Jump to content

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/November/30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 30

[edit]

Category:History of Ukraine stubs -> Category:Ukrainian history stubs

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename


Consistent with naming guidelines. The rest of the cats in the parent are in the format "Xian history stubs" - crz crztalk 23:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Alai 03:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

2 footyclub cats

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete


See the related proposal. These 2 cats are too small and their templates will be upmerged.

~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Microsoft-stub}} / Category:Microsoft stubs

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus


From WP:WSS/D. I'm not sure if this is the right way to go. The articles should probably be resorted into things like {{US-business-bio-stub}} or {{software-stub}} or whatever. (As a side note, the category creator's user page is full-protected, so I was unable to notify) ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that we also have {{Windows-stub}} and Category:Microsoft Windows stubs around. Anybody remember if they were proposed? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, back when the template/cat was created, I don't think it was proposed, but there was a semi-approval for it in August 2006. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; no good reason has been given to delete this stub. Neither {{US-business-bio-stub}} nor {{software-stub}} are appropriate destinations. We have some 70-odd articles tagged with this stub (somewhat up from the 20 claimed at WP:WSS/D), and it's actually extremely helpful for editors looking for work to have these things grouped together. We have several hundred articles covering Microsoft's products and technologies, a Wikiproject, 5 FAs, 4 GAs, and quite a number of regular contributors. Removing a useful method of keeping organised would be rather offensive. -/- Warren 19:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any more opinions on this? I think I'm going to keep both this and Windows stub, so unless I hear otherwise, I will list them on WP:STUBS later today. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename exoplanet, keep venus template & upmerge? to astrogeology, delete all other cats


~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Isn't there also concern on the first that it's being used on articles about stars with planets? As nom on the rest; sped the latter eight. Alai 16:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure about that. I just took a quick look at a few of the articles, and it almost seems as if they could be split into two - one for the star and one for the planet (there is both a star infobox and a planet infobox). A few of the others could use to be resorted (I found one about a telescope...). We may want to create a {{planet-stub}} to use the existing cat, and upmerge {{extrasolar-planet-stub}} into it. This would still require the deletion of the exoplanet template/cat. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Splitting the articles in two would come under the aegis of the Astronomy WikiProject - we complain about other WPs stepping on our toes, I'm loath to do the same to one of them. As for the other ones listed above, I could see a case for renaming exoplanet stub, deleting the other individual planet ones, but possibly keeping the dwarf, giant and terrestrial ones as upmerged templates at least - it seems to be most logical way to split solar system planets up. Grutness...wha? 23:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mind you, I wasn't suggesting that we split the articles, I was just trying to clarify why it seemed that a planet tag was being used on a seemingly star-related article. It's also moot at this point about dwarf, giant, and terrestrial because they've been speedied... ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 00:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In order to keep and upmerge the templates, they'd first have to be created... Wasn't the gist of the earlier suggestion to scope this as "solar systems"/"planetary systems"/"stars with planets", or something to that effect? Alai 03:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interestingly enough, extrasolar planet is on the Main Page today... Here's my plan of action for later today, if no one objects:
  1. rename exoplanet as nom, keeping cat
  2. create {{planet-stub}} to feed into Category:Planet stubs
  3. retag Venus articles w/ planet-stub if applicable
  4. delete Venus template and cat

~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be rather misleading, since they're mostly mountains and coronae. What about keeping the template, and upmerging (sidewaysmerging?) to the target of the above, Category:Astrogeology stubs? And then, deleting the Category:Planet stubs as empty. Alai 05:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Richmond upon Thames geography stubs / {{richmond-geo-stub}}

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete


From WP:WSS/D. Unnecessary split of items already covered by Category:London geography stubs. Certainly not a county, which is how England is split geographically - never proposed, and with only nine stubs (5 railstation-stubs, 3 struct-stubs and one genuine geo-stub). Not to mention the frankly ridiculously ambiguous template name (have you checked Richmond?). Delete. Grutness...wha? 04:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Too small. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree on the name, and on the more-misused-than-used observation, but I'm pretty sure that splitting London by borough is something we'll be looking at doing before too long, unless the mythical point at which stub growth actually stops is reached. Alai 16:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If needed, I'd rather see splits of London stubs by feature rather than location. MRSC • Talk 17:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not entirely happy with that idea either, though a separate {{london-road-stub}} and resorting the things that should be in {{london-struct-stub}} would probably reduce the size of the cat considerably (I count over 40 roads and 15 mis-sorts on the first page of the category alone). If we were splitting the london geo-stubs into separate parts, I think a basic "north of the river"/"south of the river" would be a reasonable compromise. Though it's not used for permcats, it is the way that Londoners themselves tend to think of the city. If we were to split by feature, parks are the most liely by the looks of it. Grutness...wha? 23:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fact, I think I'll propose {{london-road-stub}} - looks like there are nearly 100 of them... Grutness...wha? 23:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd have thought than "inner" and "outer" would be greatly preferably to "north" and "south", especially as the latter divides a borough (this one, as it happens), and the former does not. Alai 00:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agree with feature split e.g. roads, not sure about inner/outer; what to do with Newham, Haringey and Greenwich...? Although an "executive decision" can be taken on where they should be included it will not be immediately obvious; and some people may not consider Roehampton for example to be "inner". MRSC • Talk 07:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree that those are inobvious, if not essentially arbitrary. However, if templatised on a per-borough basis, it's not something those doing the actual sorting would have to worry about. Alai 17:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • That is quite innovative. It might be better to make the per-borough templates map to the five London_Plan#Sub_regions. We have quite a few contributors who stick to "their side" of London so it would provide a place them to look for new articles to edit. MRSC • Talk 19:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's a fairly standard thing to do, we're just too lazy to update the stub guidlines to include it. :) I wasn't up on that particular Kennism: that does seem a useful division, if it scores reasonably on the "generally accepted" front. (I don't see permcats for any of these schemes for subdividing London/grouping boroughs, though...) Alai 20:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All London Boroughs should be handled the same way Regan123 21:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2006/November/30&oldid=1084292395"