Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion‎ | Log

October 1

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
Per May 2007 Discoveries discussion, delete; used on 23 items, no growth since May 2007, and unproposed. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:20, 1 October 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 delete
Per May 2007 Discoveries discussion, delete; only 7 items in it, and the creator concurs with deletion. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:13, 1 October 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.

October 3

edit

New dam stub categories

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


for some reason, we didn't finalise the naming of the new categories for dams, and as such the naming's gone a little awry. we have:

Unfortunately, the permcat is simply ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Dams, so these should really be

Rename all. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thrown off guard by the system for bridges. Bridge-struct-stub etc and bridge building and structure stubs. I guess this was only to avoid being confused with the game bridge. The Bald One White cat 16:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed so. {{Church-stub}} and its ilk may have been a better style to use. I support Alai's idea of moving the templates and keeping the current names as redirects, BTW - I wondered about that at the time but thought the categories were the more obvious thing to fix. Grutness...wha? 23:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably the bridge-structs should likewise be at bridge-stub, on the basis that the article bridge is about those, with just a hatnote on the game, so it has a decent claim to be the primary sense. Probably be more trouble than it's worth to change that one at this stage, though. Alai (talk) 11:26, 4 October 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.

October 6

edit

{{DeanofExeter-stub}} and {{DeanofManchester-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


Two new unproposed templates, both upmerged into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Archbishop of Canterbury stubs, of all places. No need for either of these - ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:deans of Manchester and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Deans of Exeter have fewer than 20 articles between them, and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:United Kingdom Christian clergy stubs is nowhere near there being a need to consider a split. Seems unlikely to be useful, especially since several of the articles which could use these are more effectively covered by {{UK-bishop-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is likely to be more confusing than useful, especially if it's applied -- as at present -- to people more notable for being bishops, as Grutness points out, or naturalists, etc. If there's a missing slot in the already-extensive clerical stub hierarchy it would be be for {{UK-Anglican-clergy-stub}}s, but even that might be a solution looking for a problem at present. Alai (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as below the normal thresholds with no hope of reaching same. - Dravecky (talk) 03:53, 1 November 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.

October 15

edit

Stub category redirects

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

Since stub categories are populated by templates, I think that we don't need category redirects for these, so I think we should delete them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:55, 15 October 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.

October 18

edit

{{Supergiant-star-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 upmerged to star stubs


This is unproposed. Someone else tried to speedy this, but it was declined. This is not a stub template, though it claims to be one. There is no associated category, and it is not supported by the appropriate WikiProjects. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 05:11, 18 October 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 delete


Unproposed, and with several problems. First, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Greek Catholic churches has only three articles, so getting this up to 60 stubs will be problematical, to say the least. Second, the template not only has a very un-NC name, but also has no text at all. It's also worth noting that not only is there no category for ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Greek Catholicism, but Greek Catholicism is a redirect to Eastern Catholic churches. Seems less than unnecessary. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 18 October 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.

October 19

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 upmerge to Category:Prehistoric reptile stubs

After going through the first two levels of parent categories (‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Prehistoric reptile stubs and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Reptile stubs), I have only found 13 stubs for this category. I think we should upmerge it. While there may be a few higher up in the stub category tree, I find it unlikely that there is a significant number of them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look through ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Ichthyosaurs, buyt if it doesn't get much further then , yes, upmerging looks the best option. Grutness...wha? 21:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh - skip that, even if everything in that category and its subcat were a stub it still wouldn't get near threshold, so upmerge is best. Grutness...wha? 21:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went through that, and even including ichthyopterygia (which is a questionable inclusion, perhaps) it only got to about 22 stubs. Grutness...wha? 21:44, 19 October 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.

October 20

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


Unproposed stub type. Incorrectly named (should be -mil-) and inappropriately scoped, given that - with very rare exceptions - stub types are for currently existing nations. Severely undersized category too - a category which has no stub parents. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 20 October 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 delete


As above, with the added problem that YW is primarily a Spanish airline, and this clearly has nothing to do with that. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 20 October 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 delete


And another. Unproposed stub type. Inappropriately scoped, given that - with very rare exceptions - stub types are for currently existing nations. Category currently empty, with no guarantee that it would reach threshold. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 20 October 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 delete


Again. Unproposed stub type. Inappropriately scoped, given that - with very rare exceptions - stub types are for currently existing nations. Category currently empty, with no guarantee that it would reach threshold. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 20 October 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 delete


And finally... Unproposed stub type. Inappropriately scoped, given that - with very rare exceptions - stub types are for currently existing nations. Category currently empty, with no guarantee that it would reach threshold. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 20 October 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.

