Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/June/20
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
June 20
[edit]{{Jewish-hist-stub}} -> {{Judaism-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 create Judaism-hist as a redirect to Jewish-hist
I propose a rename of Jewish-hist-stub to Judaism-hist-stub
- "Jewish" is a complicated term, see "Who is a Jew"
- Doesn't follow the template structure used in Category:History stubs
- Has a healthy number of 287 stubs. Though some are biographic articles such as Eleazar ben Simon, David G. Dalin etc. There needs to be a cleanup of bio articles as this is a historic stub category not biographical.
-- Cat chi? 15:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- As the name has a "hierarchical look" about it, this would seem a logical rename, as it looks like a sub-type of both {{hist-stub}} and {{Judaism-stub}}. But it's not (the latter), so perhaps that would be misleading, and suggestive of a narrower scope than is presently the case. I'd suggest on balance either adding {{Judaism-hist-stub}} as a redirect, or a move to that name, keeping the existing one as a redirect. Alai 16:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose: No objection to adding the
renameredirect, but this template is normally used for the history of the Hebrew people as such, but labelling an 18th century Jew from Poland-Lithuania with a template named {{Israel-hist-stub}} doesn't sound right either. On the other hand, {{Judaism-hist-stub}} makes me think of the historical development of the Jewish faith as such. The current situation isn't perfect, but I don't think this proposal will decrease confusion about the scope of this template. Valentinian T / C 11:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Strong oppose - 'Jewish-related' and 'Judaism-related' are totally different concepts. DanielC/T+ 20:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please clarify what the difference is between Jewish history and Judaism history? Jewish history is never referred to as "Judaism history." Chesdovi 10:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand it, this template is intended to be refer to the history of the Jewish people as such covering the time before the creation of the state of Israel. Valentinian T / C 10:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, per Daniel, Chesdovi 11:48, 27 June 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.
{{Country flagstub}} and {{Provstub}}
[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
Yet another attempt at a parameterised metastubtemplate, and probably speediable for that alone, since such things have been discussed and quickly rejected many times in the past. This one also fails by making the incorrect assumption that any country-stub for country X will automatically have X's flag as an icon (which isn't true since it is sometimes politically divisive, such as in the case of {{Cyprus stub}}) and also that it will then have a category called Category:X related stubs. As to what {{provstub}} is, your guess is as good as mine, but one thing is for sure - it isn't a stub template and therefore shouldn't have a name ending in stub. It also uses {{country flagstub}} as part of its construction (which is why I didn't consider speedying {{country flagstub}}). Superstrong delete for the first, delete or at least rename for the second, depending on its intended purpose. Grutness...wha? 02:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am trying to create a stub template to work with the Provinces of Papua New Guinea ambigiously. I ask for a rename. I am currently finishing off creating the flags for each of these provinces. It is specifically for the provinces of PNG, both these templates. I had no idea there was a stub proposal process. I am hoping for an easily remembered name so stubs actually get sorted. For instance, PapuaNewGuinea-Geo-Stub is not used as often as it should be because the template name is too long. The rename for country flagstub can be anything, as it is not directly called Aliasd 02:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, this is a work in process. The template is not yet complete. Aliasd 02:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Better a name that's a little long to type, than one that no-one would ever guess. It might be slight overkill, but would per-province upmerged stub templates serve your purposes? Alai 04:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it would. This is what I was aiming to create, just thought this was a smarter way of doing it. I intend, over the next couple of months to create hundreds of articles relating to PNG provinces, such as articles relating to the districts of provinces of papua new guinea, and also the local level governments, important towns, villages, places, parks, even buildings, and this will necessitate a template such as this, or individual PNG provincial templates. I propose a rename of the backend template to png-prov-stub2 and the frontend to png-prov-stub. Aliasd 04:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I vote for that being the "huge can of worms" way of doing it. It'd confuse the heck out of anyone just looking at the articles, never mind the (meta)stub template. I strongly suggest separate conventionally coded upmerged templates (and not using "PNG" as an abbreviation in any such