Template talk:Aviation lists

"Gumby" box
Does this box really need to be stretched across the whole page? There's not a lot of links in it and it's a poor use of space. In some ways, the X-planes box looks better since it at least is reasonably sized for the amount of content. Askari Mark | Talk 02:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Full-width templates seem to be on the way to becoming standard elsewhere (cf countries and spin-off articles) but I agree that the space could be used more effectively, so have tried reformatting the template accordingly. Meanwhile, X-planes might benefit from Navigation and perhaps no bullets... (imagery intended) Yours, David Kernow (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I disagree. Full-width fits with the standard design elements everywhere else on wikipedia pages, like the category boxes and top-of-page notices. While I've always hated that X-planes box, the full-width helps, even though with bullets it looks hideous. ericg &#9992; 17:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid there remains such a thing as "too much of a good thing", even if it's becoming the standard. Several page-wide navigation boxes at the foot of every article will look so-o-o-o appealing. With regard to this box, I'm not sure rendering it in two lines is a readability improvement, although the glare of white space is reduced. Is there any way to center the box title in line with the link lines? Right now the title and timeline link appear left-justified together. Askari Mark | Talk 18:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Collapsed full-width Navigation templates rather than the bunch of uncoordinated templates sometimes seen at the ends of articles seems a definite improvement to me... Meanwhile, however, the misalignment of the title in the titlebar is an ongoing issue (cf, for instance, &#123;{Navigation}}'s talk page) so if you can spot what's been missed or can be fixed...! Yours, David Kernow (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with David - having three totally different templates at the bottom of the page, all with different sizes, is exceptionally ugly and makes the 'pedia look very unprofessional. ericg &#9992; 04:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Who said the templates had to be different sizes? I just don't like one size — the full-page spread. Few, if any, templates will ever make effective use of that much space. In fact, one of the things I like best about the templates being smaller than page-width is that they readily stand out as separate from the article itself. That is actually a "professional touch" IMHO. Having everything the same width is esthetically boring. After all, would you like to see the TOC and images and so forth be full-page-width? I see no problem with the trailing templates being "standardized" to something in the 60-80% page-width range. That would make them look more like a "further information portal" — which is exactly what they are. Askari Mark | Talk 22:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there a WikiProject or the like related to aviation...? (I quickly scanned Category:WikiProjects but was surprised not to see something...)  I'm just thinking where an invite to comment for some folk likely to have some interest might be lodged; I think we need more than three voices!  Regards, David (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's WikiProject Aircraft; "Aviation" is a portal. I'll pop the question in WP:Aircraft. Askari Mark | Talk 05:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a rough idea of what multiple non-full-page-width nav boxes look like: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force. (Ignore the content and specific style, I'm just talking about the esthetic impact of their sizing. I don't care much for the specific style and I think the width might be wider for what we're talking about.) It does make them stand out and without the unattractiveness of different-width boxes. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Should Missiles really be included in Aviation?
They're ordnance, really. Askari Mark | Talk 03:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No complaints here if their link is removed; does/should it appear on the List of aircraft weapons anyway...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 07:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The term "missiles" isn't clear. Ordnance is military. Things that are located underneath an aircraft wing and launched while in-flight are not necessarily ordnance. When they aren't, their function -- their safety and reliability -- fall under the purview of RTCA, Inc. which is a civilian organization based in the U.S. but has members from all over the world. What RTCA publishes is used as guideance by agencies located throughout the globe.

Consider this: A UAV can be launched from underneath a wing and can provide remote environmental data. At present, UAVs is a category shown under Military lists but UAVs are not military. For example, "RTCA/DO-304, Guidance Material and Considerations for Unmanned Aircraft Systems" is created and published by RTCA, Inc.

