Query re festival-stub deletion |
South Philly (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 201: | Line 201: | ||
|{{tl|Oregon-stub}} || {{cl|Oregon stubs}} || style="color:red" | Delete || Project does '''NOT''' have {{tl|Oregon-stub}} on template list |
|{{tl|Oregon-stub}} || {{cl|Oregon stubs}} || style="color:red" | Delete || Project does '''NOT''' have {{tl|Oregon-stub}} on template list |
||
|- |
|- |
||
|{{tl|Pennsylvania-stub}} || {{cl|Pennsylvania stubs}} || style="color:red" | Delete |
|{{tl|Pennsylvania-stub}} || {{cl|Pennsylvania stubs}} || style="color:red" | <s>Delete</s><font color=green>Keep</font> |
||
|- |
|- |
||
|{{tl|RhodeIsland-stub}} || {{cl|Rhode Island stubs}} || style="color:red" | Delete |
|{{tl|RhodeIsland-stub}} || {{cl|Rhode Island stubs}} || style="color:red" | Delete |
Revision as of 01:11, 24 July 2006
|
This page only deals with the deletion of stub types, which consist of a template and a category, and are intended to be used for sorting stubs. Stub templates that are missing categories and stub categories without associated templates are also appropriate here. All other templates or categories nominated for deletion have to be put on WP:TFD or WP:CFD, respectively.
WikiProject Stub sorting![]() | |
Information | |
---|---|
Project page | talk |
- Stub types (sections)
|
talk |
- Stub types (full list)
|
talk |
- To do
|
talk |
- Naming conventions
|
talk |
- Redirects category
|
talk |
Wikipedia:Stub | talk |
Discussion | |
Proposals (A) | talk |
- Current month
|
|
Discussion | talk |
Criteria (A) (discontinued) | talk |
Deletion (Log) (discontinued) | talk |
Category |
About this page
This page is for the proposal, discussion, and voting on deletion of stub categories, stub templates, and stub redirects. By having the vote on these three closely related matters centralised on one page, it reduced the need for repeating identical arguments on several different Wikipedia deletion pages (WP:CFD, WP:TFD, and WP:RFD) and also reduces the workload on those pages.
Putting a stub type on SfD, and what happens afterwards
- Mark the affected pages:
- For deletion:
- For renaming:
- List the stub type below in a new subsection at the top of the section which has the current date. If that section does not yet exist, create it.
- Mention all affected pages in the subheading, like this:
==== {{tl|banana stub}} / [[:Category:Banana stubs]] / {{tl|YellowCurvyFruit-stub}} (redirect) ====
- Also mention how many articles currently use the template, and if it is listed anywhere else.
- Of course, state your reason for nominating the stub type for deletion!
- Mention all affected pages in the subheading, like this:
- After a voting period of seven days, action will be taken if there is consensus on the fate of the stub type. Please do not act before this period is over.
- Archived discussions are logged per the instructions at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log, and are located at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted and Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Not deleted. If the decision is to rename the category or template, the discussion is logged on the "deleted" page, since the stub's name, at least, has been deleted.
Putting {{sfd-r}} on redirects
Given that the {{sfd-r}} template breaks redirection, it is necessary to change a stub redirect when adding the template, as follows:
#Redirect [[Template:foo-stub]] should be changed to:
{{sfd-r}}{{foo-stub}}
Possible reasons for the deletion of a stub type
- They are not used in any article, and their category is empty
- They overlap with other stub categories, or duplicate them outright
- Their scope is too limited - As a rule of thumb, there should be at least 50 appropriate stubs in existence
- The stub category or template is misnamed. In this case, make this clear when nominating and propose a new category or template name. Note that - in the case of a template but not a category - it may be more appropriate to make it into a redirect
- They are malformed, misnamed, or deprecated redirects
What this page is not for
- Patently nonsensical or insulting stub types — they may be speedily deleted.
- Empty categories with no corresponding template — they may be speedily deleted (after 4 days, as per WP:CSD criterion C1).
- Recently created stub types not used on any articles — they may be speedily deleted (after 4 days, as per WP:CSD criterion C1). This does not apply to types properly proposed and accepted which have not yet been populated.
- Malformed stub types to which no further deletion reasons apply — fix them or tell the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting.
- Stub templates that were not approved by the WikiProject Stub sorting (again, unless other reasons apply) — list those on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries. From there, they may later be taken to this page
- Stub categories that are too large — these are not deleted, even if they get subdivided.
Typical voting options
- Keep (do not delete or modify)
- Delete (delete template and category)
- Merge with xx-stub (delete category, keep template (either as redirect to, or feeding into the same category as, xx-stub))
- Merge with xx-stub without redirect (delete category and template, put xx-stub on all articles that use it)
- Upmerge (merge to parent type)
- Change scope (reword the template, typically giving it a larger scope. Usually also means renaming the category)
- BJAODN (add to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, then delete)
When voting, please try to give a more substantial reason than simply "I like it/find it useful" or "I dislike it/don't find it useful"
Renaming options
- Rename/Move/Support
- (for templates: move to new name, replace existing usages, delete redirect);
- (for categories: recreate category page under new name, repopulate, delete old category).
- Rename, keep redirect (for templates only: move, but don't replace usages of existing template)
- Oppose (no move to new template, or recreation of new category)
- If you wish to vote for the deletion of a template or category nominated for renaming, please re-tag with {{sfd-t}}/{{sfd-c}}, and note the date of doing so, so as to ensure proper consideration of this new nomination.
Note to admins deleting stub types
It is important for consistency, and to avoid confusion on the parts of stub-sorters that stub types be removed from the stub type list when they are deleted. Please don't leave red links on WP:WSS/ST!
Listings
July 23rd
Cat:Oklahoma school stubs & Cat:Vermont school stubs
Despite the fact that there still aren't 60 stubs using {{Oklahoma-school-stub}} or {{Vermont-school-stub}}, these categories have been recreated. Speedy delete the cats as a recreation and reconfigure the templates to feed 29 stubs into both Cat:Oklahoma stubs and Cat:Southern United States school stubs and 7 stubs into Cat:Vermont stubs Cat:Northeastern United States school stubsrespectively. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy if possible. Perhaps a note should be added to the relevant U.S. pages not to recreate categories before they have 60+ stub articles. Most of this problem with recreations seems related to the U.S. material. Valentinian (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sped. This seems to happen rather often with the schools, and a lot with wikiprojects creating half a dozen (your puny size thresholds don't apply to us, we're... a wikiproject!). I think I'll tweak the wording on WP:STUB a bit... Alai 18:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Cat:Festival stubs
There's a note on Template:Festival-stub (and therefore on all the pages in this category) saying that this stub category was proposed for deletion. I can't find it on the Stub Types for Deletion page nor on its Talk page, although I did find a mention on the Talk page, here, of the fest-stub category being deleted. Does anyone know what the deal is? Is it possible that fest-stub was merged with festival-stub and then deleted, but that festival-stub "inherited" the "Stub type for deletion" flag? (I'm posting this comment also on the Category:Festival_stubs and Template:Festival-stub discussions.)Bookgrrl 00:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Subtypes of Cat:Spanish writer stubs
Three new sub types of Cat:Spanish writer stubs got added directly to the stub list today without being proposed first.
- {{Spain-dramatist-stub}} / Cat:Spanish dramatist and playwright stubs
- {{Spain-journalist-stub}} / Cat:Spanish journalist stubs
- {{Spain-poet-stub}} / Cat:Spanish poet stubs
The problem is that even including these three new stub types, there are slightly less than 100 stubs total in Cat:Spanish writer stubs. A definite delete on the categories. {{Spain-dramatist-stub}} and {{Spain-poet-stub}} need either a delete or to be turned into redirects of {{Spain-writer-stub}}. As for {{Spain-journalist-stub}}, if kept, it should be as a dual catted template feeding into both Cat:Spanish writer stubs and Cat:European journalist stubs. A simple redirect would be inappropriate given that it would be replacing two stubs instead of merely being a more specific version of one. Caerwine Caerwhine 14:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I created these stub types as part of the work I am doing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain/to do/Literature filling in the missing articles. It strikes me as silly in the extreme to duplicate effort by categorising all of these in Cat:Spanish writer stubs until there are a certain arbitrary number of them and then going back and recategorising. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 14:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- It strikes me as sillier in the extremer to expend effort in a way that's expressly contrary to long-standing guidelines, and then complain about it being "duplicated" when people suggest complying with same. Upmerge, keeping distinct templates (not redirects) on all three, on the off-chance WPJ comes through with the goods. The same dual-catting logic applies equally to all three. Alai 18:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't doubt the good intentions of the creator, but I can see problems with two of these. 1) The {{poet-stub}} is currently a redirect since the original template has been merged into {{writer-stub}}. Second, the old template had no national children AFAIK. So we're effectively creating a child without a parent category. Is this wise? 2) The same is the case, only a bit worse, since we don't have a {{Dramatist-stub}} at all and never had one. Perhaps this issue should be debated first? I can see no problems with {{Spain-journalist-stub}} as precedent is established in this case (provided enough material exists, naturally). Valentinian (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Good points. I think we should indeed have parents for both, especially as we have US (or at least, American) instances of these. Or if not a dramatist-stub, at the least a {{theat-bio-stub}} as a biographical catch-all, which will hopefully see more consistent use than does theat-stub as applied to people. Alai 20:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
{{Brisbane-suburb-stub}}
Created out of process for WikiProject Brisbane. Needed, but not in this form - every other city uses the geo-stub form rather than a suburb-stub,. as it has a slightly wider scope (urban parks, hills, streams, lakes, etc can also be covered). In fact, we deleted suburb-stubs for Melbourne and Sydney earlier this year, replacing them with geo-stubs. What's more, this template does not have its own dedicated category (it feeds straight into Cat:Brisbane stubs. There would, however, be enough stubs to easily pass threshold. I propose deleting this template and replacing it with {{Brisbane-geo-stub}}, with its own category. Grutness...wha? 06:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I created this stub somewhat hastily. I agree with what Grutness has proposed. Sorry for the mix-up. (btw, the reason I didn't assign it a category is because I realised that I was potentialy creating a mess and thought I should stop before things got too messy) -- Adz|talk 07:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC).
