Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted/June 2006

< Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion‎ | Log‎ | Deleted

June 1st edit

{{europ-rail-stub}} edit

Created due to an arbitrary move of {{euro-rail-stub}} by User:Myrtone86 because they "didn't like the name". No articles, no category, duplicate to {{euro-rail-stub}}. May even fit the requirements for a speedy. --Doco 07:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

close enough for my tastes to speediable... BTW, I also speedied the same editor's {{AU-bio-stub}} which duplicated the existing {{Australia-bio-stub}} but had a redlink category and was the duplication of a stub deleted this time last year. Grutness...wha? 08:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the merits of this stub category, but move the templates to "europe-foo-stub" if kept. — Jun. 2, '06 [13:22] <freak|talk>
Stick to "Euro-" unless all similar examples are renamed as well. Valentinian (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Template:Beta Theta Pi Chapter-stub}} edit

No cat, two articles, impossibly small scope, badly worded, never proposed. Almost speediable and definitely deletable. Grutness...wha? 05:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Penguin Stub}} edit

Never proposed, orphaned. --Rory096 04:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 2nd edit

{{Fraternity and Sorority-stub}} / Cat:Fraternity and Sorority stubs edit

created without proposal by a new wikiproject. ive just left a flea in their ear about the fact that theyve simply duplicated {{Honor-stub}} and Cat:Honor society stubs. the cat is empty and the templates been redirected but its a horrible name and shouldnt be left imo. delete both. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I did not create this stub, I'll defend it to say that there is a difference between SOCIAL fraternities/sororities and HONOR fraternities/sororities. I think that the Honor society stub by definition is limiting. ACMe 02:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a rename of Honor-stub/Honor society stubs to something more all-encompassing would make sense, then. The type that's been proposed for deletion here goes against so many naming guidelines it would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Opne to suggestions... Grutness...wha? 03:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oops. didnt know that. how about a reverse merge them? keep this cat but delete the honor society one - and make two new templates {{fraternity-stub}} and {{sorority-stub}}? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps one cat Category:Fraternal and service organizations stubs (a coordinate cat sans stubs already exists) could serve all fraternities, sororities, honor societies, etc. "There are various types of fraternities: general (sometimes called social), service, professional, and honorary," see Fraternities and sororities. Is there not room in Wikipedia for four sub-cat stubs, i.e., {{fraternal-social-stub}}, {{fraternal-service-stub}}, {{fraternal-professional-stub}}, {{fraternal-honor-stub}}? Another benefit, this helps avoid gender specific terms. Thanks. ACMe 03:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to answer the questions one at a time - 1) Category:Fraternal and service organization stubs would be a reasonable name (note the singular of organisation, as per stub category naming guidelines); 2) whether there's room on Wikipedia is irrelevant - the important thing is whether they would be populated enough to be of use to editors, and the aswer to that is clearly and empghatically no - one category is plenty; 3) four templates each using the word "fraternal" hardly avoids the gender-specific nature, since it makes them all masculine based. Ovrall, I think that BL's solution's a good one - rescope the long-established category with two replacement templates. Grutness...wha? 07:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment Since I'm the guy who made the stub I'll try to explain things. I made the stub cat and template as an aid in editing as a way for wikiproject participants (and non participants) to know which articles need expanding. The scope of the wikiproject is much larger than I originally envisioned and I think a stub cat is needed. I am not against a merge though. Dspserpico 03:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge I am glad we agree with (1) Category:Fraternal and service organization stubs.
(2) I was not being literal about the "room". Looking at what's in the honor stubs, I still recommend "fraternal", though maybe only two as Grutness suggests to limit for population purposes. "Fraternal" means "relating to a fraternity or society" per Webster's, thus broader in scope. And while rooted in the masculine "brother" reference, is less offensive to cover both genders (like "fraternal twins"), than just "fraternity" which would be less representative for say co-ed honor societies. Here are the amended two I propose: {{fraternal-general-stub}} and {{fraternal-honor-stub}}. As a final benefit, the naming convention would tie back to the stub Category. Thank you for the discussion. ACMe 19:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge categories into one, keeping three (distinct) templates: {{honor-stub}}, {{fraternity-stub}}, and {{sorority-stub}}. Delete above template as badly-named (spaces) and over-long; any other desired names can be used as redirects, if strictly necessary. Alai 21:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 4th edit

Category:Fencing-stub edit

Orphaned and empty, everything shifted to Category:Fencing stubs. --fuzzy510 01:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I suggest merging Cat:Historical European martial arts stubs to Cat:Fencing stubs. Conscious 07:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sped; agree with Conscious's merge suggestion, have tagged the categories. Rescope to something inclusive of all sword-based martial arts, replacing the long-standing undersized category, and the new, also unproposed, undersized cat. (It'll still be undersized, at that.) Alai 10:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{SerbiaMontenegro-stub}} / Category:Serbia and Montenegro stubs and {{SerbiaMontenegro-geo-stub}} / Category:Serbia and Montenegro geography stubs edit

