Jump to content

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/April

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 3

[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 1860s, upmerge other templates & delete their categories


A host of undersized actor categories

[edit]

No - not for undersized actors... one editor seems to have decided to ignire stubcat size thresholds and create the following categories:

...all of which fail to meet size standards and should be reupmerged. The same editor made templates for film actors born in the 1840s, 1850s, 1860s and 2000s, but those can probably stay in upmerged form with no problems. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are still underpopulated because there still over 500 articles under Category:American film actor stubs that need to be sorted by birth decade. I only just started so you should expect the stubs you nominated to be much more populated when I'm done. How about you give me a hand? For An Angel (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those are simply unsorted from the existing categories. Chances of there being 60+ for each of the new caqtegories is minimal, to say the least. If it is definitely shown that there are over 60 in any of them, I've no objection to them staying, but unless there are, these should be deleted with the templates upmerged. And there should still have been proposed in the first place. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't know about the process of proposing stubs, I was just being bold. I saw that there were 134 articles in Category:American film actor, 1870s birth stubs so I didn't think there would be that much less in 1860's. Obviously, the only way to definitely show that there are over 60 in any of them is to go through all of the unsorted ones and sort them out, but I haven't even finished the B's so you can't really say that how many there will be when I'm done. I think, ideally, the only ones left in Category:American film actor stubs would be the ones where the birth year is unknown. For An Angel (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's normally done is that the templates are used upmerged until it's obvious that there are 60 (which is easy to check via whatlinkshere) - which is pretty much what was being done with the templates that didn't have dedicated categories. Any that reach 60 are fine, but any others are a problem. As for being bold, I take it you've read the bit on WP:BOLD that says you shouldn't be as bold with templates or categories...? Grutness...wha? 08:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't see that part, lol. I'm not sure what you mean by using whatlinkshere to see if there are enough articles, can you explain that further? What I did was looked at Category:American film actor stubs and saw that there were over 600 articles there when I first started that I assumed need to be sorted by birth decade. After looking at only a few of them I noticed that there were some that belonged in categories that didn't exist yet, so I created the categories to put them in. I still don't see an easier way of figuring out how many more of the 500 or so unsorted articles would belong in the subcategory for 1860's births for example, other than going through all of the unsorted articles and noting their birth year. If you know of an easier way please explain it to me. For An Angel (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - take, as a random example, {{Gibraltar-geo-stub}}. There aren't 60 stubs on the geography of Gibraltar, since it's a pretty small place - so it doesn't have its own Category:Gibraltar geography stubs. You can see how many stubs it does have, but if you click on "what links here" in the toolbox on the template's page - you get this list, which lists all six articles that use the template. If that list ever stretches to 60, then it'll get its own category. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I get it now, I was confused (not a new thing, lol). You're not objecting to my creation of the templates just the categories associated with them. I thought for some reason that they had to be created together. If you want to delete the categories but still allow me to continue adding the templates, and then when it's all done decided on which categories to create depending on how many use each template then that's fine. For An Angel (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you got it now :) - yeah, it's the categories that are the main problem -see comment below, though. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon the 1860s births stub will have the required number (or very close to it). Lugnuts (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I was surprised to see over 100 articles in the 1870's births. Also I think 2000's births should definitely be kept because that category can only grow larger. Also, I think that if it turns out that there aren't that many articles that belong in the 1860's, 1850's or 1840's categories then we can create one category for those born before 1870, or something like that. This way the only ones left in Category:American film actor stubs would be the ones with an unknown birth year.
PS:I was also working on the Category:American television actor stubs doing the same thing. Would it be ok to continue working on both of these while this discussion is going on? For An Angel (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 2000s births category can always be recreated when we're sure there are 60 stubs - stub categories are always made based on the number of current stubs, not on the potential for growth, since there's never any guarantee that the articles actually will be made (or that when they are, they'll be stubs). As for the American television actor stubs, that all depends - have you proposed the new templates and categories you're planning to make at WP:WSS/P? If not, you should do that. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't actually created any American television actor stub templates because I saw that they were all already created. I was thinking about creating the categories for the templates that didn't already have one, but now I understand that I don't have to do that unless there are 60 articles that use the template. For example, I see that {{US-tv-actor-1910s-stub}} is one of the few that doesn't have its own category but by using whatlinkshere I see that it is already used in more than 60 articles (just barely). So that means there should be no problem with creating the Category:American television actor, 1910s birth stubs, right? For An Angel (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeees... but you should still pass them by WP:WSS/P first - they're a speedy creation type, so there shouldn't be any problems with them, but it's always a good idea to keep WP:WSS "in the loop", since they're the ones who will be using them the most and patrolling the categories for potential problems. Sam with any new templates - they're speediable if they follow a current scheme, but again it's worth keeping those who deal with them the most in the picture (how are we meant to sort stubs using templates we don't know about?) Grutness...wha? 23:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I did it. Not sure if I did it right because I never proposed a new stub category before. For An Angel (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me :) Grutness...wha? 21:39, 5 April 2008 (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.
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 the by-county subtypes


