Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/March

< Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion‎ | Log

March 3

edit
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


Seems to be a mostly unused stub-type (only 2 pages in the category. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 05:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STUB says its a minimum of 60. Branson03 (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a minimum of 60 for a separate stub category - there isn't really a minimum for an upmerged template, though this one seems to be too little-used to be useful. Grutness...wha? 23:36, 5 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.

March 7

edit

Several Texas city templates

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 Austin-TX-stub, keep others as is


Following debate on category names at Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2008/February/7#Several_Texas_city_categories, I'm moving this to a separate section (the categories were pretty straightforward, this may need more discussion).

Currently we have templates at:

At the very least, the Austin one needs moving, but should it be moved to {{Austin-stub}}, or should it be moved to {{AustinTX-stub}} (since Austin is a dab page)? And if the latter, is it worth moving the other two at the same time? Dallas-stub could refer to the 80s TV series, for instance. At the very least, AustinTX-stub seems logical, though the others may be worth changing as well. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 7 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.

March 10

edit
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 redirect template, delete category


I know - it sounds pretty extreme, but let me explain. Every country in the Middle East now has its own geo-stub template, meaning that this is a holding cell only, populated by 15 categories and about two stubs. It's become simply another empty space to keep monitoring ior stray stubs. This happened with ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Southeast Asia geography stubs about a year ago, and the best solution there was simply redirect the template to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Asia geography stubs and move all the categories there too. Given that ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Asia geography stubs has fewer than 100 articles, it's hardly going to overburden it. It also helps with the longstanding problem that "Middle East geography stubs" hasn't used anything other than an arbitrary definition of what is or isn't Middle Eastern (no Egypt, for instance). Suggest upmerging this to the Asian category, per the "Southeast Asia solution". Grutness...wha? 22:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems a little perverse to be keeping the template (which really should never have been created in the first place), and deleting the category, which is an otherwise-plausible container, but that's a somewhat I-wouldn't-be-starting-from-here issue. Hopefully we can avoid same in the future. Alai (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm pretty sure the only remaining "region" geo-stubs I'll be suggesting this for in future will be the five African region ones - I'm pretty sure there are only two or three African countries without separate categories now, so that shouldn't be too long coming. I suppose it might be reasonable to consider it with the Caribbean and Central America categories too (both of which theoretically are North American), but they're less of a concern since the definitions of them are at least a little less ill-defined. Grutness...wha? 04:52, 17 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.

March 14

edit
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


Unproposed, no formatting in category, utterly unnecessary. The (unlinked) parent stubcat is in no need of splitting at present (fewer than 300 stubs), and the (unlinked) permcat has fewer than 120 articles, so there's a strong chance this wouldn't reach threshold. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So truthfully, I had no idea that stubs had to be proposed...Delete and propose? the_ed17 19:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better to debate it here - if the outcome is keep, it makes little sense to delete it just so that it can be remade. Most of the same people would be involved in the discussion in both places. Grutness...wha? 22:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and don't re-propose. :) (Unless there's some strong argument to keep that I'm missing.) Alai (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But is this category better to have than {{fantasy-stub}} because of how specific it is? It may have only a few links, but is it really that bad to have a specific stub type? You would figure that someone looking for a Shannara stub to edit would like looking in a Shannara stub category rather than having to go through all of the fantasy stubs.... I dunno. You tell me.....Changing vote to neutral for now. the_ed17 18:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a deliberate threshold of 60 stub articles required before a stub category is made (as explained at WP:STUB - for more information of the reasons for this, User:Grutness/Stub_rationales provides some explanation. Grutness...wha? 23:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category: Shannara stubs now has 60 articles...I went through and added articles that needed to be added... Take a look, tell me if I am wrong... the_ed17 20:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I glanced at some of these, on the basis of which it looks like you've on the one hand, tagged articles that were of medium length that were not previously tagged as stubs, or created very short articles, that presently will have a handful of "notability in fiction"-related tags slapped on them, by the several editors running riot with those at present. So, not ideal, no. Alai (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the "medium length" articles had an intro with 5 sentences on what they did in the story! Eretria (Shannara character) is very short, but she is a major character in The Elfstones of Shannara, so she deserves her own article...and I still have to start Flick Ohmsford. the_ed17 22:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but {{lit-char-stub}} is more specific than {{Shannara-stub}}; people looking for Shannara articles would benefit more, I think, from a talk page template. This has the added advantage of putting an article in a category belonging to a WikiProject, which you could certainly form for the benefit of yourself & other Shannara aficionados. Therefore I suggest we delete this stub type. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at this...if this has stub category, shouldn't Shannara, with a greater number of books in its series, have one too? the_ed17 19:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent for sanity) Good point. OK, I can live with it for now. Take a look at WikiProject Media franchises and maybe you can create a Shannara sub-project; this would, I think, help your case and perhaps recruit some help. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a Shannara task force right here at WikiProject Novels...but then the problem: I think that I am the only regular contributor! the_ed17 15:09, 6 May 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.
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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

