Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted/February 2006

< Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion‎ | Log‎ | Deleted

February 2nd

edit
edit

Discovered in November. Used on 25 articles. IMO, it makes more sense to split stadium stubs by location, not stadium use. Delete because of that and small size. Conscious 07:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Discovered in November. Used on 16 articles, 14 of which are about musicians and 1 about a band (and should thus go into other categories). Delete because a category with 1 article is too small (even 16, too). Conscious 07:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Hardly used. The thought of its existance encourages every Tom, Dick, and Harry to write a Wikipedia article about their podcast. If a short article doesn't fit into a better category than this, it probably needs to be deleted as podcruft and for lack of encyclopedic merit or merged if applicable. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:34, Feb. 2, 2006

edit

These two were discovered in November. They are used on 37 and 24 articles, respectively. I'm not quite sure if these templates and categories are in SFD scope, but they combine articles on specific topics on the basis of their completeness. I propose that we mark all stubs in these categories with (in)organic-compound-stub, mark all non-stubs with {{expand}} and then delete these templates/categories. Conscious 07:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 3rd

edit

{{Saudi-stub}} → {{SaudiArabia-stub}}

edit

Only a minor quibble here, but it may be worth changing. Saudi implies that it is about the royal family, rather than about the country. I've brought it here now because I'm going to be proposing a {{SaudiArabia-geo-stub}} in the next few days, and it's worth getting them consistent. Wouldn't object if Saudi-stub was kept as a redirect, but I don't think it should be the basic template name. Grutness...wha? 06:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 4th

edit
edit

Discovered in November, used on 4 articles. Too specific, delete. Conscious 10:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Discovered in November, used on 2 articles. Too few, delete. Conscious 10:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 7th

edit
edit

Recently created, used on one article (which is marginal for being a stub on length), proposed only after the fact. Delete this, as per previous similar meta-splits of {{stub}} such as "unsorted stub". Alai 22:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. if (as i think) its been made before and deleted then cant it be speedied? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think something tantamount to this was indeed deleted recently, but with a different name, and as far as I know, this was someone else's idea, so isn't a recreation as such. If decidedly close to such. Alai 23:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as I said on the Proposals page). --Valentinian 19:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 10th

edit

Move Category:Reptile and amphibian stubs to Category:Reptile stubs

edit

Following the creation of new stub categories, particularly Category:Amphibian stubs, this category is now restricted to reptiles, a fact which should be reflected in its title. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals#Split_of_.7B.7Breptile-stub.7D.7D for relevant background. Stemonitis 07:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

from Alais list. Had three stubs and even if we added all the ones in Grutnesses last tally thered be less than 15. in any case the parent category is called french guiana not guyane. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Waaay too small. Maybe this will be needed one day, but not for a long time, judging by the total of 11 stubs and the threshold of 65. {{SouthAm-geo-stub}} is perfectly adequate for now. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as chronically undersized. Alai 17:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a {{outre-mer-geo-stub}} → ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:French overseas department, territory and collectivity geography stubs along with the other French overseas parts. Since the overseas regions are not part of Metropolitan France I can see a reason for treating them differently, but together I think there will likely be enough to get close to and possibly over the 60 stub guideline. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excluding French Polynesia, which has its own category, there'd be about 40 tops. Grutness...wha? 03:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale behind me creating these French overseas department stubs was that every other French (metropolitan) department has its own stub. Eventually, I imagine that these stubs would have a reasonable number of articles to justify their existence. Kiwipete 09:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a number of those others should be brought here, too. The original proposal, as listed at WP:WSS/P, was to split off only those départements which reached threshold. The fact that a lot of others have been split off and are nowhere near the level for stub categories means that they should come here too. Detailed tallies are kept of the various countries, territories and départements around the world, and separate stub categories are split off for each one when it reaches 65 stubs. Réunion has four, which is completely useless for stub-sorting and editing purposes. The templates and categories can easily be re-created, iff they reach threshold. Grutness...wha? 09:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit

from Alais list. Had two stubs and even if we added all the ones in Grutnesses last tally thered be less than 15. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. As above. {{Caribbean-geo-stub}} is perfectly adequate for now. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as chronically undersized. Alai 17:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per reason under Guyane. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit

from Alais list. Had three stubs and even if we added all the ones in Grutnesses last tally thered be less than 5. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. As above. {{AfricaS-geo-stub}} is perfectly adequate for now. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as chronically undersized. Alai 17:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per reason under Guyane. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming corporation stubs to company stubs

edit

The vast majority of subcategories in Category:Companies use the wording "Foo companies". However, the top-level category for stubs about companies is Category:Corporation stubs, and the vast majority of its sub-categories use the wording "Foo corporation stubs". Their needs to be consistency in wording. As per types of companies, all corporations are companies, but not all companies are corporations. I am proposing that all stubs containing "corp" in their name and their parent-categories be renamed to use a wording based on the word "company", as it has a larger scope than "corporation". This proposal was offered at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals for discussion a week ago but received no responses. The following renamings are proposed:

Categories:

Templates: Please note that {{comp-stub}} currently exists as a redirect to {{compu-stub}}.

--Kurieeto 18:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All categories moved. All templates renamed and redirects kept. Redirects added to WP:WSS/R. --TheParanoidOne 12:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 11th

edit
edit

Not sure how this one escaped the "Great -Related Purge of 2005", but it did - rename'. Grutness...wha? 07:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 12th

edit

{{JNB-stub}} (redirect)

edit

We've been a lot more lenient on redirects lately, which is perhaps a good thing - as long as it's clear what the redirect is for by looking at it, that seens to be acceptable. But - wthout looking at this redirect (no peeking now!) how many of you can tell what it's for? Any ideas? It's for {{Johannesburg-stub}}. All of the articles that use it seem to be things which (if we had one) would be marked with johannesburg-geo-stub, anyway. Joburg I can accept as an abbreviation... but JNB? (BTW, it's the Joburg airport's three letter code, so it's like having YYZ-stub redirecting to Toronto-stub). Grutness...wha? 08:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete for the reasons above. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually JHB is a common abbreviation used for Johannesburg in South Africa, but both JNB and JHB are not well known outside South Africa. --Bruce1ee 05:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obscure abbrev (at least from non-.sa POV). Alai 17:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --TheParanoidOne 06:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Conscious 06:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 14th

edit

{{Caribbean-bcast-stub}}

edit

Used on only 5 articles (3 of which are lists), found potentially only 2 other articles for which this template could be used. No corresponding category. Articles should use {{Caribbean-stub}} and {{bcast-stub}} instead. DHowell 02:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 15th

edit
edit

Used on one article. Alai 07:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 16th

edit
edit

To properly earn its place in BJAODN, this should presumbly be deleted. Actually, my main complaint against it is it introduced a circularity into the categories (tad vexing when trying to construct transitive db queries, I'm here to tell you), which I've just removed. Alai 07:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will have been empty (other than the BJAODN) since the template was deleted - quite a while ago. So I've been bold, hence the redlink above :) Grutness...wha? 10:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, until very recently it contained itself, so it's not been empty for four days. I call out-of-process deletion, and rouge admin! (Actually I think this was already nominated last year, when the template was deleted, so this looks like a simple oversight.) Alai 05:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
whoops! Perhaps I should re-create it and populate it with some handy stub sorting-related article stubs. I'm sure I could make a few if you like... :) Grutness...wha? 09:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Created a while ago, but used on only 6 articles. Too specific a topic, delete. Conscious 08:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very much agreed, delete. Alai 08:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, promotes campus cruft. — Feb. 17, '06 [18:50] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Strong Keep; as a stub and part of internal Wiki-cleanup processes, there is no harm caused by categorizing university stubs on a per-university basis. Addtionally, this category does not promote campus cruft but was designed to reign it in. There were several UMCP-related articles that were dreadfully stubish and I wasn't qualifed to write on. So I created this to encourage activism on already existing articles. -James Howard (talk/web) 15:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 17th

edit

Redirect {{confectionary-stub}}

edit

Unused redirect to {{confection-stub}}. The other two redirects created by the same user can be justified as redirects from an alternate name, but we generally avoid supporting misspellings. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it's not a misspelling, but it is an adjective, which we frown on, so delete. Personally, I'd prefer the main stub to be {{confectionery-stub}}, but I'm happy with the one we've got. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit

from Alais list. Empty now (had one stub). template has a box, which i dont think is right for stub templates(?) and well enough coverd by road-stub anyway. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Used on one article. Seems to be two articles total on this publisher (hard to say, the "permanent parent" cat is a redlink). Company doesn't even seem to have published 60 titles, past or present, so probably unpopulatable, at least while the Greenland icecap's still with us. Lemmehearyasay delete. Alai 05:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