{{EastEngland-school-stub}}

[edit]

Looks like a bit of over-enthusiasm during the proposal for new county-by-county English school stubs. unfortunately, there has bnever been a county called "EastEngland", so this is entirely unnecessary and should eb deleted. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The usual procedure when counties are upmerged to regions is to do simply that: have county templates upmerged into a parent category that is a container only. There won't be any schools that aren't in a county, so there's no need for the region itself to have a template (compare what is done with geo-stubs and struct-stubs. I'm frankly amazed there's a SouthEastEngland-school-stub - that should be SFD'd too, so I'm adding it to this nomination. Grutness...wha? 08:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh - skip that, I see the problem in this case. The SE England one may have been made before the idea of making general upmerged stubs per county became standard practice - there are still some counties in SE England without school stub types (the two Sussexes, Hampshire, and Hertfordshire, if my geography's correct). Note that there is no NorthWestEngland-school-stub template, because every county in that region has its own template. Same with Yorkshire/Humberside, East Midlands, and South West England (there is a WestMidlands-school-stub, but that's for the county). If you're in the process of making stub templates for each county, Ratarsed, then once all the county ones are done the SouthEastEngland-school-stub can be SFD'd, since it won't be in use any more. Grutness...wha? 09:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense (so I'm happy for it to be deleted) -- looks like I picked a duff category to copy :) - I am working my way around the regions to create the county-by-county stubs, so I expect SouthEastEngland-school-stub will be able to be listed here 'soon' -- If I remember, I'll do it when I create its children -- Ratarsed (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Define now as 'soon' the "by county" stubs have been created, andI'm going to a bit of stub sorting to move into the new stubs -- Ratarsed (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd generally prefer the "upmerged templates only" model in cases like this, though where they exist and have been used, we do have to bear in mind the pragmatics of orphaning them. If there's volunteers to so here, then thanks, and delete. Alai (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2008 (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:British film stubs or Category:United Kingdom film 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 cat as British film stubs; reverse redirect


Wqe have both of these, and it looks like the UK one was emptied when the British one was creatged, though there was definitely no WSS debate about it that I can find. The template is also incorrectly named as {{British-film-stub}} - looks like someone changed it from the convention-compliant UK-film-stub last year without consultation. Move template back and delete redirect, and decide on whichever is the correct category name (usual WSS naming favours ""United Kingdom...", though I know there will be heated debatee about that one...). Grutness...wha? 01:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the history, {{UK-film-stub}} was moved on October 8, 2007 by [[User:Girolamo Savonarola|Girolamo Savonarola }}. I fully support moving the template back and support renaming the category back to the UK standard. I only nominated the UK cat for deletion based on it being essentially empty and an apparent duplicate of the British cat. - Dravecky (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd guessed that, which is why I brought it here. Speedying would have been the sensible thing if it was a simple duplicate, but in this case it was a little more complex :) Grutness...wha? 08:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The mind boggles that this was done in the name of "standardisation": more "WPJ consensus roolz, fie upon your mere guidelines", I suppose? Restore both, delete the "British" cat, keep the template as a redirect if the films people really feel the need. Alai (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lacking any further input, and in light of the later discussion (above) about permcat=stub parallel naming, perhaps we should leave this as "British", since the permcat is "British". Her Pegship (tis herself) 02:16, 10 May 2008 (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.

April 4

[edit]

{{Syriacs-stub}} / Category:Syriac 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 stub type, misspelled template by the stub naming guidelines, and split on an axis we don't split stubs by (we do not have stub types for aspirant nations/peoples). Too few stubs, all of which are already covered by other stub types, and the parent permcat is a merger candidate. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering how long it would be until this showed up. What we need is a neutral catch-all term for "oppressed Southwest Asia Christian Semites" as they seem unable to agree on one themselves. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With way too few stubs for even a Wikiproject stub, so even without considering the problems of where to root it in the stub hierarchy, the category is a definite delete. The template at minimum needs a renaming, but without a logical place to upmerge it to, delete. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:03, 21 April 2008 (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.

