Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/February/5

February 5

{{Glass-stub}} / Category:Glass stubs

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 split into three doubly-upmerged templates, keeping base template and cat for anything that doesn't fit

Unproposed, and seems to be vague and hierarchy-crossingly ambiguous. The icon implies its for types of drinking glasses, the three items in the category are tools used in glass production. Given the scope of the article Glass, it could cover a very very broad area, almost all of which is currently effectively covered in narrower/more focussed stub categories. Despite this, there's also no guarantee that this would get close to threshold. I'd suggest upmerging, but the breadth of the template's scope makes that difficult, to say the least. Delete. PS - if kept, the category will need better parents. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed and not approved in January 2007. Delete per G. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At best it might be salvaged by renaming to {{glass-engineering-stub}} and giving it a placement in Category:Glass engineering and science but I don't see the need. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I created the stub without knowing that it needs to be suggested first, and the parent category was meant only temporary. I intended it to cover all areas of glass, including art, not only drinking glasses or engineering and science. I did it because I did not see any stub types that would fit well, therefore, I am using the general stub template currently. What existing stub types you had in mind? If you consider them appropriate in all glass areas I would agree to delete the glass stub. Again, sorry, I never created a stub template before; I was not familiar with the policy, and I hope I did not make too much trouble for you.--Afluegel (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the stub Template:Material-stub would cover the whole area of glass, maybe even glass art, but is is very broad. The stub Template:Decorative-art-stub is used currently for glass art, but it is also rather broad.--Afluegel (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The discussion under January 2007 is not very relevant because it seems to be rather confused, and the area of glass would well cover more than 60 articles.--Afluegel (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - A redesign/rescope, as suggested by Caerwine, might just work, though as I pointed out, this seems to cross so many different stub types, from art stubs to material stubs to tool stubs to industrial process stubs, that at present it needs quite a bit of work to sort out exactly what it can and can't be used for. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think "glass engineering" is too narrow for a new stub type. It also should include the categories Glass types, some of Glass applications, Glass history, and glass science. However, I do not consider the topic as very urgent, it just seems appropriate to me. If you think that it may be too complicated at this point we can easily delete the new stub for now, and I could suggest one after about a year, following the proper procedure. In the meantime the category Glass might have improved in such a way that it would be easier. What do you think?--Afluegel (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary so far - this cuts across various categories, but the categories it cuts across are fairly vague in their scope as far as glass is concerned. Any chance on some more comments for possible consensus on this?

One possible solution which might be acceptable is to expand rather than upmerge this - create separate glass-art-stub, glass-material-stub and glass-engineering-stub templates, each of them doubly-upmerged to Glass stubs and to Decorative arts stubs, Materials stubs and Engineering stubs respectively, leaving anything that doesn't fit as a plain glass-stub. That would allow for a viable Category:Glass stubs while still having the stubs in other related categories. Any thoughts? Grutness...wha? 23:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support multiple templates per G. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:09, 18 March 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.