Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/July/20
July 20
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; take proposals to /P
Unproposed, cryptically named (no apparent naming link between template and category), no apparent links in category, no equivalent permcat Cat:Yoruba religion, incorrectly named template (Ifa is a dab page; the religion is at Ifá), no indication this could come even close to threshold... Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather than a simple deletion, rename and upscope the template to {{African-religion-stub}}, losing the ambiguous redirect. The proposed use of the adjective instead of the noun is so that the scope is not Cat:Religion in Africa but rather Cat:African religions (which I just Cfr-ed to a proposed Cat:African traditional religion) regardless of where they are practiced. If there prove enough to be a category, follow the permcat after the CfR has run its course for the rename, otherwise, upmerge. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can live with a rename/upscope - not too happy with the use of the adjectival form, though you're right that it would remove the possibility of ambiguity. However, this appears to be as much African-American as African per se. Perhaps a smaller upscope to {{Vodou-stub}} (or whatever the currently accepted spelling is) might be a possibility? Grutness...wha? 09:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A rename to Vodou-stub would be like using Lutheranism-stub to mark articles for all stub articles related to Protestantism. Besides, between the intermingling of both traditional and diasporic religions to confuse things, and the fact that even with the wider scope it is doubtful it would get a category of its own at this time, I favor the wider scope. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the Ifá page makes it clear that it is a vodou-related religion - not the comment about the religion in Togo, for instance. Grutness...wha? 01:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but Vodou is not the only strand of African diasporic religion. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We maybe at slightly cross purposes, then. a rename to voudou-stub is less like using lutheranism-stub for all protestant religion stubs than renaming upscoping it to a new protestantism-stub (my option) rather than a new Christianity-stub (your option). That is, both are rescopes, but my option is simply a smaller upscope - one that avoids the adjective "African". To be honest, though, I'm not overly fussed either way. Grutness...wha? 22:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but Vodou is not the only strand of African diasporic religion. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the Ifá page makes it clear that it is a vodou-related religion - not the comment about the religion in Togo, for instance. Grutness...wha? 01:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A rename to Vodou-stub would be like using Lutheranism-stub to mark articles for all stub articles related to Protestantism. Besides, between the intermingling of both traditional and diasporic religions to confuse things, and the fact that even with the wider scope it is doubtful it would get a category of its own at this time, I favor the wider scope. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can live with a rename/upscope - not too happy with the use of the adjectival form, though you're right that it would remove the possibility of ambiguity. However, this appears to be as much African-American as African per se. Perhaps a smaller upscope to {{Vodou-stub}} (or whatever the currently accepted spelling is) might be a possibility? Grutness...wha? 09:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been sitting around for awhile, and there are still only 6 articles in this category. As such, I recommend deleting the nominated template and category. However, I'm not sure there is a need to create any Vodou or African traditional religion stubs at this time. If anyone feels the need for that, they can bring it up to WP:WSS/P. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:49, 15 August 2008 (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.
Two Afghan actor/film stub types
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 Afghanistan-film-stub and Afghan-film-actor-stub; do not create Afghanistan-actor-stub
Where to begin? Neither of these was proposed, neither of them do what they say on the label, and neither of them is used on any article. neither feeds into a stub category. Afghan-film-actor-stub is not only misnamed (should be Afghanistan-film-actor-stub) but is splitting a subtype off a type we don't have yet (Afghanistan-actor-stub). Or at least it would be, if it was what it was intending to be. But this isn't anything like a real stub template - it's an image copyright information template!
Afghanistan-film-stub, on the other hand, purports to be a stub for Afghanistan film actors - exactly what the other template would be by its name. It isn't for Afghanistan films at all, despite its title. I think the only way to salvage anything out of this mess would be to delete both of these and create a new, upmerged {{Afghanistan-actor-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CLOSING NOTE: Based on a quick CatScan, I don't see the need for Afghanistan-actor-stub right now, but maybe at some point in the future. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:26, 14 August 2008 (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.