockout phase in code and is hidden as a comment for a reason. QED237 (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. QED237 (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - borderline one this, not a clear-cut case of WP:CRYSTAL, but we already know the teams in the last 16 so I see no harm. Giant Snowman 19:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - It may not be needed until April, but there's nothing that says we have to use it. Let's just leave it to sit idle until it is needed. – Pee Jay 15:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - I created this template in order for it to be used in future. It doesn't mean it has to be used now. Oldstone James ( talk) 16:28, 20 March 2015 (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). 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Now a thin wrapper around {{ Infobox settlement}}. There are far meatier {{ Infobox settlement}} invocations in article space. I propose that all transclusions be substituted and the template deleted; I've substituted one to demonstrate. Alakzi ( talk) 16:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. Why? A large number of the parameters are the same for all the regions (eg Sovereign state, country, status, EU Parliament constituency, map, map caption). The template ensures consistency. Rob984 ( talk) 19:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. Not worth keeping for just 7 transclusions.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
19:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Out of only 18 fields. Why delete? It's easier to coordinate edits and keeps the articles consistent.
Rob984 (
talk)
19:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's only really about where duplication of effort will occur. You've just now had to remove a bunch of fields from transclusions of this template.
Alakzi (
talk)
20:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well it doesn't reduce duplication because non of those parameters will change ever probably. But it's still useful to make sure they stay consistent. What is the problem with it?
Rob984 (
talk)
21:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please see
Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
22:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- This is a wrapper so there is no additional maintenance really. And it makes it easier to maintain consistency between the infoboxes. See MOS:INFOBOX: "Parameter names should be consistent between infoboxes". If an editor wants to change a field, it is easier because they can just change the template, rather then each individual article. Also, some editors may prefer a field to have a different name. Without the wrapper, an editor could change one regions' infobox but not all the others. This means we would end up with little inconsistencies. It would be more maintenance to modify the template and prevent inconsistency.
Rob984 (
talk)
22:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- There clearly is additional effort in maintaining this wrapper, as recent comments on its talk page show. Your comment about parameter names appears to be a red herring: this proposal would not generate additional nor different parameter names.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
08:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- There is effort in maintaining the wrapper however this is less effort then making those changes to each article individually (making a change to one template is easier then making a change to eight articles). And you misunderstood. Without the wrapper, overtime, it is possible that the current
parameters[field names] used on all eight regions could be changed on an individual article leading to inconsistencies. For example, compare Newcastle upon Tyne and Manchester. Both are metropolitan boroughs, and both use Infobox Settlement, however there are a number of inconsistencies in the style. For example, Manchester states "Constituent country", "Ceremonial county" and "Type", where as Newcastle upon Tyne states "Country", "County" and "Status". The template prevents that from happening. Rob984 ( talk) 16:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)- It is you, not I, who misunderstands. The parameter names in your examples are "subdivision_type1", "subdivision_type2", and "subdivision_type3"; and they are consistent between the articles.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
17:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ok yes but I think my point is pretty clear. Field names should be consistent.
Rob984 (
talk)
18:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- You two have been talking at cross purposes. You appear to be referring to labels, but Andy's been talking about the names of parameters.
Alakzi (
talk)
18:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Rob984's quote from MOS:INFOBOX, above, was unambiguously about parameter names. The section of that page from which he quoted, doubly so - and with examples.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
19:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, he seems to have misinterpreted that passage. Alakzi ( talk) 19:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Rob984's quote from MOS:INFOBOX, above, was unambiguously about parameter names. The section of that page from which he quoted, doubly so - and with examples.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
19:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- You two have been talking at cross purposes. You appear to be referring to labels, but Andy's been talking about the names of parameters.
Alakzi (
talk)
18:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ok yes but I think my point is pretty clear. Field names should be consistent.
Rob984 (
talk)
18:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- It is you, not I, who misunderstands. The parameter names in your examples are "subdivision_type1", "subdivision_type2", and "subdivision_type3"; and they are consistent between the articles.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
17:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- There is effort in maintaining the wrapper however this is less effort then making those changes to each article individually (making a change to one template is easier then making a change to eight articles). And you misunderstood. Without the wrapper, overtime, it is possible that the current
- There clearly is additional effort in maintaining this wrapper, as recent comments on its talk page show. Your comment about parameter names appears to be a red herring: this proposal would not generate additional nor different parameter names.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
08:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- This is a wrapper so there is no additional maintenance really. And it makes it easier to maintain consistency between the infoboxes. See MOS:INFOBOX: "Parameter names should be consistent between infoboxes". If an editor wants to change a field, it is easier because they can just change the template, rather then each individual article. Also, some editors may prefer a field to have a different name. Without the wrapper, an editor could change one regions' infobox but not all the others. This means we would end up with little inconsistencies. It would be more maintenance to modify the template and prevent inconsistency.
Rob984 (
talk)
22:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please see
Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
22:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well it doesn't reduce duplication because non of those parameters will change ever probably. But it's still useful to make sure they stay consistent. What is the problem with it?
Rob984 (
talk)
21:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's only really about where duplication of effort will occur. You've just now had to remove a bunch of fields from transclusions of this template.
Alakzi (
talk)
20:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Out of only 18 fields. Why delete? It's easier to coordinate edits and keeps the articles consistent.
Rob984 (
talk)
19:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- @ Rob984: thanks for your help with tidying up the template. Alakzi ( talk) 20:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- keep as a wrapper, seems useful due to the large number of pre-filled data labels. Frietjes ( talk) 00:29, 1 April 2015 (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). 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 replace and redirect. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox Scottish Parliament constituency ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (111 transclusions)
Redundant to {{ Infobox constituency}} (in favour of which the Northern Ireland equivalent has already been deleted) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- replace and redirect Frietjes ( talk) 00:29, 1 April 2015 (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). 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 replace and redirect. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox Welsh Assembly constituency ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (28 transclusions)
Redundant to {{ Infobox constituency}} (in favour of which the Northern Ireland equivalent has already been deleted) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- replace and redirect Frietjes ( talk) 00:29, 1 April 2015 (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). 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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Unnecessary wrapper for {{ Infobox UK constituency main}} (see TfM, below). Should be Subst: (once the TfM banner is gone) then deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Subst and delete. This does nothing except map old parameter names to new ones. Alakzi ( talk) 11:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support, agree with Alakzi. 88.104.110.65 ( talk) 17:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support, per nom — particularly as {{ Infobox UK constituency main}} has been already merged into {{ Infobox UK constituency}} in the accompanying TfD nomination immediately below this. — OwenBlacker ( Talk) 11:27, 31 March 2015 (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). 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 merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox UK constituency main ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (1883 transclusions)
- Template:Infobox UK constituency ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (42 transclusions)
Propose merging
Template:Infobox UK constituency main with
Template:Infobox UK constituency.
Same purpose. The shorter name is preferable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, same purpose. Delete the little-used {{ Infobox UK constituency}} as redundant, then move {{ Infobox UK constituency main}} in its place. I've created a substitution wrapper in the sandbox of the former, and replaced one transclusion to demonstrate. Alakzi ( talk) 11:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support, agree with Alakzi -- h2g2bob ( talk) 00:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support, agree with Alakzi and h2g2bob. 88.104.110.65 ( talk) 17:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support, and agree with Alakzi. Zangar ( talk) 06:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support, agree with Alakzi ATMarsden Talk · {Semi-Retired} 17:22, 24 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.