Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/January

< Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion‎ | Log

January 2008

edit

January 2

edit

{{Assyrian-stub}} Category:Assyrian 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 -- Y not? 04:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete, stub types are not a substitute to categories. And also delete per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Insistence to use a controversial Assyrian flag implies that this stub template carries a political message. It's scope is most strange. Both history related articles, political parties, TV stations, bio articles and other otherwise unrelated entities are tagged together following a country-stub like structure. This seems to be the intention...
    Stub type was never proposed and is used on 125 - 2 = 123 articles. Some tagged articles are rather one sentence seemingly created merely to inflate the count (George Francis (Assyrian), Robert D. Biggs, Sargon Dadesho, Assyrians in Russia, Assyrian Evangelical Church, Tyaraye Tribe, Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies...). This template was nominated for deletion twice before: 2007-01-16 (no consensus) and 2007-06-12 (keep). The closing person of the last nomination listed 3 reasons to keep of which at least one (flag thing) has been revert wared over and was eventually restored after a while.
    -- Cat chi? 21:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Hmm, must be that time of the year again where you become an annoying jerk. You proposed the same thing with this templae last year and it got rejected. This template is very important for Wikipedia:WikiProject Assyria. Chaldean (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, stub templates are at best of marginal value to Wikiprojects. Keeping track of articles once found is a task for talk page templates such as {{WPAP}}. As a method of bringing articles to the attention of interested editors, this stub is likely of marginal value, precisely because it does not fall within the usual stub types, and hence unlikely to be applied by anyone not associated with Wikiproject Assyria. Also the template does get used in non-customary ways on some bio stubs. For instance, if Robert D. Biggs were an Egyptologist instead of an Assyriologist, he would normally not get the {{AncientEgypt-stub}} yet that article was marked with this stub. However, let's not belabor that point. Practically every stub category has a few dubious articles attached to it. The main problem with this stub type is that a large number of these articles appear to have little possibility for expansion. For example, because of the sparsity of information available for most of the Ancient Assyrian kings, it probably would be best to merge articles for individual kings into articles on dynasties or even kingdoms. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Whatever information available on ancient Assyrian kings is a merge for discussion topic. In any case, there are new articles created, like current events, modern Assyrians (yes, we still exist) and other Assyrian related issues. This stub fills the purpose of categorizing everything from ancient Assyria (including Babylon, Sumer and Akkad), to modern Assyrians. This stub will still be useful in the future for other purposes than ancient Assyrian kings. It is not limited to ancient Assyrian kings. Also, since when is it not allowed to have a stub category for a wikiproject? — EliasAlucard (HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!! · contribs) 09:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikiprojects are not allowed to have private stub types. Stub types have solid non-controversial criteria which is exactly the opposite of what you are saying. -- Cat chi? 14:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Wikiprojects are not allowed to have private stub types. — Oh really? Well that was a newsflash. Care to point out any Wikipedia policy that explicitly corroborates your claim? Stub types have solid non-controversial criteria which is exactly the opposite of what you are saying. — This stub type is only controversial if you are against the Assyrian nation calling itself Assyrian, or if you believe that modern Assyrians should not have their own state which would occupy Turkey. Which are you? — EliasAlucard (HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!! · contribs) 15:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Stub types are the province of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting but that project tries to be amicable with other WikiProjects. Still, they don't automatically get stub types, those some of the guidelines, such as numbers of stub articles are relaxed for them. Still, the fact remains that stub types are not intended as a primary method of article categorization for Wikiprojects. They are intended as a method of bringing articles to the attention of knowledgeable editors. That requires stub types to generally possess two characteristics. The first is that there be a body of knowledgeable editors that would be able to make use of the stub. The existence of a Wikiproject of similar scope is generally taken as proof of that. But the other is that stub sorters and other editors will be able to use it to bring it to their attention. Placed as it is in the stub hierarchy, that's doubtful at present. It might improve a little bit if placed in fashion similar to Cat:Romani stubs as a subcat of Cat:Asian ethnic group stubs. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is the third time User:White Cat tries to get this stub deleted. His entire agenda for deleting it is a political one. He is against the Assyrian flag; that is the only reason he wants it deleted. This stub is part of WP:WikiProject Assyria, and it fills a very important function for the project. There is no policy whatsoever on Wikipedia that prohibits the Assyrian flag being used for this stub. New Assyria-related articles are constantly created and categorized under this stub category, and it fills a useful function for us who are working with WikiProject Assyria. — EliasAlucard (HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!! · contribs) 09:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh really. First nomination was not my doing. Why are you insisting on the flag on the template? Numerous people including the closing admin of the second nomination suggested against it. Stub types are supposed to be non-controversial per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX if nothing else. Wikiprojects can use the talk page of the articles. -- Cat chi? 14:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Why are you insisting on the flag on the template? — Because it's a stub that points to an ethnic name of an ancient and modern people. As with any stub of this sort, a flag is the most common picture in use for this kind of stub categories. The fact that you absolutely loathe the Assyrian flag does not give you the right to go berserk and nominate the stub for deletion every five seconds. What's it to you if the Assyrian flag is included? Please do tell, why does it bother you to include the Assyrian flag? Don't just state "IT'S CONTROVERSIAL", state specifically why you oppose the Assyrian flag. There is nothing controversial about this flag unless you make it a controversy. — EliasAlucard (HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!! · contribs) 15:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No ethnicity has a common flag picture. Flags are by nature political. Flag of Assyria belongs to an aspired country. It's use on any modern topic will be a problem for that reason. It is like an endorsement of country status. I believe the flag in question is banned in some countries where Assyrians live.
