Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Not deleted/December 2005

December 1st edit

{{Washington-state-highway-stub}} / Category:Washington state highway stubs / {{Washington State Highway Stub}} {{Washington-State-Highway-Stub}}(redirect) edit

Needs to be changed after the strange SFD that didn't work. I am requesting that the template be moved to {{Washington-State-Highway-stub}}. Some have complained that then the category would be inconsistent, but that is because the category predates the WikiProject. Therefore I am requesting that it should be called Category:Washington State Highway stubs. See Talk:List of California State Routes/Archive2 for the why. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The main category is at Category:Washington state highways, and generally we try to match main categories. I don't see any reason we shouldn't do that here, so either that should go to CfD, or this should stay as is. --Mairi 02:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose The proposed new name makes no sense, fails to follow the parent category (which should stay where it is, and I'll argue as much on CFD when it makes it there), doesn't follow the naming convention, and disregards what a proper noun, official terminology, and common usage is. Cited "precedents" don't stand up: the SFD that "didn't work" was IMO poorly "closed" by Karmafist (though thanks to Mairi for cleaning up after the fact), and there was certainly no consensus for the capitalisation Rschen prefers; and the cited archived discussion is entirely inconclusive, and features many of the same objections I raise above. Alai 00:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment See also Category:State highways, where 35 of the 40 subcategories use lowercase. --Mairi 01:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then we should change List of Current United States Senators to List of current United States senators... if we're going to follow the reasoning of "California state route." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See your friendly neighbourhood style guide for capitalisation of titles, which there's generally specific guidance (as I've previously suggested you do for the cases in question; I'll be very surprised if you find a comparable one). A vague analogy does not a precendent make. What's the point in continuing this, btw, if action is contingent on renaming the parent category, which is yet to make it as far as CFD? Alai 06:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I've been very busy... I'll get to it tonight or tomorrow. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Can we strive to do these in the opposite order in future? Not much point in opening a debate here that's going to be contingent on one that hasn't even started elsewhere, and if we follow that logic, won't be closeable until after that one is. Especially given the grief we're getting for failing to close debates in a timely fashion. Alai 07:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Since the main category still has not made it to WP:CFD, I strongly oppose the rename at this time. Delete the redirect-with-spaces, however. --Mairi 06:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Since it's now on listed at CFD, I merely oppose until that's resolved, and think this (and probably other stub categories) should be relisted here at that time. --Mairi 06:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The state highway category issue didn't get resolved. It got sent to develop a consensus, with Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/U.S. state highway naming conventions being the current place. I'm closing this SFD discussion. Without the parent category changing names, it is clear that the consensus is to keep the stub category as it is until and unless the parent changes name. The stub template follows the naming conventions for stub templates, given the current category name, so based on the discussion above I treating that as a keep as well. The redirects need pruning in my opinion, but they also never got an sfd-r placed on them, so I'm going to close the debate on the redirects as no consensus and recommend that the redirects that violate the naming guidelines no matter how the category gets resolved be put up for a proper sfd-r sometime in the new year on that basis only. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 2nd edit

{{Laos-stub}} & Cat:Laos-related stubs edit

It was suggested that the stub be deleted instead.

  • Delete Too few stubs. Caerwine 21:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete - SEAsia-stub can be used happily enough. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment {{Asia-stub}} you mean. There is no {{SEAsia-stub}}, tho there is a {{SEAsia-geo-stub}}. Caerwine 17:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Oops - you're right. SEAsia-stub was debated about a month ago, I'm sure; I assumed it had been created. Perhaps one should be? It could get populated very easily, I think... Grutness...wha? 22:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. Talk about systemic bias issues. How are people supposed to expand stubs for underrepresented countries if they can't find said stubs? Ambi 03:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • They can easily be found - in the next size category up. See my comments under both Nauru and Azerbaijan. There is no point in keeping stub categories that are of such limited size. You seem to misunderstand the necessary difference between main categories (which can easily survive with only one or two articles) and stub categories, which have optimum sizes for them to be of any use to editors. Grutness...wha? 03:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Keep per Ambi. Every current country on Earth should have a stub, and notable defunct countries should have them as well. karmafist 07:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • delete per caerwine. if theres only a few stubs for a country then editors will soon edit them. then well have an empty catagory which well delete. then therell be a few more stubs so the catagorys made again. then theyll be edited so well have to delete. and the editors will have to hunt around thru several catagories and wwont know whether this is here or not. thats why we keep catagories at a reasonable size so as to help editors. this one is much too small.wheres the systematic bias in saying there arent enough stubs? if you dont want that bias make some more and the catagory will be kept. BL kiss the lizard 09:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep As there is no {{SE-Asia-stub}}. Even if there were Laos is not Nauru. It is a country of over 6 million people and it's in general poorly understood in the West. Outside of the Vietnam War and the occasional King of the Hill (TV series) episodes it might be barely known at all. Having something to encourage the expansion of existing articles on it sounds like a fine idea to me.--T. Anthony 10:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • That's all very well if there are existing articles. There are far too few to warrant a separate stub template. Grutness...wha? 10:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep, there are nearly 50 stubs already, and it makes stub-sorting easier to give countries their own stub category. Kappa 15:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{Guyana-stub}} & Cat:Guyana-related stubs edit

