Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/April/7

Zoology-med-stub / &rarr; Veterinary-med-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

A comment from WP:WSS/P:
 * I suggest renaming this stub category to "veterinary medicine stub," which is broader, as it appears that currently there is no general veterinary stub category, and according to the article on zoological medicine, the field of zoological medicine pertains to zoo animals specifically. 69.140.164.142 07:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable suggestion - veterinary-med-stub and would make more sense, considering the cope of the zoological medicine and veterinary medicine articles. TYhe current category also has the wrong permcat parent (, a subcat of - surprise, surprise - ). Grutness...wha?  23:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment from stub creator - I initially proposed this stub and after covering enough ground with it and articles needing retagging, went ahead and created it. I initially changed it from owing to the issues with the word vet (Medicine vet / Veteran). By all means PLEASE go ahead and change it over. The stub makes more sense and to be totally honest with you, i never thought of using veterinary instead of vet! Go for it. Please, go for it. Thor Malmjursson 01:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I was at Taenidia and saw the notice of this stub type change. I suggest you examine Taenidia carefully before labeling it Veterinary medicine. — Randall Bart (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Zoological medicine lists that discipline as a branch of veterinary medicine. As such, diseases of insects would still be covered by veterinary-med-stub. Grutness...wha?  21:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Support - Since zoological medicine only applies to zoo animals, I think renaming this stub type would be appropriate. However, I think Randall's point was that Taenidia is an article about anatomy, not medicine, something that is true for a lot of the zoological medicine stubs. I would suggest that these stubs be made into s, and the rest into veterinary medicine stubs. Unfortunately, WikiProject Medicine/Stub sorting indicates that the anatomy stub category is only for human anatomy (not sure why), so another stub category would be necessary. --Joelmills 01:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment from the stub creator - Animal anatomy stub would be ok, but what we are looking for is a stub which covers specifically diseases of Animals, not just the anatomy of them. And (If my memry serves me correctly) I think there is already an animal anatomy stub... somewhere... :) -- Thor Malmjursson 15:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. What I was suggesting is that the stubs about animal disease or medication should be veterinary medicine stubs, and that the stubs about animal anatomy should be animal anatomy stubs (which I don't think exists, checking WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types).  We could even have a veterinary-pharma-stub, if necessary, to have those stubs in the proper parent category.  I would be more than happy to do the sorting if someone creates the templates and categories.  --Joelmills 16:06, 15 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.

→

 * 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

Per the permcat parent,. Alai 05:09, 7 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.