Jump to content

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/March

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 1

[edit]

Category:Alberta school 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 upmerge


From SFP. Undersized stub type, upmerge and delete category. Monni 14:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak upmerge; it's a bit small, though school articles being what they are, doubtless not for long. BTW, shouldn't we have upmerged templates for schools in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut? Alai 18:24, 7 March 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:Asturias 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 keep


From SFP. Undersized stub type, upmerge and delete category. Monni 16:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

¹ (being part of that phenomenon which Grutness once defined as "the surreptitious split of Spanish stubs by region": Category:Galicia stubs, Category:Cantabria stubs, Category:Catalonia stubs, Category:Balearic Islands stubs, Category:Land of Valencia stubs, ...) - update note on 15:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any relation in articles having no stub tags at all and necessity of having this specific "general" stub. I still think primarily we should try to use existing stubs and if those get too big, then split just one stub at a time, not all stubs related to one region and stuff them to generic "regional stub". Monni 05:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway my point was that there are lots of stubs specifically related to Asturias that would need to be tagged, and if we follow the same criteria that now allows the present existence of the other "Spanish regional" stubs, it seems legitimate to tag them with that "general" Asturias one.
Those Spanish regional stubs seem to have been created because of two main reasons: 1. Category:Spain stubs category was becoming too big, or vague. 2. There are some subjects related to territories with strong national identities, nowadays included in the Kingdom of Spain (pretty much like the United Kingdom, see Spain-identities), that would need a more specific treatment.
So if we follow the reasonable criteria you propose, we should delete the Category:Asturias stubs but also all the existing Spanish regional ones (at least the undersized ones). -- · Ravenloft · · (talk) · 12:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is that biographies should be first in Category:Spanish people stubs and not Category:Spain stubs, after biography stub category fills up too big, they would eventually end up in Category:Asturian people stubs unless there is some specific WSS guideline that suggest there is better place to sort them. Monni 18:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if {{Asturias-bio-stub}} would come under the type of reservation we apply to "<US-state>-bio-stub", or if it would make sense as a "well-defined regional identity". Basically, does "being an Asturian" (as opposed to "coming from Asturia") pass any likely Shibboleth test? Alai 18:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does every US state have own language? Asturians have own language and constitution if I understood the article correctly. Monni 18:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're suggesting that the appropriate test would be "speaks asturianu rather than castellano", I'm guessing we'd run fairly rapidly into problems there. But I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Constitutions don't help much: I couldn't tell you for certain whether .es autonomous communties (or provinces) have them, but U.S. states certainly do, and that doesn't stop people from being "from" three or four of 'em. Alai 19:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only implied that if enough "normal" tests apply, then any sub-category is justified... It's like me... I'm descendant of Livonian person and I really despise if people identify me as Latvian, just because Latvia does control half what was Livonia (including Ikskile, "capital" of Livonia). Back to topic... All {{Asturias-bio-stub}}s should be about people who have strong enough connection to what was Asturias before it was joined to Spain. Rest should be tagged with only {{Spain-bio-stub}} and nothing else. This issue was discussed elsewhere and what was said there still applies here. Monni 20:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's over 60 now, so I'm inclined to say keep unless I'm missing some other deep-seated problem? Alai 18:21, 7 March 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.

March 2

[edit]

{{singer-guitarist-stub}} → BOTH {{Singer-stub}} and {{Guitarist-stub}} / Category:Singer-guitarist 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


In this CfD discussion, we deleted all hyphenated "singer-(instrumentalist)" categories. This stub thus seems like it serves to join two concepts that should be unjoined, and if so, the category should be deleted as were its brethren.--Mike Selinker 04:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The stub was created primarily as a way of helping to split the overlarge stub category Category:Singer stubs. That category is just barely overlarge now and likely could be resorted down to an acceptable size, using country specific templates instead even with these 131 stubs being tossed back to the parents. Weak support so long as we have actual editors rather than a bot to do it. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:40, 2 March 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.

{{China-geo-stub}} → (something more precise); Category:Mainland China geography stubs (possible deletion)

[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/rescope to PRC-x-stub; delete Mainland China


(Added {{China-struct-stub}}, Category:People's Republic of China building and structure stubs, and Category:People's Republic of China geography stubs to the discussion.) Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've come to the conclusion that part of the problem with a number of the stub types relating to "China" is the template names: China can denote the historical entity; PRC (including annexations) and RoC collectively; just the PRC, or even just mainland China, it's alleged. While the broadest definition might make sense in historical contexts, for most purposes we seem to be going with modern day countries (or what some people would prefer were the modern day countries). So I suggest we do one of two things: a) scope the stubs as the People's Republic, rename the stub templates to {{PRC-geo-stub}}, etc, and delete the "Mainland" category; or b) scope the stubs as the Mainland, rename to {{MainlandChina-geo-stub}}, and create corresponding "X of/in [Mm]ainland China" permcats. On the basis that several of the last have already been deleted in the past ("controversially", according to some sources), and there seems no great enthusiasm to recreate them, and also on the presumption that we scope geography, buildings, people etc on the basis of present-day boundaries of present-day sovereign states, my inclination is towards the former. However, my much stronger preference is for something consistent either way, and what I'd very much like to see is an end to edit-warring on these and other such issues, so I'm mainly hoping for a clear-cut outcome either way. Alai 02:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let me first quote something very relevant from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese):

    Wikipedia should reflect the neutral reality and not use the term "China" to coincide with any particular state or government. In particular, the word "China" (in a political, diplomatic or national sense referring to current affairs) should not be used to be synonymously with areas under the current administration (government) of the People's Republic of China i.e. (geographically) within Mainland China. (Historical and such 'old-name' Geographic and political references before 1945—1947 excepted.)

    Since we do geography stubs on the basis of current political boundaries, then by the naming conventions we have a mismatch and something must be done, as neither People's Republic of China nor Mainland China is appropriate for the existing templates. No strong feelings about whether to use PRC or MainlandChina, but plain China should be used only when both the PRC and the ROC are being covered and/or the period before the current de facto partition is included. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well technically, template names aren't within the scope of NCs, but as to their spirit, I agree. I'm a bit surprised if you can't generate at least a mild preference for scoping consistency between permcats and stubcats, though (as I say above, in either direction: either "following" or "leading"). Alai 03:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's all the "China-*-stub" templates I could find:

Note I haven't looked at these, much less tagged them: feel free to wade in, all. Alai 03:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already added struct above. The rest of these, I'm ok with the rest of these China-*-stub so long as the corresponding cats are scoped appropriately. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment [1] Wasn't this dealt with three month ago?
  • stub types should at least pretend to be something people can remember off-hand. China is China whether it includes Taiwan or not and China is the recognized common name for the PRC. Nobody, not even the most ardent KMT diehard denies that. Yes, Taiwan/ROC stubs should be in a different stub-sorting mechanism. That has no bearing at all on China/PRC stub-sorting.
  • Yes, these should mate to the more permanent categories. Any subdivision of China, or sub-topic, with enough stubs to make a valid sub-container should make one. Just glancing at them current, I'd suggest Guangzhou and Shanghai could probably make a dent in the huge collection of generic stubs here.
  • No, we should not have categories named Mainland China - anymoreso than we have categories for Mainland Finland, English Canada, or Metropolitan France. SchmuckyTheCat 09:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - China-geo-stub is fine. The proposals for replacement stubs are not necessary. Please remove the "stub for deletion" tag, thank you. Badagnani 10:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (and "vote") A similar situation exists with Congo, with the exception of the fact that one Congo doesn't claim the other as part of its territory. The solution there is to have DRCongo-X-stub and RCongo-X-stub. A similar situation here would be to have PRChina-X-stub and ROChina-X-stub, which I would favour. I would also like to see taiwan-X-stub types kept as redirects. Note that in several cases, notably the hist-stub, keeping "China" makes sense, since many of the stubs refer to both ROC and PRC. In those cases, redirects from ROChina-X- and PRChina-X seem reasonable. Grutness...wha? 23:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • re: the tagging in of the struct types: note that Category:Mainland China building and structure stubs has already been edit-warred and speedied into extinction. I removed a speedy tag from China-geo-stub in taking the discussion here, but neglected to check for similar actions elsewehere. (More potential fodder for DRV, I suppose.) Alai 03:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's not easy to address several matters in one go - it would have been better not to deal with so many matters in one single SFD discussion. First, some of these stub types were created for China in general. Such stub types include, e.g., -bio-, -hist-, -music-. The reasons was that many of such stub articles are related to topics predate or are not relevent to the establishment of the PRC. Some of these topics are about, say, people who moved from the mainland to Taiwan following the war between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party. Second, while it is better to have properly named templates, I am convinced that since names of the templates would not be shown in articles, it is not as necessary for templates to be named as properly as articles and categories.

