Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 21

< January 20	January 22 >

January 21

Template:Nihongo-s

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

Similar to the Nihongo core TfD. This has 6 transclusions which can be changed to either {{Nihongo}}, {{Nihongo2}} or {{Nihongo3}}. Gonnym (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support whatever Trialpears or Pppery suggest as I'm afraid I'm not really understanding this template's purpose. It does seem under-utilized, so if this can be substituted and deleted, I'm fine with that. However, if TP or Pppery see it as being useful and worth keeping, I support and trust their analysis. --Doug Mehus T·C 01:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of template is very far from my area of expertise, so I won't make any comment on its merits. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pppery, Thanks for the reply. My comments above can be construed as neutral then. Doug Mehus T·C 02:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks redundant to me, but I would appreciate input from Trappist the monk who wrote the current module version to confirm this. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iranian rock

Template:Iranian rock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Created by a serial hoaxer, and made up of a number of the hoaxes they created. I think it was created merely to lend credence to their hoaxes. While this could be a useful template, I'm afraid it warrants a WP:TNT due to the circumstances of its creation. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CaptainEek, I don't know what you mean by "serial hoaxer." Nevertheless, what's wrong with this template? If it's related to the articles themselves, those should be AfD'd. I personally don't subscribe to the "delete everything of a sockpuppet" ideology. I think it should be case-by-case. I don't see a clear enough case for WP:TNT. --Doug Mehus T·C 01:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:A.R. Kane

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)[reply]

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. Giant Snowman 18:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]