Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/June/6

June 6[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. -Mairi (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Judaism-stub/doc}}[edit]

Speedy keep. No rationale given for deletion. Used on many articles. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Apologies for the misunderstanding. I was reading top down. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 02:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is giiven below this group nomination - which is for six doc files. No-one is suggesting deletion of the stub templates themselves. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Islam-stub/doc}}[edit]

Speedy keep. No rationale given for deletion. Used on many articles. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Apologies for the misunderstanding. I was reading top down. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 02:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is giiven below this group nomination - which is for six doc files. No-one is suggesting deletion of the stub templates themselves. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Gospel-music-stub/doc}}[edit]

Speedy keep. No rationale given for deletion. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Apologies for the misunderstanding. I was reading top down. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 02:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is giiven below this group nomination - which is for six doc files. No-one is suggesting deletion of the stub templates themselves. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Christianity-stub/doc}}[edit]

Speedy keep. No rationale given for deletion. Used on many articles. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Apologies for the misunderstanding. I was reading top down. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 02:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is giiven below this group nomination - which is for six doc files. No-one is suggesting deletion of the stub templates themselves. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Geology-stub/doc}}[edit]

~~Speedy keep.~~ "Keep" because it is a highly used and useful general stub for those articles that don't fit into a more specific geology stub category. "Speedy" because no one bothered to give a rationale for deletion. Awickert (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is giiven below this group nomination - which is for six doc files. No-one is suggesting deletion of the stub templates themselves. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, delete sounds good. Sorry about the confusion; as I noted on my talk page the WikiProject's article alerts said that the stub itself was being deleted. Sorry to bother ya, Awickert (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S'alright-easy mistake to make. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Soft-drink-stub/doc}}[edit]

Looks like the deluge has begun... Delete all - none of them are needed, and all of them are already covered by the link to WP:STUB. Stub templates do not have /doc files, per long-standing precedent. Grutness...wha? 13:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a customized notice about where to use the stub as it relates to the subject is perfectly valid reason for the inclusion of a documents page. This appears to a personal preference of the nominator, as there is no policy-based reason for its deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs)
- Not a personal preference at all - rather a continuation of the long-standing non-use of /doc pages with stub templates. /doc pages have been discussed and rejected several times in the past by WP:WSS as they are of no use beyond that offered by WP:STUB and would require enormous amounts of extra work for the project to keep them all saying the same thing as each other 9which they would need to do, since stub templates are all used in exactly the same way - the way explained at WP:STUB). Grutness...wha? 02:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Grutness. There seems to be a precedent not to use docs for stub types. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, per my rationale at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/June/2. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...rationale which I've already pointed out goes against standard practice, adds an extra level of unnecessary work, and would cause considerable problems for WP:WSS. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no need, no use, and in most cases no content. There is enough documentation at WP:STUB. PamD (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Grutness. While it may make sense to have documentation for stub templates, such documentation should be located at one centralized location: either WP:STUB or Template:Stub/doc. There is no reason to have virtually-identical but separate /doc pages for every stub template, thereby increasing the workload for stub sorters and increasing the likelihood of errors and inconsistencies. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, possibly convert to soft redirects to WP:STUB . All templates should have documentation, and some of these pages also have categorization and interlang information. 76.66.203.200 (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2009 (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.

{{Home and Building Maintenance-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 delete. -Mairi (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bering unproposed is the least of the problems for this new stub template, which doesn't actually do anything and has a pretty awful non-compliant name. Created by a new editor in good faith, but hardly needed even if it was named properly and did what it was supposed to. Grutness...wha? 02:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete as unused. Waacstats (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2009 (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.

{{Home-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 delete. Mairi (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, another editor created this today, unproposed. It works, but the subject is so vague and already well covered by numerous stub types, so it's not needed. Redlinks to a badly named category, too. Grutness...wha? 02:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. Waacstats (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2009 (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.

{{Appliance 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 delete. -Mairi (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As above - vague (home appliance? Fire appliance? Something to do with applying things?), with a convention-defying name. If there is a need for a stub for household appliances (something which hasn't been shown), then this is not the template for it. Delete, with no prejudice against a proper proposal for a better-named stub later, if needed. Grutness...wha? 02:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. Waacstats (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2009 (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.

{{Florida-Hospital-stub}} / Cat:Florida Hospital stubs / {{Florida-Hospital-stub/doc}}[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 template renamed, cat & /doc deleted. -Mairi (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I feared, the /doc problem has started (see the sfd for {{stub/doc}}, below). unproposed template and category. If they'd been proposed, someone would surely have pointed out that "Hospital" is not a proper noun, so has a lower case "h". They'd also have pointed out that 60 stubs are required for a separate category, and that stub templates don't hav /doc files. I do wish that when people created new categories, complete with {{WPSS-cat}} at the top, that they'd actually read the template they're copying across - it would save a lot of effort. Rename and upmerge the template, delete both the category and /doc file. Grutness...wha? 02:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename template, delete cat and /doc per G. Waacstats (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, upmerge template; delete the category (recreate if/when it reaches 60 articles) and the /doc page per my rationale in the PRChina-stub/doc discussion below. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Parker1297 (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the /doc subpage and category has been deleted upon author request. JamieS93 17:37, 29 July 2009 (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.

{{PRChina-stub/doc}}[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 another /doc file. This is going to be a case of trying to get a lid back on a can of worms, I'm afraid. Grutness...wha? 02:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, see below for rationale. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The rationale you mention doesn't hold water - it is disruptive to stub sorting, runs contrary to normal stubbing practice, and has been rejected on several occasions in the past. It might make sense to someone who uses templates in general that a /doc file is desirable, but for those of us who use and patrol stub templates on a regular basis, it adds a considerable amount of effort and work for no gain whatsoever. Grutness...wha? 13:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Since all stubs are used in the same manner, it does not make sense to have separate documentation pages for every stub template. The existence of so many /doc pages would only complicate the efforts of stub sorters and lead to inconsistencies. The goal of appending usage instructions to stub templates would be better achieved by linking to or transcluding a single, centralized page: either WP:STUB or Template:Stub/doc. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the 6 /doc group nomination. Possibly soft redirect to WP:STUB 76.66.203.200 (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Montemonte (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to what, and redirect to where? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:54, 28 June 2009 (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.