Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/August/4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 4[edit]

{{Horticulture and gardening -stub}} / Cat:Horticulture and gardening 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 proposed, non-standard name, and an icon the size of which beggars belief. Already adequately covered by the longstanding {{horticulture-stub}}, there is no need for this stub type. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree. Sorry about this. A Wiki process that I didn't realized existed. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wassupwestcoast, you can alternatively decided to change the hort stubs to hort and gardening stubs or add gardening stubs--obviously both of these together are counterproductive and one has to go. Ask in the project and on plants, as someone will know which stub categories already exist. KP Botany 20:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to comment - currently, there are {{horticulture-stub}}, {{gardening-stub}}, and various stubs for individual plant genuses (genii?). If necessary, there is nothing wrong with adding two templates for those rare articles which relate to both horticulture and gardening. Grutness...wha? 01:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I hadn't actually thought of that, probably a lot of plants belong in both, and I don't know that one is the subcategory of the other. I don't know that you would have a category for both so much as you would categorize in both. I'm not really much up on horticulture or gardening. Plural for genus is "genera." KP Botany 03:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • (slaps head) I knew that - the word just fell through a hole in my brain :) Grutness...wha? 01:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I figured that would happen, the word sounding awful darn familiar.... KP Botany 04:00, 7 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.

Various US state Road stubs and their categories[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; do not parameterize US-road-stub


added 8/5/2007, all will put in Category:United States road stubs:

Rename all of these per WP:WSS/NG. {{Texas-road-stub}} is a redirect to {{Texas-State-Highway-stub}} so the content of the latter needs to be moved to the former and the latter deleted. master sonT - C 00:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Also, the genericized stubs will allow more articles to be cleaned out of Category:United States road stubs. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Grutness...wha? 01:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. There are several street and bridge articles under WP:MDRD that currently have to be marked with {{Maryland-stub}} and {{US-road-stub}}, because they are not related specifically to state highways. Doing this will allow these articles to be marked with one stub template just as the state highway articles are. I'm sure this applies to the other states as well.-Jeff (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: bridges should normally get {{US-bridge-struct-stub}} rather than any form of road stub - and that type is likely to be split by state at some point in the not-too-distant future. Grutness...wha? 10:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. It's nice to see a uniform naming convention for all US Roads stubs. --Son 20:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add to list: I added the CO, WY and AR stubs - discovered just recently - to the list. They will not have their own cats. master sonT - C 19:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Sitting on my to-do for months when Master_son beat me to it :) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, sounds like a good and useful idea to me. Nyttend 18:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, just had an idea, how about we merge them all into {{US-road-stub}} and use a state paramter? --Holderca1 16:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there's any other series of stub templates that does this. Perhaps someone from WP:WSS can clarify/comment. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 17:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just finished the coding, {{US-road-stub|TX}} produces the same effect as the separate template for Texas. I did use the proposed cat names from above. See Template talk:US-road-stub for an example of it in use. --Holderca1 17:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I strongly urge reversion to standard coding (and standard usages). This is just a headache waiting to happen: people have proposed and/or solo-run implemented all sorts of different -- and thus, entirely conflicting -- uses for parameters of stub templates, and the casual editor (or stub sorter) of same is likely to be entirely confused. We don't want people to start having to read a manual just to use a non-standard stub template. Alai 05:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Now that someone from WP:WSS has commented, I'll give the opinion I've had all along - I don't like the idea of an "all-in-one" stub. As the saying goes, if the current system isn't broken (which it isn't), don't fix it. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:15, 13 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.

Cat:Estonian athletics biography 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/upmerge


Template is of some use but category is undersize and as the permcat only has 22 articles I doubt this will get to 50/60 anytime soon. Waacstats 23:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and upmerge unless there's clear evidence of growth during this deletion process. No prejudice against recreating at a later date if numbers support a separate category. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 4 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/4&oldid=1138683037"