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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template has no practical applications. If an article is believed to be based mostly or entirely on a hoax, it's usually nominated for deletion. If it's only partly based on a hoax, a common refimprove tag will suffice. It's used on just two mainspace articles at the moment, one of which is also proposed for deletion. eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I check this template regularly in transclusions, and either it's a drive-by tagging with no obvious hoaxery in sight (for instance, I saw no misinformation in Lock Up (American band)), or something so patently wrong that it should've just gone to AFD in the first place. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it should only ever be seen in use rarely, since anything tagged with this should come to the attention of editors for immediate cleanup, thus removing the tag form use quickly. Also, if a section/large amount of text is a hoax, no IP editor can remove such material, since a bot will come along and give you a vandalism warning for section blanking, or some edit patroller will do the same, and then explain why IP editors should never remove large amounts of material regardless of you thinking it is a hoax or not. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In my experience this tag serves a function. What TenPoundHammer says shows that it works: it points to problematic of a certain kind (possible hoaxes) articles that a more experienced editor or more knowledgeable editor can then process further. Debresser (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it makes the tagging redundant. Slapping a ((hoax)) on something you believe is a hoax is just template cruft. If you have proof that it might be a hoax, why not just save a step and take it straight to AFD? Or if one part is true and one part is hoax, just cut out the parts that you think are hoax. There should be no reason to retain an article if you think any of its content is misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Keep, partially per 65.xx. (I'd never even thought about the IP implications before.) Hoaxes do more to undermine Wikipedia's credibility than almost anything, and any article that is suspected of being a hoax or containing fabricated material should be clearly marked as such. In the case of a wholly made-up article, throwing a ((hoax)) after the AFD template is perfectly acceptable—we shouldn't assume readers will check out the AFD just because they see a notice. And then consider a case where you're reading and stumble on an article where a section strikes you as suspicious; you do some research and can't find anything to back it up. But you don't know enough about the topic to say so confidently, so you tag the section with the template, and initiate a discussion on the talk page.... Clearly it's not a template that is meant to be frequently used, but when it does need to be used, it can serve as a strong sign of our commitment to reliability. (((Copyvio)) [links] is another template that comes to mind in that category.) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 07:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I would think that letting a hoax sit around, even with a tag, would do more damage. Because in that case, the misinformation is still around to be seen, instead of being shot down more quickly by AFD or removal. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And what about if a long-term contributor is being investigated for possible fabulism? Tagging the relevant sections or articles provisionally during the noticeboard discussion? Furthermore, as I said, there's no reason you can't add this template to an article that's at AFD (indeed, I've done so on at least one occasion); after all, you wouldn't remove a ((refimprove)) just because the lack of citations is raised at AFD. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the point of adding it if the article's at AFD? If it is a hoax, it'll be gone in a week and the visibility of the template will be minimal at best. And when was the last time we had a serial hoaxer? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We probably have one or two right now. We just won't know about it for a few years. (I don't really understand the rest of your comment. As I said, I don't think this template needs to be frequently used; rather, it's something that should exist for the occasional circumstances when it's useful.) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - if an article is a hoax, then tagging it with CSD is much more useful. If a section is a hoax, then remove it with rationale in the edit summary. Bots aren't as on-the-ball as you might think and the threat of being reverted by a bot is minimal and not enough reason to keep a template. GiantSnowman 08:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try doing it without logging in. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What I said in the previous TfD applies just as well here. Well-meaning but ultimately ill-advised. Flagging something as a hoax is a serious allegation, and it's no more appropriate for someone to flag an article they believe to be deliberately untruthful with a mere cleanup tag than to flag a sentence identifying Bill Clinton as a Botswanan nuclear scientist with a ((citation needed)). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree that this template does indeed serve a purpose. An AfD tag could mean something other than it being a hoax. This tag would clarify to readers that a concern has been raised that it may constitute a hoax. Even if the visibility of the tag is minimal, it is still good to have one, just in case. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree that images AND articles can be a hoax. Homestar Editor (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure they can be hoaxes, but the question is whether or not this template would serve a purpose, in which case, I think it does. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If something is not blatantly or uncontroversiallly a hoax it should not receive a PROD or CSD. If AFD is applied the reason for the AFD is not shown in the article. So, with AFD or talk page discussion I can imagine situations where a tag on the article may be appropriate. I say this even though I generally dislike article message templates and especially ones put on by Twinkle. Thincat (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2013 (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.

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems to no longer be in use. Only used by this page, which seems to be an abandoned sandbox/test. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2013 (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.

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IIHF rosters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Information is included within Template:Ice Hockey World Championships. No need to have two templates with the same info on every page. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Expand to cover all IIHF rosters, not just Men's rosters (such as 2012 IIHF Women's World Championship rosters, etc) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's already covered in the Template:Ice Hockey World Championships but i kind of like the suggestion above me also. Kante4 (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, redundant. Frietjes (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2013 (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.

