Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/January/14

< Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion‎ | Log‎ | 2007/January

January 14

edit

{{HeBible-stub}} → {{Tanakh-stub}}

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


Per [1] and to be consistent with the cat. This is the best of several flawed alternatives. - crz crztalk 02:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Alai 02:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Tomertalk 23:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 14:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good, Rename per nom.--Wizardman 01:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild oppose, preferring {{hebrew-bible-stub}}, as the word Tanakh is not widely known outside Judaism. I've read the discussion at the link above, and would point out that the Biblical apocrypha is not generally considered part of the Old Testament; certainly it's not printed as such in modern times or in English, which is what matters in WP. My point is that Tanakh is very close to the same thing as Christians' Old Testament; so Hebrew Bible seems to me the best term to use in Wikipedia. The content of the stub remains "Hebrew Bible", I assume? Fayenatic london 08:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further note: an additional stub seems to be needed, e.g. {{apocrypha-stub}}, as various pages currently have the HeBible stub but are about pseudepigraphica not in the Tanakh, e.g. 4 Baruch, Batariel, Five Satans. Fayenatic london 14:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we go with a rename to {{HebrewBible-stub}} (which would be the more conventional version of your suggestion), we'd have an inconsistency with the stub category name, and also with the permcat Cat:Tanakh. Though I must admit to being slightly unclear: does this stub type have the same scope as that category, or is it more like a merger of that plus Cat:Old Testament topics? To avoid this getting over-complicated, I suggest we move discussion of proposed new stub types to WP:WSS/P, unless it's going to involve a Grand Rescope and Merger directly involving this type. Alai 05:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Beit Or 19:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename good one. frummer 19:09, 18 January 2007 (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.

Cat:Portuguese nobility stubs → Cat:Portuguese royalty stubs

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


Fed from {{Portugal-royal-stub}}, which clearly scopes itself as being about royalty, not nobility. Rename category to suit (or else, rescope to be more inclusive). Strangely, we discussed this one this time last year, seemingly without result. Alai 02:19, 14 January 2007 (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.

Template:WestVirginia-school-stub/ Cat:West Virginia school stubs

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 keep


West Virginia is two words not one. Wikipedia:WikiProject West Virginia is correcting it. --71Demon 01:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete All of the above are wrong as well. You are purposely putting a spelling error into something that many people use as an educational tool. Wiki's naming in this case is wrong. It may be the naming convention to make West Virginia one word WestVirginia, but it is not. Like it or not, wikipedia is an educational tool. As a result we have a duty to be held to a higher standard, yes many of us know that West Virginia and these other enteries are two words, but many kids will not. This spelling error you are creating on purpose doesn't need to be there, the computer behind this doesn't care. You shouldn't continue to create spelling errors, because there is a problem with the naming conventions. See the forest, stop looking with the at the trees. Wiki is an educational tool, you have a duty to make sure it is held to a high standard. That is why you should spell things correctly. It is common sense go with the correct spelling, over the wrong spelling. --71Demon 13:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, you are saying that West-Virginia is the correct spelling of the state's name? Funny... I've never seen it with a hyphen. See the forest yourself. Stub templates are NOT an educational tool; they are an editing tool to enable the articles to become better educational tools. Open any of those stub articles and you will not see "WestVirginia" in the text of the article - it is not intended to be there in the article's text, so does not get in the way of the article as an educational tool. The standardised naming of stub templates is however a very important tool for editors, and what you are proposing is to remove that tool by creating a system less thorough in its naming standards. Stub templates are named entity-stub, or entity-variety-stub, or subentity-entity-stub. As such, by creating West-Virginia-school-stub you are creating subentity-entity-variety-stub for a variety of articles (school articvles) on a subset (west) of a type of article (Virginia) i.e., articles on schools in the west of Virginia. West Virginia is, however, and independent entity from Virginia, and as such should not have a hyphen. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per standard naming conventions for Wikipedia. This is not the platform for a fundemental change in guidelines. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 02:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per the standard naming conventions used throughout the stub system. Anybody wishing to change same should first take a very good look at WP:WSS/ST and examine just how many templates / articles would be affected by a general change to the naming system. Why on earth go through tens of thousands of articles renaming to a new system? Doing so would only give a ton of work with no benefit at all, only a gigantic risk of creating new errors to fix later. Besides, any such massive operation (which would be next to impossible to carry out, even by bot) would probably cause so much strain on the servers that this entire project would be shut down as well. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 14:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and knock the spurious "speedy delete" 'votes' on the head. "Speedy" is not a generic intensifier to be used when or not any speedy criterion applies. "West Virginia" isn't spelt with a hyphen either, come to that, which is added to stub templates names only to indicate hierarchy, as Amalas points out. The argument that "many kids" will ignore the spelling of "West Virginia" in articles, but conclude from template names (only even visible if one is looking at page sources or meta-content) that "WestVirginia" is the name of the state (but not make a similar error with "West-Virginia") fails not just the naming conventions, but the alternative test proposed of "common sense". Alai 05:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. So it's two words instead of one, no reason for deletion. Plus it's based on standard naming conventions.--Wizardman 01:38, 17 January 2007 (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.