Unproposed, newly created stub type, already thoroughly covered by other stub types. The category might conceivably work as a parent-only container for the specific types for, example, classical compositions, classical albums, and classical musicians, but there is no indication there'd be any stubs that could use this that couldn't more effectively use one of the subtypes. As such, the template is redundant and should be deleted. Grutness...wha? 07:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: I am not sure I understand the concept of redundancy here. My understanding is that overlapping stubs are common. also multiple stubs on single articles. I see there are four classical music stubs already ('Classical composition', 'Classical album', 'Classical music group', 'Classical musician'), but they are obviously not appropriate for every classical music article (e.g. orchestras, publications and books, concert halls and managment etc etc.) Perhaps a less specific tag might be better? But this is my first time here - before I say keep or delete I'd like to understand the process (and its rationale) better. Thank you. Best. -- Kleinzach (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple stubbing does exist, but so as to avoid excessive stubbing only the primary classifications of each article are used to identify stub types. If this wasn't done, there would be as many stub templates on articles as there are categories - in some cases dozens. A lot of editors complain when there are as many as two or three stub templates on an article, claiming they make the articles ugly. As such, an absolute maximum of four stub templtes per article is used, and where possible we strive for far less. In the examples you gave, orchestras are a form of classical music group, and are classified as such. Publications and books are classified as music book stubs and music publication stubs. Similarly concert halls are primarily identified as music venues (an important point in this case since a very small minority of classical music venues are only classical music venues, and are further divided by their location. Management would similarly be listed under music organisation stubs. Before new stub types are created, it is important to confirm that stubs could not currently be sorted successfully using other stub types, or that by doing so the number of stubs using a particular stub type would be so large as to make hunting for stubs difficult for editors (this is all explained at WP:STUB, along with the proposal procedure). Grutness...wha? 09:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stub proliferation is indeed a bad thing, but that is all the more reason to have ones that are broadly applicable. How are editors going to find out the 'correct' stub for concert halls as explained above? Only a stub expert would know! So that's decided! I am in favour of keeping the Classical-music-stub and deleting the strangely named (and doubtless little used) 'Classical album' and 'Classical music group' stubs. ('Classical composition' and 'Classical musician' are obviously worth keeping.) Thank you for the clarification. -- Kleinzach (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's slightly disingenuous. The subcats of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Classical music groups (orchestras etc.) are obviously working fine. Anyway we are talking about stubs. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Classical album stubs are surely a motley collection, no? (I don't think the word 'album' has been used for recordings since the LP era.) -- Kleinzach (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my bad; I meant to say ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Classical music group stubs, which does indeed contain over 300 articles (cumulative). And as long as iTunes uses the word "album" I think it is not dead yet. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While a hardcore minority of twits decided in the mid-80s that the term "album" was passe', and that such releases were henceforth "CDs" (a prime instance of confusing the medium and the message, or at least their respective importances), that's far from being the case. Witness WP's article on the topic being at album, the category hierarchy starting at ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:albums, and the permcat parent of that stub type being ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:classical albums. So I think we can fairly safely say that the naming and scoping is not some quaint relic of WPSS practice. Alai (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The usual English word is 'recording', but referring back to Pegship's point about iTunes, maybe it's still used for popular music? . . . -- Kleinzach (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that the current category naming doesn't follow "usual English" usage in unpopular music circles, you should start off by proposing a rename of the permcat. The stub cat is clearly just following the rest of the hierarchy, and is amazingly unlikely to be changed without a rename further up. (To which, for the record, I'd strongly opposed, on the basis of both consistency with the rest of the category tree, and actual "usual English".) Alai (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I remember being a new editor here and having to spend 10 minutes trying to chase down the stub for a piece of classical music only to find there wasn't one and I had to categorise the stub myself. By having this stub we let new editors place the article under a broad category and other more experience editors can then change them. And believe me not every editor knows the stub categories inside out. Example? Broken consort is a music-related stub, so is Bruckner rhythm. Also thanks to this we have some dodgy categorisations eg. Händel-Werke-Verzeichnis listed as a composer-stub. Since when is catalogue a composer? Sometime on I also plan to split {{Template:Conductor-stub}} into {{Template:Conductor-stub}} and {{Template:Bandleader-stub}}. The two are very different areas of music and require wholly different knowledge to edit for. A classical composer is usually maintained by the classical music editors whereas bandleaders by other music genre editors. I have not heard of anyone who specialises in just classical conductors and bandleaders. Centy – reply• contribs – 16:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of analysis/information would be very useful when stubs get split - it'd be great if you could join in any debates on the splitting of classical stubs when they occur at WP:WSS/P - I'd also ask you to propose any splits you consider, such as the bandleader/composer one, there so that they can get as much input from people involved in stub organisation. Stubs splitting always works more effectively when WSS and any specific WikiProjects related to the stub subjects work in collaboration (as we have done on classical music stub types in the past, come to think of it, when the current splits were set up). Grutness...wha? 01:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As supercilious in tone ("So that's decided!"?) and weakly-reasoned in content as I find the "keep" argu-votes, I'm not sure it's worth the candle to delete this. It's of some modest organisational value as a container, as Grutness notes, and it's just about possible that it'll see some use as a "between the cracks" type, so it might as well have a populating template, too. If it turns into a dumping ground for people who can't be bothered looking up stub types, that's their own lookout, at least in the first instance. (If I end up re-sorting 800+ of 'em, I shall be less than pleased, however.) Alai (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the context you'll see "So that's decided!" meant (Thanks to the clarification provided) I've now determined my position. -- Kleinzach (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found the several other instances of much the same tone more instructive context. Alai (talk) 02:37, 20 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.

