Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 26#Template:Editintro documentation

< October 25
October 27 >

October 26

[edit]

Template:Principal Naming Criteria

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Izno (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This template is used to transclude or subst the WP:CRITERIA directly into a RM. A link to WP:CRITERIA is sufficient for that purpose, and we shouldn't encourage dumping large portions of PAGs directly into discussions: that is just adding a bunch of noise. Subst the ten transclusions and delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Diplomatic missions in Liberia

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 14:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only 1 English entry. Not useful for navigation. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not useful in anyway. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Super Dave Osborne

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 14:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only four links and all are linked well enough from each other. A navbox is not needed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nomination. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Saudi Arabian elections

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 * Pppery * it has begun... 19:58, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only three links. Fails navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that it has at least five links. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 16:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Histadrut elections

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 14:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only two links to articles. Fails navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unhelpful and not needed. WP:NENAN. - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Belarus squad 2014 European Men's Handball Championship

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 14:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All non-winning teams. Teams that are not winners of a championship do not deserve a navbox. This violates Template creep and WP:NENAN. We are left with a bunch of clutter not just for articles where they are stubs but not tagged as such and concerns about those article are indeed a separate Xfd discussion. We have too many navboxes for teams from all over the world that are not championship teams. Non-winning teams are not notable enough for an article and by default the same has to be said for teams that have such navboxes. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Editintro documentation

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 14:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to delete this template per arguments laid out in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#Is Template:Editintro documentation still needed? (permanent link). To summarize:

  • it was implementing a workaround for an issue fixed in 2011
  • the only remaining transclusions are in user pages
  • a local consensus to delete the template has formed in the discussion

—⁠andrybak (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Hindu temples in Myanmar

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 14:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still fails navigation from the last Tfd. Only three links. No other articles exist for this navbox subject to keep for basic navigation. All keep votes from previous discussions did not address the issue at hand. Template does not meet basic navigation and never did since creation back in 2009. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination fails basic requirements. WP:NENAN - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Wikispecies redirect

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. WP:SNOW. Nom did not understand its application for taxonomist articles; no harm done. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk · contribs) 15:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just create a wikipedia article for the species? wikipedia is an encyclopedia and wikispecies is a species directory, they're not the same thing. Harringstars ᐸ Talk
Contribs 12:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you proposing we do with the template? (ping on reply) FaviFake (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FaviFake: Delete. Now do you support or oppose? Harringstars ᐸ Talk
Contribs 15:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as proposer Harringstars ᐸ Talk
Contribs 15:56, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate? I do not understand this deletion rationale at all honestly. Sergecross73 msg me 21:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is for redirects to Wikispecies. They don't have articles here because it does not meet inclusion for English Wikipedia but it does meet inclusion on the sister site Wikispecies. – The Grid (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As much as I am not a big fan of this template, it is necessary because Wikispecies and Wikipedia have different notability criteria. WP:NSPECIES states that "In general, all extant species that are accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists are presumed notable, and all remaining species (i.e., the vast majority), subspecies, hybrids, cultivars, and morphs are notable only if they meet other applicable guidelines, such as the general notability guideline." These latter cases are what this template can be used for. I've mostly seen it on articles about taxonomists and scientists (for example, Jakob Hallermann), so not all of the articles this template is applied on are on species. element 01:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's also needed because Wikispecies has many articles on taxa and taxonomists that would pass English Wikipedia's notability standards, but nobody has created the English Wikipedia articles. In these cases, the Wikispecies redirect is the best Wikipedia can do for an admitted notable topic. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox star system

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 14:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

unused and abandoned infobox. uses the old table format. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Jews and Judaism category tree

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 14:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Used on over a thousand talk pages, mostly category talk pages, this is being used on the wrong spaces and takes up a majority of the space on the pages it's used on. There is no useful navigation this template provides and is very intrusive. When accessing any Judaism category page, it does not in the same sense operate as a navbox or other tree templates providing navigation with links on a subject where you can directly access by clicking the link. If it were to be reformatted, then it needs a massive overhaul, but as it is now, I don't see any use here for navigational purposes. Best to just go manually through categories for now to find something specific. Also, if its meant to navigate on category pages, then why is only one category page transcluding the template instead of over a thousand category talk pages? WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator this really is more confusing than helpful. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Footer AAC Championships High Jump Men

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Izno (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only one link. Useless template. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I added 17 additional links to improve the usefulness. That being said, I don't think WP:ITSUSELESS is a P&G-based argument for deletion. --Habst (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Links are for articles that exist. Four I think is borderline. It could go either way. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but red links are also useful as pointers to create future articles. Some of the work is already done, in fact, by disambiguating the titles. --Habst (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it is now 3 links. One article linked twice. Meets deletion per NENAN. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NENAN isn't a policy or guideline. I agree with the goal of removing templates that don't serve the project, but we need a valid reason not covered in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions first. --Habst (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a loose connection of people, mostly redlinks and no parent article. -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Greek Athletics Championships

