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).
Precedent from my nomination of the Presidency of Jimmy Carter navbox. All links here are featured on the main navbox. I can understand the navbox being larger. But we don't need to create a navbox for every individual presidency. I would recommend trimming the main navbox because these U.S. presidents navboxes have gotten larger including every law they have signed during their terms. All of these templates must go and don't add much for navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All duplication between the president biography and presidency templates has been removed per expressed preference of editors for smaller biography templates at the discussion, so this nomination these nominations and the prior deletion of the Presidency of Jimmy Carter navbox are now arguably without merit. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion did not result in consensus. You are ignoring long community standard of having a clear consensus on any major changes to any style of formatting in regards to these templates. If a discussion is ongoing, then a nomination for deletion is not without merit. More templates are not a solution here and not every article deserves its own template. There had been no issue with the main president navbox having articles of their presidency included. You are editwarring across these templates even to go far to restore the Jimmy Carter navbox after it had been redirected following the Tfd for its own discussion. This is a violation of policy to edit war after Tfd consensus. And in several of your edits, you cite consensus was gained, but no such thing as happened. You are subverting discussion protocol and you can be reported to the ANI discussion board for this. So, please stop and let other users here add their views. You are Bludgioning this discussion well beyond what has been tolerable for users to see what your argument is. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are Bludgioning this discussion well beyond what has been tolerable for users to see what your argument is. It would not be necessary to repeat what I've said in furtherance of enforcing existing content policies that reflect already-existing community consensus per WP:NOTBUREAU if other editors didn't engage in the type of behavior that User:Randy Kryn has engaged, namely false accusations and mischaracterizations as well as ownership behavior. The previous discussion continued without my knowledge and on a false premise due to Randy Kryn's reversions. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support per the Presidency of Jimmy Carter deletion. CommonKnowledgeCreator, you missed the point there and here. Removing the presidency topics from these individuals overall navboxes separates access to massive portions of their lives from readers of the linked articles. As only one example of many, family is missing - and all of these individuals had family living with them in the White House. Books about their presidency, campaigns which brought them to the presidency, etc., should not be divided among two navboxes when one has been adequate for the entire existence of their navboxes. Per Jimmy Carter. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit war in progress, which I'll try to avoid, presidential entries are now being removed from individual navboxes where they have been present since their inception. I reverted a couple but am not going to keep playing whack-a-navbox. Please stop edit warring. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommonKnowledgeCreator, you missed the point there and here. Removing the presidency topics from these individuals overall navboxes separates access to massive portions of their lives from readers of the linked articles. As only one example of many, family is missing - and all of these individuals had family living with them in the White House. Books about their presidency, campaigns which brought them to the presidency, etc., should not be divided among two navboxes when one has been adequate for the entire existence of their navboxes.You have missed the point there and here. As I noted at the WikiProject United States Presidents talk page discussion, other editors there have expressed a preference for the shortened version of the biography templates as I have modified them, and you have consistently been dismissive of the concerns that I have raised with your assertions about how the templates should be organized. Other editors that I have had discussions with at Talk:Presidential Succession Act explicitly stated that legislation should generally not be included in biography templates, while per WP:NAVBOX and WP:UNDUE, editors are not permitted to create criteria for inclusion in a template that suggests certain topics related to a broader topic are of grater importance than others. Since that's the case, then none of them should be included in the biography templates and a separate presidency should be created instead because it so broad of a topic that it requires a separate map from the biography. A president's family is not related to their presidency; they had family members before and after their presidencies and having family members is not part of a president's official duties or powers.
