The result of the discussion was procedural close. I understand the intention of opening this discussion (and this is after all Templates for discussion) but the content is more appropriate for either the template's talk page or a more technically-minded forum such as WP:VPT in order to change the fundamental way this template operates. Primefac ( talk) 15:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Please read .....My intent is not for out right deletion but rather a remedy to a mobile view problem. This template is not used (seen) in mobile view....that in itself is the norm as portal and book templates are also not seen in mobile view (unless the inline versions are used ;-) 😉). However Wikimedia sister links are always seen as per the Wikimedia Foundation implementation of Sister links templates in mobile view. So when this template is used it hides sister project links to 50% of our readers (those using mobile view) against the foundations intent to have these links seen. We need to fix this problem or come to the realization the template is decrepit. Moxy ( talk) 22:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Greetings, As one of the people who has placed "thousands" of those "Subject bar" templates, here are my thoughts & comments. In my archives (not on WP), I found some of my past research about Subject bar vs. Portal-inline.
And after testing this morning I see how "Mobile view" does not show the Subject bar at all (example Pope Francis article). On Desktop view, subject bar has the advantage of combining portals, and Sister projects into a single unified template.
Going back to the drawing board, (examples Christian Conrad Blouin and Cathedral of San Vicente, El Salvador articles) for Mobile view, placement of Portal-inline into "See also" section makes them visible. Here is the Moble view code example: {{left | {{Portal-inline|Architecture}} {{portal-inline|Catholicism}} {{Portal-inline|El Salvador}} }}{{clear}} Note that "Portal bar" template is not visible in Mobile view.
Greetings (again) - after my above posting, I modified the Portal-inline example to include the "{{dot}}" seperator. This is helpful for accessiblity, especially when it appears in mobile view. Here is a "See also" section example.
While this wikicode is lengthy, in my Notepad (plain text) file for Copy-and-paste, I made a plain shell without specific portals. So it's still easy to paste into articles. Cheers! JoeHebda ( talk) 19:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
If we just remove the navbox class from the module, we get:
{{User:Hawkeye7/Sandbox5|portal1=Biography|portal2=United States Air Force|portal3=United States Marine Corps|portal4=United States Navy|portal5=Spaceflight|commons=y}}
Which works on mobile devices. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete unused templates, noting that some of them have been put back into use. As a note of full disclosure, I nominated a similar set of templates two years ago; the consensus here is pretty strong, but I will re-open this discussion without prejudice should anyone have issue with that conflict. I will also recuse from deleting any of these templates if/when they are deemed to be deletion-ready. Primefac ( talk) 15:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused custom versions of {{ LSR}}. If these are needed, they should be called directly from the page, not created as subpages to a redirect. (Note that {{ Latest stable software release}} redirects to {{ LSR}}). -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 20:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Currently, because of every "latest software release version change" the whole article has to be changed. If we would make templates (Template:Latest_stable_release/Mozilla_Firefox) and link them like "
| {{Latest_stable_release/{{PAGENAME}}}}
" in this infobox, the articles aren't edited that often and by "Related changes" there would be a list of new software releases of the last xy days,... Furthermore we wouldn't have to change it in the infobox and the article itself and additionaly on pages like Comparison of web browsers. We just have to place "{{Latest_stable_release/xySoftware}}
". So we could do three things with one edit! -- 84.156.100.195 16:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete unused templates, noting that some of them have been put back into use. As a note of full disclosure, I nominated a similar set of templates two years ago; the consensus here is pretty strong, but I will re-open this discussion without prejudice should anyone have issue with that conflict. I will also recuse from deleting any of these templates if/when they are deemed to be deletion-ready. Primefac ( talk) 15:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused custom versions of {{ LPR}}. If these are needed, they should be called directly from the page, not created as subpages to a redirect. (Note that {{ Latest preview software release}} redirects to {{ LPR}}). -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 20:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete all but 369-5 as it is a valid name for a redirect. Primefac ( talk) 15:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
All old, unused attempts to work with ISO 639. This functionality is now widely available via Module:ISO 639. No need for these old templates. -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 20:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete - FASTILY 05:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused templates that are just plaintext or imagelinks. No reason for these templates, the text can just be directly inserted when needed. -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 20:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete - FASTILY 05:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Appear to be an attempt to make tables of special characters? In any case, not used. -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 20:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete - FASTILY 05:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
All are unused. Not entirely clear where/how they would be used. Appear to be an attempt to bulk store population data. This is what Wikidata is for. Regardless, they are unused. -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 20:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete - FASTILY 05:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused custom versions of {{ CTB minutes}}. If they are needed, should just call {{ CTB minutes}} directly from the page in question. No need for custom templates. -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 20:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete - FASTILY 05:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
All are unused plainlinks to pages. Not sure what the point is of having templates for these when a simple link works just fine. -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 19:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete - FASTILY 05:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
