Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/February/3
February 3
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
Not only is this unproposed stub type misnamed (in that it has a space, against naming guidelines), but it isn't what it purports to be - it's a geo-stub, and one already covered by the long-established {{Manchester-geo-stub}}. Was only used on one article, which now has the correct stub type. No need for a duplicate, and not redirect-worthy due to its misnaming. Delete. Grutness...wha? 02:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Alai 03:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. AndromedaRoach 23:53, 3 February 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.
{{para-stub}} → {{parapsych-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
Cryptic and copiously ambiguous, and especially invites confusion with the existing {{paranormal-stub}}. Rename in line with {{psych-stub}}. (Itself somewhat ambiguous, mind you...) Alai 01:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- rename, but on second thoughts would para-psych-stub be slightly better? Either that or parapsych-stub is better than the current (parachuting? paramilitary?) name. Grutness...wha? 01:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could argue it either way: I thought psychologists generally hotly denied para- being a sub-discipline, but on WP it does seem to be a sub-cat... Alai 03:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Depends on the psychologist. For instance, one of my MSc supervisors was unremittingly skeptic, but also acknowledged that it was up to psychologists to investigate any claims. Certainly I don't see much problem with it, and - as you said - it seems to be a subtopic here. Grutness...wha? 22:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could argue it either way: I thought psychologists generally hotly denied para- being a sub-discipline, but on WP it does seem to be a sub-cat... Alai 03:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to avoid confusion. bibliomaniac15 01:08, 8 February 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.
Category:Album stubs/Child list
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 speedy delete
- Note: this was originally at CFD, though as a template, TFD may have been a better place. Since it relates directly to stubs, however, I have brought it here. No vote. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Album stubs/Child list to Template:Album stub categories
- Move to template namespace, This is a template, not a category. Eli Falk 07:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename: I created the page and no one else has contributed. I support the proposal. Do we need further discussion? Alex valavanis 09:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It can't be moved, as it's in the category space. If you c'n'p it over, the category can indeed be speedied. BTW, can this be condensed somewhat? It's very long, which is a nuisance for navigating multi-page categories. A list of templates should really be sufficient, and could then be made multi-column to save vertical space. Alai 00:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Where is the best place to store this list? It really needs to be kept in this form. It's just a matter of the best place to keep it. My vote: I don't care where you keep it, as long as you keep it. -Freekee 05:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd suggest following Grutness's suggestion: if it's intended for use as a template, it should be in the template namespace. Why would it need to stay in this form? It contains a lot of redundant information, and makes the actual category functionality harder to use. (Indeed, on one level, it is just redundant information.) Alai 05:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't really make a suggestion :) If I were to make one, though, I'd say that this, in a reduced form, could go in the text at the top of Category:Album stubs, but should be a single-use table, not a template, and certainly not a catgory in its own right. Grutness...wha? 07:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant the "Propose renaming Category:Album stubs/Child list to Template:Album stub categories": wasn't that you? Alai 16:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No - that was the first line of the CFD proposal. I didn't notice it was unsigned :/. Grutness...wha? 23:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was User:Eli Falk - the line following it is part of the nom. Grutness...wha? 00:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK then, I suggest following his suggestion... but not his confusing indentation. Alai 05:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was User:Eli Falk - the line following it is part of the nom. Grutness...wha? 00:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't really make a suggestion :) If I were to make one, though, I'd say that this, in a reduced form, could go in the text at the top of Category:Album stubs, but should be a single-use table, not a template, and certainly not a catgory in its own right. Grutness...wha? 07:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd suggest following Grutness's suggestion: if it's intended for use as a template, it should be in the template namespace. Why would it need to stay in this form? It contains a lot of redundant information, and makes the actual category functionality harder to use. (Indeed, on one level, it is just redundant information.) Alai 05:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As information, the table is useful. It needs to be kept, but not in category space. A template could be created for it, or it could just go back to the way it was: a table in the text of Category:Album stubs, which was also transcluded to WP:ALBUM. Since the page can't be moved, I say let's delete it, and then either someone set up another option, or let's continue that discussion at the Album talk page. If need be, you can grab the code at User:Freekee/album stub category list. -Freekee 05:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sped, since, well, it was clearly going to have to be, as Freekee has just emphasised. Alai 06:00, 4 February 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.