Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 3

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log

Contents

March 3Edit

Template:Subject barEdit

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 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)

As the author of this template, I agree that it needs to be brought into the modern era, though I lack the time, skills, and motivation to do so. I still think it's worth keeping for how it consolidates so many Wiki links. – Maky « talk » 23:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I am hoping someone can fix it because we have a sh#t load of pages that sister links are not being seen in mobile view. Manually having to convert all these to working templates would be a daunting task for any group of editors. But we can't have so many articles were sister projects are not seen by 50 percent of our readers.--Moxy (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I find the template extremely useful in consolidating the various floating wiki boxes found on so many pages, esp. some of the military ones I have been working on of late. I've seen some pages now where they have both - which is a solution but duplicates content - but that is not really addressing the main issue in fixing the template at source. Would be extremely beneficial to create a solution for this template. Hiding sister sites for a large proportion of readers isn't a great UX. Londonclanger (talk) 17:59, 4 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.

  • So the issue becomes, how to update those thousands of articles? Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep The issue become whether we should delete templates to "support" the Mobile View, and the answer is no. Because some readers can't see them is no reason to deprive all readers. The template is very useful. On Desktop view, subject bar has the advantage of combining portals, and Sister projects into a single, unified, informative template. How something appears in Mobile View is no reason to delete anything. Lots of things don't appear in the Mobile View. Half the front page doesn't appear in the Mobile View. The portals and navigation bars don't appear in the Mobile View. That's why I don't use Mobile View, even on mobile devices. I don't see what benefit we get from removing information from the Desktop view simply because the Mobile View can't display it. WP:SOFIXIT should apply here. We can adjust the software to display the portal bar in Mobile View, although I'm not sure that we should, given that a WMF decision was taken not to? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Think your missing the point here...we want all to see them (not just thoses on a PC)...we should not go out of our way to hide theses links from more then 50 percent of our readers. Accessibility is the concern here...template should be fixed or sister links moved to a real template. How something appears in mobile view Is the perfect reason to fix,,,,ignoring is how we got to this point. -- Moxy (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

─────── 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 Which works on mobile devices. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Hawkeye7 - Good idea. Only thing I noticed in mobile view is that the portal icons do not line up properly in front of each portal name. Is this a one-time change to "Subject bar"? So no need to update the thousands of articles. JoeHebda (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
This is the solution !!! great job!!--Moxy (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Could someone add the solution to Normandy landings so I can see it in action and also use on other articles? Thx. Londonclanger (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
We just have to wait till the posting has run its course and the changes implemented in the template. Then we can restore your version.--Moxy (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

──────────

  • Awaiting (March 14, 2019) -- JoeHebda (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    • What's happening with this? Can the deletion notification be removed now? I ask because even though the subject bars don't appear on mobile the deletion notification does and looks messy. Londonclanger (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Awaiting (March 29, 2019) -- Wondering how long before fix can be installed? JoeHebda (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2019 (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).

Unused Latest stable software releaseEdit

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 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)

  • @Zackmann08: These aren't "custom versions", they're subtemplates intended to be used to store data. Regardless, their existence, whether used or not, is a clear misuse of template namespace in my opinion. Delete. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Some of these have been superseded by other similar templates, or the software is no longer updated, which makes the templates unnecessary. However, storing version numbers of software in templates is a well-established and completely standard use of template space. —Kusma (t·c) 21:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion when that mechanism was introduced appears to be here. The rationale was given as

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)

If you disagree with that rationale, you might want to consider opening a discussion about this mechanism, to see if you can get it removed. Guy Harris (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace information in article where needed - I also agree that the use of the template space shouldn't be used for something as trivial as a version number. So what if the article needs to be updated? What is the difference if an editor gets a notification of "page x" or "template x" has changed? On the other hand, it requires an editor to watch 1 less page, it makes sure that when a software's name changes, that templates don't get left for dead and forgotten and it makes updating an article more simple as it requires one less page to update - I'd would assume that if you update the infobox version number, you'd also update the article itself which is supposed to have all the infobox information anyways. --Gonnym (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete where the software isn't being updated any more, keep and start using again where it still is being updated - if people don't like the use of template space for this, the way to address their concerns is a general discussion about the mechanism and, if a consensus is reached that template space shouldn't be used in this fashion, move all the contents of those templates into the places where they're referenced, remove all the "Last {stable, preview} release" templates, and eliminate that feature from all infoboxes. Otherwise, just clean up the cases where the template is unused because the software isn't being updated, and fix the cases where it is. Guy Harris (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2019 (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).

