Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grutness (talk | contribs) at 04:17, 26 June 2006 (→‎June 25th). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

This page only deals with the deletion of stub types, which consist of a template and a category, and are intended to be used for sorting stubs. Stub templates that are missing categories and stub categories without associated templates are also appropriate here. All other templates or categories nominated for deletion have to be put on WP:TFD or WP:CFD, respectively.

WikiProject Stub sorting
Information
Project page talk
- Stub types (sections) talk
- Stub types (full list) talk
- To do talk
- Naming conventions talk
- Redirects category talk
Wikipedia:Stub talk
Discussion
Proposals (A) talk
- Current month
Discussion talk
Criteria (A) (discontinued) talk
Deletion (Log) (discontinued) talk
Category
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

About this page

This page is for the proposal, discussion, and voting on deletion of stub categories, stub templates, and stub redirects. By having the vote on these three closely related matters centralised on one page, it reduced the need for repeating identical arguments on several different Wikipedia deletion pages (WP:CFD, WP:TFD, and WP:RFD) and also reduces the workload on those pages.

Putting a stub type on SfD, and what happens afterwards

  • Mark the affected pages:
    • For deletion:
      • Put {{sfd-t}} on stub templates
      • Put {{sfd-c}} on stub categories
      • Put {{sfd-r}} on stub redirects, and include the redirect target after it (see below for details)
    • For renaming:
      • Put {{sfr-t|New-name}} (parameter optional) on stub templates
      • Put {{sfr-c|New name}} (parameter optional) on stub categories
  • List the stub type below in a new subsection at the top of the section which has the current date. If that section does not yet exist, create it.
    • Mention all affected pages in the subheading, like this:
      ==== {{tl|banana stub}} / [[:Category:Banana stubs]] / {{tl|YellowCurvyFruit-stub}} (redirect) ====
    • Also mention how many articles currently use the template, and if it is listed anywhere else.
    • Of course, state your reason for nominating the stub type for deletion!
  • After a voting period of seven days, action will be taken if there is consensus on the fate of the stub type. Please do not act before this period is over.
  • Archived discussions are logged per the instructions at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log, and are located at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted and Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Not deleted. If the decision is to rename the category or template, the discussion is logged on the "deleted" page, since the stub's name, at least, has been deleted.

Putting {{sfd-r}} on redirects

Given that the {{sfd-r}} template breaks redirection, it is necessary to change a stub redirect when adding the template, as follows:

#Redirect [[Template:foo-stub]] should be changed to:

{{sfd-r}}{{foo-stub}}

Possible reasons for the deletion of a stub type

  • They are not used in any article, and their category is empty
  • They overlap with other stub categories, or duplicate them outright
  • Their scope is too limited - As a rule of thumb, there should be at least 50 appropriate stubs in existence
  • The stub category or template is misnamed. In this case, make this clear when nominating and propose a new category or template name. Note that - in the case of a template but not a category - it may be more appropriate to make it into a redirect
  • They are malformed, misnamed, or deprecated redirects

What this page is not for

Typical voting options

  • Keep (do not delete or modify)
  • Delete (delete template and category)
  • Merge with xx-stub (Delete category, redirect template to xx-stub)
  • Merge with xx-stub without redirect (delete category and template, put xx-stub on all articles that use it)
  • Upmerge (merge to parent type)
  • Change scope (reword the template, typically giving it a larger scope. Usually also means renaming the category)
  • BJAODN (add to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, then delete)

When voting, please try to give a more substantial reason than simply "I like it/find it useful" or "I dislike it/don't find it useful"

Note to admins deleting stub types

It is important for consistency, and to avoid confusion on the parts of stub-sorters that stub types be removed from the stub type list when they are deleted. Please don't leave red links on WP:WSS/ST!

Listings

June 25th

{{Dukestub}} / Cat:Duke University-related Stubs

Been at /D for a while, growing slowly, but certainly too small. Contrary to the consensus on how to split the uni-stubs (i.e. by country/region/subdivision, not by individual institution other than as a last resort in extreme cases), and badly-named. Ideally, upmerge to a to-be-created {{NorthCarolina-university-stub}}; failing which delete; failing which, rename both template and category per the naming guidelines. Alai 16:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge and consider doing the same with {{UGA-stub}}, {{OU-stub}}, and {{UTexas-stub}} and any other such stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Testify, brother. These suffer for pretty similar issues, and the two that are viably-sized look dubious to me in that the population seems to be overwhelmingly bio-stubs, and with a distinct suggestion of over-application (such and such played ball for us for a couple of years). Our experience with UTexas-stub might indicate that these are undeletable on "vote" numbers, though. Alai 20:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge into state-specific rather than university-specific types if viable, and move the bio-stubs back to where they belong. US-university is getting close to splitting, but this way is ridiculous. And remember Alai that this is not a vote pure and simple... reasoning is as important as actual numbers. Oh, and delete any and all stub categories that use the long-deprecated "-related" tag! Grutness...wha? 04:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Bm-cvg-stub}} / no cat

There are only 5 games in the Blaster Master series, and only two articles are this type of stub. I don't see any need for a stub category that will never house more than five articles, especially when other much more famous video game series do not have their own stub types. KingTT 03:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete... and you didn't even mention the naming ambiguity problems (how many computer and video games are made in Bermuda?). Grutness...wha? 04:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too specific, too small. Valentinian (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cornwall-stub}} / no cat

not proposed and feeds into main cornwall cat. had nine stubs, seven of them were geo-stubs and one was a merge candidate. those that were stubs are now marked cornwall-geo-stub as they should have been - but some werent stubs. weve deleted county-stubs in the past and tho cornwall is a bit special it doesnt need a seperate stub. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cornwall is a special case, but a look at the results from doing a StubSense on Cat:Cornwall doesn't convince me that there is a need for this as of yet. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite Cornwall's somewhat special status. There is precedent - we've deleted Gloucestershire-stub in the past. Grutness...wha? 04:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 24th

{{Argentina-sport-stub}} & Cat:Argentina sport stubs → {{Argentina-sport-bio-stub}} & Cat:Argentine sportspeople stubs