{{travel-stub}} (no category)

edit

Used on one article, redlink category. (Can we speedy as malformed?) Alai 19:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'fraid not... but the article was an org-stub anyway! Del. Grutness...wha? 23:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have I mentioned we need more speedy criteria? Or maybe I'm just chronically impatient... or vexed at people voting entirely contrary to the naming conventions and size considerations... Or both, that might be it. Alai 01:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit

These are for Historical European Martial Arts (not sure why that's capitalized). However, the template name atleast is incorrect. It either ought to be {{HEMA-stub}} or preferably some less-abbreviated form. The category also ought to be non-abbreviated However, it's possible this isn't large enough and should be deleted, as it's currently used on 19 articles, and there's less than 60 in both ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:HEMA and its other child. Mairi 06:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Personally, I'd say if anything needs changing, it's the parent category - over at CFD. Euro-martialart-stub would be a form more people could understand, I suspect, especially since all European martial arts are either historical or more well-known by names like boxing and wrestling. Grutness...wha? 09:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (eckythump!)[reply]
Comment This would appear to be deadlocked at 0 clear votes to delete, 0 to rename, and 0 to keep as is. Would relisting just be prolonging the agony of indecision? Alai 20:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go put ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:HEMA on WP:CFD; then we can deal with this stub after that's done... maybe someone will have an opinion then. Mairi 00:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
good idea. I suspect it will be renamed there, which should simplify the discussions here a bit. Grutness...wha? 08:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Category:HEMA renamed to Category:Historical european martial arts. Conscious 19:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • given that this category and its one subcategory between them only have 58 articles, I very much doubt there are 60 stubs that this template could use. My vote would be delete. Grutness...wha? 12:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about renaming/rescoping to {{fencing-stub}} or {{fencingbio-stub}}? Most articles are about medieval fencing masters. In addition, there are around 28 fencing-bio-stubs under {{sportbio-stub}}, according to User:Sjorford/Playpen. However, I'm not sure if combining old and modern fencers will serve any good purpose. Conscious 12:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with the category rename, and I won't care if the stub template is renamed; but I created the stub template to keep the HEMA templates I'm working with in one category, so I don't see why you should delete (as opposed to rename) the template. It's useful to me, if you don't need it, ignore it... dab (ᛏ) 16:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rescope, or failing which delete. Pretty small category even for a one-man wikiproject (with no wikiproject). dab, perhaps you could use a talk-page template for these, or indeed any other means of categorisation that descopes itself from the normal criteria for stub types? Alai 15:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisted. Please help reach a decision on this stub type. Conscious 06:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit

BL missed this one last week. Four stubs (now in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Caribbean geography stubs)which - together with the ones adequately categorised in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Caribbean geography stubs makes a total of nine in all. A chronically undersized category - delete. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oops yes. missed that one - delete. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit

This one's existed over a year and still has only a dozen stubs. No need for a separate category, although we may want to start thinking about splitting some of the larger sections out of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Russia geography stubs sometime. If we do, this won't be near the top of the list! Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Did I spell that right? This one's more borderline, and there's a little irony here. It has about 20 stubs, still far too few for currently being needed. Six countries are covered by ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Central Asia geography stubs, with this being the only subcategory. The main category is hardly overfull (about 190 stubs). The irony is that every single one of the other countries have more geo-stubs than Kyrgysztan (and Mongolia and Kazakhstan are getting fairly close to the threshold for splitting). I'd suggest we delete the category and redirect the template to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Central Asia geography stubs, on the likelihood that this may one day prove useful for splitting the stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

One article. Usual moans. Alai 05:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Category renamed to "Mexico television stubs" as part of a rescope. --TheParanoidOne 22:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 18th

edit
edit

An attempt (unproposed) to split geo-stubs by type - which has been rejected on other stub types in the past, and a fairly useless one, too. The category contained three "stubs" - one was far too big tio be considered such, one was about a military operation and the third was a perfectly acceptable Texas-geo-stub (which is how it is now marked). Would not be useful for either stub-sorting or editorsa looking for articles to improve. Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