March 15

edit

'bassist' cleanup

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 convert main template into a "please don't use", redirect other two to it; keep bassist stubbs cat, delete two national ones


This is essentially a procedural nomination, following on from recent changes in "facts on the ground". Firstly, the following have been emptied:

So unless they're going to be repopulated, by reverting the split into "bass guitarists" and "double bass players", they should be deleted as redundant. If that split is reverted, we should instead get rid of the long-standing ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:bass guitarist stubs, which has been semi-duplicating these for a couple of years now. Then there's the matter of their populating templates:

If the term "bassist" is regarded as being inclusive of both, we should probably avoid using it to populate the bass guitarists, and either duplicate it, or turn it into a "football-style" deprecation message. If one thinks it primarily means the strumming faction, they might reasonably be kept as redirects. Alai (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cats were emptied by changing where the templates point to, so they could easily be repopulated, as there are still a lot of articles using the templates. Given the ambiguity in the term bassist, having the templates apply to just bass guitarists is not appropriate. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether they could be repopulated, but whether they should be repopulated. And as I say, if we have "bassists in general" types, we should not also have a "bass guitarists" type, which it would entirely subsume. Alai (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/delete/modify, per the following:

It might be worth considering changing the "please don't use" templates to add some sort of glaring message like when an editor fails to subst a {{cfd}} or {{afd}} template. Grutness...wha? 23:53, 15 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.