Unused Latest preview software releaseEdit

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 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)

{{Latest preview software release/Microsoft Visual Studio}} is now used; the current stable release information for Microsoft Visual Studio was already in a "Latest stable software release" template, so I did the same for the preview release information. Guy Harris (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete per my !vote at #Unused Latest stable software release above. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep {{Latest preview software release/Microsoft Visual Studio}}, currently used. Storing version numbers of software in templates is a well-established and completely standard use of template space. —Kusma (t·c) 21:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace information in article where needed - I also agree that the use of the template space shouldn't be used for something as trivial as a version number. So what if the article needs to be updated? What is the difference if an editor gets a notification of "page x" or "template x" has changed? On the other hand, it requires an editor to watch 1 less page, it makes sure that when a software's name changes, that templates don't get left for dead and forgotten and it makes updating an article more simple as it requires one less page to update - I'd would assume that if you update the infobox version number, you'd also update the article itself which is supposed to have all the infobox information anyways.
  • Delete where the software isn't being updated any more, keep and start using again where it still is being updated - if people don't like the use of template space for this, the way to address their concerns is a general discussion about the mechanism and, if a consensus is reached that template space shouldn't be used in this fashion, move all the contents of those templates into the places where they're referenced, remove all the "Last {stable, preview} release" templates, and eliminate that feature from all infoboxes. Otherwise, just clean up the cases where the template is unused because the software isn't being updated, and fix the cases where it is. Guy Harris (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2019 (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).

Unused ISO 639 templatesEdit

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 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)

  • If these are deleted, the remaining templates in Category:ISO 639 code from name templates should be converted to new functionality and also deleted. (I think it is only the Germany one, which has a trivial transclusion). —Kusma (t·c) 20:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes! One of the few cases where consistency is beneficial. – Uanfala (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Nigej (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete the individual ones: we don't need a separate template for each language; this function is now carried out by Template:ISO 639 code-1. Keep Template:ISO 639-5 (and its two subpages) for historical reasons, but turn into a redirect to Template:ISO 639 code-5, for which it is a viable shortcut. – Uanfala (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2019 (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).

Unused Hazard/Hazmat TemplatesEdit

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 -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 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).

Unused Block TemplatesEdit

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 -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)

They were used in GB2312 Blocks, part of a (not very good and not very usable) list of GB 2312 characters (old national character encoding of the People's Republic of China). In any case, the information is more easily accessible elsewhere, so delete. —Kusma (t·c) 20:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Kusma. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Kusma. --Gonnym (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2019 (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).

Unused population database templatesEdit

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 -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)

  • Delete per nom. I really think we should be putting this on Wikidata which I consider to be more reliable and more readily updated, and also less obtrusely stored. However I respect that the community is as yet undecided on this issue so there may be some objections here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2019 (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).

Unused CTB MinutesEdit

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 -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)

  • Delete - per nom. Overly complex anyway. Nigej (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2019 (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).

Bs Team LinksEdit

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 -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)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't have clear purpose.—Bagumba (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Doesn't look like simple links to me, there is code for subst'ing and there are many related templates. Would recommend asking creators like Vasconia or Asturkian or at the basketball project before deletion. "Not sure what the point is" is not a rationale for deletion: "when in doubt, don't delete". —Kusma (t·c) 11:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete I did not create these templates. User:Vasconia created them for attendance tables and other issues, but by myself I did never use them. Asturkian (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    Asturkian, you did create the first one in the list, so I thought you could tell us about these templates. If you are sure nobody uses them, I don't mind them being deleted. —Kusma (t·c) 13:37, 4 March 2019 (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).

Rus LinksEdit

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 -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)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. These and other "Rus X" templates use Template:Rus to generate links. Even those that are in use, I'm not quite sure what they actually add that a simple link can't do. --Gonnym (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2019 (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).

The Hop S-line templatesEdit

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) 21:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Single transclusion replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/The Hop. Mackensen (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2019 (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).

Template:Infobox air cadet squadronEdit

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) 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)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2019 (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).

MWC old style railway line templatesEdit

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) 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 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 FBI Ten Most WantedEdit

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 24. Primefac (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2019 (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).

