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

November 3rd edit

{{Flag-stub}} / Category:Flag stubs → {{Heraldry-or-flag-stub}} / Category:Heraldry and flag stubs edit

I suggest this rename, I was looking for a heraldry stub the other day and could not find any. Then days later I stumbled across the "flag stub" wich turns out to also double as a heraldry stub (you can't tell from the stub types list). Also IMHO {{Flag-stub}} should be kept as a redirect and {{Heraldry-stub}} created as a redirect too. --Sherool 00:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Changed vote to split off {{Heraldry-stub}} per Grutness. --Sherool 12:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yeah, I had to do some puzzling about this myself. Strongly agree with heraldry-stub redirect, but not wild about the proposed "canonical" name. Why not keep that at flag-stub, or rename to heraldry stub, with a redirect the other way. Broadly speaking flags are "heraldic" in nature. Alai 00:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The proposed template name is unnecessarily cumbersome. There are two far simpler alternatives than this. 1) iIf the category is big enough, split it; 2) (my preference) keep the current template, make {{heraldry-stub}} a redirect to it, and rename the category. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It has 150 which is almost splitable BL kiss the lizard 05:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm not wild about the suggested template name either, it was just the best I could think of that wouldn't leave people guessing what it did when looking at the stub type list (an alternative would be to just mention the redirect on the list I suppose). If there is enough stubs of both types to actualy split it I do agree that that would probably be the best solution. --Sherool 08:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Separate. I would prefer to see separate stub templates for heraldry, flag, and symbol. Heraldry is a fledgling category right now, with lots of potential for growth. I plan to initiate a lot of this growth myself soon, and having a separate stub will make it easier for me to tag artciles so others can find and expand fledglings. In any case, symbol is far too broad and vague a listing to completely subsume heraldry and flags, so at worst I would want to see a heraldry-and-flag category separate from symbol. -- EncycloPetey 15:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Split into {{flag-stub}} and {{heraldry-stub}} as per Grutness. --Mairi 20:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Split per Grutness. (SEWilco 00:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC))Reply[reply]

November 4th edit

{{Stub-Class}} (no category) edit

NB - this turned out not to be a stub template - the same applies with {{Chem Stub}}.

Your guess is as good as mine. Unused, no category... unless someone can point out a purpose for this, then it should be expunged. Grutness...wha? 06:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added a category – I apologise for being fairly unfamilar with templates. Note that this template is not used to tag articles themselves, rather it is used to taf article descriptions in lists of articles associated with the Wikipedia 1.0 project.

The Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team is just beginning a massive program of assessment of articles, using these criteria, and we need this stub to keep track of thousands of article assessments. Although most articles we tag are A-class or B-class, when important subjects are only stubs we want to tag them in our tables using this template. For examples of its use see Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Core_topics (note that this table needs much to be filled in). Others are starting to use the same assessment criteria, for examples see Indian articles assessment and Business & Economics articles assessment, and they will probably be using the template soon. This approach to assessment is fairly new to Wikipedia generally, but I fully expect this stub to grow in use a lot. A similar system has been used at WP:Chem for some time, using {{Chem Stub}}, so for a "matured" assessment scheme using this type of stub see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Organization. Let me know if you need me to rally other supporters to save this template. Walkerma 07:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm still a bit confused. This doesn't look like it's got anything to do with stubs at all. In any case, the category you've put it on already has a stub template - {{Wikipedia-stub}}. What does this template actually do? I tdoesn't seem to be used to mark any articles (the only things which it links to are a project page). Cat:Wikipedia stubs ois for stub articles related to Wikipedia. As for {{Chem Stub}}, it's not used on any articles either, so it's not a good example to use, since it's also clearly not been used to mark stubs. What we have is either two unused stub templates - in which case they should be deleted - or two templates not used for stub sorting - in which casae they should be renamed to something that doesn't contain the word stub. Grutness...wha? 08:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I've got it now. It's not a stub template, it's a label for use in tables on a project page. As such, calling it a stub template is pretty confusing, since all stub templates are used to actually add categories to articles. Because it's not really a stub template, it's not in the jurisdiction of this page. However, I would ask if it is possible for you to rename it to something that doesn't make it look like a stub template! Grutness...wha? 09:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've got it! It's hard to know what to classify it as when it's unusual like this. I'd be happy to change the name- can you suggest something that makes it clear that we are designating a stub in a table, but something that won't be treated as a normal stub template? I had no idea when I created it that it would show up here! Thanks, Walkerma 14:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have any good name ideas for it now, but I did put it in Category:Wikipedia 1.0 as that's what it seems to be used for. That and the comment you added should make it abit more clear... --Mairi 18:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps something like {{Table-s}}? Also, it doesn't need a category, since it's not a stub template as such. To be honest, I'm not sure why {{Chem Stub}} would need a category either. if it doesn't, you have two identical templates - in which case both could be combined into one template that could be used by any WikiProject wanting to make a similar table. Might be worth mentioning that at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals (in fact, I might do that now...) Grutness...wha? 03:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I did the category as noinclude, so it just marks what the template is used for... --Mairi 04:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A category such as Category:Article assessment templates would be better than having them clog up stub categories. Can't see any easy way round the naming problem yet, will have a think about it. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 08:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The {{Chem Stub}} is a simple table aid in the Chemicals WikiProject to indicate that the article is still in its Stub phase. Equivalent templates are {{Chem Start}}, {{Chem B-Class}} and {{Chem A-Class}}. None of these templates need categorization information, so that should not be in {{Chem Stub}} either. I think he must have underestimated the effect of the cat in the template. Wim van Dorst 12:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC). It is out now. Wim van Dorst 12:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Once again I need to apologise for my ignorance. When I saw that Stub-Class was listed for deletion for having no cat, I was worried the same would happen to Chem Stub if it was left without a cat. The other templates we use are A-Class, B-Class and Start-Class, perhaps this one could be named Stb-class without getting me into any more trouble, would that work? Thanks, Walkerma 17:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No need for apologizing, just take it as a learning curve. For the WP1.0 assessment, perhaps longer (and not shorter) names would be more explanatory, not leading into misunderstandings. E.g., {{Assessment Stub class}}, {{Assessment Start class}}, etc. Wim van Dorst 18:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC). As the target group for use of these templates are large (contraryly to the table templates in WP:Chem) the intention of the templates should be clear too. Wim van Dorst 18:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  • You seem to be missing the two main points here, the stub name and the apparent duplication of identical templates. Why have both {{Chem Stub}} and {{Stub-Class}}? Why not simply have one group of templates (say {{A-class}}, {{B-class}}, {{C-class}} and {{D-class}}) which can be used by any wikiproject that needs them? {{Chem Stub}} and {{Stub-Class}} could then simply be replaced by {{D-class}} which gets around the stub name and gets rid of the duplication. Grutness...wha? 22:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we would prefer to keep both for convenience. The Chem Stub template is already heavily used, but the name Chem Stub is inappropriate for something to be used by the Business & Economics Wikiproject and the like. As you have seen, I'm pretty ignorant on such things, but isn't this template only 2 kB or something, can't we just keep both, on the basis that 0.01 c of storage is cheaper than a couple of hours of someone's time? It would just make life easier for a lot of people that way. Cheers, Walkerma 21:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 5th edit