- Plan. Though isn't that a lot like a rename, really? Alai 07:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- well yes, it's a rename, but with a definite delete (rather than a redirect) on the existing template (which hasn't been used) and a creation of a category (which it hasn't got). And since it hasn't been used and the creator of it's agreed, it can probably be speedied. Grutness...wha? 08:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
July 22nd
{{Poland-geo-stub}} split update
(posting both here and in proposals, as advised, since it's a complex issue)
There were recently a series of split stubs created off of {{Poland-geo-stub}}(Stub proposal discussion archive). However, the Polish editor who created them, created some with the Polish names for each of the regions, which is against the consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland, where it was determined that English/Latinized names should be used, instead of Polish.
I am not asking to have the Polish-language stubs deleted, but additional English-language stubs/categories should be created, as follows:
- {{KujawskoPomorskie-geo-stub}}/Cat:Kujawsko-Pomorskie geography stubs
- Additional stub/cat: {{KuyavianPomeranian-geo-stub}}/Cat:Kuyavian-Pomeranian geography stubs
- {{Małopolska-geo-stub}}/Cat:Małopolska geography stubs
- Additional stub/cat: {{LesserPoland-geo-stub}}/Cat:Lesser Poland geography stubs
- {{Mazowsze-geo-stub}}/Cat:Mazowsze geography stubs
- Additional stub/cat: {{Masovian-geo-stub}}/Cat:Masovian geography stubs
- {{Podkarpacie-geo-stub}}/Cat:Podkarpacie geography stubs
- Additional stub/cat: {{Subcarpathian-geo-stub}}/Cat:Subcarpathian geography stubs
- {{Podlasie-geo-stub}}/Cat:Podlasie geography stubs
- Additional stub/cat: {{Podlachian-geo-stub}}/Cat:Podlachian geography stubs
- {{Pomorze-geo-stub}}/Cat:Pomorze geography stubs
- Additional stub/cat: {{Pomeranian-geo-stub}}/Cat:Pomeranian geography stubs
- {{Wielkopolska-geo-stub}}/Cat:Wielkopolska geography stubs
- Additional stub/cat: {{GreaterPoland-geo-stub}}/Cat:Greater Poland geography stubs
- {{KujawskoPomorskie-geo-stub}}/Cat:Kujawsko-Pomorskie geography stubs
Assuming that this is approved, the English stubs can be created, the Polish-language stubs can be set to be redirects to the English-language versions, and the Polish-language stub categories can be deleted. --Elonka 00:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Valentinian (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
July 21st
State-stub / Cat:State stubs
Somewhere in June, User:CoolKatt number 99999 created a template and category for every US state that didn't have one already. As a result, there are a number of them that are severly undersized. Below is a table of the states that should be deleted. Some of the states do have a WikiProject and I have notified them that the stub is undersized and they need to populate them within 6 days or they will be deleted.
For a more detailed analysis, with article counts, see User:Amalas/State-stubs. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- What woudl replace the categories being deleted? Us-State stubs? -Ravedave 17:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Many of the articles within these categories would fall under state-geo-stub or state-politician-stub. The others would end up with something generic like {{US-stub}}. But there aren't really that many, hence the deletion. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be better to leave the state stubs to catch items that don't fall under geo or politicians (e.g. history), rather than let them float up to US? I'm not sure why low counts are an indicator for deletion. It could also be an indicator that the stubs are working.--J Clear 20:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know if I'm going to be able to explain this very well, but from what I can tell, stub-sorting is a way to keep categories manageable in size. If a stub category gets too large, we split it. If it gets too small (usually meaning the stubs grow to article length), then we don't really need the category anymore. If there are only 5 or 12 stubs in a category, it doesn't make much sense for it to have its own when it can easily be move up to the parent category. I hope that made some sense. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Makes some sense, especially the too big part. However you're actually targeting a set of stubs that have children, apprently. Also you're going to possibly impact say someone from one of those states who might be able to contribute to local articles. Course it makes me wonder why those states don't have their own project. For instance, I've been using the Maryland stub hoping to attract someone with some additional local history to a few articles I created. The MD geo stub would be a bit of a stretch for a bridge or a dam, I think.--J Clear 00:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know if I'm going to be able to explain this very well, but from what I can tell, stub-sorting is a way to keep categories manageable in size. If a stub category gets too large, we split it. If it gets too small (usually meaning the stubs grow to article length), then we don't really need the category anymore. If there are only 5 or 12 stubs in a category, it doesn't make much sense for it to have its own when it can easily be move up to the parent category. I hope that made some sense. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be better to leave the state stubs to catch items that don't fall under geo or politicians (e.g. history), rather than let them float up to US? I'm not sure why low counts are an indicator for deletion. It could also be an indicator that the stubs are working.--J Clear 20:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Many of the articles within these categories would fall under state-geo-stub or state-politician-stub. The others would end up with something generic like {{US-stub}}. But there aren't really that many, hence the deletion. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Vermont Stubs population increased to 54 (and still increasing). Its my feeling that this stub is useful for the Wiki project work Mickmaguire 17:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update! I've updated the table to reflect this. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose on the Kentucky stub/category; Abstain on others (I've got no time to review them). There has been an earnest effort to use the stub/category and I just added information to the Kentucky project page to ensure that project members know about them and use them. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 19:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- unless the populations change a lot from the analisys done delete. some could reach threshold before the end of the debate (like vermont has now) but some of them have next to no stubs (one actually has no stubs and another only has two both of which are in the wrong stubcat). BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Personally I support keeping these, but given the challenge, I've gone into a crash course of populating these with appropriate stubs. I've brought {{Alabama-stub}} up to 67 stubs, and will get to work on the others, but there's no way I could hope to do all of these myself. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Non-geo/poli stub counts witin each state will ebb and flow with article creation and expansion. These topics will always be notable and the population threshold isn't such a hard and fast rule that we can't keep these around as a catch-all when needed. Rx StrangeLove 05:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep templates, regardless. There's always the possibility that these are undersized because they were created out-of-process, and thus people haven't been using them systematically; also will have at least some utility as parents for the various state-based splits, of which there are increasing numbers. Review categories in a month or so, consider upmerging any that stay egregiously small over time. Alai 07:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Note I'm going through the XX-school-stub templates, and for those that have less than 60 stubs, turning them into dual catted stubs which include the state stub category one of the templates the category feeds into. That should increase the numbers of some of these fairly quickly. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I just started the Maryland wikiproject, and there are plenty of substubs for Maryland (politicians, roads, etc.) and {{Maryland-stub}} will serve as a catch all for other stubs related to Maryland. Although it may not be heavily populated, it is certainly useful. I'm sure the same applies for other states as well.-Jeff (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't so sure, if I were you: MA is relatively healthy given its four bona fide subcats, and the wikiproject (which might want to link to and from the stub category, btw: telephathic we're not); personally I'd keep that one. Some of the others are much weedier. Ebbing and flowing would be one thing, but every indication is that many of these were created with no indication of likely population, and never "flowed" in the first place. Alai 22:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all. These state-defined stubs allow potential editors to quickly view and expand any articles for their state that need expanding and that may not fit in a particular category. By removing or "genericizing" the stub, this process becomes much more difficult. --TMF T - C 18:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- The same rules should apply for all cases - including the U.S. material: keep the templates for a while to allow them to be populated. Delete any category which does not live up to the 60+ criteria (or 30+ if it is the *primary* template used by a Wikiproject.) In a month's time or so, review the situation again. Valentinian (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
July 18th
Cat:Motor vehicle stubs, Cat:Automotive company stubs
Near as I can figure out, this got created as a byproduct of this CFD that renamed all the automobile manufacturer categories to motor vehicle maufacturer categories. {{auto-company-stub}} had its category moved by the person who closed out the CFD from Cat:Automotive company stubs to Cat:Motor vehicle manufacturers to Cat:Motor vehicle stubs which they then created. I've reverted both {{auto-company-stub}} and Cat:Automotive company stubs save for making the non-stub parent Cat:Automotive companies, as should have been the case even before the CFD, but wasn't. Now, since there is no Cat:Motor vehicles, I say delete this cat, possibly speedily once the template revert refills Cat:Automotive company stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like unfinished business from the CFD. Rename to Cat:Motor vehicle company stubs, CFR the remainder of the hierarchy on similar lines. Alai 23:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Partly my fault, since I was involved in that CFR but didn't notice a stub type was involved as well. Snce the standard has become motor vehicle manufacturers for the main categories, I'd rename as per Alai's suggestion. Might also be worth having a template redirect at motor-company-stub, but that's far less important. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- The CFR didn't list the stub category, it got changed by someone who was over enthusiastic. More importantly, the current parent non-stub category, Cat:Automotive companies wasn't part of the CFR. Looking at the histories. The complete timeline seems to be as follows.
- Oct 2005 {auto-corp-stub} / Cat:Automotive corporation stubs are created and given as its non-stub parent the closest category available at the time: Cat:Automobile manufacturers even tho it had a somewat broader mandate.
- Dec 2005 Cat:Automotive companies is created, but the non-stub parent of the stub was not changed.
- Feb 2006 As part of the corp-stub -> company-stub SFD the stub is switched to {auto-company-stub} / Cat:Automotive company stubs, but the non-stub parent of the stub was not changed.
- Jun 2006 Cat:Automobile manufacturers is changed to Cat:Motor vehicle manufacturers as part of a blanket CFR for it and its children. An overenthusiatic changer also changes the stub type as noted above.
- Jul 2006 I came across a mergeto notice on the by then empty Cat:Automotive company stubs and undertook the actions noted above, which finally led to the placement of 'Cat:Automotive company stubs in Cat:Automotive companies some 7 months after the latter was created.
