Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/September/24
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
September 24
[edit]Category:Figure skater stubs / Category:Canadian figure skater stubs / Category:European figure skater stubs / Category:Russian figure skater stubs / Category:United States figure skater stubs / Category:Speed skater 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
All should be renamed to match the parent category Category:Skating biography stubs and most other bio-stubs, such as <Location> figure skating biography stubs. Neier 12:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support also suggest that the templates are changed to match i.e {{figure-skating-bio-stub}} etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waacstats (talk • contribs)
- Good point. And, on the newly created Japanese stub category, no category rename is necessary; although, {{japan-figure-skater-stub}} should be renamed to follow the convention you mentioned. Neier 22:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong preference for template/category consistency: if these are to be renamed (which seems fairly sensible), please tag the templates for renaming to match. But, keep the redirects from -skater-stub. Alai 02:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All categories above are tagged, since I forgot to do it originally; and all of the stub templates below are tagged Neier 03:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unopposed to this change, although I'm not sure it's that necessary. Is it the standard to do it this way for stub templates? (And since the orig argument is changing many to suit the style of one, wouldn't it be easier to change one to suit the style of many? But, like I said, if this is the accepted style of doing things, then I bow to the great gods of standardization. *g*) Kolindigo 04:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In the larger scheme of things, most biography stubs already use classification-bio-stub templates, and are in "classification biography stubs". The skating stubs are the exception. See Category:Sportspeople stubs by sport for just the sports stubs which are named that way. Neier 05:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unopposed to this change, although I'm not sure it's that necessary. Is it the standard to do it this way for stub templates? (And since the orig argument is changing many to suit the style of one, wouldn't it be easier to change one to suit the style of many? But, like I said, if this is the accepted style of doing things, then I bow to the great gods of standardization. *g*) Kolindigo 04:47, 26 September 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.
{{England-footy-manager-stub}} / no category
[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 nom withdrawn
Ill-formed and unproposed. Main problem, though, is the scope. We deliberately don't have separate stubs for football managers, since the vast majority of them are ex -players, and as such are covered by the various player categories. For this reason, we don't even have a {{Footy-manager-stub}}, let alone splitting off by individual nation. Grutness...wha? 01:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You did mention that at the time, but it was passed nevertheless. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm. I'd completely forgotten about that proposal. This creation doesn't seem to be connected with the original proposal, though (if it was, it would have been better formatted, I'm sure). I still think it's going to be a fairly difficult one to have in terms of its scope, due to the massive overlap (I'd say 90% of managers are ex-players, and the boundaries between manager and coach were, until recent years, very blurry). Given that there was a proposal, I'll withdraw the nom, BUT it will need tidying up, and don't be surprised if it needs to be revisited at some point. Grutness...wha? 06:06, 24 September 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.