Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion‎ | Log‎ | Deleted

January 1st

edit

Rename {{fest-stub}} to {{festival-stub}}

edit

I really don't see any reason here for an abbreviation and at the very least {{festival-stub}} should be a redirect. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Not satisfied with creating 12 geo-stub categories for US states (all of which were only previously not cvreated due to the tiny number of stubs they would have), User:Geoset has now started on generic state-stubs with Idaho-stub and Maine-stub. Both have badly formed categories, neither is used, there are no accompanying WikiProjects, and there's no evidence that either would get anywhere near 60 stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: "Idaho-stub", "Idaho stubs" and "Virginia-stub" delete. "Maine-stub" and "Main stubs" populated and kept. --TheParanoidOne 16:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Nicely populated (67 stubs). I suggest rescoping it to cover all Canadian football topics and renaming to {{Canadianfootball-stub}} (or {{CaFootball-stub}}) and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Canadian football stubs as per Grutness's proposal on the Discoveries page, and deleting {{cfl-stub}} after that (see CFL). Conscious 11:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 2nd

edit
edit

New wikiproject, new problem. very badly named stub never likley to get to 65 stubs. catagory is well formed (now) but template needs at least a rename if not getting rid of. BL kiss the lizard 00:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

To {{textile-stub}} and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Textile stubs. Also, any ideas what stub category should be its parent? Conscious 09:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

souds like a reasonable rename. As to parentage, there was a proposal recently for ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Craft stubs, there's also ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Industry stubs, or maybe even ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Fashion stubs. All of them are possible. Grutness...wha? 22:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both as proposed. I'd say it should use ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Materials stubs (perhaps that should be singular too) and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Fashion stubs, since ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Textiles has ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Materials and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Fashion as parents. --Mairi 03:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten Materials stubs - yes that's a good choice as parent. Grutness...wha? 04:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename ya it is reasonable. and i think the parent should be ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Materials stubs Taqi Haider...Talk (voting on this item already closed)

January 3rd

edit

{{Xenostub}}

edit

For xenogears or xenosaga; lacks a category and used twice. However, there are less than 35 articles between Category:Xenosaga and Category:Xenogears, so it's unlikely to get enough use. Delete. Otherwise, it needs renaming as the current name is quite ambiguous. --Mairi 23:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Real estate-stub}}

edit

Unnecessary, unused redirect to {{Realestate-stub}} (which probably needs renaming to {{RealEstate-stub}}, btw). {{Real estate-stub}} is too ambiguous, as it could just as well be about non-fictional estates. Unlikely perhaps, but it can't be excluded, and we need to prevent such confusions. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 21:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Anti-Pope-stub}}