- Note that the appropriate parent cat Cat:Automotive corporations and other categories further up the food chain continue to use Automobile and automotive, and given the existance of Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles, which look after them I doubt if they are going to change any time soon. I don't support doing anything beyond a simple delete at this point. Stub sense doesn't even report any stubs in Cat:Motor vehicle manufacturers, tho that's probably due to undercategorization of the stubs with permanent categories. Still, I'd leave creating a Motor vehicle manufacturer stub up to a proponent willing to find the necessary 60 stubs rather than creating it by fiat, since the automotive company stub is not in need of a split on the basis of size. Caerwine Caerwhine 07:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not proposing a split. Alai 16:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Note that one of the parent categories is currently on CFD. I doubt that its name will be changed, but the CFD vote should probably be taken into consideration before anything's decided here. Grutness...wha? 06:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Why does this seem especially unlikely? Note that a shedload of children of this category were recently renamed from "... automobile companies..." to "... motor vehicle companies...". Given that "automobiles" is really only a NAmer term, and that even they seemt to be entirely inconsistent in its use (e.g. whether trucks are included), in theory this should be an easy one. Alai 08:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just a "feeling in my bones". I agree it should be changed, but whether it will or not is another matter. In any case, since it has a bearing on this sfd, we should bide our time till it's decided. Grutness...wha? 08:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Why does this seem especially unlikely? Note that a shedload of children of this category were recently renamed from "... automobile companies..." to "... motor vehicle companies...". Given that "automobiles" is really only a NAmer term, and that even they seemt to be entirely inconsistent in its use (e.g. whether trucks are included), in theory this should be an easy one. Alai 08:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Note that one of the parent categories is currently on CFD. I doubt that its name will be changed, but the CFD vote should probably be taken into consideration before anything's decided here. Grutness...wha? 06:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- The CFR didn't list the stub category, it got changed by someone who was over enthusiastic. More importantly, the current parent non-stub category, Cat:Automotive companies wasn't part of the CFR. Looking at the histories. The complete timeline seems to be as follows.
{{1632-stub}} / Cat:1632-verse stubs
This unproposed and horrifically small stub type bears the boilerplate claiming that "This category is maintained by WikiProject: Stub sorting.", which I recommend we do by deleting it. Alai 16:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- horribly named, too. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- No arguing here. Valentinian (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- A bit of pedantic nit-picking, BTW - you can't maintain something by deleting it :) Grutness...wha? 08:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Next you'll be telling me you can't "play" a cricket ball by gazing at it in a Zen-like manner, and making no perceptible motion of bat towards the object in question. (Dare I mention the Maori sidestep?) Alai 08:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I did leave a note on the creator's talk page, informing him that his stub was up for deletion and about the 60-stub issue. His page also noted that he was going on break until August 15. Here is what he wrote back:
- Thanks for the heads up--Guess it doesn't pay to plan ahead. This will reach far more if anyone starts doing characters and such. Shrug- I'm on break. // FrankB 23:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
--Groggy Dice 19:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Template:Cust-stub and Template:Cust2-stub
- moved from WP:TFD. Grutness...wha? 23:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Template:Cust-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Cust2-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
With the vast number of stub tags, I see no need for these "customizable" stub tags. They compromise the standard system of categorizing stubs. Pagrashtak 04:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. This sort of scheme has been brought up frequently in the past, and there are good and strong reasons why it is not used. Delete - possibly speedily. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've sped these on the grounds of being "empty stub types", though my main concern is that it's a hazard to navigation, for the reasons Grutness alludes to. Alai 04:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
{{UK-SMG-stub}} and Cat:SMG stubs
- Well undersized. --Mais oui! 17:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The Category now has more articles added. It doesn't need to be deleted.
- There's also a redirect: {{SMG-stub}} Valentinian (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Even if all the articles in Cat:SMG were added, this stub type would be well below the 60 stubs needed for a stub type. Besides, the templates are way too ambiguous. My first thought was that someone had created a stub for British submachineguns. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see the relevance of this. Sometimes corporation stubs are useful -- such as the BBC -- but this could lead to a whole range of spin-offs. UK-radio does the trick. The JPStalk to me 20:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Caerwine Valentinian (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Dang - I thought this was going to be another Buffy stub. Clearly won't reach 60 stubs, either. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, cryptic, ambiguous name, and too narrow in scope. Alai 04:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
July 15th
{{RC-cathedral-stub}} and Cat:Catholic cathedrals stubs
{{RC-church-stub}} and Cat:Catholic churches stubs
I was about to suggest splitting churches by location (as is done with all other building types), when I noticed that we have not only the well-populated Catholic church stubs (for Roman Catholic churches, BTW - so it will need renaming at the very least) and also this. Neither have been proposed, doubly badly named (as they also use the plural), and the Cathedrals one only has ten stubs. We certainly don't need both so delete the Cathedrals one and upmerge it if we keep the churches one, at the very least. As far as the churches one goes it's well-populated, but it would make considerably more sense to split by location than denomination: quite a number of churches are used multi-denominationally, it's more likely that editors would know about local churches than one denomination worldwide, and - importantly - this is how other structures are split, so weak delete there, too. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Multi-denominational churches? More the exception that rule over here in the States. Of course, we don't have the European syndrome of having Roman Catholic facilities being appropriated by other churches during the Reformation, so that may explain that. Caerwine Caerwhine 08:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, this ones was indeed proposed, though my advice about pluralisation seems to only have been partially heeded. Keep both templates, rename and merge to Cat:Roman Catholic church stubs, with a clear scoping statement addressing the "Church vs church" issue. Alai 01:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- mea culpa. Still think having things like US-church-stub and UK-church-stub would be more useful though. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think there could be a utility argument either way, and I certainly wouldn't be opposed to double-stubbing with both where appropriate. Alai 02:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- mea culpa. Still think having things like US-church-stub and UK-church-stub would be more useful though. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I had originally listed these at WP:CFD, I see now that this was in error, forgive me for finding deletion/renaming practices here a bit confusing. Anyway, the reason I listed them in the first place was that I feel the categories have unnecessary pluralization. Therefore, I ask for a rename of the categories to the singular forms "church" and "cathedral". That said, I would also support Alai's proposal. —Mira 01:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Someone has actually failed to notice that the cathedral stub template is very new. In fact, I created it just 10 days ago. It will of course take time to populate it. And, given the number of RCC archdioceses in the world, there will definitely be some population. Grutness, I believe it is far easier and relevant to sort churches by their denomination, rather than location. After all, churches are mainly about their religion and teachings, while their location is more of a tourist concern and a simple physical characteristic. Multi-denominational churches would just fall under the general Church stub. Keep and rename. Ariedartin JECJY 05:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Someone failed to notice (or failed to care) that there's a proposals page for new stub types; one of the reasons for this is to ensure that unnecessarily small stub categories aren't created. It's a bit rich to suggest that skipping this process should somehow prevent deletion of such types. If there's not 60 stub existing articles on cathedrals, this is not a viable type; if there are, then 10 days, plus a week's discussion period, should be plenty of time to find them. Alai 05:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Didn't fail to notice the age of the stub at all. It's irrelevant. Was the stub type proposed? No. Would it have been accepted if proposed? Probably not. With under 200 church stubs, a separate cathedral stub is not one that would have gained much support at all. As to which would be a more useful split, most of the information which would go into a church article concerns the building, not the religion and teachings of the church. As such, it makes far more sense for churches to be sorted in the same way as other buildings. I can easily go along with the suggestion of a two-way split by denomination and location, as suggested by Alai, but a split between churches, cathedrals, chapels, basilica, and other forms of church seems only likely tocause confusion, especially since stub categories are designed for use by editors, and the same group of editors would be most likely to beinvolved in the expansion of the articles in both these categories. Oh, and MiraLuka - no problems with putting this in the wrong place... it happens quite a lot :) Grutness...wha? 07:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Someone failed to notice (or failed to care) that there's a proposals page for new stub types; one of the reasons for this is to ensure that unnecessarily small stub categories aren't created. It's a bit rich to suggest that skipping this process should somehow prevent deletion of such types. If there's not 60 stub existing articles on cathedrals, this is not a viable type; if there are, then 10 days, plus a week's discussion period, should be plenty of time to find them. Alai 05:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've speedily renamed the "church" category, on the grounds that it would have been such at CFD, if eligible (but left the tag as in theory we could still decide to delete it). Alai 06:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Old business
July 12th
{{Phil-stub}} and {{Phil}}
delete both as they are identical and are superfluous given existence of widely used {{philately-stub}}; also the icon is entirely inappropriate. --Jack 18:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed the icon of Hitler (if this was a joke it was a very poor one). Strong Delete to both of them: redundant, not needed, and badly named. (The Hitler image speaks for itself. I was expecting stubs about Dr. Phil.) Valentinian (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- delete both as redundant duplicates, neither of which are in line with naming conventions. In one case it's ambiguous enough that we actually used to have a phil-stub... for philosophy stubs. That was deleted because of ambiguity, why should this one survive? As to "phil', the less said the better. Grutness...wha? 05:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- delete only one stub needed and these are offensive too --AlbertMW 15:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
July 10th
{{SSSI-stub}} / Cat:Site of Special Scientific Interest stubs
Viable enough size-wise (with over 90 stubs), but the template name is mysterious to casual observers, to say the least, and the category makes no mention of the fact that these are sites in the United Kingdom. Neither is there any link between this category and the UK's geography stub category. Never proposed, though probably of some use. The template should be renamed to something less cryptic, though. Grutness...wha? 02:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- {{UK-SSSI-geo-stub}} perhaps? It would still be cryptic, but at least clear that it's about a UK location. Caerwine Caerwhine 09:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm responsible for this - apologies for not going through the proposal route. The size is likely to grow significantly as I progress my work on adding SSSI articles to Wikipedia. Biological SSSIs, which I know about, will end up with full-size articles. I'm not a geologist though so the best I can do with geological SSSIs is to create stubs, and there are a lot (thousands!) of geological SSSIs. We can add some text to the category to explain what these are in more detail. Perhaps we should make this a subcat of UK-geo-stub? No probs at all with a rename. SP-KP 09:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK... a couple of comments here. Normally we don't have stub types for specific types of land form (we go by location alone), but protected areas are the one exception. There is a Cat:Protected area stubs, which could act as a parent for this, as could the United Kingdom geography stubs category, as you suggest. A compromise name might simply be UK-SSSI-stub, since sites of scientific interest are automatically geography locations. I'd be very keen to see these continue to be double-stubbed with specific county/country-stubs, too, since many editors edit places they know ("this is a local stub, for local people!"). Some of them might even be triple-stubbable if the relate to specific types of sites (with geology-stub or archaeology-stub, for instance). I'd also suggest widening the scope slightly to include Northern Ireland's ASSIs. BTW, the only reason I discovered this stub is because a batch of stubs for SSSIs in Avon were marked with UK-geo-stub (I sift them into counties regularly). As far as stubs are concerned - and also much of the rest of Wikipedia - English locations are categorised by ceremonial county or current administrative county, so if you use "SSSIs in Avon" as a main category it's likely to end up on CFD at some point! Grutness...wha? 05:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I've just had another thought about this: protected-area-stub is getting fairly desperately in need of splitting (hopefully someone who knows how to use stubsense can see what the biggest splits would be)... expanding the current stub to cover all UK protected areas and changing its name to UK-protected-area-stub would kill two birds with one stone. Grutness...wha? 07:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds plausible to me. While definitions and terminology doubtless differs vastly, an initial split by country seems likely to be the most sensible course, as said defs and terms are likely to vary by country. Alai 17:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- A few questions/comments:
- 1. What other UK protected area types are represented within the protected areas stub category and how many of each are there? This should influence what we do - e.g. if there are 150 listed building stubs, and 65 Environmentally sensitive area stubs, it makes sense to have separate categories for different protected area types.
