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 upmerge, along with 1908
Been there, done that, just forgot to speedy the empty cat. FYI, this was well-populated at this stage -- maybe not wisely, but well. IIRC there were a lot of bio-stubs using it (having been bot-sorted from Olympic-stub), which I'm assuming someone has been so good as to clean up. The by-year approach is basically sound, but there are size thresholds (teeny stub types are generally assumed to be as counter-productive to likely expansion as over-large ones). Alai03:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly I was the one who moved the bios to olympic-medalist/specific sport and foo-sport where needed. I just forgot to propose the upmerger of the templates and deletion of cats so obviously support upmerger of any templates in the Olympic-stub cats with fewer than the necessary number of articles (50?60). Waacstats09:06, 4 July 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.
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 upmerge
A couple of days into the five-day debate about the creation of a template for Ohio historic places - during which support was slowly being gained for an upmerged template - User:Paultyng decided to create both category and template before the discussion was complete. I've no objection to the template, but the category is likely to remain of below-threshold size (hence the reason for the suggestion of upmergal in the first place). Delete this category, and upmerge the template. Grutness...wha?02:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I argued against <place>-NRHP-stub types, since they cut across the -geo and -struct categories (and more besides, evidently). Upmerger looks like the best bet, without prejudice to recreation if the intimated flood of articles materialises. Alai03:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have other suggested forms of categorization thats a possibility as well, I was just following the precedent set for Florida already. pw13:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As occasionally happens in cases like this, if you can populate it during the course of this deletion process I'll have no hesitation about withdrawing my nom. It was just that the number of existing articles in the parent category looked pretty slim, and there were distinct calls for this to be upmerged when it was proposed. Grutness...wha?00:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that we'll be keeping the template either way, so there's no loss of sorting/tagging effort, even if the upmerge happens, and gets undone sometime afterwards. Alai03:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm pretty new to this, it didn't really register that I could make fine grained template and always change it later, I think I will probably go with that, fine grained template but using an existing higher level stub, maybe even at the county level, and we can always change it later. Thanks for the help. pw19:43, 4 July 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.
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 both template and category.
Having subnational bio-stubs is bad enough, but when we do have them we certainly don't give them such cumbersome names as this! Add to that the strange capitalisation and the fact that the word "notable" is specifically avoided in Wikipedia - if someone has an article (at least, one that doesn't go to AfD) then they are notable. A {{Massachusetts-bio-stub}} (which this is, under a wildly inapporopriate name) would cause the same problems as other such subnational bio-stubs, due - as always - to the migratory habits of people.
Take one example from the ten or so stubs currently in this category: Bill O'Brien (American football). He's played for Georgia Tech, Maryland Terrapins (wow - great name!), and the Borwn Bears, and coached Duke Blue Devils and New England Patriots... so that would be stubs for Massachusetts, Maryland, Georgia, North Carolina, and Rhode Island bio-stubs, as well as the usual AmFootball-bio-stub.
All this stub is likely to do is cause a proliferation of multistubbing. As such, deletion is the best option. If, however, the consensus is to keep it, it will need drastic renaming. Grutness...wha?02:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this stub while I was looking through newly created Massachusetts articles and saw that some were about past historical figures or important current residents that would fit more under the Bio-stub, but they should also be included under project Massachusetts but really don't have anything to do with the state itself other than living there. This is a bad name for the template and if it is not deleted I will change the name and only put it on current residents and residents who lived there and are no longer living. A good example of this is the article Charles Johnson Maynard who is a notable person, but did not (according to the article) effect the state of Massachusetts. If deletion is necessary and is the better option then please delete it, but if not and its deleted then something can be improved.Yamaka12213:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creating an arbitrary cut off for one specific stub type that is different from that commonly used for parent stub types will be enormously confusing (and in this case, you're suggesting different rules for Massachisetts-bio-stub to those for US-bio-stub and other bio-stubs in general). Remember that - although useful to your Wikiproject, this stub type would be used by editors across Wikipedia who won't necessarily know what stipulations you set on it. If you want to designate articles that relate specific ally to a WikiProject, and want to maintain it for your WikiProject's use only, a far better way to go is to create a talk page banner template. That would allow you to keep track of all articles relating to the state, not just stubs. Grutness...wha?00:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok you're right this stub may help the wikiproject but in the wide-scale it will just cause confusion and multi-stubbing and if every project had one like this some pages would have many stubs, and this project should be no exception. I'm sorry I did not follow the policy and propose the stub/category in Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals and make the name less confusing in the beginning.Yamaka12215:40, 4 July 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.
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 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.
