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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Actors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Directors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Screen Writers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Film producers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cinematographers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Scorecomposers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates are only used in Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and offer links to sub-categories by nationality, but since no one is keeping them updated, they do not list all the country categories. This is a wasted effort, which requires active maintenance, while all of them can be easily replaced by a see also link in the article leading directly to the parent category, which is always up-to-date. Also, since they are not placed on any other relevant page, they offer no navigation per WP:LINKBACK. Gonnym (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. For the reasons explained to Gonnym. --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They might be useful to some people who are interested in these in other countries. 65.24.61.23 (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category link does the same thing AND has more countries which the template does not have. --Gonnym (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if it can be shown the Wikiproject doesn't want them. As per nom these perform the same role as categories, but are not updated as readily. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a suitable use of a navbox. Should be handled in the normal way by category trees. --woodensuperman 08:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Scott Rudin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The navbox violates WP:FILMNAV, "Filmographies (and similar) of individuals should also not be included in navboxes, unless the individual concerned could be considered a primary creator of the material in question." As simply a producer, Scott Rudin is almost never the primary creator of the material in question. Furthermore, producer navboxes in general are inappropriate because per WP:NAVBOX disadvantages, they "may also incorrectly suggest that one aspect of a topic or a linked example is of more, less, or equal importance to others" and "can take up too much space for information that is only tangentially related" and "may not give the reader enough clues as to which links are most relevant". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: There are over 100 templates placed in Category:Film producer navigational boxes. Is there any previous discussion on the matter of producers somewhere? --Gonnym (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The language and interpretaion of WP:FILMNAV has been hotly debated several times. I am also kind of curious why these two of the 100+ were nominated. I think there should be a mass nomination of a whole slate rather than just isolating Rudin and Heyman now.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw the Scott Heyman one at The Secret Garden (upcoming film), and the creator then suggested the Scott Rudin one. I didn't realize how many there were, but they should go per WP:FILMNAV and WP:NAVBOX. Maybe keep something like Spielberg? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm conflicted here. On the one part, the producer is the person winning the Academy Award for Best Picture, which points to a significance to it. However, in more recent years there is a trend where a lot of famous actors can negotiate a producer credit, but it isn't our (Wikipedia's) place to question that. --Gonnym (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The producers are always mentioned and linked in the film infobox at the very least. I don't mind them being part of "crew lists" in production sections (which I know is not a thing). It's a question of why we should insert the producer's whole filmography at the bottom of the article, especially when most films have multiple producers. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Commenting to Erik, but applies to Wood as well (don't want to duplicate it) - if this (and other TfDs) pass at deletion - how are producer credits handled in non-producer-only templates, such as {{Steven Spielberg}}? It would be very odd to remove production templates but leave production sections for other individuals, as the argument for removal or keep is valid for both. It seems to me that really the discussion should have been held first to determine if such lists should be included then brought to TfD. --Gonnym (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think if the case can be made that the individual is the "primary" creator of the works in the navbox then they can be kept, which may be appropriate when it comes to Spielberg. Other than that, they should be expunged. --woodensuperman 14:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Producers are problematic as the extent of their involvement is not always known, and they are not always the "primary" creator of material. For films such as Fantastic Mr. Fox and Frances Ha, he is just one of four producers, others he is the sole credited producer. But, more importantly, are people really using film producer chronology navboxes like this as a navigational aid? I doubt it, and besides, filmography lists and categories exist (or should do, if they don't), so this is unnecessary. --woodensuperman 12:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Producer mentions are fine in the article and as a category but they don;t need a navbox. MarnetteD|Talk 02:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A producer is the main creator of a film. They're the ones who get the Best Picture Oscar.★Trekker (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per the standard being established. There's multiple producers involved in a given film, and while they procure the Oscar for Best Picture, it still stands that unless they're a constantly solo producer, it's not just a one man show in regards to producing. He's one of five producers on the upcoming The French Dispatch. Rusted AutoParts 01:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per established convention. we don't have producer-based navboxes, only director-based navboxes. Frietjes (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:David Heyman (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The navbox violates WP:FILMNAV, "Filmographies (and similar) of individuals should also not be included in navboxes, unless the individual concerned could be considered a primary creator of the material in question." As simply a producer, David Heyman is almost never the primary creator of the material in question. Furthermore, producer navboxes in general are inappropriate because per WP:NAVBOX disadvantages, they "may also incorrectly suggest that one aspect of a topic or a linked example is of more, less, or equal importance to others" and "can take up too much space for information that is only tangentially related" and "may not give the reader enough clues as to which links are most relevant". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Producers are problematic as the extent of their involvement is not always known, and they are not always the "primary" creator of material. He is one of four listed producers at Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, but only one of two with navboxes, so this causes an WP:UNDUE issue. Are people really using film producer chronology navboxes like this as a navigational aid? I doubt it, and besides, filmography lists and categories exist (or should do, if they don't), so this is unnecessary. --woodensuperman 12:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Google+ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete Google just shut down Google+, and the external link no longer works. Only 166 remaining transclusions. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no need to keep deadlinks around. --Gonnym (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No need to preserve these links.--Tom (LT) (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Google+ is dead now. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Angaleena Presley (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Head article plus three other pages doesn't even meet the bare minimum of WP:NENAN. (The "Discography" link just redirects back to the main article).
Note: I nominated this after being pinged to the discusison at WT:WikiProject Music#Template:Angaleena_Presley. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, textbook WP:NENAN. Not enough content. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete all templates. TfD is not the forum for deleting a category, and since there is another template in the category that is not part of this TfD, it is not eligible for deletion under WP:C1. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2008–09 National Youth League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2009–10 National Youth League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2010–11 National Youth League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2011–12 National Youth League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2012–13 National Youth League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2013–14 National Youth League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2014–15 National Youth League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2015–16 National Youth League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2016–17 National Youth League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 National Youth League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Category:A-League National Youth League standings templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