I am relisting this so soon because I am of the opinion that this was wrongly logged by the sole opponent of its deletion as no consensus. The previous discussion had 4 people give an opinion and the 3 were in favor of eliminating {{Argentina-sport-stub}} and 1 opposed. Having the sole opponent logging it as no consensus is decidely not kosher. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete like it should have been before. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per BL Valentinian (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC) I guess this one needs clarification so:[reply]
Rename with no redirects since it is clearly above threshold. Precedent is established by e.g. the German material. (This way Argentina will have its template and we will have the consistent name system). Everybody happy? Valentinian (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there was some misunderstanding regarding the different format of those supporting the original nomination (in which case the closer is clueless, and shouldn't be meddling with processes they're unfamiliar with), this looks like bad-faith unilateral stroke-pulling (in which case an admin should know better than to perform such stunts). Speedily re-close, resort as nom (whether by renaming or deletion, it's really six and half a dozen), and "have word with" original closer. Alai 01:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Not deleted/June 2006 previous voting had only 3 votes, one fore rename, one for deletion, and one for keeping. I don't know how do you get the idea I acted in bad faith. If you so strongly want re-structure the Argentine sports stubs even if then they will be less useful to the Argentine contributors, go ahead, but don't go around pointing fingers. I closed the debate becase 8 days had already passed, and I closed it as no concensus because there was not one, so please stop acussing me with nonsenses. Mariano(t/c) 12:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How will a template be "less useful to the Argentine contributors" because it will be named in line with all similar material? This posting is about a rename since the standard name is "(contry name)-sport-bio-stub". A standardised name simply means that users do not have to play "what's the name" to use the templates. Valentinian (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: to be precise there were 4 votes (original nomination plus 3 others). 2 rename, 1 delete, 1 keep. Road Wizard 12:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is the case, it nevertheless means that three editors believed that the template was problematic. It is not uncommon for the vote to continue a few days longer if no clear consensus emerges quickly (but this practice is not described properly on this page.) It seems a pretty good guess that this case would have been given a few days more consideration had it not been closed so soon. Everybody - please assume good faith. Valentinian (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since SPUI decided to be his usual charming self concerning redirects, I'm restubbing the sports people to use the {{Argentina-sport-bio-stub}} redirect so that if it is decided that the concensus is to do the rescope it will be ready to do. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 I'm astounded. After I finished with Argentina-sport-stub, I decided to also sort Argentina-bio-stub. Considering all the fuss that was raised over this stub, when I just now sorted Argentine-bio-stub, I expected to find only a few more stubs that would go under an Argentina-sport-bio-stub. Make that 73 additional stubs. Not only are there now way more than enough known stubs to populate Argentina-sport-bio-stub, there probably are enough for a separate Argentina-footy-bio-stub, but I'll let someone else worry about doing the count and proposal if they care, since SouthAm-footy-bio-stub is only around 600 stubs and likely has a latent Brazil-footy-bio-stub lurking within it as well. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 22nd

Military by country stubs

The following Military by country stubs have been named in the format of "Nationality x". However, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#State-based topics, all military by country categories should be named "of country". These current category names are inconsistent with their parents, such as Category:Canadian military stubs within Category:Military of Canada, and are therefore proposed for renaming.

--Kurieeto 21:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are far from the only stub categories where the parent follows the X of N convention and the stubs follow a Nian X convention, which has been the usual convention for the stub categories. I don't particularly care which standard is followed, as long as a standard is followed. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, in many cases just adding " stubs" to the name of the perm-parent would be awkward-sounding (and for the "American" categories, following them off the edge of a naming convention cliff). Consistency within the stubs is preferable to between stubs and perms, if it's a choice between one or the other. Alai 22:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to agree as well. The names will be too ackward, so let's stick to the current names. Valentinian (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding naming conventions for by country stub categories, should Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) provide a brief explanatory note and link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming guidelines#Categories for further detail, or the other way around? Which page defers to which? Also, does anyone have a quick link to discussions where it was decided that "-related stubs" did not belong in category titles? Thanks, Kurieeto 13:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I'd suggest the former, for much the same reason as above: the stub categories are really their own "system", being in effect part of an implementation mechanism for a maintenance function, rather than part of the "categories as part of the content". While a degree of consistency is no harm, given that the stub cats are populated from templates, it's not key that the names are memorable as such. On -related stubs... My recollection is that that process rumbled on for months, around about a year ago, but boy is it hard to trace back to the original discussion. In theory it should be somewhere in the archives of WP:WSS/P, unless it just predates that being split from the unified "criteria" page. Alai 16:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(resetting indentation)

  • I think I'd prefer "Military of X" for categories and "Xian military" for the stubs, per the awkwardness and system-separate points above. This example seems a good demonstration that adding "stubs" to a category name by default – i.e. stub naming deferring to category naming by default – is as likely as not to yield awkward results. Regards, David Kernow 17:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:Jordan stubs & Cat:Jordan geography stubs

The categories and the associated templates were created earlier today, then their creator noticed our bureaucracy and blanked out the templates and posted on the proposals page. I've taken the templates ({{Jordan-stub}} & {{Jordan-geo-stub}}) and resurrected thenm and set them to feed into Cat:Middle East stubs and Cat:Middle East geography stubs respectively for. I recommend that we keep the templates and if by the end of the week, if either has 60 stubs, redirect them back into the country specific stub categories. If not, keep the template, and delete the country specific stub category until we have the usual 60. Caerwine Caerwhine 14:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Volcano-stub}} / Cat:Volcano stubs

Used on 1 article. Counterproductive. Delete Valentinian (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imthehappywanderer (talk · contribs)

This new user has created many dubious categories. They are probably speediable, but definitely deletable.

etc. (will expand the list later)
Many of these have probably already been listed here. I'll go through this user's edit history to find more stub categories. All in all, this person has created almost 1000 categories in a few hours. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 09:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Taking a look at his efforts, it looks like he was going along at random and creating redlink categories and trying to be helpful by turning them into bluelinks. Caerwine Caerwhine 13:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're probably right - I hope so. But around a thousand of them ... Valentinian (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A user at CFD has suggested that he must have used the list at Special:Wantedpages Special:Wantedcategories. Unfortunately, quite a lot of that list is nothing but typos, misunderstood names and already deleted material, so "Wanted Pages" "Wanted categories" was not the best of names. Valentinian (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete if possible. Somebody's just creating a lot of categories. Valentinian (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Cat:Israel-related stubs, Cat:Canada-related stubs belong on the list as well.
I haven't found a single category that's not floating around in mid air! They are not used by more than 1-2 articles each, they refer to themselves and quite a lot are redundent. Cat:Electronic Government ? Cat:Cities in India, Cat:Cities in Russia, ? Cat:List of dog topics ??? Cat:Non-notable Wikipedians ???? Cat:Women philosophers ?!? Cat:Wikipedians with an IQ of schfifty five ! Cat:Israeli political parties Cat:Category:High schools in York Region, Ontario (you read it right: double "category") Cat:Breasts (and why is Cat:TWSinger a child of this one ??) , Cat:Prisons by nationality (who's giving citizenship to buildings??), Cat:Duplicate, Cat:Anal Sex-3 ????? Valentinian (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all Aecis' examples. Poor chaps at CFD.Valentinian (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the rest of the list:

Perhaps the Yemen template and a renamed Eritrea is worth keeping but everything else should definitely be firmly Deleted Valentinian (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Valentinian. Caerwine Caerwhine 13:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Valentinian. A renamed Eritrea one may be useful, but the current name is lousy (it could just as easily be a redirect for UK-royal-stub, to start with). Grutness...wha? 03:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS you may all be pleased interested to know that iamthehappywanderer has been permanently blocked from editing WP. Grutness...wha? 03:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update I've populated the Yemen templates. Both the -bios and the generic template is now used on 54-55 articles. I've been bold and given the bio a proper category, since it definitely seems needed. I've not listed them on WP:WSS/ST though. I wouldn't be surprised if a few more bios could be found in the {{MEast-bio-stub}} and its children. So far, I've not checked the Eritrean material, but I think this one might be too thin. Valentinian (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yemen-bio-stub is now above threshold (*cough* -tanamo Bay). No doubt move material there. Valentinian (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Store-stub}} / Category:Store stubs

Only used for one article. Currently, Category:Buildings and structures stubs breaks into stubs by location, not type. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well yes and no - some are split by type if it's deemed useful. This isn't really, since shops would either go into retailing stubs or - if it's a retail complex in the US, into mall stub. I doubt this split would be useful, and the name's pretty ambiguous, too - it could easily be ammunition stores, grain stores, etc. Grutness...wha? 03:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Name is too vague. I could be used for both a furniture store (where I work) and for Billy Bob's Lil' Ol' Gun Store in Alabama. Valentinian (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Family-stub}} / Category:Family stubs

It's only used in one article and I'm not sure how much it could be expanded to. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now empty. Not sure it would have any real worth at all. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have a lot a articles in Cat:Families and its children tho I'm unsure how many would be suitable for this stub. I've placed the stub category to its proper place in the hierarchy, as a child of Cat:Name stubs and Cat:People stubs. Cat:Name stubs has over 500 stubs in it right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if 60 of them have enough info about family members to warrant this stub instead. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too poorly defined. By all means split the name-stubs into forename-stubs and surname-stubs, however. Alai 01:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As to its ambiguity, it's worth noting that the one article marked with it was a biography of a specific family (which I moved to an appropriate bio-stub). Grutness...wha? 01:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that it is not at all ambiguous. In the main categories Cat:Surnames is one of the parent categories of Cat:Families along with Cat:Multiple people. Whether there are 60 stubs is a separate question, and I'm not interested enough in these to find the answer out myself, tho I think it is the case. Finally, if we ever do separate out the surnames and the given names, we should make it givenname-stub rather than forename-stub, lest we some day end up with the oxymoron of Japan-forename-stub. Caerwine Caerwhine 08:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps {{Dynasty-stub}} would have been better (but that's not ideal either). Delete Valentinian (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should have a {{AaronSpelling-tv-stub}} first before we create subtypes such as {{Dynasty-stub}} :) . Caerwine Caerwhine 23:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 21st

Cat:Library stubs → Cat:Library and information science stubs

Given the smallish size of this category (and the related template {{library-stub}} from the discoveries page, and the fact that a number of the existing stubs already require the broader scope, how about making it official with a change of name (and of its non-stub parent)? Caerwine Caerwhine 14:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as broadening our horizons. Would it be {{library-info-sci-stub}}? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC) (librarian)[reply]
    • I've only nominated changing the name of the category, not the template. If we were to rename the template as well then removing two hyphens from your idea to give {{libraryinfosci-stub}} would be more in keeping with the naming guidlines, but I really don't see the need. If we ever do breakout the buildings as a separate stub type, {{library-struct-stub}} would work. More hyphens should mean that you are farther away from {{stub}}, not closer. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okey dokey, as long as the text in the stub template is modified accordingly, e.g. "This article about library and information science is a stub." Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 00:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Is the template intended for library science or the buildings themselves? Caerwine's comments seem to suggest that it's a mix of both. It's a subtle but important difference. A Library and information science stub would be very useful if it did not include the libraries themselves - similarly there is possibly a case for a stub just for the libraries themselves. Some clever wording would be needed to separate the two, though. Grutness...wha? 01:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{WalMart-stub}} / no cat

Not really created template, but it was quickly deleted without discussion, so it's worth a least a look. It's been used in seven WalMart-related articles but it seems too specific. Typically, companies are organized by branch or by country, but there is the company-specific stub category for template:Disney-stub. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this was deleted correctly - although the stubs marked with it should have been re-stubbed with legitimate stubs! Disney-stub is a bit of an anomaly, since it originally tied in with the splits of TV stations and film types, but expanded to cover the entire Disney empire. Grutness...wha? 11:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)¨[reply]
Update: the category has been recreated as well. Used on 14 articles. Delete unless it shows good growth. Valentinian (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete whether it shows growth or not. its not needed and is much too specific. could be speedied as a recreation now too. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 20th

{{Dvd-stub}} / no cat.

Orphaned template I discovered some hours ago. It is not being widely used (three articles other than the 8 I tagged before realizing the template was unused), its associated category doesn't exist (Category:DVD stubs), and according to the Stub project, movies are sorted according to genre. [1] ReyBrujo 19:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I've moved this request from WP:CFD). Valentinian (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is badly named, has no category and is not needed. Delete Valentinian (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{bank-stub}} → {{finance-company-stub}}

This rename is for two reasons, to give it a template name that encompasses the entirety of what the stub type covers, and provide the basis by analogy for a {{finance-bio-stub}} to help thin out the overlarge business biography stubs. Obviously we should keep {{bank-stub}} as a redirect and maybe even add a {{insurance-company-stub}} as another redirect. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I always wondered what to do with non-bank financial companies. This sounds much better. Amalas =^_^= 21:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yes, I've been wondering how to sort holding companies into bank-stub. This would make it clearer.--Rayc 20:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:Finance company stubs → Cat:Financial services company stubs

This category rename is simply so that it can match its non-stub parent Cat:Financial services companies. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (and above, not entirely unconnected renaming). Alai 05:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 19th

{{UK-crown-geo-stub}} and Category:Crown Dependency geography stubs

Now empty and unused, due to the split of stubs between new categories for the Isle of Man and Channel Islands. No point in keeping this, and ambiguous as a redirect. Delete. Grutness...wha? 08:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definite delete on the template, and weak delete on the category since it could be useful as a holding category if there be a corresponding non-stub category, which there does not appear to be. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 17th