Unless something like a family wedding happens at the White House during the presidency as an official ceremony, it is unrelated. Books about their presidency are not typically written by administration officials, and as such are not directly related to their presidency. Some campaigns happen before individuals are President, and such campaigns are not part of their presidencies, while being President-elect is an official government position under the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, one-term presidents are under no constitutional or legal obligation to seek a second term, and as such, it is not an official duty or power of the presidency and is thus unrelated to the presidency. By contrast, signing bills into law, issuing executive orders, Supreme Court decisions over the decisions and directives, are related their presidency because those do involve official duties and responsibilities. This is not an edit war; you are an editor acting as though you own this project (WP:OWN) since only you really you seem to have a problem with it. WikiCleanerMan's comments are about duplication, which there would not be if you would stop reverting my edits. You also clearly have little or no understanding of how the U.S. system of government works or about the Presidency of the United States, and as such, should not be editing about these topics. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus in the discussion you link. Very large presidential sections on president navboxes can be placed in a collapsible section without readers losing access to the complete Wikipedia collection (Trump, Biden included). Much information-loss occurs when long-time entries are removed from the principal navboxes, which you have done at the navboxes under this discussion, citing a non-existent consensus, and then have edit warred over when that information was returned. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:CON, if consensus is not reached by editing, then consensus is reached by discussion using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense and not by voting on resolutions. Editors in the discussion have expressed a preference for smaller biography templates, opposition to duplicative templates, and support for separating presidency templates from biography templates, while other editors created the Presidency of Bill Clinton, Presidency of Barack Obama, Presidency of Donald Trump, and Presidency of Joe Biden templates—which means that there would be a consensus by editing in favor of separate presidency templates if you would stop reverting the biography templates so that there is duplication to justify deleting the separate presidency templates. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, after reviewing the relist discussion for the Presidency of Jimmy Carter navbox (which I was not notified of), the consistent concern expressed by editors has been mainly about duplication rather than your preference for including a selection of the topics related to a presidency in the biography template of the president—which I would reiterate is inconsistent with the WP:UNDUE and WP:NAVBOX policies. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Why would you get rid of them? The presidencies of these presidents are an extremely important tool for documenting the history of the country and the world. Not just for the policies, but also the many events under their watch and decisions they made. We need to add even more to them. Significantly more. Vinnylospo (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the navbox being larger. But we don't need to create a navbox for every individual presidency. I would recommend trimming the main navbox because these U.S. presidents navboxes have gotten larger including every law they have signed during their terms. I would add, as I noted in the deletion discussion for the Presidency of Jimmy Carter template and at the discussion at the WikiProject United States Presidents talk page, not every law that they have signed during their terms in office is being included and only the ones that have Wikipedia articles. Like I've noted here, in the previous deletion discussion, and at the talk page discussion, to do otherwise would be a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NAVBOX—specifically the part of the latter policy that states: "Inclusion of article links or subdivisions in a template may inadvertently push a point of view. It may also incorrectly suggest that one aspect of a topic or a linked example is of more, less, or equal importance to others". -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't need to create a navbox for every individual presidency. I agree insofar as you are referring to the Presidencies of William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and James A. Garfield since Criterion 4 of WP:NAVBOX states "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." However, the templates you have nominated for deletion satisfy Criterion 1 ("All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject") and entries can easily be changed to satisfy Criterion 2 ("The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article"), which means at least 3 of the 5 criteria that WP:NAVBOX recommends for good navigation templates would be satisfied for them. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vinnylospo, if you can work your way through CKC's walls of text and extreme edit warring at the templates, these navboxes duplicate the entries already present at the president's navbox. Separating the person from the presidency also separates their other life achievements from reader access while having them in one place - which has always been done and for the same reasoning. Nothing is lost by deleting these duplicate templates. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Vinnylospo. Major events, deaths, etc. should only be included on navboxes if they have something to do with the navbox topic. A person's presidency covers the actions that they were involved in, not everything going on in the world. Things like that are covered by other navboxes and articles. Somebody dying during a presidential term is very tangential to that term of office unless, like the Osama bin Laden killing by Obama, they were directly involved. Make sense? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but what about for major political deaths that they presided over like P. Nixon, R. Nixon and Foster for Clinton or Reagan, Ford, Rehnquist and Lady Bird for Bush? Vinnylospo (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vinnylospo, yes, agreed, but the entries for Trump's presidential term(s) should be included on his {{Donald Trump}} navbox, and if too large for easy viewing they can be, as I've mentioned, put into an enlargable section which would be collapsed when viewing the navbox. This solution is the obvious solution to the larger navboxes, and has been used on hundreds if not thousands of navboxes. Thanks for staying with the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I don’t get why we don’t just merge them all into one. Like for instance, look at how the Iraq war is done, there’s sub nav boxes within that nav box. I think that would be great. Vinnylospo (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...if you can work your way through CKC's walls of text and extreme edit warring at the templates... Randy Kryn (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
...and if too large for easy viewing [as] they can be, as I've mentioned, put into an enlargable section which would be collapsed when viewing the navbox. This solution is the obvious solution to the larger navboxes, and has been used on hundreds if not thousands of navboxes. ...Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes. I don’t get why we don’t just merge them all into one. Like for instance, look at how the Iraq war is done, there’s sub nav boxes within that nav box. I think that would be great. Vinnylospo(talk) 17:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Randy Kryn, let me be very clear because you have mischaracterized what I have explicitly said in these discussions: I do not oppose using collapsable sections with these navigation templates. Actually, I'll go further: I do not oppose merging the biography and presidency templates with collapsable sections. However, other editors at the Presidential Succession Act talk page this past February argued that legislation should generally not be included in a biography template. However, the letter of the WP:NAVBOX policy requires that there be no additional criteria leading to a selection of related topics for inclusion in a navigation template due to the core WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE policies, and if laws are not sufficiently related to the biography of a president even if though they are directly related to their presidency (since the president signs them into law), then other topics related to their presidency are not sufficiently related to their biography either.