  • Closing note:former was changed to a redirect, latter deleted, both cats were deleted. In the case that there will ever be enough Serbia&Montenegro stubs, the category can be recreated. - Bobet 19:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never gained much use and the country shuffled off its mortal coil yesterday. While the former might be worth retaining in a historical sense (a la {{Soviet-stub}}), it's already been emptied and last time I checked there was something like three articles in the parent, so no great loss there. I must confess to already re-parenting the respective Serbian and Montenegrin geo cats up a level to the European geo parent, so apologies for breaching convention, but haven't made any edits to the various official trees. Someone's already emptied the S&M geo cat, too, which may have implications for the ongoing Kosovo headache. The Tom 03:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Mind you, the Montenegrin categories are very small - it may be a case of watching them to see whether they grow. if they don't something may have to be done with them. Kosovo...sigh. I suppose we'll hear about that sooner or later. Grutness...wha? 05:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Montenegro, the generic and -geo categories have 55 articles each and the -bio category is above threshold (68). Given the recent events, they'll probably have a good growth potential. And the K-word situation is just ... tricky. In any case, there's no use to keep the {{SerbiaMontenegro-geo-stub}}. I don't have any clear preferences regarding the generic {{SerbiaMontenegro-stub}}, but on the drop of a hat, {{Yugoslavia-stub}} seems like a better keep. Valentinian (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see two problems with this last suggestion. 1) {{SerbiaMontenegro-stub}} is currently not used at all, and we usually require at least 60 stubs to keep a template. I might be wrong, but I just can't imagine this one reaching this number. 2) I don't think double-stubbing will be relevant in most cases. The state union is now pushing up flowers since both Montenegro and Serbia have declared their independence from it, and the material has generally already been tagged with either "Serbia" or "Montenegro". But my main concern is the size issue. Valentinian (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know. Someone has been busy depopulating the article. My point is that if we have a Pre-1992 Yugo stub, we should surely need a FRYugo one too? E Asterion u talking to me? 23:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wouldnt it be easier to just rescope the yugoslavia stubcategory to cover S/M and the federal republic as well? it would be far less confusing to have stubs relating to the federal republic of yugoslavia covered by yugoslavia-stub! BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cat:Yugoslavia stubs should be rescoped to include FRY (and KoSCS if need be). Both the category and the {{Yugoslavia-stub}} will need a bit of text tweaking. BTW, I've been populating the Yugo-stub some as I've been going thru the Euro hist stubs to populate the newly created Norway-hist-stub, and I've noticed that the Yugo-stub doesn't meet the 60 stub minimum right now either so it could use a merge for that reason as well. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Just noticed that Yugoslavia stubs wasn't on the stub list. I've added it to the History by era section of the list since I'm certain it's suppposesd to an approved stub type. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A rescoped {{Yugoslavia-stub}} sounds like a good idea. Valentinian (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong pain in the arse. Oh yeah, you wanted something actionable, rather than a general complaint... Delete. I was rather suspicious of the depopulation, but it seems to have been as a result of more (highly predictable) silliness over Kosovo (Kosovo! Serbia! Albania! None of the above!), and as these types offer no logical solution to that issue, they might as well just clog up Euro-geo-stub for a little longer. Rescope Yugo-stub to cover all the various now-historical salami-sliced successor states, as well as the Cold War era origina. 21:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's called "Balkanisation" for good reasons! The mystery of the kosovo-geo-stubs has been solved, BTW - as a compromise they're being kept in the main Europe geography stubs catgory. At least all sides seem to agree that Kosovo's in Europe. And with only 25 or so stubs there's litle need of a separate template yet. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copying this to BJAODN. Septentrionalis 21:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Leaving aside the issue of not being "D" yet, what had you in mind as "N": the discussion, the template, or the political entity? Alai 02:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reason for the temp now that SaM dissolved. All articles relating to both SaM are being split between Serbia and Montenegro <the countries not the union country>. -- Crna Gora 08:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the country is no more and the categories are nearly emptied. Even if the country stub category could somehow miraculously fill itself up, the geography stub category is completely passe and should be speedily deleted. --Joy [shallot] 23:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 5th edit

{{STP-stub}} edit

Don't look! Try to guess first what this stub might be to do with. No? It feeds into the never-proposed (but pretty well populated) Cat:São Tomé and Príncipe stubs. The template name is atrocious - rename to {{SaoTome-stub}}. NB - it also has some coding which seems to do some annoying "bottom-forcing", causing the sfd-t message to appear above other templates where there's double stubbing. I'm going to try to fix that, but my knowledge of code isn't brilliant, so... Grutness...wha? 02:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would have guessed that it had something to do with Richard Petty myself. I think I fixed the template code problem. It was due to not providing the proper endtags, something that unfortunately is not a problem confined to only this stub template, so it likely was in the one they used as a guide. Agree with the rename, but a redirect from {{SaoTomePrincipe-stub}} would probably be a good idea. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user that created this template has now blanked it and created {{SaoTomePrincipe-stub}}.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 10:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The speedy tag looks like a good idea in this case. Let's get rid of it. Valentinian (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 7th edit

Cat:United Kingdom Newspaper stubs → Cat:United Kingdom newspaper stubs edit

The other two nation based splits of Cat:Newspaper stubs use the lowercase "n" as should this one. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good observation. Valentinian (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 9th edit