{{bacteria-stub}} edit

Delete This template had been accidentally modified unpurposely by the creator using 'edit this page' option after clicked the link in Category:Bacteria-stub. However, the creator decided to cancel it as the creator had found the relevant information that was going to be added in other section of Wikipedia. Therefore, it is not used in any article, and their category is empty.

  • Just because you accidentally messed it up is not a reason to delete it. It's currently used on 205 articles. I'm reverting to the version before your edits (except leaving the sfd tag), if that helps. Keep. --Alynna 16:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep or Rename. This is potentially a very useful category, although I could see it merged with something like Microbiology-stub. -- EncycloPetey 15:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. This item should be removed from the SFD listing as it has arisen from a misunderstanding by the submitter. --TheParanoidOne 16:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{Tv-preair-stub}} edit

For tv episodes that have not aired yet. Has the same problems as Tv-episode-stub below, and then some (like being time-dependent). Feeds into Category:Television stubs Delete. --Mairi 02:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

also suffers from the "not a crystal ball" rule. Delete Grutness...wha? 02:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, I see no need for this, and it has plenty of issues... --Alynna 04:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Fills a very specific need neatly. {{future}} which says the article is about a future "event" or "product" is too vague. An upcoming coronation is a future event. A 2007 Chevy is a future product. The {{tv-preair-stub}}, with its "once the episode airs" message is just perfect for this situation. Maybe it has problems, but it's a typical lazy deletionist attitude to cry "problem" but not do anything to fix it. The problem might be a small detail of semantics but for some people it's too much trouble to click "edit this page." Anton Mravcek 23:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How many editors specifically edit stubs about shows that haven't aired yet, and not about shows in general? If I needed to tag a stub about an episode that hadn't aired yet, I'd stub-sort it the same way I'd sort any episode, and then mark it with {{future}}. Problem solved. --Alynna 06:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A {{future-tvshow}} or such could be useful, and it would fill a larger role than this stub; as I'm sure there are some tv shows that can have non-stub articles before the show airs. --Mairi 06:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Something like this is necessary because Wikipedia operates smoother when there is a stub in place for an episode of a popular show before the episode airs. Contrast the edit histories of "Peter's Got Woods" and "PTV" for an example. Robert Happelberg 21:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
del not needed and theres not likely to be enough stubs for it. also wed have to keep changeing from one template to another when something airs BL kiss the lizard 01:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep or perhaps redirect to {{future-tvshow}}. Robert Happelberg 21:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
if its redirected there it would be to a nonstub template so that would be like saying a stubs not needed. so what youre realy saying is "keep or delete" BL kiss the lizard 23:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. But if y'all go with deleting, you better institute {{future-tvshow}}. I volunteer to change the appropriate articles accordingly. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: {{future tvshow}} now exists; I followed the form of {{future film}} and such. --Mairi 20:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep But also reword {{future tvshow}} so that it is more appropriate to the situation. Right now it still reads so much like {{future}} it's painful. ShutterBugTrekker 22:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 7th edit