Additionally, WP:NAVBOX expresses a preference for smaller templates such that if a larger template can be split into smaller templates that still satisfy the criteria for good navigation templates then they probably should be, and other editors at the discussion at the WikiProject United States Presidents talk page expressed a preference for the biography templates as I had modified them and have since expressed a preference for excluding articles related to the president's biography (i.e. the family members, books about the presidencies, and elections). I have no problem with large navigation templates with collapsable sections, but other editors in these discussions do not appear to agree with what you are proposing for these templates and would appear prefer the splits. I am trying to keep the templates consistent with the explicit letter and rationale behind the content policies and the expressed preferences of most of the other editors I have interacted with throughout these discussions—of which you are only one, and would be unreasonable for your preferences to dictate outcomes. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think doing it like Template:Iraq War would be ideal as you can have a tab for each one. And include the Template:Presidency of Donald Trump, you can take those as well as the ones for his family, media, businesses as well. It’s weird how Trump has multiple bag boxes when you can in all honesty condense it all into one. Vinnylospo (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my previous comment. WP:NAVBOX has an explicit preference for smaller templates such that if a larger template can be split into smaller templates that still satisfy the criteria for good navigation templates then that should probably be done. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't, that's from an essay that you just tried to sandwich into the guideline criteria. As for the discussion you mention just above, that was a local discussion at an out-of-the-way talk page, and would not apply here. Collapsed sections on navboxes are useful, common, and solve all of your concerns. These "presidential" navboxes are not needed and, if presidential items are removed from existing navboxes, do serious damage to site navigation. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't, that's from an essay that you just tried to sandwich into the guideline criteria. As for the discussion you mention just above, that was a local discussion at an out-of-the-way talk page, and would not apply here. Yes, it does, and no, I didn’t. The WP:NAVBOX policy states: "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use." It is not from any explanatory essay. The criterion that I proposed added from the WP:ATC essay for the WP:NAVBOX policy has nothing to do with the length of navigation templates but with overlapping entries. All What I have proposed to the WP:NAVBOX policy with respect to template length is additional language that recommends but does not require splitting large navigation templates into smaller templates where the smaller templates would still satisfy most or all of the criteria for good navigation templates.
I would add that WP:NOTBUREAU notes that existing content policies document an already-existing community consensus about a topic, so the explicit preference for smaller templates in the WP:NAVBOX policy that I've explicitly quoted in this comment reflects an existing community consensus about navigation templates while your preferences do not. Additionally, per WP:CON, multiple editors in the WikiProject United States Presidents talk page discussion have stated an explicit preference for smaller templates (as well as WikiCleanerMan in their original post for the deletion nomination), for the biography templates as I had modified them, and for the presidency templates that I created. The Presidential Succession Acts are laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, so the talk page discussion I had with the editors there in February is not "out-of-the-way".
As I have said multiple times in these discussions, this is not an edit war and you are engaging in ownership behavior (WP:OWNBEHAVIOR) with respect to this the biography templates. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To briefly sum up: CommonKnowledgeCreator split entries from long-term navboxes and defends this action, although the similar navbox for Jimmy Carter's presidency had been deleted. I'm saying that the existing navboxes are fine and nothing is broken, although two, three, or so may need to include a collapsible section for the person's presidency. Providing the full Wikipedia map to the individual's life in one place, including the important links related to their presidency, is the strength of such navboxes. If they are separated then the readers of each of the individual's articles would lose access to over half of Wikipedia pathways to other notable topics related to person's life. I think including a collapsible section for the longer navboxes is a reasonable compromise which should satisfy everyone. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To brief sum up... To brief sum up: User:Randy Kryn has engaged in ownership behavior with respect to the biography templates and has repeatedly mischaracterized my comments and editing. The entries were split into separate templates for presidencies that already had Wikipedia articles separate from the biography articles per WP:NAVBOX Criterion 3 for good navigation templates, only included entries that already had Wikipedia articles and to keep the templates shorter per WP:NAV-WITHIN and the WP:NAVBOX explicit preference for smaller navigation templates, and to have templates with objective criteria for article inclusion per WP:NAVBOX, WP:ATC, and WP:UNDUE—as including only a selection of articles related to a presidency in a biography template gave undue weight to the arbitrarily selected topics. I don't disagree with the proposal for collapsable sections, but per WP:NAV-WITHIN and WP:NAVBOX's explicit preference for smaller navigation templates, where navigation templates can be split into smaller templates that still satisfy most or all of the criteria for good navigation templates that should probably be done. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel honestly, if we aren't going to have the navboxes be collapseable and have all of these events, I don't see the point. You might as well get rid of Trump's too if you are going to get rid of these ones. Vinnylospo (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The larger ones can be collapsed, that's the entire point of this long discussion which has gone off-track many times with personal attacks on my intentions. I'm a bit surprised I'm still treating CKC with some respect, and pat myself on the back for doing so. CKC seems to be saying that they wish to divide any and all navboxes which are large enough to have collapsible sections, and to get rid of that common feature. Many of Wikipedia's best navboxes are sectioned, that's just how they've always worked. CKC's emphasis on essays confuses the issue, and understanding the difference between essays and guidelines/policy is essential in working through the acceptance of long-term elements of navboxes, such as the popular and common collapsible section option. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit surprised I'm still treating CKC with some respect, and pat myself on the back for doing so. Self-congratulatory assessments of one's own behavior is not respectful behavior but a form of condescension. Collapsable child navboxes and hiding templates is not a solution to the issue of oversized templates and are only quick-fix, sweep-under-the-rug work-arounds. WP:NAV and WP:ATC both discuss oversized templates, and both essays been on Wikipedia for more than 10 years and have been edited by many editors other than the creators of the pages. They describe many best practices for addressing oversized templates; hiding templates and collapsing template sections are not one of not among them. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there are hundreds of navboxes with collapsed sections, so there is nothing broken in using a collapsed section to address your concern. This is to keep the topic maps on Wikipedia in one place and not spread out in tangential navboxes. Again: the person's presidency is a vital part of their navbox (commonsense comes into play here). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense is not a substitute for policy standards and best practices. There may very well be hundreds of such navboxes, but they all violate the already-existing community consensus that templates should not be overly large. None of the explanatory essays or WP:NAVBOX include language about mapping requirements as that you describe. As explained by WP:NAV-WITHIN, the best practice is to split navigation templates by sub-topic when they begin to get longer than they should reasonably be. If the smaller templates still satisfy the existing criteria for good navigation templates, there is little reason that such splits should not be made. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, instead of including mapping requirements language, WP:NAVBOX also states that templates that do not meet the criteria for good navigation templates have articles included that are loosely related, and recommends that such articles would be more appropriate for inclusion in a category or list instead of a navigation template—which implies that the article inclusion criteria for good navigation templates is supposed to be more restrictive than for categories, list articles, or list sections of articles. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Enos733. The material in the nominated navboxes was copied from already existing navboxes (see, for example, {{Gerald Ford}}), and are thus redundant to the navbox collection. A similar Jimmy Carter navbox was already deleted in an TfD. This is about deleting the duplicate navboxes and likely including a collapsed section for the presidency articles in a few of the larger cases, not about deleting access to articles and the content map. Please take another look, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The material in the nominated navboxes was copied from already existing navboxes... and are thus redundant to the navbox collection. This is about deleting the duplicate navboxes and likely including a collapsed section for the presidency articles in a few of the larger cases, not about deleting access to articles and the content map.Enos733, User:Randy Kryn has been engaged in ownership behavior (WP:OWNBEHAVIOR) with respect to the navigation templates from which I attempted to split the current templates being discussed for deletion. The split was attempted to comply with the recommendations of WP:NAVBOX, WP:UNDUE, WP:ATC, and WP:NAV-WITHIN due to the requirement that individual navigation templates have objective article inclusion criteria rather than an arbitrary selection of articles related to a larger topic included and that large navigation templates should be split by sub-topic rather than be hidden or have collapsable child navboxes. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the insults and the essays. Essays are somebody's opinion and have nothing to do with policy or guidelinge. The problem here is it wasn't made very clear that the deletion request concerns you removing items from existing navboxes without discussion and then thinking they require their own navbox. They don't, as has already been decided in an RM on the Jimmy Carter navbox. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the insults and the essays. The condescension that you have regularly directed at me in discussions here and elsewhere is a form of ownership behavior per WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. While WP:SUPPLEMENTAL—which is part of the WP:WPNS policy—states that essays have a more limited status than policy or guidelines, they are intended to supplement or clarify Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or other Wikipedia processes and practices that are communal norms, and a footnote to the policy states that where Template:Supplement has been added to an essay has wide acceptance and sufficient vetting to be linked from a policy or guideline page.