Kernel.package (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Change to collapseable/nav format?
An editor just made format changes without discussing them here, and I've put it back to where it was with a note to discuss it here first. I know there's been a discussion above about the merits of the full-width format, and in that discussion, the full-width format had more support, so I'm starting this thread to continue the discussion in light of my revert. Personally, since nav templates seem to be where other such templates are going, it's more standardized, and looks better than a bunch of varying-width templates at the bottom. Akradecki 15:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * While I agree with the sentiment of deprecating the use of "varying-length templates", I do think what Karl was trying to do was a step in the right direction (although I still feel the boxes ought to be standardized somewhere on the order of 2/3-3/4 page width, instead of full-page width). I also like ArfonOwen's use of a darker title background as the original color was very hard to see on my flat-screen monitor; however, the particular shade he selected is a bit too dark IMO with respect to the blue-font text, so something midway between might be best. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the CSS system to reduce the width to fit the test would be   Would anyone mind if I made this change to the template?  Karl Dickman talk 04:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm okay with trying it to see how it looks, as long as you're open to changing it back if it isn't an improvement. Akradecki 05:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Never mind; width only works with tables; we'd have to abandon the currently used, or else imprison the navbox in a table.  Karl Dickman talk 22:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This template should be deleted or made less generic
We have put this template in every airline article where way more than half of the links are highly unrelevant. If you are looking at an airline article why would need to click on any of the following:
 * Air forces
 * Aircraft weapons
 * Missiles
 * Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)
 * Experimental aircraft
 * Notable military accidents and incidents
 * Flight airspeed record
 * Flight distance record
 * Flight altitude record
 * Flight endurance record

-MarsRover 05:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This template is actually in almost all aviation articles for a purpose: it provides a highly effective way for a person seeking information on aviation subjects to at least get a lead on it. If the template is irrelevant to an airline article, then just don't put it in. However, don't deny the rest of the WikiProject Aircraft this very valuable tool. Akradecki 06:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * IMHO, a template covering the entire spectum of aviation is too wide to be "highly effective". How about three templates (a) commercial aviation (b) military aviation (c) aviation records? It would make the links more relevant to the article. --MarsRover 04:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see some merit to that, but this template is so wide spread, I'd suggest taking this to the Projet talk page for a wider consensus first. Akradecki 05:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I like MarsRover's suggested breakout. Askari Mark (Talk) 16:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I most certainly agree with Mars Rover and think this template is far too generic and ubiquitous and should be broken up. -- Allstar86 06:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Making this _more_ generic
Reading the discussion above, there appears to be a will to make this template stand out more. however, this is explicitly discouraged by the navbox template documentation itself, and I agree that navigation templates in general should follow a common pattern rather than trying to assert themselves. For now I've "genericised" this template to a plain ol' navbox. Chris Cunningham 15:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Layout

 * Brought over from User talk:Malyctenar

Hi. Re, you don't think that lengthy group name looks out of place beside the others? (It also eats into the template, especially so on smaller screens/resolutions/windows...) Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I thought OTOH having "Notable incidents / and accidents" broken into two lines looked rather worse when there was so much free space in the right - the longest list is only about 45 em wide, IMO/experience this is rather small and should fit most resolutions. But yes, it is rather unbalanced; if you think this might be problematic, what about shortening the group name just to "Notable incidents"; or perhaps we should leave out "Notable" on the presumption that none other are covered by Wikipedia? :-) (After all, List of notable incidents and accidents involving military aircraft seems to have been moved some time ago...) Best, --Malyctenar (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Followed your suggestion and replaced the name with "Incidents/accidents". More significantly, though, I've also followed through your observation re "notable" and renamed List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft and List of notable incidents and accidents involving general aviation.
 * For consistency's sake, I'm wondering whether the lists of accidents and incidents "on commercial aircraft"/"involving military aircraft" should be renamed "involving commercial aviation"/"involving military aviation"; also Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners (and others?).
 * Now off to look for/create a template to aid finding all these various lists! Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft --> List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft
editprotected This change should be made in order to bypass a redirect.

The line in this template that currently reads:

should read:

because the List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft is a redirect to the List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft. --SSBohio 18:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Cheers!  --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --SSBohio 19:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Aviation industry lists
editprotected request (suggest) title bar name be changed to 'Aviation industry lists'. --emerson7 20:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Why? Probably only around half of these lists describe "the aviation industry" --Rlandmann (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur, and nulling editprotected for now, there doesn't seem to be consensus for this. --Stephen 23:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: Accidents/incidents
Since I could'nt add anything in as the template is protected, can I request to add in the List of airshow accidents into the template since there are plenty of high profile incidents. Jay Pegg (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an extremely general and broad template displayed on many thousands of different aviation-related articles. The list of airshow accidents is way too specific to include here. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Civil aviation authority
This template box needs article Civil aviation authority, with link name being "List of Civil Aviation Authorities"; the article consists mainly of a long list of civil aviation authorities alphabetized by country. --Mr Accountable (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Checked navbox and link was added. --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Link Civil authorities needs to be changed to Civil authorities to avoid redirect. Unless there's some plan to make "List of civil aviation authorities" redirect into an article. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

