Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/February/21

SA-composer-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

SA is ambiguous, but in this case is supposed to be South America and not South Africa or any other SA meaning. Rename to SouthAm-composer-stub to match the naming guidelines. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename, before anyone starts adding composers from Adelaide. Grutness...wha?  00:48, 22 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.

SW-org-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

Seems to be some confusion here. This is an unproposed stub template, but it leads into a Stub-Class category. If the intention was to create a Stub-Class template then this should be renamed to something like Stub-Class SW-org, but if so, something's definitely wrong, since the appearance of the template is also that of a stub template. There's also the problem that it says it's for "a social work concept or organisation", yet there's no way that a concept should get anby form of org-stub. If the aim was to create an actual stub template, then it needs a category or to be upmerged properly, and it also needs a less ambiguous name (Socialwork-stub or similar). However, I'm not really sure how much call there'd be for a template like that, and given that we'd need to start over from the top with this it would probably be simpler to delete it and (re-)propose it from scratch. Grutness...wha?  12:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur with deletion. I will research the need some more and make a proposal in the near future if this seems like a good process.  My intent was to bring more attention to these stub articles regarding subjects that I think the encyclopedia really needs.  However, I was obviously confused.  Sorry about my screw up.  I hope this did not cause too much disruption.  Ursasapien (talk) 05:14, 22 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.

Rabinical-bio-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 as rabbi-stub

Unproposed and entirely redundant with the long-standing Judaism-bio-stub. And rabbinical usually has two "b"s. Delete. Grutness...wha?  12:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This template should be kept. It is not redundant with Judaism-bio-stub because that template can refer to any jewish personality and not specifically rabbis.Nerguy (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to make clear one point Judaism-bio-stub is for people who are notable specifically because of some contribution they made to their religion, not just simply because they are a Jew who may be notable for other reasons. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to renaming to rabbi-stub.  The naming guidelines prefer using nouns over adjectives, and furthermore they also prefer correct spelling, so it needs renaming at a minimum in any event. Caerwine Caer’s whines  17:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want it renamed as rabbi-stub, that is reasonable. Also, not all people who contribute to the Jewish religion are rabbis. Many are lay leaders.Nerguy (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rabbi-stub sounds fair to me as well. Your point about lay leaders makes sense. Caerwine's point is worth noting re Judaism-bio-stub being specifically for people most notable for their religious work, though. Grutness...wha?  23:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Lay leaders can also do some religious work. Nerguy (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But that doesn't make them Rabbi's


 * More to the point, a reli-bio-stub of any kind is for people whose primary notability is for their religious work. That will not necessarily be true for all lay leaders, though it will be for many. A Rabbi-stub would be specifically for people who have been ordained. Grutness...wha?  22:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename as proposed to as above. ::  Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  14:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Grutness and it just should be renamed.Nerguy (talk) 03:14, 27 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.

Uic-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 replace witha stub type for all Illinois university stubs

Unproposed, and without even a redlinked category. There is no such thing as a uic - there are several UICs, however and this stub type seems to be intended for one of them, the University of Illinois in Chicago. University are usually divided by state, not by individual university (and certainly not for individual campus!), and this is hardly likely to reach the required splittability threshold (it currently is used on two articles). Delete, or rescope to cover all universities in Illinois, or at the very least the whole of the University of Illinois. Grutness...wha?  12:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was wrong - it had two noincluded category links - a permcat and a redlink . Grutness...wha?  12:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not proposing it. It should indeed be on more pages; however, I was working on that. However, if you are proposing to also eliminate the UIUC-stub in favor of stub for the entire University of Illinois system, then I suppose that would also be fine. But as is, the UIUC-stub is not useful for anything relating the the University of Illinois at Chicago. What is done for the University of California at Berkeley versus the University of California at Los Angeles? And is that perceived as a model to be followed?--Cumulant (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What UIUC-stub??? Erg - another one never proposed. Sigh...that also goes on the SFD list. As for California, its universities all use California-university-stub. There is no UCLA-stub or UCB-stub (let alone Ucla-stub or Ucb-stub) - and yes, the state-university-stub formulation is the perceived model to be followed. Henc e my original suggestion that this be rescoped to cover all universities in illinois. Grutness...wha?  00:41, 25 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.