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 template. There is a full library of actual graphics, meaning this template isn't needed to create signs anymore. Imzadi 1979→ 22:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Rschen7754 23:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — never got around to adding {{Trunk-road sign}} to any templates, and it would seem that {{Motorway sign}} is not really used either now, so happy for all to be removed. — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 08:57, 28 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) 04:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regierungsbezirk-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, 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".
Keep. Wrapper works well, low maintenance. I don't see the maintenance burden for this wrapper, just take a look at its history. MarkussepTalk 07:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replace and delete per nom, too much maintenance burden, low number of transclusions. Just look at its history how many superfluous edits had to be made after creation in 2017 and probably there are more issues with that template. TerraCyprus (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The template was created in 2007, not 2017. Before July 2011, it was an independent infobox template. Since then, it has been a wrapper for Infobox settlement. I count 12 edits since then, in 8 years, excluding tfd discussions. That's really not much. I don't see what you mean with "superfluous edits". MarkussepTalk 18:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Are any of the data in the infobox fed from Wikidata?--Darwinek (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, and if there are no specific fields, I don't see any danger in replacing it with Infobox settlement.--Darwinek (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that template it says "Data as of 2017-12-31" for each state. As of 2017-12-31 there were four states that had a total of 19 Regierungsbezirke. The call to {{Population Germany}} could be stored directly in the articles. 77.191.137.244 (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Broken on Regierungsbezirk Frankfurt [1] in Prussia: it says country=Germany and state=Brandenburg, but it was part of Prussia, then the German Empire (in the state of Prussia). Markussep is completely off with "Wrapper works well". 77.191.137.244 (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this wrapper is not meant for subdivisions of historic states. That does not mean that it doesn't work for present Regierungsbezirke. MarkussepTalk 19:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the subdivisions of historic states are present Regierungsbezirke, it does exactly mean that. 77.191.137.244 (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are you trying to say? A subdivision of a historic state (Prussia) can't be a present Regierungsbezirk, because it doesn't exist anymore. MarkussepTalk 20:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your ad hominem claim "trying to say" is not suited for an objective discussion. Try again. And in the second phrase fix "it", by replacing it with "the latter" or "the former". 77.191.137.244 (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No offense intended, I just don't understand what you're saying. Neither Prussia nor the Regierungsbezirk Frankfurt are current entities. MarkussepTalk 20:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is true for the pair Prussia / Regierungsbezirk Frankfurt can be different for other pairs. 77.191.137.244 (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This wrapper can be used for former and current Regierungsbezirke in current federal states. It should not be used for other entities. MarkussepTalk 20:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Broken for the articles on entities in Bavaria: The described entities are Bezirk and Regierungsbezirk, which are different organisations. 77.191.137.244 (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are certainly not Regierungsbezirke of Bavaria. Regierungsbezirke of Bavaria are entities of Bavaria, the articles transcluding the templates are texts in Wikipedia. 77.191.137.244 (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"about" Regierungsbezirke. MarkussepTalk 20:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The connected Wikidata item is about both. 77.191.137.244 (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Undocumented parameter 'key' . Where does the value come from? 77.191.137.244 (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These are official geographic codes of the German statistics office. MarkussepTalk 20:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replace and delete per nom and per Darwinek. Only four federal states seem to have this type of entity and only 19 or 20 such entities still exist. The data is not changing, except for population which is stored in another third template anyway. This third template can still be used later. Replacing will make available all other fields from {{Infobox settlement}}. Also note, that these entities are not established by federal laws, but by state laws, so their characteristics may vary a lot from state to state. JelgavaLV (talk) 19:45, 30 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).