It was suggested that the stub be deleted instead.

  • Delete Too few stubs. Caerwine 21:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete - SouthAm-stub can be used happily enough. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Comment -- The Guyana contingent of wikipedians is just beginning to trickle in and be more active. Guyana-stubs et al. should just be merged with the Caribbean-stubs since Guyana has nearly all of their ties to the Caribbean and precious little with the rest of South America. Their articles usually always are more Caribbean centric then South American and thus would be updated much faster as Caribbean-stubs and much less rapidly as South America Stubs. CaribDigita 02:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep, it's a bad idea to merge English-speaking countries in with Spanish-speaking areas, because different editors are able to expand them. Kappa 02:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment There are too few stubs at present to justify this stub type so Keep is not an option. Neither the South American nor the Caribbean stubs are particularly overloaded at present. With only Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguaym, Uruguay, and the Guianas lacking country level stubs at present, SouthAm-stub is not particularly crowded and has fewer stubs than Caribbean-stub. At most, I could see treating the Caribbean in a similar fashion as we do with the Middle East now and have stubs for the Guianas (Guyana, French Guiana, and Suriname) be double stubbed with both the Caribbean and the South American stub, just as stubs that would take {{Egypt-stub}} if it existed take {{Africa-stub}} and {{MEast-stub}} for now. Caerwine 05:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I see that Kappa has been busy finding and creating Guyana stubs. Keep this up and I'll probably have to change my vote, but only if you fix the Guyana Broadcasting Corporation article and any others that may have suffered the same problem of having content intended for another article. Caerwine 05:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • With 38 stubs now, the geo stub category, and the 8 in the bio-stub that unless it grows soon that I'll be nominating for an up merge when this one concludes, I'm switching from delete to no vote. However, if kept, the category definitely needs a rename to Cat:Guyana stubs.
        • It don't think it can be change back to "Guyana stubs" there was some vote a a few months back that everything should be converted to "(placename)-related stubs". CaribDigita 01:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Quite the reverse, there a was a vote last month in favor of eliminating all of the "-related"s from all stub categories. Mairi has been been keeping Mairibot busy with that and hasn't finishied. This one was part of that discussion, but because of the possibility of deleting the stub entirely was referred to this separate SfD instead.

Summary: Guyana-stub kept. Guyana-related stubs renamed to Guyana stubs. --TheParanoidOne 18:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{Nauru-stub}} & Cat:Nauru-related stubs edit

It was suggested that the stub be deleted instead.

  • Delete With close to a year of existence, it has only 24 stubs, which is below the recommendation even if it had a WikiProject. There's also not much potential for more stubs given that the nation consists of only one small island, making it the smallest independ republic in terms of both area and population. Caerwine 21:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete and restub to the hardly overpopulated oceania-stub. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment after some stub searching, it's now up to 42 stubs. --Mairi 04:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm very impressed - that's one stub for every 150 people in the country! Grutness...wha? 05:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. It has quite a few stubs, and it bugs me that systemic bias issues are so regularly ignored on this page. Ambi 03:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It's hardly systemic bias that this country only has 6000 people, and therefore not very many articles. It makes far more sense for editors who are able to expand articles on Pacific islands in general to be able to find them in one go. It makes a lot of sense to have individual main categories for every country, but not for individual countries to have their own stub categories, simply because stub categories are aimed at helping editors, and editors who know about some PI nations are very likely to know about others too. As it happens, there are probably enough stubs here for this category to survive, but if there hadn't been, it would have made far more sense to upmerge it. Grutness...wha? 03:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep In concurrence with Ambi, believing the nation should get its own stub. --Allstar86 06:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 3rd edit

