Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/2006/August/6

< Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

August 6th

edit

{{ethical-stub}} / no cat

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename


From the discoveries page. Only 1 stub, but StubSense reports 77 philo-stubs in Category:Ethics and its sub cats (plus a lot more with other stub types, but some of those look suspect) and the philosophy stub category is overful. Rename to {{ethics-stub}} as a subtype of {{philo-stub}}. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Palmsoftware-stub}} / Cat:Palm OS Software stubs

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge


From the discoveries page. In over half a year, this stub has failed to garner more than 20 stubs, even if it be kept, both the template and the category need renaming, but with only 20 stubs and only 10 articles in the non-stub parent cat (4 of which have this stub) I see no evidence that this stub will ever be large enough to keep. Delete the stub and make certain that all the articles have {{compu-soft-stub}} and Category:Palm OS software instead. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can this be upscoped to, say, {{PDA-stub}}? (The template exists, but isn't in use, and doesn't have a category.) Alai 18:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to StubSense, Cat:PDAs has only 42 stubs which is a bit light. The next level up Cat:Mobile computer has 99 according to StubSense, so a mobile computing stub would make sense. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's do that, then, and upmerge the PDAs, too. Alai 22:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If by that you mean create {{compu-mobile-stub}} → Cat:Mobile computer stubs → Cat:Mobile computer with a redirect from {{PDA-stub}} and a deletion of {{Palmsoftware-stub}} (restubbing with {{PDA-stub}}), then I'm agreeable. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was thinking more in terms of keeping Palmsoftware-stub and PDA-stub as distinct templates, i.e., upmerging both, as size seems to be the only argument against either. Alai 02:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't see any harm in keeping it. --Yunipo 04:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Given our use of "soft" as a distinct naming component for "software" in other stub templates, if we needed a distinct template/redirect for Palm OS software, it would be better to name it {{PalmOS-soft-stub}} or even widen the scope to include the hardware and make it just {{PalmOS-stub}} than to keep the questionable {{Palmsoftware-stub}}. That's why I said when I nominated it that "even if it be kept, both the template and the category need renaming". I'm not opposed to have a redirect with possibilities, but the current template isn't quite right for that task. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I largely agree, though the current template name doesn't offend me so much that I feel the urge to get rid of it in any hurry. I'd not be opposed to a rename, certainly. Alai 04:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think we should keep it, what good is there in deleting it? --PEAR 15:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{SA-bio-stub}} (redirect)

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete


From the discoveries page. Was renamed as {{SouthAfrica-bio-stub}} which is now on the stub list, but was left as an ambiguous redirect that could just as easily mean SaudiArabia-bio-stub. Delete Caerwine Caerwhine 17:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, delete. Alai 18:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Valentinian (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Mumbai-stub}} & {{Mumbai-geo-stub}} / no cats

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete; upscope


Back in April Mumbai-stub was brought to SFD and no consensus was reached, tho the possibility of making it into Mumbai-geo-stub was made, which SPUI took as an invitation to make yet another redirect. Cat:Maharashtra geography stubs is getting close to being overlarge and a Mumbai-geo-stub would absorb most of the 70 odd stubs that had been given Mumbai-stub. Indeed, I've gone ahead and seperated out the Mumbai-geo-stubs from the other Mumbai-stubs in preparation for this SFD. I also gave Mumbai-geo-stub a distinct template so as to make it easier to see what's what. There are so few non-geo-stubs, I recommend we delete {{Mumbai-stub}}. As for {{Mumbai-geo-stub}} I see two distinct options. The simplest would be to simply give it a stub category of its own. The other is to make use of the fact that Maharashtra is one of the States of India that has an additional layer of bureaucracy between the State and District level called Divisions. The other possibility would be to make {{Mumbai-geo-stub}} into a redirect for a {{Konkan-geo-stub}} and create stubs for the other five divisions as well if they pass the 60 stub threshold. I can support either option for what to do with {{Mumbai-geo-stub}}. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Mumbai Stub. Attic Owl 16:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are only 5 stubs using Mumbai-stub, which is too few for a stub type, even if there were a WikiProject Mumbai. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's go with the "division" plan, and upscope accordingly. Alai 18:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/2006/August/6&oldid=1034567874"