All are unused plainlinks to pages. Not sure what the point is of having templates for these when a simple link works just fine. -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 19:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 21:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Single transclusion replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/The Hop. Mackensen (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 21:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused infobox and unlikely to be needed, articles on indiviudal cadet units do not normally pass notability threshold and consensus at AfD discussions is normally that they are deleted. MilborneOne ( talk) 14:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 21:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Propose deleting. These templates are part of the older system for railway line info based on {{ S-line}}. Use of that system for this rail network has entirely been replaced by the newer system based on Module:Adjacent stations. These templates are not transcluded anywhere in article space. htonl ( talk) 12:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 March 24. Primefac ( talk) 15:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus. There are a few points of contention, one being the typical concern that combining two templates together will create a franken-template that will be harder to maintain than the two separate ones. While this is usually not enough to cause a template merger to fail, in this particular case two factors play in to do just that. First, the parameters of {{ infobox former subdivision}} are (as mentioned in the first oppose) much more similar to those of {{ infobox country}} than {{ infobox settlement}}. Second, there is the debate about whether an article on a "subdivision" should have a template for a "settlement" on it. We can debate syntax, definitions, and "current common uses" until the end of time, but point in hand there are more people who feel that this merger causes more problems (semantically) than it fixes. There is no prejudice against a renomination if the merger target is {{ infobox country}} (in fact, I'd probably encourage it, given the similarities), but a discussion may be necessary beforehand to minimise the amount of debate about the exact definitions and usage of the templates. Primefac ( talk) 23:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:Infobox former subdivision with
Template:Infobox settlement.
I'm curious as the whether it makes sense to simply merge this to Infobox Settlement. it seems like the majority of parameters overlap. The few that don't can quite easily be added.
Zackmann (
Talk to me/
What I been doing)
07:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
"settlements [and] other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". Note that {{ Infobox subdivision}} redirects to Infobox settlement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
year_start
, event_star
fields on IB former subdivision) but completely missing from the other. It would require a major rework just to absorb the ~2000 transclusions of former subdivision.--
eh bien mon prince (
talk)
03:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
|year_start=
is called |established_date=
, |year_end=
is called |extinct_date=
. --
Gonnym (
talk)
08:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
event
fields, and all the 'preceding and succeeding entities' fields take up at least a paragraph. Has anyone made a sandbox version of IB settlement that shows how they would be added without major changes? If not, what are we !voting on?--
eh bien mon prince (
talk)
09:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
"only unqualified drive-by judging"I believe you've been warned before, more than once, about making unwarranted insinuations of bad faith against fellow editors. Desist. Andy Mabbett (); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
"settlements [and] other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country"; per its own documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
"settlements [and] other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country"; per its own documentation. Also, {{ Infobox county}} redirects to - your guessed it, {{ Infobox settlement}}. As does {{ Infobox district}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
"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". HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
wikt:bogus reasoningabove, another dismissive unsubstantiated judgement, using " wikt:screed". - DePiep ( talk) 06:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
"settlements [and] other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country"; per its own documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
"Describing a city with a country infobox..."Readers will note that not one person has suggested doing this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
{{Infobox former subdivision}}
(indeed, the documentation for the latter says: {{tq|"It is based on Template:Infobox former country adjusted to suit subdivisions of former countries"). Which articles on former countries use {{Infobox former subdivision}}
, and how many?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
15:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)"there is a difference between where subdivision IBs are used in comparison to where settlement IBs are used"us utterly false, and has been debunked several times already in this discussion. And here it is yet again: Infobox settlement is for
"settlements [and] other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country"; per its own documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
"there is a difference between where subdivision IBs are used in comparison to where settlement IBs are used"? 77.183.192.234 ( talk) 10:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Namespace | Category:Administrative territorial entities by type | Category:Former administrative territorial entities | (Current) | Category:Proposed administrative territorial entities |
---|---|---|---|---|
Category | Category:Countries | Category:Former countries | Category:Proposed countries | |
Template | {{ Infobox country}} | {{ Infobox country}} | {{ Infobox country}} | {{ Infobox country}} |
Category | Category:Country subdivisions | Category:Former subdivisions of countries | Category:Proposed country subdivisions | |
Template | {{ Infobox settlement}} | Two infoboxes are used:
{{
Infobox former subdivision}} - less than 1800 transclusions
[1]
|
{{ Infobox settlement}} | {{ Infobox settlement}} |
77.13.148.190 ( talk) 16:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Russ The template infobox former subdivision is being considered for merging. <cr> sian America ( Russian: Русская Америка, Russkaya Amerika) was the name of the Russian colonial possessions ...