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
Not a useful way to split stubs. Unproposed, and not optimal template name (this is not a subtype of "of-the-USSR-stub"). Some indication of its lack of use is the severe undercategorising of its parent, which proclaims at the top that it was awarded 12000 times, yet contains only about 200 articles. We don't have similar stub types for other countries, for the reason that it's far more logical and useful to split by nationality and profession. HotSU weren't necessarily Socviet citizens (Egypt's President Nasser was one recipient, for instance). Also, for that same reason, making this a child of ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Russian people stubs is not only seriously flawed but in many cases (e.g., Estonians, Latvians) is likely to be highly provocative. Indeed, the only article currently stubbed with this is the biography of a Kazakh. Delete, and use the longstanding {{Soviet-bio-stub}} instead. Grutness...wha?01:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed like a good idea to me. Many of these bios can be expanded from the same resources. So people who feel like digging through these resources might like to have a handy category suggesting which articles they can turn their attention to. The main (non-stub) category exists and is useful, the stub category can be populated, and it gives useful direction to people who want and are able to help out... unless I've missed the point of a stub category altogether?
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.
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
Umproposed,. and there doesn't look like any chance of getting this anywhere near threshold size, even with a Wikiproject. ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Dinotopia appears at first to have only ten articles - and even if all of those were stubs we'd still be less than half-way to the WikiProject minimum threshold.
On closer inspection, though, the permcat actually only has three articles, a template, and six talkpages, and its only parent is a WikiProject category! So that template is uncomnnected to the general category hierarchy. Cleaning that up is not the job of SFD, but noting that the maximum current use possible for the stub template is only six articles - 20% of the minimum threshold with a WP - is.
A wikiproject with this few articles is better off listing them on a subpage of their project than creating more work for itself with a stub type, and certainly it will be wose than useless for general stub-sorting purposes. Delete, or at the very least, upmerge into something that is of a reasonable size. Grutness...wha?02:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for informing me about this matter. The thing is, nobody previously told me that a stub needed to be proposed first. I appoligise for this unfortunate mistake on my behalf (please check: spelling, grammar). The thing is, when I started this wikiproject, it was in construction, and it still is. The reason it appears to be undersize, and not many articles listed under that stub template, is because it is still under construction. Did you notice my to-do list, it says to finish the templates, etc, within a week, last updated July 2. To actually finish the main components of this wikiproject, would take probably 6 months or so. Had the stub template still would exist by then (pardon my grammar), it would likely include about 25 articles or so. This wikiproject currently includes 15 articles, and I am currently planning to create more. Again, this project is, at best, in its larva stages (figuratively!), and will not be completed beyond "stub" stages (I mean the [wiki]project) for at least a month or more. Notice how I seem to have given up on the {{Dinotopia}} template, and this is because it is seemingly impossible to make it, until at least this project is in its "adolescent" stages. Almost all projects will, thoeretically speaking, have a short period of time when at least one component of it would be below the minimum requirements, and that's when it is under construction. I am not able to contribute to wikipedia every single day, so unless I'm a bot (which I'm not), I wouldn't be able to finish the wikiproject very quickly, thus the lagging behind on the minimum requirements. I'd say I'm still a rather new user, as I've been on wiki for only 9 months or so, and I've not yet read all the policies, essays, and guidelines. Since I usually dislike opening more than one wiki-window at a time (in edit mode), I cannot be rapidly working on such a project while we speak. Since the stub and category are both listed under deletion, I might not be able to work on articles by adding the stub template, and I probably will not be able to meet the minimum requirements before it is deleted anyway. As the adding of the templates are still under construction, I also have not added the templates to the main and talk pages of all the articles in the project, and I have not yet even edited all of them, therefore the "less than minimum" number of pages in the other categories as well. In case you haven't figured it out, this is not a vote for a keep nor a delete, this is a comment, although I'd prefer if this template could be kept for the meantime. Please advise whether or not I should add the template to the remaining articles, to see if the quanity of pages becomes enough or not. I hope you understand, and thank you for your time. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU)15:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oookay... let's go through your points one at a time. Details of stubs being proposed before creation are at Wikipedia: Stub, which you should have consulted in order to find out how a stub type should be created, and at {{WikiProject}}, which you would have used to create your WikiProject. WikiProject templates are usually only created after a WikiProject is up and running in an active form - there is little point in having a mass of templates at an early stage, since the first part of creating a WikiProject is working out exactly what it will be doing - and until that's finalised, you won't know what templates you need. You point out yourself that you've more or less given up on the basic {{Dinotopia}} template for pretty much exactly that reason. You say that in six months or so the project would cover about 25 articles - the minimum requirement for a stub template with an associated WikiProject is 30 existing stub articles - so even if you exceed your expectations by 20%, all of those articles woud have to be stubs before having a stub type is worthwhile. Less than that and it's far easier for you to keep track on articles on a separate WikiProject page, where you can also list what needs to be done with each article individually.
I also have not added the templates to the main and talk pages of all the articles in the project, and I have not yet even edited all of them, therefore the "less than minimum" number of pages in the other categories as well.. In not quite sure what you mean by this - articles aren't added to permanent categories by wy of templates, and certainly you wouldn't want to have talk pages in a permanent category.
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.
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 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.
