Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/February/10

Q Stub (no category)

 * 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 rename

Your guess is as good as mine as to what this is or does, but one thing is for sure, this is not a stub template so is incorrectly named. Mind you, even if it was a stub template, exactly what a Q stub would be remains a mystery... Delete, or if it actually has a real usage, rename to something more appropriate that doesn't use the word stub! Grutness...wha?  03:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC) UPDATE - User:MoRsE has expressed willingness to move this to Q Stub-class, which makes it clear it's an assessment template (the redirect can then be deleted). They probably all should be userfied, but that's more a tfd than an sfd thing. Grutness...wha?  23:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A quick look at What links here shows that's is used only on User:MoRsE/Quality assessment as part of a series of templates used to keep track of the quality assessment of articles MoRsE is interested in. Take this one and Q N/A Q Start Q B Q GA Q A Q FA to WP:TFD for userfication or renaming. Caerwine Caer’s whines  05:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Caerwine's observation is correct, it is meant for my personal quality assessments only. I wanted to get a better overview over the articles and at what stage they are. Is there a naming convention that I could follow in order not to make them collide with some other articles? I can rename them, that is no problem, if you just give me some hint to what. --MoRsE 08:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Userfy, for the avoidance of template-namespace confusion in general. Alai 09:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have now moved all those templates, and the originals have been put up for speedy deletion as redundant. --MoRsE 23:04, 10 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.

Test-stub (upmerged)

 * 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

Never proposed, ambiguously worded. This is for school assessments and examinations, which might be a useful split of edu-stub, or might not - certainly there's no guarantee this would have 60 stubs. At the very least it needs a renaming, if not an outright deletion. Grutness...wha?  03:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to exam-stub, keep unmerged unless and until there's a proposal making the proposed scope clear. Alai 09:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that for medical exams, school exams, or cross exams of witnesses? Exam has much the same problem as test does with ambiguity. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Somewhat similar, but considerably less rampant. examination and  have essentially the scope I had in mind (the creator of this stub template I can't speak to).  If you'd rather edu-test-stub, or indeed deletion, I'd have no particular objections, however.  Alai 02:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was my intention that this stub be used for new pages about student assessments, and I believe that is quite clear given the link on the stub page. I did not realize that I had to propose the stub type before creating it, so I'm not sure if it meets the criteria. If it doesn't, then deletion is fine. (I do think that it could reach the max number of page hits if I were to enter all of the tests I know about. It just takes time to use.) I'd rather rename it, perhaps to or  or something like that. &mdash; Chris53516 (Talk) 15:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * might work well, for "standardized test stub". &mdash; Chris53516 (Talk) 19:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment this discussion seems to be continuing over at the proposals page. perhaps the outcome here should be left until something is finalised there? Grutness...wha?  23:47, 13 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.