    Inclusion of it on Ancient topics will also be a problem because Assyrian flag as article explains was designed in 1968 and adopted it in 1971. Who adopted it is a different question that comes to my mind. The flag of "ancient Assyrians" can be used on articles about "ancient Assyria" and/or "ancient Assyrians". You do not use the modern Italian flag on Roman Empire related articles.
    No stub template is used to tag both ancient and modern people. Such criteria is too broad. They should be two seperate stub templates at a minimum. Keep history topics to their own stub type seperate from everything else.
    -- Cat chi? 23:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    I believe the flag in question is banned in some countries where Assyrians live. — Yes, I believe that's the case in Turkey, no? It couldn't be a coincidence that you speak Turkish and want to delete the stub category because it contains the Assyrian flag? I would even go so far as to call that censorship. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 03:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep – Do not use this obviously politically motivated stub for all Syriac-related articles, but only for Assyrian(ist) articles. That is, those articles that deal with the modern Assyrian nation, meaning those Syriacs who consider themselves Assyrians, and carry the Assyrian flag. Perhaps renaming the stub to "Syriac" would be more appropriate. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't have a problem with the flag being removed, if thats whats bothering whitecat. The image can be replaced. Chaldean (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per EliasAlucard. --07fan (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restrict scope and usage, per Benne. Alai (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete — I recently added a Mesopotamian map to a number of cities of Assyrian antiquity (I roughly define antiquity as the period of history where there is more to learn by digging than by reading preserved texts, which has a strong correlation to the kind of cites available to support the article). For these pages the stub category that would have been most clear to me would be something along the lines of {{MEast-antiquity-stub}}. Few of these articles benefit from being Assyrian stubs; most of the available cites are archaeological. While I strongly disagree with Cat's persistent "I don't like it" sentiment in putting this nomination forward, I don't see this Assyrian stub template providing much value. Some voices have said "more articles will be added". This is losing sight of the purpose here. We'd be far better off eliminating these stubs by fleshing them out to full articles. Achieving a large stub population is an achievement of dubious merit. We're not here to build a stub garden. MaxEnt (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But it must be understood, this stub template is not only used for ancient Assyria. It is also used for modern Assyrian people, and just about anything related to Assyria and Assyrians. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 18:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Modern Assyrians identify themselves as Assyrians. Assyrians is an ethnic group, thus a Nation. A nation requires a flag. Each nation decides the flag representing their nation. Simple, isn't it? Shalito (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is a political nomination. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Political nomination. /Slarre (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lol its hilarious how many trolls there are. Oh, and shlama to any fellow Assyrian wikipedians whom I don't know. Please copy and paste this template into your user:page, before someone deletes it. {{User Assyrian}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tourskin (talk • contribs)
  • Delete It is used for two very different things: for ancient Assyrians of 3000 years ago, and for a modern Christian minority. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How is that a valid reason to delete it? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 05:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point of categorizing is to put different things in different boxes. This category, however, only muddles things up. Aside from that, only part of modern Assyrians claim the ancient ethnicity, but a significant part rejects this identification, which might make this stub an unnecessarily contentious issue in quite a few articles. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete Read Pieter Kuiper. The TriZ (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply No, only a fringe minority within the Assyrian people rejects the Assyrian ethnicity. Don't exaggerate their so called significance. This stub is used for all sorts of Assyrian related topics. The modern ethnic group as well as ancient Assyrian (including generic Mesopotamian topics) topics. This is a generic stub that has no real target, it is not supposed to cover only ancient Assyrian topics. It's also for covering modern Assyrians, modern Assyrian organisations, and so on. But as it seems, Pieter, you want to delete this stub because you are against the modern Assyrian ethnicity. I seriously doubt you'd care otherwise. You've been running around and obsessively deleting everything that is related to Assyrians and our history and most of all, our ethnicity. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 13:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • In articles where this stub is used, wikipedians are invited to "to help reach a consensus on what to do" in a discussion on this page. I responded, I also answered Alucard's question, and it is not me who is obsessed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just as valid as any other ethnicity stub template and category. It should only be deleted if there are no Assyrian stubs. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 08:58, 1 February 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.