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 upmerge
Incomplete stub type creation from October 2006. No accompanying category. Used in a single article, but should be deleted as too specific. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've upmerged this for now. Australia-politician-stub is split by party, and the National Party is one of the major ones. Restubbing the A's in the parent have brought his up to 3 articles, restubbing the rest should bring it up to a respectable number, maybe even enough for a cate of its own. Labor and Liberal are undersorted as well. Could Alai have his bot work its magic to get those that already have the proper parent cat to have the right stubs. (i.e. {{Australia-politician-stub}} + [[Category:National Party of Australia politicians]] means replace {{Australia-politician-stub}} with {{Australia-National-politician-stub}} so we can have a better idea of the numbers? CaerwineCaer’s whines23:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could do, and have no particular objections as such (though the template name is slightly cogdissing), but we should try to establish if by-party is the best axis: note that for the US and Canada, we split by state/province in the first instance (and in the UK, we seem to have an ever-worsening dog's dinner). Also, can we get this wikiproject (among it must be said, 50-odd others) to desist from self-referencing/spamming/non-standard-stub-formatting transcluded WPJ links into the article-space? It'd be a boon to my blood pressure. However, it won't pass threshold on that basis alone: there were 22 at the time of the last db dump, though per the usual caveat, that might of course be undercatting at work. I'll hold off bot-populating until closure, but upmerger is OK with me. Alai03:07, 12 July 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.
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
Despite its name, it's not a stub template - not even in the grading Stub-Sense type. As such, it 's desirable to have a less confusing name for it. Note that a different template with this name has been previously deleted, back in December last year. Rename - perhaps to something like {{ContemporaryArtNotice}} - if it's needed at all (it's only used on one page). Grutness...wha?11:33, 12 July 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.
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 both
Unproposed, but well-populated... in fact, at first glance, this seems a perfectly reasonable stub split. Problem is, this concatenates three related but separate fields, mathematics, philosophy, and computer science... and one of those already has a stub type - mathlogic-stub - which almost all of the stubs in ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Logic stubs should go into. As to size, the maths one already has 200 stubs, so upmerging that doesn't seem sensible. I propose renaming and rescoping this to ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Philosophical logic stubs and {{Phil-logic-stub}} (or{{Phillogic-stub}}? Why has the maths one not got a hyphen???) and restubbing the maths ones and the one or two computer science ones. Another possibility would be keeping it as a parent of the maths one and emptying out the ones better fitting in the subcategory, though making this more specifically for philosophical logic would be my favoured option. Grutness...wha?06:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This would be better than getting into a math v philosophical logic split. Both groups have a lot to contribute in ways and in areas that the other WOULD NOT SUSPECT.Gregbard01:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that does not prevent having separate math-logic and phil-logic stub types. If there's a stub article that fits in both categories, just add both stub templates to it; this is common and unobjectionable. --Trovatore20:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leave alone I have been working on developing Category:Logic. This includes the creation of a Portal:Logic and a draft of WikiProject Logic. I have been filling in all the gaps of a project including identifying the stubs, and populating the category. I have been in communication with some people working on mathematics and mathematical logic, and some pov issues have developed concerning overlapping content, concepts, etc. The big issues about which field is more fundamental, which is the foundation or subfield of the other, etc. I'm sure everything will progress civilly. However, if we could ensure that all relevant points of view have their access to the overlapping content, it will be best for the outcome. Putting mathematical logic under logic would not sit well with the ml folks, I would not advise it anyway, although I could make a case. Putting all of logic under math logic would also not be appropriate. There are many articles in "mathematical" logic that could benefit from attention by experts in "philosophical" logic. Although, I find those labels not helpful. Logic is a major subfield of philosophy. The prefix "philosophical" is no more necessary than it would be for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aesthetics which may have similar issues with the "art" articles. We can also see the sub headings under Category:Philosophy stubs are consistent with this stub category.
There is no problem with creating a WikiProject Logic, at least not as far as I am concerned. When you do, using {{Wikiproject}}, you will notice that it advises you not to create any stub templates without first proposing them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, as these are the people who actually deal with, use, and coordinate the stub system across Wikipedia. The same information is given at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of the canonical list of stub types, and at the top of most stub categories. In fact, most Wikiprojects do not need stub types at all - they are far better off with talk page banner templates, with which they can grade all articles which fall within their project, not just stubs. Examples of these templates are {{WPBeatles}} and {{WPBiography}}. And when you consider that stub templates are not used by individual specific projects but are used by wikipedia editors in general, it becomes necessary not to have two conflicting stub types. We now have two clearly overlapping stub types. As I pointed out, most of the stubs that you have added to your new ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Logic stubs should be in the existing, longstanding, and approved stub category ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Mathematical logic stubs, which is used by both WikiProject Stub sorting and editors of mathematical logic articles. Contacting them would have almost certainly made you aware of the fact that such a stub type existed (and presumably before considering a new WikiProject you must have contacted other editors who work on logic articles), and proposing the stub type, as advised, would have guaranteed that you'd have known it. Creating a new stub category which overlaps considerably with an existing one creates a major headache for stub sorters, and also for editors looking for articles to expand within their specialist fields. As such, keeping both is impractical and counterproductive - leaving it alone is not, if you'll pardon the term, logical. Grutness...wha?11:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if that is the way it has to be then put all the math logic stubs into the new logic stubs category. The fact that the math logic category is "existing, longstanding" , etc. is what we call in logic an "appeal to tradition." It's not a good reason to do anything. I'm trying to organize around the concepts here. I'll go through the approval process for the stub category, but I'm afraid I may lose track of them if they are deleted or moved or whatever. I created the category distinct for a reason (a logical reason btw).