Canadian provincial (non-geo) types edit

All unproposed, all by the same editor, almost all vastly undersized, almost all incorrectly named. given the spaces in the template names). Delete all but the last, which rename per the NGs. Alai 03:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename any which get close to threshold by the end of this debate as per NG - delete the rest (or at least upmerge). I doubt any but NS will make it, but you never know. Grutness...wha? 04:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second that one. Valentinian (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but Rename as necessary). I suspect that there are plenty of stub articles that belong under these stubs, but someone has not taken the time to apply them to the appropriate articles (which, I'll admit, is a big job). That is the kind of job I am happy to help with, but it certainly isn't an easy one. Agent 86 00:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't be radically opposed to upmerging (i.e., keeping the template, fed into the Canadian stubs for the time being) if someone wants to try to populate them, But given that some of them are used all of twice, with one of those being a triple-stubbing that'd be better off back in the parent type, I really amn't holding my breath. Alai 01:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've already tackled New Brunswick, and I don't think the results were all that bad for the little time I had available to work on it. However, the folks are in town and it's the first time in forever that I've seen the old man on Father's Day that I doubt I'll be spending much more time on it this weekend. Agent 86 01:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't mean to sound as if I was cracking the whip. :) As I say, I'd have no objections to keeping the template, say with a view to revisit in a month or so. Alai 02:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps Manitoba, PEI and NB could be merged into Canadian Maritimes stubs? The three territories could be merged into Canadian territory stubs as well. Manitoba should be kept. BoojiBoy 13:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Worth having. Ardenn 21:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow Up. I assume BoojiBoy meant merging NS, PEI and NB together. In any event, in addition to New Brunswick, I've now updated articles with the PEI stub, and think all three stubs ought to remain. Manitoba ought to be its own stub. (I haven't checked to see if the other two prarie provinces have their own stubs). As for merging the territories, I haven't looked at the number of articles for any of those areas, but if the numbers don't warrant it, some sort of Canadian territories stubs is worth consideration. (The PEI and NB stubs still need to be fixed so that the spaces are removed, but I'll leave something for someone else!) Agent 86 22:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assumed he meant that too. PEI is fine now, so by all means keep that, but the remainder are still very undersized. (Aside from NB, which is still distinctly so.) If these don't grow, they're really not viable as they stand, and are pretty marginal even if merged along those lines. Alai 01:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think what I've been able to do in the last while demonstrates these have merit. In fact, I'm thinking that I might even propose stubs for Alberta and Saskatchewan (in the proper manner, unlike how these nominees came to be). Agent 86 08:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Glad to see more of these waxing thresholdwards. I'd imagine the two you mentioned are quite likely to be populable (though a size guestimate would be handy), given that the smaller provinces seem to have turned out to be. I'm far from convinced that necessarily makes the territorial ones numerically viable -- they're not even obviously so if they were merged, unless there's significant numbers left to find. Alai 20:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks. It was a real time sucker, and just feeding into my tendancy to procrastinate about real life! I might be waning a bit on this project for a little bit, if only because the dead end pages have become my obsession du jour. I think I'll wait a bit before proposing {{Alberta-stub}} and {{Saskatchewan-stub}}. Agent 86 03:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed the Manitoba stub template was never affixed with the {{sfd-t}} template. I have added it now. I assume it was overlooked in error. Agent 86 15:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Must have been, unless I was subliminally thinking upmerge, rather than template-deletion (which would have been plausible, though not how I nominated it). Alai 20:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Worse case senario... merge and create "Canadian Maritime Provinces stub" and "Canadian Territories stub". DMighton 18:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We had maritimes-geo-stub for quite some time - it worked very well - so that's not a bad suggestion. Grutness...wha? 23:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that the {{Northwest Territories-stub}} is also tagged as being nominated for deletion, but was not listed as a part of this discussion. If it is kept, it should be renamed according to the usual standards. In any event, the current counts for the three provincial stub categories in this proposal ought to suffice so that the nominations for those stubs can be closed (as "Keep"). The NWT category has a respectable number, leaving only the Yukon and Nunavut (I haven't done much work on either, yet). A proposal for their merger with NWT might be in order, but I'm happy to leave them as-is. Agent 86 18:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep any that are sufficiently close to threshold - upmerge the others back into Canada (keep and re-point the templates) - as is surely standard practice by now in this sort of situation, or, if they will reach threshold, separate territories/maritimes combinations as per DMighton. Rename the malformed "Northwest Territories-stub", "Prince Edward Island-stub", "New Brunswick-stub" and "Yukon Territory-stub", and delete the malnamed "Nova Scotia-stub" redirect. Grutness...wha? 23:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP FOR ALL: this is getting insane. there are many articles related to the provinces and territories that are stubs. Why not nominate {{Canada-bcast-stub}} and {{Canada-stub}} next? It's insane. Keep them all; they are heavily used.   User:Raccoon Fox   Talk   01:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename for all. Just because some of these categories are not heavily populated yet does not mean that they won't be or otherwise have no value. The Canada stubs are dauntingly overcrowded, so these divisions are useful in making the work more approachable and manageable. —GrantNeufeld 09:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 11th edit

{{IOM-stub}} / no category edit

I discovered this one today. It is actually used on 60+ articles and I've cleaned up the code, but is oddly named and w/o a cat. Suggest a rename to {{IsleofMan-stub}} (which will match Grutness' recent -geo-stub proposal.) Valentinian (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, and indeed why not speedy? Alai 17:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible if the thing's four months old? But yes, by all means. Valentinian (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy rename/cat fix - as you pointed out, IsleofMan-geo-stub is currently proposed at WP:WSS/P. I thought this one had been renamed and dealt with ages ago (ISTR it was discovered several months back). Grutness...wha? 00:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renamed; are we keeping the redirect? Alai 21:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! I'd say delete the redirect. I'm not 100% sure it can't mean something else. Valentinian (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 12th edit

{{Balears-stub}} → {{Balearics-stub}} edit

Resplendent in its Catalan name at present, this should by any reasonable criterion be under a common name in English. (It's also unproposed and undersized, btw.) Alai 15:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:Canary Islands geography stubs edit

Seriously undersized. Smallest of a batch that are < 60, and while there was generalised discussion of splitting Spain-geo-stub, I don't think ever explicitly proposed. Upmerge, keeping template. Alai 16:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 13th edit

{{Christianmusic-stub}} & {{Christian-music-stubs}} (redirects) edit

Both are redirects to {{Christian-music-stub}} that violate the naming guidelines. Delete Caerwine Caerwhine 21:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{TES-stub}} → {{ElderScrolls-stub}} edit

Yet another cryptic and ambiguous stub name. The stub type was properly proposed, but the template name was an afterthought and created without debate. Large enough to keep, so a rename to remove the ambiguity that TES has. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. As long as you don't delete it outright (as some already proposed), I'm OK with renaming it to remove the ambiguity. --Koveras   07:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Koveras Dv82matt 08:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Although there are no other article series about something named TES, it's more descriptive this way. CP/M 22:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Valentinian (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, but I'm a bit worried about the CamelCase. --Niroht 11:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's standard naming procedure for stubs (although how that started I've no idea). basically we don't use spaces in template naes, and if it was Elder-Scrolls-stub it would mean it was a specific type of Scrolls-stub, which it isn't. WP:WSS/NG explains a bit more. Grutness...wha? 12:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{AFLstub}}, {{Bih-geo-stub}}, {{Britcartoonist-bio-stub}} (redirects) edit

The only thing that these three unused redirects have in common is that they they have languishing on the discoveries page since last October! Only the middle one comes close to meeting the naming guidelines, and frankly it would be far more likely that someone would want to use {{BosniaHerzegovina-geo-stub}} than {{bih-geo-stub}} because they couldn't remember the camelcasing used by {{BiH-geo-stub}}. Delete all three with a possible addition of a {{BosniaHerzegovina-geo-stub}} redirect while we're dealing with these. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added that, and {{Bosnia-geo-stub}} (on the purely personal basis of "what I'd have typed"); delete nominated redirects as serving only to cause confusion. Alai 19:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all. perhaps reverse redirect so that BiH redirects to BosniaHerzegovina not the other way round? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{NLP-stub}} edit