Category:Indian ethnicity stubs to Category:Ethnic group in India stubs

Proposal moved from CfD Road Wizard 06:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Indian ethnicity" is ambiguous, and could refer to ethnic groups in India, or to groups descending from those originally from India but now present in other countries. Proposal is to rename this category along the lines of Category:Ethnic groups in India and Category:Ethnic group in Africa stubs. Kurieeto 14:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Blaenau-Gwent-geo-stub}} and Category:Blaenau Gwent geography stubs

Nominated by author: No longer required, to small to require stubs, inapproprite naming

{{NPT-geo-stub}} and Category:Neath Port Talbot geography stubs

Nominated by author: No longer required, to small to require stubs, inapproprite naming

{{Vale-of-Glamorgan-geo-stub}} and Category:Vale of Glamorgan geography stubs

Nominated by author: No longer required, to small to require stubs, inapproprite naming

Welsh geo-stubs (was Category:Caerphilly geography stubs to Category:Caerphilly county borough geography stubs)

moved from CFD BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 03:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant stub template has been changed to put the articles into the new category. The old category is now blank and needs deleting. Owain (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds like a perfect CSD C3 "...category is solely populated from a template..." SeventyThree(Talk) 22:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • delete both. never proposed and only 18 stubs. wales hasnt been split yet becuase the numbers for some of the counties are way too small. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 03:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • correction - someone has split the whole damn lot without proposing any of them! a lot of these will be grossly undersized and will need to come here. Anglesey 31 stubs. Torfaen NINE stubs. Bridgend TEN stubs. This is a complete mess and someone wants a thorough kick up the arse. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 03:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't see that there's much to do here but upmerge the lot. A possibility would be to create Cat:South Wales geography stubs (etc), though that's somewhat lacking a precise and generally accepted (much less for any official or political purpose) definition. Alai 03:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ye ghods - no wonder BL was annoyed - I am too. Twenty-three categories for only about 700 stubs? Most of the categories only have about a dozen stubs. It's a shame that Glamorgan doesn't still exist, or we could moerge several into that, but this looks like a lot of serious upmerging needs to be done. One or two of the categories come close to 60, BTW - I think it's Powys that I noticed was over threshold. For now, upmerge the lot except for the one or two that are over 50. Grutness...wha? 03:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using the trad counties systematically would also lead to undersized types in a number of cases. I have no objection to using older (or less formally defined) subdivisions, as long as a) they're at least close to threshold, b) they're reasonably commonly understood, and pretty non-controversial, and c) they don't cut across existing UAs, which would needlessly complicate matters. Alai 19:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using "traditional counties" (sic) would fail all of those criteria. --Mais oui! 20:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no it wouldn't, they are much bigger in area than the smallest UAs (Blaenau Gwent, Torfaen, &c), commonly understood, non-controversial, but obviously differ from UA boundaries. In fact since the dawn of municipal government, local authority boundaries have always cut across county boundaries, so I'm not sure why this needs to be a consideration... Owain (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But how many of them are actually above the threshold of 60? Cutting across current local government borders is a deal-breaker, because that's the basis on which other UK (and essentially all other) geo-stubs have been split, so doing Wales differently would cause pointlessly large amounts of confusion, and would make templatising and later splitting by UA unnecessarily difficult. Semi-arbitrary groupings of UAs are OK to an extent, though they're not ideal. A further possibility is the NUTS 3 subdivisions, of which there's 12, so probably they're about half-viable, but at least properly include the UAs. Alai 20:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge everything that's not up to threshold. I don't mind if we set threshold at 50 this time as Grutness suggests. Valentinian (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, we seem to use 60-65 for creation and 50 or so for deletion a lot, since if something's reached 50 then it's probably not worth deleting it only for it to be at 60 a month later. Grutness...wha? 07:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • further comment. two of the templates: {{NPT-geo-stub}} and {{Vale-of-Glamorgan-geo-stub}} don't conform to the naming guidelines, either, so if there's an overall upmerging, these will need to be renamed. Grutness...wha? 08:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

Everything from here on down is old business; the current 7-day review period has ended. Everything from this point on should be dealt with and removed from the workflow. Move this marker up as time passes.


June 13th

{{Christianmusic-stub}} & {{Christian-music-stubs}} (redirects)

Both are redirects to {{Christian-music-stub}} that violate the naming guidelines. Delete Caerwine Caerwhine 21:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{ag-stub}}, {{farm-stub}}, {{farming-stub}}, {{farms-stub}} (redirects)

All four are redirects to {{agri-stub}} which have been on the discovey page since November. Also there ia a {{agriculture-stub}} but since that is simply the full name, and it has extensive use, I added it to the redirect page rather than bringing it here. {{ag-stub}} has previously been to SFD, but SPUI recreated in April. I disagreed with its deletion then so rather than pointing it out for a speedy, I hope to convince people it should be kept. {{farms-stub}} has 0 uses and {{farming-stub}} has 1 use, so unless someone has been depopulating them, I think we can safely delete both. {{farm-stub}} has 9 uses, but 2 of those are for specific farms and thus I feel it might lead to confusion over its purpose. (I have added the approprite geo stubs, both for England oddly enough.)

Keep {{ag-stub}} as with a lowercase "g", "ag" is unambiguous and certainly far less cryptic than "BiH"!
Weak Keep {{farm-stub}} as while I have some concern that people might use it intending that it be a subtype of geo-stub, it is a minor one and the abbreviation seems to attract a reasonable amount of interest.
Weak Delete {{farming-stub}} It hasn't seen much use, but it is a reasonable and unambiguous alternative name, so if anyone thinks it should be kept, I won't complain.
Delete {{farms-stub}} besides being unused, we frown on using plural nouns in stub template names unless there is a good reason, and I can't think of one here. Caerwine Caerwhine 20:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete {{farms-stub}} and {{ag-stub}}. farm-stub is probably ok. not sure about farming-stub - it would be ok if it was used but its not. farms is plural so should go. "ag-stub" could mean silver stubs so it should probably go too. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Silver stubs? Are you serious? What could a silver stub even be about, let alone why we would start using chemical symbols as part of stub names? I realize that it's common only in some dialects of English, but using ag as a shortcut for agriculture is part of mine and doesn't take a couple seconds for me to realize what it is like agri does. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ag can also refer to Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Aargau, Agrigento, artificial gravity, antigens, attorney generals, etc. Probably best to get rid of it. - Nomadic1 23:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After some thought, keep all of them. I cannot think of any good reason to delete any of them, except ag-stub. I supported keeping "ag" then, and I still support now, but at least I understand why you might want to delete it (it's kinda ambiguous). Given that farming is almost a perfect synonym for "agriculture", there's no reason in the world not to keep it as a redirect. The others? I guess they're perhaps misleading (farms themselves ARE slightly different than agriculture) but I think they ought to remain anyway. That's just my take. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot. They are all useless, farming-stub the less so - Nomadic1 11:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ag- (ambiguity, and as a recreation of earlier deletion) and farms- (naming guidelines). Keep other two. Alai 16:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{TES-stub}} → {{ElderScrolls-stub}}