My whole point in moving forward with development the logic category is dealing with what I see as a math-centric wikipedia whereas many logical concepts are concerned. Many of these concepts are shared (like theorem), and up until recently the logical aspect had been absent or mitigated. So these stubs can progress with attention from either side under the more general "logic" category.
I've certainly no objection to it working the other way around with the deletion of {{mathlogic-stub}} and its category, a reverse merger, if you like. In many ways, that would make more sense - the only reason I didn't suggest that in the first place was the size of ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Mathematical logic stubs. Even so, a combined stub category of around 300 articles is not oversized. I've amended the nomination here accordingly. BTW - the proposal page is only for stub types that have not yet been created, and adding comments on this stub type there will only split and confuse the discussion process of it. Grutness...wha?00:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this very much. My concern now, is that it may seem like stepping on toes, etc. The WikiProject Mathematics has been wildly successful. They are responsible for the progress heretofore. However, there is a math-centric bias, and this re-categorizing will be a long term benefit. I just hope that the philosophy people will make anything close to a showing as the math people in expanding these.
I don't think that merging them is a good idea. Mathematical logic is actually pretty different from the others -- and keeping it apart makes it easier to work with. The mathlogic-stub template is already pretty large, and if the WikiProject Mathematics creates some of the articles on the requested list it will grow larger yet. I'll toss my hat in with the above 'vote' to leave alone.
Opposed to mathlogic stub type rename/deletion. There are currently 150-200 article pages listed in the Mathematical logic stub category, and there are too few users/editors who are competent to edit or even review them, based on how long some of those articles have been stubs. Mathematical logic is a field requiring specialized mathematical knowledge at a philosophic/theoretic level to understand the often-cryptic language used, and from the standpoint of reviewing professors, mathematicians and math majors, deleting or renaming the category only serves to hide from them the included article stubs as candidates for improvement. These much-needed improvements include stub expansion to make those articles more accessible to Wikipedia users with less exposure to a college-level mathematics major requiring specialized emphasis in the field, a group that includes the vast majority of Wikipedia users.
I would oppose any Wikipedia action or policy that has a consequence of making any mathematics but especially any advanced or theoretical mathematics less accessible to the general using public as it would be against WP:ENC. The only possible benefit to come from article hiding on cat rename/deletion is that it would be easier for some of us to plant unverifiable information and original research on Wikipedia when it would be more appropriate to submit supported original research to an appropriate wiki journal at http://academia.wikia.com. Hotfeba17:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose merge; mathematical logic is rather different from logic in the older sense. However a rename of {{logic-stub}}to{{phil-logic-stub}} might be in order. Then stubs that fit in both categories could be tagged with both stub templates; that would look strange with the current naming. --Trovatore20:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the articles in this stub type seem to actually be "set theory stubs", but that isn't a stub class so they are in the more general mathematical logic stub type. Very few of these articles are of the "general logic" persuasion; most are clearly mathematical. If there is desire for a logic stub type, there is no reason the few articles that overlap couldn't change type or be double-tagged. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mathlogic-stub Take a look at Ineffable cardinal which uses this stub. It is of interest to some mathematical logicians, but it would be completely incomprehensible and uninteresting to a philosopher. Similarly, for Code (set theory). Merging mathematical logic with philosophical logic would only create confusion. JRSpriggs02:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, keep mathlogic-stub. This is just a maintenance stub category. It brings mathematical logic stubs to the attention of some of those likely to improve them. It decides nothing about the subsequent categorization of such articles. In other words, it excludes nothing. Charles Matthews19:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the logic and mathlogic stub and create a philologic stub. There is too significant of an overlap between the works of philosophical and mathematical logicians to simply segregate them entirely (e.g., the latter have published several proofs on the number of modalities in various systems of modal logic, which is a creation of the former).
Delete math, keep logic in the interest of a coherent project at WikiProject Logic. If we get into a math and phil split, it will not be helpful. They should be under one. Creation of a phil-logic cat will just deepen the divide. Both sides need to broaden their attention to the whole logic category.
As I pointed out, few articles in this stub class are "logic" articles - they are mostly set theory articles. Set theory is part of mathematical logic for histroical reasons, but not part of "logic" in the broader sense. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The territorial attitude does not help the articles. It is not your place to say what is the "philosophical" logic. It's all logic, it all benefits from attention from both sides. This is an attempt to organize the content appropriately. I learned set theory in the philosophy department, so please stop it. The "math" people are just going to have to broaden their attention. Why is that such a problem? The divide is not helping. Gregbard23:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not for you, Gregbard, to be telling us, set theorists and other mathematical logicians, to what we should be paying attention. You are not our boss. This is a volunteer effort. Personally, I want to have nothing to do with "philosophical logic". As far as I am concerned, it is a waste of time and a pseudo-science. JRSpriggs02:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
G: I don't know what exactly you mean by "logic" with no qualifier. Pure set theory is one of the four parts of mathematical logic. It is not a field of philosophy. You may learn it in a philosophy department, just as you may learn philosophy of mathematics in a math department, but it is still mathematics. As I said, a second stub type for logic stubs is fine - but most of the things classified as mathematical logic stubs don't belong anywhere else. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to remove mathlogic stub category. Splitting certain articles like domain of discourse and predicate between the discplines of math, philosophy, computer science and linguistics leads to improvished articles and more stubs! Giving a more rounded, inter-disicplinary interpretation of such terms would definitely improve readability. Many of the basic terms like proposition, theorem, relation have in fact been borrowed from philosophy or linguistics when formal logic was being set up. Having separate mathematics articles for these terms tend to lead to definitions that are too formal and cannot be understood by the general audience. Putting these terms in the context of language in general would make the article more accessible.
