Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/April/3
April 3 edit
- 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 keep 1860s, upmerge other templates & delete their categories
A host of undersized actor categories edit
No - not for undersized actors... one editor seems to have decided to ignire stubcat size thresholds and create the following categories:
- Cat:American film actor, 2000s birth stubs
- Cat:American film actor, 1860s birth stubs
- Cat:American film actor, 1850s birth stubs
- Cat:American film actor, 1840s birth stubs
- Cat:American television actor, 2000s birth stubs
...all of which fail to meet size standards and should be reupmerged. The same editor made templates for film actors born in the 1840s, 1850s, 1860s and 2000s, but those can probably stay in upmerged form with no problems. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are still underpopulated because there still over 500 articles under Category:American film actor stubs that need to be sorted by birth decade. I only just started so you should expect the stubs you nominated to be much more populated when I'm done. How about you give me a hand? For An Angel (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those are simply unsorted from the existing categories. Chances of there being 60+ for each of the new caqtegories is minimal, to say the least. If it is definitely shown that there are over 60 in any of them, I've no objection to them staying, but unless there are, these should be deleted with the templates upmerged. And there should still have been proposed in the first place. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I didn't know about the process of proposing stubs, I was just being bold. I saw that there were 134 articles in Category:American film actor, 1870s birth stubs so I didn't think there would be that much less in 1860's. Obviously, the only way to definitely show that there are over 60 in any of them is to go through all of the unsorted ones and sort them out, but I haven't even finished the B's so you can't really say that how many there will be when I'm done. I think, ideally, the only ones left in Category:American film actor stubs would be the ones where the birth year is unknown. For An Angel (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What's normally done is that the templates are used upmerged until it's obvious that there are 60 (which is easy to check via whatlinkshere) - which is pretty much what was being done with the templates that didn't have dedicated categories. Any that reach 60 are fine, but any others are a problem. As for being bold, I take it you've read the bit on WP:BOLD that says you shouldn't be as bold with templates or categories...? Grutness...wha? 08:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I didn't see that part, lol. I'm not sure what you mean by using whatlinkshere to see if there are enough articles, can you explain that further? What I did was looked at Category:American film actor stubs and saw that there were over 600 articles there when I first started that I assumed need to be sorted by birth decade. After looking at only a few of them I noticed that there were some that belonged in categories that didn't exist yet, so I created the categories to put them in. I still don't see an easier way of figuring out how many more of the 500 or so unsorted articles would belong in the subcategory for 1860's births for example, other than going through all of the unsorted articles and noting their birth year. If you know of an easier way please explain it to me. For An Angel (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay - take, as a random example, {{Gibraltar-geo-stub}}. There aren't 60 stubs on the geography of Gibraltar, since it's a pretty small place - so it doesn't have its own Cat:Gibraltar geography stubs. You can see how many stubs it does have, but if you click on "what links here" in the toolbox on the template's page - you get this list, which lists all six articles that use the template. If that list ever stretches to 60, then it'll get its own category. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I get it now, I was confused (not a new thing, lol). You're not objecting to my creation of the templates just the categories associated with them. I thought for some reason that they had to be created together. If you want to delete the categories but still allow me to continue adding the templates, and then when it's all done decided on which categories to create depending on how many use each template then that's fine. For An Angel (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay - take, as a random example, {{Gibraltar-geo-stub}}. There aren't 60 stubs on the geography of Gibraltar, since it's a pretty small place - so it doesn't have its own Cat:Gibraltar geography stubs. You can see how many stubs it does have, but if you click on "what links here" in the toolbox on the template's page - you get this list, which lists all six articles that use the template. If that list ever stretches to 60, then it'll get its own category. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I didn't see that part, lol. I'm not sure what you mean by using whatlinkshere to see if there are enough articles, can you explain that further? What I did was looked at Category:American film actor stubs and saw that there were over 600 articles there when I first started that I assumed need to be sorted by birth decade. After looking at only a few of them I noticed that there were some that belonged in categories that didn't exist yet, so I created the categories to put them in. I still don't see an easier way of figuring out how many more of the 500 or so unsorted articles would belong in the subcategory for 1860's births for example, other than going through all of the unsorted articles and noting their birth year. If you know of an easier way please explain it to me. For An Angel (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What's normally done is that the templates are used upmerged until it's obvious that there are 60 (which is easy to check via whatlinkshere) - which is pretty much what was being done with the templates that didn't have dedicated categories. Any that reach 60 are fine, but any others are a problem. As for being bold, I take it you've read the bit on WP:BOLD that says you shouldn't be as bold with templates or categories...? Grutness...wha? 08:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I didn't know about the process of proposing stubs, I was just being bold. I saw that there were 134 articles in Category:American film actor, 1870s birth stubs so I didn't think there would be that much less in 1860's. Obviously, the only way to definitely show that there are over 60 in any of them is to go through all of the unsorted ones and sort them out, but I haven't even finished the B's so you can't really say that how many there will be when I'm done. I think, ideally, the only ones left in Category:American film actor stubs would be the ones where the birth year is unknown. For An Angel (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those are simply unsorted from the existing categories. Chances of there being 60+ for each of the new caqtegories is minimal, to say the least. If it is definitely shown that there are over 60 in any of them, I've no objection to them staying, but unless there are, these should be deleted with the templates upmerged. And there should still have been proposed in the first place. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I reckon the 1860s births stub will have the required number (or very close to it). Lugnuts (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I was surprised to see over 100 articles in the 1870's births. Also I think 2000's births should definitely be kept because that category can only grow larger. Also, I think that if it turns out that there aren't that many articles that belong in the 1860's, 1850's or 1840's categories then we can create one category for those born before 1870, or something like that. This way the only ones left in Category:American film actor stubs would be the ones with an unknown birth year.
- PS:I was also working on the Category:American television actor stubs doing the same thing. Would it be ok to continue working on both of these while this discussion is going on? For An Angel (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2000s births category can always be recreated when we're sure there are 60 stubs - stub categories are always made based on the number of current stubs, not on the potential for growth, since there's never any guarantee that the articles actually will be made (or that when they are, they'll be stubs). As for the American television actor stubs, that all depends - have you proposed the new templates and categories you're planning to make at WP:WSS/P? If not, you should do that. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't actually created any American television actor stub templates because I saw that they were all already created. I was thinking about creating the categories for the templates that didn't already have one, but now I understand that I don't have to do that unless there are 60 articles that use the template. For example, I see that {{US-tv-actor-1910s-stub}} is one of the few that doesn't have its own category but by using whatlinkshere I see that it is already used in more than 60 articles (just barely). So that means there should be no problem with creating the Category:American television actor, 1910s birth stubs, right? For An Angel (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeees... but you should still pass them by WP:WSS/P first - they're a speedy creation type, so there shouldn't be any problems with them, but it's always a good idea to keep WP:WSS "in the loop", since they're the ones who will be using them the most and patrolling the categories for potential problems. Sam with any new templates - they're speediable if they follow a current scheme, but again it's worth keeping those who deal with them the most in the picture (how are we meant to sort stubs using templates we don't know about?) Grutness...wha? 23:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't actually created any American television actor stub templates because I saw that they were all already created. I was thinking about creating the categories for the templates that didn't already have one, but now I understand that I don't have to do that unless there are 60 articles that use the template. For example, I see that {{US-tv-actor-1910s-stub}} is one of the few that doesn't have its own category but by using whatlinkshere I see that it is already used in more than 60 articles (just barely). So that means there should be no problem with creating the Category:American television actor, 1910s birth stubs, right? For An Angel (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2000s births category can always be recreated when we're sure there are 60 stubs - stub categories are always made based on the number of current stubs, not on the potential for growth, since there's never any guarantee that the articles actually will be made (or that when they are, they'll be stubs). As for the American television actor stubs, that all depends - have you proposed the new templates and categories you're planning to make at WP:WSS/P? If not, you should do that. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS:I was also working on the Category:American television actor stubs doing the same thing. Would it be ok to continue working on both of these while this discussion is going on? For An Angel (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1860s is almost there (2 short, by my counting - surely enough to keep?) - can this be closed down now? Lugnuts (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2008 (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.