Cat:Inverness-shire geography stubs edit

My fault - should be Cat:Inverness geography stubs (seee note below at Hebrides-geo-stub). There are, as I see it, two options. 1) change it to Cat:Inverness geography stubs; 2) abandon the whole idea of splitting up Scotland's geo stubs, for the time being at least. Personally, I favour the latter - I've now counted them up and worked out where they are twice, and the idea of doing it a third time because whatever way of splitting it we consider someone objects to fills me with revulsion. The fact that the titles of the articles vary between administrative counties, traditional counties, lieutenancy areas and unitary authorities (so that we have, for instance, Abington, South Lanarkshire and Broughton, Peeblesshire) does little to make things clearer, and neither do stubs saying "XXX is a village in the Scottish Highlands", which- when checked - turn out to be in Stirling or Perth and Kinross. Scotland may just be in the "too hard" basket, and it's still small enough not to desperately need splitting. Grutness...wha? 10:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete Inverness/Inverness-shire is just too confusing: the modern area used by Highland Council (as opposed to the City of Inverness) is much smaller than the old traditional Inverness-shire, which has different boundaries to the later "administrative county" of Inverness-shire, which has different boundaries to the lieutenancy area of Inverness-shire!
On the wider issue: let us pause for reflection. Let's nor delete the already-created Glasgow, Western Isles or Argyll and Bute geo stubs/cats: they are all well-defined and easy to comprehend, and they all fit into modern Category:Glasgow, Category:Argyll and Bute and Category:Outer Hebrides (bit anachronistic that last name). I suggest merely changing the map at Category:Scotland geography stubs to the modern one from Subdivisions of Scotland, and highlighting the three modern council areas of Glasgow, Argyll and Bute and Western Isles. The rest (including Highland) should wait until we've had some cogitation time.--Mais oui! 11:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak keep, possible rename. This is a useful category, and I still think that LA splits are the "least worst option". The name's a problem, though: "Inverness stubs" would be horribly confusing, and "Inverness Lieutenancy Area stubs" is quite a mouthful. I'm almost inclined to say keep the category name as-is, just to avoid the futility of "stub-un-sorting" these, if there's indeed no other acceptable name. Alai 18:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment "Inverness-shire" is also horribly confusing, and so out-of-date it is almost painful to see Wikipedia using it for categorisation purposes. There is of course one very clear method of subdividing Scotland, and that is the one the Scots themselves chose, and then re-chose, and then re-chose again, via that great decider of uncertainty: the ballot box. No political party, either major or small has any intention of fiddling with Scottish local govt (yet again), so let us respect the wishes of the electorate and their chosen representatives and subdivide the place as they see fit. I honestly cannot believe that you are trying to do it by Lieutenancy areas: you do realise that most Scots do not know that they live in a "Lieutenancy area", let alone which one they live in. As the younger generations come through this confusion will just increase. Please, please, pleeaaaase reconsider. Honestly: pleeeeeeeaaaaaaaaazzzzzzzze (with a cherry on the top).--Mais oui! 18:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I swear that the rhetoric on this page gets more colourful by the week. "Respect the wishes of the electorate", yet? It's not like we're proposing to topple the UK state and each seize a stub category as a personal fiefdom (though I can't deny it appeals to my inner megalomaniac). The general criteria on WP is common usage, which in this case I'd suggest is more correlated to what people write on postal addresses and such like, rather than to local government bodies. And on those grounds, I'd guess that contrary to what you imply, LAs are 90% accurate to "where people think they live" (even though 99% wouldn't have a notion as to the legal basis for this). Are you going to insist we re-split the England-geo-stubs, on the same grounds? A modicum of consistency would be nice. But more to the point, the purpose of stub categories is utility, so tearing the whole edifice down when there's not even another option currently on the table seems really rather deeply counterproductive. Rename if there's a viable option, otherwise keep as is, pending any possible future do-over of the whole shebang. Deletion not an reasonable option in my book. Probably a good idea to put any further creations on hold, however. Alai 06:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • "... there's not even another option currently on the table..." That is not true. The other option has been very clearly stated, more than once: the modern subdivisions of Scotland.--Mais oui! 18:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • i.e., the local government bodies: see above comments on same. "The table" being WP:WSS/P, at a minimum. Asking for an essentially sensible category to be unsorted into an already-oversized parent, when an alternative hasn't even been proposed, much less accepted, strikes me as, to continue a theme, highly counter-productive. And rather presuming that your scheme would be accepted. Delete this if and when there's a sensible replacement up and running, and not before. Alai 07:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is probably yet another "no consensus", depending on how one reads the nominator's vote, or lack of same. I'll pause before logging as such for possible clarification, especially I'm the only voter to keep. Alai 06:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 9th edit

{{Finland-musician-stub}} & Cat:Finnish musician stubs edit

Delete Only 36 stubs and its goes against our efforts to separate musicians by instrument and/or genre. Caerwine 06:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete --Bruce1ee 12:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep It is not doing any other categories or stub categories any harm; indeed, it is very likely to do the articles themselves a lot of good.--Mais oui! 18:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep An extra stub category may encourage expansion of more stub articles by people with the approproate knowledge - if they happen to stumble onto just one. And there's nothing wrong in applying several stub tags to one article, is there? --Janke | Talk 20:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep People living in Finland know where to dig for information on Finnish musicians, and can go trought text written about the artist in Finnish. Please fix the problem where it is and make multiple stub-notes fit articles better. e.g. by creating a "stub rack" which has general explanation first and holds minimal version of stub-template for each stub-category. (Actually I consider taking this mission someday, but now I'm far too busy.) --Easyas12c 21:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. We're trying to sort musicans by genre, not nationality. - Kookykman|(t)(c)
  • Comment There certainly is nothing wrong with applying multiple stubs, but micro cats make it impossible for stub sorters to keep track of all the little cats. it's not as if {{Finland-bio-stub}} is overful (all of 187 stubs) and while {{musician-stub}} is bloated at the moment, it is being slimmed down, by using other means than splitting out than by nationality. Caerwine 01:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • weak keep most of the finnish articles ive seen on wiki have been for musicians and this has 36 stubs and is getting bigger. makes more sense to split by nationality that instrument anyway espesially for small countries. BL kiss the lizard 04:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Tally A slight preference to keep. I do ask that any future stubs of this form be made only when there are actually 60 stubs that would go in it. Caerwine 18:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 10th edit