While the parent, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:United States broadcasting stubs needs to be split, doing it two articles at a time is not a plan. Excessively narrow, delete. Alai 05:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Two articles, no vast size or obvious undersorting of parent. Alai 05:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete - might be useful to the Perth WikiProject, but if Australia-stub is small (which, surprises me a little), then it doesn't seem necessary. Grutness...wha? 06:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Depends what you mean by "small": it's <450 stubs, due to a fair number of existing (and mostly more sensible) subcats, so nowhere near needing urgent further splitting. Alai 15:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all tiny stub types. --TheParanoidOne 06:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Three articles. Unreasonably narrow category. Alai 05:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Been around for two months, and only three articles. Seems too narrow. Alai 15:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Talk about cutting across the hierarchy! This one contains five stubs - including a US-politician-stub, a US-gov-stub, a local organisation from Tacoma, a term used in espionage, and a Korean police force. Quite a bizarre mixture for quite a bizarre idea for a stub type. It is possible that some countries could use individual government agency stubs, but a cross-border haphazard agglomeration like this is going to be useful to no-one. Delete! Grutness...wha? 07:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 19th

edit

{{FamilyGuy-stub}}

edit

Delete. Not used and I don't see any particular potential either. Created in November 12 2005 so it's not just recently created pending populating either. Feeds into the exsisting Category:Television stubs so no asosiated cat. --Sherool (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems too narrow. Speedy delete as "empty of articles" (as if would be, if it even had a category). Alai 04:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 20th

edit
edit

Rename the category with a lower-case 's'. Per discussion at /Discoveries, it's a perfectly good stub, already populated, the only issue is the capitalization. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Ive listed this for renaming to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Articles with sections needing expansion at cfd, since its not really aything to do with stubs. please add your vote one way of the other there (or tell me i was wrong and it should have been here :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 12:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 21st

edit

{{Macedonian-bio-stub}}

edit

While it's doubtful whether we even need a separate category for the 19 Macedonian biography stubs, we definitely don't need this badly named duplicate of {{Macedonia-bio-stub}}. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is the original version. The other one is pretty new. However, this version is still prime delete material. ---Valentinian 20:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Rename the category to a lower-case 'g'. This was already mentioned when it was listed on /discoveries and could probably get speedied if that was ever done with stub categories. Also, the category is only used in 45 articles so someone might want to delete it. However, that's up from the 20 that it was on when at /discoveries, so it seems that there's potential for growth. (If someone wants to delete, remember to tag the stub template with {{sfd-t}}).- Bobet 13:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 22nd

edit
edit

Delete. Possibly a prank; only contains a link to a non-existent image. Did not seem to meet the definition of patent nonsense, else I'd have speedied it. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied as unused, nonsensical, misspelled, and malformed. Also against the naming conventions, though that doesn't bother anyone much these days... Alai 07:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 24th

edit
edit

Per CFD nomination here, rename category to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Rapid transit stubs and the template to... {{RapidTransit-stub}}? I don't like that, but will throw it out for consideration. It should be noted that the text itself was changed long ago. --CComMack 22:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 25th

edit
edit

Rename to concord with numerous permanents using this terminology, and the couple of other stub types. (It's also somewhat small, but I wouldn't object to giving it a while to grow before upmerging to the (also very new) people-parent: especially as the other parent is oversized.) Alai 18:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Rename. --Valentinian (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit

never proposed or debated. unneccessary since its already covered by other stubs which are too small to need splitting. deals with geo stubs, bio stubs, and other stubs all lumped together. very POV use (by only one editor) which is likely to cause all sorts of problems. btw this was origionaly at tfd - ive moved the debate so far here. delete. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from tfd:
  1. Template was created by Silversword 2005 (talk · contribs) who has only 80 edits.
  2. Kurdistan is a highly contraversial proposed nation with undefined bounries.
    • It is most certainly an attack magnet (something we do not want in stubs).
    • The usage of the kurdish flag also implies as if kurdistan is a country which is not the case.
    • I personaly do not mind a {{kurdish-stub}} (assuming its w/o the flag)
  3. The actual usage of the template is restricted to User:Muhamed whoes entier contribution is tagging articles with Category:Kurdistan, personal attacks and creation of copyvio stubs... User does not know english...
Cool CatTalk|@ 21:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also if you check "what links here" you will see very few articles are listed other generic stubs would be more approporate. There just arent enough articles to promote this kind of a stub.
  • Keep de jure sovereignty has never been a reason to keep or delete a stub. Kurdistan exists in relatively well defined borders within Iraq. They fly their own flag and have their own institutions. They have their own political parties. In fact, the governing body of Kurdistan within Iraq is called the Kurdistan Regional Government. It's notable enough to warrant its own stub, even if one stubborn user was using it. --BWD (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is redundent tho, practicaly useless, ones nationalist feelings created it. It was not created because we have too many articles related to kurds. anything related to kurds is tagged by this wich is useless. --Cool CatTalk|@ 22:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regardless of why it was created (I don't know why), there exists a Kurdistan. Some important stubs belong to that template. You could reclassify it to anything you want, but it would still be relevant to classify it under the Kurdistan stub. If something "useless" was tagged with this stub, then just remove the stub from the article. Deleting this is counter-productive. --BWD (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, to go down your list: 1) Many stubs are "attack magnets." The relevant standard to use is whether or not there is a factual basis for the stub. 2) A Kurdish flag exists because 6 provinces in Iraq are designated as the Kurdistan Regional Government. The flag that you see is their official flag. So your insistence to remove the flag is absurd. The flag is part of an an official political subdivision of Iraq. You might as well remove the Georia flag from the Georgian stub. It's a political subdivision of America. --BWD (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That isn't a valid analogy. it would be a valid analogy if the Georgian flag was banned in the United States, Georgia was a US state but also an unofficial territory which straddled the US/Mexican border which claimed further areas in the US, had no definitive borders in either country, and was pushing for independence and had laid claim to the territory of those two countries, despite efforts to stop this happening by the officially recognised governments of Mexico and the US. When stubs are subdivided within a country, we use official subnational borders. The article on Kurdistan says it all - "The exact borders of Kurdistan are hard to define." As such, it has no place as a separate stub type, especially since those legitimate stub types which it cts across (Turkey-stub, Iran-stub, Iraq-stub, and Syria-stub and their subtypes) are not overpopulated. As for "there are other attack-magnet stubs (presumably stub types - if there are, bring them here. WP:WSS goes out oif its way to make sure that there are no stub types which are open to attack from POV merchants, simply because any changes to templates cause a lot of work to the servers. That is one of the reasons why new stub types should be debated prior to creation - to make sure that doesn't happen. This one wasn't. Delete. Grutness...wha? 05:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The flag of the Kurdistan Regional Government is not currently banned; it was under Saddam. Further, the Kurdistan Regional Government has formed borders as per the processes outlined in the Iraq Constitution. It constitutes 6 provinces within Iraq.[1] I suggest you read Kurdistan Regional Government for more information about it. The Iraqi Constitution grants 'groups' the right to form 'regions' within Iraq, and the Kurds and done just that. So using this stub, with this flag, is perfectly within Wikipedia policy for subnational governments.
      • The Kurdistan article is talking about some pan-Kurdish 'nation'. I'm referring specifically to an established government within Iraq called Kurdistan, short for Kurdistan Regional Government. That seems to be the fundamental misunderstanding here.
      • Further, this debate seems to have been co-opted by nationalist ideologues, specifically on IRC. I'm about as NPOV as one can get. I'm neither Turkish nor Kurdish. I've visited neither one of them. Ethnically, I'm neither. And I've never been interested in them until this deletion request. But the fact is, Kurdistan exists as a sub-national government within Iraq. There is nothing POV about that, with the exception that some people in bordering countries have a fundamental problem with that specific ethnic group forming any type of government. That in itself is POV, not this stub. I'm not going to let this stub get bulldozed just because there is controversy over a pan-Kurdish government. That would be damaging to Wikipedia. --BWD (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • well that's all well and good - but has absolutely no bearing on this stub type. If this was ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Kurdistan Regional Government stubs, then you';d have a point. But it isn't - as can clearly be shown by the number of stubs relating to Iran and Turkey in the category. If it was to be kept, then it should be made clear that it is only for part of Iraq - but that isn't the common definition of Kurdistan, which extends well beyond the area which the Iraqi Government has set up. Similarly the flag, which is the official flag of the KRG, is also the unofficial flag of Kurds in many other places. As to whether such a stub type is even needed, given that there are fewer than 120 stubs in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Iraq stubs, the answer is a clear no. As to whether you are an NPOV editor, that is entirely irrelevant. The question is "are the editors who use this template all going to be NPOV" - and the answer again is no. In fact, the main user of this template seems to have a fairly clear POV agenda. It is vitally important that stub templates cannot be hijacked by POV-pushers and be the target of edit wars, since edits to templates cause fairly sizeable server problems. This isn't a case of bulldozing a stub type becuase there is controversy over the government. It's a case of removing an unnecessary stub type that is likely to cause edit-wars, has little use for editors, is already well covered by other stub types, is significantly underutilised, and is too vague in its definitions. I say again - this should be deleted. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong Delete. "Kurdistan" is NOT a country , I don't see a need for this as it's being used by Kurdish nationalists to promote their political agenda. --ManiF 11:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    • My suggestion is to use it for all of Kurdistan related aricles. There are many Kurdistan related stubs.Diyako Talk + 04:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In which case it most definitely should not be used. Firstly that would cut across several accepted countries, all of which have their own stubs, and secondly it goes against the NPOV nature of Wikipedia to use it in that way. Stub splits - other than history-related ones - always use current internationally accepted political boundaries. Grutness...wha? 13:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Texan flag is used by many Texans too, but that doesn't mean that there should be a Texan stub on wikipedia with a Texan flag on it. Kurdistan stub, and especially the "Kurdistan Flag", does not correspond with NPOV on Wikipedia. --ManiF 10:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Jhangochi-Culture-stub}}