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blood Has Been Shed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 18:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are 5 articles, and all of the articles do not link to one another without the navbox. If needed, I will describe which ones do not link to one another (Note: this navbox was created over one year ago, well before the RFC against me). --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2013 (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.

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Beyond Fear (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN just two musicians and one album (as related articles do not count towards the number of relevant links) The Banner talk 18:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We are referred to an essay but I don't understand why. The only reference in WP:NENAN to "related articles" is in its own ginormous navbox. Indeed, the WP:NAV guideline says "Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles". Is the template useful and reasonably harmonious with WP's general style? I would say yes. If the editors of the relevant articles think it is a disadvantage they should remove the transclusions. Thincat (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2013 (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.

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NENAN (as related articles do not count towards the number of relevant links) The Banner talk 18:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Navbox has one musician, two albums, two singles ("A Better Love" and "You Bring on the Sun" also ranked top 20 on Germany Media Control Charts) and one discography page. How does this NOT meet NENAN (Note: this navbox was created over one year ago, well before the RFC against me)? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • wow, you really count covers as relevant links? The Banner talk 03:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Similar to Template:Sonny Throckmorton, I count this cover and others as relevant links, as people may wish to know more about other works from Londonbeat. ASSUMING that this does not count, the other five links satisfy the rule of five. So I ask again the question that was already ignored, how does this NOT meet NENAN rule of FIVE? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Oh, what a place TFD is which I've just arrived at. I'm copying my remark from above and then going somewhere else where I hope the weather is better. We are referred to an essay but I don't understand why. The only reference in WP:NENAN to "related articles" is in its own ginormous navbox. Indeed, the WP:NAV guideline says "Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles". Is the template useful and reasonably harmonious with WP's general style? I would say yes. If the editors of the relevant articles think it is a disadvantage they should remove the transclusions. Thincat (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2013 (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.

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 18:49, 8 May 2013 (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.

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) 04:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Color Me Badd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN not enough articles to warrant a nav box The Banner talk 18:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added 3 singles by the group that do have articles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Request speedy closure as keep Template has now enough relevant links. The Banner talk 22:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - CMB has had 3 albums and 3 singles for quite some time. Another example of poor research prior to AfD nomination (Note: this navbox was created over one year ago, well before the RFC against me). --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonsense, Jax, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars has added three links for you. So it was still a bad template failing WP:NENAN. Don't blame others for your own failings. The Banner talk 03:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - Per WP:TOOSHORT, "research of the term should be conducted prior to a deletion proposal to examine if additional information can be found". Additionally, the template had FIVE links (including Color Me Badd) before the NENAN rule of five was modified to exclude the parent article. Taking both of these articles into consideration, this template should have been expanded instead of sent to TfD. Yet another example of not paying attention to what I have written. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here he goes again. Maybe I asked for closure of Jax's RfC too soon. Why are you arguing for something that Banner asked for a speedy close? FWIW, the NENAN rule of five never included the main article; that's just how Jax incorrectly interpreted it, which was then clarified not modified. All of this is moot now anyway — move along. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The navboxes that I have created since the inception of the RfC have been complete and appropriate, and I don't believe that I am in violation of the RfC here. This navbox should never have been nominated in the first place per WP:TOOSHORT and WP:POORLY. Can you prove that "the NENAN rule of five never included the main article"? This was not proven at the TfD for Template:Brantley Gilbert. I am in favor of preventing TfD on templates that should not be there, which has happened all too often. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2013 (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.

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Global Leadership Program for 4 Jesuit Universities in East Asia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no parent article asserting notability of the grouping. Frietjes (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2013 (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.

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data Unknown (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This was a template deleted in 2007 and recently recreated. Old discussions at WT:Manual of Style/Icons and WT:WikiProject Flag Template led to the consensus that invented images should not be used in the same context as real-life flags. The MOS indirectly states this with Do not distort icons and Do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas. (To be honest, I think the MOS could be a bit more explicit with examples here.) In this case, the template would render (using File:Flag of None.svg) when used with ((flagicon|Unknown)). Instead, the preferred solution is to use ((flagicon| )) (i.e. no parameter specified), which produces a transparent blank space (i.e. →←), which is a much cleaner presentation for instances where a flag is unknown or unavailable. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the person who recreated this template and requested its undeletion when User:Andrwsc speedied it. My position is that having File:Flag of None.svg () is less obtrusive in tables in such where a flag image is missing than ((Expand section|date|reason=Missing flag)) is and informs people that there "should" be a flag there and if they can find one, please upload it or fix the template call so that it pulls the flag that belongs. Technical 13 (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know why you think ((Expand section|date|reason=Missing flag)) would ever have to appear in a table. That is a red herring argument, since none of the flag templates generate that markup. ((flagicon|)) produces a very unobtrusive transparent blank space, which is preferable to some faux flag. Compare the following. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nation	Name
	Joe Bloggs
	Unknown
	Unknown

