Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 30

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 02:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Aziza Jalal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Two transclusions from articles that link to and from one another without the need of this navbox. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless. --woodensuperman 13:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This navbox has too many red links to render its use viable. — Alex26337 (talk) 19:05, 6 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.

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 02:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Db-notwebhost-notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As WP:U5 has now been repealed with Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion#RfC: Replacing U5 with a primarily procedural mechanism, and the {{db-u5}} template now useless, this should now be deleted. The template {{db-u5}} should also probably be deleted as all other repealed CSDs have been (e.g. {{db-x2}}), but not sure how to do that with it template-protected. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 16:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom (but not webhost, which could probably be dabified as a reasonable alternative to deletion) Oreocooke (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:58, 5 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.

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 02:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Washington Commanders greatest players (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not worthy of its own Navbox. This can be placed as a list in an article (which it was already), but this is a very subjective list that in this form does not explain who/what has determined these players to be the greatest. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, "greatest" is subjective, and there is no article on the subject. --woodensuperman 16:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neither of you are adding anything new to the conversation that has not been brought up before (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 September 11#Template:Washington Commanders 90 Greatest, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 September 11#Template:The 80 Greatest Redskins). My notion is the same 1) you are incorrect the team itself announces the players (the comment there is "no article on the subject" is wrong - it is released by official team website and 2) if you're going to do this then it has to be the same throughout all 32 NFL teams. So you can't just make this discussion about just the Washington franchise - it has to be every NFL team so no more Template:PatriotsAllDynasty, Template:Patriots2010s, Template:Patriots50th as so on. @Dissident93 let me know if I'm forgetting anything but to me this discussion has been done and argued with the decision being to keep. Diddykong1130 (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Diddykong1130: your argument is purely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. NOTHING in your response argues that this list is in any way notable... You are just saying that there are other similar lists and therefore this belongs. Thanks for the links tho. I'll make sure to nominate them as well. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The argument you brought up is it is "subjective". That would entail it was up for debate by outside opinion which in this case is not correct. My point was that this is an official list created and released by the franchise itself of personnel (players and non-players) that were deemed to have contributed the most to team's history. Even your statement of "who/what has determined these players to be the greatest" that can be applied to almost any template that recognizes sport icons like the NFL HOF. There's no written criteria of what makes one candidate more worthy of the HOF over another candidate and that's why XX got in and why ZZ was left out. Again if consensus is to delete team specific templates then I think that's fine but it shouldn't be argued on an individual template basis. It should be a collective nomination where the templates from all 32 NFL teams are discussed and it's put to bed. Diddykong1130 (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the articles that the team released: https://www.commanders.com/team/history/80-greatest-redskins-old
https://www.commanders.com/news/commanders-announce-inductees-to-greatest-players-list Diddykong1130 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning deletion; the nomination has good points. — Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I would actually be in favor of deleting all of these navboxes for every team.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:58, 5 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.

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 14:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Gergely Karácsony sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails navigation. Has five links of relevance, but not every politician needs a sidebar. And all links can be found on his main page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Relatively loose connection between the articles linked in the sidebar. Linking to each policy that a politician has supported is a pandora's box that don't think we should open. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:57, 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.