    Third, if we are to follow present-day boundaries, the rule still applies to support creation of stub categories for mainland China. Companies, for example, are set up according to laws of the legal jurisdictions where they are registered. Films share a similar situation, since cinema of Hong Kong (and cinema of Taiwan too) have their own histories and paths of development. Fourth, as long as perm categories are concerned, user:Alai said there is no active effort to keep the perm cats for mainland China. She/he seems to have disregarded their fact that many of mainland China perm cats were emptied and speedied instead of provided by discussion and consensus. There's no way to create any new perm categories for mainland China, or recreate the old ones, since they will almost always be emptied or speedied soon after their creations.

    Fifth, user:SchmuckyTheCat said we don't have categories for English Canada and Metropolitan France. The fact is that few if not no sovereign states are, with respect to its special territories, organised like the PRC. The United Kingdom does not consider Bermuda, Gibraltar, etc. to be part of the UK, whereas the status of the départements d'outre-mer (overseas departments) of France are just the same of the départements in Europe. Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are not part of the Netherlands, but they are together with the Netherlands three constituent parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The equivalence of "United Kingdom" and "Netherlands" in the case of the PRC is "mainland China".

    The outcome of the discusion made in December 2006 was to create PRC stub cats as umbrella of the mainland China, Hong Kong and (when created) Macao stub cats in the case of -geo- and -struct-. The decision goes in line with Wikipdia:naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV, which provides that "China" should not be used in place of "mainland China". — Instantnood 11:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the category. Keep the template as a redirect if it is renamed. - Privacy 07:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category for mainland China stubs should be kept. Passer-by 21:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
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.

{{China-university-stub}} / Category:China university 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 clear consensus, defaulting to keep. Per the Chinese naming convention, scope China inclusively


Same issue as above. Permanent parent category for the China type is Category: Universities in the People's Republic of China and there is no Category: Universities in China. Taiwan has a undersized but separate stub type. If kept as is, the scope needs to expand to include the institutions in the Republic of China as well. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename templates, and either rename categories, or upmerge on size, don't much mind which. For extra credit, resolve the "and college(s)" inconsistency (to whichever is allegedly conventional). (To wit, Category:Universities and colleges in the Republic of China vs. the others mentioned.) Alai 03:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This stub type applies only to universities and other tertiary institutions in mainland China. (Several months ago I found one or two universities in Taiwan were mistagged, but that had been fixed.) Meanwhile, a perm cat for universities in mainland China was created as a result of a recent CFD concluded in January 2007. If perm cat is a basis for stub cat to follow, the category for this stub type should follow accordingly. I don't have much opinion towards the name of the stub template. It doesn't appear in the articles anyway. — Instantnood 12:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless rename as Category:Mainland China universities stubs. Mainland China is strictly speaking not the same as China. Michael G. Davis 05:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and adjust perm cats But Mainland China is part of China. Stub types don't have to be overly precise, especially when it would lead to undersized stub types as in this case. There are not, and likely will never be enough stub articles for a Macau-university-stub or a HongKong-university-stub, and even Taiwan-university-stub looks doubtful. I don't see the need for a Mainland China stub type here, regardless of one's views on the desirability of such categories in general. Given that some of the institutions were founded before even the 1911 Revolution, and the small size, I've concluded that it would be best to merge this to a single stub type covering all institutions of higher learning in China, regardless of exactly when or where they exist, with Taiwan-university-stub either upmerged to this or placed as a subtype. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There wouldn't be much different in terms of number of stubs to cover institutions in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. It currently covers only mainland China, it isn't undersized. There isn't any cross-boundary stub types except for continents. Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan were already separated politically before the 1911 Revolution. The 1911 Revolution wasn't a watershed. Michael G. Davis 08:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. The scope should be better defined to tell what it is about. - Privacy 07:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have briefly glance through the titles. They are all universities in mainland China. Keep and define its scope as per what it is already about. Passer-by 21:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I looked at the same list, and I agree they are all universities in China, as well as the People's Republic of China. Either expand China-university-stub into a stub cat for both Chinas, or rename it as People's Republic of China-university-stub.--Huaiwei 11:56, 8 March 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.

March 3

[edit]

Category:WWW stubs → Category:World Wide Web 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


Under the gen. princ. of no abbr. in cat. names, rename to match the perm. par. cat. Category:World Wide Web. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:18, 3 March 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.

March 5

[edit]

{{Aus-tv-channel-stub}} / Category:Australians television channel stubs (sic) and {{Aus-tv-prog-stub}} (redlinked cat)

[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 speedy delete with agreement of creator


Neither proposed, both dreadfully named. Stub Parent (Category:Australia television stubs) is not in need of splitting, with only 300 stubs. Little likelihood of the first reaching threshold, and it has no permcat parents (networks, yes, stations, yes - but channels, no). Unnecessary. Delete. (Note: If kept, then renaming is required). Grutness...wha? 23:45, 5 March 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.

{{Poland coat of arms stub}} (no cat)

[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


Poorly named, poorly worded, never proposed, and a quick count through the Poland stubs reveals just 22 coats of arms. Admittedly there seem to be quite a few Polish coats of arms on WP, but an upmerged {{Poland-heraldry-stub}} would be the way to go, if we wanted such a stub. I'm not entirely convinced it's needed. Definitely a rename at least, if not an outright deletion. Grutness...wha? 04:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: That should have read: Category:Polish coats of arms has a ton of stub-class articles. Most of the articles in this category are stub-class. Valentinian T / C 20:21, 6 March 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.

{{IR-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, use talk page templates


Announced as a fait accompli on the proposals page. This is for Infra red Inland Revenue Iran One of the other things at IR No, it's not for any of the dozens of things listed at IR - it's actually for Irish Republicanism, a subject which would and should be bettter handled by {{Ireland-hist-stub}}. I've no objection to adding an {{Ireland-poli-stub}} to the list, but this one is a likely edit-war magnet, has no precedent in the stub tree (nor would one be likely), and has no equivalent permcat (there is no Category:Irish republicanism). As such, this should be deleted. Grutness...wha? 04:36, 5 March 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.

March 6

[edit]

Category:United States hiphop musical group stubs → Category:United States hip hop musical group 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 to "American hip hop group stubs"


Rename for consistency - all other stub and permcats use "hip hop" with two words. Grutness...wha? 23:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories should guide consensus for stub names more than other stubs. I don't care that much, although let's just say that its pretty obvious the stub beuracracy has more effect on what the stubs are called than the actual editor of the given subject... yknow the people who actually use those categories...-Urthogie 02:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Until such time as we cease juggling word order, dropping prepositions, etc, we're in any event going to have to make stub-specific determinations about what a category name should reasonably be. In the permcat hierarchy itself, we have a significant amount of flip-flopping between "American X" and "Y in/of the United States", so "follow the parent no matter what" isn't, and for the forseeable future can't be, a universal solution. In any event, no-one is being forced to use those categories by actually typing the offending name (unless they're tweaking the stub category hierarchy itself, or explicitly linking to it), so the only likely 'hardship' involved is looking at it. (Which is true either way, of course.) Alai 18:08, 7 March 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.