- 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 delete - use the by-county subtypes
{{EastEngland-school-stub}} edit
Looks like a bit of over-enthusiasm during the proposal for new county-by-county English school stubs. unfortunately, there has bnever been a county called "EastEngland", so this is entirely unnecessary and should eb deleted. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There is the East of England region though, and I created the stub to match the stub category for it (which currently has the six constituent counties sort into it); also maintains consistency with {{SouthEastEngland-school-stub}}, etc. -- Ratarsed (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The usual procedure when counties are upmerged to regions is to do simply that: have county templates upmerged into a parent category that is a container only. There won't be any schools that aren't in a county, so there's no need for the region itself to have a template (compare what is done with geo-stubs and struct-stubs. I'm frankly amazed there's a SouthEastEngland-school-stub - that should be SFD'd too, so I'm adding it to this nomination. Grutness...wha? 08:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahhh - skip that, I see the problem in this case. The SE England one may have been made before the idea of making general upmerged stubs per county became standard practice - there are still some counties in SE England without school stub types (the two Sussexes, Hampshire, and Hertfordshire, if my geography's correct). Note that there is no NorthWestEngland-school-stub template, because every county in that region has its own template. Same with Yorkshire/Humberside, East Midlands, and South West England (there is a WestMidlands-school-stub, but that's for the county). If you're in the process of making stub templates for each county, Ratarsed, then once all the county ones are done the SouthEastEngland-school-stub can be SFD'd, since it won't be in use any more. Grutness...wha? 09:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The usual procedure when counties are upmerged to regions is to do simply that: have county templates upmerged into a parent category that is a container only. There won't be any schools that aren't in a county, so there's no need for the region itself to have a template (compare what is done with geo-stubs and struct-stubs. I'm frankly amazed there's a SouthEastEngland-school-stub - that should be SFD'd too, so I'm adding it to this nomination. Grutness...wha? 08:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes sense (so I'm happy for it to be deleted) -- looks like I picked a duff category to copy :) - I am working my way around the regions to create the county-by-county stubs, so I expect SouthEastEngland-school-stub will be able to be listed here 'soon' -- If I remember, I'll do it when I create its children -- Ratarsed (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2008 (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.
Cat:British film stubs or Cat:United Kingdom film stubs? edit
- 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 keep cat as British film stubs; reverse redirect
Wqe have both of these, and it looks like the UK one was emptied when the British one was creatged, though there was definitely no WSS debate about it that I can find. The template is also incorrectly named as {{British-film-stub}} - looks like someone changed it from the convention-compliant UK-film-stub last year without consultation. Move template back and delete redirect, and decide on whichever is the correct category name (usual WSS naming favours ""United Kingdom...", though I know there will be heated debatee about that one...). Grutness...wha? 01:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From the history, {{UK-film-stub}} was moved on October 8, 2007 by [[User:Girolamo Savonarola|Girolamo Savonarola }}. I fully support moving the template back and support renaming the category back to the UK standard. I only nominated the UK cat for deletion based on it being essentially empty and an apparent duplicate of the British cat. - Dravecky (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The mind boggles that this was done in the name of "standardisation": more "WPJ consensus roolz, fie upon your mere guidelines", I suppose? Restore both, delete the "British" cat, keep the template as a redirect if the films people really feel the need. Alai (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a link on the talkpage of WP:FILM for this discussion, to try and get more input. Lugnuts (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lacking any further input, and in light of the later discussion (above) about permcat=stub parallel naming, perhaps we should leave this as "British", since the permcat is "British". Her Pegship (tis herself) 02:16, 10 May 2008 (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.