List of runways
I think this should be added: List of longest runways

Inter-wiki
Editprotected The iw to chinese wikipedia is outdated, as it is redirected to zh:Template:航空航天列表集. And if possible, please use Template Documentation for this template. --Quest for Truth (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Interwiki updatedl you'll have to be more specific regarding the edit needed to implement documentation. Cheers, Skomorokh  22:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To implement documentation, I mean to move those inside "noinclude" to /doc, so that the next time it is possible to make small edits like the interwiki and categories. --Quest for Truth (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2009 (T[[UTC)
 * Thank you, User:Od Mishehu. --Quest for Truth (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Schmloof, 30 October 2010
edit protected

Bypass "List of people who died in aviation accidents and incidents|Deaths" to "List of fatalities from aviation accidents|Deaths", as per navbox guidelines recommending against the use of redirects.

–Schmloof (talk · contribs) 00:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do point out that probably even on the large navboxes, the 3 edits (your request, my edit and my reply here) will consume much more resources than the redirects ever will. In general it is best to only fix redirects when making other edits or when fixing terminology of redirects. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 11:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been more clear. The "no-redirect-in-navbox" thing is simply to embolden the link when on the relevant page, not as a server load issue (see WP:NAVBOX: Avoid redirects).  I should also have been more clear: the entry I was referring to is the last one in that group, regarding accidents, not the first one regarding general aviation.  Thanks! –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 21:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
There is a version in the sandbox: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Aviation_lists/sandbox&oldid=400541029, which removes the link 'List of people who died in aviation accidents and incidents', because it is now a redirect to: 'List of fatalities from aviation accidents', which is already included in the navbox. Minor alphabetizing was also done. Please add this updated code to the template. Thanks, --]Funandtrvl (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Could you possibly write the documentation for this template? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, done! Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Lists of accident by country
Should List of accidents and incidents involving airliners in the United Kingdom and List of accidents and incidents involving airliners in the United States be added to the template? Mjroots (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

List of firsts in aviation
I believe that the List of firsts in aviation should be added to this template. Chienlit (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Would also like to see Homebuilt aircraft under "General".Verne Equinox (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Human-powered aircraft
Can someone add this to the template please.Petebutt (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * -- I think that's too specialised a list to go here; maybe discuss this at WT:AVIATION or WT:AIRCRAFT and see what other people think? --Rlandmann (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request 15 August 2011
In the sandbox, there is a version that updates one of the page title changes, fixes formatting, and adds a few links that have been suggested here on the tlk pg. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request - registration prefixes
Would someone please add Registration prefixes to the General list? Thanks! —Cxw (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Aviation lists
Can an Administrator edit the lists relating to Aviation from this Aircraft (manufacturers)·

to this

Aircraft··

ThanksPetebutt (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC) Oops - for full syntax copy from edit pagePetebutt (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC) Think about this one. I didn't realize how it was set-up. Does it need a re-think and edit to how I PROPOSE?Petebutt (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 September 2013
(in China) was recently added to "Unmanned"

I do not see any reason to include this. What is the purpose?

12.199.176.12 (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✔️ the change was reverted .--User:Salix alba (talk): 10:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 September 2013
The link from "Death toll" under accidents/incidents should be changed to List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities reflecting the change on the page which is currently linked. Thank you.

Godot13 (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ MilborneOne (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks!-Godot13 (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 February 2014
Remove Su-39 link under Bombers/Attack. Sukhoi Su-39 does not exist on Wikipedia and links to the Su-25 page, which has a brief, but sufficient description of the Su-25TM variant, also known as the Su-39.

76.120.25.0 (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Padlock-pink-open.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 02:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * IP users can't edit protected templates; I can't even edit this one myself. However, there is no link to the Su-39 on this page. - BilCat (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the user is referring to Template:Sukhoi aircraft. However, that template lists all known Sukhoi type, not just those with articles of their own. I've redirected the link to the correct section in the Su-25 article instead of deleting it. - BilCat (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 March 2014
I would like to add List of aerobatic teams

Nathan121212 (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Jackmcbarn, I have just added it, do you think it could work? Nathan121212 (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Added Aerobatic teams to the sandbox. Could this be incorporated into the main template? Nathan121212 (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 12:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 June 2014
Please replace |group3 = Accidents/incidents with |group3 = Accidents · Incidents as the latter is easier to read (see sandbox), especially when the overall font-size is smaller.

Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not really a list - perhaps an ampersand would be more appropriate here? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: I agree it's not really a list, and was thinking about this. I thought a line-break might look better, maybe with slightly shorter characters; or an ampersand; or an asterisk; or a pipe?  Maybe   which looks like "Accidents&thinsp; & &thinsp;Incidents"? — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 13:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If not the dot via hlist, I suggest \ (Template:\). Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that looks better I think. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 June 2014
Can we have Lists of military aircraft by nation added to the template? Maybe as Airforces (Aircraft)?
 * Thanks.NiD.29 (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 July 2014
Add List of wheel-well stowaway flights to the Accidents / incidents group. Thanks in advance.

Brandmeistertalk  16:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ –  Paine Ellsworth  C LIMAX ! 19:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  Please see discussion below. –  Paine Ellsworth  C LIMAX !  19:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Would like to note that I do not agree with that addition, does not fit in with the general nature of the other links. Could we allow time for discussion on what should be added to this project-wide navbox before it happens? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    22:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course. There is always time for discussion, there is no deadline and it is as easy to remove a link as it is to add it.  I thought this uncontroversial and a helpful improvement because a) it is a list, b) it is about aviation and c) in the lead it relates how 23.3% of wheelwell stowaways are successful.  So it follows that 76.7% are unsuccessful.  Some would qualify such a rate as "aviation accidents".  Perhaps some would not; however, does anyone contest that they are at the very least "incidents"?  To address your "too specific" concern, how many lists are there on the subject of aviation that would find a way to this template if we allowed all such lists to be added?  Has this template ever been so filled with lists that it had to be trimmed?  –  Paine 


 * There are currently 2,040 list class aviation articles, obviously only a very small percentage of these can sensibly be linked in this navbox. We have only one list link each for aircraft and aero engine types, the other related lists should be accessible through those pages by either using the 'See also' sections or by using the 'lists of...' categories. The stowaway list can be accessed in the same way through 'List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft' which is the parent article linked in the navbox.


