Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/January/11

Japan-sci-stub (upmerged)

 * 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 deleted by author

Unproposed and split along an un-useful axis. We don't split science stubs by the location of the science - science is worldwide and - theoretically at least - crosses all national borders. Instead, we split by the (topical) area of study. Unless there's a specific scientific topic which relates only to Japan, it makes no sense to have this stub type. Delete. Grutness...wha?  23:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you don't like the name of it, then propose a new one. WP:JA needs a way to differentiate between Japan-related stubs, and this one deals with science topics in Japan. See what it's being used for and you'll see. Just because you aren't going to use it doesn't mean WP:JA won't use it. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The name's no problem. It's the template itself which is the problem, which is why proposing a new name for it would be no use whatsoever. Perhaps if WP:JA had proposed it in the proper way, better solutions would have been suggested, such as a specific talk-page template specifically for the use of that WikiProject - which is a far more sensible solution, since not just stubs but all articles relating to science in japan could be marked by it for work by your project. Simply creating it as an unnecessary stub type (which it is, given that these items can easily be marked with the hardly overtaxed Japan-stub) is not the way to go about things. This is still redundant to existing stubs - especially since it's an upmerged type - and therefore unnecessary. As to "it's okay, WP:JA will use it", that's not an explanation of why a stub type should be part of the overarching stub system for all editors. Use by members of a WikiProject alone is another indication that you should be using a talk-page template instead. Grutness...wha?  23:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: (ec x ∞) As you noted, this stub feeds into Category:Japan stubs. However, upmerged stubs are hardly unnecessary and hardly redundant. It is being used to sort those stubs into more useful groupings. And your comment about "use by members of a WikiProject alone" is an invalid argument. WP:JA members are likely 95% of those using this and related Japan templates. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point. If WP:JA are the people using this template, but it's not being used across Wikipedia by all editors, it doesn't belong in the stub scheme. The stub-templates are not WikiProject-specific. I repeat - if only your WikiProject is using them, (unlike most of the Japan-related stub templates, BTW) then you'd find that talk-page templates are far more useful to you than stub template. That's why such talk-page templates exist. If something is primarily used by just one WikiProject, then it should be in the form of a WikiProject-specific talk page template, not a stub template. Grutness...wha?  00:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Where do you get off owning stubs? If a project wants to use a stub to sort things, I see no reason to smack them down. And I fail to see how a talk page template could be any more or less useful than a stub template. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but it is you who seem to be claiming you own this stub - 95% of the users of the stub type will be from WP:JA? That is not what stub templates are. They are for use by all editors, across all of Wikipedia - they're not the pet property of your project. As for you failing to see how a template that can rate all related articles - stub, start, C, B, A, and FA - for your project is more useful than one which can only mark stubs, well, if you can't see that, then I'm sorry. Grutness...wha?  05:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said no one else could use them. Rather, I said that 95% of those using them would be from WP:JA. I'm not failing to see anything. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good - I'm glad you're no longer failing to see anything, because in your earlier comments you clearly did. After all, a stub template marks stubs and may or may not move them into a stub category - no more, no less; a talk page template marks all articles related to a subject, can move them into a group of separate categories depending on the status of the articles, can be accompanied by annotations detailing what work is needed to be done on each, and can be tailored to the specifications of different work-groups within a WikiProject. Under the circumstances I'd be amazed if you hadn't realised how much more useful one would be. But now that you no longer fail to see how much more useful a talk page template would be for your project, perhaps you'll agree that this can be deleted. Grutness...wha?  21:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop being an arrogant ass. A talk page template would become far too complicated if it had to handle all the possibilities presented by all the related stub templates. It would be insane to program them all into one template, and that's why stub templates exist. If everything handled by stub templates could be handled by talk page project templates, then we wouldn't have any stub templates. It is much better to use small stub templates to sort stub articles than to use unnecessarily-large talk page project templates to attempt the same feat. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Calm down a minute and look. You said you could see failed to see an advantage. I pointed out loads of advantages. You then said you're not failing to see anything. The only possible conclusion from that is that you now see the things you failed to before. No-one has said these things need to be programmed into one all-encompassing individual template. Nor is there any justification whatsoever for the idea that stub templates only exist because wikiproject-specific templates don't cover all eventualities. If you think that, you completely fail to grasp the difference between templates intended for use primarily by individual wikiprojects (i.e., the talk page ones) and those which deliberately remain independent of specific-wikiprojects (i.e., stub templates). Your confounding of the two seems to be at the root of your failure to understand why creation of this particular template was incorrect and unnecessary. Grutness...wha?  22:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see it's useless trying to explain my thinking behind it as you can't seem to grasp anything I say as it is. The stub has now been deleted as there's no point in continuing this discussion. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a departure from stub hierarchy, which is indeed by discipline; this would set a confusing precedent. Perhaps Japan-scientist-stub could be used for some of these. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 01:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that one out. I hadn't been aware of it before. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you'd proposed this, someone would have pointed it out. Grutness...wha?  22:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Even knowing about it now, I don't see how there would be any overlap. I never thought scientists should be included under this stub anyway, and I never placed this stub on any scientist articles as far as I remember. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:05, 17 January 2009 (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.

Phraseology-stub (redlink) --> vocab-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

basically an unproposed duplicate of vocab-stub. Redlinked category, and both the article whioch use this are borderline AfD material for moving to Wiktionary anyway. Delete. Grutness...wha?  23:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. twirligigLeave one! &#8900; Check me out! 22:19, 18 January 2009 (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.

&rarr;

 * 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

Straightforward rename to match both the parent permcat and other "Foo terminology stubs" categories. Grutness...wha?  23:22, 10 January 2009 (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.