Category:Music biography stubs edit

Delete. No stub. No articles. It is not listed in WP:WSS/ST but is still part of the Music stub hierarchy in that it is the (incorrect) parent of Cat:Musical group stubs, Cat:Musician stubs and Cat:Composers stubs. I'm sure it was created for a reason but clearly the Music stub hierarchy has since changed and currently it serves no purpose other than to confuse. If deleted all that need be adjusted is the parent cat of the above 3 cats. --Bruce1ee 14:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Weak keep; I think this could be useful for musicologists, music critics, instrument makers, etc. (the things in Music occupations that aren't musicians or composers), but I don't know how many stub articles there are of those. --Mairi 17:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Judging from what I've seen so far during my resorting of Cat:Musician stubs, I estimate this category would get somewhere in the range of 25-100 stubs from that overlarge category if provided with a stub template of its very own. and that doesn't include articles that might have been double stubbed with {{music-stub}} and some other profession such as {{academic-bio-stub}} (for musicologists) or {{journalist-stub}} (for music critics). The only question in my mind is what template to use. {{music-bio-stub}} is the obvious one, but {{musicbio-stub}} is currently a redirect to {{musician-stub}}, so there is potential for confusion, even if we correct the situation. Regardless of what decision is arrived at tho, Cat:Musical group stubs should be changed to use Cat:Music stubs as its parent instead of this category, since strictly speaking musical group articles are not biographies. Caerwine 01:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. If we keep this category then new parent categories for Cat:Musician stubs and Cat:Composers stubs should be added to reflect the Music stub hierarchy shown in WP:WSS/ST. I agree that Cat:Musical group stubs's parent should be Cat:Music stubs, but then again the Music stub hierarchy needs to be adjusted to reflect this (currently it falls under Cat:Musician stubs). --Bruce1ee 09:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 12th edit

{{Uk-bio-stub}}, {{Uk-poli-stub}}, and {{Uk-stub}} edit

As with the "Us" stubs below, these are nastily miscapitalised and should be deleted. According to their "What links here" pages, all three are unused, but I'm not sure I quite believe that. Grutness...wha? 04:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete. Alai 18:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep all. This seems to be borne of some sort of misguided OCD to have everything "right and proper" rather than of any actual desire to improve things. Unless you want to delete all stub redirects of all types, keep them - SoM 18:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep as redirects. Redirects are good things, because people will always make certain typos, and some people just can't be made to care about capitalization. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • delete all badly named redirects. Ukraine doesnt need these redirects BL kiss the lizard 22:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. Why not? Matt Yeager 06:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note: The following comment(s) added after 7 day discussion period. --TheParanoidOne 12:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Note: By long standing precedent, it doesn't matter when one enters a discussion that has not yet been closed, one is entitled to be heard. -Splashtalk 16:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep as redirects. As GTBacchus. Megapixie 12:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete Coddling spelling errors makes sense for articles becosuse that affects readers, but templates are only used by editors who should know better. Caerwine 04:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete as per Caerwine.--Mais oui! 06:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 13th edit

{{Latvia-bio-stub}} & Cat:Latvian people stubs edit

From the discoveries page. Only real problem with this stub is that it has only 18 stubs. Merging this back into {{Latvia-stub}} would cause there to be 57 Latvian stubs in all, and that's with Latvian geo stubs having to be double stubbed with {{Latvia-stub}} and {{Euro-geo-stub}}. For whatever reason, we don't have a lot of Latvian stubs of any type at the moment, so delete. Caerwine 01:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Mmm. weak delete. This one could grow. Perhaps a combined Baltic-bio-stub with estonia and Lithuania might work. But for now, yeah, these can go back into the main Latvia stub category. Grutness...wha? 07:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Redirect template (to one or other of the above ideas), delete category. Alai 04:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep, looks fine to me. --Merovingian 11:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. There's certainly a problem with the coverage of Latvia and Latvians being quite small, but the list of stubs can grow easily. Solver 22:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 16th edit

