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) 23:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2013–2014 unrest in Ukraine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Newly created, poor duplicate of ((2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine)). NickSt (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I say Keep, seems an adequate summary thing to use like a series template, compared to the 2014 template which would go at the bottom of an article. - AJF (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Ajfweb. -Mardus (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In use, no replacement available (Update: ...for use inside the article). Normalgirl (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete there IS another template as already provided...what purpose does it serve?Lihaas (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The other template is hardly usable inside any article. Normalgirl (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is usable as a summary. However, the alternate template is really ((Campaignbox 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine)) :-( (I saw that template after investing time in getting this template to be standard.) Mark Hurd (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The campaignbox is not similiar to this, as it only includes the military events related to the unrest, and not the whole scope from Euromaidan onward. RGloucester — ☎ 19:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – A proper sidebar (different from either a campaignbox or navbar) an, per AJF. RGloucester — ☎ 19:16, 18 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) 06:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NBA player salaries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

After the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010–11 NBA player salaries and the subsequent deletion of the corresponding articles for other years, this has become useless for navigation as it only has one remaining bluelink (not counting the parent link in the title). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom —PC-XT+ 23:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this can be done speedily, I should think. Neutrality^talk 07:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Navbox with a single link serves no purpose. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:39, 22 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) 23:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thruster Aviation Services aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

