Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/December/21

< Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion‎ | Log‎ | 2006/December

December 21 edit

{{ITV-stub}} / Category:ITV 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 delete


To quote Grutness: "This one was kept after an SFD debate a year ago, when the WikiProject involved assured us of how rapidly growing the stub category was... nine stubs in a year doesn't seem rapidly growing to me, though". The debate in question. I only count 8 stubs myself btw. Can easily all be categorised under {{UK-tv-channel-stub}}

Strong Delete TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You're right, there are only eight. I miscounted. Grutness...wha? 03:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have {{BBC-stub}}, {{BBC-TV-stub}}, which could also be categorised under the main UK one. The ITV stub could be of equally good use (I only found it today, otherwise would have used it earlier). The JPStalk to me 15:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The big difference is that one has an ACTIVE wikiproject, and the other does not apparently. There is no reason why BBC-TV-stub can't use UK-tv-prog-stub either, other then that there is an active project. One of the reasons i oppose this type of stubbing, is that the involvement of parties in a TV production can be very untransparent. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:55, 28 December 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.

{{Artemis Fowl-stub}} / Cat:Artemis Fowl 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 keep, rename template


From WP:WSS/D. This had already been deleted in April (although it was {{AFStub}} then). Yes, it's a re-creation, but it does have 30 articles now, so I brought it here instead of speedying. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, and certainly rename the template if kept. If it grows further before the debate period's finished it could well be keepable. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because there are many articles in it and it is a useful category for people who like Artemis Fowl, and want to improve the articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.180.205.82 (talk • contribs)
Keep; there are over thirty articles in the category and I'm sure it is helpful for improving Artemis Fowl articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollymoon (talk • contribs)
Keep This page seems that it will grow in size over time. Cocoaguy (Talk)| (Edits) 20:26, 23 December 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.

{{biogeography-stub}} / Cat:Biogeography 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 delete


From WP:WSS/D. Waaaay too small. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not only waaay too small, but covered by other stubs anyway. I halved it by moving Montane to topography-stub... it now has just one stub. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. biogeography is an important discipline at the intersection of physical geography and biology. Tossing biogeography articles into the stub categories of other disciplines will only obscure matters, rather than bring greater order or clarity. Biogeography is not, for example, a sub-discipline of topography, which is the study of landforms; Montane, pygmy forest, Oak savanna, and Evergreen forest ought not be classified as topography stubs at all, but rather as biogeography stubs.

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.

{{lobbying-stub}} / Cat:Lobbying 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 delete


From WP:WSS/D. Has 43 articles, but the articles would be much better stubbed -org- or -politician- or whatever. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - All the articles I have seen of this stub is of various organizations (technical and non-technical). I think this is mainly a redundant site. Chris 20:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • restub the articles and delete this one, as per above. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 21 December 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.

Hong Kong politicians 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 keep both -politician- stubs


From WP:WSS/D. These need a good sorting out and deciding which template/cat to use.

~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two options: 1) Keep the politician stub (and its redirect), but there's no reason the others can't be covered by the more generic HongKong-bio-stub type, so delete them. 2) upmerge the politicians into the poli-bios, but lose the gov-bio redirect. Don't mind either way from these two options. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the -politician template. Delete the rest. In other words: the standard system. This material hasn't grown for a long time and the system is a mess. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 01:17, 26 December 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.

Ossetia 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 all


From WP:WSS/D Associated with WikiProject Ossetia. 7 articles total.

Probably just a delete all, unless more articles can be found. If so, then keep the general Ossetia-stub and delete the rest. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. yet another disputed territory stub group, and one that crosses current international borders (South O is in Georgia, North O is in Russia). Grutness...wha? 23:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete like any similar case. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:12, 22 December 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.

Cat:Professional wrestling people stubs → Cat:Professional wrestling biography stubs edit

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

The result of the debate was rename


Rename to match other sport biographies. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Geoffg 03:19, 22 December 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.

{{Kirk stub}} / Cat:Church of Scotland 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 delete


Unproposed, and showing a clear lack of use of the naming guidelines, and also some confusion as to what the stub type is for - none of the four stubs marked with this are about the church of Scotland per se, they are about church buildings of that denomination in Scotland. As such, if anything, they should be marked with Scotland-church-stub (or at the very least, if we don't yet have that, with UK-church-stub). Certainly there is no indication that there would be enough stubs on the organisation, liturgy and ranks within the Church of Scotland to require a stub type - and if there were, it would have a more clear-cut template name. Grutness...wha? 06:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Certainly there is no indication that there would be enough stubs on the organisation, liturgy and ranks within the Church of Scotland to require a stub type - and if there were, it would have a more clear-cut template name." On the contrary, there are a large number of biographical and geographical articles (current and potential) relating to the Kirk that would benefit from categorisation into a Church of Scotland stub as separate from a {{christianity-stub}} or {{church-stub}} or even a a {{scotland-stub}}. I only tagged four articles since I'm not an expert in the Kirk and these happened to be articles I came across whilst categorising churches in Scotland. I would tag more, would come across as an attempt to promote the tag unfairly so I will refrain from doing this until a decision has been made. Regards the name, by all means rename the stub to {{Church_of_scotland-stub}} etc., but I don't feel deletion is the answer. PMJ 21:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well as it stands at the moment, definition is certainly the problem. A ChurchofScotland-stub would be analogous to a RC-stub or Anglican-stub, covering the liturgy, organisation and ranks, but not the actual buildings or the people involved in the running of the church, which would get some form of location-church-stub and some form of reli-bio-stub respectively. You have church-stubs (i.e., relating to the actual buildings), bio-stubs (relating to the people involved) and actual ChurchofScotland-stubs (relating to the church itself) all mixed together, and the permcats for the three combined amount to about 200 articles, the vast majority of them people. I've no objection to a ChurchofScotland-bio-stub if there are 60 stubs about people connected with the church, but with only 41 churches in total with articles, it seems unlikely there would be 60 stubs there, and the 71 articles in the main permcat include a mixmatch of people and organisation, with fewer than 60 of those articles seemingly being the sort that would get a general ChurchofScotland-stub (60 is the threshold normally used for splits of stub categories, as explained at WP:STUB and elsewhere). Grutness...wha? 23:20, 23 December 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.

{{Miami-stub}} / Cat:Miami 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 delete


Unproposed and unused. Judging by the number of subcats of Cat:Florida stubs, such a category (and an associated {{Miami-geo-stub}}) might be useful, but there's no evidence of it here. If there's no sign of this reaching threshold in the immediate future, there's no point in keeping it. Grutness...wha? 06:44, 21 December 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/Log/2006/December/21&oldid=1088816378"