{{Indigenous-stub}} / Category:Indigenous peoples 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


Unproposed. If it had been proposed, we would have pointed the proposer to the longstanding series of {{ethno-group-stub}} types which already exist and serve an indentical purpose to this stub. Delete as redundant. Grutness...wha? 23:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hilariously, your suggested ethnic subgrouping template is so incomplete as it doesn't even include the groups of the Americas, which only underlines how neccessary it is to develop Wikiknowledge about the topic of indigenous cultures, which my template is used for (as most of the world's indigenous or uncontacted peoples live in South America). Even if it were there I wouldn't use it, as simply saying someone is part of an 'Ethnic group' is ignorantly vague. The situation and definition of indigenous people is vastly more than that.
There is a real lacking in Wikipedia in the area of articles about indigenous cultures, which is sad because these cultures are falling into disarray and extinction as we speak, all the more easier because education about their cultures is restricted to Scientific Journals. While I understand I have violated some process which I wasn't aware of, please think about the effect this deletion will have as a tool to those interested in growing articles about indigenous peoples.Yeago 00:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, did you consider proposing the "missing" ethnic subgrouping for the Americas? Or did you perhaps create one specifically for the Americas? No, you duplicated an existing one. And why is it called "ethnic groups" rather than "indigenous"? For two reasons. Firstly, the term "indigenous" is far more vague (thank you for the 'compliment' of "ignorant", BTW), since it implies that all people have developed and stayed in the same place. Secondly, it becomes far narrower than the term ethnic group, as it would not allow for other non-"indigenous" peoples. Nomadic peoples could not be included in it, neither could transplanted populations. or are you suggesting that neither of these two types of people deserve to have stub categories? Since it is a virtual duplicate - albeit one with a less inclusive scope - deleting it will have no effect whatsoever on the articles you speak of, since they will still be able to be found by the same editors who have been editing them up until now. Grutness...wha? 05:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not consider proposing the ethnic subgroup, just as you did not consider a simple rename. That would have been above and beyond the group-think of these XfD pages which is always a parroting choir of "Delete per nom". I already pleaded ignorance on this matter and yet you charge on, instead of correcting my mishap. Oh well, I'll take the bait.
Of course nomadic peoples could be included. Here again you embarass me with your wisdom. Nomadic peoples typically roam circuits, and these circuits lay within a region. Therefore... _______. I'll let you fill in the blank, but of course since you're such an expert I'm not telling you anything new. You were simply testing me with a red herring of nonsense.
Actually, I created a few of the articles in question and am the sole editor of them in some cases, so that pretty much kaputs your wonderful conclusion that they already have full traffic, doesn't it sarge? Do you think I created the special stub category for my own tomfoolery and fun? Do you think I did it for the same reasons you do what you're doing now--"Ah-ha. Look what I can do. I can delete a page. Nevermind a simple fix would complete the existing system! It should have been proposed!!! For process and principle is so much more important than good results!" No. I am a Wikipedian. I actually research things. I require advanced tools to do my job correctly. Are you here to improve the category system or aren't you? Are you going to do something about the missing ethno-stub category, or aren't you? You're the one who brought it up. You showed me the light of the ethno-stub templates. I pointed out their incompleteness. And here you sit, typing away in a thousand times the effort and time it would take than to simply rename. The innards of Wikipedia can be a really sad place, and its no wonder I don't tread here often.Yeago 08:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blah blah blah. I'm done being ornery. What can I do to complete the templating system you suggested? Will a simple rename suffice? I don't think the proposal process is really neccessary here, as we all know there's really no debate in saying South America simply isn't represented in the ethno templates. I know, its not according to the process, but that's what WP:IAR is for =). Let's get it done. Yeago 02:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow your logic. If the only editor using the category that has been suggested for deletion is you, and you now know what other categories there are, yes, my point about anyone who have been working on articles in the category knowing where to find them if this stub type is deleted is pretty justified. No, of course I don't think you created the stub type for your own tomfoolery or fun. I think you created it because you did not know there were existing stub categories which could take the articles. "A simple fix", as you put it, would still have required coming through here, since there is no speedy deletion criterion for the creation of a duplicate category or stub template system. If there had been, we wouldn't be having this conversation now. Unfortunately, a "rename" of an existing category to a new name would still require some process because of the deletions involved (it isn't a speediable criterion). Rather than arguing this out, though, moving to actually complete the schema is far more fruitful. There probably still should be some form of proposal so that numbers can be checked to see whether full stub types with categories or simply upmerged templates are needed, but I suspect it's more likely to be a "rush job", since I don't think too much debate on it is likely - the only real problem is quibbling over whether ethnic group indigenous, or native, is the better name/scope. I've made the proposal, BTW - have a look here. Grutness...wha? 10:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is delete the knee-jerk antitode to this? Why not simply rename it to a more specific title? Are we really debased to quibbling about a title? There is more to this than what this template happens to be called. This is a tool for people like myself to track these scant articles. What can I do to negotiate? I need this to help my researches.Yeago 04:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you ask, you might try adopting a more civil tone, for one thing. Alai 18:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to enjoy this nosepicking, you name it. I really do not care what it is named. These are mere technicalities. See to it, courageous deletionist. I knight thee Caerwine of Nitpickydom, Destroyer of Inconsistency. God shall smile upon Great Holy Works such as you have just illustrated.Yeago 06:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion, Yeago - read WP:CIVIL. Also, read the naming guidelines of stub templates and categories. They may tell you some things you clearly do not know. Grutness...wha? 05:15, 8 March 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:People's Republic of China road 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 upmerge


Not content with the edit-war between scoping {{China-road-stub}} as the People's Republic vs. "mainland China", we now have an un-upmerged category, entirely contrary to any sentiment over at /P, and where the category's clearly much too small at present. Upmerge, and strongly urge certain parties to knock it on the head. Alai 07:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete cat and upmerge the template as per Alai. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I didn't create this out of any edit war, I made it because it pulled ~50 stubs out of china-geo stub which is too huge. What is it supposed to upmerge too? SchmuckyTheCat 16:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It currently has 34 entries in the category, which is too small. As for the the overlarge size of {{China-geo-stub}}, that's currently the subject of a proposal to further split up by region, tho I do note that the proposal for additional regional splits was made at about the same time as you did your split out of the road stubs. The only problem with that split is that there are as of yet too few stub articles about Chinese roads to warrant separating it out as a separate stub category. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not usually in stub sorting discussions and not aware that 34 is too small. SchmuckyTheCat 22:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought it was implicit in my statement that we had the revert war over scope (in which you participated), and then we had the unproposed, guidelines-ignoring un-upmerger. It's supposed to upmerge to, well, the places it was before you changed it. Alai 02:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that category (china-geo-stub) is too large. If one is too large but this is too small to sub-out... ugh. SchmuckyTheCat 22:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a proposal in hand to split that up geographically, which will take care of the "too large" problem. (Look for the discussion at WP:WSS/P with the banned users and vote-stackers.) Alai 02:52, 8 March 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.

March 7

[edit]

{{art-history-stub}} → {{art-hist-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 move, keep redirect


Rename for consistency with with other history stubs which use -hist-; no problem with keeping the existing template as a redirect or if anyone is feeling ambitious, going the other way and doing a mass SFD nom to make -history- the standard instead of the abbreviation. However, absent such a mass nomination, rename. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong 'move', weak 'keep redirect'. Alai 02:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support of rename. Goldenrowley 02:45, 10 March 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:Paleo-mammal stubs → Category:Prehistoric mammal 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


Template name is OK, by hierarchy convention, but this doesn't make much sense at this category name. Perm-parent is Category:Prehistoric mammals. Alai 03:06, 7 March 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.

March 8

[edit]

Redirects {{Kyrg-stub}} and {{Kyrg-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


A pair of Kyrgyzstan related redirects that are currently empty. (I just moved about one-third of the geo's to {{Kyrgyzstan-geo-stub}}, nothing was using {{Kyrg-stub}} instead of {{Kyrgyzstan-stub}}.) Lets reduce the number of cryptic exceptions to our rules concerning these redirects and delete both. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not needed and non-standard abbreviation. Valentinian T / C 19:23, 8 March 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.

March 10

[edit]

{{PNG-geo-stub}} → {{PapuaNewGuinea-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 rename


Though PNG-geo-stub is unambiguous, sooner or later, we're going to want a general stub for Papua New Guinea, and PNG-stub won't do due to its ambiguity - though there are no other places known as PNG, other things are. To get around the problem before it arises (which it may do pretty soon), I'd like to move PNG-geo-stub to the longer name - no opinion one way or the other about keeping the redirect, though I suspect it might be better if it went. Grutness...wha? 22:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of those other things are likely to have a stub category of their own and certainly is no more problematic than using NI for Northern Ireland indeed I would say less problematic since {{NI-politician-stub}} could be for stub articles for the Non-Inscrits in the European parliament. Support the new template name, but indifferent as to the fate of the original. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (per nom or to at least something less cryptic). PNG isn't just a disambig, nor even a redirect, but an article on a completely different topic. (I'd also favour getting rid of NI-, NZ- and HK-, for that matter.) Alai 00:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm biased, but NZ is a disambiguoation page to three things relating to New Zealand and one redlinked enzyme, so i doubt there's much problem there. Grutness...wha? 04:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support changing to the latter stub name. Then all geo stubs would be entered in the same format, instead of a few with abbreviations.Gittinsj 21:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)gittinsj[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.