Three cats for one template

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 template and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Arab cuisine stubs; delete other cats


We have an unproposed {{Arab-cuisine-stub}} which given the existence of a long standing corresponding permanent category (‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Arab cuisine) is probably worth keeping as an upmerged template at the very least. However, during creation, he managed to create three separate categories ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Arab cuisine stubs (which matches the permanent category), ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Arabic cuisine stubs (which matches our general preference for adjective forms), and the one which the template currently feeds into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Arab cuisine stub which breaks the stub category naming guidelines by using stub instead of stubs. Clearelt the last needs to be deleted, and at least one of the other two need to go as well, and possibly both if this stub doesn't meet the 60 stub threshold. I have no preference as for which of the two to keep if it does grow to threshold. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The stub has grown to 35 references as I am writing this. I am sure it can achieve the necessary 60 references it needs to stay on. It just needs a little more time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufitul (talk • contribs)

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.

March 17

edit
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 speedily deleted


I discovered that a user had repointed {{org-stub}} to point to this new category last month instead of the long existing category ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Organization stubs. Since the existing category both has several sub categories and follows the naming guidelines for stub categories, I repointed the template to its original category and brought this new category here for deletion. Possibly this was done to fix a redlink in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations since {{topic}} which is used by the deletion sorting pages would by default create a link to this category. I've given {{topic}} the appropriate parameter to make it point to the correct stub category. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:07, 17 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.

March 18

edit

{{NES Game Stub}}

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 speedily deleted after userfication


Despite its name, this is not a stub template. In fact, it's not really a template of any sort in the Wikipedia sense - it's more a basis for an article which should be in a sandbox somewhere - a template in the more generic sense of being a base model from which to make articles. It shouldn't be called anything "Stub", and it shouldn't be in template space. Perhaps userfying it to a user subpage (which I've suggested to its creator)would make sense if it's in use - if not, then deletion remains an option. Grutness...wha? 11:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userify or delete, according to creator's preference, or in the event of there being a plausible claim of valid use of the template namespace, rename (which might just end up kicking things over to TFD, but never mind)... Alai (talk) 16:10, 18 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.

March 19

edit

{{Metabolic pathway stub}} / no category

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 & upmerge


This stub template which has been on the discovery page since last March has several problems:

  1. It has no category.
  2. It doesn't follow the WP:WSS/NG naming guidelines for stub templates.
  3. It uses a parameter.

Since there is an associated, but inactive Wikiproject (Wikiproject Metabolic Pathways) it barely meets the 30 stub threshold, unless we don't count inactive Wikiprojects as triggering the lower threshold. The optional parameter merely adds text to the blurb text, so it isn't a major problem. If kept then {{metabolism-stub}} is the logical template name for it. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:21, 19 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.

Various Chinese sports bio templates

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 as is


I want to reopen the |Discussion on February 7 that not inform Wikipedia:WikiProject China. That proposal is to rename {{China- to {{PRChina-

But i against it:

  1. PRC preceding ROChina in FIFA membership, etc.
  2. Territory of ROC (1910-1949?) and its people should preceding to current governing body, i.e. player represent ROC (1910-1949), except those later represent Taiwan under the name Chinese Taipei, should belongs to {{China-bio-stub}} and its sub-cat.
  3. preceding to main cat {{China-bio-stub}}

