Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/March/5
March 5
edit{{Aus-tv-channel-stub}} / Category:Australians television channel stubs (sic) and {{Aus-tv-prog-stub}} (redlinked cat)
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 speedy delete with agreement of creator
Neither proposed, both dreadfully named. Stub Parent (Category:Australia television stubs) is not in need of splitting, with only 300 stubs. Little likelihood of the first reaching threshold, and it has no permcat parents (networks, yes, stations, yes - but channels, no). Unnecessary. Delete. (Note: If kept, then renaming is required). Grutness...wha? 23:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree that they should be deleted. I appologise for creating them, as at the time I was unable to find (Category:Australia television stubs). Thanks. Stickeylabel 23:53, 5 March 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.
{{Poland coat of arms stub}} (no cat)
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
Poorly named, poorly worded, never proposed, and a quick count through the Poland stubs reveals just 22 coats of arms. Admittedly there seem to be quite a few Polish coats of arms on WP, but an upmerged {{Poland-heraldry-stub}} would be the way to go, if we wanted such a stub. I'm not entirely convinced it's needed. Definitely a rename at least, if not an outright deletion. Grutness...wha? 04:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename (and presumably keep upmerged) or delete. Alai 04:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory. Even if a good article that would be more than a genealogical dictionary entry could be written about a coat of arms (as opposed to the person, family, or institution that uses it, in which case a section of that article should be about the coat of arms) , it would be in almost all cases be information of so little notability that the article would be deleted on those grounds. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename and Delete redirect, naming guidelines. Copyedit template. Monni 20:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. {{Heraldry-stub}} is used on a ton of Polish articles, and the Polish material is the only potential splitoff. Finding 60 relevant articles is no problem at all. Valentinian T / C 19:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: That should have read: Category:Polish coats of arms has a ton of stub-class articles. Most of the articles in this category are stub-class. Valentinian T / C 20:21, 6 March 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.
- 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, use talk page templates
Announced as a fait accompli on the proposals page. This is for Infra red Inland Revenue Iran One of the other things at IR No, it's not for any of the dozens of things listed at IR - it's actually for Irish Republicanism, a subject which would and should be bettter handled by {{Ireland-hist-stub}}. I've no objection to adding an {{Ireland-poli-stub}} to the list, but this one is a likely edit-war magnet, has no precedent in the stub tree (nor would one be likely), and has no equivalent permcat (there is no Category:Irish republicanism). As such, this should be deleted. Grutness...wha? 04:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree about the template name, and lack of a permcat presenting a scoping problem, but I think those are both fixable. I'd suggest the creation of a permcat along the lines of Category:Irish Republicanism or Category:Irish Nationalism, at least if we can scope those in such a way to make clear we're not talking about the likes of Brian Cowen, and renaming the stub template in line with that. Using a -hist-stub on what's largely a bunch of biographies of living or relatively recently deceased people doesn't seem a good model; -poli- (or -poli-bio-) isn't unreasonable, but is clearly much broader than is intended here. Alai 04:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, with a willingness to accept adding an {{Ireland-poli-stub}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, ambiguous name. Monni 05:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a stub for use by Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republicanism. I didn't create the stub, but the project was informed the stub was broken due to the lack of category, and that it shouldn't have been created without going through the proper channels. I couldn't create the permacat so I did what I hoped was the right thing and brought the stub to the proposals page. {{Ireland-poli-stub}} already exists in some form, but it doesn't cover the necessary scope. The Wikiproject covers all aspects of Irish Republicanism, from the original Irish Republican Army all the way through to the Provisional Irish Republican Army and Sinn Fein and beyond. The stub isn't exclusively for use with people either, it can include articles such as Barrack buster. One Night In Hackney303 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Somehow I still think this should be handled in a different way... One possibility would be using talk page template like a few other WikiProjects use... Somehow defining the stub to too broad doesn't sound like a good idea. I also think that this atleast needs new name. Monni 18:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've nothing against a talk page template one, it's just I'm very new to templates and stubs and I'm only trying to somehow fix a problem I didn't create. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 18:25, 5 March 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.