Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/February/17

Frasier-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 delete

Thought I'd pick some easier ones today. This one has had 2 articles since March 2007, and the parent contains 5 articles and 7 infoboxes. The other sub-cats are for episodes or characters, each of which have their own types, and lastly, I think we only have series-specific types for really behemoth franchises like Doctor Who and Star Trek. Delete, please. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 02:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And that's not to mention the miscapitalised category. Clearly not needed - even an upmerged template seems unlikely to gain much use. Delete. Grutness...wha?  07:01, 17 February 2008 (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.

BRoy-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 reverse redirect, delete

Apparently UK-royal-stub redirects to this template, but the category page says to use UK-royal-stub. On the Discoveries page, it's noted that the associated WP uses "BRoy", so I assume this was a well-meant slip. I suggest we reverse the redirect, and possible delete BRoy-stub as well. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 02:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a horrible, non-intuitive, and utterly non-NG-standard name. Move the template back and delete this ASAP. Grutness...wha?  07:01, 17 February 2008 (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.

AquaticInvert-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 delete

The template was originally nominated back on January 21 but since then the creator removed the notice and added a category that also violates the naming guidelines. Relisting here for deletion as it has only 4 tagged articles, cuts across existing stub categories, and has bad names for both the template and the category. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? If you check my talk page, the issue was resolved. And, it has already proved useful. Let's say there's a stub on an invertebrate, and it lives underwater. Then let's say there's an invertebrate on land. Using that stub template, you can differentiate between the two. Jourdy288 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me address the points I raised individually.
 * It does not follow the naming guidelines for stub types. If this stub followed the the naming guidelines, it would be something like aquatic-invertebrate-stub /.
 * It is undersized. Stub types should generally have at a minimum 60 stubs, which is reduced to a minimum of 30 stubs, but at present it only has 7 stubs.
 * Finally, there's the fact that Wikipedia categorizes organisms primarily by their taxonomy and not by the type of habitat they live in. Habitat is a distinctly secondary scheme.
 * Sorting by habitat might have proved a useful tool for splitting the invertebrate stubs if we had exhausted the possibilities of taxonomy, but we hadn't. Indeed, Invertebrate stubs itself is a rather poor grouping given that about 97% of all animals are invertebrates. At least you can rest assured that your effort has spurred this project towards developing stub templates for each phylum. Caerwine Caer’s whines  19:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, as this area is covered by various other stub types. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, due to the fact that it still has use, as, stubs I marked with it have been appropriateley changed, as in all those echinoderm stubs I marked with my stub, are now changed to echinoderm stub. Again, I say keep, as it is still much more descriptive and draws a major line.

Jourdy288 (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Further, howether, I notice your point on renaming, and I agree.

Jourdy288 (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Badly-named, undersized, arbitrary intersection. Not only is there no, there's no , either.  Delete.  Alai (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2008 (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.