WP:ESSAY and WP:PGE both have the Supplement tag applied, and while they are not policies and recommend against quoting them as policies, they state that there is no clear distinction between essays, policies, and guidelines because certain essays do have wide acceptance such that they are widely quoted in discussions. WP:NAV-WITHIN also has the Supplement tag applied. While WP:ATC does not, the footnote to WP:SUPPLEMENTAL also states the Supplement tag does not indicate a "higher status" within the community for an essay, only the degree of acceptance and vetting. Likewise, it does not mean that the advice of a non-explanatory essay should be arbitrarily ignored, only that it does not have the official status and binding requirements of a policy or guideline any more than an explanatory essay does.
The problem here is it wasn't made very clear that the deletion request concerns you removing items from existing navboxes without discussion and then thinking they require their own navbox. Nope. I am attempting to follow the letter and principles of the WP:NAVBOX and WP:UNDUE policies with guidance from the WP:NAV and WP:ATC essays. By reverting the biography templates back to revision that do not clearly reflect those policies and essay guidance, you are not. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, they did until CommonKnowledgeCreator split these in a campaign of edit-warring, canvassing and wikilawyering. I don't know where we are with any of this now, and quite frankly the walls of text the above editor has written all over the place is just too much to read. So striking my !vote, but would recommend that we go back to the status quo and discuss the split before making these changes, rather than the other way around. --woodensuperman13:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The purpose of navboxes, and series templates, is to connect and categorize articles sharing common topics or concerns. There are plenty of examples of navboxes both larger (here) and smaller (here), which have existed without controversy. In the cases of these templates, why eliminate the connections they currently make by making busywork of trimming them down, and/or shuffling them around? They collapse, anyway, I don't think they're an eyesore. Rebestalic[leave a message....]13:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rebestalic, you may have misunderstood this confusing nomination. The presidency of each U.S. president is and was already listed on their individual navboxes (see {{Woodrow Wilson}} for example. An editor then inexplicably broke off the presidency topics on some of the navboxes in order to isolate them. If too large they can be collapsed on the individual navboxes, that's what collapsed sections are for. This nomination does not remove the topics, it just brings them back to their long-time use. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn, Thank you for the clarification; I did misunderstand! Well, with many individuals whose career was particularly defining, it can become artificial to try and separate these elements. Their work becomes their life.
Thanks Rebestalic. The separate Jimmy Carter navbox was already deleted per an TfD, and the {{Jimmy Carter}} navbox has since been stripped of Carter's presidency again! Carter's presidency now exists nowhere in navbox form except in memory, or until someone puts it back (I've been accused of edit warring for simply replacing undiscussed deletions such as that). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rebestalic, the biography templates were split by myself to follow the WP:UNDUE policy as they only included an arbitrary selection of topics related to the presidencies. Also, there are many Wikipedia articles that are uniquely-related to individual presidencies, and the WP:NAV-WITHIN explanatory essay that does have wide community acceptance recommends that large navigation templates be split by sub-topics. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why does a single editors disproportionate dislike for the concept of infoboxes combined with extreme persistence require this much constant discussion to preserve important aspects of this wiki that aren't generally in question? Its not supported by any guidelines or consensus, and goes against the fundamental idea of improving the project. It's like trying to remove the index from a written encyclopedia. Infoboxes do not interfere with the article content, most are folded in by default, and can be extremely helpful in navigating the countless and sometimes obscure subtopics associated with massive article like those related to US presidents in a much more accessible way than categories. I genuinely think this borders on vandalism. — jonas (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAs an alternative, move these navboxes to the creator's userspace. Until the project can figure this out, we don't need the discussion to drag out for over a month. And frankly, this is one user's passion project and idea, not of many. Also, there has been no consensus by the project and thus some form of deletion must be taken. A redirect to the main president's navbox is one of them. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2024 (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).
Spate of templates for recently created local/state cricket tournaments that don't have enough blue links to warrant templates. The blue linked season articles are questionable whether they pass WP:GNG for lots of these event, but even without that, there aren't enough blue links left on any of these templates. And most of the red links e.g. for teams, should not be created, as they won't pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have added all of these templates that I found with 3 or fewer blue links. I have left any templates with 4+ blue links for now, these could be discussed separately. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2024 (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 above are the remianing political party templates that use an icon and a name. A recent discussion deleted the Taiwan templates (see here). The party names (if missing) should be added to Module:Political party. The icons should be removed per MOS:ICON. If at any point we decide we want party icons, Module:Political party would still be the palce to add them back. --Gonnym (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2024 (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 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 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.