Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/March/12

Duck-stub / redlinked cat

 * 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 upmerge

Created a couple of hours before the agreed Anseriformes-stub, which follows the scheme of splitting birds by order. Since there are fewer than 70 anseriformes stubs, splitting out the ducks (even under a better name like anatidae-stub) would leave one or the other of the categories severely below threshold. Delete template, or at the very least upmerge it. Grutness...wha?  08:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Upmerge and redirect because a NP patroller is more likely to guess duck-stub as the appropriate thing to put on a page about ducks. (When NP patrolling, I often take one guess at the appropriate stub tag, and then if that's wrong, I just add stub and leave it to the stubsorters to sort out, so as to continue the patrol faster; however, I don't NP patrol all that much nowadays, so I might be out of touch.) --ais523 15:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd err, be likelier to use bird-stub if it weren't there, but no objection to keeping it as a redirect to facilitate sorting. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect as agreed. Alex43223T 05:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Question So, which is it? Upmerge or redirect?  Those are two very different things.  Upmerge means the template would stay as is and point to .  Redirect means the template would point to Anseriformes-stub.  "Upmerge and redirect" isn't really a valid vote.  ~ Amalas  rawr  =^_^=  13:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair, both have the effect of "merging" the contents of the (red) category into the (would-be) parent. Upmerging the template is just what that's normally read as around here.  (The gloss on this was originally even vaguer.)  As duck-stub has a narrower scope, but a reasonably sensible one (if one ignores polyphyly of "duck" as a common name), I'd suggest we retain it as a separate template, rather than a redirect.  Alai 23:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. ~ Amalas rawr  =^_^=  14:48, 21 March 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.