I do not think that we need to fear mathematicians cannot find the mathematical logic stubs to edit. As for as I know, mathematical logicians are a distinct lot. They are particularly concerned about their subject and interested in philosophy and philosophical logic in general. I expect if they were to search for logic stubs to expand, they would definitely check out logic (if logic were to become the broad umbrella once mathematical logic is removed as i propose), if they cannot find their articles in mathematics. I do not think there is a worry.
In fact, not all mathematicians recognize the work of logicians as worthwhile mathematics. To see things in a positive light, I think the work of logicians have grown sufficiently large to form a recognizable discipline of its own. However, the work of many logicians are motivated by philosophy and having a broad category of logic would be to place all these work together. Interested mathematicians will still come and visit us.
I give an example. Plurality of logics is not well-managed now. Most articles just put some rules there which doesn't really make sense. If we recall, many logics were invented to provide a language to solve paradoxes in philsophy. Placing these logics (and their rules) in the context of these paradoxes would definitely improve the articles beyond stub size and make the logic be more sense. Then basic mathematical facts like soundness or monoticity can also be put there.
The last thing that a general logic category would be good for is that there would be a place to put the philosophy of logic articles. For example, logic construed as a methodology of mathematics and the epistemology of logic. If there were still the math logic category then these things would just be jumbled in the philosophy of math pages.DesolateReality11:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Little of that comment has to do with a stub sorting method. Changing the name of the stub type doesn't make the article more or less interdisciplinary. If the desire is to move the "general logic" stubs to Category:Logic stubs then it will be necessary to create Category:Set theory stubs as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To illustrate, I went though Category:Mathematical logic stubs and moved all the "logic" articles to Category:Logic stubs. There are 126 articles left, and these are on mathematical, rather than logical, topics. I don't mind having the logical articles indexed as logic stubs, but it would make no sense for these remaining articles to be called "logic". — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in response to DesolateReality As I mentioned far, far above, it is not a problem to have two different stub templates on the same article. When a stub article is both mathematical logic and philosophical logic, by all means give it both templates. But it doesn't make sense to throw articles that are mathematics, plain and simple, into a stub category with non-math articles. --Trovatore17:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Linguistic digression The point here is that "mathematical logic" is not really logic. It's a collection of mathematical fields that have been historically associated with logic, and in which logical questions tend to come up more frequently than they do in the rest of mathematics. "Philosophical logic" is a back-formation (like "snow skiing") that can be useful in contexts where people might be using "logic" as a shorthand for "mathematical logic". --Trovatore17:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mathlogic. There would be no argument at all here if it were not for the historical anachronism that this branch of mathematics is called "mathematical logic". It is not a branch of logic, although there is a significant overlap. Gregbard seems to be on a mission here to transform the way that logic is viewed. This is not Wikipedia's purpose: here we report, we do not innovate. Geometry guy13:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IF there is an elimination of the mathematical logic stub type, then it would be logical for mathematicians working on "mathematical logic" to either create sections in those stubs that reflect the precise syntactic definitions typically required for mathematical rigor in mathematical proofs of logical properties within formal systems, or generate new articles X (mathematics) for every term X that requires a mathematically precise definition.
Examples would include Theorem and Theorem (mathematics), Interpretation and Interpretation (mathematics), and Model and Model (mathematics).
Generally, semantic arguments fail to provide sufficient rigor necessary for avoiding paradoxical results or adequately demonstrating the reaching of results in a satisfactory mathematical fashion. A careful cover-to-cover analysis of Russell's Introduction to Mathematical PhilosophyISBN0415096049 would be instructive. Philosophically, paradoxical results may be interesting or even amusing; mathematically, they are absolutely frustrating or career-ending. In mathematics, a proof is only worth its ability to arrive at a reasoned conclusion by avoiding the semantic sleight-of-hand that may be permissable in a philosophical discourse on logic, where terms may be allowed to vary in meaning or remain undefined until it is fully necessary to define them for the sake of the argument. In mathematics, this delayed precision would merely open the door to allegations of inadequacy in the demonstration of an annotated proof. It can be hardly expected that a movement to make articles less "math-centric" would sufficiently explicate the precision required by mathematicians working with logic to make generalized Wikipedia articles usable for their work as researchers or educators.