edit

what is this and is it speedyable as nonsense? it isnt anything that should be called a stub template! BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge history to Jhangochi, then it's speediable. Looks like a namespace error, and confusion between "stub type" and "stub article". Alai 22:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 26th

edit

{{India-website-stub}} / India website stubs

edit

Created on December 22nd 2005 and used on only 2 articles. Website stubs is at ~650 stubs so probably needs splitting. This doesn't seem the way to go though. --TheParanoidOne 22:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Seemingly kept from previous nom (or perhaps, no consensus, and/or no clarity...), but cat is still tagged as a SFD. Similar "sorted section stub" cases have indicated a firmer feeling more recently to delete, or to rename to something outwith the stub hierarchy and naming pattern. Alai 04:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{UPN-stub}} / UPN stubs

edit

Created in January 2006 and used on only 1 article. --TheParanoidOne 21:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Comp-phylo-stub}} / Computational phylogenetics stubs

edit

Created on 7th Feb. Used on 5 articles at the moment. Seems far too narrow a scope. Category:Biology stubs is at just over 400 stubs so wouldn't be overburdened by pushing these into it. In an amusing bit of self reference, the Computational phylogenetics article is itself a stub and marked as a {{Comp-phylo-stub}}. --TheParanoidOne 21:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Computational phylogenetics is an interdisciplinary program that includes biology, computer science and mathematics, so merging into Category:Biology stubs would move math and CS articles into a biology category. Could consider renaming it Category:Phylogenetics stubs, but again, that would involve moving math and CS articles firmly within the realm of biology. --Wzhao553 22:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-discipline areas are not a problem. A stub can have more than one stub type applied to it. Biology was just one example. --TheParanoidOne 22:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I still think it's notable enough to be kept, and I have plenty of articles in mind that need to be at least in stub form. But I'm obviously also biased toward my own field. --Wzhao553 22:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rescope to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Bioinformatics stubs or thereabouts, if that's at least marginally viable (renaming and upmerging accordingly). Alai 22:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I like that idea better. --Wzhao553 22:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any stubs to populate that? Would it be enough to make it viable? --TheParanoidOne 19:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any sort of count of the stubs, but the corresponding permanent category (and hierarchy) is about an order of magnitude larger than that of the current scope (getting on for 200 articles), so it's at least more plausible. Alai 20:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I'd be up for a rescope as per your suggestion. --TheParanoidOne 23:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: Rescoped to {{bioinformatics-stub}} and Category:Bioinformatics stubs. --TheParanoidOne 14:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{tox-stub}} / Toxicology stubs