{{West-Virginia-school-stub}} / Cat:West Virginia school stubs

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 template


Despite having {{WestVirginia-school-stub}} for a long time - and upmerged, since there are only 32 such stubs around - someone decided to create an incorrectly-hyphenated form of it with its own category. The category is, of course, empty, and it was also, of course, never proposed. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP it is a stub patterned off of Virginia's. --71Demon 01:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete West-Virginia as improperly hyphenated, keep cat as it is above 80 now. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 01:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least it is spelled right --71Demon 01:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not according to the naming guidelines. Try reading them. They';re at WP:WSS/NG. Grutness...wha? 01:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and desist. Alai 02:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... the template, that is, keep the category. Alai 05:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the template, Keep the cat, as per Amalas. Caerwine Caer�s whines 05:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep All of the above are wrong as well. You are purposely putting a spelling error into something that many people use as an educational tool. Wiki's naming in this case is wrong. It may be the naming convention to make West Virginia one word WestVirginia, but it is not. Like it or not, wikipedia is an educational tool. As a result we have a duty to be held to a higher standard, yes many of us know that West Virginia and these other enteries are two words, but many kids will not. This spelling error you are creating on purpose doesn't need to be there, the computer behind this doesn't care. You shouldn't continue to create spelling errors, because there is a problem with the naming conventions. See the forest, stop looking with the at the trees. Wiki is an educational tool, you have a duty to make sure it is held to a high standard. That is why you should spell things correctly. It is common sense go with the correct spelling, over the wrong spelling. --71Demon 13:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "spelling error" as you would have it seem. The stub sorting naming guidelines are pretty clear about how this stuff works. The hyphens are not to separate words, but to create a hierarchy. {{US-bio-stub}} is a subset of {{bio-stub}}, just like {{US-footy-bio-stub}} is a subset of {{US-bio-stub}}. Are you trying to say that {{West-Virginia-school-stub}} is a subset of {{Virginia-school-stub}}? Because, if I'm not mistaken. West Virginia and Virginia are two completely separate states. Also, see Grutness's long list of similarly names templates in the discussion above. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stub templates are not used as "education tools". They are used as standardised names for editors, in order to assist them in finding articles to expand. The articles themselves are the education tools, and there is nothing in them that uses the spelling WestVirginia. However, if you are so convinced that West-Virginia is actually the correct form, I suggest you start moving all the articles on West Virginia (sic) to West-Virginia, starting with moving West Virginia to West-Virginia. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the template, redund. with the correctly-named version, keep the cat, of course. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 02:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the template as redundant and misnamed. Keep the category. We should stick to one naming system. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 14:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and be sure to put {{WestVirginia-school-stub}}, the proper template, back onto all the pages this template is removed from. TomTheHand 21:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the template, Keep the category. Whammies Were Here (PYLrulz) 22:21, 17 January 2007 (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.

{{Ancient-stub}} / Cat:Ancient stubs

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


Never propsed, ridiculously named... one of the most clear-cut pieces of deletion-fodder I've seen for a long time. Appears to have two stubs, none of which are particularly ancient (one of them was only made a couple of days ago, in fact), - one Ancient-Egypt-stub and a prodded Euro-hist-stub. Absolutely useless. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 14 January 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2007/January/14&oldid=1138683103"