 * Many list links have been added then removed by consensus from this navbox over the years, I believe the edit protection was added to limit it to parent lists only (preserving its simplicity and clarity). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    19:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The template has been returned to status quo pending further discussion. Please see above.  Joys! –  Paine Ellsworth  C LIMAX !  19:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, could you also remove the added portal link please, they should show only in 'see also' sections per WP:PORTAL. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    22:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the portal should stay, NavBoxes typically include a link to their relevant portals. WP:PORTAL says nothing against it. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  23:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * These links go in the See also section. Entering the link at the top of the section will allow it to sit on the top right. The guideline wording. Nimbus  (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    23:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Under the header "How to add portal links to articles", which is not what we're discussing here. I agree with you that it might be a good idea to add directions about how Portal links are normally added to NavBoxes using the "below" parameter, as was done here. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  00:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Overuse of navbox
Why on earth has this navbox been transcluded on thousands of articles, when, per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, it should only appear on the articles that are mentioned within? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * By consensus it is used in all aviation articles as a replacement for links that were previously in the see also section and other templates, no real requirement that the articles have to be mentioned the nav box bidirectional is only a guide not policy. MilborneOne (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Template:Aviation lists/doc Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    16:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Can someone point me to this consensus? --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * https://tools.wmflabs.org/templatecount/index.php?lang=en&name=Aviation_lists&namespace=10#bottom might help, a template doesnt get used 17,000 times without some form of consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That doesn't show me any consensus whatsoever, other than that a single project has decided to grossly misuse the function of a navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Rob Sinden "grossly misuse the function of a navbox" is a bit strong it appears to show a lack of good faith in others. MilborneOne (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should this navbox be removed from non-mentioned articles?
Should this navbox be removed from the 17,000+ articles that it has been transcluded on, except for the articles which are mentioned within the navbox? Rob Sinden (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. This is a gross misuse of a navbox, per WP:NAVBOX, specifically WP:BIDIRECTIONAL.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This should absolutely be removed as the vast majority of its uses fail the criteria established at WP:NAVBOX. Regards each criterion:
 * This template does not relate to a "single, coherent, subject." (emphasis mine)
 * Per BIDIRECTIONAL, also fails.
 * Articles do not refer to each other.
 * There is no singular article called "lists of aviation" (and if there were, I'd be skeptical that it would pass WP:N, notwithstanding that lists (of lists) perhaps don't need to).
 * I wouldn't want to list these items in the see also sections of the articles this is used on.
 * In general, I find this navbox indeed a gross misuse of the point of a navbox. --Izno (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal as nom clearly doesnt like it and thinks the template was created in bad faith, not a viable reason to remove a well used navigation template. MilborneOne (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Nom clearly doesn't like it" and aspersions of "thinks the template was created in bad faith" are examples of the ad hominem argument fallacy (and also do not have support in policy or guideline). As regards this "well used navigation template", consider responding to my pretty clear correlation to our guideline on navboxes; regardless of how well used it is, the guideline is pretty clear that it is incorrectly used and in this form there's nothing that can be done to save its continued use on the 17k some-odd pages it is currently used on. --Izno (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Which part of policy does the navbox offend? MilborneOne (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I made that pretty clear in my above "support removal" comment. The template fails to meet all five of the criteria established at WP:NAVBOX for what defines a good navbox. While some templates may be good which do not "pass" all five of those criteria, a navbox failing all of them clearly evidences a bad navbox. --Izno (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesnt appear to be a policy document only a guideline and it also says "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines" and this template doesnt fail all five points, it generally follows (1) and (5) but as this is only a guideline it is only nice to have the others but not compulsory. MilborneOne (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Doesnt appear to be a policy document only a guideline" is like saying "I'm always going to ignore all the rules", and that's not the point of WP:IAR. It also shows a misunderstanding of how policies and guidelines work. Give a solid reason why ignoring the rules in this case is a good idea because the navbox rules are actually rather lax on what should get a navbox. It does fail items 1 and 5. The subject is incoherent (relating only lists of aviation of which there are [many] more than are in this template; lists of aviation being considered at only the highest level). I also wouldn't want to list all of these in almost all aircraft articles as they are too displaced from the content of any particular article on aviation. --Izno (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody has said we should ignore all the rules but a guideline is just that a guide, bit like projects who refuse to use infoboxes despite the related guideline. It also clearly meets (1) as all the content is related to aviation, and (5) it doesnt say all of them have to be in every article in fact it says "You would want to list many of these articles in the see also sections of the articles", as the navbox came about to remove entries in the see also section then it clearly meets(5). The guideline also says good templates generally follow some of the guideline, not all. MilborneOne (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding (1), "aviation" is not a "single, coherent subject", it is a broad topic. However that is really only relevant when we're discussing deletion, which is not being discussed here, merely its removal from 17,000 inappropriate articles. It is completely appropriate to include on the list articles, as the list articles are all related, and it may be useful to navigate between each one.  What isn't appropriate is to include this navbox on everything that falls under the "aviation" banner.  The same way we don't put everything in a top-level category.  For example, why would you want to navigate from McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II to List of aerospace museums?  The two are completely unrelated.  Which covers point (5).  And don't forget the WP:BIDIRECTIONAL issue.  