Template:Infobox former subdivisionEdit

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. 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)

  • Oppose. The "former subdivision" obviously pertains to a country, not a settlement. Merging into {{Infobox country}} could be considered (but is not proposed so cannot be concluded). -DePiep (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @DePiep: Interesting. I actually didn't think that this did obviously pertain to a country until you mentioned it. Just curious how two people can read the same thing and see things differently. Your note about merging to {{Infobox country}} is a great point. Personally I don't see any reason that can't be discussed here? No that wasn't what I initially proposed, but if that is a more appropriate solution I think it absolutely warrants discussion. I'm curious whether others in this thread would support that solution. I'm happy to discuss it here, or just let this TFD play out and then submit a new one. Either way. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Me saying "not proposed here so ..." is my idea of due TfD. {{Infobox country}} could be brought in maybe, but by then all existing argumentations here are confusing (directed at an other proposal, the first one). After such a change of proposal, it is hardly possible to have the !votes rewritten/reconsidered. IMO if this proposal does not lead to changes, soon after a new different merge proposal can be cleanly proposed. -DePiep (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
      • And below, as a Comment, I have described my preference to stick to the useful intuitive concepts of "Settlement" and "Country", also for derivatives like 'subdivision of' and 'former'. -DePiep (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
        DePiep, Victoria County, Ontario, Bars County, Turóc County, New East Prussia, Luwan District, Tokyo City... Just a few of the pages using {{Infobox former subdivision}}... None of these are countries... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above user's reasoning. This shouldn't be done. - R9tgokunks 09:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    User:R9tgokunks There is only Template:Infobox person, no Template:Infobox former person. Only a few parameters regarding dissolution/death are the difference. Why an extra template in case of subdivisions? 78.55.20.3 (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose While convincing, this is just not enough justification to get rid of this infobox. I am seeing great potential for this infobox. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose IB former subdivision has a clear scope of application, where using settlement would not be appropriate.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge The original objection, and those following it, are based on bogus reasoning; subdivisions are not countries (we have {{Infobox former country}} for those) and Infobox settlement is for "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)
    • I don't see how they could be merged without making significant changes to IB settlement, as they have many different fields that are necessary in one template (such as all the 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)
        • I see six 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)
Pigsonthewing Please clarify how the first argument is "wikt:bogus reasoning". So far, it is only unqualified drive-by judging, not adding an argument.
Re your partial quote from documentation. For starters, by template names, "settlement" pertains to "settlements", and "country" pertains to "countries". Probably this documentation detail is substandard, and not a normative point anyway just descriptive especially not re other templates. In this guideline (i.e., a much tougher policy), it says "country subdivisions (states or provinces), such as States of Austria, ...", the link redirecting to Administrative division, which to me very clearly and flawlessly says it is about country organisation, not settlement features. -DePiep (talk) 14:11, 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)
Pigsonthewing "unqualified" is a judgement of the argument you used (while accusing another editor of being illogical without base, so far). So please reply. -DePiep (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Several of these subdividions were subordinate state and provinces, while "settlements" is supposed to covers cities, towns, and villages. Dimadick (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Not so, as I have already pointed out above: 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 23:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Dimadick, ""settlements" is supposed to covers cities, towns, and villages" - can you specify what you mean? 77.183.135.113 (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per DePiep's logic. —Ntmamgtw (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge, per Pigsonthewing. There's no reason to have separate navboxes for current and former subdivisions. Note that Template:Infobox former country and Template:Infobox country were merged in December of 2016.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 19:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    • No, it was merged 13 August 2018. But the TfD was in December 2016. It took two years before it was merged because it was two completely different templates, and now infobox country is a two-in-one template. Christian75 (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For all the excellent "Oppose" reasons already presented above. Mercy11 (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge - since {{Infobox subdivision}} already redirects to {{Infobox settlement}} and has most of the parameters, including ones for an end date of the settlement, it seems that if there are missing parameters there are very few and could be easily added. The main difference is in the names of the parameters themselves - that makes this merge even more important as having articles about the same topic differ in the naming style makes editing harder for no reason. The merge would also ensure that all articles on the same topic would have a consistent look and any updates would be gained for all articles. --Gonnym (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose That one calls the other is not material because people use the two templates on different types of articles and it is counter-intuitive to look for a template settlement when writing about a former county or district of Whateverland. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    • And 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. 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)
      • And again: the documentation is incorrect. "settlements [and] other administrative districts" (italics added): "other" states that settlements are "administrative districts" too. But that is not part of the concept. "Settlement" = where people live together. The admin organisation is not a requirement, just an non-defining property. -DePiep (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
        • A longer quote, without ellipses, is "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)
          • My point is right in there!: why "other administrative districts" while settlements are *not* an administrative district? How or why "other"? That is like: "elephants and other motorcycles": two different concepts. -DePiep (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Not true, User:Carlossuarez46. The "infobox settlement" is used on ~500 000 articles, including articles about entities named area, county, district, province, region, state, territory, zone. 77.183.32.190 (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment, about concepts of "settlement" and "country". We have good concepts of both "settlement" (say, a unity inhabited by people) and "country" (say, an administrative geographic region). While hard to define, they are easy to grasp, to distinguish, and are intuitively recognised by article editors. Sure there is an overlap area (eg, when a city is a administrative region), but this is not prohibiting their distinctive concept. From this, it follows that we should build supportives (like templates) on this concepts.
    There is no use in making a super-generic template "place on earth where something happens", because well, 'a city is also a subdivisdion of a country'. Instead, we are helped with templates that handle for "settlement" also 'subdivision of' and 'former'. (They might be merged into their concept parent, but only when helpful for the editor and article; no use for a 500 parameter template). Same with a "country" set. Nor does overly smart fusion of parameter sets help. Instead, parameters and their names should easily follow from or be associated with the concept.
    With this, there might be a topical overlap in an article between "settlement" and "country" (eg, municipality borders). This already is covered by having similar parameters in both templates (like pop density), so editors can pick the most obvious concept template for an article instead of having to rethink a "city" being a "country subdivision". -DePiep (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

