Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

July 22[edit]

Template:NCAA Season 93 juniors' volleyball match-up results[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

unused after being merged with the parent article Frietjes (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2020 (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).

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Canada medical cases by province chart[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 August 3. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2020 (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).

Template:Infobox GB station[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Infobox station. There were several editors who opposed the merger and raised concerns that this merger would not be an improvement and pointed out a few possible issues, however significantly more editors believed a merger would be appropriate. I suggest that whoever implements this merger make sure editors working on UK railways articles and the people who raised concerns here are part of the process and specific concerns are addressed as far as possible. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Propose merging the listed UK-specific templates with Template:Infobox station.
These templates' params can be almost perfectly matched by {{Infobox station}} (and then some). I've done this with Newcastle railway station at my sandbox: Special:Permalink/968998076. Pretty much all the params converted bar a couple:

I removed a couple as duplicates (eg location and place). This is with no edits to {{Infobox station}} by the way, not using a sandbox version. Obviously with some tidying up we can make the passengers not show "Passengers" for each row, and add those two params. The other 2 templates are even less different than {{Infobox GB station}}. Given the various new params in {{Infobox station}}, I think it's a good candidate for merge. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Requesting TPE/admin add TfD notices at {{Infobox station}} and {{Infobox UK disused station}}. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 tagged * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: The nominator may want to indicate what has changed since the previous discussion was closed as keep. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
    That was in 2012, to be fair, and the close statement states The nominator is encouraged, at least, to create a mock up version of the merged template before renominating these templates. Not to repeat my nom, I've done that using the existing live {{Infobox station}} (at Special:Permalink/968998076) with an existing live railway station to show the data can be converted over (with the exception of two params which I propose adding as useful generic ones). My PoC was done using solely the existing parameters in the template. With a full overlap in params (bar gridref, which we can add), and an even more basic structure for the latter two templates, I can't see why all these shouldn't be merged. Perhaps there have been changes to {{Infobox station}} since 2012 to make it more compatible, I haven't checked its history. There is nothing complex about an A->B param map.
    Advantages of the merge include: a more consistent layout for readers, a more consistent parameter structure for editors (so they don't need to familiarise themselves with a differently worded set of params for another country's station, for no real reason), easier maintenance (consider DRY and INFOCOL) and access to more params for editors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've looked over the revised version at Special:Permalink/968998076. I think it looks fine. I have some feedback about the two missing parameters: gridref appears to get turned into another coordinate link that gets routed through toolforge. I appreciate that Ordnance Survey National Grid is its own thing, but from the end-user's perspective the end result is the same, except the level of specificity differs. I'm not sure it makes sense to have both. Regarding PTE, I'm unsure. This sounds similar but different from Swiss Tarifverbands, which get linked in through zones or otherwise not mentioned. The other major change of course is the elimination of the navigation feature from the infobox. I think that's fine, personally--there are actual navboxes on most articles, categories, and succession boxes for nearby stations. An infobox about a specific station probably doesn't need to include alphabetically-indexed links to lists of every other station in Great Britain. Mackensen (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merging all three to Infobox station and removing the GB stations list. If the stations list is deemed absolutely necessary, a separate template or navbox can be created. Cards84664 01:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Please no, not this again. The GB/UK station infoboxes work just fine as they are. They're not short of maintainers (like myself) who can tackle any shortcomings that they may have. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
    I have now had a chance to read through the 2012 TfD again, and my views from that time still stand. I have not seen any change in the situation in the last eight years that makes a merge any more desirable now than it was then.
    I would like to ask the nominator several questions.
    1. Are the nominated infoboxes broken in some way, or are they no longer capable of performing the work for which they were designed?
    2. Why has {{Infobox London station}} not been included in the bundle? There is much more in common between that and {{Infobox GB station}} than between the latter and {{Infobox station}}, and there are occasions when the GB one is replaced by the London one (example), but I know of no situation where it was necessary to replace any of the GB ones with the generic one.
    3. Where may I find demonstration conversions of a disused station and of a heritage station?
    4. Why were relevant WikiProjects not consulted before the TfD was raised? Perhaps if a suggestion like this had been posted at WT:UKRAIL, WT:STATIONS or WT:RAIL, then some sort of routemap could have been carefully worked out amongst the parties who will be most directly affected: the people who use these templates frequently.
    I look forward to your answers. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Whilst not totally against a merge per se, I do not see an improvement. Sorry. The joy of all things (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @The joy of all things: Could you go into detail on that? Cards84664 20:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Cards84664 Certainly; there are only two reasons to merge the templates 1) to make our lives easier in maintaining them or, 2) to improve them. I do not see any improvements, in fact it looks almost exactly like the one it is replacing, (though all the parameters intended to be included may not be in the example linked above). I do not think there will be a lack of editors willing to maintain the boxes.