No category, and otherwise malformed; hopelessly cryptic and ambiguous (my guess was natural language processing), only used on three articles. Delete. Alai 18:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Way too few stubs, and way too ambiguous. I could probably support a {{NLP-psych-stub}} if there were enough stubs, as I think the -psych- qualification would remove the ambiguity (but not the crypticness). Caerwine Caerwhine 19:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete i thought "new labour party" and "natural law party". its only used on one university-stub and two bio-stubs, too. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Confusing and poorly made. Grandmasterka 02:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Grandmaster's reasoning. --Wisden17 20:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; my first thought was "natural language processing". Mairi 05:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another "computer scientist anonymous". :) Alai 06:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the correct term is "TLA" Delete Valentinian (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:Stubs by U.S. state → Cat:United States subdivision stubs edit

From the discovery page. The idea of a holding category for state level stub categories that would otherwise feed directly into Cat:United States stubs is a good idea, but the name needs to corrected to meet the naming guidelines, and I think the scope should be expanded to include the territories. Since the non stub parent would be Cat:Subdivisions of the United States, I recommend Cat:United States subdivision stubs would would also include Cat:Washington, D.C. stubs and Cat:Puerto Rico stubs along with any others for individual territories that might be needed. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in principle - slight concerns WRT those US territories in the Pacific currently covered by oceania-stub and oceania-geo-stub, though (Am. Samoa and the like) - how would they be dealt with under this system? Grutness...wha? 01:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If and when a Cat:Guam stubs and the like get created, they should have both this category and Cat:Oceania stubs as parents. Continuing to double stub with a US stub and an Oceania stub should suffice until that happens. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{farms-stub}} edit

Deleted. See discussion here. --TheParanoidOne 09:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 15th edit

{{Thracology-stub}} edit

Seems like it's extremely limited in scope. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we even have 60 articles on Ancient Thrace, but many will probably be stubs. It looks like somebody is trying to set up a portal. Does anybody know if a WP exists? Valentinian (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have only a little over 250 Ancient Greece stubs and Ancient Thrace is far less well documented. It's probable that there are some articles there that would belong to an Ancient Thrace stub since Thrace was subject to Hellenic influences. Even if we had 60 attested stubs (or 30 with a Wikiproject) the stub should be named {{Ancient-Thrace-stub}}. Unless someone can show enough stubs -- delete. If they can, then rename. Caerwine Caerwhine 14:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second that one. Valentinian (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice delete. If it's shown to be useful enough then rename as per Caerwine. Grutness...wha? 07:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: It is currently used on a single article. Delete Valentinian (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 17th edit

{{Blaenau-Gwent-geo-stub}} and Category:Blaenau Gwent geography stubs edit

Nominated by author: No longer required, to small to require stubs, inapproprite naming

{{NPT-geo-stub}} and Category:Neath Port Talbot geography stubs edit

Nominated by author: No longer required, to small to require stubs, inapproprite naming

{{Vale-of-Glamorgan-geo-stub}} and Category:Vale of Glamorgan geography stubs edit

Nominated by author: No longer required, to small to require stubs, inapproprite naming

Welsh geo-stubs (was Category:Caerphilly geography stubs to Category:Caerphilly county borough geography stubs) edit

moved from CFD BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 03:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant stub template has been changed to put the articles into the new category. The old category is now blank and needs deleting. Owain (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds like a perfect CSD C3 "...category is solely populated from a template..." SeventyThree(Talk) 22:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • delete both. never proposed and only 18 stubs. wales hasnt been split yet becuase the numbers for some of the counties are way too small. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 03:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • correction - someone has split the whole damn lot without proposing any of them! a lot of these will be grossly undersized and will need to come here. Anglesey 31 stubs. Torfaen NINE stubs. Bridgend TEN stubs. This is a complete mess and someone wants a thorough kick up the arse. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 03:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't see that there's much to do here but upmerge the lot. A possibility would be to create Cat:South Wales geography stubs (etc), though that's somewhat lacking a precise and generally accepted (much less for any official or political purpose) definition. Alai 03:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ye ghods - no wonder BL was annoyed - I am too. Twenty-three categories for only about 700 stubs? Most of the categories only have about a dozen stubs. It's a shame that Glamorgan doesn't still exist, or we could moerge several into that, but this looks like a lot of serious upmerging needs to be done. One or two of the categories come close to 60, BTW - I think it's Powys that I noticed was over threshold. For now, upmerge the lot except for the one or two that are over 50. Grutness...wha? 03:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using the trad counties systematically would also lead to undersized types in a number of cases. I have no objection to using older (or less formally defined) subdivisions, as long as a) they're at least close to threshold, b) they're reasonably commonly understood, and pretty non-controversial, and c) they don't cut across existing UAs, which would needlessly complicate matters. Alai 19:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using "traditional counties" (sic) would fail all of those criteria. --Mais oui! 20:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no it wouldn't, they are much bigger in area than the smallest UAs (Blaenau Gwent, Torfaen, &c), commonly understood, non-controversial, but obviously differ from UA boundaries. In fact since the dawn of municipal government, local authority boundaries have always cut across county boundaries, so I'm not sure why this needs to be a consideration... Owain (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But how many of them are actually above the threshold of 60? Cutting across current local government borders is a deal-breaker, because that's the basis on which other UK (and essentially all other) geo-stubs have been split, so doing Wales differently would cause pointlessly large amounts of confusion, and would make templatising and later splitting by UA unnecessarily difficult. Semi-arbitrary groupings of UAs are OK to an extent, though they're not ideal. A further possibility is the NUTS 3 subdivisions, of which there's 12, so probably they're about half-viable, but at least properly include the UAs. Alai 20:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge everything that's not up to threshold. I don't mind if we set threshold at 50 this time as Grutness suggests. Valentinian (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, we seem to use 60-65 for creation and 50 or so for deletion a lot, since if something's reached 50 then it's probably not worth deleting it only for it to be at 60 a month later. Grutness...wha? 07:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • further comment. two of the templates: {{NPT-geo-stub}} and {{Vale-of-Glamorgan-geo-stub}} don't conform to the naming guidelines, either, so if there's an overall upmerging, these will need to be renamed. Grutness...wha? 08:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 19th edit

{{UK-crown-geo-stub}} and Category:Crown Dependency geography stubs edit

Now empty and unused, due to the split of stubs between new categories for the Isle of Man and Channel Islands. No point in keeping this, and ambiguous as a redirect. Delete. Grutness...wha? 08:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definite delete on the template, and weak delete on the category since it could be useful as a holding category if there be a corresponding non-stub category, which there does not appear to be. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 20th edit