  • TL;DR: Infoboxes for Settlements and their subdivisions and historical ones should be tied to the concept of "Settlement".
    Infoboxes for Countries and their subdivisions and historical ones should be tied to the concept of "Country". -DePiep (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

  • TL;DR: Your wishes are at odds with both current practice and current consensus. This is not the place to change either. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    • No not "wishes", description. I did not create those concepts. (Please stop turning, after a third time now here, my arguments into personal jabs or throwaways. You are supposed to engage on content). BTW, why do you use this TL;DR construct, a special meaning? -DePiep (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A settlement is different from a regional subdivision, and is different from a country. Parameter overlap should not be a requirement for merging, because different infoboxes have different parameters and purposes not used by the other infobox. -Mardus /talk 10:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    • And 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 10:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Former subdivision means a change happened in that place and the article is about the change, e.g., the Gadsden Purchase of 1853. Former subdivision infobox suits that article perfectly. Infobox settlement is about a place now in existence, its features and its history, like Chicago or Detroit. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Already good reasoning given by many. It seems quite clear that the documentation for Infobox settlement needs appropriate changes. Jazze7 (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The documentation for Infobox settlement describes how it is used. As I said above: If you wish to change the way Infobox settlement is used - and has been used for over a decade - start a discussion on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggestion If it will be merged, can we use bots to substitute one infobox for another? If this is the main concern of changing 2000 infoboxes, then a bot can solve it (I believe). :)--Biografer (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    • No need; we would simply make the template a redirect, and transclusions in articles would continue to work as at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing (talkcontribs) 19:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment So I don't have a strong opinion either way on the template merge, but I don't think that "this is how we've always used this template" is a fair argument for merging. Our job as editors is to create content based on how it should be, not based on how it is. If there's not a good reason why Template:Infobox settlement has been used to represent subdivisions for over a decade, then we should change our usage; if there is a good reason, then that reason for the tradition should be the basis of this discussion, not the tradition itself, and the reason should be stated here, not on a separate talk page. Someone the Person (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    • To me this comment makes some more sense when read as a reply to Andy's describes how it is used-post two bullets above. -DePiep (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    • No-one is arguing based on "tradition". There are indeed good reasons why we use the same template for various types of settlements and administrate districts (note least that many of our articles are about subjects that are both settlements and administrate districts), and we do not need to re-litigate them every time someone objects to merging very similar templates. As I said above, if an editor wishes to change the way we use, or describe, Infobox settlement, this is not the place to do so. I note also that no proposal to do so has been made, on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I find the merging of these Infoboxes unintuitive, unnecessary, and likely to make a mess. No matter how similar the templates are, merging templates with 2 different subject matters will make a mess when it comes to actually merging them, and will be confusing to those unfamiliar with the merge. Overall, it feels counterproductive to spend effort merging 2 templates to have 1 template for a bunch of things but with hundreds of different variables, when there's plenty of space for both to exist. Hecseur (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    • You might find it "confusing", but those of us who have been merging templates for more than a decade, including many into {{infobox settlement}}, do not. And after the merger instances of {{Infobox former subdivision}} will work just as they do now, so no "mess" will occur. We have plenty of precedence for this. There are not "hundreds" of variables involved in the proposed merger. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
      • re Pigsonthewing. "those of us who ... do not": please do not speak for others. I have been merging just as well and not merging all those years, your statement does not hold. Hecseur is to the point when saying that this merge proposal is confusing (not so-called "confusing") because it is about "2 different subject matters". That is confusing, especially for the article editor who is invited to actually use the infobox (and let's not forget those having to write the documentation for such a chaotic situation). Describing a city with a country infobox is trying to square a circle. And yes those unnatural parameters and their presentation is unintuitive, unnecessary, and a mess. I'd still like to read why merging two different concepts is a good idea, other than 'was done before' and 'documentation says so'. (We are not talking about a merge like {{Infobox UK school}} into {{Infobox school}}, obviously). -DePiep (talk) 15:08, 28 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)
