Template talk:2023 high-altitude object incidents

Can we have one master high level aggregate article now
The template is a good start. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There was one created, at List of high-altitude object events in 2023 -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of 2023 Latin America balloon incident (section redirect)
InfiniteNexus has now reverted the addition of the Latin American balloon incident in this template 3 times.

The reason, supposedly, is that navigation boxes should never contain links to sections. However, there is absolutely nothing that explicitly states this in navbox guidelines at WP:NAVBOX.

My opinion is that in this case, excluding the entry due to conventions that are implied at best, is more harmful than good. There is a linkable section within 2023 Chinese balloon incident which contains all pertinent information to the incident. There is not enough information to split it into an article of its own, and simultaneously the navbox is patently incomplete without this entry.

Seeing as I've added it 3 times and it's now been removed 3 times, it's clear neither side will be budging on this so at this point I am seeking wider consensus either way on what to do here.

As it stands, the entry remains removed pending consensus. So, here is an example of how the navbox looks and performs with the entry added.

If it's a slamdunk that this absolutely should not be included, then so be it, but from everything I can tell, there is room for interpretation as to what is acceptable within a navbox (besides external links). --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * First, to clarify, I have reverted your edit twice (as have you), not three times. I don't know about, but what I wrote in my edit summary is the longstanding convention on navboxes, whether expressly documented in our guidelines or not. I have also explained the reasons why a section link is superfluous in this case, we don't need two links to the same article on a template. Links shouldn't be added to navboxes simply for the sake of completeness. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * first add, first remove, second add, second remove, final add, final remove; so I figured we're at three. It doesn't matter, because either way, the point is that I'm content to stay away from an edit war, so won't be putting it back in barring consensus in favor of it.  I can respect where you're coming from, even if I disagree.  That said, it'd still be nice to hear some additional voices here on this, for or against. --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to revert anyone in this edit — I wasn't even aware when the link had been added, or by who. So it's debatable whether that technically counts as a "revert". But in any case, I agree, let's wait for someone else to chime in. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)