Video game sub-types renames

[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 to X video game stubs, for consistency


We seem to have numerous subcats of what's now Category:Video game stubs that neglect to mention the small matter of the "video" part. In some cases that's implied, and the permcats follow the same structure, but others look rather fishy -- not all games in the 'genre' are computer games, and the permcat parent does make the CVGness explicit. I think one or two of these were renamed at CFD, but mostly they seem to have been just created that way (and are listed at /ST, whether or not they were actually proposed or "discovered").

Rename all to something making "video" (and/or "computer") explicit, hopefully in a way consistent with permcat's terminology. Alai 21:36, 10 March 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.

{{Washington-bio-stub}} / Category:Washington people 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 upmerge


Unproposed - a subnational bio-stub, and as such contrary to normal stub-splitting practice. Bio-stubs are not created for subnational regions except in those rare cases such as politician-stubs where there is a specific connection of an individual with a region, for the reason that people move around far too much for any such stub split to be effective. Splitting is by nationality and by occupation, not by individual state. Note: there is a Washington WikiProject, but if a state-specific WP wants to keep track of articles relevant to it, a talk-page template is likely a far better solution than a stub type. Delete. Grutness...wha? 09:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I didn't realize there was a stub proposal process. Bio stubs already exist for a few other US states, see Category:American people stubs:
Category:Florida people stubs
Category:Iowa people stubs
Category:Oregon people stubs
Category:Texas people stubs
Category:Utah people stubs
If this one should go those probably should as well... dyknowsore 09:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason that we are generally adverse to these state level stubs is that they have a tendency to be overused. They should be used only when the person's notability is specific to that state. OTOH people such as Mildred Bailey who are merely born there but have a notability that is not due to what she did in her home state should not use such stubs. Still, all 6 of the current Washington bio stubs do meet that standard, but unless that total can be raised to 60, this should be deleted or upmerged to {{Washington-stub}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep {{Oregon-bio-stub}}. Used as part of a very active WikiProject that is in the middle of adding many articles on people important to the history of Oregon. I find it useful. Created in July 2005, it is populated with 60+ articles. Katr67 18:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the {{Oregon-bio-stub}} as it is used extensively. Though there is a WP:WPOR template for the talk pages, with hundreds (if not thousands) of WPOR articles it is not that useful for trying to find articles that need expanding. That's where the stub tags come in, which I would guess is the entire reason for having the stub templates (identify articles that could use attention) going off the language at WP:WSS. Not to mention sub-national stubs should be appropriate as the large countries (i.e. not the micro states of Europe) have more people in these sub-national regions that some entire countries. I believe California has about as many people as all of Canada, and I know there has to be a province in China with a bigger population than any country in Europe. So is it fair that Belguim (population 10 mil+) can have a bio stub, but California (population 33 mil+) cannot? That just does not make since when taking into account the purpose of these stubs. Aboutmovies 20:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep {{tl:Oregon-bio-stub}}. If this stub is one of the tools that keeps Katr67 as productive as she is, this is a no-brainer. AboutMovies is also a highly valued member of our WikiProject, but I don't necessarily agree with his argument here - I believe people move about more freely within the USA than within Belgium, and can understand how state level bio stubs might become unweildy on that basis. But, I want to reiterate: if this tool is deemed important by highly productive members of our community, that in itself should be a compelling reason to keep - even if it means Oregon is treated differently from other states that have only 6 such stubs. -Pete 22:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I got jumpy, but I've seen things added to deletion discussions with "might as well delete this one too" that never got tagged, so no one was notifed, and then they subsequently got deleted, leaving behind baffled editors. One example I can think of is 50 or so List of bands from (U.S. state) Foo, most of which were deleted out of process. Fortunately someone went back and relisted everything properly. In the end they got deleted again, but not before editors were able to go back and put the bands in the lists into the various state music categories instead. Anyway, I wouldn't have even known about this discussion except that I tagging something with the Washington stub today, and I would have hated to see the Oregon stub go without a discussion. (As for the Washington stub, WPWA doesn't seem to be using it so they should be given a chance to populate it and if they do so, then I would vote Keep). So... since someone from WPSS put your project tag on the Oregon stub, does that mean it is "safe"? Katr67 02:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unless someone nominates it for deletion, it should be safe. The admins who normally close out the discussions here are fairly conservative about making certain that the template or cat was tagged before it gets deleted or renamed, indeed some would say too conservative, but deletion is one of those things where being process-bound is a good thing IMO. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've typically been the SFD-closer lately, and I would say that Washington-bio-stub is the only one being taken into consideration. The others were added by someone other than the original nominator, so they should get their own separate nomination. I have removed the SFD notice on everything except Washington. Never mind, it looks like they're gone already... Also, consensus seems kind of split, so I'm leaving this open for a bit longer to get some more votes. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:41, 19 March 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.

Canada <noun> stubs → Canadian <noun> 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


For the avoidance of 'stub grammar', and to match the numerous other "Canadian X stubs" subcats of Category:Canada stubs. Alai 06:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the permcats are all of the form <Noun> <prep> Canada, mild support since I doubt if the alternative of naming them Category:Geography of Canada stubs etc. will be adopted anytime soon. Caerwine Caer’s whines 08:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though I understand the logic of this suggestion, I'm still chary about it. I for one don't want to have to consult a list every time I want to check a country's stubs simply because it uses an odd demonym - and (particularly in the case of geo-stubs) if you're going to change Canada, you're going to need to change others, too - a lot of them. There are currently closing in rapidly on 180 nation-geo-stub types,for instance, all of them using the noun form. Though grammatically it is not ideal, it's a lot easier than having to remember I-Kiribati, Equatoguinean, Kittitian-Nevisian, or Burkinabe (to name just four). Might I suggest compromise: where the permcat is "Fooian X", rename to" Fooian X stubs"; where the permcat is "X of Foo/X in Foo", keep as "Foo X stubs". That way at least there will be some consistency with the permcats, and it will make it far easier to decide exactly what stub categories should be called. Grutness...wha? 22:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not "a compromise", that's "the muddle of 'stub grammar' we've been moving away from". I am, to put it as mildly as I can manage, not convinced we should be primarily guided in naming stub categories to facilitate typing -geo-stub category names into a search box or URL -- you could just go via the template, and have less to type to boot, you realize? How does it even help people who don't necessarily have every permcat name memorised (or all types of permcats corresponding to any stub types they'd want to look up, at least)? Unless you can make a case that "Canadian" is an "odd demonym" in some way that using "Canada" attributively isn't "odd", I don't see the case against standardising on non-odd attributives. (I shall at this point state -- as I invariably do in the numerous iterations of this discussion -- that I am not somehow insisting on "adjectives, always adjectives, adjectives no matter now obscure" -- which next time 'round the loop we start all over on.) Please also note the number of existing "of/in Canada" permcats with "Canadian" stub types: do you propose to move them "back"? Alai 07:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what you;re suggesting is changing to demonyms on those where we can guess the demonym, but not on those we can't, making for an even bigger muddle? Euh, count me out on that one. As for following the templates, that's fine for stub-sorting, but we're doing this to make it easier for editors, and I suspect that there are a lot of editors who don't know many of the arcane demonyms for countries they deal with articles for. My suggested compromise is a compromise, since it at least makes it obvious we are following a set standard that does parallel the permcats, rather than having to look at whether we are using demonyms or country names. This is particularly relevant since many of the permcats deliberately avoid using demonyms to help editors and because those demonyms may be inappropriate. To follow that system with a parallel system for stub categories makes a lot of sense to me. Grutness...wha? 04:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm suggesting you stop hitting us over the head with "guessability" as the primary criterion, or failing which, refrain from recasting what I'm saying in those terms. What I want is stub category names that a) follow some normal, reasonable usage, rather than being purely the artefacts of a 'magimix the permcat' "standard". Would anyone ever suggest a permcat be located at "Canada <noun> <noun>s" (aside from following some strange original usage in that pattern)? And b) are reasonably consistent internally and horizontally within "geographical subdivision", which are going to be at least as important as a convenience to editors as working "per topic", especially for those as broad as "geography". (Though I'm skeptical that anyone very much works on the basis of 'type a category names guessed ab initio into a URL', so this is ultimately more about aesthetics than utility.) If people prefer, say, "California" to "Californian" as an attributive qualifier for non-people categories, as they apparently have, I have no difficulty with that. Equally, I don't feel the need to "follow the permcats off a cliff" come the fairly far-off (to say the least) circumstance of needing stubcats corresponding to Category:Equatoguinean law or Category:Burkinabé society if there's another attributive that's acceptable usage. (But if people don't know the "arcane" demonyms of the countries they're working on, they're going to be a little stuck with permcats like those, aren't they?)
The term "compromise" implies to me proposing some solution that's in some sense intermediate between the status quo and the proposal, rather than one that a) rejects the proposal entirely, and b) would imply further rollback of other category names to a pattern that only you appear to favour, and that we've been moving away from. If that's a "compromise", what's the "hard-line" position this in some way modifies? Alai 00:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's going on? Can I get a clearer answer? I'd like to close this out soon, and I'm not sure what the decision is. My opinion is that Canada --> Canadian is fine, but I can see how this could cause problems for other stubs. In general, I'd like to see a standard <noun> <blah> stubs pattern, as that would be the easiest to remember and would prevent strange Trinidad and Tobago-type adjective problems. Just my 2 cents... ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way this is going to be decided properly, so I'm closing this as no consensus. We need to come up with an official guideline before this can be closed one way or the other. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:42, 27 March 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.

