Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 21

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 20 January 22 >

January 21 edit

Template:DefunctAmericanSFMagazines 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete, better handled by categories. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DefunctAmericanSFMagazines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The list of magazines that would qualify for inclusion is several hundred long (see here for a reasonably comprehensive list). The resulting template would be far too big to be useful. In addition, this isn't a breakdown that is likely to be of use to a reader -- they might want to see a "1950s sf magazines" template, but not a navbox just for defunct magazines. This should be handled through categories. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comment Seems reasonable to me, although the eventual list of included entries would be smaller, as Wikipedia would only include entries for notable magazines—but I digress. Perhaps the footer can be restructured to include sub-sections for decades, and by default be closed so as to conserve space. Alternatively, a simple family category for defunct SF magazines, sub-categorized by decade, country, and language, may be more useful. --Cast (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I were clear about just what template would be useful, I might create it, but I don't see the best option. I suggested a decade breakdown at the template talk page, but the creator had a reasonable argument against it. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I see this line of reasoning and the lack of alternatives. I now encourage deletion in favor of placing emphasis on categorization. --Cast (talk) 04:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into by-decade templates as this would allow for easy navigation between articles within that decade. Categorization is fine, too, but categorization and templates can exist well together, too. There's no valid reason to simply delete the template. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That was suggested on the template talk page, but the template creator pointed out that it would lead to multiple navboxes on articles that span multiple decades. Astounding Science Fiction would have to have nine, for example. I've just created some categories for the decade in which a magazine was established, but that doesn't seem a very sensible navbox. There is a Template:CurrentAmericanSFMagazines, which I think could be improved, but at least it has a well-defined scope, and captures a set of things that a reader might reasonably want to navigate between. Template:DefunctAmericanSFMagazines is a reasonable set of things for a reader to want to navigate between, but it's just too big. I agree that splitting it is desirable but I don't see how. Mike Christie (talk – library) 21:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the nom; it's currently woefully incomplete and would be very large if completed. Better to just deal with these via categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Tamilnadu Highways Network 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tamilnadu Highways Network (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Way too many redlinks in this template, also WP:NENAN. Admrboltz (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NENAN. Imzadi 1979 → 22:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Dear Admins, i have removed the redlinks from this template. Please check and then let me know if i can remove the Nomination for Deletion notice --KoolKrazy (Talk To Me!) 07:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks fine now. Frietjes (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Maharashtra State 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maharashtra State Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Way too many redlinks in this template, also WP:NENAN. Admrboltz (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NENAN. Imzadi 1979 → 22:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Dear Admins, i think this template should not be deleted, as i am still in the process of collecting new material to write quality articles for state highways in Maharastra state! If needed i can remove the red links and keep only links to articles that are present! The information that i have avaliable is very sketchy and needs more details. The latest information that is currently avaliable is very old (1971 Census information i think!) and i am doing research to find out more. Infact i am personally travelling on many of the state highways myself to map out the information needed. Kindly advice. ----KoolKrazy (Talk To Me!) 07:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Dear Admins, i have removed the redlinks from this template. Please check and then let me know if i can remove the Nomination for Deletion notice --KoolKrazy (Talk To Me!) 07:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks fine now. Frietjes (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Karnataka State Highways Network 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Karnataka State Highways Network (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Way too many redlinks in this template, also WP:NENAN. Admrboltz (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NENAN. Imzadi 1979 → 22:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and remove red links. 9 articles are already there so makes sense to keep the template. Also per WP:NBFILL. --Nayvik (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; remove red links if needed naveenpf (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Dear Admins, i have removed the redlinks from this template. Please check and then let me know if i can remove the Nomination for Deletion notice ----KoolKrazy (Talk To Me!) 07:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Red links removed. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks fine now. Frietjes (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:IFAM 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete as a test page. Airplaneman ✈ 03:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IFAM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, purpose unclear. Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 23:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, per {{db-test}}. According to the log, the template was created by King of the North East with the edit summary: "test, if this works It might be worth keeping". As for the purpose it appears to be used to generate a URL for an Argentinean government website. Being Argentinean, it is not in English, and therefore not useful in the English Wikipedia. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 03:15, 27 January 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Taiwan metropolitan areas 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus, the related AFD appears to be on the path to "keep", but feel free to renominate this if something changes. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taiwan metropolitan areas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The metropolitan area definitions have been abolished by the Republic of China (Taiwan) government,[1] and were artificial constructs to start with (which was part of the reason why they are no longer used). Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Peoria expressways 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. No consensus. WOSlinker (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Peoria expressways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No need for a template for such a small geographic location. Admrboltz (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I fully endorse the nominator's rationale. –Fredddie™ 02:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Dough4872 15:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I also fully endorse the nominator's rationale. Imzadi 1979 → 10:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sounds like a WP:BIG argument to me, but I am resigned to the fact this is going to be deleted. Unfortunately I doubt I can convince anyone to save this, but I will say Peoria has a pretty complex road network for a small metro; there truly is no harm in keeping this. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are a number of roads on this template, all of which have articles (i.e. no red links). This template should stay. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, Peoria does have a rather complex road system for a small(ish) metropolitan area. I see no harm in keeping. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:55, 28 January 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NHLsmlegend 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. The template is unused and its functionality is now fully incorporated into {{NHLsm}}. Ruslik_Zero 17:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NHLsmlegend (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The only difference between this and Template:NHLsm, is that this one links to a WikiProject page with the explanation of all the colors. Given that this one is not used, I would say we can delete it. If we need the linking feature, we can add something like "link=1" to NHLsm to enable it. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The template works as intended, applied just now in first row of National Register of Historic Places listings in Niagara County, New York, but only after i removed the TFD notice from the template:NHLsmlegend page. The template is useful, and may yet see a whole lot of application. What happened was: it was designed and available along with some similar others, and they were to be included in NRHP tables for rows when a listing is also an NHL, but the programmer of NRHP tables was not adequately aware of its availability and neglected to program it in. Subsequently about 2,000 NRHP list-articles were created using that programmer's output. The programmer commented later that it would have been better to use these. At this point, this can be added manually to NRHP list-articles. Further, it was expected that the NRHP list-articles would be brought to Featured List Candidacy, but that has not happened at all yet. (Two NHL-only lists were.) This template is one tool to use in fixing up NRHP list-tables to meet FL requirements while avoiding inelegant, heavy-handed other treatments. Interactions with one or two FL reviewers on heavy-handed key/legend treatment were part of what made the NHL list-article FLCs difficult and/or unpleasant. Use of this tool may help a few thousand future NRHP list-article FLCs go better.
If this were actually to be deleted, i would request that instead it be blanked, to keep as a record. It is part of the early history of the NRHP wikiproject, at the point it moved into tables (when tables first became available), and it should be kept in blanked form rather than outright deleted. The NRHP wikiproject is a significant part of Wikipedia, in fact being more than one percent of Wikipedia by count of articles.
The innovation that this template represents is part of the history of Wikipedia. And, I honestly think it will be used, potentially widely. All the individual NRHP articles are indexed by list-tables, with about 2,450 likely applications of this template possible (for the 2,450 NHLs among the 85,000 total NRHPs). Given this reminder of its existence, i will begin again to apply it in NRHP list-articles. (But the RFD itself makes display work badly, so i need for this RFD to stop.) So, simply, keep. --Doncram (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I put the "TFD" tag inside the noinclude for you. However, I still don't see why you can't add "link=on" or "legend=on" to Template:NHLsm. Merging things makes them easier to maintain. As far as "history" goes, you made both, so there isn't not like your contributions are being forgotten. Creating one of these for every template in Category:National Register of Historic Places templates would be overkill. Just add new features to the existing templates. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here, this edit, makes it so you can just type {{NHLsm|13|legend}} and get the same output as {{NHLsmlegend|13}}. We should do the same for all the "sm" templates. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving the TFD notice within the template:NHLsmlegend, so that the template still functions i think. But now the TFD notice doesn't display, so that kinda defeats the purpose. Not like anyone is gonna notice, though.