The result of the discussion was procedural close. I understand the intention of opening this discussion (and this is after all Templates for discussion) but the content is more appropriate for either the template's talk page or a more technically-minded forum such as WP:VPT in order to change the fundamental way this template operates. Primefac ( talk) 15:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Please read .....My intent is not for out right deletion but rather a remedy to a mobile view problem. This template is not used (seen) in mobile view....that in itself is the norm as portal and book templates are also not seen in mobile view (unless the inline versions are used ;-) 😉). However Wikimedia sister links are always seen as per the Wikimedia Foundation implementation of Sister links templates in mobile view. So when this template is used it hides sister project links to 50% of our readers (those using mobile view) against the foundations intent to have these links seen. We need to fix this problem or come to the realization the template is decrepit. Moxy ( talk) 22:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Greetings, As one of the people who has placed "thousands" of those "Subject bar" templates, here are my thoughts & comments. In my archives (not on WP), I found some of my past research about Subject bar vs. Portal-inline.
And after testing this morning I see how "Mobile view" does not show the Subject bar at all (example Pope Francis article). On Desktop view, subject bar has the advantage of combining portals, and Sister projects into a single unified template.
Going back to the drawing board, (examples Christian Conrad Blouin and Cathedral of San Vicente, El Salvador articles) for Mobile view, placement of Portal-inline into "See also" section makes them visible. Here is the Moble view code example: {{left | {{Portal-inline|Architecture}} {{portal-inline|Catholicism}} {{Portal-inline|El Salvador}} }}{{clear}} Note that "Portal bar" template is not visible in Mobile view.
Greetings (again) - after my above posting, I modified the Portal-inline example to include the "{{dot}}" seperator. This is helpful for accessiblity, especially when it appears in mobile view. Here is a "See also" section example.
While this wikicode is lengthy, in my Notepad (plain text) file for Copy-and-paste, I made a plain shell without specific portals. So it's still easy to paste into articles. Cheers! JoeHebda ( talk) 19:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
If we just remove the navbox class from the module, we get:
{{User:Hawkeye7/Sandbox5|portal1=Biography|portal2=United States Air Force|portal3=United States Marine Corps|portal4=United States Navy|portal5=Spaceflight|commons=y}}
Which works on mobile devices. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete unused templates, noting that some of them have been put back into use. As a note of full disclosure, I nominated a similar set of templates two years ago; the consensus here is pretty strong, but I will re-open this discussion without prejudice should anyone have issue with that conflict. I will also recuse from deleting any of these templates if/when they are deemed to be deletion-ready. Primefac ( talk) 15:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused custom versions of {{ LSR}}. If these are needed, they should be called directly from the page, not created as subpages to a redirect. (Note that {{ Latest stable software release}} redirects to {{ LSR}}). -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 20:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Currently, because of every "latest software release version change" the whole article has to be changed. If we would make templates (Template:Latest_stable_release/Mozilla_Firefox) and link them like "
| {{Latest_stable_release/{{PAGENAME}}}}
" in this infobox, the articles aren't edited that often and by "Related changes" there would be a list of new software releases of the last xy days,... Furthermore we wouldn't have to change it in the infobox and the article itself and additionaly on pages like Comparison of web browsers. We just have to place "{{Latest_stable_release/xySoftware}}
". So we could do three things with one edit! -- 84.156.100.195 16:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete unused templates, noting that some of them have been put back into use. As a note of full disclosure, I nominated a similar set of templates two years ago; the consensus here is pretty strong, but I will re-open this discussion without prejudice should anyone have issue with that conflict. I will also recuse from deleting any of these templates if/when they are deemed to be deletion-ready. Primefac ( talk) 15:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused custom versions of {{ LPR}}. If these are needed, they should be called directly from the page, not created as subpages to a redirect. (Note that {{ Latest preview software release}} redirects to {{ LPR}}). -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 20:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete all but 369-5 as it is a valid name for a redirect. Primefac ( talk) 15:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
All old, unused attempts to work with ISO 639. This functionality is now widely available via Module:ISO 639. No need for these old templates. -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 20:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete - FASTILY 05:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused templates that are just plaintext or imagelinks. No reason for these templates, the text can just be directly inserted when needed. -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 20:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete - FASTILY 05:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Appear to be an attempt to make tables of special characters? In any case, not used. -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 20:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete - FASTILY 05:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
All are unused. Not entirely clear where/how they would be used. Appear to be an attempt to bulk store population data. This is what Wikidata is for. Regardless, they are unused. -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 20:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete - FASTILY 05:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused custom versions of {{ CTB minutes}}. If they are needed, should just call {{ CTB minutes}} directly from the page in question. No need for custom templates. -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 20:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete - FASTILY 05:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
All are unused plainlinks to pages. Not sure what the point is of having templates for these when a simple link works just fine. -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 19:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete - FASTILY 05:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