{{Bomber-stub}} and Category:Bomber stubs edit

Have suggested to create a new stubcategory, {{mil-aero-stub}} that would replace this one, as well as including other types of military aircraft. Although there has been some discussion over which other types to add, it seems that most, if not all of the participants agree on {{mil-aero-stub}}. Bjelleklang - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 08:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Me included, but as I argued there, 'unsorting' these seems pretty pointless: I'd be pretty confident there are significant numbers of unsorted bombers lurking in other categories -- like the very aero-stub cat you want to split. Keep Alai 08:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have looked through Category:Aircraft stubs, and didn't find too many bomber stubs hidden there. Also checked Category:Aviation stubs and Category:Vehicle stubs, without results.
If we create {{mil-aero-stub}}, it would probably contain approx 70-100 (rough estimate) stubs by itself, and as Category:Bomber_stubs only contain 21 at present, it would be better to merge the two in my opinion. There's no point in creating a category for military aircraft (with only 100 stubs), as well as a single subcategory dedicated to bombers with only 21 stubs! Bjelleklang - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 13:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
mil-aero-stub makes more sense - it would be a larger category, and it's very likely that the same group of editors would know about bombers and fighters. I'd agree with the suggestion to replace this teplate and category with the new one. If the mil-aircraft category gets too big then this can always be re-split from it, but for now it's unlikely to be big enough. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we were starting from scratch, I'd be inclined to agree with you. However, this is a fairly long-standing stub category, seems to be serving a useful purpose (these articles really do seem to get expanded fairly readily), and it strikes me as striking a pretty counterproductive precedent to start re-organising and "de-sorting" such cases whenever their sizes fluctuate somewhat. At any rate, after a fairly cursory google-based search, and only of aero-stub, there are now 44 of them. Alai 18:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So what if it's counterproductive? One single stub category is much better, and easier to maintain, and I've proposed to start sorting friday first unless there's some major objections to the proposed categories or contents. Anyway, in order to agree, I have a suggestion: What if I don't do anything about {{bomber-stub}} before I've sorted {{aero-stub}}? That way, we would get the precise number of bombers lurking around, and if there are as many as you think, we'll keep the category, and if not, resort and delete it. Bjelleklang - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 23:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you explain why one category is either "much better" or "easier to maintain"? It's counter-productive because for one thing, it's wasted effort to move things from one category to another, in the full expectation of moving them back again before too long. And because it makes the stub namespace a needlessly moving target if people previously happily stub-tagging things as "bomber-" now find this has mysteriously turned into a redlink, or at any rate is now 'deprecated' and folded into a larger, less coherently defined category for no apparent reason. And will then, like as not, come here muttering about the OCDish/self-appointed/horde-like/<other epithet> WSS project needlessly meddling -- which personally I think we get more than enough of when we're needfully meddling -- and this would in my judgement rise to the level of the needless. That's "so what". As for there being as many as I think: I "think" that there's at least 44, and I think that 44 is plenty to keep an existing category "in good standing". When was the last time we deleted a stub category for having "only" 44 members? Exactly how many would you like me to find before we desist with this?
But yes, that is essentially what you should do, since mil-aero-stub has since been approved, and so you can create it and start sorting to it immediately (I had vague thoughts about doing so earlier this weekend, but instead remained variously inert and distracted.) But as this hasn't yet been deleted, so "unsorting" them to mil-aero-stub would be premature (at best). Alai 00:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, as of less than two days ago, the category had 21 stubs. Second, other editors previously unaware of {{bomber-stub}} is likely to have the same problem as editors used to {{bomber-stub}}, and one category makes more sense in my opinion, as many editors probably would assume that if there's a {{bomber-stub}}, there must be a fighter stub as well, which would only add to confuse people. And as I previously said, I wont touch {{bomber-stub}}, or any bombers found in {{aero-stub}} until I'm done sorting that one. Bjelleklang - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 02:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm aware that there were only 21 stubs here; you'll which at the proposals page, and then here, I commented that this was probably due to under-sorting of aero-stub, which you assured us was not the case. As non-exhaustive resorting of that very category has produced another 23, I don't see why its former size is grounds for deletion, and hence am suggesting this would be an appropriate time to withdraw the nomination to delete it. Failing which, would people please be so kind as to vote in droves to keep? I don't see why having a mil-aero-stub and a bomber-stub is somehow going to reduce people's capability to sort stubs to either. On the contrary, removing an existing, adequately-sized, and adequately-defined category is highly likely to do so. Alai 03:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not assure you of anything! I wrote that I had a look, and did not find too many! And as you clearly want too keep {{bomber-stub}}, while I'd rather merge it with {{Mil-aero-stub}}, the phrases not too many and a significant number in this case is regarding the same number! I'd like to pause this debate for now if possible, and at least wait until {{aero-stub}} has been completed, if there's more stubs to be found, I have no problems keeping {{bomber-stub}}, but if not and provided that {{mil-aero-stub}} doesn't get too large, merge it. Bjelleklang - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 04:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I may have over-egged the rhetoric, sorry. At any rate, I've trawled the perm-cats (though only up to '49 in the per-decade categories, should anyone else have a yen to do the rest), and the stub-cat is now up to 71. Alai 01:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a problem with the recent upgrade in the size of this catgeory. Not all of these articles are stubs in my opinion. I'll focus on one particular article A-26 Invader, since that article was not simply restubbed from aero-stub, but had the bomber-stub added to it by you. What is it about that article that strikes you as stubbish? Granted, it's still improvable, but I don't see where it is easily improvable by a non-knowledgeable editor which is the usual threshold. Caerwine 14:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at that now, I'd say it's firmly in the "what idiot did that?" category. It's significantly longer than the de facto stub length, in these categories and otherwise, and of anything I was consciously re-tagging as a stub, so I'm putting this one down to the depraved actions of careless fingers under the control (or otherwise) of a tired brain. I'll check the other tag-additions I made to see if any others are beyond the "half-dozen sentences and an proto-infobox" that many of them seemed to be. Now admittedly, there's the further argument as to whether some of the very short articles are so much "easy to expand" stubs, as topics which are likely to have very slight coverage for some time: one-off aircrafts, designs that never flew, etc. In some such cases, merging might be the wiser course in the longer term, but I'd think that tagging them as stubs is OK in the short-term, since it's not instantly obvious how or where they'd necessarily be merged. Alai 19:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checked all the others I added the tag to, and they all look at least sane. Checked the remaining perm-cats by decade, and only found another two. Alai 04:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi folks, sorry to have kept you waiting, but haven't been able to do much on WP for the past couple of weeks or so, and won't have much more time until after christmas due to school and work. Anyway, as the cat has grown considerably, and I wont have time to sort anything for a little while, I withdraw the nom to delete this category. Bjelleklang 12:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read the entire discussion to decide how to close this. Now I wish I had just read the last paragraph. D'Oh!. :) --TheParanoidOne 17:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{Argentina-sport-stub}} / Argentina sport stubs edit

