Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/October/11
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
October 11
[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
Unproposed, discovered in February, used on one item since then. Delete. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:15, 11 October 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.
{{Sect-stub-1632}}
[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 move to 1632-sectstub, delete redirect
This one's a tricky one. Its documentation seems to suggest some confound between being a sectstub (i.e., a {{1632-sectstub}}) and being a Start-class template. What is clear though is that it isn;t part of the stubbing scheme, and therefore shouldn't have "-stub" as part of its name. If there's a genuine purpose for it, then a move to {{1632-sectstub}} is probably the best remedy. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To closing admin: I've cleared all direct links to the original name after CBD's move. It is safe to delete it assuming it's safe to close it! <g> // FrankB 23:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A) It's newly minted,
B) I'm busy tidying up the rest of the stuff in the parent category, so will be unused for a bit.
C) Unless the stub sorting project has some sort of copyright on the word "stub, this is ridiculous. Would this be happening if it were called {{1632sectneedsexpanded}}??? [I want to see notorized documents saying stub sorting has exclusive use over that string! <G>] The 1632 series now numbers better than 20 book length works, and categorizing and tracking the need for a section expansion in Category:1632 articles with sections needing expansion needs some aid to not typing all of that name! Hell, we're short articles on the books in half of those, and now find we have to organize characters and places and so forth that should have an article, or can be rolled into compendium pages like 1632 characters.
D) The template is derivative of {{sect-stub}} the normal syntax I was familar with, with adapted innards of it's redirect target {{sectstub}}.
E) I deliberately chose a name at variance with such naming (order) as {{hist-stub}}/{{geo-stub}}, et. al.
F) Since the template is properly categorizing into a tracking category for those involved in the pages to clean up, I don't see that stub sorting has any gripes. The last time I requested stubs and categories I was told we didn't have enough articles. Since the magnitude of the extant articles has only quadrupled or so since then, I'd no choice but to be presuming the threshold is still ridiculously large.
G) More to the point, perhaps, since we're trying very hard to hold the article count down, and keep things tight and 'efficient', a section tag is far more useful than any article stub template... we know what those are! (I hope! <G>).
H) Last but not least, this is a very complex series mixing historical factors and persons with fictional extrapolations and plot so fairly intimate knowledge of the various (inter-related) works is required for any significant expansion effort. Every new release reveals "innocent seeming background details" of a prior book were in fact plot set-ups for the sequel in the later work(s). Hence, I had my doubts as to whether the template in question should categorize as a clean up template in the normal sense at all, at all. In closing, I can live with the suggested {{1632-sectstub}}, but prefer the hyphen be kept instead if there is some imperative requiring 1632 to come first. // FrankB 02:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As you point out, sect-stub does redirect to sectstub, and has only not been emptied and deleted due to its heavy usage. Since what you're wanting is not a stub type but a sectstub type, surely the name you want is also some variety of sectstub, such as 1632-sectstub (1632sectneedsexpanded would be fine, too - it doesn't use the term -stub as part of its name). You say you're familiar with the syntax of sect-stub, whereas it's far more likely you're familiar with the syntax of sectstub. Given that the name of the template is sectstub, having the template at 1632-sect-stub would be a bad move, especially since it would imply that it was for sects in 1632.
- BTW, I find it interesting that you say the last time you requested a stub type there weren't enough articles, yet you haven't come back to try again now that the number of articles is far larger. If there are over 60 stubs, then it's very likely that a stub type for 1632 would be a very reasonable idea and supported by WP:WSS.
- Oh, and unfortunately, we don't use notarised documents on WP - this is a website. Grutness...wha? 06:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to {{1632-sectstub}}, to make it distinct from stub article sorting; would that satisfy everyone? Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Consistency with existing practice would argue for a rename to {{1632-sectstub}}. However, existing practice sucks, so I would strongly prefer a rename to {{1632-sectexpand}}, or some other variation that doesn't rely on such a cheese-paring distinction between "*-stub" and "*[^-]stub" templates. Alai 23:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine too -- I've been away all summer and am just working my way through what needs fixing, and just want something ASAP! (I've skipped half a dozen places I wanted this tonight since this blew in, on the general principle, there's no reason to cause anyone extra tasking.) Since there's general agreement[1] that renaming is fine, can we close this out and get down to more compelling tasking? [I really have no idea of the distinctions you folks are making, save can gather there is some naming convention in force, and you've sortof copyrighted 'stub' on wikipedia.] I cerainly didn't dream my tracking aid would cost others time! Thanks and Cheers to all! // FrankB 02:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps by "sortof copyrighted", you mean "made good faiths attempts to avoid naming confusion in the use of"? Alai 04:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I moved the template to '1632-sectstub' per the majority of suggestions above and changed all the uses to call it under that name. Haven't deleted the redirect or closed the discussion because there hasn't (quite) been 100% agreement on what to do, but barring some new idea coming in this seems to be where the discussion is headed. --CBD 10:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems a sensible compromise not-quite-closure. The issue of the naming of {{sectstub}} should probably be addressed in and of itself: realistically my suggestion on this template was never going to fly without first addressing that. I don't think we need to delete the old name: do I want TF"D" (R), RM, or would this be in the category of "just go ahead and move a massively-transcluded template, and await the twhappling"? Alai 04:52, 13 October 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.
{{French-club-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 delete
Where to start? Okaaay... Name uses "French" instead of "France". Ambiguity about what kind of club - Sport? Social? Political? Hobby? Lack of category. Failed attempt at applying an image icon. Never proposed. Unused... my guess is that this is an attempt to create a {{France-footyclub-stub}}. If so, that's already been done, so this is unnecessary. Whatever is the case, {{French-club-stub}} is of no use and should be deleted. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 11 October 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.