Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/April/18

Once more into the breech dear friends!

 * 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

We've tried before to get rid of these redirects to US-road-stub that violate the naming guidelines. According to the Stub redirects page they were all orphaned in January 2006 and have not been repopulated since. So let's delete all of the following: I've left alone the other two redirects Us-road-stub (as it is seeing some use) and US-street-stub since it is redirect that conforms to the naming guidelines. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * US road-stub
 * Us road-stub
 * Us-road stub
 * US street stub
 * US street-stub
 * Us street-stub
 * Us-street stub
 * Us-street-stub
 * Delete with extreme prejudice. Grutness...wha?  00:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete quick, while nobody's looking...!Her Pegship  (tis herself) 04:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What's Henry V got to do with U.S. roads? Never mind, Delete Valentinian T / C 08:05, 25 April 2007 (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.

minplan-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 delete

A leftover and unused redirect from when minorplanet-stub was de-Orwellized back in 2005. Send it down the memory hole. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:43, 18 April 2007 (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.

Planet-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 rename to planetary-science-stub

Unproposed, no category. If I didn't know better I'd think this was a Maoririder stub. Completely unneeded - all the planets in the solar systen have articles beyond stub size, and exoplanets have sections on the articles of their star parents, not separate articles. Currently this would have no stubs, and that is likely to remain the case for a long time. Delete. Grutness...wha?  00:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Correction - it currently is used on two articles! Both of those articles are currently at AFD... Grutness...wha?  01:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, we have a extrasolar-planet-stub (45 articles) so it's not entirely farfetched. Some of those articles are more properly planetology articles that planet articles as are the two OR articles marked with this stub.  Perhaps a rename to planetology-stub as an upmerged astronomy template would be in order? Caerwine Caer’s whines  01:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - The stub might be useful if it is used for anything after the original research articles are deleted. However, most other articles related to planetary science are marked with more specific stubs (such as for minor planets, asteroids, etc.).  If renamed, please use "planetary science" instead of "planetology".  Dr. Submillimeter 07:40, 19 April 2007 (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.

Path-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 rename to pathology-stub

Less than ten minutes after being proposed at WP:WSS/P, this was created. The debate currently on at WP:WSS/P makes it clear that this is a very poor name for the stub - and since this doesn't have a category, either, it needs quite a bit of work. Another case of someone ignoring the conventions and creating more work for others :( Grutness...wha?  00:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm... well I'm not sure how any of this is a problem - I am busy creating the stubs as part of a project on a significant topic, so it made sense to go ahead and create the stub rather than adding a bunch of blind links. If you want to change the name of the stub, I will change the links. There is a category for pathology which has been around for a while. If you know a way to integrate that with the stub, then why don't you do that, or educate me, rather than biting my head off? I do my own work. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 01:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a problem because we don't keep redirects that are ambiguous. Which means that if this is renamed, all the articles that you are stubbing with path-stub will need to be re-stubbed. Making more work. Whereas if you had waited for the debate as instructed at the top of the page it would have become quickly apparent that pathology-stub was a better title. "Doing your own work" is all very well - as long as you don't make more mess for other people to clear up after you. And as for "biting your head off", surely it would have made sense for you to read the instructions and follow them? The same applies to your new pathology-stub, BTW - Wikipedia is a community, so doing your own thing against community guidelines is a great way to piss people off - especially with templates and categories, which require more cleaning up (one of the main reasons why WP:BOLD doesn't apply to templates and categories). Grutness...wha?  02:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So how do you propose that I list the pages which would be appropriate for the new stub template? I am linking them to my proposed stub template - you can then easily check to see if there is an appropriate number at the end of the week. I'm not listing the new template anywhere, but if someone else finds it in the next week and links other stubs to it, all the better. If the consensus at the end of the week is that my proposed stub template is inappropriate, I will remove all the dead links myself, as I just did for Template:path-stub. So just relax. I am a hard-working good-faith editor who is trying to help a project on a substantial encyclopedic project get off the ground. If you want to give me advice, I'll be grateful. If you're going to nitpick and call me names, then perhaps you should find another way to spend your time. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 02:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly the same way that everyone else does in those circumstances. Make a list of them on a user sub-page, letting WP:WSS know about it, then once it's clear there are a reasonable number of stubs, you and the members of WSS between you mark them in a handful of minutes. It saves you work, in that others will help you stub them, it saves WP:WSS the effort have having to go through and check theat there are a viable number of stubs, and it saves everyone the effort of renaming and restubbing incorrectly made stub templates if problems are pointed out during the discussion phase. Grutness...wha?  00:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the useful advice. I'm now listing candidates for at User:Rustavo/Pathology stubs & have stopped tagging with th eproposed template Pathology-stub for now. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 02:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

pathology-stub now marks 56 articles. I encourage anyone to inspect those articles to see for themselves the appropriateness of this stub template. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 03:33, 18 April 2007 (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.