There are just 2 pairs of sm templates: NRHPsm and NRHPsmlegend, and NHLsm and NHLsmlegend. Why bother to reduce them. It is a matter of programming style preference, to choose to go with a more complicated combined one. And the gain is just the elimination of 2 small templates. I don't get what is the consideration (to save diskspace? to increase Wikipedia's speed? ) or what driving any wish for change here. Also i am mildly thrown off by this being promoted by a non-logged-in editor (why not log it? I dunno, do i know you? I would appreciate some hint of why an editor would be participating in technical matter like here, not logged in.) Overall, i am inclined against changing anything. Nothing broken, nothing to be improved by change as far as i can tell, so don't fix it. The change proposal is the problem, for me, now. --Doncram (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice Ad hominem. Attacking the proposer is not strengthening your argument. I happend to edit here, which is why I am interested in cleaning this up. Last time I checked there was no requirement to log in to edit here. I found this while looking for Template:NRHP Legend, which is a far better solution. You are correct about the "if it's not broken part". Until I brought this template to your attention, it was languishing unused for over 2 years. I would fully support the removal of my additions to {{NHLsm}}, since the same can be acheived by just passing the wikilink as {{NHLsm|[[WP:NRHP colors legend|13]]}}. This method for alerting the user to the legend is a very bad idea. The difference in appearance between {{NHLsmlegend|13}} and {{NHLsm|13}} is very slight (see the Template:NHLsm page for an example). We should be using Template:NRHP Legend instead. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this sort of linking is very very subtle and can be easily missed by the reader. It is far better to simply present the legend in the article, rather than making a reader click through to get the legend. The {{NRHP Legend}} does appear to be in use, and do a satisfactory job in providing this functionality. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:13, 29 January 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Co-operative banking 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus, the proposed replacement is large and diffuse. A better solution may be to split it into subtemplates, like this one. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Co-operative banking (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Co-operatives Mhiji 17:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a bit of creep in the purported parent template. Wouldn't a better solution be to strip than one down a bit? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Closed down 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. There appears to be some desire to merge this feature to another template, but until that happens, I see no consensus to delete this one. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Closed down (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Redundant to {{Inactive}} Mhiji 17:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, although not entirely redundant, it is unused, so I believe we can let it go. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is probably redundant to either the historical of failed proposal templates. With no takeup that's academic though, as there's no loss in just deleting it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, unused, but it has come close to being used, and in time I predict it, or something similar, will be used. Its purpose is to help in the management of project activities. It is not redundant with any other known template. {{inactive}}, {{historic}}, {{failed}} are not applicable for active, current projects or processes that the greater community has decided, against the wishes of the participants, should be "closed down", or "made inactive", or "made historic". An example of something externally closed down is Wikipedia:Esperanza. Efforts to do similar things are seen at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Valued pictures and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Contents/Outlines. Such things, subject to debates to close them down, are usually debated at WP:MfD where I am a regular. They vary from the big, like Esperanza, to the small. Often, they are not project related, and are appriately deleted. But where the activity *is* project related, and has a history, deletion is not appropriate, they should be closed and archived. Even if this templated is not used, its existance serves a use by being able to show people what outcome (closed/keep, not delete/keep) is being debated.
Mhiji calls it "unnecessary". Yes, but a lot of useful things are "unnecessary"; there is always another way.
