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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:W.F. Stewart Company aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with just two relevant blue links for a non-notable company (= deemed not notable as there is no article about the company) The Banner talk 20:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NENAN is just an essay, not a policy. The template is useful to readers and helps organize the subject. The use of navigation templates like this to organize manufacturer's aircraft types is a consensus standard across many thousands of WikiProject Aircraft articles. A discussion to gain a new consensus on this has been started at WikiProject Aircraft. Rather than dealing with the piecemeal nomination of thousands of aircraft nav boxes please participate there to reach a consensus as to the best course of action. - Ahunt (talk) 21:03, 15 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) 21:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless an article about the company would be appropriate for the encyclopedia. A red title does not make a good navbox. —PC-XT+ 23:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is an ongoing discussion and this nomination is an open attempt at blackmail by one of the disputants, see this diff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These navboxes perform a useful function: the rationale that this is 'tidying up Wikipedia' is feeble in the extreme: no explanation of how deleting these navboxes will actually benefit Wikipedia has been advanced. Essentially, this is just a one-editor jihad based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an essay, not a policy.TheLongTone (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a standard navigation feature on aircraft articles that helps the user easily navigate related subjects and replaced a more cumbersome use of the see also area, if the nominator doesnt like the red links they are welcome to help create the required article or at least ask for help. MilborneOne (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Irrespective of the larger dispute over these aircraft templates in general, there is no need or purpose for a navbox that links only two individual aircraft and which has no hope of expansion. Hell, I'd argue that the two articles could be merged under the title of the manufacturer. Resolute 15:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – While it may be counter-intuitive to have a navigation box which doesn't do much navigation, the project's MOS at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Navigation templates proscribes their use as "beneficial for providing a consistent appearance to the entire set of articles within our scope." This is consistent with the WP:MILHIST project's use of the Campaignbox template. And just as some military campaigns may have few battles, some aircraft manufacturers have few planes. The way in which both projects (as, I'm sure, do other projects) use these templates, they are something more than merely navigation templates. Mojoworker (talk) 20:43, 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.

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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wagner aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with just two relevant blue links (as Skytrac and Skyrider point to the same article) The Banner talk 20:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NENAN is just an essay, not a policy. The template is useful to readers and helps organize the subject. The use of navigation templates like this to organize manufacturer's aircraft types is a consensus standard across many thousands of WikiProject Aircraft articles. A discussion to gain a new consensus on this has been started at WikiProject Aircraft. Rather than dealing with the piecemeal nomination of thousands of aircraft nav boxes please participate there to reach a consensus as to the best course of action. - Ahunt (talk) 20:51, 15 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) 21:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless the title articles would be appropriate for the encyclopedia. Red titles force readers to look through the other linked articles to figure out what the title articles might say. —PC-XT+ 23:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - redlinks to aircraft types are notable by aviation project guidelines, lack of a page doesn't make a subject non-notable - there are just a very very large number of aircraft pages that still need to be written.NiD.29 (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is an ongoing discussion and this nomination is an open attempt at blackmail by one of the disputants, see this diff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These navboxes perform a useful function: the rationale that this is 'tidying up Wikipedia' is feeble in the extreme: no explanation of how deleting these navboxes will actually benefit Wikipedia has been advanced. Essentially, this is just a one-editor jihad based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an essay, not a policy.TheLongTone (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a standard navigation feature on aircraft articles that helps the user easily navigate related subjects and replaced a more cumbersome use of the see also area, if the nominator doesnt like the red links they are welcome to help create the required article or at least ask for help. MilborneOne (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – While it may be counter-intuitive to have a navigation box which doesn't do much navigation, the project's MOS at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Navigation templates proscribes their use as "beneficial for providing a consistent appearance to the entire set of articles within our scope." This is consistent with the WP:MILHIST project's use of the Campaignbox template. And just as some military campaigns may have few battles, some aircraft manufacturers have few planes. The way in which both projects (as, I'm sure, do other projects) use these templates, they are something more than merely navigation templates. Mojoworker (talk) 20:44, 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.

