Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 December 12

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 11 December 13 >

December 12 edit

Template:Cornwall weatherbox edit

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Climate statistics are not exactly the same across the whole of Cornwall, so this template is useless. Not only that, it is misleading readers to add it to articles. As it stands, it uses an unreliable source to produce data specifically for Truro only. If it were fixed to use a reliable source for Truro, the template would only be of use at Truro, and if it were expanded to display data for all weather stations in Cornwall, it would only be of use at Cornwall and Geography of Cornwall. Either way, why have a template for use in only one or two articles? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2015 (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:San Antonio area highways edit

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. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 16:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better suited by a category. Also see past Valdosta precedent, since confirmed here, here, here, and here, and here. Rschen7754 20:22, 12 December 2015 (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:RPA edit

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. The keep camp is saying that removing PAs is totally fine and no one cares, the delete camp is saying that their removal could be problematic and/or could be better handled by another template (or just words). With no actual procedural/WMF/MOS/etc reasons being given (such as HARASSMENT), it comes down to an ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT split. If ya don't like it, don't use it? (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it is an established protocol, and I've even used it myself - but here's the thing: It does nothing to deescalate a tense situation. It serves as a Scarlet Letter slapped on a person who is already upset. It's only going to increase disruption, not calm it. When people see a post like "I think User:Example is {{rpa}}", it immediately draws attention to a situation, and the person who said {{rpa}} is immediately going to feel that they are being attacked. — Ched :  ?  17:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • indent per Toon: Delete (as nom) — (note also: This is not entirely without precedent: link) Note also: I think if there's something that needs to be removed, it's best to just do so without drawing undue attention to it. (and this has been said by others in much better ways than I have.) — Ched :  ?  17:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An XfD nominator cannot vote on their own nomination, else someone may think two people are supporting deletion instead of one. Please strike it. --TL22 (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's rare that a comment is genuinely so inappropriate that it needs to be redacted (the overwhelming majority of uses of the {{rpa}} template are "someone said something of which I disapprove" rather than "someone made a comment so offensive that it shouldn't be allowed to stand"), and as regards those comments which are so offensive they need to be removed, we should be quietly removing and revdeleting them rather than plastering "hey, look at what I did" templates which just encourage people to look at the history to see what justified the removal. If one can't justify the revdeletion, one almost certainly can't justify the redaction in the first place. ‑ Iridescent 18:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Iridescent sums it up nicely; this template tends to increase, rather than reduce drama. It is far better to pay attention to the substance of posts rather than the style/ pablo 18:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Templating in those (as in many other) situations just inflames things. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly Change Wording to "(personal comment removed)" or "(comment removed)"  ?? DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - How does this "increase" disruption? Personal attacks can be reverted but when they already received a response, this template is more appropiate to use. --TL22 (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't care, but responding to ping. I'll note my recent usages three days ago [1],[2] have neither been reverted nor complained about. Contrast that to the fiasco of AN threads this and that, I'll submit that judicious removal of personal attacks is a far better approach than the overkill of blocking, and subsequent bickering about it, or ignoring inhuman treatment of fellow Wikipedians. Anyway, whether there's a template or not won't actually affect me (I can just type the words manually, ya know?) And why the heck would I waste time asking for a bureaucratic rev-deletion? It doesn't undo the statement; it's the mere act of removing the attack that communicates, simply, this is not acceptable. NE Ent 20:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not voting, but if deleted the template should be subst:ed first, or otherwise it will make a complete mess. --Rschen7754 20:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support this "subst" adjustment. — Ched :  ?  15:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - removing bright-line unacceptable comments is established practiced, and a template like this makes the fact that a removal has taken place clearer to avoid confusion and accusations of stealthy editing of others' comments. LjL (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - although I'd be okay with deleting this template if there was better guidance and agreement on what should be done with edits that attack other editors instead of using this template. The alternatives are a) leaving comments like "he is a scum sucking, brown-nosed, dishonest liar who has an unhealthy interest in articles about children" and dealing with editors who are targeted and are reasonably upset with this kind of characterization or b) delete the content completely which upsets the author of the comment because there are guidelines against editing other editor's talk page comments. And also, with the second option, there would be no indication that an editor's comments had been edited by someone else.
I don't see "do nothing" or "edit other people's comments and don't acknowledge this" as preferable to removing offensive comments and leaving a notice that they have been removed. Yes, if an editor REALLY wants to know what was said they can look at the page history but I still think it's better than the other two alternatives. Liz Read! Talk! 21:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I'd revision-delete that and warn the user, and I'm hardly the civility police. If that's an example of what this template should be used for, then it should go. Risker (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Risker: Without this template that is the alternative option, just delete the whole comment. The problem though is that admin are not always patrolling pages, if an editor decides to remove someone else's comment because they feel it is a personal attack it may cause more drama as well. Im no admin, but I would think that templating personal attacks would make it easier for you guys to find and remove them as templates are put into categories. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the alternative is to remove the comment. The specific example that Liz gave is well beyond a snotty comment. I have never seen this template used in a way that de-escalated issues, changed behaviour, or served to protect the reputation of the person who was supposedly personally attacked. Instead it serves as a beacon to those with prurient interests (and, incidentally, leaves the original comment in the history to be linked to for years to come). Risker (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are both saying the same thing, rev-delete it. I agree with this idea, I am saying though that there isn't always an admin around to do that. If used in the right way this template offers a temporary solution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even when there are admin around comments like these [3] don't get deleted. An editor came along and thoughtfully tagged it with this template but the comment remains, why is that? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Iri. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Iridescent. Before doing so, but subst: first per Rschen7754. Risker (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Iridescent's vote only addresses the uses of this template but not how the template should be used itself. It also only talks about removal of personal attacks themselves but, again, not the template itself. Therefore, it is invalid in my opinion. --TL22 (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