Used on <25 stubs. Well formed, but goes against the current splitting of the sports hierarchy by sport. --TheParanoidOne 23:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete. Doesn't make sense to split by a country when all the other splits are by sport. Grutness...wha? 02:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. Actually, we have "Arg-Politic", "Arg-Culture" why not "Arg-Sport"? It is not by sport. Argentina's sport articles are all mainly stubs, we should be using the stub more, not removing it for being used a little. Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, goes against current hierarchy of sport stubs --Alynna 20:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep, Argentine users that work on Argentine sport articles make little difference on sport, but big difference on the Argentine part. It's a lot handier to have it separated like this. Mariano(t/c) 08:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • delete its hard enough keeping track of where the stubs are with one split. splitting across the heirarchy wont help. and to answer Sebastian there is no arg-culture-stub and politics is split by country anyway but sport is split by type of sport. BL kiss the lizard 10:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. Most of these seem to be biographical articles, and the appropriate bio category is far from oversized. If there's under-tagging of stubs, it would seem to be pretty general, not specific to sports. Likewise, there are regional sports categories that seem adequately specific. And if not, find some more stubs, or at least create a wikiproject. Alai 20:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep I don't care about cricketeers or baseballers or even football players at large, but I don't mess with them. I do care about Argentine sportpersons and this stub is very informative to know what is pending about them. User:Ejrrjs says What? 23:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep as a "holding stub", for any articles that haven't been placed into more specific stubs yet. karmafist 16:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect {{starwars-stub}} edit

Back during the debate over what to rename {{sw-stub}}, the Star Wars stub template, this was one of the two proposed versions, but the consensus was clearly in favor of {{StarWars-stub}}. However, Marudubshinki chose to create a redirect. I really don't see the need for the redirect, and it doesn't appear to be in use, so delete. Caerwine 18:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

del BL kiss the lizard 23:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. This is just the lowercase version of {{StarWars-stub}}, so it is bound to get used frequently. I do not want to have to remember that "Star Wars" should be capitalized in a stub type tag. Andrew_pmk | Talk 03:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. If you can remember that the films' titles are capitalised, and that the articles are capitalised, then I can't see why you'd not remember that the template is too. Grutness...wha? 05:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Template names aren't formatted and capitalized like real words often enough. I used the redirect just now, but changed it to get rid of the annoying deletion warning. — Phil Welch 21:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
stub templates are. have a look at WP:WSS/NG BL kiss the lizard 22:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak delete; I don't think there was any pressing need to list this for deletion, as it's existance doesn't cause any real problems; but since it's here, and it violates guidelines on capitalization, and it's not hard to remember that movie titles are capitalized (as are all proper nouns in stub templates), might as well delete it. --Mairi 03:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but this is not used solely for movie articles. If you look at the Star War stub cat, most of the entries are from the Expanded Universe. --Maru (talk) Contribs 01:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep the useful redirect. --SPUI (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. It saves me considerable time, it is good design (so many stubs are lower cased as well, John Q. Editor could easily be forgiven thinking that it would be starwars-stub, not StarWars-stub), and really, what harm is it doing? Are you suggesting that there are two distinct entities or classifications for starwars vs. StarWars? --Maru (talk) Contribs 01:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incredulous keep. Gall. Do you guys want to delete everything? Matt Yeager 04:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 23rd edit

{{UN-stub}} edit

As a result of the SfD discussion from October this is now a redirect to {{int-org-stub}}. That discussion was inconclusive about what to do with this once the rename was complete. There are now a little under 160 International organization stubs, of which a little under 70 relate to the United Nations and use this redirect. The 90 or so stubs that don't relate to the UN don't use the redirect. I recommend that we now repurpose this redirect into a separate stub template, with a separate stub category Cat:United Nations stubs. Caerwine 18:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

repurpose(?) BL kiss the lizard 00:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wouldn't this be more logically placed on the proposals page, as it involves no deletions or renames? Alai 01:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's essentially a change scope, which is one of the typical voting options given above. Right now {UN-stub} can be used for any international organization, this would narrow the scope to just the UN. Caerwine 02:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only vaguely, since one wouldn't expect the redirect to be used on anything but UN stubs, and this is apparently indeed the case. It's a lot more like a split, except it's mostly already done already, aside from the category creation and null-edits. But that's somewhat splitting hairs, and I'd be in favour of going ahead and doing it. Alai 03:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
trans-splittify as per Caerwine. Grutness...wha? 05:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 27th edit

