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).
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Seems like the main point of contention is the interpretation/reading of the MOS, which is somewhat outwith the purview of this board. If a discussion elsewhere determines that the template is performing an "invalid" function as described by the nominator, there is NPASR. Primefac (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It follows TFD reason number 2: "The template is redundant to a better-designed template" (in this case, it is Template:Abbr, as it has more compatibility with other abbreviations). It also has a # symbol as a number, which fails MOS:NUMERO. Thanks, ThatoneweirdwikierSay hi 13:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replace and delete - replace usages with ((Abbr|No.|Number)) and delete this template which goes against the MoS. --Gonnym (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the nomination is based on a misreading of MOS:NUMERO, "An exception is issue numbers of comic books, which unlike for other periodicals are given in general text in the form #1", and the template is marked as being for WP:WikiProject Comics. Cabayi (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Even still, could we merge this into the Abbr template (e.g. ((Abbr|#|Number)))? Thanks, ThatoneweirdwikierSay hi 14:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To what end? There are 13840 transclusions that will need to be updated so that the end result will be... no difference. Cabayi (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's like having a separate template for every possible abbreviation. It's much easier to use the same template for any abbreviation, including a # symbol for a comic book. In short, it's more for efficiency for the user of the template. Thanks, ThatoneweirdwikierSay hi 15:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A complete misreading of the MoS guideline and ignorance of the actual usages and also of WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN. I'll break it down for you.
MOS:NUMERO: While you correctly quoted the first half which says An exception is issue numbers of comic books, which unlike for other periodicals are given in general text in the form #1. The second half is what is relevant here When using the abbreviations, write Vol., No., or Nos..
Usages: First page in the list is Neil Armstrong, a FA, which has the usage as Flying magazine ranked him #1. The second page is Quentin Tarantino, a GA, which has The film opened on August 21, 2009, to very positive reviews and reached the #1 spot at the box office worldwide. See a pattern of misuse here? Even a FA article is failing the MoS criteria here. I couldn't even find a comic example in the list (I'm sure there are, but every link I clicked was a football player).
WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN: projects that place their banners on a talk page have no special ownership over that page - so even if all usages were for comic-related articles (which as I've shown, it isn't), the Comic WP has no ownership of the template and cannot ignore the MoS. --Gonnym (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gonnym, your own selection from MOS:NUMERO misses the tail of the first half, "unless a volume is also given, in which case write volume two, number seven or Vol. 2, No. 7.".
The project isn't claiming ownership or ignoring the MoS, it's explicitly given a free pass in the MoS, and the tag on the template's talk page serves as an insufficient reminder that its MoS approved usage is exclusively for Comics, and that usage is restricted to comics which use issue # alone, not those which use Vol. & No. Cabayi (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll assume good faith and that you are just missing the main issue here. There is no issue in the MoS with writing X-Men #1, however that isn't what this template does. It uses the abbr tag, which is used unsurprisingly for abbreviations. This brings us back to the MoS which says When using the abbreviations write ((abbr|No.|Number)) . Gonnym (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It also prevents the # being mis-interpreted as wiki syntax when someone accidentally places a carriage return in front of it in so far as it will result in a broken template call rather than a numbered list with one item. Cabayi (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template is clearly being misused in application. The MOS provision might allow for the use of a pound sign in certain instances, but just in the first couple pages of whatlinkshere and you see that it's not acceptable here. Replacement with Gonnym's original suggestion is preferable. --Izno (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 20:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep, but make it equivalent to ((Abbr|No.|Number)), easier to type than the full abbr version. Frietjes (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fully agree with Frietjes. I do however think some effort should be made to catch potential exceptions as Cabayi pointed out. This could be done using WP:PETSCAN and some manual reviewing. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do nothing. It's perfectly acceptable to have dedicated templates for some frequently used abbreviations, like ((c.)) or ((fl.)): they save time typing and make the wikicode neater. I fully agree that it would have been more suitable if the output of this template were equivalent to ((Abbr|No.|Number)), but making such a change now would involve changing not only the appearance of almost 14,000 articles, but also the habits of what must be a large number of editors. – Uanfala (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So basically damn the MoS, editors want their #? Amazing arguments everyone. --Gonnym (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If enough editors want it, yes. The MOS follows editor consensus, it does not dictate. If the consensus across dozens or hundreds of articles is to allow the # sign for numbers in some cases, the MOS must be updated to reflect that, regardless of what a handful of MOS regulars say. Where a consensus forms has no bearing on whether it's is a CONLIMITED, only number of participants. oknazevad (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2020 (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. This deletion nomination appears to be mainly based on concerns that the template in its current form is redundant to Template:Infobox character and encouraging the development of a walled garden of templates. Only one of the keep arguments states a specific reason as to why it has to stay separate and a lot of it is dependent on pointing to arguments made almost 5 years ago (WP:CCC is thus a factor); nobody else appears to have been particularly convinced. Note that this is a consensus for replacing the current template with ((Infobox character)), not simply for plain no-replacement deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This infobox does not offer anything specific and/or necessary to the genre. It's only unique features are a series of auxiliary fields, that are all ready available with the main character infobox. Grapesoda22 (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ((Infobox fictional character)) already handles over 7300 usages, there is no reason these ~300 can't use it. Only reason I didn't merge this before, was because of the anime fandom which I'd be surprised if doesn't show up. --Gonnym (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has the nom looked at the past TfDs for this one? As I said in a previous TfD " No need to replace something that isn't broken. We aren't making anyone outside of our project use the template so why delete it when it is useful to us?" There is also the central issue of IPs adding useless trivia to these info-boxes as excess parameters do exist on ((Infobox fictional character)).