April 5

[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


{{Titanic-bio-stub}}

[edit]

Unproposed, and if it had been I seriously doubt that it would have got within cooee of being created. As far as I'm aware, being on board the Titanic was neither a nationality or an occupation, which are the two normal ways that bio-stubs are split. Also, since one-event-noteworthy deaths are usually deleted, everyone who was onboard Titanic who has a WP article was notable in other ways - ones usually with far more far-reaching importance. As such, they'll be better covered by other stub types. Given that the category for the Titanic's passengers and crew only has 78 articles, and that a random sampling showed one stub (for a champion tennis player) in 20 articles sampled, this is hardly going to get significant usage. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 5 April 2008 (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.

April 6

[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


{{California Desert-geo-stub}}

[edit]

Never proposed, and cuts right across the idea of labelling geo-stubs by county, which has been implemented for California for quite a while. It has no category links, and the icon's unnecessarily enormous, too. Strong delete. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 6 April 2008 (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.
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


African airport stub types

[edit]

Unproposed, CambridgeBayWeather has created dozens of new stub templates for African airports by country, and five regional categories for them to feed to. Most of these seem reasonable (though were, IMO, completely unnecessary since we only have around 450 African airport stubs in total), but one or two of them are in definite need of work here:

Grutness...wha? 01:08, 6 April 2008 (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.

April 10

[edit]

{{Vietnam-university-stub-IT training}}

[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


Need I say much more? Unproposed, and the name of this template just about beggars belief. Also, it is a pure copy (by transclusion, no less) of {{Vietnam-university-stub}}, so it has no independent purpose. Delete, ASAP. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 10 April 2008 (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.

April 12

[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


{{Article-single-stub}}

[edit]

No category, no sign it's ever been used, and it's been here for two years. Redundant to the many stub types for songs and singles, not needed. Grutness...wha? 13:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Bob • (talk) • 18:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2008 (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.
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


{{Bosniak-bio-stub}}

[edit]

Unproposed, no category, and no sign it's ever been used. Another example of splitting by an aspirant nation/unrecognised country/sub-national ethnic group/choose your own definition. Neither useful nor helpful for stub-splitting - delete. 13:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete per anonymous proposer. Waacstats (talk) 08:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'twas I. Must've accidentally hit a fifth tilde. Grutness...wha? 01:35, 18 April 2008 (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.

April 13

[edit]

{{Streets of Paris-stub}}, Category:Streets of Paris Stubs, plus redirect {{Rues de Paris-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 France-road-stub


A long-lasting stub type - one of the first, from late 2005, so it's not surprising this has such an ungainly name. Even after all this time, though, it's only gained 18 stubs. If this was being created today, it would be Paris-road-stub, but given its size it's simply not needed. We don't even yet have a France-road-stub, though perhaps an upscoping/revamping/renaming to an upmerged France-road-stub template would make some sense. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 13 April 2008 (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:German road stubs → Category:Germany 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 rename all


While on the subject of road stubs, this one is in a minority of one as far as its naming is concerned. I've no preference whether this should be named or all the others should (though I'm sure others have), but either way, consistency would be good. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support consistency but we also have Category:Australian road stubs, Category:Indian road stubs and Category:Pakistani road stubs so these should be changed as well. Waacstats (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Hadn't noticed that - looks like we've got quite a mix-n-match with the road stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 21 April 2008 (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.

{{SNL-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


No category, and no indication this has ever been used, either. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 13 April 2008 (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.

April 15

[edit]

Category:South Carolina National Register of Historic Places stubs and Category:Pennsylvania National Register of Historic Places 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


Speedy delete; renamed per discussion over at WPSS/P. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support for consistency. Waacstats (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2008 (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.

April 17

[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, upmerge, delete redirect


{{Austrian-writer-stub}}

[edit]

Unporoposed, and looks like a newbie's failed attempt at making a stub template (this is actually a category page copied and pasted into the templatespace). If we were to have such a template, it would be correctly named and formatted ({{Austria-writer-stub}}) and upmerged. This might not be a bad idea, but we'd have to start from scratch since this is so far away from a proper stub template! Grutness...wha? 02:48, 17 April 2008 (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.

April 18

[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, upmerge

{{Cheshire-general-stub}}

[edit]

No, not a stub type for generals from Cheshire (which would be a little too narrow a stub type!) This is a general purpose stub for anything to do with Cheshire. As such, if it had been proposed (which it wasn't), it would have been quickly pointed out that such a stub would be called {{Cheshire-stub}}. It would also have been pointed out that a category should have been attached to it. Rename and upmerge would seem the most reasonable option here. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ok. I created it. I wasn't clearly aware enough of the procedures one has to go through, and so I am happy to be guided by advice from others here.  DDStretch  (talk) 06:34, 18 April 2008 (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.