edit

Created on December 10th 2005 and used on only 3 articles. Parent stub category Medicine stubs is at 12 pages so it's possible that this one might be worthwhile. My suggestion is delete unless populated by the requisite stub category threshold. --TheParanoidOne 22:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Telemundo-stub}} / Telemundo stubs

edit

Created on January 9th 2006 and used on only 2 articles. --TheParanoidOne 22:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 27th

edit
edit

No associated template. Created in April 2005 by an anon. Used on three stubs. --TheParanoidOne 21:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Used on three articles; scope is not defined at all, seems to be used on military history articles, but with a tag this open-ended, could end up over any number of politics articles, and what-not, which I double is desirable. Alai 05:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cuts through too many existing categories, and exactly what the "cold war" covers is perhaps a little too vague. delete unless properly and rigorously defined. Grutness...wha? 06:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with the same reservation as Grutness). --Valentinian (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Used on seven articles, all political biographies. Large, if not total, overlap with ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:American Civil War stubs and existing politicos categories. Alai 05:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The country lasted what...five years? Major overlap with the civil war stubs and individual state politicians stubs, as Alai points out. Unnecessary - delete. Grutness...wha? 06:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Valentinian (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Rockabilly-stub}} / Rockabilly stubs

edit

Created in December 2005. Used on four stubs, all of which should have some form of {{musician-stub}} applied. --TheParanoidOne 21:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 28th

edit

{{Spec-fict-novel-stub}} / Speculative fiction novel stubs

edit

Both created on 26th January and only used on 4 stubs. The parent stub category Novel stubs is at ~550 stubs and should probably be split in a better way than this. --TheParanoidOne 22:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and what's more, "speculative fiction" is simply a name used for science fiction by people who don't want to admit liking science fiction. This was never properly proposed (see BL's comments on the other split further down this page), and is a very poor way of doing this split. 550 stubs isn't really enough to be urgently in need of a split anyway. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... Or in at least one notorious case, to people not wanting to admit to writing science fiction. Alai 19:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's quite a few more of these on my list... If you can see past all the undersized school stub cats, that is. (I'm holding off on updating until we make some progress on those -- or else, resign ourselves to giving up for the time being.) Alai 00:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Enough has been said. Delete. --Valentinian (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - And the better way to split Novel stubs is, at least we at wikipedia:WikiProject Novels are attempting to do some work on this. This is work in progress and about to get some more attention. Is is also distracting to keep having to defend these stubs. Speculative fiction is more than just Science Fiction. It is also an over riding category that encompases SF, Fantasy and Alternative History. I use this term AND I like SF, and widely admit it. By the way the source for CAtegory sortting is not going to be just Novel-stubs but also [[Book stubs as that is substantially unsorted as well. (Just to be upfront - I was the stub creator. And asked for help with this process on the proposal page). :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 07:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh by the way removing the stub from an article before the count might be seen as "not cricket". Admittedly not affecting the low count at this point greatly.:: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 07:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to have to keep defending them, propose them in the correct place, please. Then you'll get reasoned feedback about names (which should be the common ones), scope (which should be clearly defined), and numerical viability (which should be 60 or upwards, and not inordinately large), in advance -- and probably a deal of help in doing the actual sorting. (Imagine, the stub sorting project asking to be kept in the loop on sorting stubs -- oh, the humanity!) Alai 19:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Speculative fiction is a definite major category of fiction, refering to novels about things that MAY or MAY HAVE happen(ed), as opposed to High fantasy or nonsensical or "goofy" fantasy novels; in other words they are "what if" novels. novels in this category would include 1984, A Clockwork Orange, Frankenstein, etc. some of these novels may be pretty "out there", and others may be much more realistic. I think the major problem here is that people are labeling them otherwise. Gizzakk 01:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on size, and on poorly defined scope. Contrary to the above assertions, the "catch-all" usage is not the general meaning of this term, and is specifically not how its originators used it. See the main article in the term. And even if it were, it just adds more hierarchy, not more useful sorting capability. (I'd question the point of the permanent category on the same grounds, but that's another day's work.) Alai 16:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/February_2006&oldid=1146025544"