Both of these closed as a consensus to Keep, with the one in 2015 being the same grounds for deletion. What has changed since the last TfD in 2015? This amounts to fixing something that isn't broken, and just creates more work for editors trying to cut down on the unwanted WP:OR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the central issue of IPs adding useless trivia to these info-boxes as excess parameters do exist on - You mean unlike this template's |oaux1=|paux1=|aux1=? Which List of Crayon Shin-chan characters uses for |birthdate= and |age=, yes, I'm sure those are not trivia at all. --Gonnym (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that you would have to know about editing to place those parameters in. The other template has things such as "Fighting style", "Weapon", and "Significant other" as more clear options. This really should be an issue to fix ((Infobox fictional character)) so that additional parameters are optional with proper sourcing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We've had multiple discussions about fixing infobox character and no-one has jumped to it (and I'm one of the ones who wants to fix it). Does someone just need to be bold? --Izno (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is something that would effect a lot of articles so a consensus would be needed on the matter. As for this template the issue of merging has been raised time and time again as well. The nom fails to address the valid points made in the past TfD discussions as well as the one on the template's talkpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My assertion is that I've heard it from multiple people. That's a consensus, even if it's not all in one place. I think we should be bold and go from there. --Izno (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the parameters on ((Infobox fictional character)) would fix part of the issue raised with this template, but there are still lost benefits that need to be addressed here regarding the language barrier. I would suggest taking the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga to address any additional concerns raised both past and present. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue raised in a past TfD is that animanga character supports some of the major fields that need to be filled in for manga and anime up front such as ja_kanji, ja_romaji, native_name, native_name_lang, and/or nonEN. How would you go about fixing that aspect? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused by this statement. That does not appear to be the case going both by review of the template code in question nor in the documentation. Regardless, I would support something like |native name= being added to ((infobox character)), to be used something like |native name=((nihongo|...)) for Japanese names and |native name=((lang|...)) for non-Japanese names. That's reasonably in the realm of acceptable fiction writing to me as the name can/is used for identification. --Izno (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In use on articles, not broken and not causing any problems. Baffle☿gab 08:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Centralizing all of the fictional character templates would help us get rid of the wikt:walled garden (defn 3) approaches to character infoboxes and would help us standardize on a set of good parameters that are okay for all domains. That is valuable and helps move us toward a better approach to writing on fiction. So, I disagree directly that it is not hindering Wikipedia's integrity. --Izno (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge per nom (someone ping me about the KK87 question at 16:17, 5 January 2020). --Izno (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Knowledgekid87's reasoning. The template does not appear to be hindering Wikipedia's integrity, so I don't see why to delete it.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See response to Baffle. --Izno (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 20:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Superfluous and easily replaceable with Infobox fiction character. Colonestarrice (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Izno, who makes the case perfectly. --Bsherr (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2020 (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).
Template:Open 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused template that is currently not being used on any articles. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2020 (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).
Template:Opensourcesoftware
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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to speedy given that I think this is supposed to be ((infobox software)), but I'll leave be given this should close in a day or two. Delete. --Izno (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2020 (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).
Template:Order of the Bath
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).
Template:Orders of magnitude AFD
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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused template that has no foreseeable use on any Wikipedia articles. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2020 (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).
Template:Orthovanadates
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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused template that contains only four blue links and the rest of the links are red links. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as basically an unuseful navigational box. --Izno (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2020 (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).
Template:Osu!Profile
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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2020 (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).
Template:RAN
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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete. Or move to subpage of his and replace all uses. --Izno (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with either of Izno's proposed resolutions. --Bsherr (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the template is used only on Wikipedia:Richard Arthur Norton move list, which shows that all usages are pointing to deleted pages. The template isn't useful (and neither is that page). --Gonnym (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2020 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was deleted previously, as can be seen at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 July 28#Template:Universal Studios Beijing. The reason for this TfD is along the same lines. With the exception of concept artwork, the attraction list has yet to be officially announced. The main items in the template are rides that are based on this speculation. If the result is delete, hopefully there's some way to restrict its recreation for a period of time, say at least 6 months. The park doesn't open until spring of 2021. GoneIn60 (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is the same user (Djtmac558) that created the template last time. Apparently they are ignoring notices on their talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If what is said above is true, then speedy delete, salt for a year and if the editor does this again, he should get a ban for this disruptive editing. --Gonnym (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that the editor has been warned as to this specific recreation, though I would support such a warning. G4 also does not apply here, unfortunately. --Izno (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Izno (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2020 (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).
Template:Oregon Companies talk
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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicative and oddly specific fork of ((Talk header)). Also, almost every use is on talk pages that receive very little activity, meaning it goes against the purpose of ((Talk header)), mainly that it should only be used on talk pages that are frequently misused, that attract frequent or perpetual debate, articles often subject to controversy, and highly-visible or popular topics. The topic of this template is inherently non-controversial, and ((Talk header)) is sufficient for individual uses where Oregon Companies articles may require it. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 20:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Of the 33 talk pages where this template is transcluded, only a few—such as Talk:Nike, Inc.—require a header, and ((talk header)) is perfectly sufficient for this purpose. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2020 (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).
Template:China-based financial stocks in Hong Kong
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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template with WP:OR research inclusion criteria . It also have no update for a while. Not sure the original creator was intended for all Chinese bank and insurance companies that listed in Hong Kong, or else. But in reality the template missed a lot (e.g. Bank of Qingdao, Bank of Tianjin, Harbin Bank, Shengjing Bank and way many Chinese banks that only cover regionally not countrywide) and i am unable to follow the non-existence inclusion criteria to update it Matthew hk (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for many of the same reasons as in the AFD. --Izno (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2020 (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).