Matthew_hk tc 14:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The standard practice for stub names relating to China (and China) is to have templates at PRChina-X and Taiwan-X, except in those cases where the articles in question include substantial numbers of stubs relating to pre-1949 China (as is the case with China-bio-stub, China-hist-stub, and the like. Given that most of the articles in the various sports categories are biographies of people who have represented either PRC or ROC since 1949, it makes more sense to split these stub types in two. In several of the cases, there are not as yet Taiwan-X-stub types, but it would make far more sense to propose such templates than to attempt to recombine two different groups of stubs. I would certainly oppose any move back to the previous naming pattern for this reason. The stubs which were renamed had an sfd message on them for some time, which should have also been present on the example stub templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject_China/Stub_templates (I see now that for some reason you don't have the sport templates there). Grutness...wha? 00:03, 20 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.

March 20

edit

Rename/rescope of {{Ride-stub}}

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/rescope to {{Amusement-ride-stub}} - retention of current name as rediurect for the time being at least, though that may become the subject of a separate sfd later


This one's a longstanding and frequently-used stub, but it's name and scope has been worrying for a while. {{Ride-stub}} is used for amusement parks and amusement park rides, but we also have the widely-overlapping {{Amusement-park-stub}}. I'd like to suggest the deletion of the current name as overly ambiguous, to be replaced by a more strictly-scoped {{Amusement-ride-stub}} which makes clear that it is only for the rides, and not for the parks. Grutness...wha? 23:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Something called ride-stub shouldn't include amusement parks anyway. I don't have any objection to renaming it, but why not just rewrite it, and get rid of the amusement park part? Like: This article about an amusement ride or roller coaster is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. Branson03 (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I mean about rescoping. My suggestion is to rename this to a less ambiguous name, and take any reference to amusement parks out of the wording of both the template and the category. Grutness...wha? 23:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "or roller coaster" bit is superfluous anyway; since when were roller coasters (as implied by the current wording) not amusement rides? -- Korax1214 (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the rename will, ironically, make those more similar, and possibly even more subject to confusion, this would seem to be the most sensible thing to do in the circumstances. Rescope, rename, re-sort. Alai (talk) 06:29, 21 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.
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 all three to "Foo biography stubs"


nom includes ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Medical biographical stubs

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:German medical biographical stubs
‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:United States medical biographical stubs

Propose rename to match other cats from biographical to biography.Waacstats (talk) 11:36, 20 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.

{{Omaha-NRHP-stub}}

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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

NRHP-stubs are in the process of being split by state, and in one or two cases where there are very large numbers within specific states, they have been split by county. We've never split by city, however, and if we were to, there are probably places we'd start with before Omaha. Note that this stub actually isn't what it says, anyway - its text suggests that it should be named DouglasNE-NRHP-stub, but giuven there are currently unlikely to be enough Nebraska-NRHP-stubs for more than an upmerged template, this seems a poor chocie for a separate template. Delete Grutness...wha? 03:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are more than 20 current stub articles related to the NRHP in Douglas County, and I have more in the works. I didn't follow the convention because I didn't know there was one; rename the template but don't delete it. Also, Grutness, thanks for the note, and please note that this is the first stub template I've created, and I certainly wasn't aware that there is a stub cabal at work - sorry to break protocol. • Freechild'sup? 03:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it being your first stub would have been all the more reason to read WP:STUB to see how and why stub templates are made? S'alright though - it's a common enough mistake to make. Grutness...wha? 10:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, rescope, and if necessary re-upmerge, if these put Nebraska 'over the top' for its own NRHP category. State level would have been a much more logical place to start, though... Alai (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose one option would be to do the same as is done with the Ohio ones - turn it into DouglasNE-NRHP-stub and use that as a redirect to Nebraska-NRHP-stub until such time as splitting's needed. Grutness...wha? 11:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I have more than three dozen stubs to write, most of which could be tagged with DouglasNE-NRHP-stub - you can see I created most of the Nebraska-NRHP-stubs as well. I stopped using the DouglasNE-NRHP-stub after this AfD was started, and given the opportunity to duly stub it I will. Otherwise there is no convenient way for editors to sort out the DouglasNE-NRHP-stubs from the Nebraska-NRHP-stubs, which is my primary interest area. If stub sorts aren't useful for editors who actively work on the stubs then who are they for - others who debate their usefulness? • Freechild'sup? 18:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, that simply tells me that stub sorting is simply an administrative task that is not meant to practically assist editors. I would challenge that "utility, not futility" need be the consideration for creating "levels" of stub sorting. By keeping the sort at the state level you are simply proponenting the futile exercise of stamping everything in a standardized fashion, rather than being responsive to the practical needs of editors who actually write the stubs in question. • Freechild'sup? 18:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you get that impression. Stub sorting has been a great deal of help to many editors, even under the current guidelines, which are really not as restrictive as you seem to believe. If there weren't "organizers" like the stub sorting folks, editors wouldn't be able to find stubs to improve. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:15, 18 April 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.

