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).
unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per discussion at
WT:FOOTYFrietjes (
talk) 19:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Can we have a link to the actual discussion on this.
Keith D (
talk) 21:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)reply
sure, as far as I can tell, the discussion started
here. this is mentioned in a link in
the documentation. there were follow-up discussions
here,
here,
here, ...
Frietjes (
talk) 22:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 09:01, 18 July 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).
This band's navigational template consists of nine articles: the band's, three members and five related bands that should be removed. With no notable albums or singles, there are not enough articles to justify having a navigational template and
WP:NENAN.
Aspects (
talk) 05:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
kingboyk (
talk) 19:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, insufficient articles to require navbox. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 17:51, 22 July 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 per this and the prior discussion
Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
kingboyk (
talk) 18:48, 17 July 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).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
kingboyk (
talk) 18:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Support Duplicate templates. One of the templates is also orphaned. --
Trialpears (
talk) 15:51, 26 July 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) 00:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Municipality of Brazil-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.
Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country".
turquoise: 1 Infobox settlement wrapper and that having less than 10000 transclusions and optionally Infobox settlement (light 0-99, medium 100-999, dark 1000-9999 transclusions)
blue : >1 Infobox settlement wrapper and optionally Infobox settlement (light: 1 wrapper [>10000 transclusions], medium : 2 wrappers, dark : 3+ wrappers)
red : other infobox(es) (light: 1, medium : 2, dark : >2 infoboxes) and optionally Infobox settlement and wrappers
Keep, see also earlier discussions on Infobox German location, Infobox French commune, Infobox Albanian settlement etc. Infobox has country-specific code, for instance automatic time zones if state is given.
MarkussepTalk 08:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Warning : "automatic time zones if state is given" - this "feature" leads to misinformation, since in Brazil time offset is not determined by the state. It also does not make sense to have code to determine the time offset only available in the municipality infobox, cf. the table above.
78.55.36.165 (
talk) 00:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: Please note that Markussep created that template 18:41, 13 October 2015, against established practice for Brazil, which was to use Infobox settlement / Infobox Settlement, cf.
edit on Xapuri from 2008.
78.55.36.165 (
talk) 00:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Replace and delete per nom. Great idea! Good to get back unity in Brazil and to have only one template for all of Latin America. The timezone code does not work correctly anyway and this topic should be solved in Infobox settlement, not in wrappers and forks.
JelgavaLV (
talk) 20:10, 25 July 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).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Primefac (
talk) 16:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Minimal content for effective navigation at this time not already included in main article. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:18, 24 July 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).
Not helpful for navigation. This could be accommodated somewhere else.
Störm(talk) 03:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep: I have reason to believe that {{ICC Cricket World Cup}} would not be a suitable replacement for use in articles about the national teams. {{ICC Cricket World Cup winners}} is very similar to {{FIFA World Cup champions}}: it allows navigation between the champions without having to list everything about the tournament, of which some may be irrelevant. --
Minoa (
talk) 09:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
kingboyk (
talk) 04:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep I see no reason to delete unless someone comes up with a better replacement.
BLAIXX 18:09, 23 July 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 images from the IoE site have not yet been transferred to the NHLE site. Some images have been added by users to some items on the NHLE site. As far as I can see each individual one will need converting as the identifiers on the 2 sites are different. [As an aside I am slowly converting bare linked and other cite templated usages of both sites to use the appropriate template so it will be easier to do any change necessary]
Keith D (
talk) 18:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Thanks - I thought it worth bringing up formally here in case anyone knows of a programmatic way of converting IoE ID numbers to NHLE numbers, and to avoid manual solution!
Cnbrb (
talk) 19:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Deprecate and replace with National Heritage List for England where possible with eventual deletion. Since the site is going down, this will eventually need to happen. It is always a good idea to have this get an "official" TfD result and kept in the Holding Cell and not forgotten and lost. --
Gonnym (
talk) 19:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment May be worth contacting HE to see if they can give a date for closure and when all the images will be available on the NHLE site. They may also be able to supply a cross reference list of IoE verses NHLE number.
Keith D (
talk) 19:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment On the latter point, it's already possible to
download NHLE data, which includes the current reference and the legacy reference number used by IoE (or at least did, when I downloaded it). Obviously newly listed buildings won't have a legacy ID.
Dave.Dunford (
talk) 12:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment There are problems with template expansion limit on the list pages - it may be time to revert {{NHLE}} template to not use the wrapper invocation as I expect this adds to the expansion size.
Keith D (
talk) 19:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment I've emailed HE and have gotten a CSV file associating IoE refernces with their new NHLE numbers. The data was correct as of 2011, but there may have been some changes made after that. I will start a bot request to get a bot fixing this before they disable IoE in early August. --
Trialpears 18:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
kingboyk (
talk) 04:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Support The bot is coded. Ping when ready to run. --
GreenC 15:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Support I guess I should actually support this as well so we can actually get a close this time and the bot can run before the website goes down. --
Trialpears (
talk) 15:44, 25 July 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.
Fenix down (
talk) 12:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)reply
This template isn't needed as all of the info is already in the main football template article.
HawkAussie (
talk) 01:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
HawkAussie (
talk) 01:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 14:28, 17 July 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).