Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/February/1

UFO stubs

 * 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

Used on one article each. Bad capitalisation. Don't match permcats. Nonstandard "noincluded mini-essay" coding (would people ever keep the blether to the category page?). It's not impossible there'd be some use for at least an upmerged UFO-stub, but I suggest we delete these are start over with. Alai 07:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ufologist-stub /
 * Ufo-org-stub /


 * Hi you guys, sorry I was the one who created the two. I thought they would be helpful in deciphering the different UFO article stubs.  But if you guys want to rename them or merge them to something new, I dont mind at all (I would prefer to leave them as they are because they make it clear the type of article that needs to be expanded). (:O) -nima baghaei 14:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me note that I do love the idea of a merged UFO-stub instead of deletion (:O) -nima baghaei 14:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think leaving them as they are is in any way viable, since... well, see above.  They don't have the right names, the right scopes, and they seem unlikely to have 60 stubs each any time soon.  Alai 19:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * How about joining them into one stub: UFO-stub ... I like this idea actually, can we do it? -nima baghaei 20:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd support UFO-stub as a replacement for these - possibly upmerged into something like the para-stub category or similar until it's clear that there are enough of them for a separate category (there probably will be quite quickly, at a guess). Grutness...wha?  21:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably to rather than .  Which reminds me, shouldn't we rename para-stub, given the massive ambiguity thereof?  Or did we try that already?  Alai 05:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don remember (:O( -nima baghaei 14:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think we did - this is the nearest I can find in the log. This is also sort of tangentially relevant. Perhaps parapsych-stub would make more sense... Grutness...wha?  23:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait, who was going to do this? Hehehe, I am lost with time now... (:O) -nima baghaei 14:28, 8 February 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 speedy renamed

Rename To remove a hyphen so as to match its parent. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm speedying this. The only reason for the current version would be "adjectivising" the noun phrase, but that's not the pattern we use.  Alai 03:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be worth considering the name of the template water-stub at the same time. It's not exactly the most intuitive... Grutness...wha?  05:38, 1 February 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.