{{Romani-stub}} Category:Romani 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


  • Delete, stub types are not a substitute to categories. Same as above. Ethnicity based stub types are problematic per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Only 79 - 1 = 78 articles are tagged with this template. Uses the flag of International Romani Union. A good number of tagged articles are not even stubs like the International Romani Union. -- Cat chi? 22:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This one was approved for creation at WP:WSS/P. Unlike other ethnicity stubs, which often cause problems, a separate stub type for the Roma was seen as useful simply because they do not have a homeland, and as such, specific nation-specific stubs were seen as unlikely to be useful. This one has never been seen to be a problem with regard to soapbox issues, and 78 is well above the standard threshold of 60 for creation of a stub type. If some of the articles are not stubs, then feel free to remove the stub tag from those articles, as is standard practice. A quick scan of the category reveals this to be the case with only a small minority of the articles, however (of the 12 I checked at random, all were stubs). Grutness...wha? 23:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't wikiproject method of tracking (talk pages) be used. The intention of the stub template seems to be what wikiproject talk templates are doing. Wikiproject talk templates weren't available when this teimplate was WP:WSS/P approved. While I agree that this template is relatively problem free, the existence of it seems to be the rationale to keep or create problematic ethnicity stubs. -- Cat chi? 22:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, yes they were. WikiProject templates are fine when used by wikiprojects for keeping track of all relevant articles, but those articles that are still stubs are also marked with a stub template by WP:WSS/P. In this case, that is exactly what is happening here - these articles are stubs, and they are marked with an apporoved and effective stub template. Unlike most "ethnicity" stubs, no national template would do the job as well here. In any case, a wikiproject template would work fine if there were a wikiproject. There is no WP Roma. And even then, we'd still need some kind of stub template to mark any stub articles. So basically no, WP templates and stub templates perform different functions, and in this particular case a WP Talk page template wouldn't exist anyway. Grutness...wha? 22:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Romani people carry citizenship of the country they live in. They can be categorized as being from that country. There are many countryless nations. I do not really see a pressing reason for an exeption for this one. -- Cat chi? 14:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    ...and individual Romani people are generally categorised in that way. But what have Romani people got to do with it? This isn't a bio-stub - it's a general stub for culture, history and the like. Most ethnicities - whether of recognised nations or not - are primarily tied to a specific location, and as such it's easy for ethnicity-based stubs to be assigned according to current boundaries. You cannot do that simply with Roma, since the traditions and history are liberally distributed across a dozen or more countries. This makes it different from, say, a Tamil stub or a Han stub, where there are really only two or three countries primarily involved. Grutness...wha? 23:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Nothing wrong or problematic with this stub. It is perfectly useful for Romani articles. — EliasAlucard (HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!! · contribs) 09:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep same as above, the stub is for topics related to the Romani people. --07fan (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Grutness --Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Watch And the Violins stopped playing. Maybe you'll see why these people are in fact human beings who deserve to be treated as equals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tourskin (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Ethnicity-based stubs are indeed problematic, but due to historical circumstances Roma people are an exception. This is similar to e.g. {{Judaism-bio-stub}} - it is both ethnicity- and religion-based, but is nevertheless OK for obvious (and somewhat similar) reasons. GregorB (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just to be clear International Romani Union was a stub when the tag was added. Perhaps we should refrain from improving any of the other Romani stubs for fear of helping your argument? =) TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:18, 3 February 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.

January 4

edit

{{Iceland-eco-stub}} / Cat:Iceland economy 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 delete


Unproposed. Only one stub and little indication there'd be a viable number of stubs for this. Normally, that would mean an upmerge, but there's problems with the name of the template, too (is "eco" economy or ecology?). Rename template (don't keep current name as redirect), upmerge. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for creating this stub type without a proposal. On second thoughts, I agree that the name of the stub is ambiguous and probably unnecessary. Delete if you wish. Max Naylor (talk) 16:06, 5 January 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.

{{Mining stub}} / Cat:Mining 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 rename/upmerge


Unproposed, incorrectly named, and ambiguously scoped (the category claims its for mines and mining, and its suggests the emphasis is on the latter; the template claims that it's only for mines). Mines are normally given whatever the local geo-stub type is, though I can envisage a stub type for mining technology, albeit likely an upmerged one. Rename and rescope template (don't keep current non-standard name as a redirect), upmerge. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename & don't redirect - The stub is incorrectly named (should be {{Mining-stub}}, correct?), however DuncanHill has revamped the wording to make it more appropriate. I am sure the stub template will be used for both mines and mining, (i.e. Birchtree Mine will have both a {{Mining stub}} and {{Manitoba-geo-stub}} attached to it, although gettign rid of the later might be an idea too.)--Kelapstick (talk) 13:00, 5 February 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.

January 5

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 delete - all items using this template were afd'd


{{OTA-stub}}

edit

Unproposed, and fails requirements on a number of levels. First, take a look at OTA - what is this stub for? It could be any of them (or any of dozens of other things - here in Otago alone there are many associations with the abbreviation OTA, and the same will be true in Oregon, Ontario, Oklahoma...). Second, the category for the Orthodontics Technical Association (for that is what this stub is for) contains a mere 15 articles in total. there are unlikely to ever be enough stubs for this stub type to reach a viable threshold. It's also an unlikely subtype of Cat:Dentistry stubs - a stub cat which, with only some 220 stubs - will not need subdividing any time soon. Finally, just to top it off, the icon on the stub template is a copyrighted logo, and as such its use here is against Wikipedia policy. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 5 January 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.

January 6

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 Delete. Another month and a half and it had only gained two more articles, one of which wasn't a stub


{{Youngstown-stub}} / Cat:Youngstown, Ohio stubs

edit

Delete Listed at Discoveries since June. Only 3 stubs and at minimum needs a rename since Youngstown is a disambiguation page. It does have an associated Wikiproject, but 3 stubs in over 6 months is hardly evidence of a need. Given that we've been splitting up Ohio by county for the geo and school stubs, suggest that if this stub is kept it be renamed to {{MahoningOH-stub}} after the county Youngstown, Ohio is in. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Don't think we really need to consider splitting general stubs by county yet (given the size of Cat:Ohio stubs ot'll be quite a long while...), and three stubs ain't gonna cut it otherwise. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why do people think adding a category to a stub type up for deletion will help? If it survives, the cat will be added, and if it doesn't then it's extra work to delete it. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:44, 8 January 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.

January 7

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 delete. No longer used by either WPSS or the Sailor Moon project


{{Sailor-Moon-stub}}

edit

Noticed this one while seeing the latest additions to TfD (one of which is a related template). Seems to be completely unused, and misnamed (it's not a subtype of {{Moon-stub}}!). No opinion either way as to whether it should be renamed or outright deleted (it is connected with a WikiProject, though that doesn't seem to be using it), but one of the two needs to happen. If it can be shown to be useful and populated, rename to {{SailorMoon-stub}}, per WP:WSS/NG; if not delete it and its associated category (Cat:Sailor Moon stubs). Grutness...wha? 00:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as no longer needed. Someone upgraded all the remaining Sailor Moon stubs to start-class today, and we're unlikely to create anything new unless it's at least that big. If you keep these things for historical reasons, though, you should know this has seen a lot of use in the past. --Masamage ♫ 01:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not likely to see use unless another series (either manga or anime) is released and not in use now. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:10, 7 January 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.