{{Oceania-struct-stub}} / Cat:Oceania buildings and structures stubs edit

Even as a parochially patriotic kiwi, I can see that an Oceania struct-stub template and category used by 149 stubs of which all but 21 are from Australia is better turned into an Australia-struct-stub, with the remaining stubs returned to the general struct-stub category. New Zealand is the only country with more than one of these remaining stubs (it has 16), and - with any luck - it will eventually move up to the point of a split itself (but not for a looong time). I suggest a rescope and rename. see below. Grutness...wha? 08:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support creation of Australia-struct-stub. Do you have a feeling for whether the shortage of other Oceania struct stubs is due to a shortage of structures, a shortage of articles about them (and thus a WP:BIAS issue), or that all the structures have non-stub articles? --Scott Davis Talk 09:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A bit of each. There aren't as many prominent structures, to start with - most of the other countries in the region are either very small, somewhat undeveloped, or lightly populated. There won't be that many buildings in Vanuatu or Tonga worth writing articles about. Then there's a bit of article-bias - other that Australia and New Zealand there aren't too many Oceanian editors. But that refers back to their small populations and underdevelopment; other that Aus and NZ, the only country in the region with over a million population is Papua New Guinea, which is still not at the same technology level as a lot of countries. What's more, in the case of New Zealand what articles there are are often already past stub level. Maybe I should write a few more stubs :) Grutness...wha? 12:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what I was thinking - we need to make sure all the significant structures in the little islands (if there are any more such structures) get stubs as they don't have their own editors, then see if we can get rid of the category or if it's big enough by then.--Scott Davis Talk 12:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I've gone through all the categories I can think of that might have some hiding in there, and it's improved things a bit... it might be possible to keep the oceania category and have australia as a subcat (BTW, Scott, unfortunately from the point of view of this category, airports are geo-, not struct-, since quite a lot of the ones still marked as stub are little more than bare flattened landing strips.). The count's now Australia 128, all other 40, and a wee bit of stub-creation in the next few days could get it up past 50 at least. Grutness...wha? 08:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Make that all others 43. Never thought I'd be writing an article on Government House in Fiji! Grutness...wha? 09:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's up to about 50 now, so I'm changing this to a proposal to keep Oceania-struct-stub but add Australia-struct-stub as a subcat of it (probably better done through WP:WSS/P). Still not much from the islands, so it's likely the same problem will come up again if New Zealand gets too many more struct-stubs (35 of the 50 are from there). Grutness...wha? 02:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support creation of Australia-struct-stub. Slark 02:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Galicia * stubs edit

To quote Mairi at WP:WSS/D: A variant of the first one ({{Galician-stub}}) was deleted a month ago, so that could be speedied. However, it's the only one of these that looks possibly viable; but there's still the issue of how to distinguish that these are for the Spanish Galicia and not the Ukrainian/Polish Galicia.

These stubs accompany a brand new WikiProject... but, as the boilerplate text for making WikiProjects states, "DO NOT simply create new stub templates, as these will probably be deleted". QED. The first of these templates is potentially viable, and there is a proposal on the table for splitting Spain's geography stubs (though it is far from clear that this would be the best way). The others are unnecessary, as the parent Spanish categories are nowhere near splittable level (270 Spanish people-stubs and 54 Spanish writer-stubs, even including the Galician ones!). In any case Spain-bio-stub wouldn't be split by region but by occupation. Given that there is a WikiProject, a simple galicia-stub (or GaliciaES-stub, perhaps?) is probably worthwhile, leading into a category called Cat:Galicia (Spain) stubs, but the others should be merged with it and then deleted. Grutness...wha? 03:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A definite delete on all but the root Galician stub unless a lot more can can be found. I'd prefer {{GaliciaSpain-stub}} & Cat:Galicia (Spain) stubs but could live with {{Galicia-stub}} since judging by the difference between the numbers of articles that feed into the categories of the two Galicias, it will be a long time, if ever, before a Galicia-Lodomeria stub be needed. Caerwine 04:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete all but root temp&cat, merging thereto. Alai 07:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Logging Note: Only the first item kept. All others deleted. This discussion has been added to the Deleted section as well. --TheParanoidOne 11:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 6th edit