October 23

edit

{{Einstein Family-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


Unproposed, non-standard named stub type that is of no use whatsoever for stub sorting. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Einstein Family contains only 20 pages, a staggering seven of which are portal and template-related (i.e., there are only 13 actual articles). Of those 13, several are not stubs, and several of the remainder are likely deletable (under the "notability is not inherited" guidelines). Inappropriately upmerged to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Writer stubs, though none of the articles on members of the Einstein Family are primarily about writers. No way on Heaven or earth this will get anywhere near needing to be split out as a separate stub type, and even if it were a dozen times its current size it still wouldn't be a sensible way to split bio-stubs up. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 23 October 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.

October 25

edit

Three artist stub types

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


None proposed, the first two of them incorrectly named, and none of them even close to being usable in their current malformed state. Not surprisingly, none of them are in use. Given the two conflicting meanings of the word "contemporary" and the often conflicting definitions of the description "contemporary art", the third is also a poor choice for a split. Schools and styles of art are not, in any case, a standard method for splitting artist stubs, given the often overlapping nature of the styles and the different styles which individual artists may use during their careers (and if we were, "contemporary" art still wouldn't be one of them, given that it's a grab-bag agglomeration of several different styles and schools which we would be better off splitting individually) - we use nationality as the primary way of splitting them. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:27, 24 October 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.

October 27

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 (again)


Yes, this was nominated less than a month ago - the decision then was "delete", but this has been undeleted on the grounds that the creator of the stub type was never notified of the deletion process and therefore was unable to put his side of the argument. As such, this is a procedural re-listing. For my part, however, I have to say that this still does not look like a useful split - gived the small number of articles that were using this at the time of deletion (despite the fact that it had been in use for over a year), it does not appear to be a particularly useful split - delete. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that it was nominated in slightly different form in April last year. Decision then was to rename - no dcecision was made on the category, despite the majority of comments seeming to favour upmerging unless the category got to threshold (which it never seems to have). Grutness...wha? 00:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I thoroughly have time to discuss this, I think this should be kept. The whole stub category process was entirely unnecessary when I originally created this grouping a year and a half ago. I understand that the only people who will be commenting here, other than me, are the people who solely focus on stub sorting and the stub proposal process, which is entirely skewed. The level of bureaucracy created here is entirely unnecessary, and while my comments here probably won't mean anything, I will just summarize with this: I am extremely dissatisfied with the nitpicking attitude of stub sorters, and that new categories and templates have to be approved before anything is done. Nowhere else is this done on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you perhaps concentrate on reasons you think the stub type needs saving, rather than simply launching an unprovoked attack on stub sorters? As to things being approved before anything else is done only here and nowhere else on Wikipedia, that is patently untrue - protected pages also require talk-page discussion before editing is done to them, and among those protected pages are high-use templates. Most stub templates are, by definition, high use, so requiring some form of approval before creation makes perfect sense. It also makes perfect sense for other reasons which i have explained on your talk page. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wanted to use the stub today when I found an article that fit in it. When I found it was deleted, I thought it was entirely unnecessary that these be deleted, and what you think is an attack, I call a criticism of this system. As I said, there is no where else on WIkipedia where you have to get something approved before you make the page. I know that this stub will have some use in the upcoming months when a new series and new articles relating to the subject.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since all of the articles currently marked with {{KamenRider-stub}} wouold be well covered by other stub types, I don't see that not having it would have been a problem. As to your other points, how is accusing stub sorters of being "nitpicking" an attack on the system? It is clearly an attack on individual editors. Furthermore, your automatic assumption that your "comments here probably won't mean anything" either indicates that you think that think your reasons for keeping the stub type are weak ones or that you think the process is some form of kangaroo court. If you meant the former, then your support of the stub is by implication poor; if you meant the latter, then it is an attack on anyone who would take part in the discussion process.
As for approval, what is "articles for creation" if not a process for getting approval before making a page? If there is some later point at which this stub type becomes useful, then it can always be re-proposed - until then, it has negligible current use, and as such should not be kept, especially when other stub types do the same work.
This SFD discussion was restarted so you could put your side of the argument - the stub type could quite easily have been speedily deleted as the re-creation of a page deleted after due formal process. As such, it would benefit everyone - and reflect far better on you - if you could argue why this stub type should be kept now - not why it could have some use at some future time, if and when more articles are written, not by railing against what you see as a perceived injustice or a "skewed process" in an attempt to justify why you never proposed the stub type in the first place, and not by attacking editors who are simply trying to improve Wikipedia by calling the nitpickers. You shouldn't need reminding that personal attacks (or at the very least gaming the system with mischaracterisation of other editors' actions), incivility (such as your heated comments on my talk page), and your seeming assumption of bad faith by the people taking part in this process - along with the re-creation of a template that had been deleted through due process - are all very WP:POINTY, and I'm more than a little concerned that an admin like you seems to be using such methods rather than keeping to the point of this debate in the first place. Grutness...wha? 08:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I gently point out that, between the time it was listed at Discoveries in May 2007 and the last update in September 2008, this stub was applied to only 22 items the entire time. It's currently applied to 21. I suggest that an alternative would be to upmerge the template, which I neither support nor oppose. Just saying. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, and strong censure of out-of-process undeletion, by a user who evidently has a strong interest here -- indeed, by all appearances, the only user with a strong interest here. Please, the very last thing WP needs is wheel wars on the basis of Oh Noes, They Deleted My Favourite Thing, I Shall Personally Restore It. If you feel the original closure and deletion were incorrect, then deletion review is thataway. Alai (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as undersized, underutilized, and no rationale for keeping it has been offered beyond WP:ILIKEIT (which is no rationale at all). If other editors have a rationale for keeping these, as one respondent above indicates, then they should by all means weigh in here. There can be no consensus if the lurkers who support you in e-mail remain lurkers. - Dravecky (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside: this should really be at /P (which I'm happy to see is no longer listed at MFD...), but perhaps it would be more sensible to have a ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Tokusatsu stubs? There's a WPJ of that scope, and it might be numerically viable to have such a type (without recourse to padding the type out with article that aren't stubs (to say nothing of the article that aren't viable articles). Alai (talk) 20:17, 5 November 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.

