The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. There are good arguments for moving the page, such as the fact that not all discussions end with either keeping or deleting. However, there is also valid opposition. This is not the only page where discussion on stub types takes place (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries), and the page is also a part of Wikipedia:Deletion process (because it does include deletion), and renaming it would result in less consistency between the different deletion discussion pages. On balance, I don't see the necessary consensus for renaming the page at this point. It's a shame that so few people participated in the discussion, but it may be a sign that not very many people see the current name as a problem. Jafeluv (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion → Wikipedia:Stub types for discussion — Relisted for further input. Jafeluv (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this page should be renamed to Wikipedia:Stub types for discussion, as it includes both deletion and rename. See e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, setting a correct example. Let's have your opinions, please. Debresser (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This has been suggested before, and in some ways it's a reasonable idea. Problem is that a lot of stub types come here only after they've been discussed (at WP:WSS/D). As such, considering this the primary discussion page can be confusing. That's one reason why this page hasn't been renamed in the past. The other reason is more straightforward - "X for discussion" is the exception, not the rule. We have Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, Wikipedia:Files for deletion, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If anything, it's the categories page that is an odd one out. It and WP:Rfd are the only "discussion" pages on the Wikipedia:Deletion discussions tree... Grutness...wha? 23:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

As to your second point. Actually, this argument is really not an argument. This page and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion are indeed not only for deletion discussions, but for renaming and merging as well. You even have separate templates for "stubs for deletion" and "stubs for rename". This is not the case with the other pages you mentioned. Debresser (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The first point I understand better, but still I find that more of a technicality than a real reason to oppose the rename. Debresser (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The second point really also argues against CfD being different - except in rare cases, where a category is renamed the original name is deleted - similarly here. It is worth noting that more of the work done at SfD is like TfD than like CfD (we have more templates go through here than categories in general), so it makes more sense to keep this page the same as the templates equivalent. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. You have good arguments. Let's see if there are more people who want to comment, and try to come to a conclusion within the next 1-2 weeks. Debresser (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Stub types for Discussion" is preferable to "Stub types for Deletion" because it emphasises that the focus is on discussion and collaborating rather than deleting. True, a lot end up getting deleted, but there are a lot of other possible conclusions to a discussion as well. I would prefer all the "deletion" discussions were renamed in this way, actually. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've posted on the Village pump to get more input and reach a conclusion. Debresser (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll add the same at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. Hopefully we can get some more opinions on this. Grutness...wha? 01:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've a question: Why are new stub type proposals split off to a second page? Does this one get too big, or something, because I think it would be useful to bring all specific discussion types onto one page, and indeed, rename it. This means we (rather, you) can centralize the effort of dealing with stub types. --Izno (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's enormous, and a significantly different process. I think it would confuse things immensely if they were combined, and would cause problems for WP:WSS whether the combined page wwere where WSS/P now is or where SFD now is. The proposals process is basically run under the auspices of WP:WSS simply because 90-95% of the proposals are done by WP:WSS members as part of the day-to-day business of stub sorting, and because it will be predominantly WSS that has to deal with any stub types created as a result of it; as such, it makes sense for it to be run as a WSS subpage. It is, however, very large even when split into its monthly subpages. WP:SFD is separate because it encourages people not directly involved in WP:WSS to have an important say in the decision making (lord knows we get enough calls as being "stub nazis' without trying to have the deletion process as part of WSS!) Grutness...wha? 23:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I also would be hesitant to add new stub proposals to this page. But I believe there is enough justification for the word "discussion" as is. Debresser (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Though I think there's enough justification to consider it as a name, I don't think there's enough justification to actually change it from its current name. The current name is, as I pointed out, more in keeping with most of the other related process pages, especially Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, which it is closest to in terms of purpose. "Categories for discussion" makes sense as a name for that page, given that soft redirects are frequently used for any categories renamed - for the most part, that does not happen with stub templates, and it never normally happens with stub categories, since such categories are automatically fed by templates and any former names can simply be deleted with no problems. It would also likely create confusion given that the discover page is already the de facto "stub types for discussion" page. Stub types are generally only brought to this page from there if there is sufficient grounds to believe that they are likely to be deleted, or renamed in such a way that the deletion of the current name of either template or category (or both) is appropriate. If a stub template needs renaming but the current name is acceptable as a redirect, then it is simply moved without the need to go through this page. If a template is brought here, then either it is itself being proposed for deletion or any rename that results will likely see the deletion of the former name. The same is true with any category brought here. As such deletion is directly or indirectly the proposed outcome of almost every nomination brought here, even if the purpose of the nomination is to change the name of a specific stub type. For that reason, "Stub types for deletion" is an accurate and preferable name for this page. Grutness...wha? 08:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha, that is only a technicality, which is by the way also valid for Wikipedia:Categories for disucssion. Debresser (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. As I pointed out, permanent categories, when renamed, often have soft redirects at their old names. Stub categories never do.As such, CFD does not always lead to either keep or delete - SFD does. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct about that. But that is not what I meant. I meant that the fact that rename = deletion of old name + creation of new name is not areason to keep calling this page "Stub types for deletion" because 1. it still is a rename in all but technicality 2. creation of new stubs is not included in the word "deletion". Debresser (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You have given an excellent argument as to why WP:Categories for discussion is misnamed, but none that holds water asd to why WP:Stub types for deletion is misnamed. Let me summarise - WP:SFD is a Wikipedia:Deletion process page. It is not a Wikipedia:Discussion process page - there is no such thing. It is linked from Wikipedia:Deletion process, as are all similar pages, the overwhelming majority of which are called deletion process pages-Templates for deletion, Articles for deletion, Miscellany for deletion, Files for deletion, and Stub types for deletion. It also follows the guidelines and policies laid down and otherwise noted at WP:Introduction to deletion process, WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, WP:Deletion debates, and WP:Guide to deletion. Categories are virtually alone in their uunorthodox naming (the only similarly named page is redirects for discussion) - as such, it is CFD that seems to require renaming, and the arguments yoiu have given above indicate exactly why that is the case - not why SFD should follow suit by going against the largely standard naming. If you wish to change SFD, then consider changing WP:DELPRO first. If there is no move to do that, then there is no logical reason why this page should be changed. Grutness...wha? 15:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, when you stop and look at all the similar pages logically, you';ll see that there isn't any clear reason for one name or the other in many of the pages. At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, the most normal outcome is either keep or delete. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, merge and redirect are two frequent outcomes. But given that five of the seven deletion process pages are at "X for deletion", surely that is the standard and the other two are the exceptions. Grutness...wha? 22:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

