The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 January 24. Primefac ( talk) 01:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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,
Thatoneweirdwikier
Say hi 13:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
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..
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).
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)
When using the abbreviations write {{abbr|No.|Number}}. Gonnym ( talk) 17:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
|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)The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Unused template that is currently not being used on any articles. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 16:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Unused template. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 16:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 January 19. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 17:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Unused template that has no foreseeable use on any Wikipedia articles. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 16:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Unused template. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 15:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Apparently created by now-indeffed User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) while logged out. Serves no perceptible useful purpose. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 15:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 January 24. Primefac ( talk) 01:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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,
Thatoneweirdwikier
Say hi 13:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
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..
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).
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)
When using the abbreviations write {{abbr|No.|Number}}. Gonnym ( talk) 17:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
|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)The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Unused template that is currently not being used on any articles. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 16:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Unused template. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 16:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 January 19. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 17:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Unused template that has no foreseeable use on any Wikipedia articles. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 16:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Unused template. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 15:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Apparently created by now-indeffed User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) while logged out. Serves no perceptible useful purpose. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 15:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
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)