{{NZ-university-stub}} and Cat:New Zealand university stubs edit

Has been on WSS/D for about two months now. Used on only 9 articles, and as Grutness said, there are only 10 universities in New Zealand. Aecis praatpaal 17:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • With the various university halls and important separate departments added in, this would get close to or over fifty (note that none of these articles is about a full university). But sadly this isn't needed (though may be later), so delete. Grutness...wha? 01:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC) see note below.Reply[reply]
    • I'm shocked. South Carolina has about the same population as New Zealand and we have about 60 different tertiary institutions and that's not even counting defunct institutions such as Summerland College for Women and Leesville College both of which ended up having their buildings acquired and used by my local school district long before I was ever born. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Actually, that's a point - I'd only been counting universities, forgetting that this could include polytechs. If you count all tertiary institutions (which, of course, this does), then you're probably up to nearly 100. I'll have a look and see what else could be covered by this stub, and for now I'm belaying my vote. Grutness...wha? 04:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • keep theres over 30 now and therell be more. BL kiss the lizard 11:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 8th edit

{{hist-book-stub}} & Cat:Historical fiction book stubs edit

While taking a look at whether the proposed {{hist-film-stub}} would be worth creating, I discovered that its parent cat would be Cat:Period films. It then struck me that by using "period fiction" instead of "historical fiction" for this stub type, we would be able to have a stub type about history books without having to resort to the {{hist-text-stub}} that Grutness has been suggesting without much enthusiasm from others. Therefore I propose that we:

Rename to {{period-book-stub}} & Cat:Period fiction book stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment FWIW the current parent category of this is Category:Historical novels. --Mairi 00:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

True, and "historical fiction" is by far more used as a term than "period fiction". Without the other potential use of the stub template for non-fiction hostory books, I wouldn't have even proposed this one. If there were some other way to break the log jam that has kept the non fiction book stubs from being split despite the fact that they need to be, I'd take it, but the other suggested method ("-text-") has not received much favor on the proposals page. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps rename the template to {{hist-fict-stub}} (or any variation on the abbreviations) or {{hist-novel-stub}}? --Mairi 04:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{histfict-book-stub}} might be a possibility, but between the abbreviations and the fact that {{histfict-film-stub}} would be far less obvious than {{period-film-stub}} makes me slightly leery, but not so leery that I'd out and out oppose it if others favored it. Caerwine Caerwhine 11:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I could be wrong, but doesn't "historical fiction" refer to a fictional work concerning a real event or person (such as the movie Amadeus is a fictional work about a historically important person: Mozart) whereas "period fiction" concerns a story at a differnt time, but not about historical events or people? I'm not completely sure, but it's what I've always understood about it.Rt66lt 22:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Historical that is. A more usual term for the idea. As above the meaning of historical is clearer in refering to the past. Period is slightly ambiguous in that today is also part of 'a period', allbeit the current one. Admittedly, period in normal usage implies historical, but it is not clearly so. The terms period-drama, period film, peroid-piece etc are implied to be historical. What the use of Period does add is the (again implied) idea of "of the period", i.e. of less historcal/factual 'content'. My contention is that subtleties of this kind are too vague to draw in many cases and often missed by the majority anyway. Many use historical to mean of the past regardless of factual content, and many use period to mean of a certain time and apportion a certain factual content regardless of it's real presence. Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 10:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 9th edit