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

{{SouthEastEngland-school-stub}}

[edit]

Now orphaned, thanks to good work by Ratarsed et al - delete per discussion below on EastEngland-school-stub. Grutness...wha? 01:42, 18 April 2008 (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.

April 22

[edit]

{{Pitt-stub}}/Category:University of Pittsburgh 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 del & create Pennsylvania-university-stub


Unproposed, and with numerous problems.

  • It was agreed recently that stubs relating to universities should be split by state/region, not by individual university (as such, a {{Pennsylvania-university-stub}} would be the correct stub type to have proposed)
  • There is no guaranteed size for this category; unless it can be shown to have 60 stubs, a separate stubcat should not have been created (make that 30 stubs - there is a dedicated wikiproject)
  • There seems to be some confusion, given the categorisation of the template, as to whether this is actually a Stub-Class assessment template (in which case it should have been named as such).
  • The template name is, frankly, awful. This is not for either of the William Pitts, not for Pitt Island, or, in fact, for anything called "Pitt", other than in colloquial usage. As such, it is beyond merely being ambiguous but is actually misleading.

If the intention was for a talk page assessment banner template, then name it and its category as such ({{Stub-Class UPittsburgh}} or similar). If not, then Delete this and create an upmerged {{Pennsylvania-university-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 01:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the UPittsburgh WikiProject already have a talk-page banner, so it was miscategorisation on the part of the creator of this template. At least it makes the discussion here simpler. Grutness...wha? 01:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator of the stub here. (via IP, since I'm on a different computer w/o password saved). If it fails the standards, then go ahead and delete it, that's fine. I was being bold and helping out a new wikiproject and trying to modify existing stub templates to help the cause. But please save your vitriol from the innocent and apparently improper stub template.
And, by the way, "Pitt" is an accurate and official alternate description of "University of Pittsburgh." For example, see WP:PITT or Image:Pitt-Script.svg or Image:PittPanthers.png or official protocol or google. "UPitt" or "U of Pitt" are never accurately used to describe the University of Pittsburgh. That would be mixing nicknames on the order of describing University of Mississippi as "U of Ole Miss." User:Shizzy9989
    • Although that is indeed an accurate alternative, stub templates tend not to use vernacular forms (which "Pitt" is, not to mention a bit ambiguous as mentioned). And don't mind Grutness -- s/he tends to sound mean when s/he's just being meticulous. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • He :) Yeah, sorry if I sounded mean. Note though that I never suggested UPitt - I suggested UPittsburgh. UPitt is every bit as confusing a name to people not from Pennsylvania as Pitt would be. As for WP:BOLD, why is it no-one ever reads the bit on that page which stresses that it's aimed mainly at articles and not at templates and categories? Or, for that matter, the bit in {{WikiProject}} that talks about proposing stub types? Ah well - I still think that following the idea from a couple of months back of working on a by-state rather than by-university basis will make for fewer tiny stub types and still be useful to groups working on articles about specific universities. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we first get the Pennsylvania--university-stub working? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:23, 2 May 2008 (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.

April 23

[edit]

Various MP categories

[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 Withdrawn, but this will still need some form of looking at later Grutness...wha?

The recent unproposed creation of {{England-MP-stub}} has led to me realisingg what a mess we've got in the various Member of Parliament stub categories. We currently have the following:

plus party-specific types:

This is, to put it bluntly, a mess. At the very least, the term "MP" needs to be expanded to "Member of Parliament" in all of the category names, per stub naming conventions; ditto the term "UK". As for the others, I'd suggest the following:

I'd actually coinsider going one stage further and having a separate category for Welsh MPs as well - they may not have had a separate parliament, but if Scottish MPs post 1707 are categorised as Scottish, it would make sense for fairness' sake.

I realise this may need splitting up into separate sfds or sfd sections, but putting it in one section will at least hopefully generate some debate on the subject. Grutness...wha? 01:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC) (on St George's day, too...)[reply]

