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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• List of nominated pages at a sub-page to avoid issues with template limits.

This is a followup to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 9#Link language wrappers where there was a consensus to remove usage of these wrappers but not for deletion. These templates currently have zero transclusions after Monkbot replaced them with ((in lang|language)) and had at most 100 transclusions before the bot ran, most of which had under 10. To give context to just how little use this is that would be just 7 uses a year over the 14 years these templates have been around. That little usage means that no one has them in their normal work flow and would not cause any of the disruption some participants were concerned with back in July.

The reason this would be beneficial is discussed at length at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 9#Link language wrappers and I highly encourage you to read the nomination there as well, but in a nut shell:

• These template split template code across hundreds of pages increasing the maintenance burden each time something has to be updated.
• They also prevent use of several of ((in lang))'s new options such as grouping several languages, capitalizing "in" and linking to the language article.
• They cause confusion with templates named icon not including any icon. This issue was discussed at length in the original discussion with many people seconding this concern.

If you have any questions feel free to ask! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - Hopefully we won't need to rehash the same TfD with the same arguments again. To summarize - these templates (and the ones the nom didn't nominate) were named badly and were designed poorly (or at least, made it to current times with a flawed design). The new implantation works and works well. Please note that if deleted, the matching tracking category should be deleted as well. --Gonnym (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to be clear: ((in lang)) still place the articles in appropriate categories, just with different names to be consistent with the language categories from ((citation)). For ((Ady icon)) for instance the category change from Category:Articles with Adyghe-language external links to Category:Articles with Adyghe-language sources (ady). ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  There isn't any real relationship between between the language categories used by the cs1|2 templates and the language categories used by ((in lang)) – except that the same editor created the category names for both. The categories were renamed because the ((xx icon)) templates did not always associate with links to some non-English source; they were commonly associated with plain-text that described or named a non-English source, so the new category names are more semantically correct.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all for lack of use (note that I would support deleting all of these templates, regardless of their former transclusion counts, once they become unused). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:27, 11 January 2020 (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).

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. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Mr. Robot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN; has four article links. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Jeez. (1) Four article links are sufficient for a navbox. (2) There is potential for at least a dozen articles in this navbox, if you would stop edit warring them into draftspace. Ten dedicated sources should be sufficient for independent notability on each episode. czar 03:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every link in that navbox is accessible from List of Mr. Robot episodes. Potential? Sure. Now? No. Create the navbox when the articles actually exist. Also, note that this discussion is for the template; take the article discussion elsewhere. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

? If you wouldn't continually draftify the articles, they would exist. This argument is a tautology. czar 05:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, take the article discussion elsewhere. Also again, every link in that navbox is accessible from List of Mr. Robot episodes, making this template redundant. A template is not needed for two (or even three) episode articles. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of navboxes is to connect articles that already have some connection to each other, otherwise episode lists would be sufficient for all TV shows. Once you restore to the template the articles you've draftified, there will be no "article discussion" to have. czar 06:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No restoration needed per the article discussion elsewhere (getting tired of saying that). And you're saying you don't want or intend to discuss the issue? Then I guess I have nothing else to say here, and will let others put their !votes across. All the best. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, not needed for so few episode articles. Frietjes (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm sure there's enough media coverage of some of the characters' real-life context to create articles on them. ミラP 03:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, there might be. Do those articles exist now? No. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not enough articles to justify keeping it. QueerFilmNerd^talk 22:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The navbox now contains 4 episodes, 1 list, and 1 parent article: more than enough to justify a template to replace "See also" navigation between the group. Each of the articles has more than enough sourcing and content to justify any unreasonably high stub criteria. And many more articles in the series qualify for this type of summary style split. Pinging participants @QueerFilmNerd, Miraclepine, Frietjes, and Alex 21 czar 11:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  My nomination holds. Out of 45 aired episodes, having 4 episode articles, with only 2 belonging to the same season (one of which is not titled according to NCTV), is still not enough for a navbox. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  And where is the precedent for this proprietary interpretation of our guidelines? czar 11:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The existance of the navbox? WP:NENAN. The multiple wrong titles? WP:NCTV. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  NENAN, an essay, makes no mention of televisions seasons or # of episodes as a proportion of total. NENAN's main point is the "rule of five", i.e., have at least five articles (besides the parent) on which the navbox will be used, which is the case here. NCTV has no bearing on this discussion. I used common names. czar 12:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Not everything needs an navbox. Also, "rule of five" is a not set-in-stone rule; direct quote. NCTV certainly has bearing on those articles; where is the precedent for this proprietary interpretation of our guidelines? -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  ? The articles' titles have nothing to do with whether a navbox is warranted. You've personally cited "rule of five" as a valid heuristic both this year (2019) and last (2018), so to say it doesn't apply now just reads as vindictive. What, then, is the minimum number of independent articles you personally require to withdraw this nomination? Because we're currently at six and the goal posts keep moving. czar 19:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for... stalking my edits? First one: it has 14 articles. Second: it covered a range of different programs, not just one. It doesn't apply now because it's only one series, and only 10% of the series has made it to articles. Rules apply differently to different scenarios.

  I strongly recommend you calling me "vindictive" be stuck else, less it be considered a personal attack, in which case I will know that you have no intention of discussion this civilly. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I found when I searched for TfD precedent on TV navboxes. Its "14 articles" were redirects at the time, per the discussion. I don't know where this "only one series"/10% threshold is coming from, if you can cite precedent/consensus. I'd even take a navbox discussion example where six individual articles were insufficient. I haven't seen such a requirement before at TfD. Questions about your conduct are off-topic in this discussion, but like hell I'm going to edit in the TV space if this is how editors are treated. czar 23:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you did. I wasn't the only one who !voted keep, so I'm not sure why you're making it seem so. Every template is different and every article meets different needs, but by all means, if you want to search for every keep !vote I've ever made, go for it.

Want to keep the navbox? Create more actual articles, and I'll consider withdrawing. Until then, my nomination holds. My apologies for having a different opinion than you. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Navbox now has seven related articles, including five independent episode articles. czar 00:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep at this point. No prejudice to a renomination if the episodes are merged into the parent articles (for whatever valid reason). --Izno (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2020 (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).