{{Dprk-footy-bio-stub}}

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 rename to NorthKorea-footy-bio-stub and upmerge


Unproposed, and in serious need of work. Firstly, there's no such thing as a Dprk. There is a DPRK, mind you - it's known as North Korea, a term used as standard on stub templates. As such, if this is kept, then it should be renamed to {{NorthKorea-footy-bio-stub}}. If kept, this will also need a stub category - this one feeds directly into a little-used permcat (only eleven articles, which is pretty weird considering that NK has been a reasonably strong soccer nation over the years).

On many things relating to N&S Korea we use one stub type for both - and {{Korea-footy-bio-stub}} and its category are hardly overextended (150 or so stubs). Upmerging seems a sensible option Rename/upmerge (and don't keep this non-standard name as a redirect). Grutness...wha? 00:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, rename I created the template and yeah, it should be moved (I admit, not the best name choice). The problem is that all of the N. Korea footballers were put in the same category with South Korean footballers, which is definitely wrong, seeing as they play for two different states. The so-called permcat is not little-used, though. The problem is that information on North Korean football is very limited, putting it mildly, so I'll gladly believe that wikipedia has only 11 articles on North Korean footballers. Oh, and thanks for informing me of the nomination Grutness! BanRay 01:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and upmerge until reaching the usual 60, but considering the disparity in numbers here, it would be well worth creating a {{SouthKorea-footy-bio-stub}} and giving it a category as a way of separating the two Koreas. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/upmerge, or else delete, don't much care which. But strong remove permcat from the stub template, if it's kept in any form whatsoever. A SouthKorea- template sounds like a good idea, regardless of how the categories are lumped or split. Alai (talk) 03:27, 9 January 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.

January 9

edit

{{Philippine Movie Stub}} / Cat:Philippine Movie Stub

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 rename


Not proposed and, frankly, quite a mess. The template: uses the adjectival form; uses spaces rather than hyphens; capitalises all words; useds the term movie rather than film - all counter tol standard stub naming. The category: capitalises all words; uses the singular "stub"; uses the term movie rather than film; has no stubcat parents; has inappropriate permcat parents (one of which is a redlink). The stub type overall: is not assured of reaching the required threshold. The template should be either deleted orrenamed and upmerged - the current name should definitely not be kept as a redirect. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the most part, we're not splitting by country of origin, so delete. If there's a strong case to do so here, which I must say is not immediately clear to me, rename and upmerge. Alai (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename {{Philippines-film-stub}} and upmerge for now. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renameper above, there are enough in the category to justify its existence. Delete. Per Alai, who has brought to my attention policy which states that there should be a minimum of 60 articles in the category, this one only has 14. --Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 17:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename {{Philippines-film-stub}} per {{Japan-film-stub}}. Meets minimun of 60 artciles per CatScan. --bluemask (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Populated the category. As of 01/25/2008, there are 71 articles. --bluemask (talk) 08:03, 25 January 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.

{{UK-Olympic-medalist-stub}} -> {{GB-Olympic-medalist-stub}} & Cat:United Kingdom Olympic medalist stubs -> Cat:Great Britain Olympic medalist 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


The United Kingdom does not field a team nor compete at the Olympics, Great Britain does and we should reflect that properly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Partial support - if changed, GreatBritain-Olympic-Medalist-stub would be preferable for the template. Ideally, though, the template could remain at the current naming (or at the very least the current name should be left as a redirect). The category though probably should be changing. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alai raises some good points, though there are counterbalanced by the team name actually used. Changing to neutral (no !vote) Grutness...wha? 23:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose any rename of the template. The UK(oGB&NI) does field an Olympic team, with precisely that scope. (Well, given or take some NIers who can choose to represent either the UK, or the Republic.) What you mean is that it's called "Great Britain" for said purposes, obviously using the principle of maximum confusion. To quote the very first sentence of Great Britain at the Olympics: "Great Britain is the name used by the United Kingdom at the Olympic Games." Given that the scope is "the UK", it would cause untold confusion to have the "UK-" template not sort here, and indeed, further confusion if a "GB-" or "GreatBritain-", which is only used on a very few templates where the scope actually is Great Britain. The category name I'm easy either way with, given that the permcats have already moved to the "official" name. Alai (talk) 23:17, 10 January 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.

January 10

edit

Realigning Ohio subregion stub categories

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 done


We've split Cat:Ohio geography stubs and Cat:Ohio school stubs into subregions, but as a result we've got some undersized categories.

