Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/August/11

: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.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

:Listing for User:Otto4711 (see Wikipedia talk: Stub types for deletion). Grutness...wha? 22:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - standard naming for stub categories is "United States foo stubs". Grutness...wha? 22:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Rename - as nominator, per standard naming convention. Thanks for completing the listing. Otto4711 (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support rename per nominator Waacstats (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

: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

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be totally unused, as well as being functionally useless. No category, no link to WP:STUB, non-standard name, and no coherent indication what it's really for. Deletion would put it out of its misery. Grutness...wha? 23:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

:Speedy delete as unused tempalte? otherwise delete. Waacstats (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

: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 projectfy - moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Sci-journal-stub transclusions snapshot, link updated. –xeno^talk 16:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Really don't see a point in this - it's a list of articles which used to use a temp[late and now have been subcategorised ussing more well defined stub types or destubbed. Hasn't been updated for nearly two years and doesn't link anywhere except an archive of a Wikiproject talk page. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

:Delete though is this really a stub template? does it need to go to TFD? Waacstats (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

::We've dealt with suibpages of stub templates here in the past, but if you feel happier about it going to TFD (or even MFD), then feel free to move the nom there). Grutness...wha? 23:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

:::I'm not particulerly fussed where it goes to get deleted I think the outcome would be the same, happy to leave it here. Waacstats (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have asked the creator of this template to comment here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks for the notification. I created this page at the same time as I was creating Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Pages. The link Grutness refers to above to "an archive of a WikiProject talk page" gives more details (Grutness, did you follow the link and try and find that discussion?). See here. Essentially, there were three lists, with some items only on one or two of the lists. One of them was in the WikiProject space, the other two were subpages of the templates. The one that was missed here was Template:Infobox Journal/transclusions snapshot (that was missed because it wasn't a subpage of a stub template?). The aim was to end up with a page for members of the project to watchlist. I suspect that the "Pages" one is the main one, but there might still be some overlap. I think the simplest way to handle this (apart from leaving the pages alone) is to move the "snapshot" lists to a subpage of the WikiProject list. This has the advantage that the blue links in old discussions won't turn red, leaving people reading those old discussions wondering what was being talked about (unless those redirects would also get deleted as "cross-namespace redirects"?). Anyway, I'll ask for advice at the WikiProject on how this could be handled. What I'm thinking is that if this had been anywhere else (userspace subpage, WikiProject subpage, template subpage) it would have been left alone. But because it was a subpage of a stub template, it (eventually) got noticed as old and out-of-date and got nominated for deletion. I suppose this means that the stub template "namespace" is very clean, which in some ways is a good thing, but it would have been nice to have been notified earlier. Thanks again, Martin, for the notification. Carcharoth (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Sorry for the lack of notification - I had assumed (incorrectly) that a "snapshot" which hadn't been edited for almost two years had simply been abandoned and forgotten about. Yes, the "stubspace" is as clean as possible - it would be an easy area to get very messy, so we try to "sweep" it regularly. I agree that moving the lists to a WikiProject subpage is probably a good solution if the pages are still in use - the redirects would get deleted, but it would be easy to repoint any links to the new page locations - it's not as if there are a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Sci-journal-stub/transclusions_snapshot lot of links] to move. Grutness...wha? 03:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

: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.