edit

Currently used on 16 articles, has a redlink category. However, antipope lists only 56 antipopes, including 20th/21st century ones; of which 4 do not have articles and some are not stubs. So it is extremely unlikely that this would reach 60 stubs. Delete. Even if kept, it ought to be renamed to {{antipope-stub}}. --Mairi 04:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. If necessary we can always re-scope pope-stub to say that it can be used for popes as well. Failing that, there's always christianity-bio-stub, or whatever it's called. Grutness...wha? 04:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but a definite support in favor of expanding the scope of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Pope stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename to antipope-stub. The stub is necessary. We can't use the pope stub as that would we POV. The only thing they are on WP as is as antipopes so we need to have the stub until all the articles are so large that they are no longer stubs. No other stub available is adequate. Deleting it would be patiently absurd and amateurish. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 20:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/Keep I agree with Jtdirl. We cannot replace this with the "pope stub" as it'd be inaccurate and POV. I don't know about the "christianity-bio-stub". Str1977 21:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure pope-stub is too pov for these people. It could very well be appropriate, because these people have all claimed to hold legitimate papacies, and it's this claim that links all these people together. But if pope-stub is a no-goer, then I propose upmerging these articles to {{christianity-bio-stub}}. I don't think there are enough articles for {{antipope-stub}}. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 21:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • upmerge either into pope-stub or christianity-bio-stub. how does anyone expect to get 60 stubs for less than 60 antipopes? BL kiss the lizard 22:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know where you got this idea that there are sixty in total over two thousand years. There were 10 alone in the 1980s-2000s!!! FearÉIREANN \(caint) 03:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The number comes from the article antipope, which lists 42 before 1449, states that there were none until the sedevacantist antipopes of the 20th/21st century and lists 14 of those. --Mairi 04:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that the sedevacantists are a special case. They are not really antipopes in the way those before 1449 were, as they have only minute following (from the get go, not just in the end) and papal elections are much more regulated than they once was. However, I don't think we should make that minimum of 60 a dogma. Str1977 11:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Some antipopes are not notable. Some were elected by astonishingly small and un credentialed conclaves. Dominick (TALK) 23:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote comment putting thesse in the pope-stub cat seems to me the best idea. If it is deemed POV to these in 'pope' then it would also be POV to put them in 'anti-pope'. These people considered themselves to be popes - as did their followers (indeed they considered their 'orthadox' rivals to be the anti-pope_, it is from the POV of the later church that they become official anti-popes. It's victor's history. --Doc ask? 03:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • History books call them antipopes, not popes. We cannot call them pope without going against history references and our own NPOV sources. And yes, history is written by the winners. It always has been and always will. But that is irrelevant. Our role is passive reportage of others' conclusions (ie NPOV), not reaching our own opinions (POV). Using the pope stub is out. It would be a blatent breach of NPOV because it would be overruling standard textbooks which state they were not popes. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 03:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • True there are some antipopes where one couldn't say from the beginning who the rightful pope was (those resulting from dual elections), but these were few. Also, of course any anti-pope considered himself to be pope, as that's part of the definition, but that doesn't make them pope. It is not POV to relate historiography's findings - it is however POV to deviate from history books (inaccurate), especially since it is based on a post-modern "everything is relative" POV. Str1977 11:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename (The spelling "anti-pope" is, of course, wrong.) The Encyclopaedia Britannica (1998 CD ROM edition) gives a tentative list of (38) antipopes who arose between the years 217 and 1439, and defines "antipope" as "in the Roman Catholic church, one who opposes the legitimately elected bishop of Rome, endeavours to secure the papal throne, and to some degree succeeds materially in the attempt." This is surely undeniable authority for the existence of a class denominated as "antipopes". It also indicates, however, that the term "antipope" cannot seriously be applied to people such as Pius XIII. The term "Pope", too, cannot be seriously applied to Pius XIII and his like, since it fits them no more - rather, indeed, less - than the term "King of England" fits Perkin Warbeck and his like. Lima 13:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If it needs to be renamed fine, but I think this is on of my "important" additions. I do not want to merge it with the Pope stub, for these people often opposed the Pope! They hardly belong in the same category for factual reasons. Chooserr 19:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)-+[reply]
    • The problem is that there probably are not enough articles about antipopes. I believe that because there have been so few antipopes throughout history, this stub category is not likely to grow beyond about 40 articles, which is at least 20 articles short of the threshold. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 19:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename I agree with Fear ÉIREANN (Jtdirl). AnnH (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/upmerge. Pile-on keep votes by non-stub-sorters, who are unaware of/don't care about the thresholds for stub type creation and viability, are "patently" why we need stronger policies in this area. Alai 17:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rescope {{pope-stub}} and merge {{Anti-Pope-stub}} there. Conscious 17:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: Merged with Category:Pope stubs and template deleted. --TheParanoidOne 23:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. region geo stubs

edit

The following geo stubs and categories were created as an intermediary step when splitting the mammoth US-geo-stub category. Now that all states have their own stub and category, these four regional stub categories are no longer needed.

Any existing stub articles in these categories can go up into Category:United States geography stubs. If any individual state's stub category gets deleted in the future, those articles, too, can revert back to Category:United States geography stubs.

Delete all. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 19:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates only delete, no consensus on categories. Alai 15:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 4th

edit
edit

Rename this as per the previous renames to remove '-related' from the category titles. Strangely enough, this actually was created with {{sfd-c}} tag already on it but as far as I can tell it has never been listed anywhere. --TheParanoidOne 23:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wierd. needs changing. rename it. BL kiss the lizard 05:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 8th

edit

{{Island-stub}}

edit

Created today, lacks a category. Geographical locations are divided by country, not type, as specifically mentioned in WP:STUB. Delete. --Mairi 07:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Created today, used on 6 articles. It's viability is doubtful, as ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:PBS stubs only has 76 shows. Furthermore, there is no corresponding main category (as best as I can tell). Also, there's large problems about what stubs ought to go in it. For example, it currently is on Bob the Builder, which was not originally produced for PBS Kids (and only started showing there this season), is also shown on a BBC channel and was formerly shown on Nickelodeon in the US and Canada. Such use is questionably useful, and poses the possibility of many appropriate stub types for an article. Delete. --Mairi 07:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Naval stubs --> ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Navy stubs