{{Caucasia-stub}} / Category:Caucasia-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


Badly-named variants of {{Caucasus-stub}} and Category:Caucasus stubs. Note that "Caucasia" is a redirect to Caucasus. Unneccessary duplication,and thus should be deleted. Perhaps slight modification might be made to the wording of caucasus-stub to indicate that it is often taken as being a wider area than just GE, AZ and AM. Grutness...wha? 03:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one appears to have the backing of WikiProject Caucasia which explains the preference for the name. Their scope appears to be wider than just the trans-Caucasian countries, including at the very least the Russian republics in the North Caucasus economic region. Might be worth keeping the template as a redirect, but I agree there's no need for two categories. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the Wikiproject is going to have a 'bespoke' scope, they'd be better off with a talk-page "Wikiproject Caucasia" template. Alai 15:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete of category, weak keep of template as a redirect. Alai 06:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stronge delete both. Duplicates of {{Caucasus-stub}} and Category:Caucasus stubs which we don't need either given that both Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan now have both generic, -bio and -geo templates. Valentinian T / C 06:10, 16 March 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.

March 11

[edit]

{{Runningbio-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


Duplicate of {{athletics-bio-stub}} that was brought to sfd once before only to suffer a no consensus result. Now that the track and field athletes have been so throughly subdivided that the stub category is strangely empty despite there being no stub templates for athletes from Mexico (which I suspect have been wrongly tagged with the Central American template), Greenland, or the British Atlantic OT's, let's try deleting this one once again. Caerwine Caer�s whines 18:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Get rid of it. On the other point, neither Greenland nor the Falklands are well-known for their athletes, but I bet there are a couple of Bermudian ones around somewhere... Grutness...wha? 07:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support deleting template although it may be better if there was a rescoping of the categories to specifically state they include all forms of athletics not just track and field. There are numerous people who are notable for road running, cross country, mountain running or ultra-distance running but not track and field.
Regarding your point on certain nations. When i proposed the sub categories it was based on governing bodies (hence Central America and Caribbean being one category) so, Mexico is in Central America and Bermuda in Caribbean as they compete in Central America and Caribbean competitions, wikipedia currently have no athletes from Greenland and the only athletes from British Atlantic OT are the Bermudians, having a quick look through last years world top 200 lists, all time top 50 lists and all time medallists from major competitions at continental level and above I can't see any Greenlanders or non Bermudian BAOT's so i doubt these would be classed as notable. Waacstats 08:53, 12 March 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:Republic of China university stubs / {{Taiwan-university-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 upmerge to China university stubs


With {{China-university-stub}} having been upscoped from the PRC to all of China, this category should be a subcat except that it isn't large enough to be a separate stub category for now. With 26 stubs it's slightly undersized for a new upmerged template, but it already exists. Delete the category and either delete or upmerge the template. Caerwine Caer�s whines 00:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the template (possible rename to ROC-, if there's any established pattern or guideline on that question) and upmerge, as significantly undersized (unless there's a ROC-uni-WPJ out there someplace). Alai 00:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Most RoC-related templates are at Taiwan-X-stub, with redirects from RoC and ROC, so I'd not be too happy to see a rename. I suspect that you're asking for trouble upmerging them into a category covering both Chinas (perhaps upmerging into Asia-uni... would be easier), but I'm basically not going to say yay or nay to this one, and leave it to others. Grutness...wha? 02:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Both? Isn't that "all four", according to... some sources? We tried and failed to regularise the name, state and scope of the existing {{China-university-stub}} / Category:China university stubs (to the PRC, that the permcat, and well, country), and aside from the usual suspects parroting "Mainland China!", where did that get us? Alai 06:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or else upmerge to Asia. Passer-by 10:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I fail to understand the reasoning behind this nomination. Whether Taiwan is part of China is a matter of some debate, and besides that, we have a WikiProject Taiwan for which these stub templates are quite useful. --Ideogram 22:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply As for the category, I nominated it for deletion because this stub type is too small at this time to warrant a separate stub category under this WikiProject's guidelines which call for a minimum of 60 stubs. As for why I proposed upmerging to Category:China university stubs instead of Category:Asia university stubs, the PRC, the ROC, and Wikipedia's naming conventions all agree that China refers to the combination of the territory controlled de facto by the PRC and the ROC, though the two governments obviously disagree on which is the de jure government of Taiwan. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • However it is not quite clear that Taiwan is universally accepted as part of China in the modern sense. By doing so we are going to create more troubles than resolving them. The naming conventions, as I read it, is advising editors not to call "Mainland China" "China". In other words, it is advising editors to substitute "China" with "Mainland China" if the latter is more suitable. It does not ask editors to the other way round and re-scope to extend to cover all China. - Privacy 03:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why the change in opinion from what you said just ten days ago in the SFD for Category:China university stubs? There you were clearly informed that if kept as is, the Wikipedia naming conventions for China required that its scope include Taiwan and you said "Obvious keep. The scope should be better defined to tell what it is about." You cannot have it both ways. (China ≠ Mainland China) → (Taiwan ⊂ China) Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why do you think I have changed my opinion. The stub template and the category were surely relevant only with mainland China. In other words, the stub type was about mainland China. Therefore I thought the wordings of the stub template and the category were not clearly defining their scopes. I did not ask to change their scopes. Rather, I asked for keeping the then existing scope, and improving the wordings. - Privacy 08:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • If it was to be relevant to only mainland China then it should have renamed, not kept as is. That fact was clearly pointed out in the nomination for discussion. You voted keep in a way that suggested that you wanted the text in the template and the category to indicate an expanded scope that include Taiwan. Given the context of that discussion that certainly is what you said, even if that was not what you had intended. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:22, 15 March 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.
              • Its scope had always been Mainland China. What we should have to do is to describe the scope more clearly. I voted to keep its scope as it was. I did not vote to expand its scope. - Privacy 20:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 12

[edit]

{{Duck-stub}} / redlinked cat

[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 upmerge


Created a couple of hours before the agreed {{Anseriformes-stub}}, which follows the scheme of splitting birds by order. Since there are fewer than 70 anseriformes stubs, splitting out the ducks (even under a better name like anatidae-stub) would leave one or the other of the categories severely below threshold. Delete template, or at the very least upmerge it. Grutness...wha? 08:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge and redirect because a NP patroller is more likely to guess {{duck-stub}} as the appropriate thing to put on a page about ducks. (When NP patrolling, I often take one guess at the appropriate stub tag, and then if that's wrong, I just add {{stub}} and leave it to the stubsorters to sort out, so as to continue the patrol faster; however, I don't NP patrol all that much nowadays, so I might be out of touch.) --ais523 15:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as agreed. Alex43223 T | C | E 05:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question So, which is it? Upmerge or redirect? Those are two very different things. Upmerge means the template would stay as is and point to Category:Anseriformes stubs. Redirect means the template would point to {{Anseriformes-stub}}. "Upmerge and redirect" isn't really a valid vote. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair, both have the effect of "merging" the contents of the (red) category into the (would-be) parent. Upmerging the template is just what that's normally read as around here. (The gloss on this was originally even vaguer.) As {{duck-stub}} has a narrower scope, but a reasonably sensible one (if one ignores polyphyly of "duck" as a common name), I'd suggest we retain it as a separate template, rather than a redirect. Alai 23:13, 20 March 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.

