Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/December/31
December 31
edit- 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 and reclassify these stubs once more up-to-datee information becomesavailable lateer in the year. Also, cleean sticking keeyboard
Merge with Sorbeoconcha-stub without redirect - I came across a comment on a "Mesogastropoda" stub article about it being a classification that is no longer used. I don't know about gastropods so I don't know which of these hundreds of articles would be appropriate to merge, but the user indiciated that most (all?) should be able to be reclassified with this different stub type. So I propose we delete the stub for this deprecated classification, and reclassifying the articles that already use it TheBilly (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would request that this change is not done right now, but is least postponed until the next major update/reworking of the gastropod taxonomy is published, which will be sometime in 2008. Right now these Polbot generated stubs need a lot of work on their taxoboxes and elsewhere, and keeping the stubs all together in one category (however outdated it is) makes them easier to find and go through. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- [Insert usual Polbot-related rant here.] If someone can give me a list of which articles are to be reclassified on a taxon-by-taxon basis, I should be able to start depopulating this, and indeed fixing the taxobox at the same time. If that's not possible, then as Intertzoo says, this will for practical purposes have to be postponed until the population is reworked by other means... Alai (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
Yukon v. Yukon Territory
edit- 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 Yukon-, deleting redirects
We currently have an inconsistency in the naming used here with templates, {{Yukon-airport-stub}}, {{Yukon-geo-stub}}, {{Yukon-politician-stub}}, {{YukonTerritory-radio-station-stub}}, {{YukonTerritory-road-stub}}, and {{YukonTerritory-stub}} (with redirect {{Yukon-stub}}) used for the templates, and Cat:Yukon Territory stubs, Cat:Yukon Territory geography stubs, Cat:Yukon politician stubs used for the categories. The primary article and category are Yukon and Cat:Yukon respectively, so I suggest that we rename the stub templates and categories to just Yukon and not keep any YukonTerritory redirects. I have labeled all of the above stub templates and categories for sfr, so as to generate the widest possible discussion in case for some reason we decided to standardize on including Territory. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the change to Yukon, per the article and permcat. No opinion as to keeping/deleting the redirects, though if the place no longer uses the name, they do seem redundant. Grutness...wha? 23:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support move/redirect everything to Yukon-xxx. Official named changed from Yukon Territory to Yukon. Please also cleanup the sfr labels on the temlates. --Qyd (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- 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 upmerge
While marking the templates and cats for the above I discovered that this category is seriously undersized with only 30 stubs, so we may wish to delete the category and upmerge the template to its two parents. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Keep stub and category, as to be consistent with the other provinces/territories categories and templates, even if it's underpopulated. --Qyd (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that the template should be kept, per the reason you mentioned, but the category is small which is why I recommended upmerging. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge, per nom. No "consistency" issue here at all. Alai (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.