Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 24

< July 23	July 25 >

July 24 edit

Template:The Butterfly aircraft edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Butterfly aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with only two relevant blue links The Banner talk 11:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this template falls. - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:NENAN is just an essay and not Wikipedia policy nor even a guideline. As an essay it is not well accepted on Wikipedia and other essays contradict it such as WP:ANOEP. This is a bad-faith nomination against a consensus that the nominator participated in and found here that all WikiProject Aircraft manufacturer nav boxes are useful and should be retained, regardless of the number of blue links presently in the template. This consensus in no way affects TfDs of other templates outside the purview of WikiProject Aircraft. Both here and here the nominator states that he will not accept any consensus about WikiProject Aircraft manufacturer nav boxes and will continue to nominate them for deletion against consensus. Here and again here he indicates that his motivation for doing this is one of revenge. - Ahunt (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop those senseless personal attacks, mr. Ahunt. Everybody knows this song by now. And it is only a method from you to discredit the nominator to protect your own dodgy templates. The Banner talk 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP AND CLOSE. This nomination has triggered a complaint at WP:ANI, see here, following an extended period of destructive mass-nominations and in defiance of ongoing discussion. This nomination should be summarily refused and closed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NENAN is an essay, not a policy, and there is little evidence that said essay enjoys wide support within the broader community (which is the definition of a policy). These navigation templates are a common feature of aircraft articles and are conspicuous by their absence. They link related articles which are not often otherwise discussed in text yet which are related. Considered as part of the article, instead of just an abstract occupant of the template namespace, the template is both necessary and useful. Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now — It could use more blue links, but there are nearly enough. I also considered the potentially pending RfC. —PC -XT + 04:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The navbox looks perfectly suitable to me in the articles transcluding it. The essay, despite its promising title, degenerates rapidly. It seems to me that the essay is at fault rather than the template. Thincat (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It has been long established that templates with just two relevant links are delete material. Why should the Wikiproject Aviation be any different?...William 12:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Because we have a strong consensus to that effect here. There is no reason that all templates should be treated the same across Wikipedia. In fact WP:REDNOT, an accepted guideline, specifically permits this, "An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referenda, presidents, sports league seasons, etc."- Ahunt (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: I asked in an earlier discussion where this was "long established" and I didn't receive an answer. Wikipedia operates on a mixture of formal (written) and informal (convention) policies. The latter are more easily overridden by individual discussions. WP:NENAN is an essay. It has never received the imprimatur of the Wikipedia community. It enjoys no more formal standing than WP:ANOEP. Participants in this discussion are free to ignore WP:NENAN and a closing administrator who relied on it would be making a reversible error. Mackensen (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Such usage is consistent with WP:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Navigation templates "for providing a consistent appearance to the entire set of articles within [its] scope." Mojoworker (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:User ! edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete (housekeeping) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ! (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was originally used to allow multiple columns in {{Babel}}; however, when writing Module:Babel, I decided to have td tags called as ! inserted explicitly as tags. This was mainly because the table is created with html instead of wikitext. With the job queue finished updating all 33,000+ references of the Babel template to be recognized as using the module, User ! is down to 3 transclusions. With its functionality obsoleted, I don't think it is necessary as a template any longer. mol uɐɯ 14:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a template with no purpose. APerson (talk!) 14:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unneeded —PC -XT + 04:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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). No further edits should be made to this section.