March 14

[edit]

{{PNG-stub}} → {{PapuaNewGuinea-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 rename


A couple of days ago I nominated PNG-geo-stub for renaming, on the grounds that it might lead to an ambiguously named PNG-stub. What i didn't realise then was that PNG-stub already existed. Given that PNG has nothing whatsoever to do with papua new Guinea, I suggest that this be renamed. Grutness...wha? 07:19, 14 March 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.

March 15

[edit]

{{DVD-stub}} (redlinked category)

[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


never proposed, and nothing here which couldn't be more usefully categorised using film-stub or one of its subtypes. Delete. Grutness...wha? 11:27, 15 March 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.

{{ZA-telecoms-stub}} (redlinked category)

[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


To paraphrase what I wrote at WP:WSS/D a couple of months ago: very badly named and never proposed. Category is a redlink. AFAIK we have never split telecoms by individual country before, and the chances of finding 60 stubs on South African telecoms is fairly remote, to say the least. Currently used on two articles. The equivalent permcat, Category:Telecommunications companies of South Africa has but five articles. What chance for there being 60 stubs? Delete. Grutness...wha? 11:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, or if kept and upmerged for some reason that largely escapes me, exceedingly strong rename. As noted on another discussion, I'm no great fan of 2LAs on stub templates in general, but this one is especially vexacious, for among numerous other things, because we've had (and possibly still have, at least as redirects?) "SA-thingie-stub" templates for the same entity. Alai 19:53, 15 March 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.

March 16

[edit]

{{User:Masky/Templates/Stubs/SMB}} / Category:SMB 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 per WP:MFD


Weirdly, this is in user space. Horribly misnamed - not least of which by its reference to "stubs" when there is only one current SMB stub. Even within the realms of games, SMB would be more likely to refer to something else. The main Category:Super Monkey Ball only as ten articles and - bizarrely - a portal. The template may need to defer to WP:MfD, since it isn't actually a template. The same is true of the one below. Note that the two of them also appear as subpages of User:Masky/Templates/Stubs, which will also need deletion oif these two go, but - again - that may need doing though MfD. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 16 March 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.

{{User:Masky/Templates/Stubs/LOL}} / Category:LOL 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


Possibly speediable, maybe BJAODN'able, too. - same problems as above, except that this one is unused. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm fully in favour of speedying the category (and the above one, too), but I suggest leaving the template alone, since it's in user space, unless the user in question persists in doing inappropriate things with it. (... like transcluding it into articles, and having it feed into non-user categories). BTW, you're ten minutes late,,, Alai 01:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the SMB one is transcluded into an article... and I had trouble loading/saving the page, which is why I was late :) Grutness...wha? 23:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but I think transclusion of a user page into the article space is itself "speedily fixable". Alai 04:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wonder why everyone is trying to sabotage my Wikipedia projects. I worked really hard for them. It went from my quests to my templates, and from my SMB Portal and WikiProject to this. Why, why, why??? :(
      • I'm assuming it was Masky asked that - it isn't an attempt to sabotage your projects, any more than your creating of "pseudo-stub templates" is an attempt to sabotage the stub-sorting project. It's just that stub templates aren't created in user-space, and have a serious purpose that a "LOL-stub" doesn't fit in with. Also, there are specific guidelines for their creation, such as having non-ambiguous names and having enough stubs that can use them (60) to be useful. In the case of SMB-stub, neither of these requirements is met, and in the case of LOL-stub, well, it hardly fits in with the serious purpose of stub types. There are places on Wikipedia where "LOL" pages are listed, such as Wikipedia:Unusual articles - you don't need a stub template for them. Grutness...wha? 01:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • BTW - I'm copying the following from the MFD debate on the SMB portal and related pages, rather than re-typing some of my comments - it might provide a little more of an idea why I proposed these for deletion:
Why delete my LOL Stub and Stub Template page? It's not like the LOL Stub will send Wikipedia to its flames. Masky (Talk | contribs) 12:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By itself, no, but consider this. if one person has their own user stub types, then sooner or later other editors will want them. Soon we'd get into the sort of mess we got into with userboxes. And userboxes are there simply as a bit of fun, whereas stub types serve an important purpose in the editing of Wikipedia's articles. That is why stub templates are fairly closely controlled on WP, to discourage the creation of even ones which are of borderline use within template space. A gradual proliferation of frivolous stub templates or user-space stub templates would defeat the purpose of stub sorting. And you cannot guarantee that this would prove to be a precedent for just that sort of proliferation. Grutness...wha? 00:22, 21 March 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.

March 17

[edit]

{{Stronghold-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


Where to start??? Never proposed. Incorrectly formatted. Icon used is not gfdl. No category. Only one article used this, and it wasn't a stub. Ambiguous name ("stronghold" is more likely to refer to a fort than a videogame). No equivalent permcat. Other stub types adequately cover this subject, and are not in need of splitting. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's got to go. Goldenrowley 02:20, 20 March 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.

March 19

[edit]

{{Visual novel-stub}} / Category:Visual novel 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 upmerge to anime game stubs (also rename template to conform to NG)


Never proposed, and incorrectly named. At the very least the template should either be at Visualnovel-stub or visual-novel-stub, or at some other name reflecting the stub's place in the hierarchy (visualnovel-videogame-stub?), so even if kept it needs a rename. As to whether it should be kept, currently it only has two stubs, but there are quite a few visual novel articles - though it's unclear just how many of them are stubs, and there does seem to be a WikiProject dedicated to visual novels. Their exact place on the category tree needs ascertaining (which will prpbably also determine the proper name of the stub) - do they count primarily as anime or video games? Grutness...wha? 01:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I made the template, I did not know about this process and did not think this would come up. I'll first say that I'm sorry for not knowing and I'll be more careful next time. But for as to keep the template, I believe it's needed since visual novels are not quite anime related (some visual novels have never been made into anime/manga) and it's not quite video game related as visual novels aren't really "played" as much as other video games, thus this was the main reason why Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual novels was created. At the moment, yes, only two articles have the template, but this was because I, at the time, did not have the chance to go through the other visual novel stubs to employ the template, but I guess I'll do that now just to show you that it's more needed than it appears at the moment.--十八 03:20, 19 March 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.

March 21

[edit]

{{Singapore-law-stub}} / Category:Singapore law 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


Unproposed, and marginal at best in terms of numbers. Suggest deleting the category and upmerging the template to Category:Singapore stubs and Category:Law stubs. Grutness...wha? 06:06, 21 March 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.

{{Pennsylvania-geology-stub}} / Category:Pennsylvania geology 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


Unproposed. Interestingly, this parallels a current proposal at WP:WSS/P to create a regional geology stubs, given that there are 81 stubs on regional geology worldwide. There aren't enough yet for even a US regional geology stub, let alone starting to split out state-specific ones, so if 60 of these stubs are in Pennsylvania, I'd be extremely surprised. Currently has two stubs. Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:06, 21 March 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.

March 22

[edit]

{{IE-law-stub}} / redlinked category

[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


Similar problems to yesterday's Singapore-law-stub nom, only more so. Unproposed, no category, incorrectly formatted name, and marginal at best in terms of numbers. If we were to keep a law stub for Ireland, we'd have to start from scratch at {{Ireland-law-stub}}, and even then, upmerging would be the best option (not a bad idea, mind you). For this one, though, delete. Grutness...wha? 02:46, 22 March 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.