{{New Hampshire-stub}} (redirect) edit

At the same time as the above, Karmafist also made this redirect which runs contrary to naming practice. Delete this, at least. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep, per my DC stub argument above. Please, just make a standard and move on, and make anything that could be miscontrued at first glance as the same thing without going into cruftland as a redirect. karmafist 03:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question. So long as those of us working on New Hampshire articles do have a NH stub we can use, I'm not really concerned. Would deleting this stub remove all New Hampshire stubs and the New Hampshire stub category? Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 04:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • This nomination just concerns the redirect {{New Hampshire-stub}}; regardless of the outcome of this, {{NewHampshire-stub}} and Cat:New Hampshire stubs would stay (unless someone nominates them seperately). There's also a discussion at the bottom of WP:WSS/P about the general idea of stubs for US states, which might be of interest. Mairi 04:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Thanks for clarifying this. I'm going to be Neutral on this then. I can see reasons for keeping and reasons for deleting. Personally, I would prefer an alternate New Hamphshire stub to be {{NH-stub}} or {{NHUS-stub}}. I'd only want one of these because they are several letters less to type. I don't know much about the stub rules or naming conventions, so I don't know if these are possible. Sorry for rambling. Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 12:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Not really. Many abbreviations are likely to be ambiguous, so we try to avoid them except in very rare circumstances. NH-stub could just as easily refer to National Highways, for instance. WP:WSS/NG has the naming conventions. Grutness...wha? 14:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • In the US, NH is almost always New Hampshire. Outside of the US, it is either New Hampshire or a chain of international hotels. A search of the English Language Wikipedia on NH gives New Hampshire related results more often than not. So I would say that NH is not very ambiguious. I stand corrected, but I'm still getting the feeling that this is probably off topic or getting off topic for the deletion vote. Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 14:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • NH is indeed used for New Hampshire, but it's also used for the hotel chain and for North Holland. That is at least three possible uses of one letter combination, so at least three grounds for confusion and ambiguity. So in my view, nh-stub is definitely not an option. Neutral on the nomination, btw. Aecis praatpaal 19:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • here in new zealand it always means North Harbour, New Zealand. delete. BL kiss the lizard 23:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep as it seems to be helping editors in the New Hampshire project keep track of the work. - DavidWBrooks 14:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep as above, this stub helps us organize articles that need to be expanded as part of the New Hampshire project. - SailorfromNH 15:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Don't see why this needs to be deleted, I think it is better to actually keep this stub in order to make oversight and work easier. Gryffindor 16:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep No reason not to have stubs for states, regardless of whether there happens to be a project or not. Specific stubs help sort stub articles specifically, thereby helping contributors interested in a specific topic to find stub articles to improve. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Per Evilphoenix. Banes 17:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: there seems to be some confusion. This discussion, based on Grutness's nomination, is not about whether or not to have stub type for New Hampshire. It is about whether to delete the redirect {{New Hampshire-stub}}. --Mairi 17:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I've already voted - and yes, I did misunderstand. But what's the problem with keeping a misspelled redirect? There are TONS of misspelled wiki pages that redirect to the correct page (e.g., no cap letter in a person's last name). Does this get in anybody's way? - DavidWBrooks 19:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I agree as well. Yes, there was some confusion. I reread the proposal however again, and I still don't see anything wrong with having a redirect. I thought redirects are here to help the users, to facilitate navigation? If this helps.... well then why should it be gotten rid off? Gryffindor 23:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • because it hurts the servers! any way if it was useful it would have been used by now but nothing uses it except a bunch of user pages. BL kiss the lizard 23:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • You must be talking about another redirect then, I don't understand how a redirect that is a few kilobytes is going to take up any serious space on the servers. karmafist 23:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • aiui all template redirects hurt the servers because they need double calls on them. thats why we try to not have stub redirects more than we have to. BL kiss the lizard 00:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Then "The Experts" can move the redirects into the main stubs one by one. Whoever puts the stubs on shouldn't be concerned about it when they're down in the trenches. karmafist 00:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • So you favor having more edits, tying up the time of stub sorters, and hoping that we don't have problems like we have had at times with the software that have made a mess of being certain of identifying template redirects as being preferable to following a consistent set of naming guidelines. I don't see any problem with holding editors to a higher standard than readers. If doing so drives away a few editors who are unwilling to engage in some minimal effort, I see that as a positive, not a negative. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Not only that, but (s)he also favours keeping the redirects as temporary "holding warehouses" only. It's like saying that if you write an article you can call it whatever you want, because someone is bound to come along and correct the title later. What kind of madness is that? One group of stub sorters add them only in order for another set to replace them. Twice as much work for no gain, more strain for the servers, inability to easily tell what a template's name should be because of redirects that go against naming guidelines... Grutness...wha? 03:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete the redirect as per nomination. Conscious 08:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep, seems like a reasonable and useful redirect, makes life easier for editors unfamiliar with the relevant naming conventions, which are fairly arcane. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete there is already a NH stub template for the WP, see Template:NewHampshire-stub. The current one up for deletion was deleted back in October 2005 due to my creation of it without going through the proper process. This one is only on one Article page, what is the harm in deleting it. Assawyer 04:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Changing my vote to Delete as per Assawyer's argument. Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 06:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • KeepLocke Cole 10:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • speedy delete its already been deleted once and is redundent and doesnt follow the correct naming. BL kiss the lizard 04:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • delete as per the nomination. DES (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. I'm absolutely speechless. What on earth are redirects here for if not for cases like this? Matt Yeager 04:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Template redirects are considered more harmful than article redirects, because they cause double loading whenever any page with that stub tag on it is loaded. Article redirects only cause double loading when that redirect is actually clicked on. sjorford (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Changing my vote to delete. Aecis praatpaal 12:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect. --SPUI (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 13th edit