I can't say that I see the utility of the party stubs save as a way to split an overlarge stub category and the more usual split by century or decade of birth should solve that problem. I sincerely doubt that there will be many editors interested in only the MP's of one party. {{Scotland-UK-MP-stub}} and the other Home Nation MP stubs might also be worth having to avoid having to double stub with {{Scotland-politician-stub}} and also maybe avoid the DOB split. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, there's a lot of things here that might well benefit from separation.
First point, though, is an important one. Any categorisation or stub system in this field has to accommodate the fact that there are no less than five different parliaments involved (Scotland, Ireland, England, GB, UK, plus of course the 1999-onwards Scottish Parliament), five different nations/provinces (England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, N. Ireland) and a complex collection of parties which have merged, split, changed names etc, and often straddle different countries and difft parliaments (consider the tangled history of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party. The permanent categs in this area are complex and plentiful, and have been developed over the last few years into a stable and coherent whole to accommodate over 5,000 individual articles.
The next thing is to remember that the stub categories are not intended as a permanent feature, but rather as a (hopefully transient) means way of identifying articles in need of expansion. They need to be reasonably accurate and to avoid mislabelling articles, but they also need to avoid unnecessary visual clutter. Some of the permanent category names in this field are necessarily huge (e.g. Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for Irish constituencies (1801-1922), and adding a proliferation of huge long stub-category names creates a verbosity which reduces the useability of the categories. In this area, stub category names should be brief, regardless of what the guidelines say about other circumstances.
The same goes for the names of stub templates. Complex and unwieldy template names are much harder for editors to remember and to use accurately, and the verbose they become the more likely it is that editors use the wrong ones or simply don't bother applying them.
Overall, I am very concerned that some of the proposals here appear to be designed more to fit a set of generalised guidelines than to help maintain a useable set of stub templates which do not overwhelm the articles (guidelines are not a straitjacket, and should not be used as such). I strongly disagree with the premise that the existing setup is a mess: some small tweaks may be needed, but in general it works very well.
Now onto some of the specifics.
I very strongly oppose expanding the abbreviation MP in these stub categories. MPs tend to be in a lot of categories, and expanding "MP" to "Member of Parliament" only increases the bulk of the category listing. It's unnecessary, because all MPs are already in a category which does expand the abbreviation (such as Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for English constituencies) ... and the abbreviation "MP" is already used for the party categories (e.g. Category:Labour MPs (UK), Category:Liberal MPs (UK), Category:Conservative MPs (UK)) and for the MPs-by-Parliament categories (e.g. Category:UK MPs 1900-1906 or Category:UK MPs 1974. Please look at the categorisation of some individual MPs to see how expanding the stub categories would cause unnecessary and disruptive category clutter.
The same applies equally strongly to the abbreviation UK: it is already used in many of the parent (non-stub) categories, and expanding it simply adds bulk. I know what the stub-naming conventions say, but they are conventions rather than biblical commandments, and should be applied with usual discretion reserved for conventions and guidelines. Their rigid application in this case would be disruptive to both editors and readers by adding hugely to the visual bulk and clutter of already bulky category lists. In any case, UK redirects to United Kingdom, because it is overwhelmingly the most common use of that abbreviation.
On the other points:
Finally, this all arises from one ambiguously-named stub template, {{England-MP-stub}}. I suggest that rather than trying to rebuild everything in response to that, it would be much better to simply rename that one ambiguous stub template and category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS I started writing the above before Caerwine posted, and reposted mine after an editconflict. However, I really really wish that we didn't have to consider proposals like a split by century or decade of birth. MPs are already categorised by party and by nation, which are the main ways of looking at parliament, and stub categories should follow that logic rather try to impose yet another dimension onto an already complex multi-dimensional jigsaw. At any given point in history the MPs will span 40 or 50 years in age, so age is not a useful way of looking at Parliament.
I also strongly disagree with Caerwine's suggestion that editors are unlikely to be interested in MPs of only one party. Party affiliations in the UK are much much more rigid and defining than in the USA, and editors from the United States should not presume that UK politics follows a similar model to US politics; the differences are very significant, particularly in the rigidity of UK political parties, at least from the mid-19th century onwards, and Westminster MPs are controlled by their parties to an extent unimagineable in the US Congress. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Two replies so far, and there seem to be several misperceptions of what I've suggested. Still, debate is important...

Caerwine - the stub types for the different parties already exist. I agree that a by-decade method seems on some level be more sensible, and think I mentioned that at the time of their creation. As BHG points out, though, some editors are more likely to edit articles relating to one party, so they do make sense. I am not suggesting any change in those categories other than in their naming.

BHG - I am not advocating any change whatsoever in the "-UK-" or "-MP-" names of the templates - the current names are, with the exception of the ambiguous ones - perfectly in line with stub naming conventions. With the exception of the ambiguous "England-" and "Scotland-" templates, only concerned with the renaming of the categories, which is why the majority of the templates have not been marked with sfd templates.

