- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
List of aircraft (0-A)
- List of aircraft (0-A) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Purports to be a list of aircraft but doesn't contain any. Andrew D. ( talk) 06:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Right; looks like the outcome of a page re-org. We should involve WP:Aircraft to see what folks there think of the new structure. The outcome is a proliferation of very tiny pages... -- Rlandmann ( talk) 06:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as part of the overall re-organisation, disruptive nomination as it's clear from the article history that this is being used as part of a comprehensive navigation aid. Page receives around 100 hits per day, think of the readers who use this. The Rambling Man ( talk) 06:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, think of all those readers who come to this page and find that there are no aircraft listed. Here's an example of a recent complaint, "I notice that clicking on 0-A, or B brings forth a blank page. I guess an airplanes as worthy as the Avro 504 or the Boeing 707 don't matter." Andrew D. ( talk) 07:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- You know where those exist. The clear and obvious purpose behind this navigation change is that the previous lists became unmanageably large, so they have been broken down further. I credit you with sufficient intelligence to realise this and to navigate your way to Avro 504 or Boeing 707 with little trouble using these pages. The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Broken" is the operative word here when the lists are so sparse that they can be empty. If I want the Avro 504 then I'll just go straight there. That page is linked to a variety of more useful aircraft lists. One of them is List of aircraft (D). That's rather weird but at least there are some aircraft in that list. Andrew D. ( talk) 07:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's not weird at all, is it? If you bothered to look, you would see this is a work in progress. If you dislike it, I imagine you should talk to the project or the people doing the work, rather than attempting to undermine it in this manner. The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy keep It's a work in progress, nomination is disruptive and violates WP:AIRCRAFT. Per WP:SIZE they needed to be broken down further, but then the infobox would be ridiculously large if we didn't have these smaller subpages. You'd know that if you bothered to look, but you didn't. Smartyllama ( talk) 16:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- This nomination was a spinoff from another similar nomination: List of aircraft by date and usage category. I'm not sure what we're supposed to be looking at at WP:AIRCRAFT. Please clarify. Andrew D. ( talk) 16:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- It wasn't a "spinoff", it was a pointed nomination. I think you understand the point being made, I'm sure you're capable of looking at the history of the A to Z lists and seeing how unmanageably large they are, and therefore why this approach has been adopted. However, if you can't see that, I'll be more than happy to walk you through it. My !vote stands, by the way. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Making the pages so small that they don't contain any aircraft doesn't seem manageable. I'm sticking to my view that this is not a sensible way to list aircraft. Andrew D. ( talk) 18:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Of course, and that is your entitlement in the face of contrary explanation and logic, to maintain your view, we would expect nothing less. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - this shouldn't be deleted as a work in progress. Shelbystripes ( talk) 17:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep' - Information from this list has been used in creating sublists. Therefore this list is non-deletable for copyright/attribution reasons. Mjroots ( talk) 18:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Convert into a template It serves no purpose beyond what a template could do, and do better, without confusing anyone that lands here.Now it has been converted into a list. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 18:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)- Keep - This is a master page for the alphabetical lists, obviously serves its purpose. - Ahunt ( talk) 19:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I'd done a non-admin close per WP:SKCRIT: the nomination statement no longer applies, by the nominator's admission, and no one is calling for its deletion, anymore. But I see Richard has rolled that back. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:09, 29 July 2016 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
List of aircraft (0-A)
- List of aircraft (0-A) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Purports to be a list of aircraft but doesn't contain any. Andrew D. ( talk) 06:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Right; looks like the outcome of a page re-org. We should involve WP:Aircraft to see what folks there think of the new structure. The outcome is a proliferation of very tiny pages... -- Rlandmann ( talk) 06:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as part of the overall re-organisation, disruptive nomination as it's clear from the article history that this is being used as part of a comprehensive navigation aid. Page receives around 100 hits per day, think of the readers who use this. The Rambling Man ( talk) 06:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, think of all those readers who come to this page and find that there are no aircraft listed. Here's an example of a recent complaint, "I notice that clicking on 0-A, or B brings forth a blank page. I guess an airplanes as worthy as the Avro 504 or the Boeing 707 don't matter." Andrew D. ( talk) 07:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- You know where those exist. The clear and obvious purpose behind this navigation change is that the previous lists became unmanageably large, so they have been broken down further. I credit you with sufficient intelligence to realise this and to navigate your way to Avro 504 or Boeing 707 with little trouble using these pages. The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Broken" is the operative word here when the lists are so sparse that they can be empty. If I want the Avro 504 then I'll just go straight there. That page is linked to a variety of more useful aircraft lists. One of them is List of aircraft (D). That's rather weird but at least there are some aircraft in that list. Andrew D. ( talk) 07:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's not weird at all, is it? If you bothered to look, you would see this is a work in progress. If you dislike it, I imagine you should talk to the project or the people doing the work, rather than attempting to undermine it in this manner. The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy keep It's a work in progress, nomination is disruptive and violates WP:AIRCRAFT. Per WP:SIZE they needed to be broken down further, but then the infobox would be ridiculously large if we didn't have these smaller subpages. You'd know that if you bothered to look, but you didn't. Smartyllama ( talk) 16:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- This nomination was a spinoff from another similar nomination: List of aircraft by date and usage category. I'm not sure what we're supposed to be looking at at WP:AIRCRAFT. Please clarify. Andrew D. ( talk) 16:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- It wasn't a "spinoff", it was a pointed nomination. I think you understand the point being made, I'm sure you're capable of looking at the history of the A to Z lists and seeing how unmanageably large they are, and therefore why this approach has been adopted. However, if you can't see that, I'll be more than happy to walk you through it. My !vote stands, by the way. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Making the pages so small that they don't contain any aircraft doesn't seem manageable. I'm sticking to my view that this is not a sensible way to list aircraft. Andrew D. ( talk) 18:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Of course, and that is your entitlement in the face of contrary explanation and logic, to maintain your view, we would expect nothing less. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - this shouldn't be deleted as a work in progress. Shelbystripes ( talk) 17:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep' - Information from this list has been used in creating sublists. Therefore this list is non-deletable for copyright/attribution reasons. Mjroots ( talk) 18:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Convert into a template It serves no purpose beyond what a template could do, and do better, without confusing anyone that lands here.Now it has been converted into a list. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 18:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)- Keep - This is a master page for the alphabetical lists, obviously serves its purpose. - Ahunt ( talk) 19:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I'd done a non-admin close per WP:SKCRIT: the nomination statement no longer applies, by the nominator's admission, and no one is calling for its deletion, anymore. But I see Richard has rolled that back. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:09, 29 July 2016 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.