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

This arrived unexpectedly today at WP:WSS/ST. While I realise that Cat:Software stubs is one of our largest, I'm not convinced that this is a useful subcat. It certainly was never proposed or debated prior to creation, and Cat:Malware with all its subcategories has only 140-odd articles, so the chances of it reaching the 60-65 threshold are not high. Grutness...wha? 09:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep for now. As you say, software stubs needs the help. With a bit of incomplete searching I've brought this up to the <25 bin, so I don't think this one deserves the instant deletion treatment, especially with that wonderful icon that the maker came up with. Give it a couple months and at least one complete resorting of the software stubs before seeing if needs to be deleted. Caerwine Caerwhine 12:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - as per Caerwine. Largely its true that it may not make the 60-65 threshold soon but the number of products that might be described as Malware increases at an alarming rate so I find it likely it will in relatively short time. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 14:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • OK. Sounds like it might be worth leaving it a while to see what happens. Grutness...wha? 14:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 15th edit

December 16th edit

{{AfricanAmerican-stub}} / Category:African American stubs edit

No category, created today and used once. While a stub for African-American history might be useful, a general stub like this cuts across many categories, particularly when it gets applied to people. There are also no existing stub types for individual ethnic groups. Delete --Mairi 08:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template now has category too. --Mairi 04:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • delete not at all useful, for the reasons mentioned. Grutness...wha? 09:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I can see where a stub for African American topics (history, politics, religion, organisations, etc.) could be useful, but the stub name should not be {{AfricanAmerican-stub}}, which would logically be only applied to people. I cannot think of a better name, but I'm sure there is one. The usefulness of the stub would be dependent on how many (and what type) of articles to which it could be applied. As for this stub name, delete it. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 13:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. Lectonar 13:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep this is a notable subject that is bound to have many stubs associated with it.--Revolución (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • delete spliting by race cuts across too many catagories. BL kiss the lizard 04:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep as with the articles relating to mexican-americans/chicanos, there are too few articles to divide it up on any basis other than race. Don't use a desire to not categorize things on racial lines to justify making it difficult to coordinate articles dealing with ethnic groups underrepresented on Wikipedia. You can't think of a better name because there isn't one. Believe me, it would be used. --Bfraga 05:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • not quite sure what you mean by "too few to split apart from by race" - the only stub currently marked with this is a US-poli-stub. The Chicano category contains a US-poli-stub, a US-newspaper-stub, a US-struct-stub, and a US-writer-stub. In other words, it has already cut across four categories and only has four stubs! Of these, if split further, one would be split by type of writer and one by location of structure, in keeping with other similar categories. Grutness...wha? 05:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not a tree and neither are categories and stubs. Frankly this cutting across categories complaint sounds more liek a reason to keep, not a reason to delete. The topic itself is well defined, has interested people, and is not well served by existing categories. I'm not 100% happy with the name, but I can't think of a better one that wouldn't be totally artificial and created solely to satisfy the hyper-treeists such as {{US-ethno-Africa-stub}} (Yuuch!) Caerwine Caerwhine 15:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 17th edit

{{auto-stub}} edit

This stub is confusing since 'auto' is commonly used as an abbreviation for 'automatic.' An inexperience user, having only viewed automobile articles and encountered only auto-stub stubs, may create an article of their own and use auto-stub thinking that this will automagically create the appropriate stub. Delete and rename to automotive-stub or something less ambiguous. CMJ 08:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I hadn't considered that, but it's a good point. I'd favour "Automobile-stub" if we're going to change it (I must admit I usually use the car-stub redirect...yeah, I know, I shouldn't use a redirect...). I'm pretty ambialent about it, though. Is this just creating a problem that isn't there? Grutness...wha? 10:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{Mexican-American/Chicano Stub}} / Category:Mexican-American/Chicano Stubs; {{La Raza-stub}} (redirect) Category:La Raza stubs (old cat) edit

