Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 11



RAF aircraft by user navboxes

 * 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) 03:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * RAF Tornado Squadrons
 * RAF Nimrod Squadrons
 * RAF Tutor Squadrons
 * RAF Typhoon squadrons

Some item by user navboxes, similar to those that have been deleted in the past and provide no benefit to the reader, if this was done for every aircraft type in the RAF it could end up with hundreds of such like navboxes along with multiple application to squadron articles. RAF Squadron articles already have a single Template:RAF squadrons to provide links to other numbered squadrons and the individual aircraft type article provide list of operators. MilborneOne (talk) 09:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Full disclosure, I created one of these - but this isn't pride of authorship. I feel it is a concise way to show what squadrons operate(d) the aircraft.  The fact that RAF squadron articles have a template and aircraft article lists the operating squadrons is not as obvious or logical as a simple template on each. Furthermore what cost keeping it? It seems to me we're getting rid of a useful source of information in the name of housekeeping? Mark83 (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment "a simple template on each" I would expect that the templates for example the RAF Spitfire would be huge and that would be true for a few of the thousands of aircraft types with military operators. Such aircraft by user navboxes have been deleted in the past as for example the Typhoon would need a navbox for each military operator would need seven such navboxes. An example used before in such cases would be the C-47 which has been used by over two hundred military operators, two hundred navboxes would hardly add to ease of use of such articles when each navbox like the USAAF one for the C-47 would be rather large and duplicate the existing article on operators. MilborneOne (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * delete per MilborneOne, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:RePEc

 * 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) 05:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * RePEc

The template infobox economist already has this data. The handful of pages that used this template now have the RePEc data in the infobox. The articles which might (and did) use this template are for economists, so a consistent and popular layout (a la the infobox) works fine. – S. Rich (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Also, the link on this template's page goes to a dead link. – 06:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as superfluous and unnecessary. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.