- 2. Splitting protected area up by country sounds like a sensible move regardless of what we do with this stub/category, so I think we should do that anyway
- 3. If we do stick with a reference to SSSI in the name, UK-SSSI-stub is preferable to anything with -geo- in the name as that might mislead people into thinking that the category is only for geological SSSIs, and not biological ones. SP-KP 18:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- 4. The Avon question has also been aired elsewhere. You're right, it needs a discussion. I suggest we do that somewhere other than here though, so we can concentrate just on the issue of what we do with this stub type for now. SP-KP 18:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- 5. I agree with you on Northern Ireland - I'm intending to treat ASSIs in the same way as SSSIs, but I've started with England and that will keep me busy for a while :-).
- SP-KP 18:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hrm. Very few existing protected-area-stubs seem to be in the UK; quite a few in the Cat:Protected areas of the United Kingdom hierarchy are stubs of some sort, but that seems to be largely down to nonsensical supercatting, giving us "lots of things related to parks of some sort". Listed buildings should not in any case be in the protected areas hierarchy at all. -geo- pretty consistently means "geography"/locations, not geology, though I think UK-geo-SSSI- would be clearer than the other permutation. I suggest we keep the existing template in some form, at least until it's determined whether there's a large pop of other PAs, but feeding into a single category, Cat:United Kingdom protected area stubs. If uses of the distinct template {{UK-protected-area-stub}} passes the threshold separately, we can then readily re-split. Alai 18:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- To answer SP-KP's points (although Alai has touched on a few of them):
- 1. I would only expect it for geographical places (as we define them for stub sorting) and not buildings, which would still be marked with UK-struct-stub or one of its varieties. If a building is worth an article, chances are it is either of current or historical important, so there's quite a bit of overlap if we start including buildings in the new category. Also, geographical articles tend often to get different editors to buildings. The one problem area is when there is a historic house surrounded by garens or parkland, but then the house usually gets preference for stubbing unless they have separate articles.
- 2. cool
- 3. Geo refers to geography in terms of stub templates, not geology. Forests get geo-stubs, for instance. I agree that the abbreviation is a bit ambiguous, but it would require an enormous amount of work to get fixed (I'd estimate there are 300 geo-stub templates and 100,000 geography stubs).
- 4-5. fine - just thought I'd mention it in case you hadn't thought about it. :)
- And you're right, Alai, there are very few UK ones in the protected area stubcat, but with the 90 or so in the SSSI cat which would be added to them, they'll be well above threshold. The current template could be used either directly (preferably renamed) or as a redirect to a UK-protected-area-stub. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's somewhat in the category of "that and three euros will get you a cup of coffee"; the existing type is already numerically viable, so clearly merging it with anything else will still be so, but doesn't really argue strongly for such a move. Alai 05:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds plausible to me. While definitions and terminology doubtless differs vastly, an initial split by country seems likely to be the most sensible course, as said defs and terms are likely to vary by country. Alai 17:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I've just had another thought about this: protected-area-stub is getting fairly desperately in need of splitting (hopefully someone who knows how to use stubsense can see what the biggest splits would be)... expanding the current stub to cover all UK protected areas and changing its name to UK-protected-area-stub would kill two birds with one stone. Grutness...wha? 07:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- First, OK, forget I mentioned listed buildings, bad choice of example. However, it looks like neither of you were led too far off down a blind alley by that one - my point, as you picked up, was about types & numbers. As types are few / numbers are low, I'd agree it makes sense not to have further subcategories of UK-protected-area-stub (not yet, anyway). On whether "-geo-" is misleading, I think you've missed my point a little - what I'm getting is not how this prefix is used here at Wikipedia, but how it is used by people who work with SSSIs. If you asked 10 conservation-type people what "UK-geo-SSSI" means, I can pretty much guarantee that the vast majority would say "a geological SSSI in the United Kingdom", so I still think geo in this context is a bad idea (but only in this context, I'm completely fine with all other geo-stubs). However, I think you've come up with the right answer in suggesting a redirect - that way, SSSI-stub can continue to be added to SSSI articles which are stubs, and if we ever get to the stage where we want to split SSSI stubs off from UK protected area stubs, the task is much easier. Are there any disadvantages I might not have though of? SP-KP 00:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- The only think i can think of is that the template's name isn't that obvious. UK-SSSI-stub would be better, and even then, "SSSI" is a bit obscure (though perhaps I'm in a minority there). You've got a point about "geo-SSSI", though. Grutness...wha? 08:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
{{clothingstub}} (now a redirect)
If you look towards the bottom of WP:WSS/D you'll see the various problems that arose recently with fashion-stub and clothing-stub. originally, clothing-stub existed as a redirect to fashion-stub, both feeding into Cat:Fashion stubs. A new unproposed category (Cat:Clothing stubs) was created, along with two new templetes, fashionstub (which duplicated fashion-stub) and clothingstub. I've emptied and speedied fashionstub as a direct duplicate, and redirected clothing-stub to the new category (the Fashion stub category was definitely large enough for a split and this is an obvious one). I propose deleting clothingstub as malnamed, but keeping the separate clothing stubs category. Grutness...wha? 02:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Caerwine Caerwhine 09:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- does that include keeping the new cat? Grutness...wha? 05:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Since you only nominated deleting {{clothingstub}} that's all I addressed. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- does that include keeping the new cat? Grutness...wha? 05:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hrm. I'm OK with the cat iff someone makes a clear scoping statement about the distinction between the two, and sorts them accordingly. The distinction looks unclear and ad hoc at present. Delete the badly-named directs, in either case. Alai 17:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- At the moment it is, but that's because the fashion-stub template and its redirect clothing-stub were being used indiscriminately. They require sorting out (and I've left a broad hint with the creator of the new category that someone needs to do this), but I think the scopes of the two can be distinguished well enough - a lot of fashion-related items are nothing to do with clothing; a lot of clothing has nothing to do with fashion. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've a wardrobeful of clothing that has nothing to do with fashion, believe you me. I don't say the scopes couldn't be distinguished, but rather that they should be, and the contents aligned therewith. If this isn't done, and they're left as-in, we don't have a split, we have a mess, and we'd be better off merging the two back together, as per the previous situation, until such time as someone is willing to "make good". Alai 06:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- At the moment it is, but that's because the fashion-stub template and its redirect clothing-stub were being used indiscriminately. They require sorting out (and I've left a broad hint with the creator of the new category that someone needs to do this), but I think the scopes of the two can be distinguished well enough - a lot of fashion-related items are nothing to do with clothing; a lot of clothing has nothing to do with fashion. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
{{bodypiercing-stub}} / Cat:Body piercing stubs
while on the subject of fashion stubs... this as far as I know was never proposed, and is tiny - 15 stubs in four months. I suggest deleting it, though the creation of a more widely-scoped jewellery-stub may be worthwhile. Grutness...wha? 02:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Upscope to {{bodymodification-stub}} / Cat:Body modification stubs Stub sense reports 124 stubs in Cat:Body modification and its sub cats, and while some may be false positives. I don't think it'll be so many as to make it fall below 60. At the same time, keep {{bodypiercing-stub}} as a feeder template or redirect and add a {{tattoo-stub}} as well. Caerwine Caerwhine 09:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds like a fair compromise to me. Grutness...wha? 05:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
July 9th
{{Maldivesgov-stub}} / no cat.