          • I repeat, for thos unwilling to understand: 1. Speak for yourself, 2. Yes it is about mixing up concepts. What's next? Infoboxing vulcans as a country subdivision? You still have not replied to this fundamental issue information. -DePiep (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
            • As I have already said above: "you've been warned before, more than once, about making unwarranted insinuations of bad faith against fellow editors. Desist.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
              • Just a comment on this argument, I'm pretty sure warning a user with bold letters and using the fact that they were warned before against them really isn't addressing the problem of the conceptual division. Anyway, as I see it, the problem of different parameters is still a huge deal. The documentation states that the template is to be used in "any subdivision below the level of a country", having the names of the upper and lower houses of the legislature in a settlement infobox, doesn't make sense by that regard, at all. If there are so many variables in common, Template:Infobox former subdivision could be rewritten with Module:Template wrapper. But in my opinion, an outright merge isn't a good idea, especially since that merge isn't necessary, and isn't as obvious as it is to you to others. Hecseur (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    • User:Hecseur what is your point? The only difference is having information about the end of the entity. Dissolved, date, reason. ~ 500 000 articles use the IB settlement. It is a standard, a lot of editors know the template. Why to have an extra one for the same type of entities (type: territorial entity)? 78.55.20.3 (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't really understand what you're trying to argue. Just like infobox settlement is used for settlements AND subdivisions, infobox former subdivision is used for subdivisions AND countries. The matter of fact is, you don't add variables which are specific for countries, such as for the upper and lower houses of the legislature, to a template that should never be used for countries. It's like having a variable for kilowatt hours in an infobox about fungi species, it doesn't make sense for it to be there, and therefore it shouldn't. If I misread your arguement, because I didn't really understand it, let me know. Hecseur (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
        • {{Infobox former country}} redirects to {{Infobox country}}; articles on former countries should use that template, and not {{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)
  • Weak oppose just too many useful and unique parameters that will end up deprecated in the proposed target.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    • User:Mr. Guye "just too many useful and unique parameters" - which? The difference between current and former entity would normally only be, that the latter has fields relating to its end, all the rest would be the same. Not? 77.183.135.113 (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. As clear by the first sentences of each template’s article, both templates are for the purposes of all non-country human settlements, just one is for former and one is for current. Why the distinction between current and former needs to be made is beyond me. Benica11 (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    • A country is not subdivided into settlements. The country is about administrative geographical organisation (and so are its subdivisions), a settlement is a place where humans live together. Just reusing overlapping parameters is not a "merge". The documentation page(s) corrupt these concepts which can not work out well. -DePiep (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
      • @DePiep: What exactly are you trying to refute from this argument? A country may not be "subdivided into settlements," but it is clear that the purpose of the template is to provide an infobox that universally serves the needs of every subdivision, province, state, department, and standard settlement with status below that of a country. Benica11 is not arguing that country subdivisions "are" settlements.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 09:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
        • re Molandfreak (ec). "purpose of the [target] template is to provide an infobox that universally serves ...": this describes the problem. The idea of a country is some administrative organisation, geographically defined (subdivisions are provinces, regions, overseas areas, ...). A settlement is where people live together, with scales like metropolitan area, neighbourhood, ...). All this also applies to "former" ones. But a country is not "devided" into settlements as a pizza is devided into constituing parts.
Now stuffing all parameters and formatting and layout and priorities for two different concepts into one template does not help anyone. It's good enough to use similar parameters (like population number), but that does not mean they should be applied the same (eg, order position in the infobox). There is no need to do so, it only leads to compromises that are unhelpful for the reader (and also confusing for the article editor having to trawl scores of parameters with wide descriptions & limitations; and that is when the documentation is up to date & complete). What is the end? One "universal" infobox for the whole of enwiki, and let the editor search?
