This template is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This template was considered for deletion on 15 July 2012. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".
I closed this TfD, as no consensus. Please feel free to discussion which links should be included/removed. If there are no links, then clearly the template is of no use. I started the discussion by removing the redlinked entries, but restoring the links (even if they are not to independent articles). There was some general desire expressed in the TfD that the "no independent article" rule could be bent in this particular case, since it was such an early time in aviation history. Thanks! Plastikspork―Œ(talk)19:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per the comments William has linked to the template should be used to navigate between accident articles not between biography or other pages that mention accidents. No reason why individuals cant be linked in the 1908 in aviation type lists but not here. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Go back and stop being lazy and reread the comments. You have to be lazy or blind not to see that someone else did comment I also suggest you read WP:NENAN....William19:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUS. Nobody voiced an objection and those posts haven't been up just a couple of days. Another thing, check template histories and see what happens when an article is deleted, redirected, or when an addition is made without an independent article. You want to change how the templates are done, bring it to the task force talk page....William00:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
so, what exactly was the outcome of the TfD? It should either be (a) add links or (b) delete the template. having an entirely blank template is pointless. If we consider the TfD result as a "straw poll", then we have four or five editors expressing the opinion to keep the template (which I doubt is an opinion to keep a blank template) and two expressing the opinion to delete the template. so, what is the consensus? Frietjes (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discusions aren't votes. The result at the TFD was no consensus, so the template stayed. The consensus of the TF that oversees this template is that independent crash articles are the only entries allowed. No redlinks, no redirects, no links to crash lists. If Michael wants to change that like I said before, take it to the accident task force talk page....William09:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the consensus was to blank the template. I have restored it to the last version by Plastikspork. if you want a second TfD, feel free to nominate it again. the solution should be to either (a) add links or (b) delete the template. having an entirely blank template is pointless. Frietjes (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, WilliamJE is attempting to impose his own view on the rest of Wikipedia. An empty template is useless. William, to quote you, "The consensus of the TF that oversees this template...", where is this consensus? Michael5046 (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you're not. Check here[4], here[5], here[6], here[7] for edits to templates like this one by different editors in each and every single case where links were removed. Take it to the accident forum and try changing the minds of editors who disagree with you or are you afraid they will say the same thing I am?...William22:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
