Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/June/25

TrentinoSouthTyrol-geo-stub -> TrentinoAltoAdige/Südtirol-geo-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 cat, rename template to "TrentinoAltoAdige-geo-stub", with redirects at "Südtirol-geo-stub" and "TrentinoSouthTyrol-geo-stub"

The article "Trentino-South Tyrol" was moved to Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. Also TrentinoAltoAdige-geo-stub is acceptable because it's shorter.--Supparluca 11:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that this article has previously been the object of an edit war over its name, TrentinoAltoAdige/Südtirol-geo-stub / will probably be the safest bet. It will also match the permcat names. Valentinian T / C 12:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support cat rename as following permcat; oppose template name as utterly ludicrous and long-winded.  Instead, I suggest a move to TrentinoAltoAdige-geo-stub and Südtirol-geo-stub (either two duplicate templates, or making one of them a redirect -- I don't particularly care which), also keeping a redirect at the existing name.  Alai 16:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Trentino-Alto Adige is a region formed by the two provinces of Trento (Trentino) and Bolzano (Alto Adige, also called Südtirol). I mean, the slash is just for Alto Adige/Südtirol, that is part of the region. I proposed the TrentinoAltoAdige-geo-stub form because it's the name most commonly used in English, it's shorter, and it doesn't have the / and the ü, but the article in wikipedia is Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol.--Supparluca 18:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] Change the category if you must, but there is no reason to change the template. Its title is not visible to the readership and is entirely irrelevant to any political discussions about naming; it is a mnemonic and nothing more. Some poor bastard (quite likely to be me, actually) is going to have to type it in every time a stub gets sorted and trying to remember where the hyphens go if any, where the spaces go if any, where the slashes go if any, and which translation we're using at the moment is all too much, and for no gain whatsoever. Like I say, change the text of the template to match the article, and the category too, but don't go moving the template — it can't achieve anything. Making new redirects will serve that purpose admirably if the purpose must be served. --Stemonitis 16:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Category, yes, change it. The template... either the current name or TrentinoAltoAdige-geo-stub (or with one a redirect to the other) would be better than the full one with the oblique. It's not like it's going to get confused with anything else by not having the entire name. Grutness...wha?  03:06, 26 June 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.

Placeholder /

 * 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 stub by any other name. All this does is say why a stub was written, then transclude the stub template. Given that stub is only used until such time as a more precie stub template can be added (hopefully within hours), this is worse than useless. Even if it did work, all it would do is divide stubs into groups according to why they were written, which isn't going to help a single editor. Pointless in the extreme. Delete. Grutness...wha?  05:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. Unused, duplicate, not needed. Valentinian T / C 10:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * NOTE - User:Thedjatclubrock, the creator of this category and template, has repeatedly removed the sfd templates from those pages, and has also removed this discussion from here. (S)he is walking a thin line WRT vandalism and blocking. Grutness...wha?  01:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The creator of this template, a new user, was never informed by the nominator of the deletion. I would assume the tags were removed through ignorance of the process since it was never explained to this user. Please remember to assume good faith and not bite the newcomers. Thank you. &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 03:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Response to comment. The creator of the template has been around Wikipedia long enough to have three archives of his/her talk page. As such, it seemed very unlikely that this was a new user - especially since new users don't often go around creating new template/category combinations. Even a new user should no not to delete ongoing discussions by other users, however. As to not proposing the template in the first place, I note from Thedjatclubrock's talk page archive that you yourself informed him/her of how stubs worked and pointed the way to the page giving proposal details nearly two weeks ago. I also contacted the user about tampering with someone's comments on Template talk:Stub a week ago - which I assumed then was a test - and another stub template from the same editor was speedily deleted last week. (S)he has also been removing stub tags from stub articles such as Middle finger. Good faith only goes so far with an editor who did not appear to be a newbie and who has caused concerns to stub sortiong in various ways recently. So thank you for the reminder, but it was unnecessary in this case. Grutness...wha?  03:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply to response to Comment - Thanks for replying with your concerns. Prior to this month, he's only made eight edits, I'd say that still qualifies as a new editor, though I can understand how you might be deceived by the presence of the (very small) archives on his talk page. As for following directions, look on my talk page for how basic I had to get to explain the use of the recent changes feature. I'm not sure what you mean by, "As to not proposing the template in the first place,"; do you mean this nomination for deletion? If so, I can't say I disagree with your rationale here- the template and category are redundant. If you are referring to my noting that you didn't inform him about the deletion, I didn't mean it as an accusation but instead to explain the editor's reaction. As for the previously deleted template, I note that he apologized for making a mistake . The diff you've provided is interesting, I interpret that as confusion about the rules rather than vandalism. What I see from this editor is newbie fumbling, not vandalism. Anyways, I think that's enough off topic discussion for the debate; if you feel like continuing this conversation I'd recommend taking it to my user talk page. Cheers! &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 04:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

<< (resetting indent) Comments. #1 Regarding the newbie issue: in fact his talk page archives aren't exactly full, so it could all have been written on one page. #2 I've updated Sfr-t and Sfd-t with a disclaimer similar to the one used on AFD process. #3 This entire template / category is nothing but a recreation of Substub which was deleted after an SFD debate two years ago. I don't see any reasons to overturn this decision. Valentinian T / C 09:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Elipongo for helping me. If you really think the template is useless feel free to delete it. Although it was not intended to be a new stub type!!! Next time I will do more research or consult a admin etc. Sorry for any trouble If you have any questions contact me I have no intent to vandalize wikipedia. Thedjatclubrock :) 10:44, 26 June 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.