but don't lots of template-for-deletion discussions talk about how the template is used? This templates is used for removal of personal attacks. pablo 06:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst, then delete. I understand the point of this template, but in my opinion its downsides (chief among them the Streisand effect of calling attention to comments that have been removed) outweigh its benefits. 28bytes (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel this template acts as a warning, it also doesn't leave a gap (which removing the bad content would do) in what the person said in their comment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the template is beneficial. It can help someone identify specifically where they have, perhaps inadvertently, lost focus on the content disagreement and started attacking editors. If the templated editor is offended that their words can be seen as a personal attack, that is their problem. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This template is not in fact redundant. Its use is supported by policy. See WP:RPA. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though often misused [4] it does have its place. It can even be used by the person making the PA who has realized the error of his ways. EEng (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Removing bright-line unacceptable comments is established good practice, and this template makes such removal evident to avoid confusion and accusations of stealthy editing of others' comments. -what LjL said.--Elvey(t•c) 04:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And seconding User:Rschen7754 - don't just delete!
  • Keep its useful and does something that can be done manually like this (inappropriate comment removed) or (personal attack removed) which is much better then just editing people comments willynilly with no notice to other readers. Legacypac (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that personal attacks should be removed, but leaving behind a template which says that the "personal attack were removed" only serves to encourage investigation into what the personal attack was and who removed it. If a personal attack is to be removed, it should be removed properly, not leaving behind breadcrumbs to find the personal attack. WormTT(talk) 09:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. It's a useful tool. Can cool down heated debates. Keep discussions on track. Help guide new users. - theWOLFchild 12:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE. --TL22 (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Iridescent. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 21:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change wording to "(content removed)", or something similar. Failing that, prefer deletion to keeping as is. SnowFire (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or reword per above. no need to add extra drama. Frietjes (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Better to use a less aggressive template like {{Redacted}} with an appropriate edit summary such as "Personal attack removed". --AussieLegend (✉) 11:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - It is one of the few remaining useful tools in what is fast degenerating into a much less civil environment. We've already lost "Wikiquette assistance forum", where disgruntled editors could vent their grievances and de-escalate the situation with the assistance of third-parties. We've witnessed the growing tolerance of incivility at ANI and ArbCom, with repeated suggestions to "just ignore it" and "grow thicker skin". I find the OP's concerns about the RPA template to be unpersuasive, especially: "It does nothing to deescalate a tense situation" (because that is not its purpose) and "It serves as a Scarlet Letter slapped on a person who is already upset" ('Scarlet Letter', no, but it certainly should convey a strong reminder message to the attacking editor). Also, in case this wasn't mentioned, the RPA template also directs the offending editor to the Wikipedia Policy on personal attacks, which is its biggest utilitarian function. Edits egregious enough to require revdel will still be revdel'd. Edits which require simple redaction can be handled with the {Redacted} template. But for the all-too-common spurious personal attacks which should be removed, but shouldn't be escalated to noticeboards, the {RPA} template serves a very valuable purpose. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Xenophrenic, can you expand on what difference you perceive between using {{redacted}} vs this template in marking the removal of a personal attack? If it's simply the provision of a link to NPA, I would argue that this purpose is better served by accompanying redaction with {{uw-npa}} or similar on the user's talk page, both to provide more detail and also to provide a space to discuss the redaction / issue without derailing the original conversation. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
{{RPA}} serves to warn the user without starting a separate discussion about conduct. It is therefore less of an escalation than other methods of dealing with the attack (apart from ignoring it, which leaves the culprit free to continue with their behaviour). Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Using a single template, which serves both to remove the offending text and inform the editor of NPA policy, is simply more efficient than using two or more templates to do the same thing. Also, if the "badge of shame" concern is genuine, which do you think draws more shame to the editor: a single localized template at the site of the transgression, or a local template plus a template broadcasting his misdeed on his personal user page, too? I can think of no surer way to unnecessarily escalate what would otherwise be a quickly remedied incident than to billboard the (hopefully one-time, isolated) mistake before that editor's correspondents and talk-page stalkers. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My reason is rather personal. I am being attacked by another editor personally over and over again. After repeatedly removing his egregious comments, the comments are being restored by him. I reported that to ANI and it was closed stating that this is not the proper forum. It seems like there is an overall leniency and tolerance towards uncivil behavior and personal attacks. Deleting this template will further this belief. Usage of this template provides a win-win situation both for the attacker and the attacked. Attacked has an excuse that he/she used a proper procedure to remove the comment and there was a template provided by Wikipedia for this purpose. Attacker gets the same message and also can be satisfied that his/her message, whatever it was already reached to the recipient and there is no need to further display it. I reached this XFD after researching for how to properly address the issue that i am currently experiencing. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks is quite clear. There's no need for such an insult to stare its recipient in the face every time that editor wishes to contribute to the ongoing discussion in which the attack was made. That being said, the template is just the slightest bit unwieldy, so while I have provided justification for removing personal attacks, I still don't know whether a template is necessary for the job. We could just remove something and note that we did so, but on the other hand the template's code is only seven keystrokes and generates a message worth many more. I guess I am leaning slightly towards keep, but I won't be crying my eyes out if it gets deleted. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:15, 7 January 2016 (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:Possilikely edit

