Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/March/20

Rename/rescope of Ride-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/rescope to Amusement-ride-stub - retention of current name as rediurect for the time being at least, though that may become the subject of a separate sfd later

This one's a longstanding and frequently-used stub, but it's name and scope has been worrying for a while. Ride-stub is used for amusement parks and amusement park rides, but we also have the widely-overlapping Amusement-park-stub. I'd like to suggest the deletion of the current name as overly ambiguous, to be replaced by a more strictly-scoped Amusement-ride-stub which makes clear that it is only for the rides, and not for the parks. Grutness...wha?  23:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Something called ride-stub shouldn't include amusement parks anyway. I don't have any objection to renaming it, but why not just rewrite it, and get rid of the amusement park part? Like: This article about an amusement ride or roller coaster is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. Branson03 (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I mean about rescoping. My suggestion is to rename this to a less ambiguous name, and take any reference to amusement parks out of the wording of both the template and the category. Grutness...wha?  23:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The "or roller coaster" bit is superfluous anyway; since when were roller coasters (as implied by the current wording) not amusement rides? -- Korax1214 (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. Grutness...wha?  00:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While the rename will, ironically, make those more similar, and possibly even more subject to confusion, this would seem to be the most sensible thing to do in the circumstances. Rescope, rename, re-sort.  Alai (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Edit and possibly rename: certainly delete the superfluous "amusement park"/"or roller coaster" bits, possibly rename to "Amusement-ride-stub" as proposed above. -- Korax1214 (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose Deletion I am very much against deletion of this template. However merging with Amusement-park-stub but don't make it Amusement-park-ride-stub.  Sawblade05  (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 18:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Surely the proposal is for renaming and rescoping, not deletion as such? The only things being proposed for deletion here are the phrases "or roller coaster" (superfluous) and "amusement park" (will be superfluous/incorrect if the rescoping is done). 217.171.129.71 (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I did not propose and do not advocate deletion of this stub type. Please read the nomination again. Grutness...wha?  22:03, 28 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.

Rename of part of

 * 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 all three to "Foo biography stubs"

nom includes

Propose rename to match other cats from biographical to biography.Waacstats (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, precedent is fairly clear by this point. Alai (talk) 06:26, 21 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.

Omaha-NRHP-stub

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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

NRHP-stubs are in the process of being split by state, and in one or two cases where there are very large numbers within specific states, they have been split by county. We've never split by city, however, and if we were to, there are probably places we'd start with before Omaha. Note that this stub actually isn't what it says, anyway - its text suggests that it should be named DouglasNE-NRHP-stub, but giuven there are currently unlikely to be enough Nebraska-NRHP-stubs for more than an upmerged template, this seems a poor chocie for a separate template. Delete Grutness...wha?  03:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are more than 20 current stub articles related to the NRHP in Douglas County, and I have more in the works. I didn't follow the convention because I didn't know there was one; rename the template but don't delete it. Also, Grutness, thanks for the note, and please note that this is the first stub template I've created, and I certainly wasn't aware that there is a stub cabal at work - sorry to break protocol. • Freechild   'sup?   03:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely it being your first stub would have been all the more reason to read WP:STUB to see how and why stub templates are made? S'alright though - it's a common enough mistake to make. Grutness...wha?  10:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename, rescope, and if necessary re-upmerge, if these put Nebraska 'over the top' for its own NRHP category. State level would have been a much more logical place to start, though...  Alai (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose one option would be to do the same as is done with the Ohio ones - turn it into DouglasNE-NRHP-stub and use that as a redirect to Nebraska-NRHP-stub until such time as splitting's needed. Grutness...wha?  11:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nebraska-NRHP-stub currently links to 51 articles, and Omaha-NRHP-stub only to 1. I would prefer to delete Omaha-NRHP-stub but can live with an upmerged DouglasNE-NRHP-stub. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 18:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply I have more than three dozen stubs to write, most of which could be tagged with DouglasNE-NRHP-stub - you can see I created most of the Nebraska-NRHP-stubs as well. I stopped using the DouglasNE-NRHP-stub after this AfD was started, and given the opportunity to duly stub it I will. Otherwise there is no convenient way for editors to sort out the DouglasNE-NRHP-stubs from the Nebraska-NRHP-stubs, which is my primary interest area. If stub sorts aren't useful for editors who actively work on the stubs then who are they for - others who debate their usefulness? • Freechild   'sup?   18:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems unnecessary to delineate city-level stubs when even the state type hasn't reached threshold. Editors who want to concentrate on city stubs can surely go to a (once it hits 60) and look through those. If the Nebraska-NRHP stubs were huge, city-level would make sense, but for now I would keep either Omaha-NRHP-stub or DouglasNE-NRHP-stub upmerged to the soon-to-be-viable . Her Pegship  (tis herself)  16:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, that simply tells me that stub sorting is simply an administrative task that is not meant to practically assist editors. I would challenge that "utility, not futility" need be the consideration for creating "levels" of stub sorting. By keeping the sort at the state level you are simply proponenting the futile exercise of stamping everything in a standardized fashion, rather than being responsive to the practical needs of editors who actually write the stubs in question. • Freechild   'sup?   18:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you get that impression. Stub sorting has been a great deal of help to many editors, even under the current guidelines, which are really not as restrictive as you seem to believe. If there weren't "organizers" like the stub sorting folks, editors wouldn't be able to find stubs to improve. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 23:15, 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.