edit

Category needs renaming from adjective to noun. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Iowa road stubs --> Category:Iowa State Highway stubs

edit

This category will be used to hold state highway stubs, and this brings it in line with the other state highway stubs. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Conscious 07:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • After realizing how small this category is, I'm changing my vote to delete (by the way, there's another couple of tiny US Highway stub categories). As for naming, "State Highway" is a de facto standard, I think it's right for similar categories to be capitalized similarly. Conscious 07:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the permanent categories are largely at the lower-case versions, and these "de facto" upper-case versions are pretty much the work of one individual. It would be greatly preferable to have an actual standard (though IMO that should simply say "use normal capitalisation rules"). Alai 04:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • We've tried to change it but SFD has always messed things up... so sorry if we haven;'t gotten to the standard we need yet. Also note the "we"- I'm not the only person who wants the caps. Plus the fact that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways we're working on standards which will be turned into naming conventions. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Once again I must disagree on what's "messed up" here. (I assume you meant CFD; the "messing up" at SFD went the other way.) Note that if the page at the WPJ is indented to be a naming convention proposal as such, it should really be a NC subpage, not at the project. Alai 04:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which would bring it out of line with most of the permanent categories, not to say, correct capitalisation. Happily that's largely moot, as it's horrifically undersized, so simply delete. Alai 06:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which would what? They are Iowa State Highways. We're trying to correct thye caps of the State Highway cats specifically. This moves toward that goal. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But your goal involves anything but "correction" of these categories. It's a common noun, please stop trying to capitalise it on no sound basis. First relevant hit on google is the Iowa DOT[1], and is "Iowa state highways". Is there any possible circumstance in which you might consider that you might be wrong about this? And please address the point about the size of the category. Alai 07:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fine, delete it if you so desire. But we're going to have to come back and create it when a state highways WP is started on this. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • But hopefully a) when it has more than four articles, and b) with correct capitalisation. Alai 07:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • a) Why yes Iowa has more than four state highways. And b) the capitalization is correct. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • The category does not. Please familiarise yourself with the criteria for stub creation, which are based on the number of current stub articles on a topic, not the total number of subjects in the domain, regardless of the existence (or non-stub status) of articles on them. And come to that, on what a common noun is, rather than continuing to make these baseless assertions about capitalisation. Alai 07:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • As a matter of fact I did not create the category or stub. Also I know what a common noun is. I'm in Honors english. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • And I'm aware of who created the stub stype, but you are the person here arguing that it be kept (against stub viability criteria), and renamed (against the naming conventions, all normative English stylistic considerations, and much else besides), thus it's to you I direct my commentary on these matters. Alai 07:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The reason that this is a proper noun is to make a distinction. Just as in Spanish, the reason a word is accented is to make a distinction. And also, U.S. Highway versus U.S. highway. The former refers to U.S. Highway 101, the latter can be any highway in the U.S. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Something either is or isn't a proper noun; you don't "make" it one for disambiguation purposes. If that's required (and it's not really that clear that it is), it can be done either otherwise in the name (numbered routes in X, state routes in X), or explicitly in the scoping wording of the template and category text. Alai 19:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alai. BlankVerse 10:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given it's quite-small size. And i wouldn't mind seeing the same happen to other such small categories without specific wikiprojects. --Mairi 02:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 10th

edit

{{family-film stub}}

edit

Thought y'all would just love to know that User:Maoririder is back, operating now as User:Jingofetts. This is his latest unusable stub. Almost speediable as patent nonsense - as were all his previous efforts. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Family films (itself questionable for NPOV purposes) has under 60 articles - this stub template and its associated lack of category have nil. delete thoroughly. Grutness...wha? 04:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah he also made island-stub which is further down :(. delete BL kiss the lizard 10:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit

From stubberg. Created on August 29, used on 3 articles. Delete. Conscious 10:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

From stubberg. Created on August 13, used on 8 articles, 5 of which are about locomotives. Delete. Conscious 10:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

From stubberg. Created on August 23, used on 8 articles which seem to be about films. We're sorting films by genre, aren't we? Delete. Conscious 10:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

