Template talk:2023 high-altitude object incidents

This template was considered for deletion on 9 January 2024. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation Weather This template is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles Espionage 2023 high-altitude object incidents is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles Military history: Aviation This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force International relations This template is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles

The template is a good start. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was one created, at List of high-altitude object events in 2023 -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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). --

First, to clarify, I have reverted your edit twice (as have you), not three times. I don't know about explicitly, 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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]