This one was created more than a month ago. Not used at all and feeds into Cat:Maldives stubs. Delete Valentinian (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- delete - speedily if possible Grutness...wha? 05:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Missing a hyphen, as well as 60 stubs to apply it to, but a very pretty template. Delete. Alai 02:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Cat:politics biographical stubs → Cat:political biography stubs
I sense that getting a simple answer to the "biography or biographical" question may prove elusive, but here's another data point, at any rate. Similar argument as below. Other possible permutations would be Cat:politics biography stubs or Cat:political people stubs (each of which strikes me as poorer). Alai 07:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Given that there is a Cat:Political people, a Cat:Political people stubs strikes me as the best choice, altho if I were judging purely by euphony, I'd agree with you. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm fairly easy either/any way on this one, though I'd like a degree of "horizontal" consistency, so if we go with the "people" option, there's a lot of "biography stubs" to be renamed, too. Alai 03:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
{{Blog-stub}} / Category:Blogging stubs
Currently only 4 pages, most stubs IMO should go into {{internet-stub}} possibly. --bdude Talk 03:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is so small partly because it was created unproposed for "vlogs", was rescoped, but evidently never populated. I'll suspend judgement on this pending motivated effort and/or knowledgeable opinion on whether it is, in fact, populable. Alai 05:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Cat:Crime biographical stubs → Cat:Crime biography stubs
Another "specimen count". We flip-flop rather arbitrary between "biographical stubs" and "biography stubs". The latter seem to be more common, and fit the more general pattern of "[noun phrase] stubs", rather than making the whole prefix an adjectival phrase. (Shall I wait for CW's counter-proposal, or just oppose it now?) Alai 03:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Split and delete These have been getting numerous enough that I was thinking of proposing Cat:Crime victim stubs, Cat:Criminal stubs, and Cat:Police officer stubs. Between the lack of an approprate parent category and the fact that with these and the already proposed Cat:Criminologist stubs there would be few if any remaining crime bio stubs, so I wouldn't be at all adverse to getting rid of the category and making {{crime-bio-stub}} simply feed into Cat:Crime stubs. Sometimes the simplest answer is to avoid the question. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Resorting two entire categories, and delaying and/or complicating further per-country splits is some novel type of "simplest". (One of the "charms" of SFD is definitely tagging something for a rename, and people voting "delete"...) Alai 06:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
July 8th
{{Noida-Sec-School-Stub}}
Part of the one person WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Secondary Schools in Noida (a town of 500,000 people; there are so far only two articles about Noida schools, both of which are stubs, but neither are stub-tagged). No stub category. TheGrappler 13:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I don't know if I am sounding offended, atleast I don't mean to but Noida is no longer a town. It, along with Gurgaon were called city centres without a city around them but they are now more than those now. I know this stub doesn't qualify because even if articles on all Secondary Schools in Noida are started and they can be categorised as stubs , there still won't be more 26 articles which qualify for this stub marking. However, I am now planning to change this stub template to schools in NCR. I hope that's acceptable. Unitedroad 14:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Upmerge to {{India-school-stub}} unless there are 60 or more for an {{UttarPradesh-school-stub}}. The NCR is too informally defined in its extent for it to be normally used for stub types. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Now seemingly moved to {{India-Sec-School-Stub}}, which is somewhat more sensible, but badly capitalised (to the tune of three S's), currently unused, and with no category. Delete that, delete redirect, start from scratch with a proposal for Cat:Indian secondary school stubs (sic), if really required (which it doesn't seem to be, < 1 page of Indian schools total. Wikiproject should be able to work from that, and its own talk-page template, for the foreseeable future. Alai 03:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- delete both and upmerge per Caerwine. Due to the overlapping secondary/intermediate/tertiary schools in many countries, it makes far more sense to split schools on a regional level than by grade - as has already been done to some extent with the US. If we were to split Indian school stubs, I would suggest that it would be more sensible to do the same here. At the moment, though, that seems unnecessary. Grutness...wha? 05:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
{{Bsg-stub}}
A re-creation of the previously deleted {{BG-stub}}. Still unsure? Battlestar Galactica. This one was never proposed and has been used on a mammoth 13 articles since its (re)creation two and a half weeks ago. No category. Delete Grutness...wha? 08:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per G. (At least the name was slightly better this time. In Denmark, BG is a major bank.) Valentinian (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the Galacticia stub by your command. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep--68.73.203.108 20:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as recreation, with what's for my money a somewhat worse name. Alai 23:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Fair use logos in templates are not allowed. Invitatious (talk)
- Keep Maybe it should be renamed, and it would need to be redone to have a category and get rid of the logo, but I do think that a Galactica stub category would be useful, and would populate once its category was subcatted in Category:Battlestar Galactica and Category:Science fiction stubs so that it was visible to users. I think the same about Babylon 5. However, if you don't feel there's enough stubs to break them out by series, I think something like a {{sf-tv-stub}} to compliment the sf-novel and sf-book substubs would be useful. (There might be some confusion about how to handle novelizations, merchandising, and other tie-ins, though). --Groggy Dice 05:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think sf-tv-stub's a pretty good idea: StubSense finds 112 tagged with sf-stub alone in the categories rooted at Cat:Science fiction television series, so viability seems assured. Alai 06:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I've looked at some of the bsg-stub articles, and frankly, I think most of them have outgrown the stub stage and should be destubbed. On the other hand, checking with StubSense, it reports 41 sf-stubs in Category:Battlestar Galactica.[1] There may be other stub articles that haven't been slotted under Battlestar Galactica yet, or are unstubbed, so we could be talking 50+ potential stubs. Not a slam-dunk keep, but more than the 14 stubs that have been referred to. I considered bsg-stubbing some of these articles to bring the count up (as well as changing the logo graphic and editing the stub's category into existence), but decided it wasn't worth it for a stub that looked likely to be deleted. (I did leave a note on the creator's page two days ago, to give him a chance to make his case.) I'd like to get this resolved one way or another, so I know what to do with Galactica articles when sf-tv-stub is created. If my keep vote is what's kept this debate from being resolved, I'll withdraw it. --Groggy Dice 19:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speaking personally, I'd say it's a fairly clear "delete", and all that's stopping it being implemented as such is a) the usual sporadic backlog issues, and b) perhaps waiting for sf-tv-stub to be created, so as to give a useful target. Alai 22:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- a late delete vote from someone whos been away on holiday :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
{{Pakistani-actor-stub}}
A re-creation of the previously deleted {{pakistan-actor-stub}} (which at least had a NG-compliant name). Nearly two months old, two articles. No category. Delete. Grutness...wha? 08:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Cut but don't print this stub. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, not going to be useful in a long while. - Bobet 09:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
{{Gnostic-stub}}
And so it goes. Not proposed that I can see - two articles in three months, serious category problems (feeds into a nonexistent stub category with a poor name and an existing main category). Delete. Grutness...wha? 08:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Viable if there were enough stubs, but StubSense reports only 35 stubs in Cat:Gnosticism and there is no associated Wikiproject. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
{{NZ-radio-station-stub}}
Even as a Kiwi I see this one as never getting near threshold. One stub in two and a half months. Never proposed, no category. Delete. Grutness...wha? 08:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Grutness. Valentinian (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- A possible upscope to a {{Oceania-radio-station-stub}} if there are enough articles, otherwise, delete. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
{{Information systems-stub}}
Never proposed, feeds into miscapitalised and non-existent category, malformed name, one stub in four months, crosses existing stub categories. Never going to fly - delete. Grutness...wha? 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete asap. Valentinian (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
July 7th
Cat:Africa geography stubs → Cat:African geography stubs
Sample count for what's wrong with the status quo in innumerable existing geographical stub types (and with Caerwine's proposal to make these the conventional form). No-one would for a moment think of calling a perm-cat Cat:Africa geography, so why does suffixing " stubs" suspend all normal English usage? Rename this, with the remainder to follow. Alai 08:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- oppose. That will make it less like the equivalent main category, whereas the aim is to make it more like if possible. if you want to change this and all other geography stub categories, it should be to Cat:Geography of Africa stubs. And if you're thinking of going through all the African categories making "Adjectival geography stubs" the standard then I very strongly oppose "Congolese geography stubs", "Nigerian geography stubs" and "Nigerien geography stubs"! Grutness...wha? 11:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- My aim is that they be more like reasonable category names, not names that are arbitrarily more like the permanents, while ignoring all normal usages and euphony, which on the face of it seems to be yours and CW's. I wouldn't insist on "proper adjectives no matter what" (as I said the last time we discussed this, when your opinion appeared to be in the other direction), I'd be content with "most familiar attributive use". "Africa geography", "Poland geography", "India ethnicity", "Japan stadium" are not, and nor are they reasonable usage at all. Alai 18:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- My opinion is that consistency is of primary importance, followed by ease of use or "guessability". If some are done on particular way any new ones should also be done the same way - that is, once one group of geography stubs was done one way, it made sense to keep things consistent. Since the buildings and structures are a subcategory of them - and the stadia a further subcategory of the buildings and structures - it made sense to continue to use the same pattern. I don't like the current names particularly much - as you say, they aren't grammatical, to start with - but until recently it took a hell of a lot of effort to change over the categories. Now that a change in template-category link will instantly (or fairly instantly) change the categorisation of stubs without null-edits, it is far easier to change category names over to something more sensible, so any arguments relating to difficulty of changing hundreds of categories (which was always my chief concern, since we're already very overworked at WP:WSS) has gone. If we are to change the categories, though, we;'ll need to change all of