March 22

edit
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


I seem to have accents, diacritics, and other ext-Latin matters on the brain at the moment... But that aside, this is wholly inconistent with both the permcat, perhaps somewhat tersely at ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Centre, and the article, which is at Centre, France. I'm not sure any of these are ideal, but let's either bring the stub cat somewhat more in line with the other two, or take one or both of those off for renaming, then revisit this. Alai (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is probably a case where the stub template name is right and the permcat is wrong - that's a mighty ambiguous cat name. Grutness...wha? 20:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The stub template name (element) and the permcat are the same... Alai (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh. Need more coffee. Make that stub category :) I've taken the permcat to CFD, BTW. Grutness...wha? 22:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Permcat is now at ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Centre (region) - suggest the stubcat should follow suit. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 2 April 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.
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 to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Doctor Who stubs


Unproposed, though well formed, but hardly necessary. Yes, there is a Torchwood WikiProject, but there is also a hardly-overtaxed Doctor Who stub type which all these articles could easily be marked with, and given the size of the Torchwood permcat (which, with all its article subcats, barely scrapes to 60 articles, many of which cover both Torchwood and Doctor Who), it seems to be redundant to separate this out as a separate stub type. Delete, or at the very least upmerge into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Doctor Who stubs. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • ...in which case it would be a simple case to propose the category at that time. Stub category thresholds are based on current stub numbers, not possible future stubs (it's possible to make 60 stubs on anything... but that doesn't mean that those stubs will be made). An upmerging until that time means that the stubs are ready sorted for any future split - if it's required. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 25 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.

March 23

edit

{{Jura-geo-stub}}

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 make current template into "deprecated, don't use" type, rename swiss template to JuraCH. Note: I have made a temporary ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Jura geography stubs to be re-sorted, which can be freely deleted once these stubs have been reassigned.


OK, blame me for this one. Template name seemed OK at the time, but a less brilliant idea now that we have hundreds of articles in the newly-split French Jura-geos. I suggest we move this to {{JuraCH-geo-stub}}. What we do with the redirect I throw open to the floor. BTW, has anyone else noticed the assorted Swiss stub types that are funny-looking, due to the transclusion of Portal:Switzerland/Stub? Methinks another WPJ whacky scheme is afoot. Alai (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably delete the redirect, since it'll just be too ambiguous. Problem, of course, is with people used to seeing it... As to the rename, support. Grutness...wha? 23:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking either deletion, or "deprecated template" message. (Perhaps upmerged someplace semi-arbitrary, in the latter case.) Alai (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...such as ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Europe geography stubs, which I tidy out once a month anyway, if no-one else has earlier. Sounds like a good idea. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge to {{Switzerland-geo-stub}} or rename {{CantonJura-geo-stub}} would be ok for me.
BTW the transclusion mentioned above shouldn't have a visible effect, except Portal:Switzerland/New articles. -- User:Docu
The rename, if done, would be to the standard JuraCH form (which is how geo-stub naming is done in ambiguous cases) - but that's not the problem. The problem is we've got a frequently-used form (Jura-geo-stub) that is ambiguous. We can't easily use it as a redirect to either JuraCH- or JuraFR-. Hence the ideas about upmerging it somewhere bigger and regularly sifted with a "don't use" label (see {{China-geo-stub}} for a similar example). Grutness...wha? 00:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Note that the Jura region and the Jura Mountains in Switzerland are not identical with the canton of Jura covered by this geo-stub template. This doesn't necessarily preclude us from using {{JuraCH-geo-stub}} though. -- User:Docu
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.