Yet another cryptic and ambiguous stub name. The stub type was properly proposed, but the template name was an afterthought and created without debate. Large enough to keep, so a rename to remove the ambiguity that TES has. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. As long as you don't delete it outright (as some already proposed), I'm OK with renaming it to remove the ambiguity. --Koveras 07:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Koveras Dv82matt 08:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Although there are no other article series about something named TES, it's more descriptive this way. CP/M 22:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Valentinian (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, but I'm a bit worried about the CamelCase. --Niroht 11:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's standard naming procedure for stubs (although how that started I've no idea). basically we don't use spaces in template naes, and if it was Elder-Scrolls-stub it would mean it was a specific type of Scrolls-stub, which it isn't. WP:WSS/NG explains a bit more. Grutness...wha? 12:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{AFLstub}}, {{Bih-geo-stub}}, {{Britcartoonist-bio-stub}} (redirects)

The only thing that these three unused redirects have in common is that they they have languishing on the discoveries page since last October! Only the middle one comes close to meeting the naming guidelines, and frankly it would be far more likely that someone would want to use {{BosniaHerzegovina-geo-stub}} than {{bih-geo-stub}} because they couldn't remember the camelcasing used by {{BiH-geo-stub}}. Delete all three with a possible addition of a {{BosniaHerzegovina-geo-stub}} redirect while we're dealing with these. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added that, and {{Bosnia-geo-stub}} (on the purely personal basis of "what I'd have typed"); delete nominated redirects as serving only to cause confusion. Alai 19:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all. perhaps reverse redirect so that BiH redirects to BosniaHerzegovina not the other way round? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{NLP-stub}}

No category, and otherwise malformed; hopelessly cryptic and ambiguous (my guess was natural language processing), only used on three articles. Delete. Alai 18:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Way too few stubs, and way too ambiguous. I could probably support a {{NLP-psych-stub}} if there were enough stubs, as I think the -psych- qualification would remove the ambiguity (but not the crypticness). Caerwine Caerwhine 19:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete i thought "new labour party" and "natural law party". its only used on one university-stub and two bio-stubs, too. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Confusing and poorly made. Grandmasterka 02:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Grandmaster's reasoning. --Wisden17 20:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; my first thought was "natural language processing". Mairi 05:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another "computer scientist anonymous". :) Alai 06:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the correct term is "TLA" Delete Valentinian (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:Stubs by U.S. state → Cat:United States subdivision stubs

From the discovery page. The idea of a holding category for state level stub categories that would otherwise feed directly into Cat:United States stubs is a good idea, but the name needs to corrected to meet the naming guidelines, and I think the scope should be expanded to include the territories. Since the non stub parent would be Cat:Subdivisions of the United States, I recommend Cat:United States subdivision stubs would would also include Cat:Washington, D.C. stubs and Cat:Puerto Rico stubs along with any others for individual territories that might be needed. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in principle - slight concerns WRT those US territories in the Pacific currently covered by oceania-stub and oceania-geo-stub, though (Am. Samoa and the like) - how would they be dealt with under this system? Grutness...wha? 01:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If and when a Cat:Guam stubs and the like get created, they should have both this category and Cat:Oceania stubs as parents. Continuing to double stub with a US stub and an Oceania stub should suffice until that happens. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 12th

Cat:Canary Islands geography stubs

Seriously undersized. Smallest of a batch that are < 60, and while there was generalised discussion of splitting Spain-geo-stub, I don't think ever explicitly proposed. Upmerge, keeping template. Alai 16:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


June 11th

{{IOM-stub}} / no category

I discovered this one today. It is actually used on 60+ articles and I've cleaned up the code, but is oddly named and w/o a cat. Suggest a rename to {{IsleofMan-stub}} (which will match Grutness' recent -geo-stub proposal.) Valentinian (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, and indeed why not speedy? Alai 17:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible if the thing's four months old? But yes, by all means. Valentinian (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy rename/cat fix - as you pointed out, IsleofMan-geo-stub is currently proposed at WP:WSS/P. I thought this one had been renamed and dealt with ages ago (ISTR it was discovered several months back). Grutness...wha? 00:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renamed; are we keeping the redirect? Alai 21:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! I'd say delete the redirect. I'm not 100% sure it can't mean something else. Valentinian (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 9th

Canadian provincial (non-geo) types

All unproposed, all by the same editor, almost all vastly undersized, almost all incorrectly named. given the spaces in the template names). Delete all but the last, which rename per the NGs. Alai 03:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename any which get close to threshold by the end of this debate as per NG - delete the rest (or at least upmerge). I doubt any but NS will make it, but you never know. Grutness...wha? 04:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second that one. Valentinian (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but Rename as necessary). I suspect that there are plenty of stub articles that belong under these stubs, but someone has not taken the time to apply them to the appropriate articles (which, I'll admit, is a big job). That is the kind of job I am happy to help with, but it certainly isn't an easy one. Agent 86 00:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't be radically opposed to upmerging (i.e., keeping the template, fed into the Canadian stubs for the time being) if someone wants to try to populate them, But given that some of them are used all of twice, with one of those being a triple-stubbing that'd be better off back in the parent type, I really amn't holding my breath. Alai 01:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've already tackled New Brunswick, and I don't think the results were all that bad for the little time I had available to work on it. However, the folks are in town and it's the first time in forever that I've seen the old man on Father's Day that I doubt I'll be spending much more time on it this weekend. Agent 86 01:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't mean to sound as if I was cracking the whip. :) As I say, I'd have no objections to keeping the template, say with a view to revisit in a month or so. Alai 02:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps Manitoba, PEI and NB could be merged into Canadian Maritimes stubs? The three territories could be merged into Canadian territory stubs as well. Manitoba should be kept. BoojiBoy 13:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Worth having. Ardenn 21:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow Up. I assume BoojiBoy meant merging NS, PEI and NB together. In any event, in addition to New Brunswick, I've now updated articles with the PEI stub, and think all three stubs ought to remain. Manitoba ought to be its own stub. (I haven't checked to see if the other two prarie provinces have their own stubs). As for merging the territories, I haven't looked at the number of articles for any of those areas, but if the numbers don't warrant it, some sort of Canadian territories stubs is worth consideration. (The PEI and NB stubs still need to be fixed so that the spaces are removed, but I'll leave something for someone else!) Agent 86 22:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assumed he meant that too. PEI is fine now, so by all means keep that, but the remainder are still very undersized. (Aside from NB, which is still distinctly so.) If these don't grow, they're really not viable as they stand, and are pretty marginal even if merged along those lines. Alai 01:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think what I've been able to do in the last while demonstrates these have merit. In fact, I'm thinking that I might even propose stubs for Alberta and Saskatchewan (in the proper manner, unlike how these nominees came to be). Agent 86 08:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Glad to see more of these waxing thresholdwards. I'd imagine the two you mentioned are quite likely to be populable (though a size guestimate would be handy), given that the smaller provinces seem to have turned out to be. I'm far from convinced that necessarily makes the territorial ones numerically viable -- they're not even obviously so if they were merged, unless there's significant numbers left to find. Alai 20:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks. It was a real time sucker, and just feeding into my tendancy to procrastinate about real life! I might be waning a bit on this project for a little bit, if only because the dead end pages have become my obsession du jour. I think I'll wait a bit before proposing {{Alberta-stub}} and {{Saskatchewan-stub}}. Agent 86 03:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed the Manitoba stub template was never affixed with the {{sfd-t}} template. I have added it now. I assume it was overlooked in error. Agent 86 15:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Must have been, unless I was subliminally thinking upmerge, rather than template-deletion (which would have been plausible, though not how I nominated it). Alai 20:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Worse case senario... merge and create "Canadian Maritime Provinces stub" and "Canadian Territories stub". DMighton 18:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


