Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/February/4

February 4[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

--Salix (talk): 23:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Advergame-game-stub}}[edit]

Unproposed, and distinctly borderline as regards the usual split by type of game. A rescope to {{Advergaming-stub}} might be a more useful stub type than this, given that many advergames are already covered by other genre-game-stub types. Grutness...wha? 07:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete for all the resons above and the fact that it is currently not used on any article. Waacstats (talk) 09:05, 6 February 2009 (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.

{{Aircrash-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 as aviation-accident-stub, keep redirect

While the basic premise for this (unproposed) stub type is a reasonable one, the name is not. As a subtype of {{aviation-stub}} (as listed) and {{disaster-stub}} (as should be listed), the name should be {{aviation-disaster-stub}}. Rename, and don't keep the current name as a redirect. Grutness...wha? 07:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the stub, I disagree, as not all accidents/incidents that are to be covered under the stub rise to the level of "disaster". AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all aviation incidents are crashes, either - so why did you call this "aircrash-stub"? (the pedant in me also wants to point out that the air isn't what's doing the crashing, but that's by the by :) Would you accept {{aviation-incident-stub}}? Grutness...wha? 22:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like a reasonable comprimise, though not an area of expertise. Waacstats (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept the compromise, although I'd point out that our notability guidelines are listed as WP:AIRCRASH. AKRadecki^Speaketh 06:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe leaving a rtedirect in place from the old template name would be a reasonable idea too? Grutness...wha? 00:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If a decision is reached to rename, a redirect is clearly a good idea because of the guideline page, but there is another good reason to keep it. It avoids unneccesary wordiness. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to {{aviation-accident-stub}} with redirect from {{aircrash-stub}}. Should have a similar {{aviation-incident-stub}}. We should follow the best sources, not tabloid news.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2009 (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.