merged with article with attribution per this discussion. Frietjes (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 12:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:HBLR color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:HBLR line color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:HBLR lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:HBLR stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/HBLR left/8th Street-Hoboken (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/HBLR left/Bayonne Flyer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/HBLR left/Hoboken-Tonnelle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/HBLR left/West Side-Tonnelle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/HBLR right/8th Street-Hoboken (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/HBLR right/Bayonne Flyer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/HBLR right/Hoboken-Tonnelle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/HBLR right/West Side-Tonnelle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

S-line templates for Hudson-Bergen Light Rail. Merged into Module:Adjacent stations/NJ Transit. All transclusions replaced. Mackensen (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:DCSC style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:DC Streetcar color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:DC Streetcar lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:DC Streetcar stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:DC Streetcar style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/DC Streetcar left/H Street/Benning Road (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/DC Streetcar right/H Street/Benning Road (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/DC Streetcar. All transclusions replaced. Mackensen (talk) 10:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. If Biden doesn't run for election in 2020, there is no prejudice against renomination. Primefac (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Joe Biden series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An unnecessary template that lacks substantial information and clutters the page instead. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC); edited 23:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a case of WP:TOOSOON to delete especially if Biden decides to run in the 2020 United States presidential election. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove or at least edit it. The template completely destroys the formatting on any page it's included on. Or maybe it's the damn link to this page. Remove it at any rate. Sanpitch (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:TOOSOON. Template can always be remade if more meat is added. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The template has been around since 2008. Given the upcoming election cycle seems to have him as a potential subject of interest, there is little reason to slash a well formatted presentation like this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per arguments by The Vintage Feminist. -Mardus /talk 23:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Cleanup image and convert into a wrapper. This will mean no change necessary to Twinkle while still collecting duplicate templates into a smaller space. Primefac (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cleanup-SVG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cleanup image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Cleanup-SVG with Template:Cleanup image.
Unused currently, and this template could easily be merged back into the other image cleanup template, by making that template accept a parameter as to the media-type. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Provisional keep. It's used by Twinkle, and (barring emergencies, which of course this isn't) we ought not make major changes to Twinkle templates without ensuring that we won't break anything. I agree with your point, so I can support merging once we know that everything's fine. I've left a note at WT:Twinkle asking for input here. Nyttend (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem at all: right now, Twinkle just does the same thing for both. It's straightforward to remove {{Cleanup SVG}} if this is merged there. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, in that case, delete per my second sentence above. Nyttend (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and keep as wrapper. If we merge the content into Template:Cleanup image, Template:Cleanup-SVG would still be a handy shortcut for {{Cleanup image|type=SVG|1={{{1|}}}}}. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 May 20. Primefac (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2016_NCAA_Division_I_baseball_independents_standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies with the caveat that the requester actually improve/utilize the template per the concerns raised in the discussion. Primefac (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Chinese aeroengines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused navbox. About half redlinks and no parent article. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Could maybe be kept, but only 5 of the links are actually Chinese made parts, so that navbox has very inaccurate information. --Gonnym (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or trim the navbox is a mess as Gonnym points out. I'm on the fence whether it should be pruned significantly or just deleted; I don't think any useful navigational value is provided at the moment and frankly can't see the utility of the navbox overall for the vast majority of readers. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Already deleted by Fastily (log entry) (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Don't subst (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No reason to warn a user about this problem; it automatically corrects itself as the templates substitute to a transclusion of themselves. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although this template itself was substituted, it has been used, and is an important part of Wikipedia history. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