I think a clear distinction needs to be made between things that have no flag, and things that have a flag but the person doesn't know what flag it is. No flag ≠ Unknown flag. Technical 13 (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nation	Name
	Joe Bloggs
	No flag
	Unknown

(edit conflict; I was just about to make this point!) Further, I think you are confusing two concepts where a flag placeholder might be needed:

1. We don't have a Commons image for the flag, please upload one.
2. We don't know the nationality of the tagged item.

We actually already use File:Flag of None.svg in the first case, but currently in very few instances (e.g. ((flag|Tacuarembó)) for  Tacuarembó). There really are very few flags that are needed in icon form on Wikipedia for which we don't already have a country data template. But for the second instance, I assert that a visible placeholder is deceptive and confusing. We haven't needed an "Unknown" flag template since it was first deleted six years ago; we don't need it now. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, Mouse over "none" and "unknown" flags... That is what I think should be there. We have all kinds of tags to let people know that something needs to be improved on the page, why don't we have one that says "Hey, this flag is missing and needs to be fixed so that it can be consistent"? Technical 13 (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  What you're suggesting is not possible with the flag template system. We do not have an article named This flag is missing or unknown, please replace this flag with the appropriate one or "Flag placeholder.svg", thank you., which is what how the alt text is generated (from the alias value in the country data template). But if Template:Country data Unknown is kept as you intend, clicking on the flag icon would take you to the Unknown disambiguation page, which is highly undesirable, in my opinion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't see how it is impossible, and I'd be happy to make it exactly as I described above. I also think that it should add any pages that it is used on in Category:Wikipedia articles needing proper flags as a sub-category of Category:Wikipedia cleanup. I'm saying this should be a maintenance template just like ((Cleanup)), ((Expand))< ((COI)), ((Ref improve)), ((Essay)), etc, etc, etc, ... "If" I can make it as I describe above, which you're saying is impossible, would you be willing to reconsider your delete position? Technical 13 (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I wouldn't. But first to address your point, yes, it's very easy to create a template that does what you say (e.g. places pages into a maintenance category etc.). My point is that it cannot be done within the existing flag template system (i.e. implemented via a Country_data_xxx template). It would have to be a standalone inline template (e.g. ((Missing flag|date=May 2013))). But if you were to create that using the File:Flag of None.svg image, I'd nominate it for deletion also. As Chris points out, we have consensus against placeholder images. A blank space would actually stand out more than a faux flag image; the "hole" in a neatly aligned table of flag icons would be more obvious than an image that has the same size and shape as a real flag. I also ask rhetorically, what would you do for missing table entries that were numeric or textual values? The three choices are to leave it blank, put in an inline maintenance tag, or put in a question mark or similar. I assert that you have the same options for a table entry where a flag icon should be, and the question mark approach is the worst option available. Feel free to create something that emits a maintenance tag like ^{[missing flag]} but don't attach an invented flag image to that, please. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I respect that. My point is, when I see an empty spot in a table where there should be a flag, it directly tells me that whatever is being represented by flags, the item on that row does not have a flag as opposed to seeing which specifically says, there should be a flag here, I don't know which one or how to make the correct one show up via alias, please fix this. I can make it as [missing flag] as well, although I personally think the flag is less offensive. Technical 13 (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We've a general consensus against placeholder images these days. That applies to flags as well IMO. A blank space is just as much of an invite for nationality to be added. This would also seem to encourage flagspam in the form of adding a new row of question-flags to a table which previously didn't include any flag data. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No flag is better than a made up one Gnevin (talk) 09:31, 9 May 2013 (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.

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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 May 18 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:52, 18 May 2013 (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.

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NENAN. "Related articles" don't count towards WP:NENAN's rule of five. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 10:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as template creator, useful navigation links between five notable articles. GiantSnowman 11:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you even read WP:NENAN? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I'm completely ignorant of that page...jeez TPH, I presume you are deliberately ignoring the rulf of five? GiantSnowman 09:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You missed the part about "Related articles don't count". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There are no "related" articles by your definition - everything is relevant to the subject. What's the issue? GiantSnowman 15:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The "related articles" section that you deceptively removed right after I sent this to TFD. Smooth move, you weasel. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't remove it, I changed it to better reflect the band's career - and added a new link at the same time. Nothing weaselly, and please stop with the personal attacks. GiantSnowman 19:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you have said your piece, now you're just letting it get out of hand. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How so? I'm not the one resorting to insults. GiantSnowman 08:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is no rule of five. The template should be discussed on its merits. Thincat (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Templates used for navboxes seem harmless things to me and no principles are involved to deprecate them at the level of TFD. If our readers find them helpful then they are good. We don't know what the readers think so we leave it to the editors. If the editors of this group of articles find the template a disadvantage they should remove the transclusions and then, for tidiness, seek to get the orphaned template deleted. Is that sensible? Thincat (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2013 (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.