There's a couple issues with this template. For one, orange/yellow text on a white background is hard to read (officially fails WCAG 2.0 AA contrast, but even as a sighted person it's indistinct). Beyond that, the presentation bears no resemblance to actual Dallas Area Rapid Transit station signage. Per the Design Criteria Manual (scroll down to Appendix E, page 307 or so) the station font is some variation of ITC Avant Garde. You can see it in File:DART Parker Road Station 2009-11-25.jpg; black text on a silver-gray background. The default text in {{Infobox station}} is a good deal closer to that presentation than this template. If there's a need for custom styling it can be achieved through the existing {{DART style}}. Mackensen(talk) 02:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - don't know enough about this subject, but as Mackensen is very active with these set of articles, I trust their judgment here. --Gonnym (talk) 22:42, 31 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 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).
Propose mergingTemplate:Papacy with Template:Holy See.
Not sure myself, but perhaps arguments could be evaluated. There's arguably a significant content overlapping. The thing is, part of what's confined to the Papacy template might as well be included in the Holy See template, and the other way around to some extent. If merged, indeed a section "Papacy" with subsections pretty much (merged) retained from the previously merged Papacy template would probably be needed. Again, not sure, though. PPEMES (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The boundaries between the temporal and spiritual aspects of the papacy can be unclear to non-experts, so a merged navbox would probably muddy the waters even further.
The overlap isn't that great. I just checked using AWB's list- comparison tool. I found 98 links on Template:Papacy and 80 links on Template:Holy See, including 25 links common to each page. so
I also just spotted Portal talk:Popes#Requested_move_12_May_2019, which was proposed by @PPEMES and rejected. After reading both proposals, I very much doubt that this topic is PPEMES's greatest area of expertise. I suggest that it would be wiser to leave these matters to those who do have some specialist knowledge. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. They are two different things; one is a sovereign entity under international law, the other is not. Mannanan51 (talk) 17:34, 27 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. No prejudice against recreation if more reasonable bluelinks are added. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason based on a policy or guideline presented. This did at one time have other links, but they were removed. One of them was removed by Woodensuperman without comment, which is exceedingly bad form generally, but especially as (s)he then went immediately on to nominate this for deletion. Whether this is relevant or not I don't know, but: This navbox links together the articles contained in a featured topic, which is something favoured by the featured topic criteria. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NAVBOX, this is unnecessary, as the articles are already well linked, and you can already navigate between the two albums by the infoboxes on the articles. There is no place for an album in a navbox on which she made a guest appearance on one song, which is why that was removed. --woodensuperman 08:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please quote the passages of WP:NAVBOX that you are referring to when you say that the article is "unnecessary" and there's "no place" in the navbox for the link in question? I have read the page, and I am seeing nothing supporting what you are saying. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing the two statements. Per WP:NAVBOX, this navbox is unnecessary, as the articles are already well linked. Appearing on one song does not mean that the album forms part of someone's primary discography, which are the only links which are acceptable here. Honestly, this navbox is a waste of space. See WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 12:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is very difficult to communicate with you when you refuse to make direct reference to Wikipedia policies or guidelines, whether we're talking about a "waste of space" or not. I am going to ask some direct questions; if you refuse to answer them, I will disengage. If I do disengage,I ask the administrator closing this discussion to take into account my good-faith effort to engage with you. Please quote the part of WP:NAVBOX that says that "this navbox is unnecessary, as the articles are already well linked". I cannot see it. And please quote the part of WP:NAVBOX (or any other relevant guideline or policy) that says that "someone's primary discography" makes up "the only links which are acceptable here". If you do not know where Wikipedia guidelines or policies say these things, please retract your comments. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete, the three articles are already well-connected. Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 31 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 template was deprecated unilaterally last year, and is used on about 100 articles. Functionally, the template currently just adds <br> to the start of the input, and could easily be replaced through substitution in a few minutes. I would support keeping the template and possibly improving it with TemplateStyles so that it can use <p>...</p> without causing a large gap between lines, but (as suggested by SMcCandlish) I am procedurally nominating it for deletion to assess whether there would be consensus for improving the template instead of replacing the template through substitution. (If the template is kept in its current state then I would support deletion.) Jc86035 (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning delete, absent a showing that we need to keep and refine it. I'm not opposed to it being kept if the need can be established and the coding for this gets done. I'm not sure what the use case(s) is/are for such a version, or I might just go do it myself. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 12:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: If it's perfectly acceptable to use the plain br tag for the specific purpose then I would probably lean towards deleting as well. On the other hand, in other situations (especially discussions) it would be nice to have a line break which inserts a <p> with less paragraph spacing. Jc86035 (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well, this doesn't really seem to be a discussion-page-oriented template, but intended for mainspace. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The template is useful in organizing cast lists and was working fine.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TriiipleThreat, Adamstom.97, and Brojam: While on a functional level the template make the wikitext slightly more readable by allowing for line breaks in the code, it is also possible to use a generic template like {{break}}, and it's even possible to insert a line break character within a <br> tag (although using the former would probably be better since AWB genfixes and similar tools may perform <br> tag autofixes). Alternatively, a hidden comment could be used. Since the vast majority of film articles don't use this template, there's not much point in keeping it just because the template has this easily replicable functionality. Jc86035 (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This template is not the same as <br>, that is my whole point. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamstom.97: On a functional level, the only thing the template actually adds is the <br> tag, so the only purpose the template really serves is to make wikitext more readable. A replacement will not make the wikitext any less readable, because line breaks can be inserted with other templates which are more widely used. Jc86035 (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this template was introduced after significant discussion because it was the best option for making detailed cast lists more readable. None of the opposition here appears to have addressed this. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per TriiipleThreat and adamstom97. - Brojam (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete, just use <br />. Frietjes (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No one voting keep has explained why cast lists should use this specific template instead of more general options like {{break}} or <br />. Jc86035 has suggested that this could be used to create thinner paragraphs, but I don't see any problem with the current paragraph layout. Retro (talk | contribs) 19:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:@TriiipleThreat, Adamstom.97, and Brojam: Correct me if I'm mistaken but you seem to be arguing to keep the template because the status quo works fine. But those voting delete are not disputing that this template works; they're simply suggesting it be replaced by more general markup like <br /> or {{break}} because as currently implemented, all {{cast list break}} does is insert a <br /> between lines. To make a convincing case for keeping {{cast list break}}, you have to argue what specific purpose this template could serve that other markup or templates don't. Retro (talk | contribs) 19:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have found the original discussion that led to this template's creation, which is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 65#Cast list gaps. As you can see, other options, including <br>...</br>, were considered but either caused accessibility concerns or major visual concerns such as not allowing images to be included in the cast section. Having a simple and clearly defined template was also considered to be a bonus. As I said in my original comment above, no one opposing the template has addressed the concerns laid out in the orginal discussion, so for now I stand by my vote to keep. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This image is being used in a list item which contains a line break.@Adamstom.97: {{break}} was not considered at all in the discussion. I haven't reviewed it thoroughly, but regardless, that discussion can't override a consensus from this discussion. As far as I can tell, there are no accessibility concerns (it is semantically valid to split a bullet point using a <br> tag) and a line break tag does not prevent the use of images within list items. Having a clearly defined template may help, but the template is not very widely used to begin with and a redirect from a meaningful title to a less specialized template would be able to serve roughly the same function. Jc86035 (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Discussion still ongoing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient complexity of markup to warrant a template. * Pppery *it has begun... 11:37, 30 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).
Unused template (outside of two talk page notices from years ago); the function of this template can be handled better by {{jct}}, which will display graphics that use the actual typefaces from British roadsigns. There is a graphics library already in place, so text-based recreations such as this are not necessary. Imzadi 1979→ 02:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Rschen7754 02:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was a promising development when I created it ten years ago, but I am pleased to see it overtaken by better technology. Certes (talk) 09:52, 27 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).
Comment: @TriiipleThreat, Adamstom.97, and Brojam: Correct me if I'm mistaken but you seem to be arguing to keep the template because the status quo works fine. But those voting delete are not disputing that this template works; they're simply suggesting it be replaced by more general markup like 