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 keep; it seems clear at this point that further discussion is unlikely to yield consensus for deletion or otherwise be productive. Frequent users of the template may consider a move to {{credible}}, in light of NE Ent's suggestion, but either way, the use of a neologism is not a reason to delete something. — Earwig talk 03:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Possilikely" is not a proper word or term, since it had no hits in the Urban Dictionary (see here for reference). A better way to say it is "{{possible}} leaning on {{likely}}". Because this is used in a lot of SPI cases, this would probably require substitution before deleting. TL22 (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Please don't mess with SPI templates and mind your own business. We want to use it because we want to use it, thus there is no reason to delete a useful template. If you want to discuss how CU's report the result of their investigations, discuss at WT:SPI. Please also notify SPI of this TfD. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done (see bottom). --TL22 (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the cooperation. No offense, but I really wish you came to SPI to discuss this before starting a TfD. But ah well, what's done is done, no harm no foul, play on. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Attitude" issues under discussion at AN/I here. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉
"Mind your own business"? Are you serious? What do you think, checkusers, administrators or whoever and their templates are untouchable? This is a community project. Mind your attitude. LjL (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It'll be kept. If folks aren't helping at SPI then the resentment towards those who are interfering will be felt...so yeah, mind your own business and don't try to tell us about ours.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice clique you seem to be. This attitude reflects very badly on you. LjL (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like telling someone to mind their attitude as you did above. My "mind your own business and don't try to tell us about ours" was a response to that.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Rschen7754 20:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change displayed wording or delete if there are other equivalent templates with better wording and names. LjL (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is very useful template and is often used by checkusers in sockpuppet investigations. Not being a proper word is not a reason to deleted. Wording can be discussed separately, but the template is definitely useful and should be kept. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and trout to the nom for interfering rather than being helpful. This nom is not remotely close to improving anything.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being a neologism isn't a valid reason to delete a frequently-used template, according to WP:TFD#REASONS. clpo13(talk) 23:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep, this is (as stated in the nomination) widely used and it doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:TFD#REASONS. ansh666 03:24, 13 December 2015 (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:YouTube user edit