Airline stub subcategories edit

There's a small problem with the just created Cat:African airline stubs, Cat:Asian airline stubs, Cat:European airline stubs, Cat:North American airline stubs, Cat:Oceanian airline stubs, Cat:South American airline stubs, and Cat:United States airline stubs. 6 use adjectives and 1 uses a noun. Now in this case, I think the noun form is preferable, so I want the 6 with the adjectives changed to use nouns, but if not, then the noun needs to be changed to the adjective: "American". Caerwine 22:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

they all look fine to me. since when is united states not an adjective? BL kiss the lizard 23:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American came to the consensus that for categories, the adjective form to be used is "American" not "United States" when referiing to the USA. Just because it's a stub category doesn't mean that it should ignore the general consensus on category names. If we wish to follow the convention either we use nouns and thus "United States" or we use adjectives and thus "American". Caerwine 00:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would "Airlines of foo stubs" be an alternative? Aecis praatpaal 11:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not a form we've been using with other stub categories, but I have no problems with that, especially since the parent cats here are "Airlines of foo". As I've said before, (and probably will say again) I really don't care whether we use nouns or adjectives, but when we use adjectives it should be American that is used to refer to the United States. Caerwine 19:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whatever the change of the name, the hundreds of stubs already in these subcategories should not have to be recategorized. I personally do not know whether such can be done automatically with a name change or if such an action requires the tedious hand corrections.Emersoni 20:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It will require restubbing with a null edit to get the stubs in the renamed category, but the Mairibot can do that without having to do it by hand. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's been three weeks since this sfd started. How do we proceed from here? Do we change each category name to nouns (Africa airline stubs ... United States airline stubs), to adjectives (African airline stubs ... American airline stubs) or do we follow the non-stub parent categories (Airlines of Africa stubs ... Airlines of the United States stubs)? Aecis praatpaal 17:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 29th edit

{{rapper-stub}} edit

Been on the discoveries page for over a month. Was created a little less than three months ago. No category. Used on 7 articles. I see three valid options, which I'm not going to choose from just yet, as I can see points in favor of all three.

  1. Delete the template and restub the articles with {{hiphop-stub}}
  2. Turn the template into a redirect to {{hiphop-stub}} and null edit the articles so as to place them in Cat:Hip hop stubs.
  3. Make the template into a regular stub with category Cat:Rapper stubsCat:Rappers, Cat:Hip hop stubs, and Cat:Singer stubs. Hip hop stubs is at <400, while singer stubs is at 12 pages. However, when I did my recent sorting I gave rappers only the hiphop stub, so this ain't likely to thin the singer stubs much.

Anyway, lets get this one settled. Caerwine 01:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'd marginally favour the third option - hip hop and rap aren't identical, though there's a big overlap. And I suspect that the hip hop category is one with a lot of growing still to do. Failing that the "redirect with potential" route is probably the best one. Grutness...wha? 01:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • How about {{hiphopbio-stub}}, to include dj's, breakdancers, managers perhaps, and other people connected with the hiphop culture? Aecis praatpaal 14:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • what would happen to DJ-stub then? BL kiss the lizard 22:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Not every DJ is a hiphop dj, so it wouldn't affect DJ-stub itself, but hiphop-dj's can be double-stubbed hiphopbio-stub and dj-stub. Aecis praatpaal 23:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Back when I was a clueless newbie, I made this template, and I regret it. Redirect to hip-hop. - Kookykman|(t)e

Cat:Islamic-scholar-stub; Cat:Islamic scholar stubs; Cat:Islamic theologian stubs; {{Islamic-theologian-stub}}; {{Islamic-scholar-stub}} edit