them, not just one or two, and it makes far more sense to make them congruous with the names of the permanent categories - something we should probably have done from the get-go. It certainly doesn't make sense to change them to an often confusingly arbitrary adjectival form: Burkinabe geography stubs? Ivorian geography stubs? Not to mention subnational regions where adjectival forms are either unguessable - Orcadian, Michigander - or don't exist. Grutness...wha? 02:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Obviously we'd need to change them all, I thought that was fairly clearly implied by "sample count". To make that more explicit: rename them all to terms consistent with reasonable language use, at a reasonable rate, as enumerated and approved of. (Africa just happens to be first on the listing.) What on earth is "confusingly arbitrary" about the use of adjectives? There's a honking great list of them on WP, existing categories use them, and by CW's proposal, all people categories would do so (as they largely do at present). I find it hard to see there's a insuperable problem using them in one set of categories, but not in another. New category names should still be proposed, and created at names there's explicit consensus for (in contrast to Caerwine's methodology), at which point problematic adjectives, such as "Burkinabe" and "American" can be objected to, and alternative adjectives, or attributive use of nouns, or whatever else can be suggested, and doubtless duly squabbled over. If "congruous" means "the name of the permanent with 'stubs' slapped on the end", or "'Stubs of' at the beginning", or with the component words rearranged without regard to natural usage, I can't say I'm enthused, though the first would the least unattractive of the three. I do agree about the overwork issue, if not to say lengthening backlogs, but the issue has been raised (not to say, rammed down one's throat as one tries to clear some of said backlog), and I'd rather it be addressed in a way that actually improves existing category names, as opposed to one that makes existing poor choices of name mandatory, and on top of that disimproves some others. The whole "guessability" thing is for my money next to irrelevant; they never have to be guessed, they almost never have to be even used, about the only times being when creating a subcategory, or when linking to them when in the middle of discussions like this one. Nor do I see why "consistently use the normal attributive" is so mysteriously hard to guess as seems to be the general opinion, or why "use nouns in some cases, and adjectives in others" is so easy, unless one happens to have fully internalised both the naming conventions for the permanents, and the suggested or traditional transformational rules. Alai 01:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Guessability is very important. It may not be so for us as stub sorters. but it definitely is for stub editors - who, let's face it, are the main reason for sorting the stubs in the first place. Grutness...wha? 02:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Why? The allegedly highly important scenario you're allegedly catering for seems entirely opaque from here. Are you suggesting that someone gets it into their head to edit stubs related to "Fooish bars", types "Category:Foo bar stubs", "Category:Fooish bar stubs", or "Category:Fooish barric stubs" directly into the WP search box, or the URL text widget of their browser, without any prior knowledge of that category name, or more to the point, following a link? And furthermore, that those people are less likely to guess "African geography" than "Africa geography"? If you tell me "well, that's what I always do" I'll have to take it on trust, but beyond that... Alai 03:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Guessability is very important. It may not be so for us as stub sorters. but it definitely is for stub editors - who, let's face it, are the main reason for sorting the stubs in the first place. Grutness...wha? 02:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Obviously we'd need to change them all, I thought that was fairly clearly implied by "sample count". To make that more explicit: rename them all to terms consistent with reasonable language use, at a reasonable rate, as enumerated and approved of. (Africa just happens to be first on the listing.) What on earth is "confusingly arbitrary" about the use of adjectives? There's a honking great list of them on WP, existing categories use them, and by CW's proposal, all people categories would do so (as they largely do at present). I find it hard to see there's a insuperable problem using them in one set of categories, but not in another. New category names should still be proposed, and created at names there's explicit consensus for (in contrast to Caerwine's methodology), at which point problematic adjectives, such as "Burkinabe" and "American" can be objected to, and alternative adjectives, or attributive use of nouns, or whatever else can be suggested, and doubtless duly squabbled over. If "congruous" means "the name of the permanent with 'stubs' slapped on the end", or "'Stubs of' at the beginning", or with the component words rearranged without regard to natural usage, I can't say I'm enthused, though the first would the least unattractive of the three. I do agree about the overwork issue, if not to say lengthening backlogs, but the issue has been raised (not to say, rammed down one's throat as one tries to clear some of said backlog), and I'd rather it be addressed in a way that actually improves existing category names, as opposed to one that makes existing poor choices of name mandatory, and on top of that disimproves some others. The whole "guessability" thing is for my money next to irrelevant; they never have to be guessed, they almost never have to be even used, about the only times being when creating a subcategory, or when linking to them when in the middle of discussions like this one. Nor do I see why "consistently use the normal attributive" is so mysteriously hard to guess as seems to be the general opinion, or why "use nouns in some cases, and adjectives in others" is so easy, unless one happens to have fully internalised both the naming conventions for the permanents, and the suggested or traditional transformational rules. Alai 01:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- My opinion is that consistency is of primary importance, followed by ease of use or "guessability". If some are done on particular way any new ones should also be done the same way - that is, once one group of geography stubs was done one way, it made sense to keep things consistent. Since the buildings and structures are a subcategory of them - and the stadia a further subcategory of the buildings and structures - it made sense to continue to use the same pattern. I don't like the current names particularly much - as you say, they aren't grammatical, to start with - but until recently it took a hell of a lot of effort to change over the categories. Now that a change in template-category link will instantly (or fairly instantly) change the categorisation of stubs without null-edits, it is far easier to change category names over to something more sensible, so any arguments relating to difficulty of changing hundreds of categories (which was always my chief concern, since we're already very overworked at WP:WSS) has gone. If we are to change the categories, though, we;'ll need to change all of them, not just one or two, and it makes far more sense to make them congruous with the names of the permanent categories - something we should probably have done from the get-go. It certainly doesn't make sense to change them to an often confusingly arbitrary adjectival form: Burkinabe geography stubs? Ivorian geography stubs? Not to mention subnational regions where adjectival forms are either unguessable - Orcadian, Michigander - or don't exist. Grutness...wha? 02:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- My aim is that they be more like reasonable category names, not names that are arbitrarily more like the permanents, while ignoring all normal usages and euphony, which on the face of it seems to be yours and CW's. I wouldn't insist on "proper adjectives no matter what" (as I said the last time we discussed this, when your opinion appeared to be in the other direction), I'd be content with "most familiar attributive use". "Africa geography", "Poland geography", "India ethnicity", "Japan stadium" are not, and nor are they reasonable usage at all. Alai 18:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I certainly would be in favor of a Cat:Geography of Africa stubs type solution here, tho our practice to date has be to avoid using prepositions in stub categores, which is why I didn't propose simply appending "stubs" to the perm-cat name to get the stub-cat name. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment We should only use category names that people have a chance to guess. Either the current system or a Cat:Geography of XYZ stubs. Valentinian (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Rename to Cat:Geography of Africa stubs. Nationality x is most appropriate for people categories like Cat:French people stubs. It is preferable for consistency in my opinion to follow the parent cat. Kurieeto 02:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
July 6th
{{Oriental Orthodoxy-stub}} and Cat:Oriental Orthodoxy stubs
never proposed, only one stub, and one of the worst formed stub types ive ever seen. ive fixed up the template although its still got a rotten name - as for the category it feeds into both itself and Cat:stubs but not into Cat:stub categories. thi sneeds putting out of its misery by deletion. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- yeeeuch. This one doesn't look particularly useful and it's certainly a mess the way it is. Mind you, the same is true of the parent Cat:Oriental Orthodoxy, which seems to be thoroughly fragmented into far too many categories - but let's not go there... Delete this unless it can be populated to threshold - if it can, then sandblast and sluice what's here to try to turn it into something approaching normal stub type standards. Grutness...wha? 07:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- This one might actually be a good idea. What seems to be the problem is that {{Orthodoxy-stub}} feeds into Cat:Eastern Orthodoxy stubs (Eastern Orthodoxy = e.g. the church in Greece or Russia). The problem is that the Coptic, Ethiopian and Antiochean churches also call themselves "Orthodox" but have existed separately from the "mainstream" Chalcedonian churches for 1500 years (= Oriental Ortodoxy.) The St. Thomas Christians in India fall into this category as well. Perhaps it would have been better if the original template had been named {{EasternOrthodoxy-stub}}. The Coptic church has many stub articles and they are often badly stubbed (with {{reli-bio-stub}} or {{Pope-stub}} which is only confusing, see List of Coptic Popes) The Armenian church has a few stubs as well, so I think I'll give it a shot populating this one. Anyway, the template needs to lose the space, but the category name is consistent with the parent category (which might be a mess, but is correctly named). Valentinian (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but rename the template to {{OrientalOrthodoxy-stub}}. Going through the Coptic Popes ( = Patriarchs of Alexandria) brought this one to 80+, and more material exists. I've been really annoyed that these were mixed in with the Popes in Rome or Avignon. The name of the category is ok. Btw, this template needs a better image, but preferably one which cannot be confused with other templates. All ideas are welcome. Valentinian (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- This one might actually be a good idea. What seems to be the problem is that {{Orthodoxy-stub}} feeds into Cat:Eastern Orthodoxy stubs (Eastern Orthodoxy = e.g. the church in Greece or Russia). The problem is that the Coptic, Ethiopian and Antiochean churches also call themselves "Orthodox" but have existed separately from the "mainstream" Chalcedonian churches for 1500 years (= Oriental Ortodoxy.) The St. Thomas Christians in India fall into this category as well. Perhaps it would have been better if the original template had been named {{EasternOrthodoxy-stub}}. The Coptic church has many stub articles and they are often badly stubbed (with {{reli-bio-stub}} or {{Pope-stub}} which is only confusing, see List of Coptic Popes) The Armenian church has a few stubs as well, so I think I'll give it a shot populating this one. Anyway, the template needs to lose the space, but the category name is consistent with the parent category (which might be a mess, but is correctly named). Valentinian (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, that's a lotta popes. Keep, rename, per V., to whom kudos. Alai 00:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and Rename per Valentinian. - Bobet 12:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and Rename per Valentinian. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