Southern Ohio, Southeastern Ohio, and part of East Central Ohio make up a larger region Appalachian Ohio, while the rest of East Central Ohio combined with Cleveland-Akron-Elyria make up Northeast Ohio, so I propose we do some realignment and consolidation of four existing categories into two categories. For those who are concerned about abandoning the use of a CSA for one of the subregions, I point out that we already are using Northwest Ohio instead of the Toledo-Fremont CSA Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be more specific about how you envision the realignment? I imagine that you plan on retaining counties as the building blocks for the categories, but what would the new structure look like? - Eureka Lott 16:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IIUC, he's proposing that we keep all the per-county templates, but retarget them, deleting above four categories, and consolidating the contents into Cat:Appalachian Ohio geography stubs and Cat:Northeast Ohio geography stubs. It sounds reasonable to me, so I'll support. Alai (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also consolidating the schools categories into Cat:Appalachian Ohio school stubs and Cat:Northeast Ohio School stubs. Specifically as for which counties of East Central Ohio go where, it would be:
  • Belmont, Carroll, Columbiana, Coshocton, Guernsey, Harrison, Holmes, Jefferson, Muskingum, and Tuscarawas to Appalachian Ohio
  • Mahoning, Stark, Trumbull, Wayne to Northeast Ohio
We'd also need to delete or upmerge {{GreaterClevelandOH-geo-stub}}, {{SouthernOH-geo-stub}}, {{SoutheasternOH-geo-stub‎}}, and {{EastCentralOH-geo-stub}} to the new categories. (The schools don't have regional templates.) Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the economic development and tourism organizations in Northeast Ohio sometimes consider it to be a 16 county region and sometimes a 13 county region. - Eureka Lott 01:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see going with the 13 county definition but not the 16 county definition. Columbiana County is part of the Youngstown-Warren-East Liverpool, OH-PA CSA along with Trumbull and Mahoning Counties so a case can be made for shifting it up to Northeast Ohio. Conversely Richland County is part of the Mansfield-Bucyrus, OH CSA along with Crawford County which isn't part of the 13 county definition. I'm also comfortable with my original proposal for only 12 counties in Northeast Ohio as Trumbull and Mahoning are part of the Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA MSA but Columbiana isn't as it's off by it's lonesome in the East Liverpool-Salem, OH μSA. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That accounts for all but Carroll County, which forms the Canton-Massillon MSA with Stark County. Should we be using a 14 county region? - Eureka Lott 03:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd favour sticking to proper supersets of the *SAs wherever possible, so I'd support that 14-county tweak if it's the most sensible such. Alai (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support for using 14. We might want to consider bumping Ashland County over from Northwest Ohio to Northeast Ohio as well (giving us 15 of the 16 counties in the 16 county region) since Northwest Ohio at present has the most counties (25) and it's debatable whether Ashland is Northwest or Northeast. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That could work, too. Ashland County is a micropolitan area, but not part of a larger metropolitan area. I don't know if most people consider it to be part of Northeast Ohio, but I know that I don't think of it as being in Northwest Ohio. - Eureka Lott 02:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 

[removing indent] When the state was split eleven months ago, we did it on the basis of official boundaries, which are linked on the category headers. Admittedly, Ashland County (and to an extent, Richland County) was a problem, as it didn't fit nicely anywhere. Frankly, the idea of naming the category after Appalachian Ohio is problematic in my mind, as that official designation covers most of the light blue region as well. Most of the counties in Appalachian Ohio are less developed than other counties statewide, and by removing Wayne, Stark, Mahoning, and Trumbull Counties we wouldn't have a very big region. What if we merge those counties with the current Cleveland region and merge the remainder with both Southern and Southeastern — the only counties with significant populations in both of those regions are Scioto, Lawrence, Athens, and Washington? This would result in a single category for all of Appalachian Ohio, minus the Cincinnati and Columbus counties, which undoubtedly would be properly named Appalachian Ohio. Nyttend (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much what was proposed in the first place. The only questions were whether any counties currently in East Central Ohio and that are in Appalachian Ohio would be placed in Northeast Ohio instead because of their membership in a CSA (as has already been done in the case of Appalachian Ohio counties in the Cincinnati and Columbus CSA's) and whether to tweak the boundary of Northwest Ohio to include in the new Northeast Ohio categories any counties that were placed in Northwest Ohio by default because they weren't part of the Cincinnati CSA. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"because they weren't part of the Cincinnati CSA" Do you mean the Cleveland CSA? Between the Cincinnati stub region and the Northwest stub region is the Dayton stub region. Nyttend (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Cleveland. I just confused my C's. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary so far - looks like the idea of a realignment by regions is acceptable - the big question is which counties should be in which divisions. Any chance on some more comments for possible consensus on this? And if so, is there any chance of spelling out which counties go where for those of us who want to close this but don't know anything about Ohio's geography? If there isn't a chance for consensus, is it perhaps simply worth upmerging these categories back into the parent Ohio geo and school cats?Grutness...wha? 23:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the realignment looks pretty set, but needs someone with mapmaking skills to illustrate it. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:34, 18 March 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.

January 14

edit

{{Sturgeon-stub}} / Cat:Sturgeon 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 rename and upmerge


