Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 7, 2010

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Deleted by PeterSymonds; uncontested after 7 days. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Traditional (Alan Jackson album)[edit]

Not mentioned in target. I can't find any reliable sources that point to the existence of this album, so it's not a likely search term. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:...[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. This name is completely ambiguous. I found only 3 transclusions and the 2 of them were wrong since instead of Expand section the correct tag was Empty section. Example. Moreover, all of them were undated. Magioladitis (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Sect-stub[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual name for a maintenance template that can be confusing since the term "stub" refers to articles. {{Expand section}}'s redirects cover various versions of "Expand" and "section". The main problem I spotted was that "Expand section" needs a date tag but editors aren't used in tagging templates with "Stub" in them. The result was that "Sect-stub" was undated in all cases and I fixed them. I think that with this name the template can also be misplaced (at the end of the article instead in the section). Magioladitis (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep stubby sections require expansion, so this is a subset of sections needing expansion. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:STUB: "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text...". In Wikipedia terms "Stub" is strongly connected to "article" and it's found at the bottom of the page. "Sect-bstub" reminds more "bio-stub", footy-stub", etc. than a maintenance template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
wikt:stub ... something stunted or cut short ... certainly what stubby sections are. As WP:STUB applies to articles, I don't see how it applies to this redirect, since it's use is in sections and not full articles. Further, what would this redirect be confused with? What subject do we have a stub-type for, or that could be created for, that could be called "sect"? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a very old name; I don't think that this deletion would be good, since it would damage tons of old revisions. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As Nyttend says, it's been around a long time, along with the variant Template:Sectstub which is even more used. Both are still in use in actual articles, not just in archives and revision history. Redirects are cheap and harmless unless they are somehow directly misleading or otherwise detrimental to the editing process. Honestly, I actually use this one myself (I just had to avoid using it at Danish pin billiards because of this RfD breaking the functionality of the redirect!), since I have trouble remembering the name of {{expand section}}, while {{sect-stub}} is just so intuitive (at least for anyone that does stub sorting and article assessment). Yes, it is a very different name, but {{fact}} is a very different name for {{citation needed}} and no one cares. Some like a function-descriptive name, others like a mnemonic one, and we can have both. The only possible conflict would be if WP:WSS had a need for a real (article) stub tag by this name, but "sect" is actually a very PoV term for a religion and thus wouldn't fly, and we don't categorize religions by orthodoxy anyway. I also have to stick with anon 76...'s side on this one: The fact that WP applies a particular definition to the term "stub" in one context does not mean that it is the only definition the word can possibly ever have in every context on WP. Especially since we're only talking about a redirect, not a policy page or something otherwise important. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 06:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_7&oldid=1138577508"