Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/December/1
December 1 edit
Template:Multiple 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 discussion was delete. No one has explained how this template "make[s] life easier for editors". T. Canens (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was procedural close. This is not a stub type, it needs to go to TfD if it is to be deleted. 81.178.146.52 (talk)
- Reopened. If sent to tfD, it will be sent straight back here. it is a stub template. Grutness...wha? 21:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - makes stub soritng using semi-automated tools (suchg as AWB) more difficult - let's say, for example, that it were determined (at some point, not ncessarily now) that there's enough Scotish mathematicians to justify giving it its own stub tag. Under the old system, we would have a {{Scotland-scientist-stub}} and a {{UK-mathematician-stub}} on the page; we could then tell AWB to remove either one (if present) and add a {{Scotland-mathematician-stub}}. The new system makes this much more difficult (note that a notable mathematician may also happen to be a notable politician, and have a stub tag for that). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above and per previous arguments at various WP:WSS talk pages. Grutness...wha? 21:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep although I think the logic for this template is unnecessarily complicated I think its a good idea and in fact was just discussing it with a couple of other editors when this SfD was mentioned. It is harder true but not that hard using regex to do. I believe if we start using template the AWB developers could add logic to AWB to support it. Also, as with most templates like this there is no "requirement" to use it so if you don't know how it works or don't know how to program in regex then just add the normal stub template and at some point a bot or person will add it to the template if needed. --Kumioko (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While well-intentioned, this template just makes stub type maintenance harder. Having closed some of the SFD backlog, I can attest that it is already a pain to update stub type templates on dozens or even hundreds of articles. Add "learn regex" to the requirements for managing this and the SFD backlog will be counted in years rather than months. --RL0919 (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated tools and bots are here to serve editors and decisions about the best method to apply should not be made by considering what is in the bot's best interest. Bots and tools can be updated. This is a handy template which could make life easier for editors, so I recommend keeping it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no argument here suggesting deletion for the sake of what is best for the bots - the only deletion arguments here are for what is best for the editors. As RL0919 has pointed out, this template will make life far harder for editors trying to maintain stubs. The only commenters here who have mentioned its use by bots are those saying keep - yet stub sorting is rarely done by bots and, as you have said yourself, "decisions about the best method to apply should not be made by considering what is in the bot's best interest" - which would mean that it is the keep comments that should be reappraised for that interest of editors, not the delete ones. Grutness...wha? 21:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The two editors who gave reasons for suggesting that this template should be deleted both mentioned bots or automated tools. Od Mishehu thought that it would make stub sorting with AWB harder. RL0919 mentioned regular expressions, which is bot language. You yourself gave little rationale except "per previous arguments", which is not very helpful. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- RL0919 certainly did not mention using automatic tools, and though you may construe my comments as including previous comments relating to bots, I have never used a bot and find this template to be far more likely to cause problems for human editors - hence my reference to my arguments on this subject previously at various WP:WSS pages, which have never referred to bots but always focussed on the problems which such templates would cause to smanual stub-sorters. The original nominator is the only one of the three people who have commented here supporting deletion who mentioned bots as part of a deletion argument. By way of contrast, both of those who !voted keep used bots as a major part of their reasoning. Grutness...wha? 21:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The two editors who gave reasons for suggesting that this template should be deleted both mentioned bots or automated tools. Od Mishehu thought that it would make stub sorting with AWB harder. RL0919 mentioned regular expressions, which is bot language. You yourself gave little rationale except "per previous arguments", which is not very helpful. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no argument here suggesting deletion for the sake of what is best for the bots - the only deletion arguments here are for what is best for the editors. As RL0919 has pointed out, this template will make life far harder for editors trying to maintain stubs. The only commenters here who have mentioned its use by bots are those saying keep - yet stub sorting is rarely done by bots and, as you have said yourself, "decisions about the best method to apply should not be made by considering what is in the bot's best interest" - which would mean that it is the keep comments that should be reappraised for that interest of editors, not the delete ones. Grutness...wha? 21:33, 12 January 2011 (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.