Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 August 19
Only two articles in a sea of red links. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 14:29, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- keep per WP:NENAN, but remove the redlinks (connects 6 articles). Frietjes (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Agree - it may not be a guideline, but the logic seems valid to me. I think a useful rule of thumb would be to not have more redlinks than blue, and only those that are expected to have articles created in short order. The purpose of a navbox is to navigate, and there's no point in doing so to articles that don't exist and may never exist. Redlinks in the body would still exist as plain text if they weren't linked, so it's a different standard IMHO. If anyone is actively working on any of the red links they can leave those ones in. It's easy enough to add any others back in if and when they're created. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think we should be more strict regarding red links. As examples, {{Donkey breeds of France}} and {{Sheep breeds of Italy}} have had redlinks created by the same editor for twelve years! That's not exactly "actively working", yet they are still trying to retain the redlinks. Maybe if they were working on just one navbox at a time, but even so, WP:WTAF! --woodensuperman 10:02, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- There were only two articles when I made the nomination. This is why WP:WTAF is worth following. --woodensuperman 05:49, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Agree - it may not be a guideline, but the logic seems valid to me. I think a useful rule of thumb would be to not have more redlinks than blue, and only those that are expected to have articles created in short order. The purpose of a navbox is to navigate, and there's no point in doing so to articles that don't exist and may never exist. Redlinks in the body would still exist as plain text if they weren't linked, so it's a different standard IMHO. If anyone is actively working on any of the red links they can leave those ones in. It's easy enough to add any others back in if and when they're created. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Keep, no policy-based reason for deletion has been given (do we in fact have any relevant policy?). WP:REDLINK (a guideline) is perfectly clear: Red links may be used in navboxes that also contain links to existing articles, but they cannot be excessive. Editors who add excessive red links to navboxes are expected to actively work on building those articles, or else the links may be removed from the template. WP:NAVBOX (also a guideline) has Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data and also ... links should be blue; dead links should be red". WP:NENAN is an essay, so has no weight here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Please also note the guideline states that
Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia.
Red links are not articles and navboxes are not link farms. The "complete set of data" you refer to is cherry picked from WP:EXISTING, which in full is:Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first.
Every animal breed, where notability is not established, is not what is meant by "complete sets of data". This refers to, say, every award winner from every year, where it would be confusing if there were gaps. The omission of non-notable animal breeds is not misleading. As I've said to you many times, WP:Write the article first. --woodensuperman 09:44, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Please also note the guideline states that
Only two articles in a sea of redlinks. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 14:30, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Keep, per reasons given above. And yes, there are lot of red links; I'll start on some of those when I've done a few more geese ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- You promise this, but some navboxes you've created, such as {{Chicken breeds of France}}, have had redlinks sitting in them for twelve years! That's not exactly "actively working" on them. --woodensuperman 10:03, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:NBL Coaches 1979 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:NBL Coaches All-Time (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Transcluded to a single article, template contents should be moved to the article. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Breaks WP:SIDEBAR, which says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". Only Ted Baillieu and Baillieu ministry are "tightly related". The other articles are just peripherally related. WP:SIDEBAR also says "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." That is not the case here. There articles can be naturally linked to each other in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- delete, only bidirectional connection is between two articles, which is too few for a good sidebar. Frietjes (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Breaks WP:SIDEBAR, which says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". Only Steve Bracks and Bracks ministry are "tightly related". The other articles are just peripherally related. WP:SIDEBAR also says "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." That is not the case here. There articles can be naturally linked to each other in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- delete, only bidirectional connection is between three articles, which is too few for a good sidebar. Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Breaks WP:SIDEBAR, which says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". Only Rupert Hamer and Hamer ministry are "tightly related". The other articles are just peripherally related. WP:SIDEBAR also says "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." That is not the case here. There articles can be naturally linked to each other in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Breaks WP:SIDEBAR, which says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". Only Lindsay Thompson and Thompson ministry are "tightly related". The other articles are just peripherally related. WP:SIDEBAR also says "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." That is not the case here. There articles can be naturally linked to each other in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- delete, only bidirectional connection is between two articles, which is too few for a good sidebar. Frietjes (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Breaks WP:SIDEBAR, which says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". Only John Brumby and Brumby ministry are "tightly related". The other articles are just peripherally related. WP:SIDEBAR also says "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." That is not the case here. There articles can be naturally linked to each other in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- delete, only bidirectional connection is between two articles, which is too few for a good sidebar. Frietjes (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Breaks WP:SIDEBAR, which says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". Only Joan Kirner and Kirner ministry are "tightly related". The other articles are just peripherally related. WP:SIDEBAR also says "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." That is not the case here. There articles can be naturally linked to each other in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- delete, only bidirectional connection is between two articles, which is too few for a good sidebar. Frietjes (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Breaks WP:SIDEBAR, which says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". Only Jeff Kennett, Kennett ministry and Kennett curse are "tightly related". The other articles are just peripherally related. WP:SIDEBAR also says "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." That is not the case here. There articles can be naturally linked to each other in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- delete, only bidirectional connection is between three articles, which is too few for a good sidebar. Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Breaks WP:SIDEBAR, which says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". Only Henry Bolte and Bolte ministry are "tightly related". The other articles are just peripherally related. WP:SIDEBAR also says "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." That is not the case here. There articles can be naturally linked to each other in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- delete, only bidirectional connection is between two articles, which is too few for a good sidebar. Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Breaks WP:SIDEBAR, which says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". Only Denis Napthine and Napthine ministry are "tightly related". The other articles are just peripherally related. WP:SIDEBAR also says "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." That is not the case here. There articles can be naturally linked to each other in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- delete, only bidirectional connection is between two articles, which is too few for a good sidebar. Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Breaks WP:SIDEBAR, which says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". Only Daniel Andrews and the articles on his ministries are "tightly related". The other articles are just peripherally related. WP:SIDEBAR also says "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." That is not the case here. There articles can be naturally linked to each other in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Breaks WP:SIDEBAR, which says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". None of these articles are "tightly related". The other articles are just peripherally related. WP:SIDEBAR also says "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." That is not the case here. There articles can be naturally linked to each other in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Breaks WP:SIDEBAR, which says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". Only John Cain Jr and Cain II ministry are "tightly related". The other articles are just peripherally related. WP:SIDEBAR also says "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." That is not the case here. There articles can be naturally linked to each other in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- delete, only bidirectional connection is between three articles, which is too few for a good sidebar. Frietjes (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Breaks WP:SIDEBAR, which says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". Only Jacinta Allan, Allan ministry and Allan government are "tightly related". The other articles are just peripherally related. WP:SIDEBAR also says "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." That is not the case here. There articles can be naturally linked to each other in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
I dont see any use for this template whatsoever Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly a joke temple, that can only be used for vandalism. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe it's not for vandalism. It's used for dictating that an article is based on Polandball, a massive internet meme and webcomic. ElliotGuy0000 (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- this person created the template Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- It's not necessary to explicitly point out that an article is based on Polandball because a reader can just read the article to find out it is about Polandball. Also, the only article that could ever carry such a template is the Polandball article itself, as no other articles on the English Wikipedia are primarily about Polandball. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe it's not for vandalism. It's used for dictating that an article is based on Polandball, a massive internet meme and webcomic. ElliotGuy0000 (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Delete because articles should not have disclaimers, and this template is a disclaimer. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:France FIFA World Cup record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Germany FIFA World Cup record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Jamaica FIFA World Cup record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Netherlands FIFA World Cup record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Peru FIFA World Cup record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:China FIFA World Cup record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:China AFC Asian Cup record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Netherlands UEFA European Championship record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Germany UEFA European Championship record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
All these tables are only transcluded to between one and three articles. A dedicated template is not necessary to store this content, they should be merged back into the national team articles. For the templates that are transcluded on multiple pages, we can use labeled section transclusion to sync the tables. Also per the recent TfD discussion here. S.A. Julio (talk) 09:51, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 18:35, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Unused and never used; judging by the source, this seems like it would be redundant to either {{Infobox military operation}} or {{Infobox civilian attack}}. Omphalographer (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Unused and not needed. Pichpich (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Video game livestreaming services (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Internet streaming services (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Video game livestreaming services with Template:Internet streaming services.
The 'Live Streaming' group in Template:Internet streaming services is almost the exact same as this template. TechnicalNewt (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Paid contributions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Undisclosed paid (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Paid contributions into Template:Undisclosed paid.
I propose simply redirecting this template because both templates are used to flag the same problem, except that this one is less developed and therefore the text in the notice is shorter. The subtle distinction between "may have been edited in return for undisclosed payments" and "contains paid contributions" is not nearly enough to warrant keeping a completely separate template, and I don't think this is reflected on the actual usages of the two templates. And besides, if {{Undisclosed paid}} is the "uncertain" version, why it it worded much more strongly then the template that's supposedly only used for demonstrably confirmed violations? If there really is a concrete need to differentiate between the two, this can be turned into a wrapper that simply tweaks the bolded text of {{Undisclosed paid}}, but keeping two separately-maintained templates for virtually the same purpose is actively harmful. FaviFake (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose The templates are distinct. One is founded upon a user declaration, the other on an opinion, yet to be confirmed or denied, that paid editing is taking place. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 21:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- Not sure how I feel but I will address two things: "
why it it worded much more strongly
", undisclosed includes reference to violations of the foundation's TOS. Not saying it's correct, but that's why. "actively harmful
", disagree. Not opposed to merging the two, with undisclosed as a wrapper to the "disclosed" paid version which could include a param specifying that it is undisclosed, or suspected, as nominator put it. Regardless, I do think it is important to preserve the language of both, but indifferent to the method of such. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2026 (UTC) - Oppose - as stated above, these two templates "flag" different issues; paid editing is discouraged but permitted, and the creator is expected to follow guidelines such as NPOV, no PROMO, using edit requests, etc. Where as UPE is not permitted and editors can be blocked or banned for doing so. The problems within these articles can be more serious and require may greater oversight and clean up by unconnected editors. Additionally the UPE-suspected creator must respond whether or not they are editing for compensation and if so, who is paying them. Netherzone (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - as others have said, the two templates are for quite different purposes. {{Paid contributions}} is only for problematic contributions, made by paid editors who have disclosed their conflict, that need to be dealt with; {{Undisclosed paid}} is for any contributions that have been made by a suspected paid editor. Merging would, I think, lead to even more accidental misuse of the template. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:46, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - as others have stated the templates are for different issues. One is for undisclosed paid editing and the other is for disclosed paid editing. Although, theoretically disclosed paid editing is vetted via AFC or the Talk page request, so IMO "Paid Contributions" should not be used in those cases. I supposed we could have a case where someone disclosed paid editing and proceeded to do the edits themselves, so then such a tag makes sense. Wikyyy (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2026 (UTC)