To answer your separate points more thoroughly (this may take some time...):

Any categorisation or stub system in this field has to accommodate the fact that there are no less than five different parliaments involved. The permanent categs in this area are complex and plentiful

I realise this - all I am suggesting is some sort of mapping of the one onto the other, and some sort of consistent naming - having one category for "England MPs" and another for "Scottish MPs" indicates the confusion in the naming, and the vastly different scopes of those two categories compounds the problems.

Overall, I am very concerned that some of the proposals here appear to be designed more to fit a set of generalised guidelines than to help maintain a useable set of stub templates which do not overwhelm the articles

I am not advocating changing the templates except in those two cases where naming is ambiguous. Most of the template names are perfectly OK - the categoriy names, however, are not.

I very strongly oppose expanding the abbreviation MP in these stub categories. Expanding "MP" to "Member of Parliament" only increases the bulk of the category listing.

I can understand that, and was not aware that the permcat names were similarly abbreviated - this must be a rare exception in the Wikipedia rules regarding abbreviations in category names. The same applies with UK, which is unambiguous enough for us to use it regularly in stub templates, though it is (other than in this instance) always expanded to its full length in stub category names. If there is no problem with these names in the permcats, then I'm reasonably happy to leave them the same in the stubcats.

Oppose changing the name of the Liberal category.

Fair enough, and I agree that a separate template would be a better idea. The random sample I took in that category must have by chance picked two of those three intersects!

Oppose renaming {{UK-MP-stub}} to Template:Post-1801 United Kingdom Member of Parliament stubs

No-one has suggested doing so, and I agree, that would be an appalling template name, and strongly against stub naming conventions. What I have suggested is changing the category name to this.

Splitting the Scottish one into Category:Pre-1707 Scottish Member of Parliament stubs and Category:Post-1707 Scottish Member of Parliament stubs may in principle be useful, but should be considered separately in discussion with Scottish editors. However, if a split is being made it seems arbitrary to split only at 1707 rather than also at 1801

How is it arbitrary? Scotland had a separate parliament prior to 1707, so the change at this point is fundamental.Similarly, if an equivalent Irish category needed splitting, 1801 would be the logical point at which to split it. Given that, I would have no objection to a proposed three-way split (pre-1707, 1707-1800, post-1801).

Category:Pre-1707 English Member of Parliament stubs is a strange choice of name, because the issue here is not that the MPs was pre-1707, but that they were a member of the pre-1707 Parliament of England rather than its successor Parliaments. If a separate stub category is created for that period, it also needs to avoid the adjective "English", because from the mid-16th century the Parliament of England included Welsh MPs

I realise that, hence my comments about a separate Welsh category. Despite this, the name of the parliament was the Parliament of England, and as such, it is the most sensible name that I can think of offfhand. Any better suggestions are welcome.

Finally, this all arises from one ambiguously-named stub template, {{England-MP-stub}}. I suggest that rather than trying to rebuild everything in response to that, it would be much better to simply rename that one ambiguous stub template and category.

