Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/February/6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 6[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 debate was delete


{{BaseballStub}}[edit]

No articles use this stub temp. It has been around since 2005. It should be deleted. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the template, it doesn't appear to be a stub template in the sense we usually mean a stub template. Rather, it's a substitutable template for creating a stub article about a minor league baseball team. It started out as a copy of User talk:Vikreykja/BaseballStub but has been altered. Userfy if any of the editors who have edited this version want it, or simply delete. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's in use at all as a stub-creation template, then renaming it 9and losing the redirect) might be reasonable. But if it's unused, the deletion is probably the simpler option. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC) (PS - thanks for closing the tfD discussion!)[reply]
  • Delete - Since articles or stubs have now been created for almost all current minor league baseball teams (and the template doesn't address defunct historical teams), it's not likely that there would be any use for this template in the foreseeable future. BRMo (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can always be copied from an existing team if format is needed. MBisanz talk 23:43, 7 February 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.
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. Looks like this hierarchy is staying where it is


{{footy-stub}}, and other templates in hierarchy[edit]

OK, call me crazy [pause for public comment] but I have been long frustrated by the use of "footy" in the association football/soccer templates. After a brief study of the articles on the topic, I wonder if there's any chance we could agree on a renaming. assoc-football-stub? soccer-stub? Any ideas? Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you're crazy. <rimshot> I'll certainly agree that it is not a usage friendly to American English. However since the dictionary definition of footy is "poor; worthless; paltry", I think it does serve as an accurate description. Seriously though, is soccer so throughly disliked by the Anglo-centric among us that it can't be used in preference to the slang term "footy" which I had never heard of until coming across it here? Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One further comment. The use of footy as a substitute for football is not just for soccer but also Australian rules football. Not only that but there is a popular class of radio controlled model sail boats that boasts the name. All three show up on the first page of Google searches for "footy". Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, yes, it is. Expect an angry mob of Anglo-centric peasants with torches here presently. Alai (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually hopeful that they think "soccer" a monster, since it was Frankenstein's monster and not the torch wielding peasants who ultimately prevailed. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For reference - these stub types were previously nominated for renaming in April 2006, the archived discussion of which is here Nanonic (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not just Aussie rules, either - here in NZ rugby union is often called footy (indeed there's a tv sports programme ccalled "The footy show" which deals with that sport). I think that soccer, disliked though it is by purists, is possibly the only word which instantly disambiguates the sport from other sports, so - though I generally dislike the term - I can see that moving all of these templates would be a reasonable move. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the word "footy" does not even appear in the article text these stubs appear on, footy is just shorthand, it makes it easier than writing out {{Argentina-Association-footballbio-stub}} instead of the shorter {{Argentina-footybio-stub}} which leaves the text This biographical article related to Argentine football is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. I really can't see how moving all instances of these templates to some other name could constitute good use of time and resources. King of the NorthEast 08:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be helpful to those of us (and there are many) who had never heard of the term and tried to tag articles with "soccer-stub" only to find there was no such thing. The word "footy" is not intuitive; for the same reason we have recently renamed the basketball stub templates from "hoops" to "basketball". Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Umm.. {{soccer-stub}} has been a redirect to footy-stub since November 2005. Nanonic (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Umm, true, but all the other "footy" templates don't have redirects. Perhaps we should just create a redirect every time a footy template is created. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bots can take care of the moving and keeping the stubs at "footy" makes zero sense because of the ambiguity in the name. If footy were used only for the round ball variety of football, I could see keeping the provincial shorthand, but that isn't the case. Whether *-footy-* becomes *-soccer-* or *-Associationfootball-* doesn't matter to me, but both have an advantage that *-footy-* will never have, that of being unambiguously about the version of football governed by the IFAB. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One further remark, when we make the change keep {{footy-stub}} as a redirect to the similarly ambiguous {{football-stub}} that exists solely to give chauvinists who insist that their version of football is tne one true football a target for their stub efforts. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indifferent mainly because the other sports that may use "footy" already have their own stub types and I haven't come across any instances of confusion arising from editors who've placed the wrong one on an article. I would prefer *-associationfootball-* if these do get moved, purely to avoid all the "it's football" - "not in my country it isn't" - "I live in the same country and it is" - "ok well not in my state it isn't" arguments that we're still having over the name. Adopting the term that no-one seems to use strikes me as wise in the long-run. Of course, it's a long stub name which may annoy those who prefer shorter ones, such as {{Amfoot-bio-stub}} instead of {{Americanfootball-bio-stub}}, no doubt some wag will propose {{Assfoot-bio-stub}} at some point. Nanonic (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Why should we require total disambiguation with internal titles, which are never seen in the article text itself? For every person who types "soccer-stub" before realizing it's actually at "footy-stub", there are probably ten people who have become used to typing "footy-stub" for years. There are plenty of arcane stub template names, and this is not one of the more strange ones - after all I've never heard "footy" used in any context other than to refer to association football. And quite frankly, considering that the majority of the world uses "football" in this sense, and an even greater majority would never use "footy" or "footballer" in any other sense, what's the need for this move? My policy with moves, especially outside the article space, is that if there is no compelling reason to change the status quo (a compelling reason would be a spelling error or naming convention error, in 99% of cases), then why bother? ugen64 (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that "footy" is a slang word, like "hoops", which we also have revised for reasons of clarity. I'm not advocating "soccer-stub", just suggesting we find something more accurate linguistically. Her Pegship (tis herself) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per KotNE and Ugen64. I don't see the problem at all, since those most likely to be opposed the current name (Americans and linguists) are those who are least likely to use it. If renaming I support {{Assfoot-bio-stub}}. Oh, and Her Pegship, you're crazy. Sebisthlm (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sudden thought -- any chance we could deal with scoping {{football-stub}} to mean association football, and make all the "American" football forms use the Am- prefix? Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As some one who regularly clears out football-stub I would say this is not a good idea as most of the articles (wrongly)given this template are not then footy- templates bt rugby or amfoot. Waacstats (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ugen64, makes no sense whatsoever. BanRay 16:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per ugen64, couldn't have put it better myself! Oh yeah, and Her Pegship – you're crazy :-) Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 22:00, 26 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2008/February/6&oldid=1138683306"