template). Alai 04:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did intend to document it properly, its ok, it will be simple Aliasd 04:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not looking for parameterised stub templates to be renamed, documented, coded yet-more-cleverly, or anything other than "replaced with non-parameterised versions". Alai 04:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The flag templates seem to work fine, and don't confuse the user/viewer/writer.. how is this different, as I am showing you on my sandbox, this works fine, categorises fine, has a very specific purpose, and is clear and concise. It is a good idea for a template and very much deeded, why do I need to fight for it? I would like to be working with as few templates as possible to get things done here, simplicity is king, we shouldn't have to create 15 templates when all we need is one. Aliasd 05:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For "concise" read "absurdly cryptic". The reader that isn't confused that {{provstub|nip}} is supposed to mean {{NewIreland-geo-stub}} is going to a pretty rare specimen. It's an extremely bad idea to create stub templates that totally ignore WP:STUB and WP:WSS/NG. Why "fight" the extremely compelling reasons to get rid of this as a matter of principle and urgency? Alai 05:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The flag templates seem to work fine, and don't confuse the user/viewer/writer.. how is this different, as I am showing you on my sandbox, this works fine, categorises fine, has a very specific purpose, and is clear and concise. It is a good idea for a template and very much deeded, why do I need to fight for it? I would like to be working with as few templates as possible to get things done here, simplicity is king, we shouldn't have to create 15 templates when all we need is one. Aliasd 05:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not looking for parameterised stub templates to be renamed, documented, coded yet-more-cleverly, or anything other than "replaced with non-parameterised versions". Alai 04:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It works like this, here Aliasd 04:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did intend to document it properly, its ok, it will be simple Aliasd 04:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I vote for that being the "huge can of worms" way of doing it. It'd confuse the heck out of anyone just looking at the articles, never mind the (meta)stub template. I strongly suggest separate conventionally coded upmerged templates (and not using "PNG" as an abbreviation in any such template). Alai 04:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it would. This is what I was aiming to create, just thought this was a smarter way of doing it. I intend, over the next couple of months to create hundreds of articles relating to PNG provinces, such as articles relating to the districts of provinces of papua new guinea, and also the local level governments, important towns, villages, places, parks, even buildings, and this will necessitate a template such as this, or individual PNG provincial templates. I propose a rename of the backend template to png-prov-stub2 and the frontend to png-prov-stub. Aliasd 04:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Better a name that's a little long to type, than one that no-one would ever guess. It might be slight overkill, but would per-province upmerged stub templates serve your purposes? Alai 04:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, this is a work in process. The template is not yet complete. Aliasd 02:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still not sure exactly what you're trying to do - there is already a stub template for the provinces of Papua New Guinea - PapuaNewGuinea-geo-stub. You don't need another one, and certainly not of a type that is parameterised. If your intention is to make it so that each province has a separate stub type, then it is extremely unlikely that any of them would reach the threshold requirement for stub types: there are only some 220 stubs in Category:Papua New Guinea geography stubs, so it is nowhere near needing to be split. The reason for that number is not that the template name is too long, either - it is simply that those are all the Papua New Guinean geography stubs that currently exist - i.e., it has been used exactly as often as it should be. In any case, it's a shorter name than other frequently used stub templates (as I know for a fact as someone who recently tagged a load of articles with ChaharmahalBakhtiari-geo-stub). Grutness...wha? 03:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or make it staticish. I really like this parametric idea but it should be made to only approved parameters will work so as to avoud possible wierdness like: {{Country flagstub|flag alias=Flag of Sealand.svg|alias=Principality of Sealand|shortname alias=Sealand}} This would unite hundreds of stub-templates to one template and would do the same thing. A switch statement for example can handle this. Of course there is the question of weather it is worth the effort. -- Cat chi? 16:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it could be bomb-proofed somewhat, but it'd still have the "hideously cryptic and non-standard syntax" aspect. Stub-sorting should be a pretty simple activity, it'd be