Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/November/1


 * 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 speedily deleted as creation by sockpuppet of blocked user

Apparently connected with expandstub below, though none of the articles marked with that template feed into it. We already have a category for stubs that need expanding - it's called. All stubs need expanding. Delete (preferably speedily, since it's empty) as redundant. Grutness...wha?  00:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems that the template won't feed this category, due to the way it's designed. for that reason, it seems to be being hand-filled (something stub categories never are). So now it's not only redundant, but it also doesn't work the way stub categories should. Sadly, since it's being filled, it's no longer speediable. Grutness...wha?  11:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I assumed that due to the apparent original intent, we were discussing the two together. If not, then delete due to conceptual redundancy, and practical awkwardness.  (Also non-standard/disputed grammar, to boot.)  Alai (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: Speedy - creator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a permblocked user. Grutness...wha?  01:18, 5 November 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.

expandstub

 * 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 speedily deleted as creation by sockpuppet of blocked user

Looks like an attempt to combine two different templates which serve widely different purposes - parameterised, too, which is strictly avoided for stubs. Not useful for the purposes of sorting stubs (quite the opposite - it's already leading to stubs being placed in non-existent categories due to the ease with which a spurious non-existent stub name can be used), and certainly not a viable replacement for either. Much more prominent than a standard stub template (which is one thing we try to avoid), overly linked to Wikispace, and a pain to edit (requires double the number of edits to add it or remove it, and due to its placement harder for newbie editors to edit around it). Delete Grutness...wha?  20:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think it should be kept because:


 * 1) It's not an attempt to combine two contradicting templates, more an attempt to make inserting them much easier.
 * 2) It's parameterised as it probably wouldn't work if it wasn't. As for it being difficult to edit, well, thats why you put the whole article in only one parameter and the stubtype in a second.
 * 3) Also, if it takes double the number of edits, surely you'd think of it as an advantage?
 * 4) It's only in the mainspace to start with after another editor told me off for transcluding it in articles before it was in the mainspace. So far it's transcluded into 30+ articles, so deleting it will be a pig to remove.--O&#39;delanca (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) it combines stub and expand, which are never used on the same articles (as noted at expand/doc); 2) putting the whole articles into the first parameter will require explaining a whole new way of doing things to every new editor on Wikipedia - currently it's far simpler to just add stub to the bottom, and since it's parametered it's, as I said, strictly to be avoided; 3) no, if it takes two edits to each article to add it and two to each article to remove it, by definition it doubles the work-load on anyone who uses it - especially stub sorters. this can never be seen as an advantage; 4) Since we use bots for moving the stub templates on hundreds of articles at a time (and often manually move similar numbers), 30+ is a piece of cake. I manually moved some 100 articles from one stub type to another yesterday afternoon - it's what stub sorters do here. Grutness...wha?  00:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Further comment - it's even harder to use than I thought, since it appears to be quite often embedded within the article rather than at the start (under infoboxes and the like), making it more difficult to find the start of it to edit. And all the articles using it put the stub template in the wrong place, above footerinfoboxes and categories, so they'd all need editing anyway. Also, the "30+" articles it's transcluded into is actually about 18, if whatlinkshere is anything to go by. Grutness...wha?  00:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One more point - if this was to be used throughout the stubbing process, it would either need to be subst'ed, which would render many of the tools used by stub sorters (such as "whatlinkshere") inoperable, or it would end up being used potentially on half a million stubs (that's about how many there are currently, folks). It would make current problematical high-use templates look underused. I shudder to think what would happen it Wikipedia if it needed to be edited. Grutness...wha?  22:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I have no opinion about whether or not this template should be deleted. I suggested O&#39;delanca move the template from userspace (where a user-subpage was being transcluded into articles) into template space.  Just want to say it wasn't "telling him off" but it isn't an endorsement of the template. Protonk (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This would be a "pig" if it were allowed to remain, whereupon it might gain more transclusions, thereby worsening all the above. Badly-designed, screws up articles, screws up stub-sorting.  Strong delete.  Or else, rename to a non-stub name, take to TFD and delete equally-strongly there.  Alai (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete; parameters and just the general construction make this rather tortuous for even an old hand like myself to use, and I don't see that it's any improvement over the current method. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 02:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I can't understand why you find it so difficult to use. I don't know if it's just me and that I'm the only one that can understand it, but could you explain why it is so difficult to move?--O&#39;delanca (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess it's just the logistics of having the entire text of an (admittedly short) article encased within a template. It seems to me that if I were a noob trying to expand an article, I would click on the edit link, encounter the template, and be a bit daunted by not knowing which parts of it could be disturbed. Plus, I don't see how this is any quicker/easier/more efficient than just adding one line of stub template code to the bottom of an article. Last but not least, I agree with Grut that it's kind of obtrusive visually. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 17:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't make comments at different points in the thread, each with bolded "keeps": it gives the appearance of multiple (!)votes. Alai (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It looks like if this was to be of any use it would need to substituted when used instead of transcluded. Otherwise new editors and editors with no understanding of template syntax will not be able to edit the pages. —Borgardetalk 12:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Further comment After looking at one page it is transcluded on (J. J. Jeczalik), I am saying Strong delete, because this is not in conventional practice on how templates are used on wikipedia. It took me a while to find where the template finished, and I'm not exactly a newbie with templates. —Borgardetalk 12:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In any case, substing renders much of what WP:WSS does far more tricky - whatlinkshere is a widely used tool by stub-sorters. Grutness...wha?  22:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Substituting the expandstub template won't substitute the stub templates at the bottom, so that's no problem. But I still don't see a need for this template. —Borgardetalk 14:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, good point. The other concerns still apply, though. Grutness...wha?  22:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep What I could suggest is I go across, substitute all the uses of the template, and state clearly on the template documentation that it must be substituted, if that would help. Also, the template does not use any syntax or parser functions, and yes I did find instances where both templates were used even before I'd been at work with it, such as with this one.--O&#39;delanca (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's true that both templates can be found; there's a bot that goes through and prunes those instances on a regular basis. Maybe it missed that one, or someone reinstated it. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 17:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment to closing admin - User:O&#39;delanca has now !voted keep three times. Grutness...wha?  22:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Peg, which bot is it that's pruning these? Was there an explicit decision to do this someplace?  Pointer would be very handy, thanks.  Alai (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm...just looked all over the place for the conversation in which I *thought* Grutness mentioned it. May be just a figment of my imagination...sorry! Her Pegship  (tis herself) 22:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. Sounded plausible, since there does appear to be a fundamental redundancy between the two.  Grutness, can you shed any further light?  Alai (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah-hah! Alai (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Having a template that facilitates editors adding code for mutually redundant template-spam, that another process than has to go around substing it, and then a third ends up going around and removing the duplication, strikes me as the very essence of WikiFutility, wasting the time of all concerned, and clogging up the system and the histories with edits that achieve precisely nothing. Let's nip it in the bud now.  Alai (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * delete because it breaks readability (and dated expand categorization - though that is an easy fix) if not substed, as well as sdatung. If substed AWB will remove the expand from stubs I think. Also allows use of non-existent stub templates. basically a nice idea, but quicker and celaner to just to add the stub template. Rich Farmbrough, 19:03 2 November 2008 (UTC).
 * I have substed the existing uses and am looking at the wider problem of stubs with expand tags. Incidentally the cat was included with leading :, hence it was empty.   Rich Farmbrough, 03:40 3 November 2008 (UTC).
 * Argh. Can you recall which they are? No stubs should ever be subst'ed - it makes it very difficult for stub-sorters to find them and deal with them, as explained above. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  05:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Uh... don't worry. "User contribs" is my friend :) I've removed all instances of the template - but you have my solemn word that if the outcome of this process is keep, i shall personally replace them. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  05:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that shows how opaque this template is. "Subst:"ing the Expandstub template leaves an Expand at the top, and an appropriate stub template at the bottom. I did not of course subst: the actual stub templates, although I did remove the other incorrectly linked and transcluded elements.  Rich Farmbrough, 12:25 3 November 2008 (UTC).
 * UPDATE: Speedy - creator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a permblocked user. (Also speedy this template's /doc page) Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  01:18, 5 November 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.