{{Wooden Churches of Maramures-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


Unproposed, and need I say not quite appropriately named by WP:WSS/NG? Churches are subcategorisedfor stubbing by country and by denomination - not by construction material, neither are world heritage sites normally given their own stub types (offhand, I cannot think of a single one that has been). In the case of the redlinked category, gikven that there are only five articles in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Wooden Churches of Maramureş, there are unlikely to be the threshold 60 stubs for a stubcat. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:03, 26 October 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.

{{B&M-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


Unproposed, and unnecessary, as well as being poorly named. Not only is B&M a dab page, but there's a capital S in stub. we don't need this, though - not only is ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Amusement ride stubs not so full as to need splitting, but even if it was, we'd almost certainly split by location long before we considered splitting by construction company. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:03, 26 October 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.

October 31

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 all with "s"


Lastly, given that English-speaking nations in Europe use the "organisation" spelling, and that all the subcats ought to be at the "organisation" spelling, rename ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:European organization stubs to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:European organisation stubs. Alai (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, it's not like I noticed this discrepancy as I created the stub category and decided to oppose it. I didn't. Also, I missed some of the rationale for the nom, so I am retracting my vote. __meco (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentatively Oppose. Before making it non-tenative, I'd like to know what the significance of the permcat criterion is. To Grutness: both spellings are international, so that isn't a factor. I live in Sweden, I see the z-spelling more often than the s-spelling. The z-spelling is what we're taught in school, and the s-spelling is thought of as "vulgar" (a sentiment with which I do not agree, BTW!) This change seems unnecessary, and will potentially needlessly upset many Europeans (esp. older ones). --Samuel Webster (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "International English" is a term widely used to describe traditional English English - i.e., non-American English. As such, I was using the term not to denote its use in those countries as to distinguish it from American English. Grutness...wha? 22:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the reply. I recommend looking at Wikipedia's article on International English! Most linguists I know think of "Int. English" more as a normative term -- a kind of English towards which we should strive, one that would be best in an international context. But that's neither here nor there, just "for the record"! Samuel Webster (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I know about that page - and it accurately describes a technical meaning as used by some linguists. But many people in general (not linguists specifically) use the term to refer to English as it is spoken in a large number of countries internationally - that is, "English English" - as distinct from the form of the language only spoken in a handful of countries. As with many things, the scientists and researchers who specialise in a particular field use a different set of terms for the subject to that which is used by the populace in general. But you're right, this has little to do with the topic in question. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have dropped a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations, which I know did a major overhaul of these categories in the past year. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:26, 5 November 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/October&oldid=248978325"