The notice that 'documentation says so' and 'it's being used like that' is not an argument, but a bug. Why would a province be primarilly described as a settlement? Why would a cross-border metropolitan area (=settlement) be primarilly tied to a single country?
The opposite, an example. I work with templates {{Infobox drug}}, {{Chembox}}, {{Infobox element}}. All for chemicals, and no one seriously wants to merge them. That is because sure there are similar parameters (think, in a Venn diagram), but design requirements are different by concept (e.g., for a drug, chemical poperties are way less important so are below). -DePiep (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Infobox country, Infobox settlement, Infobox former subdivision - each is meant for a territorial entity. The differences are small. In the case of the latter, it is only adding information about the end of the entity. There is only Template:Infobox person, no Template:Infobox former person. 78.55.20.3 (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - per Andy's convincing argument and refutations.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  17:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: there is a difference between where subdivision IBs are used in comparison to where settlement IBs are used. GN-z11 17:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    • User:GN-z11, that is NOT true. Template:Infobox settlement is used for all kinds of territorial entities, except for countries. The proposal simply is to have "former subdivisions" be handled by the same template. Check out Template:Infobox settlement and its inclusions. There is only Template:Infobox person, no Template:Infobox former person. 78.55.20.3 (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Your explanation basically debunks your claim. If you take a closer look, the former subdivision IB is one for former countries. As you said, Infobox settlement can't be used for countries. Per DePiep's comment, Infobox former subdivision could be merged with Infobox country. Plus, comparing settlement IBs with person IBs is really weird. GN-z11 18:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
        • User:GN-z11, that is NOT true. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox former subdivision lists East Berlin, East Prussia, Dakota Territory, Alsace-Lorraine, Zamboanga (province). Furthermore I did NOT say "Infobox settlement can't be used for countries". There is only Template:Infobox airline, no Template:Infobox former airline. 78.55.20.3 (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
          • No, GN-z11 is right. Note that they wrote "Per DePiep's comment", i.e., as I described it. And interestingly, again you debunk your own argument: four out of five of your examples are subdivisions of a country, not of a settlement. QED. And of course, with the template documentation being imprecise (or corrupted), bad examples like East Berlin creep in. Still this (documentation effect?) does not prove nor support the suggestion that concepts "country" and "settlement" are the same. -DePiep (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
            • User:DePiep you talk rubbish. I didn't claim the examples to be subdivisions of settlements. I only mentioned them, because User:GN-z11 claimed "the former subdivision IB is one for former countries" - no it is not. There is Template:Infobox country for former countries. 78.55.20.3 (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
            • User:DePiep you talk more rubbish /that concepts "country" and "settlement" are the same/? What? You claim so? Anyone else? Where is the diff? 78.55.20.3 (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
              • "rubbish", sure, or maybe you could read closer? Let me spell out your own self-defeating argumument: East Prussia, Dakota Territory, Alsace-Lorraine, Zamboanga (province) are (former) subdivisions of countries, not settlements; and so supports GN-z11's claim "the former subdivision IB is one for former countries". -DePiep (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
                • sure rubbish: /four out of five of your examples are subdivisions of a country, not of a settlement./ - yes, and that means they are not countries, exactly what I wanted to show, because User:GN-z11 did claim the "the former subdivision IB is one for former countries". It is not. 89.12.84.122 (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
              • I think DePiep has made my (and their) point quite clear for you. Otherwise I suggest you don't use phrases like "you talk rubbish" and just explain your side of the argument properly. GN-z11 12:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
                • You can make your point clear and still talk rubbish. 89.12.84.122 (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Your claim "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)
    • Any evidence, User:GN-z11, for your claim "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)
  • Support. There is little that prevents Infobox settlement from being appropriate to use on former subdivisions. Many of the arguments seem to be more about the name of the template than its function. --Bsherr (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: An overview table, showing the two dimensions 1 class (country / country subdivisions) 2 existence (former, current, proposed).
Usage of infobox templates for articles in Category:Administrative territorial entities
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}} - at least 79 calls by other templates (wrappers cf. Category:Templates calling Infobox settlement), ca. 500 000 transclusions