{{Dvd-stub}} / no cat. edit

Orphaned template I discovered some hours ago. It is not being widely used (three articles other than the 8 I tagged before realizing the template was unused), its associated category doesn't exist (Category:DVD stubs), and according to the Stub project, movies are sorted according to genre. [1] ReyBrujo 19:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I've moved this request from WP:CFD). Valentinian (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is badly named, has no category and is not needed. Delete Valentinian (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; looks like one of ImTheHappyWanderer's creations (see above). ♥ Her Pegship♥ 05:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{bank-stub}} → {{finance-company-stub}} edit

This rename is for two reasons, to give it a template name that encompasses the entirety of what the stub type covers, and provide the basis by analogy for a {{finance-bio-stub}} to help thin out the overlarge business biography stubs. Obviously we should keep {{bank-stub}} as a redirect and maybe even add a {{insurance-company-stub}} as another redirect. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I always wondered what to do with non-bank financial companies. This sounds much better. Amalas =^_^= 21:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yes, I've been wondering how to sort holding companies into bank-stub. This would make it clearer.--Rayc 20:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Dansiman 07:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Central banks are not classified as companies, but several related articles have been using the template in question. The use of "company" in the new template and the redirecting of the original bank stub may exempt central bank articles and complicate stub sorting. I would like to see an assessment of what can be done to address this, perhaps the creation of a new template designated for government based-banks. ? ?? ?RingADing? 18:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC) ?[reply]
    • State-owned enterprises use the company series of stubs (altho with exception of {{India-company-stub}} the templates don't explicitly mention that fact). Central banks are not even neccessarily state-owned. So I don't see any need for excluding central banks from the revised stub type on that basis. However, I'm not necessarily opposed to a central-bank-stub, tho I think a country-based rather than a function based split would be more productive. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; sounds good to me. Something like "Finance organization" would possibly take care of the central bank issue, but probably opens up a whole new can of worms. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 18:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I prefer bank-stub. Ardenn 00:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could an admin please close this and the category rename below ASAP? There is a proposal for a US specific version that is awaiting the results of these two SFD's. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've swapped things over, but there seems to be a page caching problem or something - none of the articles have swapped over to the new categories yet. Grutness...wha? 05:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems to frequently be the case, and for apparently completely unpredictable lengths of time. (Perhaps the "auto-null-editing" feature is load-managed, or something like that (total guesswork).) If it's more serious than that, and they're still "stuck" come tomorrow, I'll run my cybernetic counterpart over the old category to null-edit the semi-old-fashioned way. Alai 05:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it does come to that, perhaps you could change the templates over at the same time...? :) Grutness...wha? 09:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • On balance, I'm thinking not; my bot's still running without a flag (which I think is rather poor, given how standard, straightforward and simply-scoped it is), and we've had abuse on a number of occasions for "needless" retemplatisations. Running currently to 'touch' the category. I was surprised the category-lag still seemed to be in effect overnight, which probably just goes to show how off-base I was with my diagnosis. Alai 17:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The saga continues: the last few entries in the category are actually "hand-categorised". I'll remove these with AWB. But... one of the articles is currently unsavable, due to a false positive on the spam blocklist. Is there a meta admin in the house? Alai 20:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, done; whitelisted the offending link locally instead. Old category eventually emptied, and deleted. Alai 21:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:Finance company stubs → Cat:Financial services company stubs edit

This category rename is simply so that it can match its non-stub parent Cat:Financial services companies. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (and above, not entirely unconnected renaming). Alai 05:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 21st edit

{{WalMart-stub}} / no cat edit

Not really created template, but it was quickly deleted without discussion, so it's worth a least a look. It's been used in seven WalMart-related articles but it seems too specific. Typically, companies are organized by branch or by country, but there is the company-specific stub category for template:Disney-stub. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this was deleted correctly - although the stubs marked with it should have been re-stubbed with legitimate stubs! Disney-stub is a bit of an anomaly, since it originally tied in with the splits of TV stations and film types, but expanded to cover the entire Disney empire. Grutness...wha? 11:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)�[reply]
Update: the category has been recreated as well. Used on 14 articles. Delete unless it shows good growth. Valentinian (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete whether it shows growth or not. its not needed and is much too specific. could be speedied as a recreation now too. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:Library stubs → Cat:Library and information science stubs edit

Given the smallish size of this category (and the related template {{library-stub}} from the discoveries page, and the fact that a number of the existing stubs already require the broader scope, how about making it official with a change of name (and of its non-stub parent)? Caerwine Caerwhine 14:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as broadening our horizons. Would it be {{library-info-sci-stub}}? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC) (librarian)[reply]
    • I've only nominated changing the name of the category, not the template. If we were to rename the template as well then removing two hyphens from your idea to give {{libraryinfosci-stub}} would be more in keeping with the naming guidlines, but I really don't see the need. If we ever do breakout the buildings as a separate stub type, {{library-struct-stub}} would work. More hyphens should mean that you are farther away from {{stub}}, not closer. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okey dokey, as long as the text in the stub template is modified accordingly, e.g. "This article about library and information science is a stub." Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 00:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Is the template intended for library science or the buildings themselves? Caerwine's comments seem to suggest that it's a mix of both. It's a subtle but important difference. A Library and information science stub would be very useful if it did not include the libraries themselves - similarly there is possibly a case for a stub just for the libraries themselves. Some clever wording would be needed to separate the two, though. Grutness...wha? 01:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 22nd edit

Category:Jordan Geography stubs edit

Deleted. Logged discussion here. --TheParanoidOne 14:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Volcano-stub}} / Cat:Volcano stubs edit

Used on 1 article. Counterproductive. Delete Valentinian (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imthehappywanderer (talk · contribs) edit

This new user has created many dubious categories. They are probably speediable, but definitely deletable.