June 5th

{{CAsia-geo-stub}} and Cat:Central Asia geography stubs

Now that every country in this region has its own geo-stub category, the reason for this one has gone. It was always a fairly arbitrary category, anyway, given the several different meanings of "Central Asia". The six nation-specific geo-stub categories it contains can readily be moved to the Cat:Asia geography stubs category. Deleting it would remove a redundant level of hierarchy from the stub tree. Grutness...wha? 05:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge to Asia geography stubs. Besides if we treated Asia the way we do Africa, this should have been AsiaC-geo-stub instead. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the other way round, really. Africa is the anomaly, and it's only like that because SAfrica-geo-stub would have led to confusion. Grutness...wha? 07:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • upmerge/delete. no point keeping the template since everythings covered. the subcats can go in the main asia geo cat. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending working out WTF we're doing with its children, which are almost all undersized, unproposed, recreations of earlier deletions, and uncle Tom Cobbley. Alai 02:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 4th

{{SerbiaMontenegro-stub}} / Category:Serbia and Montenegro stubs and {{SerbiaMontenegro-geo-stub}} / Category:Serbia and Montenegro geography stubs

Never gained much use and the country shuffled off its mortal coil yesterday. While the former might be worth retaining in a historical sense (a la {{Soviet-stub}}), it's already been emptied and last time I checked there was something like three articles in the parent, so no great loss there. I must confess to already re-parenting the respective Serbian and Montenegrin geo cats up a level to the European geo parent, so apologies for breaching convention, but haven't made any edits to the various official trees. Someone's already emptied the S&M geo cat, too, which may have implications for the ongoing Kosovo headache. The Tom 03:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Mind you, the Montenegrin categories are very small - it may be a case of watching them to see whether they grow. if they don't something may have to be done with them. Kosovo...sigh. I suppose we'll hear about that sooner or later. Grutness...wha? 05:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Montenegro, the generic and -geo categories have 55 articles each and the -bio category is above threshold (68). Given the recent events, they'll probably have a good growth potential. And the K-word situation is just ... tricky. In any case, there's no use to keep the {{SerbiaMontenegro-geo-stub}}. I don't have any clear preferences regarding the generic {{SerbiaMontenegro-stub}}, but on the drop of a hat, {{Yugoslavia-stub}} seems like a better keep. Valentinian (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see two problems with this last suggestion. 1) {{SerbiaMontenegro-stub}} is currently not used at all, and we usually require at least 60 stubs to keep a template. I might be wrong, but I just can't imagine this one reaching this number. 2) I don't think double-stubbing will be relevant in most cases. The state union is now pushing up flowers since both Montenegro and Serbia have declared their independence from it, and the material has generally already been tagged with either "Serbia" or "Montenegro". But my main concern is the size issue. Valentinian (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know. Someone has been busy depopulating the article. My point is that if we have a Pre-1992 Yugo stub, we should surely need a FRYugo one too? E Asterion u talking to me? 23:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wouldnt it be easier to just rescope the yugoslavia stubcategory to cover S/M and the federal republic as well? it would be far less confusing to have stubs relating to the federal republic of yugoslavia covered by yugoslavia-stub! BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cat:Yugoslavia stubs should be rescoped to include FRY (and KoSCS if need be). Both the category and the {{Yugoslavia-stub}} will need a bit of text tweaking. BTW, I've been populating the Yugo-stub some as I've been going thru the Euro hist stubs to populate the newly created Norway-hist-stub, and I've noticed that the Yugo-stub doesn't meet the 60 stub minimum right now either so it could use a merge for that reason as well. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Just noticed that Yugoslavia stubs wasn't on the stub list. I've added it to the History by era section of the list since I'm certain it's suppposesd to an approved stub type. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A rescoped {{Yugoslavia-stub}} sounds like a good idea. Valentinian (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong pain in the arse. Oh yeah, you wanted something actionable, rather than a general complaint... Delete. I was rather suspicious of the depopulation, but it seems to have been as a result of more (highly predictable) silliness over Kosovo (Kosovo! Serbia! Albania! None of the above!), and as these types offer no logical solution to that issue, they might as well just clog up Euro-geo-stub for a little longer. Rescope Yugo-stub to cover all the various now-historical salami-sliced successor states, as well as the Cold War era origina. 21:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's called "Balkanisation" for good reasons! The mystery of the kosovo-geo-stubs has been solved, BTW - as a compromise they're being kept in the main Europe geography stubs catgory. At least all sides seem to agree that Kosovo's in Europe. And with only 25 or so stubs there's litle need of a separate template yet. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copying this to BJAODN. Septentrionalis 21:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Leaving aside the issue of not being "D" yet, what had you in mind as "N": the discussion, the template, or the political entity? Alai 02:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 3rd

{{Runningbio-stub}}

Poorly-named duplicate of {{athletics-bio-stub}}. On the bright side, it feeds into the same category. Maybe just edit as a redirect? --fuzzy510 20:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Running-stub}}

