Ok so this is a bit of an odd one... I was the one who nominated this template for deletion and the outcome of the discussion WAS to delete it. So... Why am I challenging? As I started to actually look at performing the conversion, I discovered a lot more about the template and how it worked. Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, a deletion review may be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. I want to be clear, I do not believe that ANYONE acted in bad faith here. Hhkohh I am NOT questioning that you acted in good faith when you closed the discussion. At the time, I obviously 100% supported it. I think the only fair thing here is to reopen the discussion. At the end of the day, I want to make sure we get this right. If anyone has any questions or would like me to explain something more, please {{ping|zackmann08}} and I will be happy to answer! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"I discovered a lot more about the template and how it worked" Perhaps you could share those findings with us..? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: great question. The biggest thing was the discovery of Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Infobox_Finnish_municipality/. While in general I am opposed to the use of templates to store data in this way, right now it is the best solution there is. Until such time as all that data is able to be ported over to something like Wikidata in a more supporting way, I think that converting the infobox will cause more harm than good. Whether or not you agree with that, I strongly believe this point warrants further discussion. In the interest of fairness and transparency, I think we need to hash out that part of the discussion before choosing to delete the template. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there is nothing that needs changing here; there is clearly consensus to not use a wrapper infobox, and it seems like there is consensus to continue to use the data subtemplates. Those two outcomes are not incompatible, as data subtemplates can be passed directly to the infobox, see Template:Metadata Population BE for an example. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: I want to reiterate that I'm not suggesting that ANYONE acted in bad faith here or did anything wrong. I mean I guess I could say that I failed to really do my WP:BEFORE here, but that really isn't my point. To some extent I actually agree with what you said. However, I feel that the best/most fair course of action is to at least re-evaluate the discussion. I don't see any downside to re-opening the discussion with a bit more information. If the same decision is reached, then we move forward and implement it (I'm more than likely going to be the one to do so and I'm fine with that!). I just want to make sure that I do this right. Would you be willing to support a relist so that we can at least further discuss this new information? You and I don't always see eye to eye on these discussions but I have always appreciated the way that you lay out the facts for clear discussion. I'm just asking for a chance to do that here as well. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist This is a unique procedural request, and I don't see any harm in granting it. SportingFlyerT·C 01:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Templates are a highly technical area, and I'm not at all up on the details. But, if the person who nominated it for deletion has changed his mind, I can't see how it hurts to let the people who actually understand the technology talk about it for another week. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a relist given the reasoning. IAR etc. etc. Hobit (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist since the TfD nominator has changed his mind about the deletion nomination. Cunard (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
