Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/May

< Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion‎ | Log

May 31

edit

{{Yanni-album-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 discussion was Speedy deleted under CSD G7. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unproposed, fairly obviously... we have never had any album by artist stub types, for the simple reason that none of them have ever been necessary or worthwhile - the number of artists with 60 or more albums is so small that it is far better to split by other methods. And certainly, if we were to split in this way there are many more likely artists to start with than Yanni. The parent category of Category:New Age album stubs is hardly overstretched at 70 albums, so there's no need to split there, either - and if we were to, we'd almost certainly follow the same forms of split as with other genres, not by atist. Grutness...wha? 02:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have blanked the page and nominated it for speedy deletion criteria G7 in good faith. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 02:13, 31 May 2011 (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.




May 24

edit

Category:Audio technology stubs/Template:Audio-tech-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 discussion was rename, keep current template name as redirect

rename to Category:Sound technology stubs/{{sound-tech-stub}}, per permcat Category:Sound technology. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rename per parent. Waacstats (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2011 (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.

May 23

edit

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

edit

Delete. Don't really need to say that this was unproposed, since it's of a type that's always rejected if it is proposed. As with the unproposed, long-deleted, town-stub, we do not divide geo-stubs by type of feature, for the very practical reason that editors are far more likely to search for regions they know of rather than seek out villages worldwide as potential articles to edit. What's more, such a high proportion of geo-stubs are about villages that any village-stub would be worthless, and any division by type of feature would lead to various "everything else" stub types, something which dividing by geographic region does not do. The only article which this was used on was far more acceptably stubbed with a {{PunjabIN-geo-stub}}, BTW. Grutness...wha? 06:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete. haven't we deleted this before? Waacstats (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, otherwise I'd have speedied it - but Town-stub has come and gone a couple of times. Grutness...wha? 01:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would have been it then. Waacstats (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{Las Vegas-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 discussion was delete

Delete, or at the very least rename. Unproposed template which defies WSS naming conventions. At the very least it needs renaming to {{LasVegas-stub}}. However, it seems likely that this isn't needed as a separate stub type, at least not as far as WSS is concerned. As far as WPLV is concerned, a talk page template would do everything this could and more (which is why WP:STUB suggests that a talk page banner is more useful for wikiprojects. The other problem is that this is likely to be used for articles about places in Las Vegas which should get a geo-stub rather than a general stub. Grutness...wha? 07:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This issue should not be resolved until naming conventions for Las Vegas are decided upon. 08OceanBeachS.D. 11:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it contravenes stub naming conventions are enough. Every other city in the world which has a stub type works in the same way. Even if the naming of articles and categories for Las Vegas should require one specific name which is still under debate, that bears no connection with how a stub template should be named. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Currently used on only one article so delete. Waacstats (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2011 (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.

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

edit

Delete. Similar top the above, with the added problem that Algeria is divided by stub sorting into its subnational administrative regions (provinces), which makes for easier stubsorting that splitting by individial cities (this is why we don't have an Algiers-stub). The creator of this stub type has clearly noticed that, since he also created a completely unnecessary Category:Algeria subdivision stubs, which should also be deleted. Grutness...wha? 07:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as against normal split. Waacstats (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]



May 17

edit

Premature Swiss geography cantons

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 discussion was upmerge with no prejudice against recreation if and when they reached 60 stubs.

Propose upmerge. The following categories need more incubation before recreation. I have no prejudice against recreating the categories in the future, if they reach maturity:

Dawynn (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge unless they grow in the men time. Waacstats (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2011 (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:Aircraft engine terminology stubs / {{aeroengine-term-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 discussion was upmerge with no prejudice against recreation if and when it reached 60 stubs.

Propose delete, migrate all articles to Category:Aircraft engine stubs. The terminology category only has 7 articles, and no permcat of its own. Moving the articles will help to fill out the undersized parent category. Dawynn (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a long time ago but I believe this stub category was created to distinguish between stub articles of aircraft engine types and aircraft engine terminology. It has a parent category and I wouldn't agree that it is under-populated, it's conceivable that at times both categories could be empty (I have seen a banner asking for temporarily empty categories not to be deleted). It's a useful project maintenance category, I wouldn't have created it otherwise. It forms part of the tagging and categorisation process at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Categories. Thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please help us understand, why would it be important to differentiate between types and terminology in the stubs, but not important in the permanent categories? One of my main reasons for this proposal was because there is not a Category:Aircraft engine terminology. With a permanent category, I would agree that at least the template should be kept. Keeping the template would allow for the distinction between the two areas, including differing text placed on each stub article. Dawynn (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, if an editor happens to have a good source on engine terminology ('The jet engine' book by Rolls-Royce) for instance then using this one source they may well be able to improve all the engine terminology stubs to start class or above, without the category there is no other easy way to find the terminology stub articles amongst the 230 aero engine article stubs. If the answer to the problem is to create a category then I can very easily do that. Further, a category missing that I intended to create (after discussion at WT:AETF) is Category:Aircraft engine components which would also involve a stub tag and category, its equivalent for aircraft is Category:Aircraft components which is driven by Template:Component-aircraft-stub. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. Almost proposed this one myself recently. It's seriously undersized and has no equivalent permcat. Nothing will be lost by upmerging these articles into the Aircraft engine stub cat, since it will very likely be the same group of editors working on both types of article. Similar situations of mixing actual objects and terminology exist in numerous other stub types, and if we keep the separate template a new category can always be proposed later if the number of terminology stubs grows to the threshold 60 stubs and if a permcat is also deemed appropriate. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge and Delete per nominator. I wonder why we have to have a cat for aircraft engine term stubs. WikiCopter 03:50, 31 May 2011 (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.


