This template is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This template is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian articles
Per WP:EXISTING, Red links and redirects should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles. It is uncool to expect people to navigate through a minefield of nonexistent articles. Elizium23 (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be misleading to simply contain pre-existing articles. Remove the formatting, not the content. Mugsalot (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mugsalot, I didn't remove any content, only junk. Why do you simply revert if you have a better suggestion? Elizium23 (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Elizium23 If you had exerted an iota of effort, you would realise you removed sourced content from List of maphrians, not junk. I reverted it because you removed a significant quantity of content, and you are the one keen on removing led links, thus you're responsible for manually removing the links should you wish to achieve that result. Mugsalot (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't edit List of maphrians. I count 6 citations among dozens and dozens of Maphrians. If List of maphrians exists with a comprehensive list, then I don't see why a duplicate navbox is also necessary. Elizium23 (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This template is based on content from that article, you removed sourced content on this template from that article. Have a better look at the article, it has 24 inline references, and sources are declared appropriately, please pay attention. Navboxes supplement lists for article navigation, there does not need to be one or another. Mugsalot (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the clear guidance in WP:REDNOT, I am prepared to revert to my version. Elizium23 (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no. The point is to remove the redlinks, not to turn them black. They are still redlinks in spirit. Per WP:EXISTING, once more with feeling: Unlinked text should be avoided. It's a navbox, not a needle-in-a-haystack-box. Elizium23 (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be happy if I just made the articles as stubs until I can get back to them to do them properly? I have already created seven of the biographies that use this template, in addition to the list and template itself, and I'm the only user, apart from Srnec, who actively edits this subject area, so progress is slow, albeit steady. Mugsalot (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mugsalot, that would depend on their ability to survive WP:CSD and ultimately AFD. If you can pull that off, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Elizium23 (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
