Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/June/16

Riotcontrol-stub and redirect Riot-control-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

Unproposed, and no clear indication that there would be many (or any!) stubs which could use this. There is a redlinked stub category, and no equivalent permcat (either or, which is the naming as in the stub category link). Delete. Grutness...wha?  02:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I upmerged this, on the basis of the redlink, and the utter lack of any evidence of populability, and pointed out the non-NG nature of the hyphenated version, and was reverted for my trouble. Given the lack of availability of this enlightened compromise, and the scoping issues, delete.  Alai (talk) 12:27, 16 June 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.

Element-arch-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 to architecturalelement-stub Proposed, but awkwardly named. These aren't elements of arches, or anything to do with chemical elements, they are architectural elements, and as such this is a child type of Architecture-stub. propose renaming to Architecture-element-stub, in line with the various Foo-term-stub types. And deletion of the current name, for reasons of its ambiguity (this probably does contain items about elements of arches, but it's not its primary purpose!) Grutness...wha?  02:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion of redirect. It's a subtype of arch-stub, not of element-stub:  if we're going to tell people to follow the logic of the naming guidelines, in particular with respect to the hierarchical components, we might want to try following them ourselves.  Alai (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And stronger still opposition to elimination of the "arch" component as an abbreviation: arch-stub is a redirect to architecture-stub, while arch-style-stub exists only in that form, there being no architecture-style-stub whatsoever.  You're arguing on the basis of non-existent practice.  Alai (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Arch-style-stub seems to negate your argument about using arch(itecture)-element-stub as a format, though, doesn't it? Or are you suggesting we rename it to style-arch-stub? Personally, I think it should be renamed to architecture-style-stub - it should never have been named arch-style-stub in the first place since arch-stub is not and was not then the standard template name. It is worth spelling out at this point, BTW, that at no point in the naming conventions does it say that the major component is the last part before -stub. This is understandable, since it isn't always the last component: geo-term-stub (a subtype of geo-stub); tv-station-stub and tv-prog-stub (subtypes of tv-stub) and arch-style-stub (which you have pointed out) are all examples where the major component comes earlier in the template. There are good reasons for this in all cases, as there is with this one. Element-arch-stub is a clumsy name. it isn't for elements of arches. it isn't for anything to do with elements, either. it is for, and as such, Architecture-element-stub is the only name really worth considering. Given that Arch-stub is a redirect to architecture-stub, arch- shouldn't be used as a major component for any stub template name. A redirect, I hasten to add that you !voted to delete as "horribly ambiguous" when it came up for deletion a couple of years ago (funny story that - it was deleted at SFD, then re-created from outside WP:WSS a few months later - and now you're arguing that it's the logical term to use!). I think we were right the first time. It is horribly ambiguous, and it's no surprise that it is not used as the main template name. Similarly, neither should anything be that uses -arch- as part of its name. Grutness...wha?  13:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Correction. It does say that the major component forms the middle element of stub names. However, either this is looong out of date (along with several other parts of the NG page, such as the bit which says EXAMPLE HERE is a good example of a compound stub, that subdivisional components are usually geographical, and that stub types can be formed using the country components BritOT-, Kiwi-, Uk-, NI-, Salvador-, and BiH-) or we need to change other stub types to term-geo-stub, style-arch-stub, prog-tv-stub and the like. Personally, I favour updating the NGs to reflect how we've been doing things over the last few years. Grutness...wha?  13:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I keep summoning up the will to response to this in in horrifying detail, but it's just too, well, horrifying. Kafkaesque, really.  Just ask yourself this though:  how many times have you sarcastically remarked of someone's else's creation of an "X-Y-stub" (generally when strictly speaking they wanted something along the lines of XY-stub, in all likelihood) that "there's no Y-stub, and if there were, this wouldn't be a subtype of it"?  You're recommending we not only do we create something for which exactly that same objection stands, but that we delete the form that does follow the (actual) pattern!  The "-term-" canard I've already dealt with, and don't proposed to repeat the exercise every time we change venues;  and we can deal with OTHERCRAPTHATHAPPENSTOEXIST in the fullness of time, once we've established some actual coherence to what we're doing.  I'll accept a redirect-preserving rename to either element-architecture-stub or to architecturalelement-stub.  Oppose any other action whatsoever (including another other move, any systematic transclusion-replacements, and most certainly any deletions).  Alai (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's happened frequently. But as you point out, it happens when someone wants XY-stub - not when someone is unambiguously splitting along two axes. Examples would be such things as Sri-Lanka-stub (we don't have a Lanka-stub - we also don't have a Sri-stub), or San-Francisco-stub, or Doctor-Who-stub, or Rock-and-roll-stub - or any other stub where someone has taken a compound noun and hyphenated it in such way. It doesn't happen (and to the best of my knowledge I have never said it) when someone has taken two logical subtypes and slapped them together in one order of another to form a compound stub type. There is no similarity between the two cases and this current example is clearly of the latter type. In those cases, the problem is only to keepm the two parts in an order that makes sense and is consistent with other similar splits (there's no point in having a university-France-stub, for instance). I repeat, we don't always keep the main element of a compound stub in the middle - often, in fact, it's difficult to figure out exactly what the major element would be. is a US-geo-stub primarily a geo-stub or a US-stub? Personally, i don't know, however it makes sense to talk about US geography, and that is the order the stub type is in. it's also logical to talk about other stub types in a specific order - you are usually the one who insists on grammatical niceties about such things. I've already mentioned the various -term- stub types and you've dismissed them as "canards" and "othercrapexists" - though we try as much as possible not to allow other crap to exist in stub naming terms. We also have other examples, as I have mentioned: tv-prog-stub, art-movement-stub, art-display-stub, fict-location-stub, fict-char-stub, StarTrek-episode-stub, film-genre-stub, money-unit-stub, and many many others. In every single one of these cases, the order of parts has reflected the order they would normally be said, not the primary axis of split. Even within the realms of Architecture we have arch-style-stub. There is no reason whatsoever not to use exactly the same order for an arch-element-stub as for that. Also, a question - why are you so fired up about keeping this in this specific order? The only argument you seem to have made for it being this way is on the basis of a standard we don't keep to regularly (and possibly IDONTLIKEIT), and reversing the order would make it more like other arch(itecture)-stub types and more in line with normal speech. Grutness...wha?  07:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither oppose nor support just registering the depths of my indifference. Don't we have better things to do? --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - I think it is an important stub, as it goes to Category:Architectural elements. If you propose renaming it to, shouldn't it be ?) (I can't really follow the arguments above, pro and con.) I don't think anyone seriously thinks it only applies to arches. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 19:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Context: Here is the discussion over creation of this template/cat. I closed it myself, thinking that some kind of consensus about the creation of the template as architecture-element-stub had been reached. The arch-stub template redirects to architecture-stub, so personally I think that makes the use of the full word "architecture" logical. What remains to be settled is (apparently) in which order the template words should go. I have a mild opinion that architecture-element-stub is more likely to be the stubber's "intuitive" choice -- and these arguments, while important to the fine-tuners, are admittedly a bit esoteric. So, what'll it be? architecturalelement-stub, architecture-element-stub, or element-architecture-stub? Her Pegship  (tis herself) 06:05, 5 August 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.