Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/July/17

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. Envirocorrector 22:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you want Categories for discussion; this page is only for stub templates and categories. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, sorry about that, and thanks. I'm new to dealing with actual deletions, redirects, etc. Envirocorrector 23:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's the CFR discussion. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 13:49, 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 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]

And I was thinking in terms of European currency. Delete as too ambiguous. Valentinian ^{T / C} 10:20, 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. PGPirate 20:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, a more standard template name would be {{EastCarolinaUniversity-stub}} but how many articles would benefit from such a template? Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I put a stub footer for all relevant articles? PGPirate 16:34, 23 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. Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently over 30 (and growing) stub articles. There is also a wikiproject for East Carolina University, Wikipedia:WikiProject East Carolina University PGPirate 21:38, 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.