Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/April/3
April 3[edit]
Template:SEPTA-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 keep
- moved from WP:TFD. Comment: if this is nominated, the equivalent category should be, too Grutness...wha? 21:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template was created with the fair use image Image:SEPTA.png included, which I recently removed as per WP:RFUI. No other transit authority has their own template for stubs (to my knowledge), and each tagged article (see Category:SEPTA stubs) should be categorized for its type of service (train, tram, bus, etc.) and not by its transit authority. The currently tagged articles should be retagged with {{metro-stub}}, {{tram-stub}}, etc. Crashintome4196 02:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The stub type is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types. - Neier 02:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a template:NYCT-stub (New York City transportation) and a template:London-tube-stub; what's the problem with sorting by system? Maybe it should be redefined to include other public transit like the PATCO Speedline, but I don't see the problem. --NE2 03:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep with 200 articles currently sorted into this stub type, there is sufficient need for this template. Stub type deletions should be handled by WP:WSS. Slambo (Speak) 11:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well used stub. --evrik (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Well used stub, and yes, fourteen other transit authorities have their own stubs, if the subcats of Category:Rapid transit stubs is any guide. Grutness...wha? 21:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Editors familiar with and looking to edit SEPTA articles are often not going to be interested in other cities' transit systems; {{metro-stub}} et al. would be of little to no use. There's plenty of utility in having a transit-system-specific stub like this, and it is indeed very well-used. Krimpet (talk/review) 05:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lots of transclusions, as everyone here have said. This stub type is heavily used on SEPTA Regional Rail stations and such. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 21:56, 6 April 2007 (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:Mainland China company 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 delete
A follow-up from previous tussles, User:Privacy (contribs) recently created [1] the above category without consultation, and to push for the creation of an entire hierachy of perm cats under the "Mainland China" brandname.--Huaiwei 07:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: In a matter of days since the nomination above, User:Privacy has single-handedly created nearly 20 "Mainland China"-related perm cats, many of which are related to the tussle over stub templates. Six of these are company cats under the Category:Companies of mainland China category, the later of which is also User:Privacy's creation.--Huaiwei 01:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Category:China geography stubs per the template itself, which is {{China-geo-stub}}. Merging {{ROC-geo-stub}} into it would probably be sensible, especially on Taiwan Strait, where I encountered this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The People's Republic of China and the Republic of China are effectively two sovereign states. The Taiwan Strait is relevant to both of them. - Privacy 22:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Category: People's Republic of China geography stubs has long been the parent of Category: Mainland China geography stubs and Category: Hong Kong geography stubs until an undiscussed and never-proposed edit to the template, which turned Category: Mainland China geography stubs empty. [2] - Privacy 22:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The undiscussed and never-proposed edit was made by the user who made this SFD nomination. - Privacy 22:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:Mainland China geography stubs is already up for deletion since March 2 and while it hopefully will be closed soon, it hasn't yet. However, looking closer at the nomination, it's clear that Huaiwei meant to nominate Category:Mainland China company stubs which Privacy created out of process to push his POV. So I'm putting the above comments in a sandy brown box, since they aren't really relevant to the intended nomination. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an attempt to change the category of a stub type without going through SFD. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In response to Caerwine's comment above, setting up the category is not a POV issue. Given the current structure of the People's Republic not having a stub category for companies of the Mainland is itself a problem. - Privacy 13:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The whole question of whether there should be Mainland China categories is one big mess of internal Wikipolitics. Your out of process attempt to change the category name reeks of POV and furthermore leads to having a template feed into a mismatched category. China is not the same as Mainland China and so no stub template that uses the
China-prefix should feed into a stub category restricted to Mainland China. Any such stub category should have the corresponding template begin withMainlandChina-. Leaving aside the question of whether or not we should have Category:Mainland China company stubs, the simple fact is that we have no {{MainlandChina-company-stub}} and therefore this stub category has no template feeding into it. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Do not forget that "China" is very often used in place of "Mainland China", for example, by the press. There is nothing wrong to name the template as simple as possible, like what has been done with -structure- and -geography-. Most importantly, Template:China-company-stub has always been applied only to companies from the Chinese mainland. - Privacy 10:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to change Wikipedia's policy that "China" is to be used only in an inclusive sense that includes Taiwan this project is not the place to make that change. Until such time as that policy be changed, I'm going to support it. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You have misunderstood everything. Category: Chinese company stubs has always been holding only stubs on Mainland Chinese companies. "China" should not, however, be used in place of "Mainland China".
- I don't have much opinion regarding the title of the template. It doesn't appear to readers who don't edit; for editors it is much easier to remember. Template: China-geog-stub and Template: China-struct-stub both fed into Category: Mainland China geography/building and structure stubs. - Privacy 09:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to change Wikipedia's policy that "China" is to be used only in an inclusive sense that includes Taiwan this project is not the place to make that change. Until such time as that policy be changed, I'm going to support it. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not forget that "China" is very often used in place of "Mainland China", for example, by the press. There is nothing wrong to name the template as simple as possible, like what has been done with -structure- and -geography-. Most importantly, Template:China-company-stub has always been applied only to companies from the Chinese mainland. - Privacy 10:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The whole question of whether there should be Mainland China categories is one big mess of internal Wikipolitics. Your out of process attempt to change the category name reeks of POV and furthermore leads to having a template feed into a mismatched category. China is not the same as Mainland China and so no stub template that uses the
- Delete delete delete 1000 times delete. And can we have a discussion without all the puppets this time? SchmuckyTheCat 00:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Privacy. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ChoChoPK was prompted by Privacy to offer his brief comment. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Useful and necessary category with a neutral name. Michael G. Davis 20:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Michael G. Davis is a suspected lackey, symphathiser or even sockpuppet of User:Instantnood, of which Privacy is also suspected to be in similar relation with.--Huaiwei 11:48, 10 April 2007 (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.
{{Narcotic-stub}}[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete
Unproposed, unused, redundant with other stub types, questionable use of an adjectival form, and it links into the highly inappropriate Category:Alcohol stubs. At the very least this should be renamed to something like Narcotic-drug-stub and upmerged into something more appropriate (such as Category:Psychoactive drug stubs), but, given that it is unused and there's no guarantee of many stubs anyway, perhaps deletion might be a better option. Grutness...wha? 03:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Completely redundant with the more aptly named, well-used {{Psychoactive-stub}}. Krimpet (talk/review) 06:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete General Eisenhower (talk • contribs) 22:52, 7 April 2007 (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.