a real pity to make people read a usage manual and a guide to obscure abbreviations just to re-tag a stub. Alai 16:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of these stubs would be sorted by myself or the relevant Wikiproject, who are aware of the idea. Some of these guys had the idea of converting the current {{PapuaNewGuinea-geo-stub}} to have the ability to take on functionality of being optionally province specific. ie: {{PapuaNewGuinea-geo-stub|nip}}. Would you guys agree with this idea? Aliasd 23:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's one snag witht hat argument. The "relevant wikiproject" in any stub sorting task is WikiProject Stub sorting. I've explained elsewhere easier ways to do what you're trying to do in ways that will be easier for both you and for us. And no, the idea you suggest above is just as bad as the original templates, since it would be very quickly a case of "if they have it, why don't we?". You may see it as helping out your wikiproject in a small way, but it would cause enormous headaches for stub sorting. Grutness...wha? 06:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of these stubs would be sorted by myself or the relevant Wikiproject, who are aware of the idea. Some of these guys had the idea of converting the current {{PapuaNewGuinea-geo-stub}} to have the ability to take on functionality of being optionally province specific. ie: {{PapuaNewGuinea-geo-stub|nip}}. Would you guys agree with this idea? Aliasd 23:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. For one reason, because some category names don't follow the standard naming system, and I don't like the idea about one template that can affect many thousands of articles at once if somebody messes with it. We should maintain the policy about not having any parameterised metastubtemplates. Valentinian T / C 23:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Btw, the correct naming format for the geographical templates is <countryname>-geo-stub, using lowercase letters, e.g. {{India-geo-stub}}. Valentinian T / C 23:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Duly noted, I posted that comment first thing in the AM, it is shown how I would hope it to work now. I don't suppose I should have to point out that under the idea I just proposed, this "parameterised metastubtemplate" would only work with the Provinces of Papua New Guinea, any who 'messes with it' would be a vandal, and the {{PapuaNewGuinea-geo-stub}} would still function the way it is supposed to? although, not all province related stubs would fall under the {{PapuaNewGuinea-geo-stub}} category. That is an issue. Aliasd 00:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The other issue, as I've mentioned to you, is that by automatically linking a stub template in to your province template, yyou make far more work for yourself once an article moves beyond stub size. Just making a standard infobox and adding that and PapuaNewGuinea-geo-stub separately and independently keeps things simpler for you and for us - which is why that is the method other country WikiProjects use. Grutness...wha? 06:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Automatically linking a stub template into a province template was not something I was trying to do Aliasd 06:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why is country flagstub one of the parts of provstub? Grutness...wha? 01:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I really need stubtypes like this for the work I am doing. Most pressing at the moment is Western Province, as I am creating about 10 stubs a day related to that province Aliasd 23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if they are marked with PapuaNewGuinea-geo-stub, then with any luck PNG will soon get to the 500-600 geography stubs necessary before splitting it seems a sensible move. And unless I'm much mistaken that can easily be done by bot later as long as he stubs are marked with {{PapuaNewGuinea-geo-stub}} and are categorised as being in a specific province. Grutness...wha? 01:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The other issue, as I've mentioned to you, is that by automatically linking a stub template in to your province template, yyou make far more work for yourself once an article moves beyond stub size. Just making a standard infobox and adding that and PapuaNewGuinea-geo-stub separately and independently keeps things simpler for you and for us - which is why that is the method other country WikiProjects use. Grutness...wha? 06:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Duly noted, I posted that comment first thing in the AM, it is shown how I would hope it to work now. I don't suppose I should have to point out that under the idea I just proposed, this "parameterised metastubtemplate" would only work with the Provinces of Papua New Guinea, any who 'messes with it' would be a vandal, and the {{PapuaNewGuinea-geo-stub}} would still function the way it is supposed to? although, not all province related stubs would fall under the {{PapuaNewGuinea-geo-stub}} category. That is an issue. Aliasd 00:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Btw, the correct naming format for the geographical templates is <countryname>-geo-stub, using lowercase letters, e.g. {{India-geo-stub}}. Valentinian T / C 23:28, 20 June 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.