Covers the exact same things as {{athletics-stub}}. Worst of all, however, is that instead of placing these stubs into their own category, it places them into Cat:Sports stubs. --fuzzy510 20:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's more to athletics than running. What about, say, jumping? Conscious 07:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Touche. That was worded poorly on my part, when I was more trying to say that it was clearly a child of athletcs-stub. --fuzzy510 09:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, not all running is "athletics" (in the non-US sense, and within the scope of the stub type). For another, these have been SFD'd three times in a little over a month: is there any chance of some actual breathing space to get this sorted out? If I were the associated wikiproject, I might feel a tad picked on by this point. Alai 20:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I completely didn't notice that. Wow, way for me to be completely clueless. On that note though, can someone from said WikiProject join the discussion so that this can be sorted out instead of us trying to figure it out without their guidance and opinion? --fuzzy510 23:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've left them a note; as we're already here, might be a chance to get some clarification from them as to intended usage... Alai 18:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 31st

{{Postal-stub}} / Category:Postal stubs and Cat:Philately stubs

Created in January 2006 but used on only six stubs. Delete based on tiny size. Not sure where they should be put though ... --TheParanoidOne 05:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented on WP:WSS/D, a slight re-scoping of philately-stub could easily cover these items. In any case this stub type isn't needed - delete. Grutness...wha? 05:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which seems to me to argue for rescoping this type, as the more inclusive, and upmerging the phil-stubs to here, keeping both templates. Alai 07:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this due to general lack of clarity as to a Plan; I've added an SFR tag to the phil-stub cat, so's we can rescope that, which seems to me to be the best option. Alai 19:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I'd be in favour of anything that combines these two stub types into one category and (preferably) one template. The real question as far as i'm concerned is whatit should be called. Perhaps keeping both templates and making it Cat:Philatelic and postal stubs might be a reasonable solution (although noun forms would probably be better). Grutness...wha? 04:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:Post and philately stubs, perhaps? (Sounds slightly less awkward to my ear than the reverse.) Alai 10:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Postal stubs now has 12 listings. Perhaps it would be okay to keep {{Postal-stub}} after all. Eastmain 05:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I make that 11, and the size threshold is 60... I'm just waiting to see if there's any more input about the name of the merged category (though the template will indeed be kept). Alai 05:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ethiopia-hist-stub}} / Cat:Ethiopian history stubs

I don't remember a proposal for this one. Created 13 May, but only used on four articles. The material for Ethiopia is large, but this one seems pretty undersized. Delete or upmerge. Valentinian (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Proposer never added an sfd tag to the template or category and by sorting existing stubs I've been able to bring it up to 35 stubs, which while marginal, isn't bad for a stub type under a month old with plenty of potential for growth. Had it been proposed, I wouldn't have supported it yet, but it's large enough that I don't think deleting it is worth the effort. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I forgot about the templates. Nice work populating it, perhaps it will be viable anyway? Valentinian (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Viable enough to let it percolate a while. If in a couple of months it hasn't grown, I wouldn't be opposed to bringing it back here for an upscope to {{AfricaE-hist-stub}} which should defnitely cross the 60 stub threshold. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Eberron-stub}} / Cat:Eberron stubs

Never proposed, only 17 stubs, vaguely enigmatic name, and adequately covered by Cat:Dungeons & Dragons stubs which is only around the 400-stub mark. Either delete or upmerge. Grutness...wha? 05:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • upmerge, of the two Percy Snoodle 10:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename to a more general D&D campaign setting stub or something like this. It would not be a bad idea to create a good subcategory for the 400-so D&D one mentioned above. On the other hand, note that three other D&D campaign settings stubs have quite a few stubs: Category:Dragonlance stubs with 66, Category:Forgotten Realms stubs with 110 and Category:Greyhawk stubs with 137. I think that Eberron is the youngest of D&D settings but it seems to be gaining popularity, and I expect the number of stubs in that category will only increase. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've no objection to the re-creation of this when it reaches a viable level, but at the moment it's really too small. If we're going to think about a split of the main category a quick scan through the D&D stubs suggests that a D&D-creature-stub or similar might be more useful. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find the category useful, as D&D settings can be very different. I just discovered the Eberron stub category, and I'm glad it exists separately from other D&D stubs, because I have a lot of knowledge specific to Eberron. Being able to find Eberron stubs without having to wade through material concerning, say, Forgotten Realms, is very nice. Also, as Piotrus says, the category will likely increase. Zorblek (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as sub-category of D&D. If there are 400-odd D&D stubs, then it stands to reason that some degree of organisation will prove useful - and dividing some of them, at least, along Setting-specific lines, looks entirely reasonable to me.GMPax 06:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - splits of stub categories are usually considered when a category reaches 600 stubs, and only into subcategories which have a population of 60 or more. Grutness...wha? 07:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


May 29th

Template:Heerlen-stub

A minor Dutch town with its own stub category? It should be included in the Netherlands stub, because wikipedia cannot house stub categories for dutch municipalities. C mon 07:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, several reasons. 1) Heerlen is a Dutch municipality and not just a town. 2) For Dutch municipalities it is not a minor one, before al the mixing up of municipalities hapend in the Netherlands it was in the top 10. Heerlens history dates back 6000 year 3) "It should be included in the Netherlands stub, because wikipedia cannot house stub categories for dutch municipalities." this is what 'should' hapen and not an argument why it should hapen. 4) At this moment I am trying to expand Heerlen and the Heerlen related articles, to get people to help me I am starting articles and putting them up as a stud so people know where work has to be done. 5) If it has to be deleted I would like a regional stub, this is used for articles about the UK (for instance Lothians geography stubs). To conclude Heerlen has a very rich history dating back more then 6000 years, what Dutch city can claim that? In order to expand stubs have to be created, to keep track of stubs we need a Heerlen stub or at most a regional stub, country stubs are not as effecient!Mach10 08:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's why, then: the size threshold in WP:STUB. Regional stub types are somewhat better idea, but they already exist for regional geography stubs (e.g., Cat:Dutch Limburg geography stubs), exactly analogously to the UK example you cite, and there's simply not the numbers of general Dutch stubs to justify a regional split: Cat:Netherlands stubs is less than a single listing page. Nor is splitting people by region generally considered to be a great idea. Surely what'd be more useful for your purposes is a Heerlen or Limburg Wikiproject, which can track associated stubs in a list, until such times as a separate stub type becomes reasonable. Alai 15:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why Cat:Netherlands stubs is single sized is probably because most articles that are stubs are not marked as such (for instance Heerlen, Hoensbroek, and Bernardinus College (marked as a {{netherlands-school-stub}} since october 2005) are clearly country/regional/local stubs, but where not marked as such), the stubs system doesn't seems to work. I saw this and started stubing those articles. And yes I could have stubed them on a regional level and not localy, but I was working on my own Heerlen project and thus marked them as a Heerlen stub, which is beter then not marking them at all. Mach10 16:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why those three examples indicate a pressing need for this stub type, as they're respectively: not a stub; a {{LimburgNL-geo-stub}}; and as you say, a {{netherlands-school-stub}}: how is the latter existing tagging evidence of the stubs system not working? Alai 17:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The standard number of stubs for a new template is 60-65. It is currently used on 9 articles, and I'd cannot imagine this one reaching the normal level anytime soon. Delete Valentinian (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete not needed. the current scheme works for all editors well. this stubs only being used by one person by the sound of it - it would be more sensible for her or him to make a list of articles on their user page and work from that. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The creator of this template is sticking it in silly places: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyneema&diff=56299989&oldid=55370128 --Knife Knut 05:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. Already better covered by more expansive stub types. This has an impossibly small scope and is clearly not being used where it should be. Grutness...wha? 05:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE: The sfd-c template was not put on the category, so this will need to be left one more week :/ Grutness...wha? 05:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • PS - the category is now empty. There were 36 articles in there, but 15 or so of them weren't stubs anyway. The remaining article were almost all geo-, bio-, or struct-stubs which belonged in other categories (except for one or two which had no relevance to Heerlen whatsoever). Grutness...wha? 06:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 22nd