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 redirect to {{YouTube}}. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 16:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template is completely redundant with Template:YouTube. 117Avenue (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{YouTube}} after converting existing instances to use the target template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no need for redundant templates. Jimp 05:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not redundant. It's already a wrapper of {{YouTube}}. Also, 1000+ transclusions. PanchoS (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a wrapper it's not redundant? YouTube user does not have less parameters. 117Avenue (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain. This TfD can be called with just one parameter. How do you get the same result by calling YouTube with just one parameter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian75 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
{{YouTube|user=BritneyTV}} results in the same thing as {{YouTube user|1=BritneyTV}}, {{YouTube|user=BritneyTV|title=Britney Spears}} results in the same thing as {{YouTube user|1=BritneyTV|2=Britney Spears}}. Template:YouTube user does not make the process any easier, plus Template:YouTube has better detection of bad parameters, and is able to remove the link to the YouTube article. Template:YouTube user is redundant to an existing template, and offers no benefits. 117Avenue (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep It is a very useful template, why is this even under discussion? Close this debate now. Neptune's Trident (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is under discussion because YouTube user is redundant to another template, a template that is more useful than YouTube user. Why do you think YouTube user is useful enough for a standalone template? 117Avenue (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{YouTube}} since apparently that template already supports parameters that link to a YouTuber's channel according to the doc. --TL22 (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep (subst then delete, subst then redirect, redirect (in that order)). If its redirected the uses of the template should be fixed first. It seems like a nice wrapper which can be used with just one parameter. Christian75 (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and bar nominator from proposing further TfDs. Agree with Christian75. This is disruptive and if implemented would be a waste of resources. Sick and tired of seeing so many nominations of useful, unique, supposedly "redundant" templates.--Elvey(t•c) 04:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please elaborate on how YouTube user is useful and unique, and not redundant? To me it appears the same as YouTube. 117Avenue (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{YouTube}} after converting existing instances to use the target template. (same as User:Jonesey95) --Fixuture (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect redundant template per nom. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 21:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Redundant per nom. Keri (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now. It seems that the template is already mentioning where it's used that it's scheduled for deletion, so Wikipedians should pick it up and edit the line to fit the Youtube template. After reading up on the details, I agree that the Youtube User template doesn't really offer any advantages over the general Youtube template. Once it's not used any more, it can safely be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurjenb (talk • contribs) 22:42, 18 December 2015 (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: note that prior to redirecting this to Template:YouTube, I substed all mainspace uses of this template. sst✈(discuss) 02:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox animanga character edit

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 keep. I see there is a clear consensus to keep considering the arguments given (on both sides, actually) (non-admin closure). --TL22 (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This infobox is a now-redundant wrapper for {{Infobox character}} that has no unique parameters and merely has different names for its custom fields (like |aux1= instead of |data31=) as well as a couple of others. It also suppresses some {{Infobox character}} fields which WP:ANIME finds irrelevant to the character articles within their scope (I believe these are: |occupation=, |family=, |spouse=, |significantother=, |children= and |religion=). There are around 275 transclusions (some are user pages), but all unique/animanga-specific information (like, um, "dimension") can be easily accommodated by custom fields, like this. I should point out that this template actually had custom fields before {{Infobox character}} did, so in its time I'm sure it was very useful for this specific genre. But that time has passed.

