WikiProject Military history (Rated Template-Class)
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.
Temp Templates and modules do not require a rating on the quality assessment scale.

Purpose and usefulness of this navbox

I'm not seeing the utility of this navbox nor how it meets the five guidelines of a "good navbox" as set out at WP:NAVBOX. Particularly:

And the general statement that "templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use".

The advantages of a navbox include "They provide an organized resource for readers who went through an article in some broad topic to find other articles on the same broad topic" - this template is covering too broad a topic for navigation.

There's no system to the codes, are they just issued chronologically? If so then a list like List of U.S. military vehicles by supply catalog designation is probably more useful, if system code designations are actually notable. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GraemeLeggett The template serves a similar purpose to these. It lists all projects in a particular US government designation sequence. An article on the topic sort of exists as Weapon System. However, this article portrays the "Weapon System" as its own separate designation system as opposed to it being simply a prefix for the actual System designation sequence, which included many other technologies as well. Even if a proper article existed for the topic, I think the navbox (or maybe several split from this one) would still serve the same purpose as the other US military designation templates as many projects were never assigned another designation, such as the WS-124, WS-125, and WS-199. - ZLEA T\C 15:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The aircraft designations are much narrower in focus. If you think subjects such as the strategic weapon WS-199 need navboxes, it would be better to find articles that have more in common and build those navboxes rather than lump it in with a UHF radio system. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GraemeLeggett As I said, the designation sequence is not for aircraft, but "systems" (essentially secret USAF projects). The scope of this template is USAF projects (including, but not limited to aircraft) that received "system" numbers. - ZLEA T\C 19:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that a list article is a better solution than a navbox, or even several navboxes. To be honest, this is specialist information that really isn't of interest to the average user, and is unlikely to ever be. BilCat (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have begun compiling a proper list here. - ZLEA T\C 01:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ZLEA: Any update on the list article? BilCat (talk) 05:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BilCat The list is compiled, but it needs reliable sources. I had used this source to compile the list, and I reached out to its creator asking them where they got the information for their own list. I have not heard back yet, so the list article is on hold for now until I can find a more reliable source. - ZLEA T\C 17:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I don't ever recall Designation-Systems Dot Net being challenged as a reliable source, but I accept the site as one. The creator, Andreas Parsch, almost always list his sources, though they aren't generally footnoted. I've seen his site cite by reputable authors from reliable publications, so I lean towards him being a reliable source in this case. He's regularly used as a source for designations and missles, so there shouldn't be a problem with you publishing the list now. (I have communicated by email with him on a couple of occasions about 10 years ago. I don't think he actively maintains the site now, but I except he'll het back to you in time.) BilCat (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the site is probably reliable, but I don't think many others will see it that way since other parts of the site cite Wikipedia as a source. I don't see that he used Wikipedia as a source on this particular page, but just to be safe, I don't think it is a good idea to have the list rely heavily on this one source. I have access to the ERAU library, which may have some good sources on the subject. I'll do some digging there when I have time. - ZLEA T\C 23:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]