The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 23:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Single-article content with no template parameters, documentation, or categories. Subst into article and delete template. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 16:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 18:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
This isn't really what a WP:NAVBOX is for. Best left to the articles. -- wooden superman 15:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template that all cover the same topic. ButlerBlog ( talk) 00:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution. Frietjes ( talk) 15:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
unused after CRwikiCA converted the articles to use section transclusion. Frietjes ( talk) 15:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
current convention for Olympics and Paralympics is to place these in the main article and transclude using WP:LST to avoid creating/watching 21 to 32 templates per competition. Frietjes ( talk) 15:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
current convention for Olympics and Paralympics is to place these in the main article and transclude using WP:LST to avoid creating/watching 26 to 32 templates per competition. Frietjes ( talk) 15:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
No transclusions. It was previously used by the |field=
parameter in {{
WikiProject Mathematics}}, from which the |field=
parameter was
removed in 2020. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
13:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 18:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Creating red links in purely navigational features of Wikipedia, like navigation templates, disambiguation pages, and "see also" sections, directly interferes with the actual function of these features, which is to help readers navigate the already existing Wikipedia resources relevant to the topic. Red links are strongly discouraged in navigation templates. The nuance at WP:EXISTING stipulates a requirement:
Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data. These 14 articles are neither. I, for one, have never even heard of " Evstafiy Mstislavich", and I have been intensively writing and categorising articles and lists about Kievan Rus' for several months now. Why should a son of Mstislav of Chernigov who ruled a minor principality at the fringes of the realm be more relevant to some sort of "set" of "Rurikids" than 3 of the brothers of Yaroslav the Wise, who each became Grand Dukes of Kiev themselves within the template's specified timeframe of IX—XI century? It is remarkably arbitrary and incomplete. WP:EXISTING is actually a reason for deletion. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 18:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
performing the same function. It's so huge that it wouldn't make for a good navbox anyway.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Primefac (
talk)
09:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 18:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Replace with {{ Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}}. Only one usage as an edit notice, so this wrapper isn't needed. Also mistakenly applies the categories associated with the topic from which the template was copied. Bsherr ( talk) 03:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 23:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Single-article content with no template parameters, documentation, or categories. Subst into article and delete template. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 16:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 18:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
This isn't really what a WP:NAVBOX is for. Best left to the articles. -- wooden superman 15:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template that all cover the same topic. ButlerBlog ( talk) 00:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution. Frietjes ( talk) 15:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
unused after CRwikiCA converted the articles to use section transclusion. Frietjes ( talk) 15:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
current convention for Olympics and Paralympics is to place these in the main article and transclude using WP:LST to avoid creating/watching 21 to 32 templates per competition. Frietjes ( talk) 15:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
current convention for Olympics and Paralympics is to place these in the main article and transclude using WP:LST to avoid creating/watching 26 to 32 templates per competition. Frietjes ( talk) 15:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
No transclusions. It was previously used by the |field=
parameter in {{
WikiProject Mathematics}}, from which the |field=
parameter was
removed in 2020. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
13:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 18:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Creating red links in purely navigational features of Wikipedia, like navigation templates, disambiguation pages, and "see also" sections, directly interferes with the actual function of these features, which is to help readers navigate the already existing Wikipedia resources relevant to the topic. Red links are strongly discouraged in navigation templates. The nuance at WP:EXISTING stipulates a requirement:
Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data. These 14 articles are neither. I, for one, have never even heard of " Evstafiy Mstislavich", and I have been intensively writing and categorising articles and lists about Kievan Rus' for several months now. Why should a son of Mstislav of Chernigov who ruled a minor principality at the fringes of the realm be more relevant to some sort of "set" of "Rurikids" than 3 of the brothers of Yaroslav the Wise, who each became Grand Dukes of Kiev themselves within the template's specified timeframe of IX—XI century? It is remarkably arbitrary and incomplete. WP:EXISTING is actually a reason for deletion. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 18:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
performing the same function. It's so huge that it wouldn't make for a good navbox anyway.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Primefac (
talk)
09:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 18:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Replace with {{ Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}}. Only one usage as an edit notice, so this wrapper isn't needed. Also mistakenly applies the categories associated with the topic from which the template was copied. Bsherr ( talk) 03:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)