Yeah, sure, a couple of exceptions here or there, but you'd need a hell of a reason to WP:IAR if you're going to ignore the same guideline over 17,000 times with the same navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly the long time existence of the template in 17,000 articles support the idea that until this week when some users decided they didnt like it it clearly had support, you dont get used that many times if it clearly goes againt policy, which it clearly doesnt. I will await for more comment but please add 17,000 votes for retention to the discussion, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suspect editors have tried to remove the navbox as many times too, only to have the removal reverted. Shall we count those as votes for removal?  Just because something has been used, doesn't make the usage right.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes (e.g. ) - challenging this "consensus" (to be different to the rest of en wp and to make relevant template(s) less visible by bunching them up with a less relevant one) has long been on my to-do list. DexDor(talk) 22:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Izno, but replace with see also links where appropriate. Instead, the navbox could feature prominently on the aviation portal's front page. Alakzi (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Removal/deletion of the navbox will make the lists linked into a walled garden, making them less accessible to the average reader. This would be a particular problem for some of the groups of lists such as the "years in aviation" lists, which are reachable via the [Timeline of aviation]] link in the template. Almost every aircraft article would be linked to in one of the "year in aviation" articles. Simple mass removal of the navbox would be unhelpful, although there may be some mileage to splitting the template up into several more tightly focused ones that could be more precisely applied to articles where relevant.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support removal - mainly for consistency with the rest of (English) Wikipedia. Many aviation articles do not (currently) have this template on them (e.g. Police aviation).  If it was policy for wp articles to have such templates then an article such as Police aviation in the United Kingdom would have 3 such templates on it - police lists, aviation lists and UK lists. Many (non-aviation) lists have few inlinks (e.g. List of automobiles manufactured in Ontario only has 3 inlinks from article space and only one inlink from an actual article).  As long as the list is reachable (e.g. from relevant pages, by the category structure, and of course from just typing "list of ..." into the search box) then there's no need to link to the list from thousands of pages.  Is it really likely that a reader of an aviation article (e.g. Ju 87, Merlin, VTOL) is likely to want to navigate to any of the lists linked in the template? DexDor(talk) 05:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just like to point out categories are not used widely for navigation at all..in fact they are the least used form of  navigation here...for example The cat for Canada is only seen 30 times a day ..the article itsself 15000 times a day... the Canada portal does better then the cat 100 times a day.  Saying cats help people navigate is a misnomer. Best would be to have an index or outline for the topic at hand.  -- Moxy (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that possibly because people aren't going to go to the top level Category:Canada because they are looking at articles in, say, Category:Writers from Edmonton and the two are too distantly related to be of navigational value? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That is possible....but as has been mentioned in the past  cats are a type of run-around link..as in they  take you to other cats ....getting to articles is not all that simple in big cats (antiquated system) . On the other-hand  an outline or index is very easy to navigate and is an article that people will actually look at. I dont comment on deletions in area's i dont edit .... I just offer solutions for projects.-- Moxy (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But if we are forbidden to link to list type articles via a navbox, presumably we will also be forbidden to link to the same content via an outline or index, so making it difficult to find the content, even if this is not the intention.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would you be forbidden from that? Who has even suggested such a thing? Not knowing the outline/index guidelines, I couldn't tell you if that's currently something you can('t) do, but I would be immensely skeptical that someone would prohibit using lists and such to get around. --Izno (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * support removal, the general convention is that we only put navboxes on pages linked in the navbox. see, for example, the discussion for the lists of Russians template. Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * support removal: it's a pretty random selection of lists; as said, it fails the bidirectional test, and doesn't really help to tie the articles together in a coherent way. The claim that removal would turn the lists into a "walled garden" doesn't really convince me: an article should get a link from another article if it's specifically relevant, not just if it has something vaguely to do with the topic. --Slashme (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support removal, this list is very generic, and as mentioned before fails bidirectionality. Specific "See Also" links should be used instead of this list.Kage Acheron (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal - This template acts as a portal, the links are deliberately generic and have been thoughtfully considered. The only problem we have had is controlling the number of links, at the moment there is one stray link. Reluctant to edit it if 17,000 applications are about to be deleted. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    02:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the "one stray link" that you are referring to? This template is being included on every plane crash article, and many more articles besides that have little to nothing in common with the topics on the template. As Rob Sinden has pointed out, this template violates most of the guidelines at WP:NAVBOX, particularly WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. We are not proposing the deletion of the entire template, rather the removal from pages where it doesn't belong. Kage Acheron (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to link to a portal then use . DexDor(talk) 22:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support only in that it just doesn't feel right. —烏Γ (kaw), 21:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support removal, leaving the navbox only on those articles that explicitly pass WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. As it stands, the usage is well outside of the guidelines at WP:NAVBOX. Concerns that this removal will create walled gardens can be addressed editorially in the relevant articles. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Misc. as well as General?
Is there a reason why the navbox includes a "Misc." group as well as a "General" group? Would it not be simpler to include "Jet airliners" in the "General" group? (Compare "Gliders" and "Rotorcraft".) Also, not displaying "List of ..." for this item would be more consistent with the other items in the navbox. (Checking before editing as I am not an extensive contributor to aviation articles.) Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal
For info, following on from the above RFC, I raised this at WP:BOTREQ and it's now been done.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 06:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)