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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Walter Haufe aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with just two relevant links The Banner talk 20:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NENAN is just an essay, not a policy. The template is useful to readers and helps organize the subject. The use of navigation templates like this to organize manufacturer's aircraft types is a consensus standard across many thousands of WikiProject Aircraft articles. A discussion to gain a new consensus on this has been started at WikiProject Aircraft. Rather than dealing with the piecemeal nomination of thousands of aircraft nav boxes please participate there to reach a consensus as to the best course of action. - Ahunt (talk) 20:51, 15 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) 21:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because of red title, however, the project consensus could sway me, and I see that the following one has a black title, which is not technically policy, but is also not impossible to understand. —PC-XT+ 23:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete, unless the red links turn blue. I may support undeletion or recreation once the articles are created, though. —PC-XT+ 05:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is an ongoing discussion and this nomination is an open attempt at blackmail by one of the disputants, see this diff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These navboxes perform a useful function: the rationale that this is 'tidying up Wikipedia' is feeble in the extreme: no explanation of how deleting these navboxes will actually benefit Wikipedia has been advanced. Essentially, this is just a one-editor jihad based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an essay, not a policy.TheLongTone (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a standard navigation feature on aircraft articles that helps the user easily navigate related subjects and replaced a more cumbersome use of the see also area, if the nominator doesnt like the red links they are welcome to help create the required article or at least ask for help. MilborneOne (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – While it may be counter-intuitive to have a navigation box which doesn't do much navigation, the project's MOS at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Navigation templates proscribes their use as "beneficial for providing a consistent appearance to the entire set of articles within our scope." This is consistent with the WP:MILHIST project's use of the Campaignbox template. And just as some military campaigns may have few battles, some aircraft manufacturers have few planes. The way in which both projects (as, I'm sure, do other projects) use these templates, they are something more than merely navigation templates. Mojoworker (talk) 20:45, 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.

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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Welch aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with just one relevant link (all the blue links point to the same article) The Banner talk 20:48, 15 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) 18:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NENAN is just an essay, not a policy. The template is useful to readers and helps organize the subject. The use of navigation templates like this to organize manufacturer's aircraft types is a consensus standard across many thousands of WikiProject Aircraft articles. A discussion to gain a new consensus on this has been started at WikiProject Aircraft. Rather than dealing with the piecemeal nomination of thousands of aircraft nav boxes please participate there to reach a consensus as to the best course of action. - Ahunt (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is an ongoing discussion and this nomination is an open attempt at blackmail by one of the disputants, see this diff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These navboxes perform a useful function: the rationale that this is 'tidying up Wikipedia' is feeble in the extreme: no explanation of how deleting these navboxes will actually benefit Wikipedia has been advanced. Essentially, this is just a one-editor jihad based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an essay, not a policy.TheLongTone (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to having only one link/usage. I wouldn't mind substing into the article, but don't see the point. —PC-XT+ 05:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a standard navigation feature on aircraft articles that helps the user easily navigate related subjects and replaced a more cumbersome use of the see also area, if the nominator doesnt like the red links they are welcome to help create the required article or at least ask for help. MilborneOne (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – While it may be counter-intuitive to have a navigation box which doesn't do much navigation, the project's MOS at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Navigation templates proscribes their use as "beneficial for providing a consistent appearance to the entire set of articles within our scope." This is consistent with the WP:MILHIST project's use of the Campaignbox template. And just as some military campaigns may have few battles, some aircraft manufacturers have few planes. The way in which both projects (as, I'm sure, do other projects) use these templates, they are something more than merely navigation templates. Mojoworker (talk) 20:45, 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.

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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Whittaker aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with only two relevant (= blue) links, as the fifth and sixth point to the same article as respectively the fourth and third link. (Delayed placement due to Twinkle glitch) The Banner talk 20:24, 15 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) 18:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NENAN is just an essay, not a policy. The template is useful to readers and helps organize the subject. The use of navigation templates like this to organize manufacturer's aircraft types is a consensus standard across many thousands of WikiProject Aircraft articles. A discussion to gain a new consensus on this has been started at WikiProject Aircraft. Rather than dealing with the piecemeal nomination of thousands of aircraft nav boxes please participate there to reach a consensus as to the best course of action. - Ahunt (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is an ongoing discussion and this nomination is an open attempt at blackmail by one of the disputants, see this diff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These navboxes perform a useful function: the rationale that this is 'tidying up Wikipedia' is feeble in the extreme: no explanation of how deleting these navboxes will actually benefit Wikipedia has been advanced. Essentially, this is just a one-editor jihad based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an essay, not a policy.TheLongTone (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — This template should have a link as the title, and there are too few articles linked for a navbox. If more of these articles are created, and the title is also changed to a blue link, I would support undeletion/recreation. —PC-XT+ 05:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a standard navigation feature on aircraft articles that helps the user easily navigate related subjects and replaced a more cumbersome use of the see also area, if the nominator doesnt like the red links they are welcome to help create the required article or at least ask for help. MilborneOne (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – While it may be counter-intuitive to have a navigation box which doesn't do much navigation, the project's MOS at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Navigation templates proscribes their use as "beneficial for providing a consistent appearance to the entire set of articles within our scope." This is consistent with the WP:MILHIST project's use of the Campaignbox template. And just as some military campaigns may have few battles, some aircraft manufacturers have few planes. The way in which both projects (as, I'm sure, do other projects) use these templates, they are something more than merely navigation templates. Mojoworker (talk) 20:46, 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.

