Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 21

January 21

Template:Nihongo-s

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 relisted on 2020 February 2. Primefac (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Nihongo-s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:Iranian rock

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 relisted on 2020 January 31. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Iranian_rock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:A.R. Kane

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. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Template:A.R. Kane (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has been nominated many times. Discussions in 2013 and 2015 were closed as "no consensus".

2017 had three "keep"s but all three were just "it's fine" without any policy based reasons.

This is a clear-cut WP:NENAN as it navigates a whopping two articles, each of which is sufficiently interlinked, and the latter of which only barely seems notable. Even counting the collaborative song there are still only three, which is way short of the precedent of 5 established at WP:NENAN. Can we just get a proper consensus on this already? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - this is now the fifth time that TPH has tried to nominate this template for deletion. I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. Your nomiantion is also misleading (and if I was a cynic I would say deliberately so), it actually navigates to five relevant articles and meets WP:NENAN. GiantSnowman 18:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• @GiantSnowman: How are you getting five out of this? I only see two albums, and then three if you count the collab single. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

1) 69 2) i 3) Pump Up the Volume 4) MARRS and 5) Colourbox (and now 6) New Clear Child per Gongshow below). GiantSnowman 22:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. I just created an article on another of this act's albums. The template navigates a sufficient number of articles, in my view.  gongshow  talk  21:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral Fifth nomination? Over what timeframe? If less than a year, then yes, WP:DROPTHESTICK may be apt here. If over 5-10 years, that's not necessarily problematic, since consensus can change. Nevertheless, I can't really see this under-populated navbox being useful or needed. Can we not substitute it at the bottom of the three or four articles and delete it? --Doug Mehus T·C 01:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus: - nominations in May 2013, July 2013, January 2015, June 2017, and January 2020. And no, it's not normal to subst navboxes. GiantSnowman 10:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

GiantSnowman Just because something is "not normal" doesn't mean we can't do it since we have no rules and Wikipedia is not a not a bureaucracy. If the editors of the related articles like having it for navigation purposes, but there's too few articles to maintaining it as a template navbox, then substituting is reasonable. Nevertheless, I re-affirm my "neutral" stance as I see no real strong reason for deletion or keeping here. Doug Mehus T·C 14:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

By "not normal" I meant "I have never seen that before and never want to see it". There are six articles and that is more than is required per the nominator's own comments. If you subst then what happens when you want to expand? Why would you have so much code on an article? GiantSnowman 16:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, I see four articles on which this navbox could be plausibly installed on. If and when this musical group has more albums, then it could be re-created. Deletions at TfD are without prejudice to re-creation. Nevertheless, like I said, given how this small navbox is, I can't justify a keep vote. However, I can't also justify deletion. Not to worry, though, I suspect this will close as "keep," with only a small chance of no consensus (which would mean it'd be kept). Doug Mehus T·C 17:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Six, actually, not including the parent article. But who's counting? GiantSnowman 17:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, I wasn't counting the two in parentheses. Hadn't checked. Still, it's very small; can't justify a solid keep rationale. Can't justify deletion either. Doug Mehus T·C 17:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• keep per WP:NENAN: it connects 6 articles per "what links here". Frietjes (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

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).