May 14

edit

{{Disused-railstation-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 discussion was delete

Unproposed, misnamed, and counter to normal stub-splitting. Railway stations are split by location, not by their current status. What's more there's no permcat for Category:Disused railway stations - mind you, the permcats are a mess as far as that is concerned, with a permcat of Category:Defunct railway stations and a key article of Abandoned railway station. If any individual low-level administrative region had more than a couple of hundred railway station stubs, then a separate category for that region might be useful, but there's little use for a template for defunct/disused/abandoned stations worldwide like this. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as i can't see any one anting to know solely about disused stations regardless of where they are in the world. Waacstats (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2011 (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.

{{Bangladesh-research-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 discussion was rename, delete current name

Unproposed, and fails the "what it says on the can" test. This isn't for research, it's for research centres, which, like all tertiary educational institutes, would be covered by a {{Bangladesh-university-stub}} - something which does not yet exist but which looks like it might be worthwhile. Propose renaming this to the mentioned name and deleting the current name. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match every other country that has a template to match this. Waacstats (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2011 (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.

May 13

edit

Inconsistency in naming of railway station templates

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 discussion was Rename all; retain redirects. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename. We have inconsistently named the various railway station templates. Some are called 'foo-rail-station-stub', while others are 'foo-railstation-stub'. Propose the following to correct this inconsistency:

rail-station to railstation.

Another option would be renaming all the railstation to rail-station, but that would involve the US, and UK, and all of their subtemplates. The change outlined above involves far fewer updates. Dawynn (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but I'd definitely advise keeping the current names as redirects. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 14 May 2011 (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.

May 12

edit

Category:Sri Lankan football biography stubs / {{Sri Lanka-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 discussion was Delete template, replacing all existing uses with {{SriLanka-footy-bio-stub}}; Upmerge category as underpopulated - if you think that any of these have 60 stubs, feel free to make sure all the relevant stubs are tagged appropriately, and then list them at the proposal page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting swiftly. Template is malformed and unnecessary, considering we already have {{SriLanka-footy-bio-stub}}. The existing, properly-formed template is only tagging 11 articles. Delete category as premature and nowhere near filled. Dawynn (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete template without leaving redirect; delete category with no prejudice to if/when it reaches threshold. SeveroTC 12:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 13 May 2011 (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.

May 10

edit

Premature Category:Pakistani people stubs splits

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 discussion was Upmerge all as prematurely created; if you think that any of these have 60 stubs, feel free to make sure all the relevant stubs are tagged appropriately, and then list them at the proposal page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose the following categories be deleted, with all templates retained and appropriately upmerged:

No prejudice against category recreation if the article count can be raised to the usual standard (60). Dawynn (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2011 (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.

May 8

edit

English regional building and structure 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 discussion was delete

Category:North East England building and structure stubs, Category:North West England building and structure stubs, and Category:South West England building and structure stubs are now parent only, with all counties in these regions having their own categories. There are no equivalent permcats for these regional categories, and all they're now doing is adding an extra, unnecessary layer to the stub tree. I suggest these are deleted, and the same with any others once they reach the same stage of only containing subcategories. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 8 May 2011 (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:WikiProject Canadian music 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 discussion was delete

Incorrectly suggests that stub categories are subcategories of specific subject WikiProjects (they're not, though understandably specific WikiProjects do have strong connections with them). As such this should be renamed to Category:Canadian music stubs, with the templates mentioned in the header but otherwise unlinked upmerged to it. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 8 May 2011 (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:Fraternal and service organizations 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 discussion was delete

We don't really need a parent-only category with just one subcategory. Delete this extra layer and add Category:Freemasonry stubs directly to the parent. We can always re-create it if necessary if more potential subtypes appear.Grutness...wha? 01:08, 8 May 2011 (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:South American rugby union 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 discussion was delete