I thought this was a no-brainer but the template's creator and other members of the anime project don't agree, on the grounds that they have had a problem with IPs adding in-universe trivia. This is a problem experienced by most fictional topic articles, and it seems to me that if {{Infobox character}} works for Featured articles and for high-traffic, trivia-magnet franchises like The Walking Dead, I think it's acceptable for animanga. The animanga infobox has functionality that puts articles using predetermined unacceptable fields into Category:Infobox animanga character maintenance, but this is focused on already non-existent old parameters like |blood type= (the one current exception is |occupation=). Again, the Project is touting this as an essential function that, to me, is not. Using |blood type= will not display in either infobox, which in itself should discourage the practice. — TAnthonyTalk 01:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: What I'd like to see with this template or infobox character one should it be deleted, is that it 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 as with template:infobox comics creator above such other default fields such as First appearance AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    {{Infobox character}} supports "first appearance" and the manga/anime fields you mention, if notable, can be accommodated by custom parameters.— TAnthonyTalk 05:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you're missing the point. The native_name and related fields need to be placed above the usual fields such as First appearance. Way up there as with native_name for infobox person AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my previous comments on the talk page. There is no reason to delete the template as it excludes many unwanted trivia fields and has several cleanup checks. —Farix (t | c) 02:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Farix, there is a difference between a "trivia" field and a field that you just don't want included in your project's character articles. The existing fields in {{Infobox character}} have, by consensus, been deemed acceptable across Wikipedia. But I don't think triviality should be your argument considering the type of in-universe information you are including in anime/manga infoboxes, like "Dimension" or "Angel". But this discussion is not to strip any information you deem appropriate from anime infoboxes, it is just to standardize the way you do it. I commented on the "cleanup checks" in my nomination, am I missing something that is actually useful? — TAnthonyTalk 05:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Oppose 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? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TheFarix (talk · contribs) and Knowledgekid87 (talk · contribs). Its fine as it is. JJ98 (Talk) 11:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this might be the wrong forum. Animanga has concerns about {{infobox character}}; concerns which I suspect VG has as well (and which I as a VG editor definitely have). --Izno (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been discussed elsewhere and on the template's talk page, but TAnthony could not find anyone supporting doing away with the template. —Farix (t | c) 20:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheFarix: Yes, and I think there's been some brief discussion on template talk:Infobox video game character or WT:VG at some point. My point is that I think there are a sufficient number of people whom could probably get an RFC together to start removing the excessive in-universe parameters from template:infobox character. --Izno (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would bring this up at WP:PUMP after this closes if you feel strongly about it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I will see about starting an RFC at {{infobox character}}, probably. And only after this TFD is closed, certainly. --Izno (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A movement to alter {{Infobox character}} is fine, but the only way that impacts this discussion is in telling us that the members of the Animanga project really like their template because it suppresses offending fields from {{Infobox character}}, which we already knew. I don't think that changes the fact that these 275 articles should be brought in line with the thousands of others. @Izno:, you and I are usually on the same page, but I'm a little perplexed. The Animanga project's argument that |spouse= is trivia is mitigated by their inclusion of in-universe fields like "Dimension". I understand that, like superhero or video game characters, there are going to be important fields like "powers", and I'm not challenging any of their content. But this template has not been especially designed to create needed parameters, it's a hack to keep fanboys from adding character family members (which I would think would be useful from a navigation standpoint, but whatever).— TAnthonyTalk 15:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm simply suggesting that deletion or modification of this template, over the protest of a concerned set of editors for what I happen to agree are legitimate concerns (c.f. WP:WAF and others), would be the incorrect next step to take. An RFC on {{infobox character}} is probably better regarding the number of character templates we have and steps we can take toward using the single template. That the animanga editors (I'll decline to group them beyond that connotation) have decided to use {{infobox character}} as their infobox's base does not imply that their hacking around the perceived-problems is in itself a problem, nor a problem sufficient to justify deletion.

