The result of the debate was Delete
Buckethead does not merit special pleading, {{ 2000s-rock-album-stub}}, {{ 2000s-metal-album-stub}} seem to be the most appropriate types. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guitarists/Buckethead task force informed ----
With one notable exception (The Beatles), we do not split music stubs by individual artists. The category has been thoroughly populated by a messy mix of articles, many of which have only a vague tangential connection to Buckethead (of the handful I checked, there were two for albums where he appeared as a guest guitarist on some tracks, for instance). This thoroughly cuts across the stub hierarchy, mixing albums, individual tracks, bands, and ghu knows what else. Another good example of a case where a talk-page WikiProject template is a good idea but a stub type is a bad idea. Delete. Grutness... wha? 00:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete until definition becomes more solid
Hard on the heels of a recent unproposed split of paleontology stubs comes another one, also with considerable problems. The template name is one such - given that the only reptiliomorphs are prehistoric, there is no need whatsoever for the "Paleo" prefix. The category is unparented, stub or permcat, which would be simple to fix if this is kept, but given the size of the permanent category
Category:Reptiliomorphs, upmerging might be a more prudent option if the template is kept - there's no way on current article numbers that this will reach the necessary threshold for a stub category. A more serious problem, though, is the fact that the definition of reptiliomorph seems to be in a state of flux. The article indicates that there have been several definitions of the term over the years, and implies that two different ones are still in use. Given that there are already discussions underway about reducing the size of the parenmt
Category:Paleontology stubs - discussions which do not include a split-out of reptiliomorphs, deletion may be the best option.
Grutness...
wha?
00:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete
Buckethead does not merit special pleading, {{ 2000s-rock-album-stub}}, {{ 2000s-metal-album-stub}} seem to be the most appropriate types. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guitarists/Buckethead task force informed ----
With one notable exception (The Beatles), we do not split music stubs by individual artists. The category has been thoroughly populated by a messy mix of articles, many of which have only a vague tangential connection to Buckethead (of the handful I checked, there were two for albums where he appeared as a guest guitarist on some tracks, for instance). This thoroughly cuts across the stub hierarchy, mixing albums, individual tracks, bands, and ghu knows what else. Another good example of a case where a talk-page WikiProject template is a good idea but a stub type is a bad idea. Delete. Grutness... wha? 00:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete until definition becomes more solid
Hard on the heels of a recent unproposed split of paleontology stubs comes another one, also with considerable problems. The template name is one such - given that the only reptiliomorphs are prehistoric, there is no need whatsoever for the "Paleo" prefix. The category is unparented, stub or permcat, which would be simple to fix if this is kept, but given the size of the permanent category
Category:Reptiliomorphs, upmerging might be a more prudent option if the template is kept - there's no way on current article numbers that this will reach the necessary threshold for a stub category. A more serious problem, though, is the fact that the definition of reptiliomorph seems to be in a state of flux. The article indicates that there have been several definitions of the term over the years, and implies that two different ones are still in use. Given that there are already discussions underway about reducing the size of the parenmt
Category:Paleontology stubs - discussions which do not include a split-out of reptiliomorphs, deletion may be the best option.
Grutness...
wha?
00:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
reply