This has the same problems as {{AfricanAmerican-stub}} below about being applied to people, which is what the current name would suggest. Furthermore, the current name is pretty awful, between the space, capital Stub and using two alternate names in the template name. And while there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexican-Americans/Chicanos, that suggests even more that this is intended for people. Delete --Mairi 04:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

delete as with the African-American one, we don't split by race, we don't use ambiguous names, and this cuts across all sorts of categories. And speedy delete Cat:La Raza stubs if its already deprecated (what the <eth>; is La Raza anyway?). Grutness...wha? 05:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete {{La Raza-stub}} & Category:La Raza stubs. La Raza is a term used by some Hispanics, especially Mexicans to refer to themselves. It alludes specifically to their mestizo heritage, but it is of such unstable meaning right now it isn't a good stub name. It is a term that has crossed over into American English, most notably in the name of the National Council of La Raza and in the slogans used by several professional wrestlers. (Caerwine Caerwhine 06:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Why did I forget to sign earlier?)Reply[reply]
thanks for that - I hadn't heard of that, and my small Spanish dictionary seems to suggest that "raza" means "breed", which didn't help much. Grutness...wha? 22:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The La Raza stub will be deleted soon enough, and is only serving as a redirect for pages that were created before the name change. The stub is not used for people who are Mexican-American or Chicano, but rather for topics related to Mexican-American and Chicano issues (the reason for the two terms is that there is a distinct difference for many people, although your dictionary may not mention it). I feel seperate categories for issues relating to history, music, art, language, etc would be great, but unfortunately, there are only a handful of articles dealing with topics relevant to Chicanos and Mexican-Americans on Wikipedia currently. If anything, maybe the existence of this template should be taken as incentive to write more articles! --Bfraga 00:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps to keep people out of it, the template should say "This non-biographical Mexican-American/Chicano-related article...", with a note on the category that it's not for people? If it's to be kept, it could use a shorter name. Given that the main category is Cat:Mexican Americans, I'd suggest using that for the template and category, if it's kept. --Mairi 06:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete spliting stubs by race is going to cut across too many catagoiries and make a mess of things. BL kiss the lizard 04:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In response, there are too few articles to justify your statement that it will "make a mess of things." Once a good number of articles relating to Chicano and Mexican-American topics are written, more specific stubs will be written. But until them, it only makes addding to Chicano/Mexican-American articles difficult. --Bfraga 05:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
then delete it becuase it hasnt enough stubs. if it had more it would definately cross the heirarchy as i said (and others did too). BL kiss the lizard 05:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But if it doesn't have enough stubs to cause an issue, then how could it --Bfraga 23:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For a stub category to be useful for editors, it needs to have a reasonable population of stubs - that's why no new categories are created until there are at least a few dozen stubs for them (the usual threshold for creation is about 60). Yet, as the AfricanAmerican category below shows, this sort of category can cut across the hierarchy quite badly with less than ten stubs. If this category had enough stubs to be viable in terms of numbers, it would clash basly with existing categories. If it had few enough not to clash badly, it wouldn't have enough to be useful to editors. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are many articles that should have this stub tag that do not. If I were to mark them all, the category would be quite populous. Shall I? FWIW, I think the Mex-Am./Chic stub may be helpful for the members of WikiProject Mexican-Americans/Chicanos.--Rockero420 18:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I pointed out above, if you do, it'll clash badly with existing categories and cause a lot of problems with stub-sorting in general. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Keep -- this is part of an ongoing WikiProject. Joaquin Murietta 14:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really see where this will clash any more strongly than the proposed stub for Aboriginal Canadians. I'm not at all happy with the name of the stub template but that's a separate problem from the existence of this stub. Since the non stub category is simply Cat:Mexican Americans rename to {{MexicanAmerican-stub}} & Cat:Mexican American stubs with potential redirects from the alternate names {{Chicano-stub}} and/or {{Mexican-American/Chicano-stub}} if the WikiProject wants them. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not the same thing. That one is for ethnic groups throughout Canada, and therefore can fit quite well within the current Canadian categories. This is for one specific ethnic group which crosses national boundaries and for the individual people within it. I would have no objection to a US-ethnic-stub to cover all ethnic groups within the United States, but there is a suggestion with this stub that (a) it would also deal with individual people (crossing the various occupation categories) and also - in the case of La Raza - would deal with people outside the US. If the scope of this stub was modified, it might be usable, but in its present form it's a bit too messy. Grutness...wha? 06:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Category:La Raza stubs deleted. No other action taken. Conscious 14:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 20th edit

