Template talk:NHS-stub

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 rename and rescope Alai 19:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't proposed, but used on 74 articles, and looks like a useful child of {{UK-org-stub}} and {{med-org-stub}}. Rename category to expand abbreviation, possibly rename template ({{NHS-stub}}), list at WP:WSS/ST. Conscious 05:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• would it be worth enlarging this to {{UK-med-org-stub}} or similar, to allow for the addition of such things as the Voluntary Aid Detachment? Grutness...wha? 06:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good idea, I think. Conscious 07:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename category (one way or another). Keep NHS-stub, possibly add additional template as per Grutness: if there's a lot of private hospitals, medical charities, etc, kicking around we might be splitting the NHS ones back out soon enough. Alai 07:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename by expanding abbreviation. I think the NHS has a large enough number of articles to qualify for its own stub category (It is at 98 stubs at the time of writing and still growing). Also, it is a useful marker for the NHS WikiProject to quickly identify which articles the editors need to work on. Grutness' idea of a UK-med-org-stub might a useful addition as well. Road Wizard 22:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • There's not much logic to an additional UK-med-org-stub, as it'll take a long while to be viable separately from the NHS ones. If the type is renamed and rescoped, the NHS-stub template should obviously be kept for clarity, so there'd be no real "information loss". Alai 23:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please clarify something for me? You say "Keep NHS-stub, possibly add additional template as per Grutness", but when I say the same thing the idea is suddenly illogical. Can you please explain if I am missing something? Thank you. Road Wizard 00:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because I was suggesting an "upmerged" NHS-stub, if the category were to be rescoped, you were proposing a separate category, which as I say, would not be viable according to the size guidelines in WP:STUB. Apologies if my utterances to that effect were unduly gnomic and jargonistic, as is not uncommonly the case in these parts. (I also notice I'm entirely inconsistent over time over the imminence of a re-split, mind you, but fortunately the erratic nature of my crystal ball materially affect what I think we should do at this point.) Alai 00:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I will politely back out of this discussion. I think I am way out of my depth, and I'm getting so confused my head hurts. :( Road Wizard 00:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To put it simply, stub categories need a reasonable population to be useful to editors (WP:WSS uses a threshold of 60-65 stubs as a minimum for a new category). Each stub category has a dedicated template - sometimes (rarely) two or more dedicated templates. There may not be enough UK-med-org stubs for their own category, but there would be nothing wrong with having both them and the NHS stubs going into one category with a more all-inclusive name. Grutness...wha? 01:32, 23 May 2006 (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.