From stubberg. Created on October 5, used on 20 articles. The parent category ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Culture stubs isn't overfull. Also, IMO, it makes more sense to sort these 20 stubs into *-bio-stub, fashion-stub, tech-stub and so on. Delete. Conscious 10:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 11th

edit
edit

From stubberg. Created on September 4, used on 4 articles. Delete, mark all stubs with {{anime-stub}}. Conscious 10:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ambivalent about this one. It's too specific, but there is a wikiproject. The main category and all its subcats have 128 articles, many of which are probably stubs. Note that the stub category should at least be renamed to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Yu-Gi-Oh! stubs, and needs the main category as its parent. Grutness...wha? 10:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC) (must...resist...using... the... suffix... -cruft!)[reply]
I'm tempted to say delete, based on the extremely tiny size, but the fact that there is a project complicates matters slightly. I've left a note on the project talk page asking for input on the matter. Though the fact that the talk page hasn't been touched since the start of December (and the project page in November) makes me wonder where there will be any response. --TheParanoidOne 15:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's quite clear that the project doesn't use the template. Anyway, there's a recommended minimum even for projects. Conscious 19:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of extreme tininess, and WPJ inactivity. Am a bit surprised there's not more YJO-cr*ft -- undersorting? Alai 19:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit

From stubberg. Created on June 13, used on 5 articles. Delete, mark all stubs with {{psych-stub}}. If kept, I think the template needs renaming. Conscious 10:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

surely they'd become {{socio-stub}}s (‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Sociology stubs) rather than {{psych-stub}}s? (delete, anyway) Grutness...wha? 10:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit

From stubberg. Created on June 13, used on 28 articles. Delete. Conscious 10:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: Template and category deleted. Redirect Singapore-tv-stub also deleted. --TheParanoidOne 23:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

From stubberg. Created on September 14, used on 20 articles. Parent category ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Middle East stubs is also underpopulated, so upmerge. Conscious 10:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Croatian geography stubs / Category:Estonian geography stubs

edit

Categories should be renamed from adjective to noun in line with similar categories. (to Category:Croatia geography stubs and Category:Estonia geography stubs) --Valentinian 21:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

support consistancy is good. BL kiss the lizard 23:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 14th

edit
edit

This would clarify/restrict the scope of {{magic-stub}} to only stage/illusion magic, and match the name of the new parent category, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Magic (illusion). This was discussed previously on WP:WSS/P. --Mairi 23:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Trotstub}} {redirect) / {{Trotskyism-stub}} / Category:Trotkyism stubs

edit

If kept, the category needs to be renamed to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Trotskyism stubs. This stub was created in November and is currently used on about 9 articles. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 15th

edit

{{Distributed computing-stub}}

edit

From stubberg. Created on August 12, used on 2 articles. Delete. Conscious 07:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Materials science-stub}} and {{Materials Science-stub}}

edit

From stubberg. Both created on September 2 and unused. Delete. Conscious 07:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Phil-bcast-stub}}

edit

From stubberg. Created on September 2, used on 4 articles. Delete. Conscious 07:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: Template deleted. "Phil-bcast stub" redirect also deleted. --TheParanoidOne 13:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

From stubberg. Created on August 20, used on 5 articles. Delete or merge to {{med-stub}}. Conscious 08:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 16th

edit

{{Lusatia-stub}}

edit

Created today, unused, has a redlinked category. However, Lusatia cuts across two German states, one Polish voivodship and abit of the Czech Republic; so it would likewise cut across several stub types. Furthermore, there appears to be no main category for the area. Delete. --Mairi 00:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

This one defies logic. The template has a no-include category (frowned on in stub-sorting), and appears to be a catch-all for all articles that are remotely connected with gophers - it's currently used on articles about rodents, cartoon characters, and surface-to-air missiles. The mind boggles at what kind of editor that classification would help. It was certainly never proposed at WP:WSS/P before creation, or it would have been quite strongly discouraged, to say the least. Currently used on three articles, and will never get within hailing distance of the 60-stub threshold. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Salvador-geo-stub}}

edit

This stub should be re-named in consistency with {{ElSalvador-stub}}. --Valentinian 15:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: Template renamed and subsequent redirect deleted. --TheParanoidOne 21:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

