Template talk:NHS-stub

This template is maintained by WikiProject Stub sorting, an attempt to bring some sort of order to Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to improve/expand the articles containing this stub notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Stub sortingWikipedia:WikiProject Stub sortingTemplate:WikiProject Stub sortingStub sorting articles

National Health Service (inactive)

This template is within the scope of WikiProject National Health Service, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.National Health ServiceWikipedia:WikiProject National Health ServiceTemplate:WikiProject National Health ServiceNational Health Service articles

Reversion

NHs stubs are obviously a subclass of UK medical organisation stubs - that is why I have made this reversion, and categorised NHs stubs within UK medical organisation stubs.--Smerus 07:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you will need to take this through SfD. Creation of new stubs and recategorisation of old ones needs to be approved before they can go ahead, otherwise the admins will just revert you. Road Wizard 07:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the creation of this stub missed out the proposal stage as set out in Wikipedia:Stub#New stub categories and as such the admins over at SfD put it up for deletion. I have made a copy of the debate below. Basically, it was decided that the category should also include non NHS stubs. If you want to reverse it you will have to start a new SfD discussion and go with whatever consensus comes of that. Road Wizard 07:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See new discussion here--Smerus 08:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page is now protected in the form it was after the vote taken through the proper Wikipedia process page. If you wish to argue that decision, do so at Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion, or repropose the template at WP:WSS/P. DO NOT simply ignore WP consensus by re-creating the template. Wholesale changes to templates used on large number of articles can cause severe problems for Wikipedia's servers. Grutness...wha? 06:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extract of 17th May 2006 SfD discussion

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]

Category:NHS stubs -> Category:National Health Service stubs

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.