{{Television-stub}} edit

Karmafist strikes again. At least this one is better named, but weak delete, since it's still unnecessary. Grutness...wha? 07:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Weak Keep as a redirect from an alternate name. Caerwine Caerwhine 13:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. I honestly don't see why stub redirects get deleted - Newcomers and people like myself logically think that an article about television should go under this stub. It's doing nobody any harm. Hedley 19:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • theyre deleted because they put extra strain on the servers. the less template redirects are used the less strain and the more likely wikipedia will work. thats why people go around replacing redirect links with direct links too. BL kiss the lizard 22:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep; no reason to delete. --SPUI (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep No need for deletion methinks. --Thorri 12:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. I thought to link to this naturally, good name. - Stoph 17:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. Theres no need to delete, Its usefull.--MatthewFenton 20:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep as redirect Circeus 02:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 30th edit

{{Austria-hist-stub}} and {{Ireland-hist-stub}} edit

Since these two stubs were created a month ago, they've had little use. The first is currently on only 4 articles, the latter on three. Unless someone knows of some serious sorting to be done somewhere, or has a mjor WikiProject on the way, these should probably be subsumed into the parent category. --EncycloPetey 15:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{sfd-t}} wasn't added to either of these. I have done that now. --TheParanoidOne 06:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, I'd recommend adding a note on the To Do page, so that perhaps another interested soul could make a start on sorting. --EncycloPetey 02:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep {{Austria-hist-stub}}, which has a lot of potential -- there are many articles on Austrian history. No vote on the other. Martg76 12:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • keep to both. I can see these being fairly well used, and Ireland-stub must be getting close to the splittable point. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 31st edit

{{Electric-loco-stub}} / Cat:Electric locomotive stubs edit

Created on October 22, used on 12 articles. Merge to its parent, {{loco-stub}} (also poorly populated). Conscious 18:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Don't be silly. template:loco-stub is overpopulated. It's doing a useful job and not harming you. — Dunc| 18:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. {{loco-stub}} is lightly populated (only 11 articles) and even {{rail-stub}} in not overpopulated. Caerwine Caerwhine
    • Comment: {{loco-stub}} only has 11 articles in it because most are in the subcategories. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Which is why we should upmerge: to populate those categories. I say Upmerge, too.--HereToHelp (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • If you have a topic which can be neatly split into three subcategories as here, I don't see the point of deleting one of the subcategories just so that the parent has things in it too. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete/Upmerge for now. If we were going to split locomotives, then by country would make more sense. Grutness...wha? 23:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment. The locomotives are split, into diesel (~150), steam (~230) and electric. It makes some sense, as by fuel ≈ by era. Conscious 07:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • mm. didn't realise that. Strange way of doing it. Anyhoo, if there are only twelve stubs in here, it's still not that viable at present at least. Grutness...wha? 08:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. steam-loco-stub and diesel-loco-stub are all very well populated, and having a category for the electrics is thus natural. Twelve articles in it right now, but there are perhaps more which should be in it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'd like to note that over the last 3 months, it didn't attract more than 12. Conscious 11:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - Silly not to have it. FCYTravis 09:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • delete if its got only 12 stubs its even sillier to keep it. do you understand how stub sorting works FCYTravis? BL kiss the lizard 09:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment - What sort of comment is that? What's wrong with a category with only 12 things in it? FCYTravis 09:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I'll tell you what's wrong. There are 200000 stubs, and 1 category per 12 stubs is just too many. Conscious 07:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - many more articles should have this stub category on them, and many more will be written. Plus, it would ruin the organization of locomotive stubs, since steam locomotives and diesel locomotives have their individual stub categories. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • PS. there are now 24 26 32 45 articles in this stub type, and I'm sure with a little poking around I can find a few more to add. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep as it keeps growing and is now at 45. --Mairi 07:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. This stub is steadily growing towards the threshold, and has now come so close that I think we should give this one the benefit of the doubt. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep It is one of the three major types of locomotives, and as shown above, there are many more articles that could be added to it. There are many more types of electric locomotives that we have yet to start articles for. Slambo (Speak) 19:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]