As for the problem of "mathematical logic" being a collection of concepts mostly involving set theory, this is true in that any rigorous set theory (math) is generally considered to require a basis (math) in formal systems (math) using syntactic proofs (deductive logic), or it is likely to be rejected as not sufficiently rigorous for review. For any college-educated mathematician, considering a new set theory without also including syntactic mathematical logic expressed as a formal system as its basis would be like reviewing the classical literature canon without a concurrent inclusion of subject-verb agreement and paragraph formation: possible but potentially and most likely worthless. Hotfeba00:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The notion expressed more than once here is that "mathematical logic" isn't logic. That just isn't reasonable on the face of it. There may be some dissertation to be had from that view, but for the purpose of organizing an encyclopedia that view is obviously not appropriate. There is no field titled "logical mathematics." That is NOT because of a historical or traditional error. There is no 'mission' here, just a bunch of drama queens quite frankly. The only 'mission' is getting information about logic out to the public because the public needs it more than ever. I approached you guys diplomatically with a significant lapse in the theorem article, you begrudgingly included the material after much massaging of the language. It became obvious to you guys that this same type of lapse will cascade through 'your' precious category. Folks, I hate to say it but I was absolutely correct about theorem. Furthermore, your stellar WikiProject Mathematics appears to agree with ME about the rest as well:
Set theory: "It is (along with logic and the predicate calculus) one of the axiomatic foundations for mathematics"
also under Portal:Mathematics: The "foundations" category contains all the topics within the field of logic (which you guys just claim really are not).
It really is time to work with different disciplines. I find this whole exchange astonishing. I didn't propose any change to this stub situation, but now that it has come to a head we should do the right thing for the Logic WikiProject as a whole.
Perhaps we should rename it "Logic and Foundations of Mathematics" just to make you guys happy or;
have two stubs for mathematical logic and "non-mathematical" logic since that's the way you guys see things and that's all that really matters. Hey if that's what it takes WHATEVER.
I didn't come into this with a big attitude, but after seeing all the territorial backbiting and drama about upcoming edit wars etc, I'm left unimpressed with the level of ability to collaborate with anyone who doesn't see things the same way.
It would be nice if you guys had a religious conversion and just put he logical component in these articles YOURSELVES. But you could barely bring yourselves to admit the point on theorem. I think the point really did go over some heads. Now this proposal from Hofeba is to disintegrate these articles even further. Please see WikiProject Integration for why that would be a bad idea.
There is no need to be so polemical. The only subject of this discussion is the stub tags. If you agree to having two stub tags, one for mathematical logic and one for "logic", I think everyone else does as well. Perhaps the discussion could be closed? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:01, 24 July 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.
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
Rename of 2 categories due to recent de-upmerging of templates
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.
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 both goose and swan, delete Goose-Stub redirect
With the exception of the Coscoroba Swan, whose article is not a stub, the swans are all in the genus Cygnus, and the true geese are in the subfamily Anserinae, altho there are a number of species called geese who are not in it. However, unless we start getting large numbers of stub articles about fossil birds or domesticated breeds, we'll never have any of these large enough to break out with a separate stub category, so we need only consider whether they are useful alternative names for {{Anseriformes-stub}}. CaerwineCaer’s whines03:34, 16 July 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.
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 Taito-videogame-stub, delete Taito-stub
‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Square Enix stubs is looking quite a mess, with now four templates leading into it, despite it only having about 90 stubs. This one is more troublesome than the others, since it is ambiguously named (I assumed when I saw the name at Special:Newpages that it was like Ratu-stub, but for Samoan nobility, since Taito is a very high rank in Samoa. According to Taito - which is a disambiguoation page - it's also a place in Japan and a personal name in several countries. But no, it's another variant on a theme for Square Enix stubs. Delete, or at the very least rename. (As to {{Taito-videogame-stub}}, it was created during discussion so needs discussing alongside this - very very weak keep on that one). Grutness...wha?01:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RENAMEtoTemplate:Taito-videogame-stub. I do apologize for the bad naming (I was thinking of SNK-stub and Capcom-stub at the time). I read Wikipedia:Stub#Creating_stub_types and didn't think there was a need to propose it for creation as I was not creating a new category, just a template. Taito Corporation is a fully owned subsidiary of Square Enix, but these games are not released under the Square Enix brand. Therefore I feel it makes sense to have a Taito stub template that links to the Square Enix Stub category. Especially considering how many Taito-related stub articles there are (close to 80). The Square Enix stub category is underpopulated because WikiProject Square Enix maintains a high standard for their articles. This template will help bring these articles to their attention, as many Taito articles need it (see List of Taito games). JohnnyMrNinja03:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the "What links here" for Taito Corporation and added the template to stub articles that were directly Taito-related, and only games that had a pre-existing stub template or were marked as stubs by CVG. A few had no discussion pages but were obviously stub class (not Start class). In total, there are now around 115 Taito stubs. If this template is deleted, these pages would still be stubs. They would then need the Template:SquareEnix-stub, and that would probably be confusing to readers. JohnnyMrNinja09:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We REALLY REALLY need a section of this page saying "Don't move pages anything while discussion is in progress"! We now have both a stub and a redirect that need discussion. This process lasts a minimum of five days - saying you got no response in 18 hours is a ridiculously short time, especially since - for many of us - that included nine hours of sleep. I've now added the new name to this proposal, since it also needs discussing (though it is more likely to be a keeper, I'll admit). Grutness...wha?01:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly didn't think it was over, I guess I'm just used to AfD. There normally someone else would have commented by now. I just figured nobody was interested, and I'd make the template as keepable as possible (by renaming and changing the icon). Sorry again if that was a mistake. JohnnyMrNinja04:06, 16 July 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.