{{Archbishop-of-Canterbury-stub}} / Cat:Archbishops of Canterbury stubs
Plenty of stubs in this stub from the discoveries page, but both the template and the category need renaming, which by the naming guidelines would be {{ArchbishopofCanterbury-stub}} and Cat:Archbishop of Canterbury stubs respectively. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Rename per nom, probably keeping the template redirect for the duration, since hyphens are not exactly one of our most crystal clear areas to date. Alai 05:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Valentinian (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
July 5th
{{Bhutan-stub}} / Category:Bhutan Stubs
I have the template for this proposed here, but User:Kitia seems to have created the template {{Bhutan-stub}} and cat Category:Bhutan Stubs without following proper procedure. Please speedy delete both of these and I will recreate them only if they pass in WP:WSS/P. Amalas =^_^= 20:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's technically speediable, and it's a bit pointless to delete a template, just to recreate it: that'd be in the category of "things we can fix by editing". Speedy the category as "empty" in four days if it remains that way (and give someone a smack on the head if it doesn't), point the template to the correct capitalisation, which create in seven. Alai 20:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've populated the template so no problem there. It is over 75+ now and a definite keep. The category should be renamed when possible. Valentinian (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough, done. Seems pointless to have a red cat page with 77 articles for a week, and an empty cat with a wonky name... Alai 00:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've populated the template so no problem there. It is over 75+ now and a definite keep. The category should be renamed when possible. Valentinian (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
July 3rd
{{Orkney-bio-stub}} / Category:Orkney people stubs
Delete - no corresponding cat. Created today to make a WP:POINT. Only 3 articles in Category:Natives of Orkney are stubs: StubSense. --Mais oui! 20:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Stubs are sorted according to citizenship, not ethnicity and even if this was not the case, this one would be extremely unlikely to ever break 60+. Delete Valentinian (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Important to build an independent series of Orkney categories and stubs distinct from those of Scotland. The history and culture of Orkney (and Shetland) are quite distinct from that of Scotland, the islands maintain a close relationship with Norway and are often recognised as a part of Scandinavia. Nobody would think it reasonable for Wales to be covered by the English categories. (If citizenship is the criterion then all Scottish, English and Welsh categories would have to be subsumed under British.)Mallimak
- Comment I am Danish so I am well aware of the history of Orkney and Shetland (or Ørkenøerne og Hjaltland to use the old Danish names). In Denmark the joke is occationally heard that the islands are Danish, and I'd be surprised if the Norwegians don't make similar jokes. But that's beside the point; stub templates and stub categories differ from ordinary categories. Ordinary categories can be specific to an ethnicity, but we base stub categories on citizenship. If a stub category becomes excessively big, we cut it down into smaller segments, and the UK belongs to this group. This is why Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have been singled out. But in order for Orkney to be singled out as well, we need 60+ existing stub articles for such a category to be considered big enough. I just can't imagine that this is currently the case for Orkney. Valentinian (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You may be aware of the history of Orkney and Shetland, but most Scots are not. Categorising Orkney and Shetland in with Scotland simply perpetuates this situation. I note that the Faroe islands have their own stub categories. Do they have 60+ stub articles? Mallimak
- Category:Faroe Islands stubs has 47 stubs. Not the 60 you mention, but a reasonable number. More importantly it is the parent of Category:Faroe Islands geography stubs which has 105 stubs. --TheParanoidOne 22:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- The Faroes are 60+ now (sorting those had been on my to-do-list for ages!) Valentinian (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You may be aware of the history of Orkney and Shetland, but most Scots are not. Categorising Orkney and Shetland in with Scotland simply perpetuates this situation. I note that the Faroe islands have their own stub categories. Do they have 60+ stub articles? Mallimak
- Comment Likewise there is an Orkney-geo-stub. Why, therefore, should there not be an Orkney-bio-stub?Mallimak
- The Orkney stub is not over- but seriously undersized. We use holder categories if a "child category" is 60+ and its "parent" is either 60+ or close to. {{Orkney-geo-stub}} is only used on 23 articles, so it does not need a "holder". Valentinian (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I am Danish so I am well aware of the history of Orkney and Shetland (or Ørkenøerne og Hjaltland to use the old Danish names). In Denmark the joke is occationally heard that the islands are Danish, and I'd be surprised if the Norwegians don't make similar jokes. But that's beside the point; stub templates and stub categories differ from ordinary categories. Ordinary categories can be specific to an ethnicity, but we base stub categories on citizenship. If a stub category becomes excessively big, we cut it down into smaller segments, and the UK belongs to this group. This is why Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have been singled out. But in order for Orkney to be singled out as well, we need 60+ existing stub articles for such a category to be considered big enough. I just can't imagine that this is currently the case for Orkney. Valentinian (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- delete. sections of a country - even if theyve been historically seperate - dont get their own bio-stubs. bio-stubs are sorted by current country (except in very rare cases) and then by occupation. geo-stubs are completely different and are always split by subregion. The faroes are an autonomous territory so arent a fair (or fair isle) comparison so have their own stub types (and they dont, youll note, have a bio-stub). BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Valentian has now increased the number of Faroes stubs to over 60. I have started adding to the Orkney-bio stubs. It clearly makes sense to have a stub category in place ready to use. I see no sense in deleting the Orkney-bio stub I have created. It has a use and is being used. It obviously takes time to identify and/or create 60+ stubs.Mallimak
- It shouldn't take that long. Not when you're creating substubs of the Earls of Orkney that could just as well be redirects band adding stub notices to short but non-stub articles. I removed the stub tags from the three non-stubs, but left alone the substubs for now in hopes that you will improve them to at least stubs. As things stand now, delete, but I am persuadable if enough stubs can be found to populate it. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Valentian has now increased the number of Faroes stubs to over 60. I have started adding to the Orkney-bio stubs. It clearly makes sense to have a stub category in place ready to use. I see no sense in deleting the Orkney-bio stub I have created. It has a use and is being used. It obviously takes time to identify and/or create 60+ stubs.Mallimak
- Delete or upmerge, delete the "important series" of stub types if those are unproposed and undersized too, and remind creator of WP:STUB, with particular reference stub proposal, and to size as measured in terms of existing stubs, and proposal, the lack of validity of slippery-slope reasoning, and that Orkney has been part of Scotland longer than Scotland's been in the United Kingdom. If there's any viable number of Orcadian stubs, start with an all-inclusive {{Orkney-stub}}, not with tiny candidate children. Sub-national splits of biographies are in any case problematic due to the difficulty in many cases of relating a person with a single such location, unless it relates clearly to their primary notability. (And yes, this does on occasion get fuzzy with regard to the "constituent countries" too, but there it's at least somewhat more distinct, and less likely to lead to massive multi-stubbing.) Alai 06:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per both BL and Alai.
Note the discussion below as regards CornwallWe've recently had a very similar discussion about a Cornwall stub, which ended in its deletion. Counties - even ones with distinct historical differences from the country of which they are a part do not normally get their own stub types except for geo-stubs. Geo-stubs are split by national subdivision, which is the reason for the orkney-geo-stub. Bio-stubs and the like aren't - they are split primarily by nation and by occupation. The reason for this is clear, especially with modern biographies - geographical locations tend to stay in one place (seismic activity notwithstanding), but people move around. Someone like Mary Brunton, for instance, was Orcadian, but also spent much of her life in Edinburgh, and as such - if people were stubbed by subnational region - would need double stubbing. If she had lived in five different places, she would need five different stub templates, clearly overkill. Most people, however, are known for no more than two nationalities, and usually only for one occupation. Template overload becomes far less of a problem with the current system, and still makes the articles easy to find for editors. Grutness...wha? 12:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment What is the purpose of a stub category? Surely it is to list related stubs in one place. If I am an Orcadian, interested in expanding stubs of relevance to Orkney (in Orkney, it is not unlikely that I will be related to some of the "Orkney people"), am I really going to be bothered to trawl my way through massive British and Scotland stub lists trying to spot something of Orkney interest? I am concerned that the call for deletion has more to do with "category imperialism" than a genuine interest in adding knowledge to Wikipedia. (Mais oui! has been going through all my contributions changing every occurance of "Orcadian" to "Scottish", and will persist at it if I change them back again. What point is Mais oui! trying to make? Has s/he a problem with the concept of "Orcadian"?) Mallimak 19:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment- Mais_oui! has a history of going through articles changing "British" to "Scottish"- so it isn't very surprising he is opposing the changes you made. Astrotrain 19:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment- Mais_oui! has an obsession which is extremely unhelpful to those of us trying to write serious articles. I think the originator of an article is the best person to decide whether the subject is British, Orcadian, Scottish or whatever. I have lost patience trying to undo his changes (which is presumably what he is hoping).) Is there any way we can stop this guy? Mallimak 23:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment- Mais_oui! has a history of going through articles changing "British" to "Scottish"- so it isn't very surprising he is opposing the changes you made. Astrotrain 19:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Merge I like Alai’s suggestion best. Judging by the number of publications published on Orkney and bought by Orcadians (yes, people living in Orkney) a more general Orkney stub collection is probably a more useful vehicle to grow a family of articles than merging the biographies with Scottish biographies and just having a tiny Orkney-geo collection. Gruelliebelkie 21:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- CommentI would find a merge of all Orkney-related stubs acceptable.Mallimak 23:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Note to closing Admin: the above contribution was the 2nd ever edit of User:Gruelliebelkie. --Mais oui! 22:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Response Not quite true. Up to now I did any edits I made without having first created a Wikipedia identity, but I thought an IP address is just not good enough for joining into a discussion. I constantly find little things to correct but am slowly branching out into more ambitious stuff.