It does arise because of one stub template, yes - but that template showed how confused other parts of the same system were. What I am suggesting is rebuilding the one template, but at the same time fixing the other problems which it has highlighted. Grutness...wha? 07:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created {{England-MP-stub}} and Category:England MP stubs, for pre-1707 union members of the Parliament of England, simply because I discovered that quite a number of such pre-1707 members had been wrongly tagged with {{GreatBritain-MP-stub}} or with {{UK-MP-stub}}. Just look at the text those other templates generate to see how useless they are for the articles concerned. The name was chosen on the pattern of the existing stubs and clearly is on that pattern. With all due respect to the Welsh, Wales was not a separate kingdom and was always represented in the Parliament of England. I tend to agree that English-MP-stub could mislead and confuse, but what matters more than the name is the text the template gives us, and what's said by England-MP-stub refers unambiguously to the Parliament of England. If the Welsh are being ultra sensitive, then no doubt that short text could mention them, but that doesn't seem to need discussion here.
I find the proposal to delete this new template really quite comical. So long as there is no stub which can properly be used for the pre-1707 members, it serves a useful purpose, especially if editors are starting to use unsuitable stubs because they don't know what to use. If someone can find a better name for England-MP-stub, then that's good, but we surely don't need long and complicated names for stubs, good practice is 'the simpler the better'. Indeed, perhaps {{E-MP-stub}} would be an improvement and would also sound less non-Welsh. Xn4 14:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion? The proposal is to change the name, not to delete. The name may have been chosen on an existing pattern, but without reference to the convention that the pattern must allow for possible confusion and provide an unambiguous name for the template, and provide a category name that is as much as possible in line with the permanent category name. Given that England-MP-stub covers an area of history which is not analogous to that covered by Scotland-MP-stub, it is highly logical to suggest that one or the other, or possibly both, need to be changed. Similarly, having two categories t5itled "England X" and "Scottish X" shows a cleear lack of consistency which needs to be addressed. Oh, and E-MP-stub would be fine if it was a stub type for electro-magnetic pulses, but this isn't for that subject. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. The note you left on my talk page refers to deletion, Grutness, and you started the present thread on this page, which (even if you haven't noticed) is called Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. Xn4 11:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Double-sigh. The first sentence on this page makes it clear that it is for matters relating to the deletion or renaming of stub types. Similarly, the note I left on your page said thaty it had been "nominated for deletion or renaming". This is the correct forum for a renaming of a stub template, since any such renaming is likely to entail the deletion of the original name. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest that this discussion should be closed? We are going to get lost if we try to discuss so many other issues at the same time, particularly since several of Grutness's orginal points were based on a misunderstanding.
I quite agree with the need for a stub category for for pre-1707 union members of the Parliament of England, but I think that Grutness is right to point out that the name may need to be reconsidered for clarity. It would be much clearer to have a separate discussion on whether that template and category should be renamed ... then look separately at the Scottish categories and separately at the Welsh. But trying to discus so many unrelated things together is a recipe for confusion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted in my original nomination, this proposal is largely to alert everyone to the problems and to fix what can be fixed quickly in one go. This discussion has cleared up several points and made it far easier to proceed. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have indeed clarified a lot, but when considering specific proposals, it would be clearer to address them one at a time. So far as I can see, there are three remaining issues on the label, which can now be considered separately. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this useful discussion is to be continued elsewhere, a link from here to there or else another note on my talk page would be much appreciated. Xn4 12:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly suggest these categories be renamed for consistency with the other similar stub categories. Articles are likely to have only one such category, so length isn't an issue (even, or perhaps especially, when a particular article has a multitude of "UK MP (date-date)" categories). Having abbreviations in the category names makes it hard to search for them in the list of categories and causes strange results when sorted alphabetically in the supercategory. Powers T 13:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. It's easy enough to find them in a list, by searching for " MP" (i.e. space-M-P) rather than just "mp" ... and I do think that naming a categ for convenience in a maintenance is a bad choice of priorities.
And I'm afraid it's not true that articles are likely to have only one such category. Most MP stub articles should have both a party-stub tag and a country stub tag — and sometimes more than one of each, because in the 19th century it was quite common for MPs to jump around between difft constituencies, as well as switching parties. Having recently assessed a lot of 19th century Irish MP articles, it was notable that many of them previously or subsequently represented English or Scottish constituencies. Replacing two or three short-named stub categories with huge long categories names will all a lot of unnecessary and unhelpful clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's easy enough to search for "MP" once one understands this exception to the general rule, but note that one must search for both "parliament" and "MP" when looking for a new stub category, as one doesn't know whether it's been abbreviated or not. A minor issue when couched in those terms, perhaps, but consistency is important. Powers T 14:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I see now that there's really only one category that spells out "Parliament", so perhaps my consistency argument is not as strong as I'd thought. =) Still, I only stumbled upon UK-MP-stub because it was directly above "Members of the Scottish Parliament stubs"; if I'd found zero "Parliament" results I probably would've been at a loss until I browsed down to "British politician stubs". Powers T 14:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is a good thing, but it's not the only principle to apply in these situations :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -We certainly need somethign like {{England-MP-stub}}, ideally {{GB-MP-stub}} and {{UK-MP-stub}}. If the first is misused for post-1707 English constituencies, it probably does not matter unduly. These are useful and desirable stub types for an area where WP is currently expanding. They are more specific than "politician" stubs. I came to this page as a result of using "England-MP-stub". In my view, stub type names should be brief and to the point. Excessive specificity is undesirable. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2008 (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.

April 25

[edit]

{{Osteo-med-stub}} / {{US-osteo-med-stub}} / Category:Osteopathic medicine 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 to follow the suggestion listed, since there was no objection. Wizardman 00:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Owing to some odd editing of the template, {{Osteo-med-stub}} was incorrectly moved to {{US-osteo-med-stub}}, and a new {{Osteo-med-stub}} was created in its place. This should be reversed, moving the old template back and removing the US-specific redirect this would create - there's certainly no need to start splitting this stub type by country.

At the same time, it's probably worth upmerging the template to Category:Medicine stubs - the category has existed for nine months and only contains eleven stubs, waaay below threshold. Grutness...wha? 00:50, 25 April 2008 (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.