All are unused plainlinks to pages. Not sure what the point is of having templates for these when a simple link works just fine. -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 19:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 21:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Single transclusion replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/The Hop. Mackensen (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 21:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused infobox and unlikely to be needed, articles on indiviudal cadet units do not normally pass notability threshold and consensus at AfD discussions is normally that they are deleted. MilborneOne ( talk) 14:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 21:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Propose deleting. These templates are part of the older system for railway line info based on {{ S-line}}. Use of that system for this rail network has entirely been replaced by the newer system based on Module:Adjacent stations. These templates are not transcluded anywhere in article space. htonl ( talk) 12:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 March 24. Primefac ( talk) 15:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus. There are a few points of contention, one being the typical concern that combining two templates together will create a franken-template that will be harder to maintain than the two separate ones. While this is usually not enough to cause a template merger to fail, in this particular case two factors play in to do just that. First, the parameters of {{ infobox former subdivision}} are (as mentioned in the first oppose) much more similar to those of {{ infobox country}} than {{ infobox settlement}}. Second, there is the debate about whether an article on a "subdivision" should have a template for a "settlement" on it. We can debate syntax, definitions, and "current common uses" until the end of time, but point in hand there are more people who feel that this merger causes more problems (semantically) than it fixes. There is no prejudice against a renomination if the merger target is {{ infobox country}} (in fact, I'd probably encourage it, given the similarities), but a discussion may be necessary beforehand to minimise the amount of debate about the exact definitions and usage of the templates. Primefac ( talk) 23:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:Infobox former subdivision with
Template:Infobox settlement.
I'm curious as the whether it makes sense to simply merge this to Infobox Settlement. it seems like the majority of parameters overlap. The few that don't can quite easily be added.
Zackmann (
Talk to me/
What I been doing)
07:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
"settlements [and] other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". Note that {{ Infobox subdivision}} redirects to Infobox settlement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
year_start
, event_star
fields on IB former subdivision) but completely missing from the other. It would require a major rework just to absorb the ~2000 transclusions of former subdivision.--
eh bien mon prince (
talk)
03:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
|year_start=
is called |established_date=
, |year_end=
is called |extinct_date=
. --
Gonnym (
talk)
08:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
event
fields, and all the 'preceding and succeeding entities' fields take up at least a paragraph. Has anyone made a sandbox version of IB settlement that shows how they would be added without major changes? If not, what are we !voting on?--
eh bien mon prince (
talk)
09:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
"only unqualified drive-by judging"I believe you've been warned before, more than once, about making unwarranted insinuations of bad faith against fellow editors. Desist. Andy Mabbett (); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
"settlements [and] other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country"; per its own documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
"settlements [and] other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country"; per its own documentation. Also, {{ Infobox county}} redirects to - your guessed it, {{ Infobox settlement}}. As does {{ Infobox district}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
"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". HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
wikt:bogus reasoningabove, another dismissive unsubstantiated judgement, using " wikt:screed". - DePiep ( talk) 06:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
"settlements [and] other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country"; per its own documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
"Describing a city with a country infobox..."Readers will note that not one person has suggested doing this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
{{Infobox former subdivision}}
(indeed, the documentation for the latter says: {{tq|"It is based on Template:Infobox former country adjusted to suit subdivisions of former countries"). Which articles on former countries use {{Infobox former subdivision}}
, and how many?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
15:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)"there is a difference between where subdivision IBs are used in comparison to where settlement IBs are used"us utterly false, and has been debunked several times already in this discussion. And here it is yet again: Infobox settlement is for
"settlements [and] other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country"; per its own documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
"there is a difference between where subdivision IBs are used in comparison to where settlement IBs are used"? 77.183.192.234 ( talk) 10:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Namespace | Category:Administrative territorial entities by type | Category:Former administrative territorial entities | (Current) | Category:Proposed administrative territorial entities |
---|---|---|---|---|
Category | Category:Countries | Category:Former countries | Category:Proposed countries | |
Template | {{ Infobox country}} | {{ Infobox country}} | {{ Infobox country}} | {{ Infobox country}} |
Category | Category:Country subdivisions | Category:Former subdivisions of countries | Category:Proposed country subdivisions | |
Template | {{ Infobox settlement}} | Two infoboxes are used:
{{
Infobox former subdivision}} - less than 1800 transclusions
[1]
|
{{ Infobox settlement}} | {{ Infobox settlement}} |
77.13.148.190 ( talk) 16:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Russ The template infobox former subdivision is being considered for merging. <cr> sian America ( Russian: Русская Америка, Russkaya Amerika) was the name of the Russian colonial possessions ...