• delete per the nomination, this automatically corrects itself. No reason for the template and no reason to keep it... An important part of Wikipedia history is not a reason to keep a template. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Bengali cuisine. During the merge, remove redlinks and only keep dishes that are "specific to Bengal" and not general desserts found in the subcontinent. Primefac (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Bengali desserts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused navbox with no parent article. Mostly redlinks Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and add to articles as it's viable navbox. No opinion if the redlinks should be trimmed, but there are about two dozen valid links. One potential problem is that some of the desserts listed are not specific to Bengal, so it might make sense to expand the scope to cover all desserts of the subcontinent (I'm surprised such a navbox doesn't seem to exist yet). – Uanfala (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is a category Category:Bengali desserts which notes Bengali cuisine#Desserts. The template under discussion is much more extensive than these, so is essentially entirely unreferenced. There needs to be some content first - then we can have a template linking things. Nigej (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and use serves an excellent navbox purpose. No reason to delete just because it's unfinished. Helps readers neavigate --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• merge with Template:Bengali cuisine. Frietjes (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 after replacement with {{Infobox settlement}}. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox South African municipality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As anyone following TFDs know, there has been a LOT of contention about {{Infobox settlement}} wrappers. I want to discuss this one in particular with no prejudice towards the other wrappers...

{{Metadata South Africa}} upon which this template is largely based is already in the process of being deleted per this tfd. Additionally, {{Inofbox South African town}} has already been deleted per this tfd. I feel that these show a clear precedent for up-merging this specific infobox.

To be clear, NO INFORMATION will be deleted from the articles. Once the merge is done, from the reader's perspective, nothing will have changed. Any questions or concerns, please {{ping|zackmann08}} Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: South African articles, especially population and racial stats, are a magnet for vandalism. Including the figures directly in the article wikicode would make it harder to detect such changes, or to revert them.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If data is in Wikidata then change detection can be done via a list updated by ListeriaBot. 78.55.28.200 (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if there is a need to keep statistics in a single location for easy updating and to prevent tampering. Moving these statistics to wikidata, as suggested in the other TfD is laborious and it doesn't help with maintaining the long-term integrity of the data. Just a note that the outcome of that discussion might need to be revisited: these ramifications didn't seem to have been explored there, there's no reason I can see that two templates should have been nominated separately, and the other nomination was phrased in a way that implied that the deletion of the template we're discussion now has already been agreed on (and had that been the case, there would have been a much stronger case for the deletion of the other template). – Uanfala (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no such need. Wikidata is there with all its tools if data should not be stored in the article itself, which is the other common method. Storing infobox data in templates is a third practice, but much less common. Doesn't scale well and editors have to learn extra structures. 77.13.232.208 (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace and delete. Per nom. Except for {{Infobox Cape Verde settlement}} and {{Infobox South African municipality}} all of Africa is free of wrappers for {{Infobox settlement}}. Having one system for all of Africa makes editing much easier. Data can be stored in Wikidata, and imported there easily using the tool "QuickStatements". 77.11.129.17 (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace and delete using one standard for Africa seems to be the obvious choice, I visualized the claim of the IP. TerraCyprus (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  

• Replace and delete - consolidation of the different systems will make maintenance easier. Just has been done for the Latvian municipalities - Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_April_16#Template:Infobox_Latvian_municipalities --JelgavaLV (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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