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 Warcraft template, delete Warcraft cat; create BlizzardEntertainment-stub & VivendiGames-stub templates; feed all templates into "Vivendi Games stubs"
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Oppose Microsoft has only owned Rare for a couple of years and apart from owning the company that owns them, has nothing to do with the vast majority of the games themselves. If, for example, any of Rare's better known Nintendo games (some of which are still partly owned by Nintendo) were stubs they would look a little odd being tagged as Microsoft games. Similarly, speaking as one of the maintainers of the Ultimate Play The Game article, the Ultimate games (hopefully not going to be stubs for too much longer!) have nothing to do with Microsoft. I would support a renaming to "Rare stubs" (or perhaps "Rare video game stubs" would be better) and keeping as it otherwise is. Miremare17:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#Possible_reasons_for_the_deletion_of_a_stub_type "Their scope is too limited - As a rule of thumb, there should be at least 50 appropriate stubs in existence" - my thinking on this one is that it a small category and it is unlikely to get bigger (keep in mind these aren't for normal articles, just stubs). At the very least, I don't think there should be a stub category specifically for Rare games, so instead of proposing deletion, I proposed renaming. JohnnyMrNinja18:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Rare is 100% owned by Microsoft. The rights to the games though (including the Ultimate ones) are owned by Rare themselves, not the parent company. But more importantly, the likes of Knight Lore were written and published 20 years before Microsoft had any involvement with Rare. Microsoft do not have a shred of a claim to have had anything to do with these titles (apart from currently owning the company that owns the rights to them) and retroactively reassigning the "credit" to them is, at best, misleading, and likely to be quite baffling to many people. In fact Nintendo have a far greater claim to many of Rare's games (Rare made some practically "to order" for them, as well as using Nintendo IP like Donkey Kong), whereas Microsoft have specifically said they let Rare do pretty much as they please. If someone went to the aforementioned Knight Lore article, saw {{Microsoft video game stub}} and thought "what the hell?" and removed it, I would not be at all surprised. In fact, I'll be surprised if things like that don't happen as a result of this. I'm not particularly bothered about Rare having its own stub category, I would quite happily see them in Category:Video game stubs, but I strongly oppose them being in an inappropriate and misleading category. I don't know much about the other companies whose stub categories you've proposed to change, but the more I think about Rare's, the more I think that these other propositions are probably not a good idea for the same reasons, and for that reason I have withdrawn my support for two of those. Miremare17:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I never thought this was particularly objectionable when I proposed it. Ok, take a look at {{Taito-videogame-stub}}. Taito is 100% owned by Square Enix, but the games are not released under the Square Enix brand. So I made a Taito stub that links to the Square Enix category, so readers see don't see Square Enix and get confused, but editors still know to find it at the Square Enix category. Keep in mind that stub categories are primarily for editors. Most readers probably aren't interested in finding all the least informative articles on a particular topic. Also, stub categories should only be a temporary location. So, would it be more acceptable to have a Rare stub template that leads to a Microsoft Games category? This way readers aren't confused, and the stubs will be in a much more "keepable" (and still factually accurate) category. ~ JohnnyMrNinja{talk}19:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you're trying to compromise, but despite your claim of accuracy (which I would dispute, as although Microsoft owns Rare, Rare still owns its games, not Microsoft - except for some that are still partly or wholly owned by Nintendo), I feel that a Microsoft category is entirely irrelevant when most of these games (especially the stubs - they released endless games on the NES, most of which don't have articles yet) are primarily associated, if not inextricably associated, with Nintendo. I just don't see what is acheived by lumping them all in with unassociated games in what should be a category to group entries with something in common. I'm not particularly attached to the Rare stubs cat, but would sooner it remain than they get moved to a category that is irrelevant to them, whether it's temporary and just for editors or not. Sorry to be a pain, but that's just how I feel. :) Miremare20:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never done that many *'s before. I am particularly confused by "Microsoft owns Rare, Rare still owns its games, not Microsoft". If Microsoft owns Rare, then doesn't it own what Rare owns? "Rare" may operate independently, but they are still property. Effectively this is a group of properties that are grouped together and called "Rare". I mean, if you buy a jewelry box at a flea market, you own the box, but also everything that was in it, even if you choose to keep it in the box. The box doesn't own anything. When Rare sold itself to Microsoft, it stopped being the owner and just became the box. ~ JohnnyMrNinja{talk}20:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, fortunately Microsoft haven't done what EA did to Westwood Studios, Bullfrog, etc. and stripped its purchase of all worthwhile property then discarded the carcass. Rare still owns its games - it's practically still an independent developer, just with a new owner. When Tim and Chris Stamper owned the company, THEY owned the company, but the COMPANY owned the games. Rare just has a different owner now. And yes, we're going to run out of room here. :P Miremare21:08, 18 July 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.