{{arena-stub}} / Cat:Arena stubs

The proposal for a separate arena stub was brought up about a month ago at WP:WSS/P, and there was no consensus - yet it seems this stub has been around since February. Stadium stubs are currently being split by country and don't need to be further split into stadia and arenas - an arbitrary pair of terms which are used interchangeably for a lot of the articles using these stubs and also in a lot of countries (it's worth noting that stubs with this template include Amherst Stadium, Colchester Legion Stadium, Ilfis Stadium,...). What's more, the template says it's for ice hockey venues, although the term arena, where it is used, is used for a far wider group of sports than just this one. What's more, Cat:Stadium stubs makes it clear that its for stadiums and other sports venues, which quite clearly would include everything that this stub is for. Add to that the fact that some countries use multi-sports venues for ice hockey, and... just delete. Grutness...wha? 08:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No strong opinion either way, but most of those buildings were previously categorized as "Buildings in..." Designating their sport venue status is important. BoojiBoy 14:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
we can use stadium-stub for that. whats a stadium and whats an arenas too ambiguous. if this is kept itll need better defining or naming but i dont think it should be kept. Delete. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Valentinian (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this was the proposal or not, but merge with stadium stubs. BoojiBoy 03:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename to something clearly ice-hockey-ish. The parent has only recently been made non-undersized, and the US- counterpart is, as I've pointed out elsewhere, rapidly going the same way; shoving these articles back in there is, therefore, highly undesirable. Arguments against splitting by type of venue (either type of structure, or type of sport, as opposed to only by ever-more-local location) seemed to rest around the meaning of the word "stadium" in NZ, and to be contrary to the spirit of "axis most likely to see expansion by" (i.e. whether "Midwestern United States sports venue stubs" or "Wisconsin sports venue stubs" is as coherent a grouping with regard to primary notability as the above). Alai 15:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely not a New Zealand only thing - how do you explain the stadiums marked with this stub in the list above - none of which are in New Zealand, but which are in the US, UK, and mainland Europe - and which are just a small sample of the stadiums (so named) that are listed as arenas? There is clearly going to be confusion as to what is a stadium and what is an ice hockey arena. And you've also forgotten a major reason not to split this way - many ice hockey venues are used for other ice-related sports, so splitting by sport would mean double, triple, and quarple stubbing. I've no objection to using this as a redirect to stadium stubs, but I strongly oppose it as a separate category/template type. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that "ice hockey arena", and "stadium" are terminologically disjoint, just that "ice hockey venues" are an entirely logically feasible, and most certainly numerically viable, sub-type of "sports venues". "Arena" vs. "stadium" is, I agree, suggestive of a split on an entirely different axis (or of wholesale confusion, depending on one's local usage, perhaps), but the current scheme is explicitly scoped to cover all sports venues, and generates text to that effect, so I don't see that that distinction is material here. Hence the "rename" part, above. I've not forgotten about double-stubbing, I'm just far from convinced it's a significant concern. Many sports venues are indeed used for more than one sport, at least on occasion, and often several non-sports purposes too, but it's very frequently pretty clear that a venue's primary notability relates to its being "home of the <name> <sport> team". Worst comes to the worst, we can "recombine" on the most common combinations. Splitting by form of venue (ballpark/(outdoor) stadium vs. this or that type of indoor venues) would be less liable to this sort of double-stubbing than the current scheme, wherein tagging large numbers of them as music-venues, etc, would be highly likely on the same basis, but apparently it's not possible to get that scheme past /P, either. Until we get a clear consensus on how we should split these chronically large, and incipiently oversized categories, shoving an at-least-arguably-sensible split back therein seems at very least, premature. Alai 01:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ya know, a large number of these look to be Canadian, and there is no {{Canada-stadium-stub}} at present. How about a rescope and resort to Cat:Canada stadium stubs? Caerwine Caerwhine 00:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So in other word, change the template, the category, and the contents, but otherwise keep it just as it is? :) Alai 22:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there's enough of them to make a Canadian stadium stub category, go ahead (although Alai does make a great point, haha). Let's please just not start classifying stadiums by the type of sports they host - some venues could legitimately be double-, triple-, or even quadruple-tagged, and that would completely defeat the purpose of splitting the stadium stubs. An arena stub category would be great (as long as it was clearly defined as to what an arena was, which I'd assume would be the North American definition of an indoor stadium holding ~20,000 people, not the occasional European usage as any stadium), and would make great headway into splitting the category down to size. --fuzzy510 23:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I count 49 in Cat:Arena stubs, plus 15 in Cat:Stadium stubs that're also in or under the Cat:Canada category, so yes, it would be viable. I can provide the lists, if StubSense remains Unwell. Still seems simpler to me to start that from scratch, mind you, as there's more that would have to be removed from this type than would stay in it, and it's easier to (semi-)automate that way 'round. I've already suggested separating out the arenas (in the above sense) from the "essentially-outdoor" stadia; the reaction was lukewarm-to-hostile. Alai 00:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished business

To orphan

Stub types in this section have been deemed deletable and have to be removed from all articles using them, so that they can be deleted.

To delete

Stub types in this section have been orphaned and can be deleted.

Listings to log

Stub types with completed discussions which have not yet been logged; remove from this page entirely when logged. Anyone can do this, not just an admin; please see the directions at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion&oldid=60601903"