March 23

[edit]

{{Frasier-episode-stub}} / Category:Frasier episode 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


Unproposed, and only two or three stubs. There were apparently some 260 episodes in total, but only a very small proportion have articles - certainly nowhere near the threshold number. We don't even have a Frasier-stub, so this is definite overkill. Delete. Grutness...wha? 07:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I created this stub and it is unproposed.(Sorry, didn't know about stub proposals till now) Right now about 50-55 episodes which have articles are stubs, I just didn't add them to this. Yeah, I think Grutness is right, that a Frasier stub is needed rather than a Frasier episode stub. --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 17:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - I'd be happy to see this changed (or even upmerged) into a Frasier-stub covering not just the episodes, but characters and the like - especially if there are as many articles as you suggest. Sounds like a reasonable compromise. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete I just checked the episode list now, and well over 60% of episodes have red links on them, and the rest mostly full length articles. I think a Frasier stub should be made when there are sufficient articles--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 01:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK - when it gets to that size, propose one at WP:WSS/P... sounds like it's likely to at some point, but until then a stub type's probably not worthwhile. Grutness...wha? 12:07, 24 March 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.

March 24

[edit]

{{Malay-food-stub}} / Category:Malaysian food 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


This stub template was unproposed, and only contains nine stub articles. Even a larger parent category or template, {{Asia-food-stub}} / Category:Asia food stubs or {{Asia-cuisine-stub}} / Category:Asian cuisine stubs does not exist. I suggest this template to be deleted immediately too because it is not-notable. The articles in this category could be re-sorted back to its original parent category, {{Malaysia-stub}}. Acs4b 11:16, 24 March 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.

March 25

[edit]

Category:Luxembourgish people stubs → Category:Luxembourgian people 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


Because of this discussion I've done a mass CFD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_25#Luxembourgian_people suggesting a standardization on Luxembourgian. Assuming that the CFD goes as I've proposed, rename the stub category to match the new name of the parent permcat. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Valentinian T / C 20:08, 26 March 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:Pre-1980 baseball pitcher stubs → Category:Pre-1960 baseball pitcher 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 to "Pre-1940 baseball pitcher stubs"


To reflect change of scope implied by un-upmerging the 60s and 70s templates. Alai 18:54, 25 March 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.

{{BR-stub}} / Category:WPBR 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 to BluegrassKY-stub; upmerge to Kentucky stubs


Excessively cryptic. Possibly an upmerged {{Kentucky-Bluegrass-geo-stub}} or {{BluegrassKY-geo-stub}} since most of these are geo stubs and there is an associated WikiProject altho without the Wikiproject this is not large enough to warrant a stub type. Also ameniable to a {{Kentucky-Bluegrass-stub}} or {{BluegrassKY-stub}} on the same basis. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:58, 25 March 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.

{{Gaelic-stub}} / Category:Scottish Gaelic 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


Never proposed and highly unlikely to reach threshold. There is little here that a Scotland-stub or an appropriate hist-stub, org-stub, or lang-stub wouldn't cover just as well. No such permcat as Category:Scottish Gaelic, either. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Considering that Scottish Gaelic is only the 4th most used Gaelic language (Irish, Welsh, and Breton all claim more speakers) and only the third most used language in Scotland (after English and Scots), there's definitely a mismatch here between the template and the category. Delete per Grutness. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Welsh and Breton are Brythonic languages, not Gaelic (or even Goidelic); Irish is rarely called "Gaelic" in English, whereas Scottish Gaelic frequently is; English and Scots are both dialects of the same language. But Gaelic is still somewhat ambiguous, and it seems much too narrow, so indeed, delete. Alai 02:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't forget Manx, either... Grutness...wha? 06:37, 26 March 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.

{{British-boxing-bio-stub}} / Category:British boxing biography 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 & change wording to be more inclusive


Never proposed, but at least it's well populated. It has several problems, though: 1) The template should be {{UK-boxing-bio-stub}}; 2) The category should be Category:United Kingdom boxing biography stubs (pace Alai - this comment is based entirely on the current standard stub category naming scheme); 3) The template states that it is for boxers, whereas it should actually be for anyone associated with the sport, including trainers and managers. As such, I suggest renaming both, and not keeping the "British" template as a redirect. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the template and category creator, I have no problem with renaming -- I didn't realize that either needed to be proposed (sorry!), but thought that having a separate category for UK boxers made logical sense, due to the popularity of boxing in the UK, and UK boxing's crossover appeal to the US, as well as the number of historical figures in boxing from the UK. I would, though, recommend keeping the "British" template as a redirect, at least temporarily, until the British-tagged biographies could be shifted over into a UK-named category, sort of how the category "Living People" (as opposed to the correct category of "Living people") is handled now. My apologies for the confusion! --Tthaas 02:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, per nom. Weak preference for the more inclusive scope, can live with either. Tthaas, don't worry about the shifting over, it can readily be done by 'bot. (And you're right, this type does make perfect sense, I doubt anyone'll object in principle.) Alai 02:28, 25 March 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.

March 26

[edit]

{{industrial-design-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


Propose to restub them with the new {{civil-engineering-stub}} as discussed in "proposals" as an idea. I was the original proposer, no more than 10 despite a good faith effort on my part to find some. Goldenrowley 00:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After having gone through the items tagged with this, I noticed that most are either not civil engineering related at all, or are cross-disciplinary enough that marking them as civil engineering stubs would be incorrect. Since there are only 10, I'd say upmerge to {{engineering-stub}} (I've already edited it so that the category went there) and delete the industrial design stub template and category. Αργυριου (talk) 05:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to delete it and replace it with "engineering stub" instead for that reason. Thanks Argyriou. Goldenrowley 15:22, 28 March 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:Industrial design 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


Someone apparently not knowing the procedure created this week, even though we were proposing to merge these to Category:Civil engineering stubs. No more than 10. Propose to (speedy?) delete category. Goldenrowley 04:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC) p.s. I emptied it already. Goldenrowley 04:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment we changed gears we now propose to rename the 10 as engineering-stubs, still, we should delete this empty category. Goldenrowley 19:08, 1 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.

{{General-church-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


Duplicate (not a redirect) of {{Church-stub}}. Entirely unnecessary. Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree delete. I suspect it was trying to say something like a non-demoninational church. Although I won't try to guess the real reason it can be mistaken as such. Goldenrowley 01:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant. Delete. Valentinian T / C 19:45, 29 March 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.

{{Erie-stub}} / no cat

[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, uncategorised stub type for a small-to-medium sized city in Pennsylvania. Will there be enough stubs for this template? Hardly likely - the equivalent permcat has only 41 non bio articles. Is it useful to have stub types for cities this size? No - especially since far larger or more notable cities (e.g., Los Angeles, Boston, Miami) don't have them. Is Category:Pennsylvania stubs in need of splitting? No - it currently has only some unsubcategorised 190 stubs. Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delte - naming is unclear. There is an Erie canal in another state. Goldenrowley 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment300,000 people in the metro is small sized city?Ttttrrrreeeeyyyyyy
In comparison to the cities with stub types, yes. Very few cities have their own stub types, and only then when the number of stubs warrants a separate type. here are cities with tens of millions of people without separate stub types. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 29 March 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.

{{Kurdistan-sport-bio-stub}} / Category:Kurdish sportspeople 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


Strong delete. Yet another unproposed attempt to split by a non-sovereign nation type. There is no {{Kurdistan-stub}}, and no permcat Category:Kurdish sportspeople, for the simple reason that we split by recognised sovereign nations and/or their official subregions - not unrecognised "nations" which cross internationally accepted national boundaries. Grutness...wha? 06:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Valentinian T / C 07:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per above.. Just as is the case for TRNC stub et al, we cannot be burdened by the ramifications of complex unresolved political issues in real life if we want to have an efficient encyclopedia. The day there is an official country, I will be the first to create it.. Unless the God will descend from the heavens and decide for us, the UN borders are the best thing that we have got... :) Baristarim 09:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If God exists, I hope he uses his time on something more important than deciding details on Wikipedia :) Valentinian T / C 20:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But wiki is life isnt it? -- Cat chi? 20:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I'd prefer if God fixed Darfur rather than Wikipedia. :) Valentinian T / C 23:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Recognition by sovereign nations aside - stub type is underpopulated (empty). We group multiple sovereign countries in Africa for being underpopulated. -- Cat chi? 10:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It's unpopulated because I caught it only hours after it was created (I check "Newpages:Templates" regularly, hence the reason my name is here and WP:WSS/D so often). And "Amen!" to Valentinian's Darfur comment! Grutness...wha? 00:02, 27 March 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.

