Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/August/20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 20[edit]

Cat:United Kingdom metro 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/rescope

And also relatedly: the scoping statement implies this is about "rapid transit" in general, and the stub parent is Cat:rapid transit stubs. Rename, if that really is the intended scope. Alai 22:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either rename or rescope. It's a mess as it is. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 21 August 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.


{{Undergroundstub}} (pseudo-redirect), {{LTstub}} / Cat:London Transport stubs for renaming/rescoping[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 London Transport cat, rename to LondonTransport-stub, have London-tube-stub be child, delete undergroundstub

Also with naming guidelines and ambiguity issues, and unilaterally rescopes the former {{London-tube-stub}} / Cat:London Underground stubs to be multi-mode. We should try to work out which axis we want, as having both at once will lead to some very small types (aside from the London Underground itself, which will be viably-sized with one, the other, or both in combination). At a minimum, rename to be NG-compliant; possible rescope (and further rename), if we're going to split by mode, rather than region. Alai 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete templates and revert to former agreed style (London-tube/London Underground). Chedck size of UK-bus-stubs, to see whether a London-bus-stub is suitable. If so, a combined Cat:London Transport stubs might be reasonable as a parent for both. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the non-tube articles seem to be on bits and bobs of the Docklands Light Railway. There's also the issue of whether "London Transport" is appropriate naming/capitalisation: it seems largely to be driven by the Wikiproject of that ilk. (The current public transport body is "Transport for London"; a wholly generic type would presumably use lower-case "transport".) Alai 01:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The name London Transport stubs may be intentional, meaning 'stubs relating to London Transport' rather than 'stubs relating to transport within the city of London'. I'm sure I am not the only railway enthusiast who still refers to the London buses/Underground operators as "London Transport"... ("Transport for London" is such a clumsy name!). In which case, it makes sense to remove the DLR stubs (perhaps to a new 'Transport in London stub' category?), and if the remaining stubs are all Underground-related, rename the category accordingly. -- EdJogg 09:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Admittedly "London Transport" is pretty much the 'median' name it's had over the years, so perhaps that's fair enough as-is, and {{LondonTransport-stub}} is less painful than {{TransportinLondon-stub}}. So would could plausibly keep both, and make the tube types a subcat... Alai 23:36, 21 August 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.

{{UK Tram Stub}} / Cat:UK Trams stubs, Cat:United Kingdom Tram 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

Obvious NG and duplication issues. Also, per my comments at WP:WSS/P, it's far from clear whether we should be splitting {{UK-metro-stub}} by region, by mode, or given their fairly modest size, at all. Alai 17:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have just found several stub articles suitable, and will add them when i get chance, no later than Wednesday. Bluegoblin7 20:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Hav begun added these: see below. Bluegoblin7 11:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename template to meet naming guidelines (i.e., UK-tram-stub). If size suggests it's worthwhile, also rename category to Cat:United Kingdom tram stubs per NGs. If there are fewer than the threshold number of stubs, upmerge. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Grutness's renaming suggestions. As commented at WP:WSS/P, it would be reasonable to rename the existing Category:United Kingdom metro stubs as Category:United Kingdom rapid transport stubs (or 'rapid transit'), and then subdivide the current content between Cat:United Kingdom tram stubs and Cat:United Kingdom metro stubs, according to whether they related to tram systems (those that involve predominantly on-street running) or metro sysems (which don't). The current category contains ~120 articles and could be roughly divided in two, meeting the required thresholds. A 'Tram' category would also allow correct categorisation of articles relating to historical tram systems in the UK, which could not be classified as 'metros' nor 'rapid'! Also, I do not think that a geographical split would be a helpful alternative. -- EdJogg 10:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do in fact think that the above is a really good idea. I have listed tram stubs below, that could use UK-tram-stubs or whatever.
        • There are 79 stubs above. We have enough stubs to warrant this template, and there are still articles that need to be added, and some articles still need to be written/re-written. I think this template will be a keeper! I suggest that the template is kept, and the changes should be made. And, at a later date, more integration can follow.
      • I can add more stubs if necessary, as there are loads more out there, but I think I have proved my point about this template.
    • Notes on above stubs:
      • Italics means the article is on a station or stop.
      • An asterisk (*) means that the article is currently one of the proposed re-categorised metro stubs.
    • Bluegoblin7 14:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This list is not without its own problems: some of them aren't tagged as stubs at all (and indeed, often don't seem at all like stubs), and others aren't primarily to do with trams at all (such as Rapid transit in the United Kingdom). Also, retagging the various {{Euro-tram-stub}}s in the above would make that start to look fairly pointless, going to my earlier "too few stub articles between too many stub types". Having said that, there does seem to be a workable "core" of articles that would get this type, especially given the wikiproject. Given the lack of decisive input on the modes vs. regions, can't really resolve it on those grounds, either. So I'm going to go with keep rename to comply with the stub naming conventions. Alai 23:43, 24 August 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/August/20&oldid=1090622569"