If this template is not acceptable in Template-space, then I would like it userfied. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain the semantic difference between marking a proposal as failed or historic and marking it as "closed down against the wishes of its owners"? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{Closed down}}, like {{Inactive}}, is not for proposals. {{failed}}, to which we redirected {{rejected}}, is for proposals that fail to ever gain consensus. {{historic}} is almost suitable, but is not because it speaks of a demise due to inactivity, and of reactivation. Things in backwaters that no one cares about get marked {{historic}}. We have little history of closing project related things down, and no templates particularly suited. MfD seems to be the default forum. Creating this template was an effort by me to provide explicit reference as to what such discussions seek to do. I'm not sure that I'm doing a good job and answering your question? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's what I'm looking for. You've got a case, but I'm not sure that it couldn't be handled simply by extending the scope of {{historic}} to cover things which the community rejected as well as things that they simply forgot about. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but I'm not sure what the community will want to do in future. A consensus to stop something against the participants wishes is an unusual and special event. The issue comes up infrequently. As above, if this unused template is not wanted in template space, I'd prefer is userfied, or redirected, so that I don't lose access to my edits, as they help me remember what I was thinking last time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another "Close it down" discussion, where if it is closed down, there is no currently used applicable template suitable, is live here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Final Fantasy 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was No consensus. Ruslik_Zero 16:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Final Fantasy character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template solely uses in-uniserse information, usually trivial in nature. Often the info is also input without any attempts for verification.陣内Jinnai 22:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Aren't all of the sub-templates of {{Infobox VG character}} like that though? And I also don't think that editors adding unverifiable information into a template is a valid reason to delete said template. That's more of a reason to remove said information from the template under WP:V. Perhaps a complete overhaul of {{Infobox VG character}} is in order. —Farix (t | c) 20:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The addition of unverifiable content is just another reason. The main reason - its completely trivial fictional items that goes against WP:WAF and other items is why its brought up here. Since this is also under WP:SE, it was brought up as we decided it wasn't an appropriate use of a template.陣内Jinnai 16:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:WAF-INFO doesn't exclude in-universe information from infoboxes so long as it is balanced by out-of-universe information as well. Otherwise, {{Infobox character}}, {{Infobox animanga character}}, and {{Infobox soap character}} would be deleted as well. And considering that it is a sub-template of {{Infobox VG character}} and that the parent template contains the out-of-universe information, the limited number of in-universe information added by this sub-template is within line of WP:WAF-INFO. So I really don't see a reason to delete this sub-template except that is is no longer used or is otherwise incorporated into {{Infobox VG character}}. The latter of which will require a complete overall of {{Infobox VG character}} and its sub-templates, which will affect 413 articles. And at that point, it would be better to switch to one of the other character infoboxes. —Farix (t | c) 17:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually it does violate WAF-INFO: "For entities within fiction, useful infobox data might include the creators or actors, first appearance, an image, and in-universe information essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction." Of the items on there only class/job and race might qualify for specific FF titles and as such would be better handled with a more generic VG template or as part of the main one as they are something common to many video games. The other items can hardly be considered to be essential to understanding characters and usually that info isn't verified or is abused or used inappropriately, but even ignoring that and assuming someone does everything correctly it still violates INFO and WP:GAMECRUFT #5 and #6 (character moves as sometimes multiple "special attacks/abilities are listed). There is no reason for this template to exist that would go along with any of our policies or guidelines that wouldn't be better suited with a more concise listing and less trivial info.陣内Jinnai 03:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • CommentI came here through some editor removing the blood type aspect from Template: Fighting game character. Is the information really that trivial if it's verifiable? In the Eddy Gordo article that i'm working on, all parts of the template were verified and the aspects I didn't use were left alone, then today it was suddenly gone. At what point does it not become trivia, when a VG newssite does an article on character heights, weights, and bloodtypes? This deletion as well as the editing of the other templates is unecessary and is only supported by suppositions and assumptions. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • In the case of the removal of blood type, it's actually backed up by a great deal of discussion by the video games WikiProject. I'm happy to see this gone even if I spent a lot of time back in the day working on the framework to make it possible: it's still trivia, and the potential for some magazine to some day publish some in-depth examination of how game characters fit into the Japanese theory of blood types is a very weak argument for keeping such trivia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ax I mentioned, the few items here that might be considered (for this game series) to be essential in some of their games would be the class/job, FE: Class info for FF4 with Cecil could be seen as important since he changes classes as part of the storyline, but in general they aren't that important.陣内Jinnai 19:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • CommentPlease don't be confused with that i'm trying to get the blood type aspect to return, i'm not. I don't have heavy influence in the Wikiproject so I don't expect it to be changed back. But I'd like to know at what point does information become trivia? Your only reasoning for removing the information is that it is trivia, and citing nonexistant conversations to back yourself up. And no, i'm not using some nonexistent article that may be written in the future, i'm just citing that if verifiability from primary sources doesn't allow the information then i'm assuming that you need some article by a 3rd party source would have to be required to convince you otherwise, which to me is bollocks. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • We're not a repository for every bit of factual information in the world. That's why we don't have exhaustive articles for every individual Pokemon explaining all their powers and the like. Our articles cover those details on a subject which can be demonstrated to have general interest, and the way we figure that out is by seeing if a given detail has been examined by secondary sources. If it hasn't it's trivia. That's how we work here. I see from your user page that you apparently reject this concept, but for the moment it's the consensus of the project. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So you're basically applying the WP:N guideline to content, I thought we weren't supposed to do so. Notability is understandable with articles (like your examples with Pokemon, which I 100% agree with) but this is just another aspect to an infobox template, the often overlooked content of the page. Removing it because it's deemed by consensus, which by the way can still change, seems to ignore all the other editors who have not chimed in as well as established things as Trivia by a handful of people. Plus, Infoboxes is the best way to integrate this material, as the guideline says, Trivia sections should not simply be removed from articles in all cases. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections, while others may warrant a new section. Integrating information in the infobox is the simplest way of adhering to this rule. I'm sorry if it's sounding obstinate by me, but I want a black and white answer to the reasoning behind removing parts of the infoboxes. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Infoboxes are not supposed to be trivia repositories. They're at-a-glance summaries of important comparative information which might otherwise be difficult to quickly track down in an article. They are not dumping grounds for any factual data which cannot usefully be added to the article body. Help:Infobox#What do infoboxes do? provides a fuller explanation. You can frame this as "applying the GNG to content" if you want, but there is quite clearly consensus that we do not limit article content (including infobox content) purely by what can be verified. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Clearly they can't be trivia repositories, for information such as "Likes and Dislikes" and "Fictional Alignment" but applying WP:GNG for unchanging material such as bloodtype is similar to me as applying WP:GNG to nationality. I'm not advocating the removal of nationality but it is looking to me that some important material such as height has been left to prose like in the articles of Master Chief (Halo) and Rufus (Street Fighter) which is incorrect, you need all information over a character such as age, nationality, and bloodtype to me this comprises the essential material. As said below, we need to make this a comprehensive encyclopedia but not make it go over the edge. Deciding the line is not left to a handful of people or one editor making a change to a guideline. [2] Like Here Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The changes to Help:Infobox are fourteen months old, and were televised at the various infobox projects at the time: that they remain in place is because they reflect outstanding consensus on the subject. "The line" here was decided not by one particular editor but by consensus at the extraordinarily active WT:VG, and this is merely cleanup action to enforce such consensus. It is certainly not the case that the height of video game characters is undisputedly important anyway; that too would usually be trivia, inasmuch as it has negligible impact on wider perception on the subject and usually has zero analysis from secondary sources. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is the argument is that we must delete all templates and infoboxes which provide a list of elements, because some of which might not be able to be verified for all the times they are used---that would eliminate most infoboxes, including infobox person. Or is the the argument that we can have no infoboxes or template about fictional characters because they amount to article on fiction? Neither makes any sense, I can only see this as an argument that we should have as little coverage of fiction as possible, which goes against the entire idea underlying Wikipedia, that it is a comprehensive encyclopedia , DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So "keep per five pillars", then? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is about a fictional character, not some real-life person and it should not be equated to that or anything else real-life. And this is not that we can't have infoboxes for fictional characters. Read why its proprosed, don't assume that it means "we can't have infoboxes for fictional characters". They can still have stuff listed like name, what series they appear in, creator (if applicable), etc. And, on occasion it might be fine to have some in-universe context. In this case, there is no real-world context and the in-universe context does, for all but maybe 1-2 of those entries, not give a better understanding of the character in context that would be explained more fully in an article that would distinquish them. Those entries are also so common in video games that it would be better to add them to the main template or have them use unser input fields.陣内Jinnai 15:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is already another template exactly for this, I dont see why we need another one specifically for final fantasy characters.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete the problem with this is that it's meant for final fantasy characters (although it's being used with final fantasy related characters too). But they are no different from any other fictional character out there, and shouldn't have a different standard. this isn't really a big problem with in-universe, but the standard for it is still too abstract for the casual reader to fully understand. things such as class/job and skill, and various other fictional aspects that don't seem relevant enough to even be in the infobox such as special attack and special attack type. In the end we are left with home and race....and recently that aspect has also been questioned whether it was significant enough. I believe we should delete it. i could list onto why infoboxes shouldn't have in-universe information....but it seems it has already been said before.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2011 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_21&oldid=1146551716"