    I agree that both of the parameters |spouse= and |dimension= may be too WP:INUNIVERSE, but only as a "may" and not as a "do". My opinion, as in my first paragraph of this response, is that this isn't the place to talk about it. (On an aside, the use of custom fields in the wild is just a bad idea and should be stopped--I don't know who thought that was a good idea, but it's not, not least because it creates non-standard infoboxes.) --Izno (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I definitely see your point. I suppose deprecating this infobox wouldn't have even occurred to me if it was uniquely customized, like say {{Infobox Doctor Who doctor}}. But it's not, and I just don't see the value in the variations that do exist. In every discussion I've had about this template, I have maintained that consensus may or may not be with me, but as yet we only have a sense of WP:ANIME consensus. I announced this discussion at WT:ANIME and so far primarily editors from there seem to have commented, including the template's creator. I'd really like to hear from some of the (I presume) non-anime-affiliated editors I see regularly participating in TfDs, like anyone on this discussion page, or SMcCandlish (talk · contribs), Frietjes (talk · contribs) and Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs), among others.— TAnthonyTalk 22:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In reading your comment, I must say you are simply out-of-touch with the community you're trying to affect. "I thought this was a no-brainer but the template's creator and other members of the anime project don't agree, on the grounds that they have had a problem with IPs adding in-universe trivia. This is a problem experienced by most fictional topic articles, and it seems to me that if {{Infobox character}} works for Featured articles and for high-traffic, trivia-magnet franchises like The Walking Dead, I think it's acceptable for animanga. " Unfortunately not. Animanga fans tend to be a bit more obsessive and eager to add trivia than calm fans of mainstream Western entertainment. --DawnDusk (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha you're hilarious, try watching a Game of Thrones article for 5 minutes.— TAnthonyTalk 15:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The argument for changing isn't proving very convincing. It seems to be suggesting that we change one set of issues for another, and I fail to see the benefit in changing to custom fields which would only make it easier for people to add unsuitable fields. I think the debate should be "how can we improve this template" rather than "lets replace it with this one". As it stands this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist aimed at consistency with unrelated topics rather than across the board improvements. Improve? Yes, if needed. Replace? I'm not seeing the need. SephyTheThird (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I'm not seeing any valid arguments for getting rid of it. Based on past experience, I wouldn't be surprised if you had removed it from a bunch of articles before starting this discussion. I haven't looked to see if this is the case, but it wouldn't surprise me. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at contributions I don't see anything but yes past experience has still left a bitter taste. For those out of the loop it involved a widespread flip/edit-spree to {{Infobox character}} from this template before any discussion was held. When confronted about the edits TAnthony said he thought it would be a "no brainer". It was a poor choice in my opinion that I hope isn't repeated in the future for other areas. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • We've established that this template is a shade different from {{Infobox character}}. I boldly started making replacements thinking it was a cosmetic and non-controversial change. You all got your animundies in a bunch. The edits were reverted. We discussed the issue, I told you I would likely bring a TfD to get consensus, and a few weeks later I did, explaining my issues in detail. The discussion has been advertised in every conceivable place an animanga editor could see it and you have all been able to participate. I don't know why you seem to be taking it personally, or suggesting I'm not following the rules, because I am. And at least I'm making an argument. Izno is the only one with a point of view, all anyone else seems to be saying is "leave our template alone, we like it." Oh, and the editor who thinks anime is the only pop culture genre with annoying fans. At least try to make an actual case about what's so useful about it. No one even seems to have done anything with the articles in the maintenance category you're so in love with (Cut to you, emptying the category).— TAnthonyTalk 04:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see editors with valid points other than Izno's here, Angus said you missed a point above regarding native_name and related fields. This template does use custom fields that are helpful to more than one wiki-project. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Angus' point is to redesign the infobox to accommodate (his perception of) the specific needs of animanga (in this case, featuring the native name parameter more prominently. Tintor2 suggests as much below. Like I said above, I'd be more appreciative of this template if it specifically addressed unique animanga needs in the way comics or video games do. My point has always been that derivative infoboxes should only be created when they are accommodating the unique needs of a specific group of articles. Right now, this one doesn't really do that. It's primary "functionality" is, as I've said and Andy Mabbett echoes below, to workaround a generally accepted template in a marginal way. And the reasoning is dubious. No one is forcing "spouse" on WP:ANIME but technical slight-of-hand is just not a practice that should be endorsed. Maybe an overhaul would make it more effective, but I suppose that could be a little tricky if, as I suspect from the varied use of custom fields, different series have different requirements. Anyway, this TfD could close as keep because you rallied around it, but you will still be left with a troubled infobox that you should seriously work on.— TAnthonyTalk 15:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The articles effected in the case of deletion include Anime, Manga, and Video Games so I am not surprised that the group of editors who edit in the area would want to keep the template as useful. As I said before keeping this template will not have a big impact on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We shouldn't be trying to use technical solutions (template forking) for social problems (inappropriate content or failure to discuss and reach consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wouldn't delete it but remove some unnecesary parts from it. For example, check Edward Elric. It says he has two children but they appear only in one panel. Maybe the Video game character infobox would be an example to follow.Tintor2 (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that some of the unnecesary parts can definitely be removed but this is a job for a separate discussion. Some of the fields listed no longer show for example when you try and use them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's entirely redundant with {{Infobox character}}. Parameters not used will not appear (or if they do appear empty, can be changed to stop appearing; infoboxes should not present empty fields).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete, no serious harm in having a wrapper, but it doesn't seem to add much. however, someone should clean up all the <nowiki>...</nowiki> crap inside the wrapper. Frietjes (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2015 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_12&oldid=979003100"