etc. (will expand the list later)
Many of these have probably already been listed here. I'll go through this user's edit history to find more stub categories. All in all, this person has created almost 1000 categories in a few hours. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 09:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Taking a look at his efforts, it looks like he was going along at random and creating redlink categories and trying to be helpful by turning them into bluelinks. Caerwine Caerwhine 13:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're probably right - I hope so. But around a thousand of them ... Valentinian (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A user at CFD has suggested that he must have used the list at Special:Wantedpages Special:Wantedcategories. Unfortunately, quite a lot of that list is nothing but typos, misunderstood names and already deleted material, so "Wanted Pages" "Wanted categories" was not the best of names. Valentinian (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete if possible. Somebody's just creating a lot of categories. Valentinian (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Cat:Israel-related stubs, Cat:Canada-related stubs belong on the list as well.
I haven't found a single category that's not floating around in mid air! They are not used by more than 1-2 articles each, they refer to themselves and quite a lot are redundent. Cat:Electronic Government ? Cat:Cities in India, Cat:Cities in Russia, ? Cat:List of dog topics ??? Cat:Non-notable Wikipedians ???? Cat:Women philosophers ?!? Cat:Wikipedians with an IQ of schfifty five ! Cat:Israeli political parties Cat:Category:High schools in York Region, Ontario (you read it right: double "category") Cat:Breasts (and why is Cat:TWSinger a child of this one ??) , Cat:Prisons by nationality (who's giving citizenship to buildings??), Cat:Duplicate, Cat:Anal Sex-3 ????? Valentinian (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all Aecis' examples. Poor chaps at CFD.Valentinian (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the rest of the list:

Perhaps the Yemen template and a renamed Eritrea is worth keeping but everything else should definitely be firmly Deleted Valentinian (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Valentinian. Caerwine Caerwhine 13:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Valentinian. A renamed Eritrea one may be useful, but the current name is lousy (it could just as easily be a redirect for UK-royal-stub, to start with). Grutness...wha? 03:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS you may all be pleased interested to know that iamthehappywanderer has been permanently blocked from editing WP. Grutness...wha? 03:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update I've populated the Yemen templates. Both the -bios and the generic template is now used on 54-55 articles. I've been bold and given the bio a proper category, since it definitely seems needed. I've not listed them on WP:WSS/ST though. I wouldn't be surprised if a few more bios could be found in the {{MEast-bio-stub}} and its children. So far, I've not checked the Eritrean material, but I think this one might be too thin. Valentinian (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yemen-bio-stub is now above threshold (*cough* -tanamo Bay). No doubt move material there. Valentinian (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All deleted except Cat:Yemeni people stubs. --TheParanoidOne 15:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Store-stub}} / Category:Store stubs edit

Only used for one article. Currently, Category:Buildings and structures stubs breaks into stubs by location, not type. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well yes and no - some are split by type if it's deemed useful. This isn't really, since shops would either go into retailing stubs or - if it's a retail complex in the US, into mall stub. I doubt this split would be useful, and the name's pretty ambiguous, too - it could easily be ammunition stores, grain stores, etc. Grutness...wha? 03:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Name is too vague. I could be used for both a furniture store (where I work) and for Billy Bob's Lil' Ol' Gun Store in Alabama. Valentinian (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Family-stub}} / Category:Family stubs edit

It's only used in one article and I'm not sure how much it could be expanded to. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now empty. Not sure it would have any real worth at all. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have a lot a articles in Cat:Families and its children tho I'm unsure how many would be suitable for this stub. I've placed the stub category to its proper place in the hierarchy, as a child of Cat:Name stubs and Cat:People stubs. Cat:Name stubs has over 500 stubs in it right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if 60 of them have enough info about family members to warrant this stub instead. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too poorly defined. By all means split the name-stubs into forename-stubs and surname-stubs, however. Alai 01:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As to its ambiguity, it's worth noting that the one article marked with it was a biography of a specific family (which I moved to an appropriate bio-stub). Grutness...wha? 01:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that it is not at all ambiguous. In the main categories Cat:Surnames is one of the parent categories of Cat:Families along with Cat:Multiple people. Whether there are 60 stubs is a separate question, and I'm not interested enough in these to find the answer out myself, tho I think it is the case. Finally, if we ever do separate out the surnames and the given names, we should make it givenname-stub rather than forename-stub, lest we some day end up with the oxymoron of Japan-forename-stub. Caerwine Caerwhine 08:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps {{Dynasty-stub}} would have been better (but that's not ideal either). Delete Valentinian (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should have a {{AaronSpelling-tv-stub}} first before we create subtypes such as {{Dynasty-stub}} :) . Caerwine Caerwhine 23:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 24th edit

{{Argentina-sport-stub}} & Cat:Argentina sport stubs → {{Argentina-sport-bio-stub}} & Cat:Argentine sportspeople stubs edit

I am relisting this so soon because I am of the opinion that this was wrongly logged by the sole opponent of its deletion as no consensus. The previous discussion had 4 people give an opinion and the 3 were in favor of eliminating {{Argentina-sport-stub}} and 1 opposed. Having the sole opponent logging it as no consensus is decidely not kosher. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete like it should have been before. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per BL Valentinian (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC) I guess this one needs clarification so:[reply]
Rename with no redirects since it is clearly above threshold. Precedent is established by e.g. the German material. (This way Argentina will have its template and we will have the consistent name system). Everybody happy? Valentinian (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there was some misunderstanding regarding the different format of those supporting the original nomination (in which case the closer is clueless, and shouldn't be meddling with processes they're unfamiliar with), this looks like bad-faith unilateral stroke-pulling (in which case an admin should know better than to perform such stunts). Speedily re-close, resort as nom (whether by renaming or deletion, it's really six and half a dozen), and "have word with" original closer. Alai 01:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the previous voting had only 3 votes, one fore rename, one for deletion, and one for keeping. I don't know how do you get the idea I acted in bad faith. If you so strongly want re-structure the Argentine sports stubs even if then they will be less useful to the Argentine contributors, go ahead, but don't go around pointing fingers. I closed the debate becase 8 days had already passed, and I closed it as no concensus because there was not one, so please stop acussing me with nonsenses. Mariano(t/c) 12:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How will a template be "less useful to the Argentine contributors" because it will be named in line with all similar material? This posting is about a rename since the standard name is "(contry name)-sport-bio-stub". A standardised name simply means that users do not have to play "what's the name" to use the templates. Valentinian (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is that "(contry name)-sport-bio-stub" doesn't include venues and other non biographical articles, while (contry name)-sport-stub does. BTW, I didn't count the nomination as a vote since it was not implicit. I'm not against doing this for the third time, I was just upset for being accused of not being fair. Mariano(t/c) 08:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: to be precise there were 4 votes (original nomination plus 3 others). 2 rename, 1 delete, 1 keep. Road Wizard 12:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is the case, it nevertheless means that three editors believed that the template was problematic. It is not uncommon for the vote to continue a few days longer if no clear consensus emerges quickly (but this practice is not described properly on this page.) It seems a pretty good guess that this case would have been given a few days more consideration had it not been closed so soon. Everybody - please assume good faith. Valentinian (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since SPUI decided to be his usual charming self concerning redirects, I'm restubbing the sports people to use the {{Argentina-sport-bio-stub}} redirect so that if it is decided that the concensus is to do the rescope it will be ready to do. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 I'm astounded. After I finished with Argentina-sport-stub, I decided to also sort Argentina-bio-stub. Considering all the fuss that was raised over this stub, when I just now sorted Argentine-bio-stub, I expected to find only a few more stubs that would go under an Argentina-sport-bio-stub. Make that 73 additional stubs. Not only are there now way more than enough known stubs to populate Argentina-sport-bio-stub, there probably are enough for a separate Argentina-footy-bio-stub, but I'll let someone else worry about doing the count and proposal if they care, since SouthAm-footy-bio-stub is only around 600 stubs and likely has a latent Brazil-footy-bio-stub lurking within it as well. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
slight delete. I love my fellow Hispanic brothers from Argentina (Vamos Argentinaaa!!!) and all Argentines do is awesome-but out of respect for the flag, I just do not like the half flag image portrayed in this stub's picture. Antonio 33% Puerto Rican heart, 33% Mexican, %33 Argentine 07:55, 5 July 2006
  • Delete Seems sensible clean-up measure --Runcorn 06:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{itemstub}} edit