Gruelliebelkie 22:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep This stub category has now well passed the threshold of 60 entries, and there are more to come! Mallimak 08:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- ... most of which really ought to be smooshed together to make a List of Earls of Orkney, being as they're not just one-liners, but ten-worders. Far from speedying, I'm inclined to say we should wait (or else revisit in a month or so) to see if any of these have survived this exercise in category-padding for long. Is that three times you've voted now, btw? Alai 08:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep This stub category has now well passed the threshold of 60 entries, and there are more to come! Mallimak 08:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Annihilate Orkney-nat-cruft. —Nightstallion (?) 09:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - if we keep this stub, are we going to go off and create all of the following? (cos these could easily pass the 60 mark without creating a whole load of spurious substubs):
- {{London-bio-stub}}
- {{Fife-bio-stub}}
- {{Glasgow-bio-stub}}
- {{Edinburgh-bio-stub}}
- {{Yorkshire-bio-stub}}
- {{Stockholm-bio-stub}}
- {{Ohio-bio-stub}}
- {{Bavaria-bio-stub}}
- {{Tuscany-bio-stub}}
- {{Java-bio-stub}}
- {{Scicily-bio-stub}}
- {{Oxford-bio-stub}}
No: of course we're not! cos we are not (despite appearances) completely off our rockers here at Stub sorting. Just cos we can create a stub doesn't mean that it is always a good idea. In this case it is plain daft. Any of the above redlinks would be a far better candidate than Orkney, if we were to actually start down the crazy subdivisions bio stubs route. --Mais oui! 12:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
June 30th
no template / Cat:Computer vision stubs
I brought this up at /D back in April, when BL Lacertae wanted it deleted; two months later, it's about time this got sorted out. Parent category Cat:Computer vision has fewer than 100 pages encompassing all its subcategories. I suggest Merge with compu-stub without redirect. –Unint 02:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Given that compu-stub is significantly oversized, I'm loathe to delete this entirely (though it's not clear how much it's helping, either). Perhaps replace with a (properly formed) {{image-processing-stub}}, or something along those lines? [2]. I have a real feeling of deja vu, though: did we already deal with something similar to this? Alai 03:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
{{GeelongStub}} / Cat:Geelong Stubs
just about everything that could be wrong with this is. template is badly named. catagory is badly named. template format had to be fixed to show catagory properly. never proposed. only 10 stubs. mixture of geo-stubs, bio-stubs and neither-stubs but feeds into geo-stub catagory. delete now before anything else can be found wrong with it. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh dear lordy. And that's 10 stubs in two months, by the look og it, too. Delete. Grutness...wha? 03:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- The parent project, being WikiProject Geelong has 123 articles assessed as being of stub class quality. There may very well be a need for this stub type however I take on board the comments of it being created in a somewhat messy and unproposed way. -- Longhair 06:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh great, there's Cat:Stub-Class Geelong-related articles, too. Is nobody but "us people" (i.e. the oft-scorned stub regulars) convinced that these parallel structures, using the same/similar terminology for things that have never been properly clarified either to actually be the same, or actually different, is pretty much guaranteed to causes this sort of systematic inconsistency, confusion, and general foul-ups? Alai 15:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- The parent project, being WikiProject Geelong has 123 articles assessed as being of stub class quality. There may very well be a need for this stub type however I take on board the comments of it being created in a somewhat messy and unproposed way. -- Longhair 06:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per the above. Valentinian (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
June 27th
{{ai-stub}} / Cat:Artificial intelligence stubs
More fun from the computer science wikiproject. The template is hopelessly ambiguous. At the very least it should be renamed, but with only 21 articles this unproposed stub should likely be deleted. Delete unless better popoulated and even then rename the template to {{compu-ai-stub}}. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Are there really that many stubs about Anguilla? Delete if this doesn't reach threshold, rename if it does. Grutness...wha? 01:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I know, artificial insemination, abstract interpretation, Amnesty International. Rename, poke the wikiproject to see if they want to populate it (though I get the impression this is just another Kootism, rather than something the wikiproject at large actually supported), revisit in a while. This should be more than viable if anyone makes the effort: [3]. At worst, upmerge to comp-sci-. Alai 03:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Incidently, the abbreviation isn't as bad as some: note that AI is indeed a redirect to the topic at hand. OTOH, should at the very least be capitalised. (Perhaps have {{compu-AI-stub}} as the canonical template name, with redirects from AI- and compu-ai-.) Alai 03:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Some random info from someone who's never been here before:
- seven days seems like a really short discussion period for something that's mostly getting populated by busy academics
- none of the topics currently stubbed out as ai-stubs sound like they are anything other than Artificial Intelligence stubs.
- I don't have enough experience to say what effect upmerging has on a field, but I'd say that AI on Wikipedia is surprisingly crap, given that it's a fairly interesting and techy topic. Maybe people who feel qualified to write about it don't think they have time. But I don't see this holding back other areas.
- I've created a couple of those stubs (copying off of some other page, sorry I don't remember which) but (also sorry) I don't have time to create an advocacy group / portal / whatever to get more people making more pages. But AI is a real field so it seems to me like you should just leave it alone until it gets 'discovered' or something.
--Jaibe 18:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's the first time I've heard the "systematic bias" pleading used to suggest that a aub-field of computer science is obviously seriously under-represented on an online encyclopaedia, and which I think is pretty much proof positive that we shouldn't pay it too much heed, or else give up or the idea of ever deleting anything as undersized. (Which given the amount of "Keep! For no reason whatsoever related to the stub guidelines! What do the stub-sorting people know about sorting stubs, anyway?!" contributions of one sort or another we get here, might not be far off the case anyway.) Actually, part of the problem is that AI isn't exactly the most crisply defined discipline in the whole world, and there are lots of {{comp-sci-stub}}s like subgoal and pattern mining that AI zealots would claim to be AI, and AI detractors would claim are really more to do with declarative languages, databases, or likewise, formal methods or whatever else. Alai 19:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- I actually just cruised around a bunch of pages I've edited and a lot of the ones that used to be ai-stubs aren't anymore, which to me makes it sound like the stub is really very healthy. I don't get the idea of a threshold that needs some fixed number of stubs, because surely that's just proportional to the number of editors. As long as a field is getting steadily built up then the stub widgit is doing it's job, right? Though I acknowledge that it would be harder to keep track of the rate-of-conversion of stubs than to just count how many are there. But if you use the simpler metric you may indeed prune stuff that's worth keeping and worth letting a however-small community communicate about. (You are right about the ill-defined thing, have a look at the pages for AI winter and the lighthill report (linked off of that one). A lot of AI pages aren't even linked to AI... --Jaibe 20:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think size of stub category is a pretty good measure of "utility", because for one thing, very small categories are easily managed by other things. It's also likely to be correlated with general activity in that area, unless for some reason creation, sorting, and expansion are radically out of whack. "Stub turnover" would, as you note, be a lot of effort to measure, but in theory yes, if a stub type were very active, but from time or time undersized, it'd be worth keeping; though it's harder still, if not imponderable, to assess whether there's been any additional benefit to splitting it out of a parent that wasn't itself oversized. Many "AI stubs" have clearly been edited significantly when tagged with other types, after all. Alai 06:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've populated this without much difficulty from the AI perm-cat, and there's more where that came from. I've also been so bold as to move the template as I suggested above, and remove the SFD notices. If there's no further input on a template name, I'll 'bot the templates over from ai-stub, and delete the redirect. I've avoided lumping in the computer vision, sound processing and whatnot, though they may be otherwise homeless shortly, as these seem less clearcut than the ones I've sorted (machine learning, neural nets, etc). Alai 02:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
June 25th
Been at /D for a while, growing slowly, but certainly too small. Contrary to the consensus on how to split the uni-stubs (i.e. by country/region/subdivision, not by individual institution other than as a last resort in extreme cases), and badly-named. Ideally, upmerge to a to-be-created {{NorthCarolina-university-stub}}; failing which delete; failing which, rename both template and category per the naming guidelines. Alai 16:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Upmerge and consider doing the same with {{UGA-stub}}, {{OU-stub}}, and {{UTexas-stub}} and any other such stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Testify, brother. These suffer for pretty similar issues, and the two that are viably-sized look dubious to me in that the population seems to be overwhelmingly bio-stubs, and with a distinct suggestion of over-application (such and such played ball for us for a couple of years). Our experience with UTexas-stub might indicate that these are undeletable on "vote" numbers, though. Alai 20:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Upmerge into state-specific rather than university-specific types if viable, and move the bio-stubs back to where they belong. US-university is getting close to splitting, but this way is ridiculous. And remember Alai that this is not a vote pure and simple... reasoning is as important as actual numbers. Oh, and delete any and all stub categories that use the long-deprecated "-related" tag! Grutness...wha? 04:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm well aware that's true in theory, hence the scare-quotes. But when three well-argued, guidelines-citing "deletes" prevail over half a dozen of "I vote keep, because I like it/find it useful/am able to do so", I might actually feel it to be actually true. (Prevailing being, an SFD is closed on such a basis, and we get only moderate levels of dog's abuse over it at DRV, AN/I, yadda-yadda. Alai 05:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- What about Cat:University of Oklahoma-related Stubs and Cat:Oklahoma State University-related Stubs? Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 20:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- same as above. no university needs its own stub otherwise theyll all want them. anyway one of those cats is empty. and both are wrongly named. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Upmerge into state-specific units as per Grutness & BL Valentinian (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- OK, upmerged. If we're keeping the template, it should be renamed: to {{DukeUniversity-stub}}, say? Alai 00:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
June 24th
{{Argentina-sport-stub}} & {{Argentina-sport-bio-stub}} & Cat:Argentine sportspeople stubs
I am relisting this so soon because I am of the opinion that this was wrongly logged by the sole opponent of its deletion as no consensus. The previous discussion had 4 people give an opinion and the 3 were in favor of eliminating {{Argentina-sport-stub}} and 1 opposed. Having the sole opponent logging it as no consensus is decidely not kosher. Caerwine Caerwhine Caerwine Caerwhine 04:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
June 21st
Cat:Library stubs → Cat:Library and information science stubs
Given the smallish size of this category (and the related template {{library-stub}} from the discoveries page, and the fact that a number of the existing stubs already require the broader scope, how about making it official with a change of name (and of its non-stub parent)? Caerwine Caerwhine 14:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support as broadening our horizons. Would it be {{library-info-sci-stub}}? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC) (librarian)
- I've only nominated changing the name of the category, not the template. If we were to rename the template as well then removing two hyphens from your idea to give {{libraryinfosci-stub}} would be more in keeping with the naming guidlines, but I really don't see the need. If we ever do breakout the buildings as a separate stub type, {{library-struct-stub}} would work. More hyphens should mean that you are farther away from {{stub}}, not closer. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Okey dokey, as long as the text in the stub template is modified accordingly, e.g. "This article about library and information science is a stub." Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 00:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've only nominated changing the name of the category, not the template. If we were to rename the template as well then removing two hyphens from your idea to give {{libraryinfosci-stub}} would be more in keeping with the naming guidlines, but I really don't see the need. If we ever do breakout the buildings as a separate stub type, {{library-struct-stub}} would work. More hyphens should mean that you are farther away from {{stub}}, not closer. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Question. Is the template intended for library science or the buildings themselves? Caerwine's comments seem to suggest that it's a mix of both. It's a subtle but important difference. A Library and information science stub would be very useful if it did not include the libraries themselves - similarly there is possibly a case for a stub just for the libraries themselves. Some clever wording would be needed to separate the two, though. Grutness...wha? 01:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- There are not at present enough identified stubs to support two stub types (indeed there are barely enough for one) tho I doubt not that there are probably plenty of stubs about libraries lurking in the Buildings and structures stubs. In the regular categories, Cat:Libraries and Cat:Librarians are both children of Cat:Library and information science, so using {{library-stub}} for the root category makes sense. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfinished business
To orphan
Stub types in this section have been deemed deletable and have to be removed from all articles using them, so that they can be deleted.
To delete
Stub types in this section have been orphaned and can be deleted.
Listings to log
Stub types with completed discussions which have not yet been logged; remove from this page entirely when logged. Anyone can do this, not just an admin; please see the directions at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log.