Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/February/25

< Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion‎ | Log‎ | 2008/February

February 25 edit

{{Uiuc-stub}} / Cat:UIUC 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 replace witha stub type for all Illinois university stubs


Discovered belatedly through discussion on Uic-stub, below, this was was never proposed, was incorrectly formatted (fixed), and has not got halfway to threshold even after 20 months in existence. There seems to be a bit of a mix-n-match going on with US university stubs overall, but most of them use state-university-stub as their form (which keeps them in line with other splits of US stubs). Suggest renaming/rescopinging this into a new {{Illinois-university-stub}}, either upmerged or - if numbers are sufficient - along with Cat:Illinois university stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would support merging this stub category into "university in Illinois" or similar, per nom. Otherwise, it should not be deleted because the stub type should be specific, and it's used on 20 or so articles. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:17, 11 March 2008 (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.

{{Alien-stub}} / Cat:Alien 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 template to Alien-sf-stub, upmerge to Science fiction stubs, delete Alien stubs
Where to start? Unproposed. Unused. There is no Cat:Aliens or Cat:Alien. Ambiguous name (illegal aliens? no. Extraterrestrials? no. The Alien fim series? yes). Even being lenient and adding in the Predator categories to the Alien series category (Cat:Alien (film series)), yields only some 75 articles (difficult to count for certain, given the cross-categorisation of items in both parent and child categories). It would take nearly half of them to be stubs for this to reach threshold even with a WikiProject. Currently effectively handled by various film-, sf-, and videogame- stub types. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created this one, as part of the construction of Wikiproject Alien which I'm still working on and based off another WikiProject. I wasn't familiar with the proposals process or the threshold requirement. Unfortunately I would guestimate that a good deal of the Alien and Predator-related articles are in fact stubs (which is why I'm launching the project), so I could see it being used quite a bit, but if you feel it is better handled by other stub types then so be it. If you have further guidance for me on the project I've undertaken, please go ahead and message me on my talk page. I'm using the "learn by doing" method so I need all the coaching I can get. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the categories you mention don't exist yet because I'm still constructing them. Once they're created I'd planned to start placing project tags and stub tags on the articles that require them. The fact that the stub type is unused and uncategorized currently is because I only created it yesterday. I'm still deferring to your experience on the matter, I just wanted to address those specific points. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point about those categories is that they shouldn't exist. The correct category for the Alien film series already exists (Cat:Alien (film series)). Any category simply called Cat:Aliens or Cat:Alien would be a deletion candidate due to its ambiguity - too many things have those names and Alien is a disambiguation page. For the same reason, there should not be a category called Cat:Alien stubs, not a template called {{Alien-stub}}. If kept, this would need to be renamed to {{Alien-film-stub}} / Cat:Alien (film series) stubs or similar, though I would still question the need for it at all. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your points about the disambiguation of the category. I think the confusion there is that it doesn't just cover the film series, but also comics, video games, and other media. The primary media is of course the film series, but I'm hoping to move/expand Alien (film series) into something more like Star Wars as sort of the parent article for the project, so that it includes discussions of those other media. Similarly my hope is to rename Cat:Alien (film series) into something more inclusive of the franchise as a whole and its various media. The problem is settling on a proper disambiguation, since "alien" applies to so many things unrelated to the franchise (Alien (fiction series) maybe?). I've started assessing, sorting, and tagging articles withing the project and have tagged about 65 stubs so far. So my preferred course of action would be to rename the categories and stub to make it all fall under a uniform umbrella term. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps {{Alien-media-stub}} might be more clear, and would not be limited to just the films. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 02:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since stub categories follow permanent category names for the most party, your best course of action would be to try to change the permcat name at WP:CFD before making any stub categories. You may have problems though, since the term "Alien" is so ambiguous. Perhaps suggesting something like "Alien (entertainment franchise)" or similar might work, but I'm sure someone at CFD would be able to suggest better alternatives. In any case, starting with the stub category is definitely putting the cart before the horse. Grutness...wha? 00:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we reach a conclusion on this? Currently it seems there isn't a consensus, as I (the creator) would like to keep the stub type as it is useful for Wikiproject Alien, and 2 other editors (Grutnes & Pegship) would like to delete it. As stated there are currently 63 articles that use the template, and the threshold for inclusion is 50 according to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion#Possible reasons for the deletion of a stub type. I don't believe it meets any of the 6 reasons for deletion listed in that section. I defer to the experience of other editors here, as this is my first attempt at working with stub types, and I will not be upset if the conclusion is to delete. However, given that it has been almost 3 months since the deletion proposal was made and there have only been 3 voiced opinions with no apparent consensus, I believe the logical conclusion should be no consensus and a default to keep. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If we do keep this stub type, it still needs a new format in order to distinguish it from articles about little green wo/men. :P Any ideas? Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I propose a No consensus because this SfD has lasted 3 months now and there still isn't any clear majority. 2/3 for delete isn't a large enough group of people, so either the nom get more supporters, or no consensus DA PIE EATER (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd oppose that. "No consensus" is generally not used at SfD (the usual process is relisting or simply leaving here until things become clear), and this particular sfd was held up for a considerable time due to changes to the permcats. I agree with Pegship's comment move to delete, given that the only opposition to deleting came from the creator of the stub type. The stub type still does not agree in naming with the permanent category, and the presence of assessment articles now makes this stub type redundant. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New proposal edit

Given that this is hanging around here as a deadlock at the moment, I'd like to propose the following:

Of the two category choices, I'd favour the latter, since currently there are far too few articles for a separate stub category (24), even with the presence of a WikiProject. Given that the WikiProject has its own assessment template, it is unlikely to disadvantage them any either way. Grutness...wha? 09:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • I'd rather go with template rename and upmerge. And somebody not involved with this discussion needs to be the closer, or I'd have done so by now... Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that the "adjusted baseline" for the canonical stub type of a WPJ has generally been held to be 30, "far too few" seems to be over-egging things a tad. Alai (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, 24 is 20% below threshold target, and has actually dropped since this AfD began. In fact it's now only 20 - 33% below target - and many of those listed are marked for merger. I'd hardly describe that has being "close enough". Grutness...wha? 06:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st choice. DA PIE EATER (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2008 (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/2008/February/25&oldid=1045933769"