I think that Template:Expansion is the appropriate method, not this stub. Used in three articles. Also, this doesn't seem to fall under the typical stub organization. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was used on *lists* in all three cases. This is definitely not the way to go. Delete Valentinian (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{crime stub}} edit

Somebody has produced a duplicate template. I've resorted the three articles that used it (not all were actual stubs). It feeds into the Cat:Crime stubs. Delete Valentinian (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{southcarolina-history-stub}} + Category:South Carolina History Stubs edit

The following is from wWP:WSS/D, courtesy of Aelfthrytha - This category was created last week, was not proposed, is malformed, and contains two stubs. This is aside from the fact that a split of {{US-hist-stub}} has not yet been begun because it isn't needed.

Delete per nom. Valentinian (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


June 25th edit

{{Bm-cvg-stub}} / no cat edit

There are only 5 games in the Blaster Master series, and only two articles are this type of stub. I don't see any need for a stub category that will never house more than five articles, especially when other much more famous video game series do not have their own stub types. KingTT 03:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete... and you didn't even mention the naming ambiguity problems (how many computer and video games are made in Bermuda?). Grutness...wha? 04:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too specific, too small. Valentinian (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cornwall-stub}} / no cat edit

not proposed and feeds into main cornwall cat. had nine stubs, seven of them were geo-stubs and one was a merge candidate. those that were stubs are now marked cornwall-geo-stub as they should have been - but some werent stubs. weve deleted county-stubs in the past and tho cornwall is a bit special it doesnt need a seperate stub. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cornwall is a special case, but a look at the results from doing a StubSense on Cat:Cornwall doesn't convince me that there is a need for this as of yet. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite Cornwall's somewhat special status. There is precedent - we've deleted Gloucestershire-stub in the past. Grutness...wha? 04:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Dukestub}} / Cat:Duke University-related Stubs edit

Been at /D for a while, growing slowly, but certainly too small. Contrary to the consensus on how to split the uni-stubs (i.e. by country/region/subdivision, not by individual institution other than as a last resort in extreme cases), and badly-named. Ideally, upmerge to a to-be-created {{NorthCarolina-university-stub}}; failing which delete; failing which, rename both template and category per the naming guidelines. Alai 16:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge and consider doing the same with {{UGA-stub}}, {{OU-stub}}, and {{UTexas-stub}} and any other such stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Testify, brother. These suffer for pretty similar issues, and the two that are viably-sized look dubious to me in that the population seems to be overwhelmingly bio-stubs, and with a distinct suggestion of over-application (such and such played ball for us for a couple of years). Our experience with UTexas-stub might indicate that these are undeletable on "vote" numbers, though. Alai 20:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge into state-specific rather than university-specific types if viable, and move the bio-stubs back to where they belong. US-university is getting close to splitting, but this way is ridiculous. And remember Alai that this is not a vote pure and simple... reasoning is as important as actual numbers. Oh, and delete any and all stub categories that use the long-deprecated "-related" tag! Grutness...wha? 04:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware that's true in theory, hence the scare-quotes. But when three well-argued, guidelines-citing "deletes" prevail over half a dozen of "I vote keep, because I like it/find it useful/am able to do so", I might actually feel it to be actually true. (Prevailing being, an SFD is closed on such a basis, and we get only moderate levels of dog's abuse over it at DRV, AN/I, yadda-yadda. Alai 05:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 27th edit

{{info-sci-stub}} / Cat:Information science stubs edit

Speedy delete as a recreation of stub type that was deleted just last month. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete. Grutness...wha? 01:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. Am I going bonkers, or did NawlinWiki just recreate hundreds of articles recently speedied from Imthehappywanderer's category-creation-spree? (At least they seem to have been created more carefully this time.) Alai 02:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy . Valentinian (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{ce-stub}} & {{cs-stub}} & {{se-stub}} & {{pl-stub}} (redirects) edit

Redirects to various european stubs, nope a collection of hopelessly ambiguous stub redirects from the good folks of the computer science wikiproject. Delete all with extreme prejudice. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, speedily if possible. Grutness...wha? 01:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Allan McInnes (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until the pips squeak. Alai 03:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedy, Dolph-wise, or by any other method) Valentinian (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, though with perhaps less sarcasm. -- – Zawersh 23:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{ai-stub}} / Cat:Artificial intelligence stubs edit

More fun from the computer science wikiproject. The template is hopelessly ambiguous. At the very least it should be renamed, but with only 21 articles this unproposed stub should likely be deleted. Delete unless better popoulated and even then rename the template to {{compu-ai-stub}}. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there really that many stubs about Anguilla? Delete if this doesn't reach threshold, rename if it does. Grutness...wha? 01:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know, artificial insemination, abstract interpretation, Amnesty International. Rename, poke the wikiproject to see if they want to populate it (though I get the impression this is just another Kootism, rather than something the wikiproject at large actually supported), revisit in a while. This should be more than viable if anyone makes the effort: [2]. At worst, upmerge to comp-sci-. Alai 03:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidently, the abbreviation isn't as bad as some: note that AI is indeed a redirect to the topic at hand. OTOH, should at the very least be capitalised. (Perhaps have {{compu-AI-stub}} as the canonical template name, with redirects from AI- and compu-ai-.) Alai 03:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some random info from someone who's never been here before:

  • seven days seems like a really short discussion period for something that's mostly getting populated by busy academics
  • none of the topics currently stubbed out as ai-stubs sound like they are anything other than Artificial Intelligence stubs.
  • I don't have enough experience to say what effect upmerging has on a field, but I'd say that AI on Wikipedia is surprisingly crap, given that it's a fairly interesting and techy topic. Maybe people who feel qualified to write about it don't think they have time. But I don't see this holding back other areas.
  • I've created a couple of those stubs (copying off of some other page, sorry I don't remember which) but (also sorry) I don't have time to create an advocacy group / portal / whatever to get more people making more pages. But AI is a real field so it seems to me like you should just leave it alone until it gets 'discovered' or something.

--Jaibe 18:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • That's the first time I've heard the "systematic bias" pleading used to suggest that a aub-field of computer science is obviously seriously under-represented on an online encyclopaedia, and which I think is pretty much proof positive that we shouldn't pay it too much heed, or else give up or the idea of ever deleting anything as undersized. (Which given the amount of "Keep! For no reason whatsoever related to the stub guidelines! What do the stub-sorting people know about sorting stubs, anyway?!" contributions of one sort or another we get here, might not be far off the case anyway.) Actually, part of the problem is that AI isn't exactly the most crisply defined discipline in the whole world, and there are lots of {{comp-sci-stub}}s like subgoal and pattern mining that AI zealots would claim to be AI, and AI detractors would claim are really more to do with declarative languages, databases, or likewise, formal methods or whatever else. Alai 19:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually just cruised around a bunch of pages I've edited and a lot of the ones that used to be ai-stubs aren't anymore, which to me makes it sound like the stub is really very healthy. I don't get the idea of a threshold that needs some fixed number of stubs, because surely that's just proportional to the number of editors. As long as a field is getting steadily built up then the stub widgit is doing it's job, right? Though I acknowledge that it would be harder to keep track of the rate-of-conversion of stubs than to just count how many are there. But if you use the simpler metric you may indeed prune stuff that's worth keeping and worth letting a however-small community communicate about. (You are right about the ill-defined thing, have a look at the pages for AI winter and the lighthill report (linked off of that one). A lot of AI pages aren't even linked to AI... --Jaibe 20:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think size of stub category is a pretty good measure of "utility", because for one thing, very small categories are easily managed by other things. It's also likely to be correlated with general activity in that area, unless for some reason creation, sorting, and expansion are radically out of whack. "Stub turnover" would, as you note, be a lot of effort to measure, but in theory yes, if a stub type were very active, but from time or time undersized, it'd be worth keeping; though it's harder still, if not imponderable, to assess whether there's been any additional benefit to splitting it out of a parent that wasn't itself oversized. Many "AI stubs" have clearly been edited significantly when tagged with other types, after all. Alai 06:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've populated this without much difficulty from the AI perm-cat, and there's more where that came from. I've also been so bold as to move the template as I suggested above, and remove the SFD notices. If there's no further input on a template name, I'll 'bot the templates over from ai-stub, and delete the redirect. I've avoided lumping in the computer vision, sound processing and whatnot, though they may be otherwise homeless shortly, as these seem less clearcut than the ones I've sorted (machine learning, neural nets, etc). Alai 02:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 28th edit

{{ER-stub}} edit

The four article this stub is used on could better be called Template:Eritrea-stub, if needed as all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. if there are enough stubs for one a seperate eritrea-stub could be made but this name is bad. at least theres no catagory. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This appears to have been commented on in the June 22nd section below as part of the "Imthehappywanderer" discussion. Road Wizard 21:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
can it be speedied then? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so. Valentinian (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hah, I thought it was the tv series. I deleted it. — Jul. 3, '06 [16:27] <freak|talk>
    • Not sure this was technically speediable, but then again, maybe a few random shootings will serve to encourager les autres. Certainly deleteable on grounds of gross and indecent levels of ambiguity and crypticness. Alai 17:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • ER would have been well covered by UK-royal-stub, anyway :) Grutness...wha? 01:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

30th June edit

{{GeelongStub}} / Cat:Geelong Stubs edit

just about everything that could be wrong with this is. template is badly named. catagory is badly named. template format had to be fixed to show catagory properly. never proposed. only 10 stubs. mixture of geo-stubs, bio-stubs and neither-stubs but feeds into geo-stub catagory. delete now before anything else can be found wrong with it. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear lordy. And that's 10 stubs in two months, by the look og it, too. Delete. Grutness...wha? 03:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The parent project, being WikiProject Geelong has 123 articles assessed as being of stub class quality. There may very well be a need for this stub type however I take on board the comments of it being created in a somewhat messy and unproposed way. -- Longhair 06:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh great, there's Cat:Stub-Class Geelong-related articles, too. Is nobody but "us people" (i.e. the oft-scorned stub regulars) convinced that these parallel structures, using the same/similar terminology for things that have never been properly clarified either to actually be the same, or actually different, is pretty much guaranteed to causes this sort of systematic inconsistency, confusion, and general foul-ups? Alai 15:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Valentinian (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 30th edit

no template / Cat:Computer vision stubs edit

I brought this up at /D back in April, when BL Lacertae wanted it deleted; two months later, it's about time this got sorted out. Parent category Cat:Computer vision has fewer than 100 pages encompassing all its subcategories. I suggest Merge with compu-stub without redirect. –Unint 02:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given that compu-stub is significantly oversized, I'm loathe to delete this entirely (though it's not clear how much it's helping, either). Perhaps replace with a (properly formed) {{image-processing-stub}}, or something along those lines? [3]. I have a real feeling of deja vu, though: did we already deal with something similar to this? Alai 03:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems a useful cat in principle.--Runcorn 06:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any further input on this? This seems to be one where there's not a great deal of either heat or light. Alai 04:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/June_2006&oldid=1136432677"