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 to ElectronicArts-stub
I don't want to make the name too long, because if it's easy to remember and type (like {{SNK-stub}}), it's more likely someone will add it when they happen across a page. JohnnyMrNinja06:58, 17 July 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.
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 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.
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 moved to CFR
I'm proposing that category:murdered activists be deleted. I have largely depopulated it over the last few days, moving the articles into the very similar category category:assassinated activists. These indivisuals are specifically refered to as having been killed for political reasons in their WP bios, and so didn't fit into the originally-proposed use of the murdered activists category anyway (activists killed for non-political reasons). The reason I propose this be deleted entirely is that it is simply confusing, leading editors to list people in the wrong category. Secondarily, it hard to imagine why a categoy is need for people who happen to be both activists and murder victims, with no connection between the two. Envirocorrector22:39, 17 July 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.
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 in favor of talk page banner
Unproposed, of course. What, I hear you ask, is this for? ECU, of course. Actually, only East Carolina University. Already covered, as is standard practice, by a state-specific university stub, and with no sign of it reaching threshold even if it was renamed to something less ambiguous. Deletion is the better option, though. Grutness...wha?02:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I did not know there was a procedure to making stubs. I saw that Duke University had one so I copied their idea. If ECU is too disambigious, it can be changed to East Carolina University. PGPirate20:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not needed, but it would be nice to have a general idea about how many existing articles that would benefit from such a template, e.g. if the figure is closer to 10 or 50. The cutoff for a new template is normally 60 stub articles. If there is a relevant WikiProject, the cutoff is normally lowered to 30 articles. ValentinianT / C18:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing that talk-page banner into a parameterised one (like {{WPBeatles}}) might be a better solution for you than having a separate stub type. it would allow you to rate and list all relevant articles, not just stubs. Grutness...wha?00:40, 24 July 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.
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
Unproposed and badly named (this template is not for people with the relatively common surname of Mohead). For the most part, permcats specific to bands are not kept (there have been any number of deletions of them at CFD), and certainly stub cats for individual bands are not used - musicians are stubbed according to instrument, and albums and sopngs are stubbed according to genre and era. What's more, there seem to be only about 80 articles on Motörhead in wikipedia, and many of them are not stubs, raising threshold concerns. There is a WikiProject, but from the parenting of the category (at‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Stub-Class Heavy Metal articles, it seems that there has been some confusion between stubs and Stub-Class articles. a talk-page banner template (cf. {{WPBeatles}}) would be far more useful to the WikiProject concerned as they would be able to assign Stub, Start, B, A, and FA Classes to their articles, rather than removing articles from the current wikipedia-wide stub system for a stub type which is next to useless to anyone outside the project. Delete. Grutness...wha?02:07, 21 July 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.
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
Unproposed, incorrectly formed name, and frankly unlikely to reach threshold. These are quite happily covered by crime-bio-stub. Delete. Grutness...wha?01:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, perhaps upscoping to a {{Murderer-stub}} might be useful. Seems there's a nascent WikiProject for serial killers, and a wider-scoped murderer-stub would probably be a useful way to split crime-bio-stub that would work for both stub-sorters and the new project. Grutness...wha?02:13, 23 July 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.
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
While I've no real objection to an upmerged template for osteopathic manipulative medicine stubs, this name is clearly too ambiguous (unless we also want an osteo-woman-med-stub). Rename - to {{Osteo-manip-med-stub}}, perhaps? Grutness...wha?00:34, 24 July 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.
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 redirect to para-psych-stub
Unproposed, newly-created duplicate of {{Para-psych-stub}}. We clearly don't need both, and Para-psych-stub is in keeping with it being a subtype of both psych-stub and para-stub. Delete, or at the very least redirect. Grutness...wha?01:44, 23 July 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.
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 reason this one was missed out is simple - it wasn't created until two months after the renaming. Why it was named in this way, though, is a mystery (especially since SA uses commonwealth English and therefore has labour organisations. Rename per nom. Grutness...wha?23:57, 24 July 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.
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 stub names were previosuly chosen by WikiProject Rhode Island, and lsited as such (listed as redlinks). Upon seeing the redlinks, I decided to create the templates, assuming they had already been proposed and approved (See the Rhode Island WikiProject Page's history). Apparently, they were never proposed, and whoever edite dthe Project Page may have made a few errors in the Stub section when listed them. There are two stubs already created, but they listed improperly on the Project page. I apologize for the confusion, and agree that speedy deletion is necessary. Raime03:07, 25 July 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.
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 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.
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.
Delete, and we could get rid of the whole tag, since WP:DIGI can just use an anime or video game stub tag if we ever get any more stub articles. There used to be tons, but then we merged those articles to lists, so the stub type really isn't needed anymore. -- Ned Scott09:48, 5 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.
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 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.