From stubberg. Created on July 5, used on 19 articles. Merge to {{Asia-bio-stub}} unless it turns out that there are many more Laotian people stubs. Conscious 19:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contains a significant number of individuals, and will only need to be recreated later when asia-bio becomes backlogged. Sarge Baldy 21:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rescope to SEAsia-bio-stub, else delete. Alai 07:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the 'orphaning' here? Redirecting the template to {{Asia-bio-stub}} and null-editing all articles, or replacing all occurences of the template with {{Asia-bio-stub}}? Conscious 14:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The former, for my money. (Should just have said "merge", in hindsight.) Alai 17:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 20th

edit
edit

Seems unlikely that there's near 60 articles - much less stubs - about Degrassi characters, since ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Degrassi characters has only 6 articles, and there aren't many more linked from relevant articles. Delete. --Mairi 06:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete as underpopulatable. Grutness...wha? 09:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 06:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Valentinian 01:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philippines politician stubs / Category:Politicians of the Philippines

edit

These categories This category should be renamed in consistency with similar categories to Category:Filipino politician stubs and Category:Filipino politicians respectively . --Valentinian 00:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Philippines politician stubs as per nom. The other one belongs on WP:CFD. --Mairi 03:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right of course. I'll list it there. --Valentinian 08:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 21st

edit
edit

two stub types with four stubs between them (the geo-stub one is unused), all for a republic that existed for three years in the early 1960s and is now back where it was in the Maldives. The Maldives categories are not so huge as to need splitting, and Suvadives is not a current official region within the country (which is what geography splits at least are based on). Both should be deleted pronto. Note that there are no main Suvadives of Suvadives geography categories for these to be parents of, and (I'm not sure of this one) it may well be offensive to Maldivians to even think of regarding these separately. Grutness...wha? 18:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 27th

edit

{{La Raza-stub}} (redirect, 2nd nomination)

edit

The previous discussion failed to reach consensus, and no action was taken.

This redirect was nominated for deletion along with the template is redirects to, {{Mexican-American/Chicano Stub}}, and the discussion on it was effectively drowned, although even Bfraga of [[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexican-Americans/Chicanos]] said it should be deleted. As mentioned before, the term La Raza hasn't a stable meaning, so it's safer to delete the redirect. Besides, it doesn't follow WP:WSS/NG. Conscious 14:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

The previous discussion failed to reach consensus, and no action was taken.

This is the stub type of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexican-Americans/Chicanos. After more than a month in existence, the template is used on 6 articles. This is much less than is recommended (25-30). I suggest we delete this stub type because of its small size and the potential for misuse mentioned before (i.e. it may be mistakenly used for any person of the race, though it's not supposed to). Also, I suggest the Wikiproject uses another method for keeping eye on its stubs (what about a list on a project page?). If the people's opinion is to keep the template and category, the template anyway needs to be renamed to *-stub (or even to {{Chicano-stub}} for brevity). Conscious 14:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{recordproducer-stub}}

edit

From stubberg. Created on September 1st. Used on 2 articles (as Whatlinkshere suggests), feeds into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Musician stubs. Duplicates existing {{music-producer-stub}}. Just delete, as nobody seems to be really using it. Conscious 13:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Generally speaking, it's against Wikipedia naming conventions to abbreviate a category title, and there's no good reason to do it when the contents of said category are all just automatically populated via the stub template itself. For that reason, I recommend that ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:RPG stub be redirected to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Role-playing game stub. – Seancdaug 06:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Same story as above: there's no reason to abbreviate the category name. – Seancdaug 06:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 28th

edit
edit

Yorkshire's geography stub categories were split into the three counties now comprising Yorkshire several months back, and this template and category are now deprecated. There's no point in keeping the template, and the category just adds one (unnecessary) extra level to the hierarchy, while also implying that West Yorkshire, North Yorkshire and South Yorkshire are somehow less important that all of England's other counties. I propose deleting both the template and the category. Grutness...wha? 23:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep just because Yorkshire is so awesome. Nardman1 19:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeees... it's awesome enough to have three separate stub categories which are in use and this one which no longer is. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Nutri-stub}}

edit

This stub was created on November 19th, 2005, without going through WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals first. Since then it has been added to two articles (5 A Day and Illnesses related to poor nutrition), both of which are no longer stub-length articles. Because after two months it hasn't been demonstrated that there's any real need for this stub type at this time, I'm proposing the deletion of it and its category Category:Nutrition and Dietetics stubs. Kurieeto 17:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a delete - on the proviso that you (or someone) can name a good alternative place for these stubs. Grutness...wha? 07:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All zero of them? :) In theory they'd go into the super-cat, med-stub. Alai 23:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 30th

edit
edit

Created in counter-consensus, and frankly botched move from of the hip-hop cats in the not even closed yet discussion, which I've now reverted. Speedy delete, and remind me to try and remain WP:CIVIL in the face of this... stuff. Alai 03:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 31st

edit
edit

Used on only 5 articles, despite having been created on August 27th. Delete on the basis of its size. Conscious 12:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/January_2006&oldid=1146661868"