Unproposed, misnamed, and unlikely to meet threshold. It is misnamed, since all other fish stub categories are named for the order or family, not for the common name. As such, if needed, this should have been at {{Acipenseridae-stub}} / Cat:Acipenseridae stubs. But it's really not needed - not as far as size is concerned, anyway. It contains 14 stubs, but the permcat (which is not linked - in fact, virtually none of the categories that should be linked are) and its subtypes contain only 30 articles, so there's no way it could reach threshold as things stand. And at some 600 stubs, Cat:Fish stubs only borderline as far as further splitting is concerned. A case could perhaps be made for a larger upmerged {{Acipenseriformes-stub}}, but even then, Cat:Acipenseriformes contains only 36 articles in total. So basically, not a useful split for the purposes of stub sorting. At the very least this would involve scrapping the category and starting from scratch with a new upmerged template, but deletion may well be the simpler option. BTW, I notice that Cat:Fish stubs has an incorrect parent (Cat:Fish articles by quality) which seems to indicate yet more confusion by a WikiProject as to the difference between stubs and Stub-Class articles... Grutness...wha? 12:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the sturgeon-stub culprit. I was completely unaware of the stub-proposing protocol, threshold issues, etc. I thought it might be a way to help highlight the fact that the sturgeons are very poorly covered, and dropped a note off to that effect on the Fish Project page. While I don't have very strong feelings either way, and obviously committed a neophyte mistake, I don't entirely understand why a stub-category with 30 stubs is "too small". It's quite convenient to a person who's working their way through the sturgeons to see on a single page which ones urgently require content, whereas they are lost in a sea (if you will) of fish-stubs. Perhaps I am somehow misunderstanding the purpose of categorization. Either way, it was a good exercise just to make a template. Besides, as the most proportionate and lovely of all possible fish, surely the sturgeon deserve special treatment ;). Best, Eliezg (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look at it from two points of view. There are currently some 700,000 stubs on Wikipedia (a conservative estimate). From the point of view of stub sorting, if there is no minimum limit on stub category size, then the current 3000 or so stub types would quickly balloon to a completely unmanageable number - far too many for stub sorting to be a task anyone could reasonably undertake. Look at it also from an editor's poit of view. Stub cateories are kept to sizes where an editors can find a moderate number of stubs on a specialist area - not so many that they are swamped with them, and not so few that they have to hunt through several categories to find any articles that they can edit easily. Over time, the size of 60-800 stubs has become regarded as an optimum for both these tasks. Easy mistake to make, though it is mentioned on quite a few Wikipedia pages (WP Fish really should have a note re stub template creation on its project page - a lot of wikiprojects do). Yeah, sturgeon's are lovely (though sadly I'm both allergic to and too poor to regularly taste their most famous product). Unfortunately, that's not enough in itself for a stub type, though :) Grutness...wha? 14:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are good points. No resistance from me if the category is deleted. I can go through and change all the sturgeon-stubs back to fish-stubs if you like. Best, Eliezg (talk) 20:10, 14 January 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.

January 15

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 delete


{{UK-suffragan bishop-stub}}

edit

Unproposed. Not convinced this is needed, but even if it is, a rename to standard stub naming conventions is needed - without keeping the current name as a redirect. At least it's upmerged. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doesn't seem a logical split to me, as against the existing subdivisions by geography and denomination. Delete. Alai (talk) 23:33, 21 January 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.

Category:Côte d'Ivoire biography 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 rename to Ivorian people stubs, per recent permcat changes


Moved from WP:CFD
Propose renaming Category:Côte d'Ivoire biography stubs to Category:Côte d'Ivoire people stubs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per parent cat and considerable precedent. This is the proper venue according to the stubs for deletion page, despite what the instructions here say. kingboyk (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misread WP:SFD, it seems. Mot that it would make too much difference in this case, except that here it's a speedy rename. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just noticed that this wouldn't be the correct name anyway - all othe people stub categories use the adjectival form, so it should be Cat:Ivorian people stubs. Grutness...wha? 07:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just following the category names already in existence when I created it, I.E. Cat:Côte d'Ivoire sportspeople instead of Cat:Ivorian sportspeople. We should rename all of these while we are at it.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That hierarchy seems to use the form Cat:Côte d'Ivoire people pretty consistently, so we can't really do that off the cuff. If we're not going to follow the permcats, it's over to CFR... Alai (talk) 16:50, 22 January 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.

January 17

edit

Cat:Côte d'Ivoire football biography 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 rename per permcat changes


If the bio cat below needs a rename so does this one to Cat:Ivorian football biography stubs. Waacstats (talk) 16:49, 17 January 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:Belarus history stubs → Cat:Belarusian history 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 rename


Unless there are connotations to the word "Belarusian" which makes it inappropriate, this category should follow the standard practice for hist-stubs and use the adjectival form of the country's name. Grutness...wha? 07:59, 17 January 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.

January 20

edit
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 rename and upmerge


Unproposed, unused, redlinked, and oddly named (is this because Arabic is written from right to left, perhaps?). Though I can see the logic of splitting Cat:Islam stubs by specific strain of Islam, it isn't necessary for some time yet (550 or so stubs, with considerable undersorting). Either outright delete or rename to a more standard {{Shia-stub}} and upmerge. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename and upmerge. Alai (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this were due to RTL issues, I'd expect that it whould have been named buts-aihS ;) Rename and upmerge Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:00, 24 January 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.

January 21

edit

{{MeherBaba-stub}} / Cat:Meher Baba 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 delete


Unproposed, and given that the parent category has just 64 articles (of which nearly half are for followers of meher baba, who would not normally get a religion-stub added), there is little chance of this reaching the required number of currently existing stubs. Currently used on three stubs, one of which is a bio-stub (though at least it is for someone more than tangentially connected with the topic). At best, an upmerge seems in order, though an outright deletion is not out of the question. Grutness...wha? 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; as we don't have any other stub types named after philosophers or deities, I would rather not set a precedent. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I'm the one who made it and I don't mind it being deleted. Apparently I did not read up enough on procedure concerning stub sorting and didn't know they need to be approved. I see it is a bad precedent. Please delete or let me know what to do for speedy delete. I removed the stub from all articles. Cott12 (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basically, by agreeing to the deletion you've already done what's necessary for it to be speediable. And thanks for re-editing the articles :) Grutness...wha? 22:33, 21 January 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.

{{Nightlife-stub}} / (redlink)

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 delete


Unproposed. One of the more vague and bewildering subjects for a stub type. In its defence, there is a Cat:Nightlife, though that seems to be equally vaguely defined, and every stub this could contain is already covered by other stub types (e.g., the stub type for music venues). Also no sign that it could reach the threshold level of 60 stubs. Currently used on one article. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 22 January 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.