March 25

edit

{{Barney-episode-stub}}

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 the purpleosaurus


Redlinked, and to the best of my knowledge never used (certainly currently unused). There is no ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Barney & Friends episodes, and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Barney & Friends has a mere 40 articles, of which a casual sampling reveals very few are stubs. Simply not needed. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let us exorcise this spawn of B'harne. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was used (and had a category, and was proposed). Follow the links, and the history. Looks like someone has been screwing around with depopulation and {{db-empty}}ing without bothering to let us know, but it may be that the past need has since, well, passed. Alai (talk) 04:08, 25 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.

March 26

edit

{{Universalforumofculures-stub}} (redlink)

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


About as useless a stub type as imaginable - no parent permcat, and only about four articles which are about this forum, only one of which is a stub. Pointless. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:37, 26 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.

{{LGBT-bio-stub}} (upmerged)

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 but reword to clarify scope (see Severo's comment at the end of this discussion)


Though I can see the rationale behind this one, it's not in line with normal stub-splitting practice, and is too wide a scope to be of much use. This stub type is not for people specifically associated with LGBT activism (if it was, then there might be less of a problem) - it's for LGBT people in general - people who would normally be split by either occupation or nationality. Splitting by sexual preference strikes me as an unhelpful method of sorting these articles, and one which will simply add an extra template to the bottom of the articles. There'd be no doubt this could reach threshold, given that it's likely that 5-10% of all bio-stubs could qualify for this template - itsm practicality, however, is severely limited. Either rescope to cover only LGBT activists, or delete. Grutness...wha? 02:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've had a talk-page banner with assessment, so, no, that was not my aim. :) It was, as I said before, an attempt at having a more appropriately worded stub template than we had for biography articles. I realize now that the process of my introduction of a new stub type was incorrect. Aleta Sing 03:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think as long as the template is used to tag people who are notable in terms of LGBT issues I don't see to much of a problem. If it was used on people just because they were/are LGBT then there would be a problem. Waacstats (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is my main concern. If it is simply used for people notable in terms of LGBT issues, then there's far less of a problem - as long as it is used to supplement rather than replace nationality and profession stub types. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly never intended it as a replacement for nationality or profession stub types... only as a replacement for one saying "LGBT issues" on biographies. Aleta Sing 01:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Aleta; it would help the project AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My hunch is that it will help the project and the LGBT crew, myself included, have had to be vigilant about who is tagged in the project and how. Please note as well that the LGBT tag indicates a bio is of interest to the project not that the person themself is automatically deemed to be LGBT. Banjiboi 14:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong rescope to include only people directly notable in relation to LGBT identity or issues, and absolutely not simply on the basis of people's personal orientation (season wording to taste, but carefully). Otherwise, delete as utterly inappropriate in its present form. Alai (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Based on the way ethnicity stubs are used for bio pages, I disagree with the need to rescope. Bios are commonly stubbed (and WikiProjected) based on ethnic identity and national origin even when those categories are only vaguely relevant. I think the tag is fine for anyone who identified as gay, even if they are important for other reasons. Aristophanes68 (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment "utterly inappropriate"? You're acting like it's an insult. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is utterly inappropriate from a stub-sorting point of view in its current form. The aim of stub-sorting is to divide stubs into small, useful categories for editors specialised in specific areas of research. Nationality is of very great importance when it comes to finding editors who can help edit articles - which is a basic purpose of stub-sorting - as is occupation or field of interest. Researchers from, say, Moldova are more likely to know about Moldovans, editors who are interested in physics are more likely to know about physicists. Editors whose knowledge of LGBT matters are strong may well be able to assist with articles about people well-known within the field of LGBT activism, but are not necessarily particularly likely to be more or less able to help with articles about people who are simply gay, say, but not in any other way connected with LGBT issues. And creating a stub type that could conceivably be used on 10% or so of all bio-stubs- i.e., tens of thousands of articles - is not anyone's idea of "small useful categories". A stub type for LGBT activists is fine - and one already exists. A banner template for people covered by the LGBT WikiProject is also fine - and one of those already exists too. This is redundant to those two to a large extent, and isn't really much help on its own merits. Grutness...wha? 00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see what you're saying but I don't fully agree, those who have knowledge of LGBT issues and concerns on wikipedia actually would be able to assist even if the parent category LGBT bio stub were quite large; I could see further refining it (kinda) if the goal is to sort down to smaller groupings by adding parameters if someone is intersex/transgender; bisexual-related; lesbian; I could also see having "activism" although that would seem an awfully large category so I wonder if coupled with other stubs like LGBT bios from United States and then sort that by our traditional L/G/B/T might make any sense. Other parameters could be sorting by year of birth and whether they are living or not. Banjiboi 02:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on the comparison you've made, if it's true that they're being used in such a way, I equally strongly believe that "ethnic" stub types should also be so (re)scoped -- if they have to exist at all, about which I've been consistentlyextremely skeptical about (see the archives). Wikipedia is way too fond of vaguely-defined and utterly non-notable interpretations of ethnicity as categorisation, the last thing we need to be doing is start turning them into stub message in the article-space too, and then moving on to do the same thing with sexual orientation. If you want an open-ended "tracking" resource, please use a talk-page template, and don't hijack stub templates for such a purpose. If the "owning" project is going to insist on applying it in such a manner, then strong delete. Alai (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It would make managing LGBT biography articles much easier. It is not "too wide to be useful": the fact that it would be used on many LGBT bios means it will be helpful. It seems utterly appropriate that editors with an interest in LGBT people & issues have a way to easily identify and contribute to articles where a person's LGBT-ness is relevant enough to be mentioned. Queerudite (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what {{LGBTProject}} is for. Indeed, for all of the arguments above (AgnosticPreachersKid , Banjiboi) that state it should be kept because it is of interest to the LGBT project, that is what your project banner is for. SeveroTC 22:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Such as say, Wikiproject templates, say? "Issues" is one thing, but I'm highly skeptical of the value of facilitating editors whose only common point of interest with a number of different subjects is on the basis of sexual orientation. I'm fairly convinced this is yet another nail in the coffin of keeping stub types on a more systematic basis than the grab-bag that exists in talk-page templates and categories (just as in this "discussion", people have already cited the highly problematic precedent of tagging people by ethnic identity as a basis for keeping this type). Just how open-ended are we planning on making article-space bannerising people by non-notable attributes? Alai (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rescope – could be useful for people who derive their notability through LGBT issues. It should not be used on a biography where LGBT issues are not the main notability of the subject. SeveroTC 22:13, 1 April 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.

March 27

edit

{{Ireland-duke-stub}}/upmerged

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 nomination withdrawn


Unproposed, and seems unnecessary. Upmerged into the Irish peerage stubs category, which, at fewer than 200 stubs, is not going to need splitting for a considerable time, if at all. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if/when we do, the UK precedent suggests this is how we'll do it, and in the meantime, the assorted title-specific templates may give rise to an expectation that they also should exist for Ireland. (More consistently than this, but that's another issue.) Keep, or else redirect. Though no 50px images, please... Alai (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm. Hadn't noticed that - okay - I withdraw my nom. Grutness...wha?
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/March&oldid=202412272"