To me, the points made here simply highlight the fact that the current deletion process is broken. deletion discussions should always be discussions, but there are simply too many concurrent discussions going on at once for that to be really effective. As a consequence, the "main" deletion discussions are seen by many to be arbitrary, and there is quite an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the whole thing (see: Wikipedia:Areas for Reform). Personally, I just don't give much weight to consistency arguments. I give them some weight, but only where there's noting better to use as a decision maker. I guess that the question here is, what do you want the page to be? Do those of you working this process want this page to only be about deletions?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support I'm of the same mind as Martin on this, in that I think that using the name "Discussion" instead of "Deletion" is a better choice all around. The reasons not to move the page are decent, but I guess that I just don't find them compelling. The structural differences between Stubs for (deletion/discussion) and stub creation will be understandable to those of you who participate regularly in this process, but most coming to the deletion process likely won't be interested enough in that to possibly be confused by it. Besides, if it does turn into a real problem, you guys could always just switch it back. Regardless, its just better to use "Discussion" instead simply because it subtly changes expectations in those who come here.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  Then change all the others and the umbrella page which deals with all such processes. It's part of the deletion process system and named accordingly - it should stay at this name unless a similar change is made to all the pages listed at WP:Deletion process. Grutness...wha? 15:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

  Hey, I'm game for that! However, this is a fairly typical reply to RM's from people who just don't want to do the rename. It actually is an Wikipedia:Other stuff exists argument, which is fine but... it just doesn't really address the issue(s). You said yourself that moves/name changes are often a result of stub deletion discussions, so right away it's misnamed. I could make similar arguments about all of the other "X for deletion" pages as well of course, but since this discussion is about this page I won't.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 16:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

  More to the point, it's a typical reply of someone who can't see the point in changing them all, when only two are out of line with all the others. It's not so much an WP:Other stuff exists argument as a WP:Naming conventions argument, though - we have naming standards for all other types of pages, why don't we have them for the deletion (not discussion) pages, too? And given that this is one of sevenj pages that should be similarly named, it's silly not to mention the remaining pages in this discussion. All but two of them are named by one standard - a standard also used by umbrella pages dealing with all of them - so moving this page away from that standard is odd at the very least and against normal Wikipedia practices at most. Grutness...wha? 22:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see a huge practical benefit to renaming it. –xeno^talk 15:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Although I see only 1 editor opposing (vehemently), neither do I see massive suport for a rename here. Perhaps let's close the discussion as "Keep, in view of no consensus for rename". Somebody do the honors, please? Debresser (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Not particularly vehemently at all - just my usual verbose self coupled with some common sense. You ought to see me when I'm vehement about something :). I make it two editors who don't see that renaming is worthwhile versus three who do, BTW, and given there are over 150 stubsorters and tons of other VP regulars who would have known about the debate, it seems that it's largely a case of fuss (and potential work in renaming things) over nothing. Grutness...wha? 23:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You should give it the 7 day run, and then one of us at WP:RM will come along and archive it.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's had a 19 day run so far... this was proposed in mid-August. Grutness...wha? 10:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

well, yea... between you and debresser. Anyway, I don't actually have strong feelings on this. The RM process is there to provide some outside exposure to a naming issue is all. If those of you who are more involved in this process feel like closing it, then I don't think anyone would really complain.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - makes sense. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's give it a bit more time, as we don't really have a consensus either way on this at the moment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Basically, only one editor insists on keeping things the way they are. It is just that nobody else cares enough to express his or her opinion. Sic transit gloria mundis. Debresser (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand that this has gone on for a while already, but I've relisted the debate for another week in hopes of attracting further comments. It's just not a very good idea to rename an internal process based on the support of three people (out of five total). Looks like WT:WSS has already been notified of the discussion; I hope some more people will show up so that this can be decided. Jafeluv (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Close and make an RfC for it, since here doesn't seem to be enough participation. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note that the TFD folks seem to have decided to change: Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion#Rename as Templates for Discussion. :)
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 15:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.