{{Infobox settlement}} {{Infobox settlement}}

77.13.148.190 (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion for this seems to still be ongoing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral I would like to say that I don't think it's really important whether they are merged or not merged. However, I would like to request that someone help me find someone who would import the "other_name" parameter from 'Infoxbox settlement' into 'Infobox former subdivision' so that I can add some of the old names of Hankou on that page in the way you see other names in the infobox on pages like Beijing and Chongqing. Also, under the normal English meaning of the terms, I don't consider Hankou primarily as a "former subdivision". Hankou is a living, breathing geographical concept in modern Wuhan, despite the fact that it is no longer an official subdivision. Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Andy and the IPs. The opposers' arguments don't convince me. — JJMC89(T·C) 08:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Worth noting that according to this very simple query (pages that are within Category:Former subdivisions of countries AND that use {{Infobox settlement}}), there are 25,609 that currently use settlement, compared to the 1,799 uses of {{Infobox former subdivision}}. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support based on the table and the query. Aside from many of the parameters being the same in both templates, the templates are clearly used for the same purpose, so it makes sense to merge them, regardless of any pontifications about how the "former subdivision" template's name means that it can't possibly be merged. In any case, {{Infobox settlement}} is already used for many first-level subdivisions like Guangdong (population 108 million). Jc86035 (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Drive-by comment: I arrived at this debate from Russian America that has its lead fouled up by this RtM, at least for mobile devices. The word "Russian" is split by an advice that some template is proposed for merging. Would whoever launched this issue please go back and repair immediately. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps it is a generic bug but I've never seen it before. What I see is

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 ...

I had hoped that the problem arose because of the way that someone had tagged the template. I guess you are saying that this is not the case and that it is just unfortunate collateral damage? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Tested that page on mobile with Android OS with Chrome browser and I see the page correctly. --Gonnym (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - merge, replace, delete. Standardize on one template. The name of the template "subdivision" or "settlement" - whatever. Also, if a subdivision/settlement is "former" or not - can be done by same template. TerraCyprus (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support As long as the parameters will remain the same.--Biografer (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If this is useful to editors then the solution shouldn't be to fix it. WP:USEFUL applies to articles not templates in this case as notability is not applied. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
    FUD - The linked page is an essay about removal of content. No content will be removed by the merge. The same functionality will be or is already provided by Infobox settlement. It is not proposed to fix the usefulness, but to improve it. 77.11.96.186 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Knowledgekid87: you haven't addressed the actual point of the discussion. The idea that it would be less useful doesn't make sense. The parameters would stay the same. How could it be less useful? Right now we have to maintain 2 separate templates. Of the pages that are within Category:Former subdivisions of countries there are only 1,799 uses of {{Infobox former subdivision}} compared to 25,609 that currently use {{Infobox settlement}}. Additionally, {{Infobox former subdivision}} doesn't even use {{Infobox}} as a base and thus violates Wp:ACCESS in multiple ways. {{Infobox subdivision}} already is merged to {{Infobox settlement}}. Why should a former subdivision be treated differently? Would genuinely like to understand what your objection is... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment so at this point what this entire debate boils down to is that those who oppose merging the templates doing think that a subdivision qualifies as a settlement. The problem with that logic can best be summed up thusly:
    {{Infobox subdivision}} already redirects to {{Infobox settlement}} so subdivision isn't an issue...
    {{Infobox former settlement}} already redirects to {{Infobox settlement}} so former isn't an issue...
So I fail to understand why this is even a debate. CLEARLY a former subdivision can be covered by settlement. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose particularly per DePiep and Hecseur. Confusing. Former subdivisions are not settlements, they are geographical areas.--Tom (LT) (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2019 (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).