Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/March/19

Metabolic pathway stub / no category

 * 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 & upmerge

This stub template which has been on the discovery page since last March has several problems: Since there is an associated, but inactive Wikiproject (Wikiproject Metabolic Pathways) it barely meets the 30 stub threshold, unless we don't count inactive Wikiprojects as triggering the lower threshold. The optional parameter merely adds text to the blurb text, so it isn't a major problem. If kept then metabolism-stub is the logical template name for it. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It has no category.
 * 2) It doesn't follow the WP:WSS/NG naming guidelines for stub templates.
 * 3) It uses a parameter.
 * Rename per nom, and upmerge. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 22:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ick. Rename, rescope, fix coding, attempt to populate.  If not populable, upmerge.  Alai (talk) 02:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The proposed name is inappropriate, however. A "metabolic pathway" is not the same as "metabolism". I don't have time to read the naming guidelines to propose an alternative, however. – ClockworkSoul 12:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Six months today since the "inactive" notice was put on the website - I think we can assume no neural activity on its pathways, so rename, fix, and upmerge. As for what to rename it, metabolism-stub would cover metabolic pathways as part of its aegis, so nothing's missing out, and the increased scope might get it to 60 stubs more quickly. Grutness...wha?  00:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Count: 26 items are tagged with this. If kept, would this be upmerged to ? Her Pegship  (tis herself) 16:29, 18 April 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.

Various Chinese sports bio templates

 * 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 keep as is

I want to reopen the |Discussion on February 7 that not inform WikiProject China. That proposal is to rename {{China- to {{PRChina-

But i against it:
 * 1) PRC preceding ROChina in FIFA membership, etc.
 * 2) Territory of ROC (1910-1949?) and its people should preceding to current governing body, i.e. player represent ROC (1910-1949), except those later represent Taiwan under the name Chinese Taipei, should belongs to {{tl|China-bio-stub}} and its sub-cat.
 * 3) preceding to main cat {{tl|China-bio-stub}}

Matthew_hk  t  c  14:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The standard practice for stub names relating to China (and China) is to have templates at PRChina-X and Taiwan-X, except in those cases where the articles in question include substantial numbers of stubs relating to pre-1949 China (as is the case with China-bio-stub, China-hist-stub, and the like. Given that most of the articles in the various sports categories are biographies of people who have represented either PRC or ROC since 1949, it makes more sense to split these stub types in two. In several of the cases, there are not as yet Taiwan-X-stub types, but it would make far more sense to propose such templates than to attempt to recombine two different groups of stubs. I would certainly oppose any move back to the previous naming pattern for this reason. The stubs which were renamed had an sfd message on them for some time, which should have also been present on the example stub templates at WikiProject_China/Stub_templates (I see now that for some reason you don't have the sport templates there). Grutness...wha?  00:03, 20 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.