{{Iranian-writer-stub}} / (redlink)

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 move to Iran-writer-stub and delete the resulting redirect


Unproposed, and contrary to standard stub naming. Also redlinked. Currently used on one article. Suggest renaming and upmerging, without keeping the current name as a redirect. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have just created this template, as I couldn't find any template similar to this. Also I'm going to mark other pages too. I'm gonna rename it to Iran-writer-stub. Also I'll fill the category page as well. Behnam (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, my work is done. Any suggestion now? Behnam (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the size of the category's now fine, as is the new name, and look useful enough to stay - but the old name redirect of {{Iranian-writer-stub}} should still be deleted. Grutness...wha? 00:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I'm not sure how to delete it. Would you delete it yourself please? Behnam (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, I just removed ((sfr-t|Iran-writer-stub)) from ((Iran-writer-stub)). Behnam (talk) 11:12, 26 January 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.

{{AquaticInvert-stub}} / (redlink)

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 relist as it has changed somewhat since first nominated, with a category added as well


Unproposed, unused, strangely named, and contrary to the stub hierarchy. There is no such thing as an "Aquatic Invert", and it sounds dubiously like turning water upside down. What there are are aquatic invertebrates (lower case, full word), and invertebrates, for stub purposes, are split by family and order, not by habitat. To compound matters, the redlink is to a nonexistent permcat. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 22 January 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.

January 22

edit

Cat:Uncategorized stubs from December 2007

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 delete


Speedy delete, as no longer needed. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, About as much use as a Bacon sub at a bar mitzvah now that it's empty. Conquistador2k6 01:44, 3 February 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.

Some Non NG Compliant athletics cats

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 rename


Created a while ago (3 by me) and I have only just noticed they do not comply to standard I propose the following are (speedy?) renamed.

Waacstats (talk) 13:53, 22 January 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.

January 24

edit

{{NorthAm-native-bio-stub}} / Cat:Indigenous peoples of North America biography 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


Unproposed, and used on just eight articles. As per longstanding precedent, Bio-stubs are deliberately not split by ethnicity. Nationality, yes; ethnicity, no. The category name is also extremely cumbersome. Delete. Grutness...wha? 09:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC) withdrawn - see below. Grutness...wha? 23:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as creator. It's a logical offshoot of {{NorthAm-native-stub}}, which has hundreds of articles; this subcat will consistently have more than 100 articles in it when populated. As a regular writer of Native American biography, I know this stub category fills an obvious need, and has been periodically suggested at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America, such as here. I also created {{NorthAm-native-stub}} two years ago — I didn't formally propose that one either, because after careful reading I was certain that Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting was too biased in favor of the modern state (called "nationality" above) to be of any use when categorizing stubs relating to Indigenous peoples, who historically may be "stateless" and for whom "ethnicity" is often equivalent to "nationality". Regrettably, this nomination suggests that this situation hasn't yet changed. —Kevin Myers 15:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are good, logical reasons for that "bias in favour of the modern state", as you put it. There is a bias, but it is a bias in favour of an acceptable number of stub types and organisation of stubs, not a bias against ethnicities. Given the huge number of ethnicities and nation-states there have been during the course of history, bio-stubs would very rapidly become impossible to organise effectively if these were all used for stub-sorting purposes. As such, an effective compromise position is to use modern national boundaries. That way, We have, for instance, France-bio-stub rather than French, Normand, Breizh, Euskra, Occitan, Lorraine, Aquitain, Corse, Elsezz, Savoie, Gallic, Angevin, Provencal, Burgundian, Frankish, Neustrian, Austrasian, Ostrogothic, Lombard, Soissonais, and Visigothic bio-stubs. And France is a relatively simple example - you should see what it would be like to split Russia up this way. Yes, the case is simpler still with North America, but it sets a precedent which could easily come back to bite us. Grutness...wha? 23:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it looks like the stub was proposed by User:Waacstats, and the result of the "debate" (such as it was) was "create". Great minds think alike! —Kevin Myers 17:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the not-so-official stub archivist, I let that one sit on the Proposals page until January 11, so there was plenty of time for debate. None forthcoming, I duly filed it. Hope no one objects. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm. Strange.OK - in that case, I'll withdraw my nom of it for deletion. It does go against accepted practice, though. Grutness...wha? 23:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Part of the reason for this one is that it is often difficult or a non-sequitor to assign a country to them if they lived in an area where future political boundaries were unknown when they lived, or if they regularly changed domicile from one side to the other of the then non-border. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:17, 25 January 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.

January 25

edit

{{Queen-stub}}

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 delete


Unproposed, links to the non-existent Cat:Stub, and ambiguously named (Queen is a pretty massive dab page). If this is for reigning female royals, it is already adequately covered by several different stub types. if, as I suspect, it's for the band, then almost everything is already cover by various song-stub, video-stub and musician-stub types. Generally, only musicians with pretty hefty WikiProjects consider having a stub type, and very few of them are viable stub types (at the moment, the Beatles is the only band with a stub template) - most WikiProjects understandably find the talk-page banner templates far more useful. In this case, there is a smallish WikiProject, and they already use an assessment template ({{WPQueen}}). There doesn't seem to be a need for to have as well. Delete would be the best option IMO - if not, some kind of template renaming and upmerging is needed. Grutness...wha? 23:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one article that uses this is a Freddy Mercury solo single so it was clearly intended for the band and isn't needed for the reasons Grutness gave. Transforming it into a synonym for royal-stub, pageant-bio-stub, LGBT-stub, or any of the other options doesn't make much sense either. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:11, 26 January 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.