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Weller Flugzeugbau aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with only two relevant (= blue) links. (Delayed placement due to Twinkle glitch) The Banner talk 20:18, 15 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) 18:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NENAN is just an essay, not a policy. The template is useful to readers and helps organize the subject. The use of navigation templates like this to organize manufacturer's aircraft types is a consensus standard across many thousands of WikiProject Aircraft articles. A discussion to gain a new consensus on this has been started at WikiProject Aircraft. Rather than dealing with the piecemeal nomination of thousands of aircraft nav boxes please participate there to reach a consensus as to the best course of action. - Ahunt (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is an ongoing discussion and this nomination is an open attempt at blackmail by one of the disputants, see this diff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These navboxes perform a useful function: the rationale that this is 'tidying up Wikipedia' is feeble in the extreme: no explanation of how deleting these navboxes will actually benefit Wikipedia has been advanced. Essentially, this is just a one-editor jihad based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an essay, not a policy.TheLongTone (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, since I expect the red link will become another article in the future. This is barely a navbox, but part of a system developed to handle links that would otherwise be under See also. The system has better templates that could be saved by creating articles, so I don't think they should worry about this one, now. I may very well change my mind about keeping this template in the future, but am attempting to give the project a chance per my personal threshold guidelines posted in above project discussion. —PC-XT+ 06:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a standard navigation feature on aircraft articles that helps the user easily navigate related subjects and replaced a more cumbersome use of the see also area, if the nominator doesnt like the red links they are welcome to help create the required article or at least ask for help. MilborneOne (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – While it may be counter-intuitive to have a navigation box which doesn't do much navigation, the project's MOS at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Navigation templates proscribes their use as "beneficial for providing a consistent appearance to the entire set of articles within our scope." This is consistent with the WP:MILHIST project's use of the Campaignbox template. And just as some military campaigns may have few battles, some aircraft manufacturers have few planes. The way in which both projects (as, I'm sure, do other projects) use these templates, they are something more than merely navigation templates. Mojoworker (talk) 20:46, 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.

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:If not (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is redundant to the #if parser function, and will not perform as well as it. I'm worried that editors will use this template without realising that it carries a performance penalty, and I don't think we should let it become highly used. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and possibly restore as a soft-redirect like this. Frietjes (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Frietjes —PC-XT+ 23:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With fire. --Netoholic @ 10:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the template has a significant performance penalty and there's evidence that it's likely to become highly used, then I understand that it would be unwise to keep. But, before it disappears, two pauses for thought:

• It's meant to be a convenience ("wrapper") template that uses a single instance of #if. If it's deleted, does that mean that other convenience/wrapper templates using at least one #if should also be deleted..?
• I wonder whether it would be likely to become highly used. It doesn't appear to've been created before and, until now, the idea of using it hadn't occurred to me (at least, not with sufficient strength to act on). Admittedly, that's only my own experience. But if it would be likely to become highly used – i.e. seen as useful, worthwhile – then perhaps it or (preferably) something that performs an "if not" more elegantly / effectively / acceptably should be retained..?

Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC) (template's creator)[reply]

It's not hard to do an "if not" with parser functions - just use ((#if: (({foo|))} || bar )). That's less characters than ((if not | (({foo|))} | bar )), and one less template call. If there are any other similar templates out there, they should probably be switched to plain parser functions, or better yet the templates that use them could be converted to Lua, where if not foo then bar() end is perfectly acceptable syntax, and lightning-fast. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case, could you – if it would be acceptable/appropriate – re-create ((if not)) as a Lua module that performs "if not foo, then bar, else (if provided) blah"...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not much better, actually, because there is a slight overhead incurred from loading Lua modules via #invoke. It's not noticeable when you just do it a few times on a page and you do the heavy lifting inside Lua, but if you used it many times in a template with only a small amount of Lua code, you would basically negate any speed advantage that Lua has over parser functions. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if your ((if not)) template was faster than a Lua alternative. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So, is there really a case against making ((if not)) available..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:47, 19 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.

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TV Azteca 2007-2008 telenovelas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and has been blank since 9 January 2014. Appears to have been superseded by ((TV Azteca Novelas)). DH85868993 (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete —PC-XT+ 00:20, 16 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.

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 relisted on 2014 July 27 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:20, 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.