    On a more personal level (and it is my personal opinion, not rooted in policy), I do not like referring to human beings as Traffic. Most people from Britain (which is the geographical region that this topic covers, and so will draw most readership), would read Traffic and expect to see what type of traffic calls/goes through the station (Heavy Rail, Tram, light Rail, heritage, freight only, bus interchange, etc). What's wrong with passenger usage? As it exists right now, I do not see any improvements, so there is no point changing it as there is no benefit to doing so. As I say, personal opinion, and no particular objection to a merge per se, provided that the merging ends up improving things, otherwise it is pointless. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Create a wrapper of {{Infobox station}} at {{Infobox UK station}} and merge first three station templates there. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge, per nom. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge of the UK templates. Specifics such as the station being disused or on a museum line could be dealt with by a "status" variable in the general station template. --Schlosser67 (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The need to add yet more parameters to the generic template will make the latter much harder to maintain, and there is no evidence that it will bring any benefits to the project given that the existing templates work perfectly, are well maintained and as far as I can tell there have been exactly zero issues since 2012 that a merged template would have made better. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
    • At least the three UK templates are very similar to each other (with the exception of the usage figures), and even the status variable that I mentioned above is not necessary. It can be dealt with in the events. However, I find now that there are enough UK-specific variables (namely, listing status etc.) to justify keeping a country-specific template. --Schlosser67 (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
      Listing status is already accounted for if you look at the example I gave. It's supported by embedding {{Infobox designation list}} which is the proper way to do it, and looks prettier too (has the border and colours). The only non-overlapping params we have here are gridref and, for the first template only, pte. As for not being useful, there's dozens of new params in {{Infobox station}} that I personally at least would plan to add to existing railway station articles - those params (eg on available facilities) are pretty useful in making Wikipedia's articles on this topic helpful to readers. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
    The claimed advantages mostly seem to be about presentation or parameter names. If presentation differs between infoboxes and consistency is desirable, then the way forward would seem to be to discuss the presentation (e.g. at WT:TRAINS) and (assuming that there is consensus for standardisation) when consensus regarding which is superior is reached then all the templates can be adjusted to that design. Parameter names can be adjusted by adding aliases and/or renaming the existing ones. Neither of these things require merging so can safely be disregarded. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
    Unifying presentation and parameter names alone would make a merger even more obvious and necessary to reduce template redundancy. Cards84664 23:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
    Except the whole point is that the separate templates are not redundant - they serve different purposes (because the systems they cover are different), have different requirements and fewer unnecessary parameters mean they are easier to use and to maintain. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    I agree with everything that Thryduulf has written here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. WT79 (speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing) 09:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Also agree with Mackensen that having both coordinates and gridref seems redundant. I support that gridref can be removed as long as the articles has coordinates set. Tholme (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Tholme: Someone can (and I'm sure they will) correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't gridrefs easier to use with older British OS maps? which could be a valid reason for keeping them. Having said that, then just make them one more optional parameter in a merged infobox. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    Not older Ordnance Survey (OS) maps (they started more than 250 years ago): grid lines for the Ordnance Survey National Grid are shown on all OS maps produced from about 1949 right down to the present day. See this example from 1967 (UK copyright law means we can't host OS maps more recent than 1970). A typical 1:50,000 or 1:63,360 map has grid lines spaced at 1 km intervals; but on the same maps the markings for latitude and longitude are shown only every 5 arc minutes, which is slightly less than 9 km north-south. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I really didn't want to take a support/oppose position on this. I've always been somewhat arms-length from the UK project, mostly doing image categorization, and not taking part in major discussions. However, this not-invented-here attitude toward infobox consolidation is ridiculous, and it's past-time that it stopped. The same attitude was on display at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 11#Template:Infobox T&W Metro station. "Why didn't you consult with the WikiProject" "Not an improvement" etc. We're talking about maintaining a separate station infobox for 60-station light rail network. There are fewer than a dozen station infoboxes at this point. One for the Manchester light rail system, one for the Tyne and Wear, one for stations in London, one for active British stations, one for heritage British stations, one for disused British stations, one for the New York City Subway system, and then one for the entire rest of the planet. This strikes me as unnecessary, and if it is necessary I think someone should explain why. Mackensen (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    Both @Mackensen: and @Redrose64:, we should just focus on the national level in this discussion. Specific UK rail systems and the NYCS can be put into separate TFDs, pending sandboxes of their own. Cards84664 17:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'll lean into this and support a merge per Mackensen and nominator. The "there's nothing wrong" rationale isn't a good rationale. Nor is WP:OSE. Nor is "ask on these and these talk pages first". Nor is "how about this minor detail". --Izno (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Both. or Oppose -Let people use which template they wish. One is much easier to use than the other. Why create a big learning curve? Why can't people use that template which they prefer?Dogru144 (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2020 (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).

Template:Atlas-Asia[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

unused wrapper template -- AquaDTRS (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like the rest of the series doesn't exist currently. --Bsherr (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2020 (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).