April 26

[edit]

{{Nepali Congress stub}} / Category:Nepali Congress 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. Wizardman 17:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Unproposed, very un-convention-specific template name, no stubcat parents... and some doubt as to the way it's being used, since it seems to be being used to replace the parent permcat - the stub category has eighteen members, the permcat has only two! Even if those remaining two are also stubs, there's no way this would have the required 60 stubs for a separate category, and at 93 stubs Category:Nepalese politician stubs is nowehere near being in need of splitting. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that one has to request for a stub template first so, created it. I have requested for a permission now. About the lack of stubs, I can create hundreds of low quality stubs about the senators, martyrs and events related to this party, if required (eg- you can check the list of senators here for potential stubs. I dont believe in littering wikipedia with too many stubs which I cannot manage, so I havent created them yet. These stubs will eventually be created, even if I dont create them. So, I think it is better to have this stub type. Plus, the stub type is not just about Nepalese politicians. Nepali Congress party has led ALL three of the successful political movements of Nepal. So, it pertains to various events of history of Nepal as well. So, basically, it is not just about 60 or 93 articles. This is the first stub that I am creating here. So, I dont know much about the requirements and rules of naming. I think we would be better off making this stub meet wikipedia "rules" rather than deleting it altogether.--Eukesh (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stub types are only made when 60 or more stub articles already exist. In the same way that you don't believe in littering Wikipedia with too many stub articles, stub-sorters don't believe in littering it with more stub templates than are needed. There's no need for a separate stub type for this one party since {{Nepal-politician-stub}} can already be used for people. Any event related to the history of Nepal would currently simply get {{Nepal-stub}}, which is also not so big as to need splitting (a {{Nepal-history-stub}} might be a useful stub type to propose fairly soon). If all those possible future articles you mentioned are created, then it might become necessary for a separate (properly named) stub type to be made - but it isn't needed now. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest a renaming like {{Nepali-Congress-politician-stub}}, and the creation similar stubs for Maoist and UML politicians. There is a process of creating individual articles on all 601 Constituent Assembly members (110 NC articles). --Soman (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since we are in a process of having at least 110 articles related to the topic under consideration, I think that the stub type should stay (rather than being deleted and re-created). However, I think the name Nepalese Congress stub should stay as the stub is supposed to be used not only for articles about politicians but also for articles about sister organizations like Nepalese Woman Organization, Nepalese Student's Union, Nepalese Youth Organization and other articles such as lists related to election results and stuffs. Also, I think creation of stub category of other political parties is necessary. (I wanted to create them myself but could not find a picture to represent only UML and Maoist party and not communism en bloc). Thank you.--Eukesh (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike permanent categories, which can be created for a few articles for the purpose of structure, stub categories are created by numerical necessity - when there are at least 60 articles they could hold AND when the parent stub category is over 5 pages or so. There are 510 articles under Category:Politics of Nepal, 267 of which are Category:Nepalese politician stubs. There are currently only 51 articles under Category:Political parties in Nepal, including all Nepalese political parties, so clearly there is not a numerical need for this type. Please do not take this personally; continue work on the articles you plan to add, and return to propose these types when they have 60 articles to tag. Delete. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:54, 18 May 2008 (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.

April 30

[edit]

{{Casino-videogame-stub}} / Category:Casino video games 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; misnamed (pluralised) category is very small and has no stubcat parents. Given that the permcat parent has only 15 articles, this is not liukely to come close to the threshold for a separate stub category, and since there are fewer than 200 unsubcategorised video game stubs there is no need for a further split at the moment. Delete the category, no opinion as to whether upmerge orr delete would be the better option for the template. Grutness...wha? 03:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of policy. I'm all for some kind of merge here, so long as it makes sense. Lifeisrill (talk) 07:20, 30 April 2008 (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.

{{Life-simulation-game-stub}} / Category:Life simulation game 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


As above, created by the same editor. A bit larger, and with more potential, though the category is still only about 40 stubs and the apparent (but unlisted) parent stubcat (Category:Simulation video game stubs) is hardly oversized. Delete the category, upmerge the template - and perhaps rename it to {{Life-simulation-videogame-stub}} to reflect its contents. Grutness...wha? 03:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I know it's only at about 40 articles, but give it time. There's a substantial amount of life simulation games out there and a lot of stubs. I wouldn't consider "simulation video game" to be a parent either. It's complicated, but let's just say that the simulation game category is full of all kinds of games making it impossible for most editors to work through them. You have first person shooters, card games, and sports games thrown in there simply because they have some element of realism. Drawing out life simulation games creates a more manageable stub class because all the stubs actually have some relationship to one another. Lifeisrill (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2008 (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/2008/April&oldid=209376850"