Ditto. We don't really need a parent-only category with just one subcategory. Delete this extra layer and add Category:Argentine rugby union biography stubs directly to the parent. We can always re-create it if necessary if more potential subtypes appear.Grutness...wha? 01:08, 8 May 2011 (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:Rocket and spacecraft 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 discussion was delete joint category, rename rocket stubs to rocketry stubs

Unnecessary parent-only category, a hang-over from the days when we grouped these two subjects together with one stub type. No longer needed - delete. And while we're on the subject, Category:Rocket stubs should probably be renamed Category:Rocketry stubs, to match the permcat parent Category:Rocketry. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion. I had looked at this one a few times, but decided to leave it after reviewing the previous discussion. That indicated a decision to leave the matter as is because of inter-wiki connections. I'm not against a delete, though. Dawynn (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair reason, but perhaps not a strong enough one to keep it - it's likely the Russian stub cat is appropriately linkable to one or the other of the subcats. The renaming of Rocket stubs is probably a good move regardless. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WikiCopter 04:00, 31 May 2011 (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.


May 4

edit

{{Sentosa-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 discussion was delete

Unproposed, somewhat kludged-together template for one resort in Singapore. I say "kludged-together" because it claims to be a subtype of Singapore geographystubs, yet is not a geo-stub, and the majority of the small handful of articles it is used on are rail station stubs. Category:Sentosa contains fewer that 40 articles, so the usefulness of having a separate stub type is dubious, to say the least. In any case, standard practice if we were thinking of splitting Category:Singapore geography stubs (which, at fewer than 250 stubs, is not yet a concern), we'd do it by the main subnational divisions, i.e., the five regions - not by simply splitting off individual resorts. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:21, 4 May 2011 (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.


May 1

edit

{{Euro-basketball-player-stub}}/Category:Europe basketball player 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 discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A handful of new unproposed and seemingly unnecessary stub types... starting with this one which is redundant to the long-standing {{Europe-basketball-bio-stub}} and Category:European basketball biography stubs, as well as not following the normal naming patterns. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support delete. Although the 'bio-stub' templates can be used on managers, referees, etc, the overwhelming majority of articles tagged are players. Delete as redundant. Dawynn (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2011 (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.

{{Tijuana-stub}} / Category:Tijuana 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 discussion was delete

Plausibly useful, but at the moment every article using it should be marked as a geo-stub, not as a general stub, and Mexicoan geo-stubs are divided by state, not city. All these articles should be marked with BajaCalifornia-geo-stub. No indication from Category:Mexico stubs or Category:Tijuana that this stub type is particularly useful at present (it would need 2/3 of the total articles in the permcat parent to be stubs for this to get close to threshold). Either delete (first option) or upmerge if it seems useful. At the very least, some tidying is definitely required, especially of the category. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 1 May 2011 (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.

{{Bengali-Hindu-stub}} / Category:Bengali Hindu 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 discussion was relisted on 23 June 2011 to gain consensus

Seems an unnecessary split, and counter to the way Hinduism stubs is currently being split. Another deletion candidate unless any justification can be shown as to why this is a reasonable split, unlikely given that there's no equivalent permcat. At the very least, some tidying is definitely required, especially of the category. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be at all unnecessary. Hindu is not just about adhering to Hinduism. There is a social, cultural and ethnic element to it. The Bengali Hindu people have unique things about them - no less than 36 castes, innumerable sects and historic events, which are not shared by other Hindus. The same is true for other Hindu ethno-linguistic groups - the Punjabi Hindus, the Tamil Hindus and so on. In my view, they need similar sub-grouping. BengaliHindu (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It still seems an unusual split, given the usual way that religious, social and ethnic stubs in general are split. Consider the other sub-categories of Hinduism stubs relate directly to philosophy, mythology, theology, biography, and holy places. More importantly, as a topic area it does not have a permanent category, something which should always come before a stub split, and certainly there's no indication that there are enough stubs to meet the requirement for a separate stub category. Grutness...wha? 23:32, 4 May 2011 (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:Pakistani scientist 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 discussion was Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only six stubs, and no sign that it will meet threshold in the near future. Unproposed. Upmerge template into Category:Asian scientist stubs and Category:Pakistani people stubs, unless it can get to threshold before this discussion finishes. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support upmerge. My efforts to fill the category still fell short of 30 articles. Dawynn (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category already has a few articles and can well be populated in the future, considering the size of Category:Pakistani scientists. Mar4d (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is another example of "We may have enough articles in the future". Invalid argument. Do we have enough (60+) stub articles now? If not, keep template, delete category, with no prejudice against recreating the category once we have enough articles.
Feel free to tag appropriate stub articles on your own, if you think there are enough articles to justify the category now. Dawynn (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2011 (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/2011/May&oldid=426976465"