Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/January/24
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
January 24[edit]
{{Hungary-history-stub}} → {{Hungary-hist-stub}}[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename, delete redirect
From WP:WSS/D. Fairly simple rename to stub NGs and deletion of original name, with a bit of shifting of articles to the new template. Grutness...wha? 23:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Move, but keep redirect, and don't shift anything. Abbreviation is just a conventional convenience, I don't see any need to make it compulsory. Alai 00:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. If the other templates have been standardized already, won't a redirect simply be more confusing than benefitial? -geo and -bio are abbreviations as well. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 08:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are indeed, but I'd argue those are somewhat different cases; for one thing, they're saving a good deal more letters, and in the case of "bio", it's actually a fairly viable term in its own right. But more to the point, they're also much more embedded in stub naming and scoping convention: they generally do not correspond to "Geography of ..." or "... biographies" permanents categories (or in the latter case, even stub cats), but are rather beasts of our creation. Alai 16:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Naturally, the -bio and -geo categories are a lot more entrenched in the stub system, but I still think having redirects for one or two members of an entire series of stub templates is somewhat messy / confusing. Besides, I'm simply not a big fan of template redirects. The Hungarian material is rather small and I can easily update the links by AWB if we don't keep the redirect. Valentinian T / C 10:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are indeed, but I'd argue those are somewhat different cases; for one thing, they're saving a good deal more letters, and in the case of "bio", it's actually a fairly viable term in its own right. But more to the point, they're also much more embedded in stub naming and scoping convention: they generally do not correspond to "Geography of ..." or "... biographies" permanents categories (or in the latter case, even stub cats), but are rather beasts of our creation. Alai 16:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
{{Nurse-bio-stub}} (upmerged)[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was no consensus
Unproposed, unused. Seems fairly straightforward, and at first glance sensible, but... we divide medical professionals by nationality, not by actual role, since quite a number have either performed several different roles or are simply hard to pigeonhole in one specific profession. We don't have doctor-bio-stub for exactly these reasons. As such, this creates a problem best removed. Grutness...wha? 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, nursing is fairly distinct from the various grades of doctoring, or from the other medical related categories grouped under "medical biography" in the stub system, so it's a doable split. By my count 53 of the existing 148 nursing stubs are bios, so its actually just shy of being viable in its own right. The by nation splits have arisen from the fact that the national bio cats were overlarge and a Nation-med-bio-stub were a way to reduce the related Nation-bio-stub rather than any view that a split by nation is preferable to a split by specialty. Indeed, when {{med-bio-stub}} was created the original thought was that it would be split by specialty and the redirect {{nurse-stub}} was created at that time. The plain medical biography stubs are just over 600 so it will be needing further paring in the near future as well. Suggest we get input from WikiProject Nursing as to whether they would find it useful, as it's certainly viable, tho I think the simple {{nurse-stub}} would be sufficient if it is. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
{{Southern-Rhodesia-stub}}, {{Rhodesia-stub}}, {{Zimbabwe-Rhodesia-stub}}, Cat:Zimbabwe-Rhodesia stubs[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete
All unnecessary. Unproposed, and if they had been, the proposer would have been told that we use current country names (and we already have {{Zimbabwe-stub}}) except in very rare cases (like Ancient Rome, for instance). Even if we were to use these, it's inordinately unlikely that the last one would come anywhere near 60 stubs, since it only existed for one year. delete Grutness...wha? 06:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or if strictly necessary, upmerge or redirect templates (minus the extra hypens). The scope can be spelled out as explicitly as one wishes on the category page. Alai 08:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read into further detail about stub creation and use of Country related stubs and agree after much thought that these aren't appropriate. They may be deleted as and when required. Mangwanani 12:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
{{Namco Bandai-stub}} (redirect), Cat:Namco stubs[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename
At some time recently, the company Namco changed its name to namco bandai, and someone reacted by moving the stub type from "Namco-stub" to "Namco Bandai-stub", without first checking the naming guidelines on stub templates. I've moved it from there to NamcoBandai-stub, in accordance with the NGs, but we now have this fairly heavily populated redirect which should be depopulated and deleted. The category should also probably be renamed to Cat:Namco Bandai stubs. Grutness...wha? 05:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inclined to say rename back to {{Namco-stub}}: they're separate brands, Namco and Bandai, selling different things, and Namco Bandai is seemingly just a holding company. It would be silly and confusing if people started to use this on Bandai toys, but that's exactly what this invites. Alai 05:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename back? All of their recent games have been under the Namco Bandai brand. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyway, I mistakenly assumed that spaces are fine. I'll repair it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not just leave well enough alone until the conclusion of the discussion? This is getting a litttle silly. What the template name is, as I've said, a very strange place to start changing things, much less doing so by hand, when they're in essence just there for the convenience of editors, and not necessarily to reflect whatever label the corporate entity happens to currently be using. And when the categories, a much more visible matter are at Cat:Namco games and Cat:Namco stubs. Alai 06:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, perhaps I was wrong in moving it, especially without discussion. Sorry. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So what's the plan with the category names? Do you want everything in a Cat:Namco Bandai computer games category, and corresponding stub cat? Or (for the permcats also, I'd assume) distinguish between the old Namco games, and the ones under the conglomerated label? Alai 06:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is what I had planned; to gather up all games that have been or will be sold under the Namco Bandai label to be considered Namco Bandai games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So what's the plan with the category names? Do you want everything in a Cat:Namco Bandai computer games category, and corresponding stub cat? Or (for the permcats also, I'd assume) distinguish between the old Namco games, and the ones under the conglomerated label? Alai 06:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, perhaps I was wrong in moving it, especially without discussion. Sorry. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not just leave well enough alone until the conclusion of the discussion? This is getting a litttle silly. What the template name is, as I've said, a very strange place to start changing things, much less doing so by hand, when they're in essence just there for the convenience of editors, and not necessarily to reflect whatever label the corporate entity happens to currently be using. And when the categories, a much more visible matter are at Cat:Namco games and Cat:Namco stubs. Alai 06:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.