January 28

edit

Cat:Drogheda Stub

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 delete


The user who created this did propose it at WP:WSS/P, where it was pointed rejected as a proposal, on the grounds that there were not enough stubs, that Irish stubs are split by county, not city, and that the proposed stub type would be mixing geo- struct- and other stubs. The creator of this, rather than accept that or go against the rejection and create a stub template (either upmerged or with a dedicated category) has simply made a misnamed category with no template, thereby making things trickier and messier for all concerned. Both her Pegship and I have suggested to the editor that a list on a user subpage would be a more practical and useful solution for all concerned. The category, though, should be deleted. Grutness...wha? 23:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be fair, I think the user's intent was to collect possible stub articles and not to thwart The Project...my sense is that he's not savvy about the categoryspace / userspace differentiation. I hope. Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I get the same feeling, which is why I said (rather clumsily, I'll admit) that it wasn't really a case of going against the rejection by defiantly creating a stub type. It would still make sense if this was deleted and turned into a user subpage, even if one or the other of us has to help set that sub-page up. Grutness...wha? 03:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not trying to make this a stub.Im just trying to put all the articles realting to drogheda in a category!--Markreidyhp (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A stub type is a template, a category, or a combination of the two. By creating Cat:Drogheda Stub, you have "made this a stub", whether it was your intention or not. Grutness...wha? 00:22, 31 January 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.

{{Srilanka-school-stub}}

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 move to SriLanka-school-stub


Unproposed and misnamed stub type. Upmerged, I'm glad to say, but should be at {{SriLanka-school-stub}}, unless Sri Lanka has decided to drop the upper case on its name. Rename (and don't keep the current name as a redirect). Grutness...wha? 23:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well! i wasn't aware of following this procedure of proposing the creation of a stub template and will surely follow these in future. Other thing which i must mention is about the {{Srilanka-stub}}. I think it is also misnamed. --SMS Talk 23:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mm - good point. It's a redirect rather than the main template, but it still doesn't fit with the naming conventions for stub templates. Grutness...wha? 02:52, 29 January 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.

January 29

edit

Cat:English football striker, pre 1960 birth 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 rename


Propose renaming to Cat:English football striker, pre-1960 birth stubs, to fall in line with Cat:English football defender, pre-1960 birth stubs and Cat:English football midfielder, pre-1960 birth stubs. robwingfield «T•C» 23:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • rename per nom and precedent. Grutness...wha? 02:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we could speedy this (and spelling, punctuation, caps, etc issues) as 'blitheringly obvious', perhaps on the "after two days if there's been no objections" model of CFR speedies, if you'd like some process with that. Alai (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've thought that for a while - things like this should be speediable here. Should it have a separate section, like at the top of CFD? Grutness...wha? 00:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure I'd bother; more bookkeeping, and doesn't seem to be required on volume grounds. "By acclaim" seems workable, though I'd certainly not be opposed to outlining what's "speediable in 48h" in the header. Alai (talk) 05:08, 31 January 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.

US-section-radio-station-stub (templates only)

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 delete


Since we have state level templates or categories for all states that feed into the regional categories, one would expect these would see little use and indeed, they are unused, and therefore apparently unneeded. We're not yet at the point where deleting the regional categories and letting the State categories feed into Cat:United States radio station stubs would be comfortable so I'm not suggesting that we get rid of the corresponding categories yet. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Outright deletionmay confuse anyone who has used them in the past - perhaps just redirecting them to US-radio-station-stub, might be a better scheme (we've done similar in the past with things like SouthAm-geo-stub). Grutness...wha? 02:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should strive for some consistency of expectation as to whether these somewhat artificial subregional categories have a canonical template or not. I'd tend towards the view that we should be encouraging population of them via templates that have a 'natural' reason for existing, other than lumping/splitting size consideration, unless this is going to cause a problem via long precedent, heavy usage, or problems with multi-stubbing. So, delete. Alai (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can I quote you on that when it comes to the practically-unused {{AfricaN-geo-stub}}, {{AfricaW-geo-stub}} and the like? :) Grutness...wha? 00:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In principle, yes. But the latter is used on several, and replacing them would seem to require significant multi-ing. I'd be rid of them if I could, though, since as often noted, the African regions have definitional issues, which become more acute with such templates than with the corresponding categories. There's also the "legacy" issues, to which the best remedy is, don't create them in the first place, rather than having making, using for a while, deprecating, and then deleting them. (This may require the creation of more upmerged templates in the first instance, however.) Alai (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd be willing to support deleting both AfricaX-geo-stub templates and their associated categories. All told there are only about 10 articles using the regional templates and about 150 articles using those plus upmerged country templates, so it would hardly be a burden to scrap the continental subregions here. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm waiting until the last few countries reach the magical 60 mark before nominating them - there are only about five that haven't yet, and if I get some time I'm going to be trying to increase Burundi's stub total soon. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be completely okay with deleting the templates but the regional categories are still useful. I'm working like crazy to create enough station articles to get as many US states their own stub category but it will be a while before that project will be completed. Even when I'm done there are some smaller US states and territories that won't hit the magic 60. (Rhode Island topped out at 36, Delaware at 28, etc.) - Dravecky (talk) 11:17, 31 January 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.

Three Caribbean redirects

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 delete


Managed to stumble on these while I was looking for any other uncapitalized Sri Lanka stub templates (of which there are none). Not used, though the names were proposed when per country Caribbean templates were proposed and rejected back in the days before we did upmerged templates as much as we now do. Even then tho it was pointed out the problems they have with the naming guidelines. Delete Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all of them per rejected proposal and NGs - especially the fairly horrible domrep-stub which, out of context, could mean just about anything. Grutness...wha? 02:57, 29 January 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.

Redirect {{Srilanka-stub}}

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 delete


As pointed out below, we have this redirect for {{SriLanka-stub}} that doesn't follow the naming guidelines. It was used on all of one stub article which I have already restubbed. Delete Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per precedent, especially given that it's so little used. Grutness...wha? 02:57, 29 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2008/January&oldid=199222864"