Template {{islamic-theologian-stub}} was moved to {{islamic-scholar-stub}} yesterday. The category it feeds into was changed to Cat:Islamic-scholar-stub. I think the template should be at least reworded to feed into category according to guidelines. Also, (as far as I can see) the move was completed without any consultation here, so another question is, which one should be deleted, the theologian version, or the scholar version? Conscious 08:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I moved it to "Islamic-scholar-stub". Im sorry for doing such a poor job at it, it was my first try. "Islamic-scholar-stub" is better that "Islamic-theologian-stub", since it can also include non-Muslim scholars, and those do not fitt in "Islamic-theologian-stub". Delete "islamic-theologian-stub" and "Islamic scholar stubs". Im sorry for any inconvinience, i did it for the benefit of Wikipedia. --Striver 13:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Well we'd want to keep a template and category with similar names, no matter what. The hyphenated category name should definitely go, to start with. Of the two remaining pairs, I think {{Islamic-theologian-stub}} and Cat:Islamic theologian stubs is the better combination, since it reinforces the fact that the stubs are for people studying islam, rather than for moslems studying anything (and when you consider that many of the finest scientists of the middle ages were moslem, it makes a difference). But it's only a minor preference, so I won't be too disappointed if the -scholar- ones are used instead. Grutness...wha? 13:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A strong delete on Cat:Islamic-scholar-stub. That poorly named category ought to meet the speedy delete category for categories in general. I don't buy Striver's reasoning for the move at all. To me, both {{Islamic-theologian-stub}} and {{Islamic-scholar-stub}} carry the same degree of connotation that the person is a follower of Islam. However, that matters little to me. Most, if not all, people who specialize in the study of a single religion are going to do so in their own. The intent of the stub was to in part serve as a feeder stub into both {{Islam-bio-stub}} and {{theologian-stub}} (the intended replacement of the poorly named {{theologist-stub}}), so that argues in favor using the theologian form. I might could see broadening the scope somewhat, but if so, it should be to philosopher not scholar, since we already have non-stub categories Cat:Christian philosophers, Cat:Muslim philosophers, etc. So what else?
    Delete Cat:Islamic scholar stubs and {{Islamic-scholar-stub}}.
    Keep Cat:Islamic theologian stubs
    Weak keep on {{Islamic-theologian-stub}}, since
    I'm not convinced that we should be using the adjective "Islamic" instead of the noun "Islam" in the stub template. However as that issue also affects {{Christian-clergy-stub}} and {{Christian-theologian-stub}}, best to tackle that issue in a separate SfD once the scholar/theologian issue is settled here. Caerwine 14:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Now I think I see what's it all about. Striver, were you intending to broaden the scope of the template to include all scholars professing Islam, no matter what they study? If so, that's not what the template was created for (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals#.7B.7Breli-bio-stub.7D.7D_splits). It was purposed for people who study Islam specifically. If there's a stub about, say, Muslim physicist, it should be marked with {{physicist-stub}}, as religion hardly matters here. My vote is:
comment no, i dont intend to included scholars of random things in the category, only scholars that study about Islam, no matter what they profes. Islamic-theologian-stub denotes that they study theology, while there are other aspects, such as history. The theologian stub exludes the non-muslim scholars of Islamic history, and it is therefore i renamed it to Islamic-scholar-stub. I tried with Islamic-theologian-stub, but User:Zora angrily reverted me, saying "he is NOT a theologian" [1]. I personaly dont care all that much, as long as i can include both Muslim and non-Muslim students of Islamic theology and/or history in the category. Anyhow, i think Islamic-sholar-stub rhymes better with list of Islamic scholars.
  • Delete, make one Islamic stub with all of them. Lincher 18:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete This is a problematic category and deserves more thought than it has been given. There are two SEPARATE scholarly traditions, the Islamic (ulema, mullah, imam, qadi) and the Western/secular/academic, and there is little overlap between them. I hope that there's going to be more overlap in the future, but at present, the ulema regard the academics as heretics and the academics regard the ulema as remnants of the Middle Ages. To be very blunt, as I usually am. It seems just WRONG to put them both under one template, when they don't accept each others' expertise. If we had two templates, I don't know how they could be phrased so as not to offend either group. Zora 21:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
comment "Muslim-Islamic-scholar-stub" & "Non-Muslim-Islamic-scholar-stub"... lol... --Striver 01:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
comment No, because of people like Reza Aslan, who is Muslim, but firmly in the Western academic tradition. I don't think he has taken any of the traditional Islamic curriculum. Zora 03:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Sounds like what is being sought is a stub for Islamicists, i.e., those who study the cultural and historical aspects of Islam without worrying about whether the Quran is revealed truth or not. {{Islamicist-stub}} might suffice, but until we have the 60 known stubs that are the recommended minimum, how about double-stubbing with {{Islam-stub}} and {{academic-bio-stub}} for now. Caerwine 03:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just now got through with restubbing all the articles in Cat:Islamic-scholar-stub so that the misnamed categorty could be removed, as it is sure to be regardless of whether the decision is to keep Cat:Islamic scholar stubs, Cat:Islamic theologian stubs, or both. Some ended up being placed in neither of the two categories, as while the person in question did do some Islamic studies, it was in the context of a broader area of interest, so a broader stub was more appropriate. Most ended up being placed in the scholar stub category as given a choice between the two it seemed the most approriate, tho that was skewed by several substubs that only said X was an Islamic scholar. If the sample was representative, we might want to rethink whether an Islamic theologian stub will actually be viable. On the other hand, I think most of the articles were stubbed by the proponent of the scholar stub, so it's not surprising that they would fit more easily in that classification. That said, I'm changing my preference.

Logging note: Category:Islamic scholar stubs and {{Islamic-scholar-stub}} kept. {{Islamic-theologian-stub}} redirected to Islamic-scholar-stub. Category:Islamic-scholar-stub and Category:Islamic theologian stubs deleted. --TheParanoidOne 15:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 30th edit

{{China-road-stub}}; {{China-Road-Stub}} edit

China-road-stub is probably ok if marginal - it's seriously underpopulated (five stubs), wasn't proposed, and has an incorrectly named redlined category which should be China road stubs, not Chinese road stubs. In other words, we pretty much need to start over with it. Adding all the Chinese roads in the main Cat:Road stubs will only take it to about 35 stubs. I'm ambivalent about it one way or the other but I'm putting it forward for discussion, due to the small number of stubs. Its unused redirect, though, is incorrectly capitalised and unnecessary, so I'm definitely in favour of deleting that. Grutness...wha? 06:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neither {{China-stub}} nor {{road-stub}} is currently overpopulated, and since it would need fixing anyway, may as well delete both the template and it's redirect, but with the option of recreating the stub type when it would have enough stubs. Caerwine 18:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete redirect and keep template. We'll need it sooner or later. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we keep the template, keep the redirect. --SPUI (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep of template; delete redirect. Alai 07:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete both, much too early for this stub. Conscious 20:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]