Template:NoVandalist[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G5 by Cryptic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 23:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Template has no purpose. Appears to be an experiment, like this new editor's other contributions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It was no experiment ฅʕ•̫͡•ʔฅ -- AppleUserWithPermissions (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Also, this new editor smells fishy.--Tom (LT) (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2020 (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).

Template:TwitterAccount[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G5 by Cryptic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 23:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Duplicates templates in Category:Twitter user templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

That's ok ฅʕ•̫͡•ʔฅ -- AppleUserWithPermissions (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2020 (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).

Template:Woi[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G5 by Cryptic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 23:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Duplicates existing templates, e.g. {{in use}} or {{cleanup}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not a dublicate, but it's ok, if you guys think so and delete it ฅʕ•̫͡•ʔฅ -- AppleUserWithPermissions (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2020 (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).

Template:No use[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G5 by Cryptic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 23:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Duplicates TFD process templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as T2 Delete as a clear misrepresentation of policy; proposed deletion of templates is not a thing. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
It has a normal delete form in it. ฅʕ•̫͡•ʔฅ -- AppleUserWithPermissions (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Not just TFD. It adapts by namespace, and had an include-only {{delete|No use for Wikipedia}} until I just removed it. Twice Three times. Would be a crystal-clear T2 speedy if we hadn't just removed that. —Cryptic 06:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I understand it now. sorry ฅʕ•̫͡•ʔฅ -- AppleUserWithPermissions (talk) 07:04, 23 July 2020 (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).

Template:Caw[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G5 by Cryptic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 23:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This does not appear to be a useful template. It looks like an experiment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2020 (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).

Template:Please check[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G5 by Cryptic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 23:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This does not appear to be a useful template. It looks like an experiment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It is a ful template. if it is not useful, it's ok ฅʕ•̫͡•ʔฅ -- AppleUserWithPermissions (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2020 (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).

Template:Checked and well[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G5 by Cryptic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 23:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This does not appear to be a useful template. It looks like an experiment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It is no experiment, but ok ฅʕ•̫͡•ʔฅ -- AppleUserWithPermissions (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2020 (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).

Template:2019–20 Swiss Super League table[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:36, 23 July 2020 (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).

Template:2020 ASEAN Para Games calendar[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Unused as the now-cancelled multi-sport event for disabled athletes because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. ApprenticeFan work 14:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2020 (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).

Template:England squad UEFA Nations League Finals 2019[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Local project consensus is for team templates just for World Cup and continental championships (Euro 2020, AFCON etc), not for the Nations League. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Template:England squad UEFA Nations League Finals 2019 Joseph2302 (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Can I suggest therefore that, as the Nations League has been set up as a major tournament, this policy is changed? If the Confederations Cup is included in squad lists (which it is), and the Olympics is included in squad lists (which it is), why not this one? Hammersfan (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, we only have templates for world tournaments (World Cup, Olympics etc.) and the top regional tournaments, of which this is not. GiantSnowman 10:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and similar discussion here. S.A. Julio (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kante4 (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Added a few templates which are similar to the main one. Delete all. 15:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, as well as delete the ones added as well RedPatchBoy (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2020 (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).

Template:Underpopulated stub category[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I chose to format this analysis as numbered bullet points.

  1. It's similar to Template:Underpopulated category, deleted by TfD in January 2019 (discussion).
  2. Stub types are maintenance, not content. Classifying stubs isn't enough of a priority for a maintenance category.
  3. Little effort has been made to populate these 1200+ stub types. Some categories, such as Category:Internet Relay Chat stubs, haven't been adequately filled since at least 2010. Fortunately, the tag is never applied to stub categories with more than 59 articles, which may mean that many of these cannot be expanded at all.
  4. An analysis of the data (as shown in the histogram) indicates that most of the members have around 20-40 members. Perhaps the recommended minimum stub category size (60) is too big?
  5. If the stub type is unreasonably small and/or is in a tree that is too small, then it can be deleted. For example, Category:Babylon 5 stubs has only 5 articles, while the Category:Babylon 5 tree has 36 unique articles.
  6. Some of these categories, such as Category:1950s aircraft stubs, are part of a standard subdivision of a larger stub type (in this case, Category:Aircraft stubs by decade) and shouldn't be deleted unless it becomes too small.

Conclusion: This template is not useful.

I'd recommend discussing points 4–6 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 08:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete am convinced. --Izno (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm convinced too. --Bsherr (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2020 (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).

Template:Edgeworks[edit]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary template based upon machinima company Edgeworks Entertainment. There aren't any articles on The Codex Series, while Vox Populi is a redirect to Edgeworks Entertainment#Vox Populi. Edgeworks is not mentioned in Halo 2, it is mentioned once in machinima and not in new media. There's only full-fledged article on founder Alexander Winn, but that's it. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Yeah. The purpose of navboxes is to direct readers to works of a group or person, so I don't see any need and potential for this template. GeraldWL 15:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too small. --Bsherr (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2020 (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).