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 userfy boxes with 3 or fewer links. Please feel free to renominate any remaining if you still feel that they should be deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All templates have less than five links needed for navboxes. Three templates, Greek, Yugoslavian, and Czechoslovak navboxes have no links to articles. None of these are needed nor meet basic navigation for navboxes. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep, I think this should be withdrawn because this is far too sweeping of a nomination for 21 templates used on dozens of pages. As discussed in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 21#Template:Belarusian Athletics Championships, number of links on a navbox is not a P&G-based reason for deletion. Please, a precedent needs to be set first that deletion of these types of templates is supported by the community before doing a mass nomination like this. --Habst (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Navigation template "A navigation template with fewer than a handful of links can easily be replaced by "See also" sections or relevant main article and see also links within the articles' sections, as well as be merged into a larger template." Three templates have no links - being used does not mean it avoids deletion. It serves no navigational purpose. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I created a merged template at {{User:Habst/National athletics championships editions}} per the explanatory essay linked. It can be split by continent or region as well should the template be too large, and the formatting can be fixed up so you don't have to expand twice. Would that be an acceptable ATD? The navigational purpose is to move between national championship editions, even if there are only four or five of them, and to know exactly what years national championships were staged (not all of these navboxes have corresponding overview articles where these are enumerated). --Habst (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Because it is way too hard to navigate. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't think that's a P&G-based reason for deletion. If the reason is technical (e.g. clicking expand twice), it can be fixed by someone knowledgeable with templates. If the reason is conceptual because it is large, it can be split by continent or further collapsed as in {{COVID-19 pandemic}}. --Habst (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's different and are not addressing the fact that 3 templates are just a sea of red. This putting a band aid over a hole in the wall. It does not address the failures present and yes hard to navigate is an issue. The more you argue for policy and guidelines from me, the more you are bludgeoning the conversation. I would ask for a policy and guidelines from you as to how that fixes the issue. The pandemic template does not combine respective country navboxes into one. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've only responded briefly to people that have directly addressed me by my username; that is not bludgeoning, and on Wikipedia, we generally do need policy or guideline-based reasons for deletion. How is it a failure to have red links on a navigation template? The links serve a purpose as pointers to create new articles, and some of the work is already done (i.e. disambiguating the titles) that wouldn't be done with unlinked text. --Habst (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3 templates have no articles at all. The rest have less than the basic five. No, they don't. That is a Crystal argument. These navboxes have been around for a while, if articles were not created then after all this time, it is unlikely that they would be created before this nomination. It is not the responsibility of Tfd nominators to create those articles. Tfd nominations are based on the now and if someone is willing to create the articles to help these templates meet the requirements, then they can, but we can't wait around just because one day someone will. You haven't provided a policy or guideline for these to be kept. And NENAN is a long-standing precedent and not going to change soon. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having lists of red links isn't a CRYSTAL argument; that is why we have many WP:Red link lists on Wikipedia across many topics. As national championships receiving SIGCOV it's likely that these articles will be created soon; there are actually a few of them in my backlog along with hundreds of other articles.
Lastly in Wikipedia deletion discussions, generally speaking we need a policy or guideline-based reason for deletion. It doesn't quite work that way in the reverse, though I would argue in these cases that the standard WP:NAVBOX would apply in standard use.
As a compromise if you want to nominate the ones with no blue links only, I would support deleting or merging those to overview pages. --Habst (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Habst procedural keep doesn't really make any sense. These all fall under the same category and the same reason for deletion. It is MUCH easier for them to all be nominated as a batch as is routinely done at WP:TFD as opposed to having to copy and paste the same comment 15+ times. HIGHLY unlikely anyone is going to !vote to keep one and not another in this batch, but if that were to happen (and it has in the past) you can simply say "Keep these 3 because they are useful and delete the rest". But having 15+ duplicate nominations just gums up the process and makes it harder for everyone involved. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I've changed my !vote to keep per your comments. For a mass nomination to succeed, generally there needs to be demonstrated some type of appetite for deletion of these types of templates among Wikipedians, and that plainly hasn't been demonstrated yet. I'm open to any solution including one I disagree with as long as there's consensus. I think it is highly likely that Wikipedians will have different opinions about these templates -- some have at least five four links (including plus the overview link) while others have only one or two, and some editions are more likely to be created than others.
Re: NENAN, as I said at comment I honestly do not have a position on the navbox debate but either way NENAN "is an essay, not a policy or guideline, that's equally refuted by WP:NBFILL". --Habst (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None nominated have five links. Title link does not count. It's about the individual article links that are the primary purpose of navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've updated my above comment to say four links plus the title instead of five. I think the argument still stands. --Habst (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy as the creator of these I'm happy to move to userspace the ones with no edition links. I created them as articles exist on other wiki which can be translated, but ended up focusing on the winners lists first and never got around to the national editions for those countries. I oppose the deletion of templates with 3 or more links. I don't think there is a single reader out there who thinks the conversation of whether two links should be in navbox or a see also is worth the effort of consideration. We've all got better things to do in life. SFB 01:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I note Template:Swedish Athletics Championships links to five year events, the general outdoor championship article and the general indoor championship article. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaffet i halsen, you forgot to sign. We don't count the articles linked in the title or the two on the side because its more about the links in the body. Still to few links. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and delete the ones with less than 3 links. Keep the ones with 4+ links but remove all red links and non-links from them. We don't need a sea of red links in these templates. Gonnym (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can go for this. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Belarus national football team results

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 14:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only two links. Too little for a sidebar. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Saban Universe

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 14:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and majority of links are covered by templates such as Template:Boom! Studios, Template:Power Rangers, and Template:Hasbro Comic Book Universe. And no main article exists as it is a redirect. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was quite ahead of the facts before they were confirmed. While it's true that it isn't confirmed for now, we can't deny there could more crossovers in Power Rangers Prime with other Hasbro/Saban IPs. I turned the article into a draft again. Fico Puricelli (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.