fails WP:NENAN with just one relevant blue link for a company deemed not notable (= without own article) The Banner talk 12:13, 17 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) 15:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is a bad-faith nomination against a new consensus 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 he indicates that his motivation for doing this is one of revenge. - Ahunt (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ahunt. 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) 15:54, 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) 17:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And here comes WikiProject Aircraft to protect their personal toys. The Banner talk 07:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: it is a WikiProject Aircraft template (check the talk page) and so you can expect that members of that project will have an opinion about the template even if you don't personally like what they have to say. I don't see project members voicing their opinions at TfD as any reason for you to attack them with sarcasm. How about just letting your deletion nom stand or fall on its merits, or lack thereof, instead? - Ahunt (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, you are the one alarming all friends to protect your templates. And I still have not seen any valid reason why WP:NENAN should not be used for aircraft-related navigation templates. The Banner talk 14:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Notifying WikiProjects is standard as explained at WP:TFD, just something that you omitted doing when you nominated all these templates. Your use of the word "alarming" is inappropriate, as is your use of the word "friends". I don't know any of the WikiProject Aircraft editors in person, we are just a group of Wikipedia editors collaborating to improve articles on Wikipedia about aircraft. As noted many times WP:NENAN is just an essay, not a policy or even a guideline and one that does not even have general support on Wikipedia. Regardless, it has been over-ruled by a consensus on WikiProject Aircraft manufacturer nav box templates found here and so carries no weight in this discussion. Your continued quoting of it just serves to underline your refusal to accept consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, it states that it is polite, not that it is mandatory: You generally should notify the creator of template and it is also considered polite to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template. The Banner talk 20:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ow, I hope you can persuade the administrators to accept a consensus reached among peers to protect the work of those same peers, especially the templates created by Ahunt. The Banner talk 22:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm not a member of WP:AVIATION but The Banner's behavior in this nomination is inappropriate and he should withdraw his remarks toward the other editors. Participation by affected WikiProjects is normal and proper and there's nothing untoward about it. WP:NENAN is an essay and does not enjoy wide support. If it did it would have been promoted to guideline. This template is contextually useful if for no other reason than it would be noticeable by its absence as such templates are, based on my experience browsing Wikipedia, a standard part of aircraft articles. Including said templates is as much as a content decision as anything. Mackensen (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (perhaps subst and delete) until there are more articles to link, at which time I would support undeletion or recreation. (I would not mind keeping this for now, to be deleted later if the articles are not created.) This is part of a system of templates judged more appropriate than alternatives in a past discussion. (I usually don't use WP:NENAN, as my !votes are typically made along similar, but different, lines. I include any link, even the title, in the link count if it transcludes the template, for instance, in judging the navigation potential. For these templates I am using my personal guidelines posted in the wikiproject discussion User:Ahunt linked above.) —PC-XT+ 23:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC) 00:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if we were talking essays, I would say to keep per WP:ANOEP for many of these I am voting to delete, provided they became filled out. —PC-XT+ 23:53, 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) 14:29, 20 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) 23:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Towle Marine Aircraft Engineering aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with just four relevant links The Banner talk 12:13, 17 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) 15:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is a bad-faith nomination against a new consensus 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 he indicates that his motivation for doing this is one of revenge. - Ahunt (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ahunt. 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) 15:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: You can note that this template has five relevant blue links including the titular article, so I don't know why it was even nominated in the first place. - Ahunt (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, the link to the parent article is usually not counted as a relevant link as it is a link that just should be there. (In fact: no parent article, no navigation template) The Banner talk 07:25, 18 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) 17:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as these links are enough for a navbox, in my opinion —PC-XT+ 23:43, 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) 14:29, 20 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) 23:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tri-R aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with just two relevant links The Banner talk 12:12, 17 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) 15:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is a bad-faith nomination against a new consensus 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 he indicates that his motivation for doing this is one of revenge. - Ahunt (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ahunt. 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) 15:54, 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) 17:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and comment Two links is not enough for a template. By the way all the people above, if I'd seen these templates before Banner, I would have TFD them. Take me on too for defending what is a regular practice here. TFDing templates with few links. Why should the Aviation Project be above what is standard WP practice and will continue to be as soon as all these TFDs are finished?...William 16:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find the comment by WilliamJE above extraordinary. What is this "standard WP practice" that you're referring to? It can't be a policy, because there is no policy regarding the permissible number of links in a navigation template. The closest thing is WP:NENAN, a user essay which has never even become a guideline. Are we talking about standard practice at TFD? I wasn't aware that TFD set content standards and participation at TFD is not representative of the community at large. It is not for the regulars at TFD to set the standards by which article content is written and curated. If you think WP:NENAN should be a policy or guideline then go through the necessary steps to make it so. Otherwise please stop acting as though it carries any weight. The regulars at WP:AVIATION, who have found their lives disrupted by this pointless witchhunt, are hardly the only editors on this project who consider it a dead letter. Now, repeating what I've said elsewhere, 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) 16:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Further question to WilliamJE, who apparently approves of how The Banner has conducted this set of nominations, is this a "standard WP practice" as codified by TFD? I would consider it grounds for withdrawing every subsequent TfD nomination as bad faith as a start. Mackensen (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, the fact that someone agrees with me, makes my nomination bad faith nominations? I hope you are kidding, Mackensen. The Banner talk 20:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all; I apologize for being unclear. I was simply stating that your comments called into question the validity of your nominations, and I was inquiring of WilliamJE whether he agreed with the tone you've taken. These sorts of comments are very unprofessional. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Mackensen (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • At least I do not accept the tone you have taken by questioning my motivations. The Banner talk 22:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't matter to me whether you "accept" my tone or not. If you make comments like this and this it's hard to avoid the conclusion that you want to punish certain members of WP:AVIATION for their insolence. I suggested to you earlier that you consider withdrawing some of your comments in order to avoid an unfortunate impression and I hope you'll consider it. Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • You can follow me around and pull everything out of context. But you could also have noticed that I did not TfD any aircraft templates after the 17th. I still stand by my nominations and I still do not accept all the personal harassment that I have to endure because of these nomination. You only look at one side of the mirror. The Banner talk 22:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Clearly if I "followed you around" I'd know all about this harassment which justifies your behavior here and elsewhere. You took the positive action in nominating many templates; you must have known there would be a reaction and that people would be upset and seek to engage you in a discussion. The best thing you could do at this point, instead of referring to "crying kids" or making insinuations about WP:AVIATION members and their motivations, is to explain why WP:NENAN has relevance in this discussion and why participants should accept it as a policy. As things stand it is a user-written essay, not a policy. It has not been placed before the community for wider consideration. It has no more force of policy than its evil twin, WP:ANOEP. It may be that TfD often deletes templates under these circumstances, but that's nothing more than a local consensus specific to that discussion and it has no weight here. Mackensen (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is used by the administrator as if it is a policy. With about 95% deleted or rescued by writing/adding enough articles to meet the threshold of five relevant articles. The Banner talk 23:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • News to this administrator. Mackensen (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:ANOEP and my personal guidelines posted in the project discussion —PC-XT+ 00:05, 20 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) 14:30, 20 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) 23:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NENAN with just one relevant blue link for a company deemed not-notable (= without own article) The Banner talk 12:11, 17 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) 15:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is a bad-faith nomination against a new consensus 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 he indicates that his motivation for doing this is one of revenge. - Ahunt (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ahunt. 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) 15:54, 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) 17:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only one link and the company doesn't even have an article....William 15:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 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) 16:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (perhaps subst and delete) until there are more articles to link, at which point I support undeletion or recreation per WP:ANOEP and my personal guidelines posted in the project discussion —PC-XT+ 00:13, 20 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) 14:31, 20 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 Speedy delete (G7). I created it as a way of hiding unwanted sections of discussion. However, other similar templates, such as ((collapse top)) came along, and this one was only used in my own archives. Some time ago, I stopped using it, and it's been unused ever since. As I'm the only editor, I've speedied it as G7. NB ((threadend)) deleted the same way. Optimist on the run (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thread (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

What does this template do? How is it used? What appearance does it produce? Is it actually used? If this is not a helpful template, I recommend deleting it. – S. Rich (talk) 05:47, 17 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) 23:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Report vandalism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This warning is only used in Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test (Which is a page with the ((humor)) tag.). S/s/a/z-1/2 (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; used in a very limited scope. APerson (talk!) 22:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete per nom —PC-XT+ 00:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Not very useful template because it's only used on two pages! --Sonusmarty (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)Sonusmarty[reply]

Also, the following comment was posted to the template documentation:

When I first encountered a vandal that needed reporting, I ended up reading page after page but could not find the proper notice board. I ended up reporting it as an "incident", and only then did somebody point me towards the correct board. I created the template to help people find the correct board more easily. Short of substituting it first, or replacing it with a more common one, I don't see how deleting the template accomplishes this goal. --Zfish118 (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by nom At Wikipedia:Vandalism, there is already a hatnote. Also, the use at Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test seems to be quite pointless.S/s/a/z-1/2 (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The banner is easier to spot, due to people sometimes skipping hatnotes, but other than that I wouldn't mind deleting it without substitution. —PC-XT+ 06:24, 24 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.