Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/December/23

Auto-tech-stub

 * 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 keep, rename it (and auto-part-stub) to automotive-xxxx-stub, create Automotive technology stubs cat

Created today with no proposal. This is a tricky one - it feeds into the, for which we already have Auto-part-stub. The reason given in the edit summary for its creation is that this would cover the grey area of auto technology which isn't actually parts, and there is some merit in that, but if kept its place in the stub hierarchy will need to be looked at - if anything it will need some swapping around, since parts are technology, not the other way round. At the moment, I'd say weak delete, though a persuasive case for keeping it could easily make me change my mind. Grutness...wha?  03:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * neutral Yes, I made a mistake in creating it. I proposed it in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles, then later accidently created it in a moment of brain fade before anyone had responded to my proposal. I saw it as belonging directly alongside Auto-part-stub (and some of them really aren't high-tech).  My general thinking was that if you can point at a specific part, it fits Auto-part-stub, whereas a lot of automotive techology is not a component that you can point at but a combination of features within multiple components. You can't, for example, point at the Euro IV of a vehicle, because it is a system not a distinct part.  A quick look through Category:Automobile stubs shows a lot of examples of items that would fit in here but really wouldn't fit in Auto-part-stub.  There are also quite a few in Auto-part-stub that would probably more validly belong in Auto-tech-stub. My intent was to sort through Category:Automobile stubs and Category:Auto part stubs and update the relevant stub tags. I'm not going to vote either way on this - I shouldn't have created it but I think that it would have passed after discussion. --Athol Mullen 04:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * On 2nd thoughts, perhaps a speedy delete now, then I'll list it on WP:WSS/P. Probably a procedurally better way to do it. --Athol Mullen 04:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, don't do that. No point in deleting a stub, just to have it re-created in 5 days when it does get approved.  The discussion can still take place here.  ~ Amalas  rawr  =^_^=  06:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, and on a second look perhaps I was a little hasty adding it here rather than the discovery page. If, as Caerwine suggests, it would make a viable split, then I'm prepared to accept that - though now that discussion's started here it makes sense to continue it here rather than starting all over again on WSS/P. Grutness...wha?  11:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The appropriate categorization would seem to be Auto-tech-stub → → // with  adding .  (If we had a  it would replace  in the previous sentence.)  This would following the existing permanent cats.  A brief glance at  indicates that the split should be viable. Caerwine Caer’s whines  06:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Auto-part-stubs needs to eventually lose the "auto" since many apply to other motor vehicles, and adding a new automobile part stub is moving the wrong direction.  --Interiot 05:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This one was named to mirror the existing pattern. Oops... We could rename it automotive-tech-stub and rename auto-part-stub to automotive-part-stub... --Athol Mullen 07:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If the final decision is keep, does that also constitute approval to create the corresponding category ? --Athol Mullen 07:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.