March 30

[edit]

{{Pune-geo-stub}} / Category:Pune city 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 upscope/rename to PuneDistrict-stub; upmerge


Unproposed, and - quite frankly - a mess. The template makes it clear it's for geography articles, as does the wording of the category, but the stubs conained in that category have only a few geography articles. the rest are history, biography, education, and organisation stubs. The name of the category is non-standard as well. I've no doubt that Maharashtra-geo-stub needs splitting, but debate is needed on just how to split it - separating out the largest city is not usually the way that is done, since it tends to lead to the possibility of several city categories and an "everything else" category. And if the geo-stub needs splitting, it needs to be ensured that it is indeed geography articles that are split out - not this mish-mash. The other option would be a standard stubfor the city ({{Pune-stub}} / Category:Pune stubs), with articles double-stubbed according to whether they are geo, bio, or whatever with their respective India- or Maharashtra- types. That wouldn't solve the problem of Maharashtra-geo-stub's size, but it would make for a far more sensible category and template name. Whichever, the current combination of names and scopes simply isn't acceptable. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Guys, Very Sorry for not proposing this stub before creating it. Frankly I was not aware of this procedure. When I created article Pune Neighborhoods I felt that a stub regarding Pune was needed. All articles that Alai pointed having only "A locality in pune city" were created by me and subsequently stubbed so that other users help it grow. I screwed up with name of this stub. It shudn't be -geo-. I blame it to my ugly habit of ctrl C and ctrl V. Please rename it whatever you feel right.

Now I have proposed this stub in Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/March. I have loosely justified the necessity of this stub to create a comprehensive information of City of Pune. And ready to face questions here


spacejuncky 04:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not getting it. Alai is talking about Pune District, I am for a stub for Pune City only. There is lot that can be written about Pune city itself. Actually the name of the stub is misleading it should be Pune-City-Stub and not Pune-Geo-Stub. spacejuncky 05:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
x-geo-stub is our naming convention for geographical location articles. If you want it to be about Pune City, then perhaps a {{PuneCity-geo-stub}} would be better. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rescope the template as per Alai, and create at least upmerged geo templates for the other four divisions of Maharashtra beside Konkan and Pune. Once that mess is sorted out, see whether a generic {{Maharashtra-stub}} is viable. I can't see the sense in having a generic stub for the city when there isn't even one for the state it is in. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A rescope sounds viable. Yes, Spacejuncky, loads of stubs could be written about the geography of Pune itself, but for the reasons I gave in my nomination, individial city-specific stubs are far less appropriate than ones for the city and its surrounding district. It's not like stubs on the geography of Pune city would get overwhelmed by stubs on Pune District - and what's more, as pointed out, a start has been made in splitting Maharastra's geo-stubs by district anyway. I'd vertainly favour a Pune-geo-stub for Pune District along those lines, and with clearing out the non-geo-stubs, even if upmerged until we're sure of the number of stubs - a city-specific geo-stub, though, I'd be less happy with. A separate Pune-stub for non-geographic items could also still be possible if it also looked like getting close to 60 stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not really getting what you guys are arguing about. What I see the reason behind what I feel confusing comments from you all is the fact the name is Pune-GEO-Stub. I screwed with the name, it is very misleading and I am sorry for that. When I created this stub there was no intention of creating stub for Pune geography or Pune division/district geography. My only intention was to have all pune city related article stubbed so that more volunteers chip in to expand those article. When stubbed any enthusiastic wikipedian can find that all pune city related articles at one place. This is what I want to convey, now whatever you decide its your decision. I am not keen in helping in creating stubs for all six division of Maharashtra as suggested, because frankly I am not able to see it. Plus I will be on short vacation so wont be logging in for next 7-10 days. :)

spacejuncky 04:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find this whole thing a big mess. 1. The {{Konkan-geo-stub}} text is misleading. (Mumbai is part of the Konkan but not entirely). Secondly, I think it would be a good idea to have city-based stubs. Keep a criteria of the largest five cities in the state OR those that have a population of 1 million+. The reason I say so, is that if we have to create a Mumbai wikiproject, it would be easy to check and see which all articles need to expanded. Let's pause on the district-level stubs for now until a uniform solution in consultation with WP:INDIA. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a precedent for this: see {{NYC-stub}}. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nichalp, this is what I wanted to say, we need city based stubs.

spacejuncky 05:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The {{Konkan-geo-stub}} was created as an upscoping of {{Mumbai-geo-stub}} as a result of a previous SFD, but it appears that only the category, but not the blurb text was changed. The blurb text has been changed to match the category. Thanks for pointing out the problem and it has been fixed. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the stub category, I'd have to say that part of the problem is that spacejuncky was very scattershot in applying the stub marker. Take for example Baji Rao I. Leaving aside the fact that it isn't a stub article (there was an existing stub marker that I've removed as well). There's the fact that his notability is not restricted to the city of Pune. He's notable for a lot of other things done in a lot of other places. As such a Pune stub marker was too narrow in scope for that article. If it had been a stub article, a {{Maharashtra-stub}}, if it existed would have been appropriate, but not one for the city of Pune. Similar objections exist for the article Battle of Khadki as it is not a stub and it took place outside the city of Pune, albeit nearby. Kirkee is a stub article, but again, based on the text of the article, it is not inside the city of Pune and as such does not fall with the scope of a stub restricted to just the city. We don't include suburbs in the scope of our existing city stubs and there is no reason why Pune should be treated differently. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caerwine, I agree on your argument about Baji Rao I and Battle of Khadki. I indeed made a wrong decision there. But Kirkee is an integral part of Pune City, it comes within Pune Municipal Corporation limits. And why should suburbs cannot be considered a part of city when city's municipal corporation considers it within city limit. We have example on Mumbai, If we remove its suburbs from its description there is nothing to read about it. Pune City is not worth mentioning without its suburbs (moreover kirkee is not even a suburb, it is a part of city)

spacejuncky 06:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I am not knowledgeable about the area, I can only rely on what the text of the article says, "Kirkee lies just north of the city of Pune". If the article is wrong then by all means fix it. Mumbai is a special case in that its suburbs form a distinct political entity, the Mumbai Suburban District. If similarly there were a Pune City District and a Pune Suburban District, I could see treating Pune similarly. In this WikiProject we have a strong bias towards recognized political borders so as to minimize subjective decisions on where to set boundaries. If the Pune metropolitian area is contained within Haveli Taluka (the Pune article indicates that the city proper is in that taluka, but does not indicate whether its suburbs all are and there is no Wikipedia article on Haveli Taluka), I could see using that as a basis for the boundary for a Pune stub type, but if not, then the next larger suitable official political boundary would appear to be Pune District. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:26, 31 March 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.

March 31

[edit]

An electronics muddle

[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 what Caerwine said


Seems we've somehow doubled up on ourselves - we have:

all leading into Category:Electronics stubs. Surely we don't need all three. I propose deleting the electro-stub redirect and either deleting or redirectling electro-stub to reduce the mess a little. Grutness...wha? 23:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electron appears to be the abbreviation that WikiProject Electronics uses for its templates, so keep {{electron-stub}} as a redirect, but change it to point to {{electronics-stub}} instead. Delete {{electro-stub}}, but change the icon of {{electronics-stub}} to use that currently used by {{electro-stub}} since it is also used by the associated WikiProject for its templates and thus helps promote a degree of consistency for Wiki internal references about electronics. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Caerwine, keep electron and redirect to electronics with changed icon. Joe I 04:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use {{Electronics-stub}} and delete the others. The "electron"- variant gives the impressions that its topic has to do with electrons. Valentinian T / C 15:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe someone can look into this, but is not electronics the study of electrons? If so then keeping ^{{electron-stub}} with redirect to "electronics-stub"^ is ok with me.Goldenrowley 18:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just clarifying: "Electron-stub" simply reminds me of nuclear physics. (Computer) electronics would come much further down my list of associations. Valentinian T / C 23:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The redirect does not appear to have any ambiguity problems to me (I can't imagine that Wikipedia has articles about individual elections or even individual atomic orbitals), so I don't mind the abbreviated redirect in this case so as to support another WikiProject. If there were any ambiguity problems or no WikiProject relationship, I wouldn't. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:26, 2 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2007/March&oldid=124249635"