Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 2

[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 as problematical name and unlikely split


[edit]

Yup, that's right. My guess is it was intended to be a bit of fun on a user's own page, but it's already been used on an article (where it's clearly likely to be regarded as inflammatory). I've no objection to the creator of this subst'ing it onto his user page before deletion, but it should most definitely be deleted in its present form. Could just about be speedied as an attack template. Grutness...wha? 10:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not intended as fun or a joke. A geek is a legitimate term, and there are stubs that are of interest to people interested in geek-related topics. Kingturtle (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a legitimate term, but check out that article Geek - especially such things as the multitude of different uses the term has ("...there is no longer a definitive modern meaning"). Grutness...wha? 23:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It is redlink because I am not well-versed in how to create categories. Kingturtle (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. I have never created a stub before, and I did not know there was an involved process for approval. I was being bold and also unaware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. Next time I'll certainly make a proposal first. Lastly, I don't see at all how this stub notice could be offensive. Kingturtle (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, from geek: "...being described as a geek tends to be an insult..." and "...the derogatory definition of geeks remains that of a person engrossed in his area of interest at the cost of social skills, personal hygiene and status."" Also please note that "Be bold" primarily applies to article editing rather than template editing (see Wikipedia:BOLD#Non-article namespaces). Grutness...wha? 23:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I don't see it as being offensive, it's definitely a POV categorization. There is no corresponding permanent category, and if there were, I doubt it would survive CFD because geekness is not objectively determinable. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Caerwine & more to the point, the unlikelihood of this type reaching threshold. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is threshold here? Kingturtle (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
60 as per all such stub types. See WP:STUB. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hugely problematic. See Category:Geeks. Delete. Alai (talk) 02:04, 4 February 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


[edit]

Before you say it, yes, this is a stub template, despite its name. Fails stub standards on numerous grounds, not least of which the name, which, for Persian rap, would be Persian-rap-stub. Only it wouldn't be, since music is not divided by language but by country of origin, so it would most likely be Iran-rap-stub. And even then, country of origin is a secondary split mainly used for musicians (songs being split by genre then by decade). Currently unused, and given the number of rap stubs overall and the number of these which are Persian, I'd say the chances of this getting any use at all are very close to nil. Delete. Grutness...wha? 10:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually the name would be {{Iran-hiphop-stub}}, but we don't even have a {{Asia-hiphop-stub}} or an {{Iran-music-stub}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Untold delete. Alai (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a badly formulated stub template. Even if it had the correct name, though, it would be deletable. How many stub articles on Iranian rap does Wikipedia have anyway? Not enough to warrant a stub category. Bart133 (t) (c)
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.

February 3

[edit]

Basketball stub templates

[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, keep redirects


I suggest we rename the templates with {{foo-basketball-stub}}, for clarity and for ease of guessing at the template form for editors less steeped in stub-ism than I. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support for this change. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Probably worth keeping the current names as redirects, for now at least. Grutness...wha? 23:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move, keep redirects. (At least at this time.) Alai (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Def a local term issue. MBisanz talk 23:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the original creator of the "hoops" idea, I VERY strongly support the changes. I was a dumb Wikipedian back then. :) — Dale Arnett (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. "hoops" is vague. There's no reason not to be specific, and change it to "basketball". Brianreading (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, I never liked "hoops", it's too idiosyncratic. GregorB (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, -rename to basetball. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:18, 23 February 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.

February 5

[edit]

{{Glass-stub}} / Category:Glass 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 split into three doubly-upmerged templates, keeping base template and cat for anything that doesn't fit


Unproposed, and seems to be vague and hierarchy-crossingly ambiguous. The icon implies its for types of drinking glasses, the three items in the category are tools used in glass production. Given the scope of the article Glass, it could cover a very very broad area, almost all of which is currently effectively covered in narrower/more focussed stub categories. Despite this, there's also no guarantee that this would get close to threshold. I'd suggest upmerging, but the breadth of the template's scope makes that difficult, to say the least. Delete. PS - if kept, the category will need better parents. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary so far - this cuts across various categories, but the categories it cuts across are fairly vague in their scope as far as glass is concerned. Any chance on some more comments for possible consensus on this?

One possible solution which might be acceptable is to expand rather than upmerge this - create separate glass-art-stub, glass-material-stub and glass-engineering-stub templates, each of them doubly-upmerged to Glass stubs and to Decorative arts stubs, Materials stubs and Engineering stubs respectively, leaving anything that doesn't fit as a plain glass-stub. That would allow for a viable Category:Glass stubs while still having the stubs in other related categories. Any thoughts? Grutness...wha? 23:36, 17 March 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.

February 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


{{BaseballStub}}

[edit]

No articles use this stub temp. It has been around since 2005. It should be deleted. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the template, it doesn't appear to be a stub template in the sense we usually mean a stub template. Rather, it's a substitutable template for creating a stub article about a minor league baseball team. It started out as a copy of User talk:Vikreykja/BaseballStub but has been altered. Userfy if any of the editors who have edited this version want it, or simply delete. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's in use at all as a stub-creation template, then renaming it 9and losing the redirect) might be reasonable. But if it's unused, the deletion is probably the simpler option. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC) (PS - thanks for closing the tfD discussion!)[reply]
  • Delete - Since articles or stubs have now been created for almost all current minor league baseball teams (and the template doesn't address defunct historical teams), it's not likely that there would be any use for this template in the foreseeable future. BRMo (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can always be copied from an existing team if format is needed. MBisanz talk 23:43, 7 February 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 keep. Looks like this hierarchy is staying where it is


{{footy-stub}}, and other templates in hierarchy

[edit]

OK, call me crazy [pause for public comment] but I have been long frustrated by the use of "footy" in the association football/soccer templates. After a brief study of the articles on the topic, I wonder if there's any chance we could agree on a renaming. assoc-football-stub? soccer-stub? Any ideas? Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you're crazy. <rimshot> I'll certainly agree that it is not a usage friendly to American English. However since the dictionary definition of footy is "poor; worthless; paltry", I think it does serve as an accurate description. Seriously though, is soccer so throughly disliked by the Anglo-centric among us that it can't be used in preference to the slang term "footy" which I had never heard of until coming across it here? Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One further comment. The use of footy as a substitute for football is not just for soccer but also Australian rules football. Not only that but there is a popular class of radio controlled model sail boats that boasts the name. All three show up on the first page of Google searches for "footy". Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, yes, it is. Expect an angry mob of Anglo-centric peasants with torches here presently. Alai (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually hopeful that they think "soccer" a monster, since it was Frankenstein's monster and not the torch wielding peasants who ultimately prevailed. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For reference - these stub types were previously nominated for renaming in April 2006, the archived discussion of which is here Nanonic (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not just Aussie rules, either - here in NZ rugby union is often called footy (indeed there's a tv sports programme ccalled "The footy show" which deals with that sport). I think that soccer, disliked though it is by purists, is possibly the only word which instantly disambiguates the sport from other sports, so - though I generally dislike the term - I can see that moving all of these templates would be a reasonable move. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the word "footy" does not even appear in the article text these stubs appear on, footy is just shorthand, it makes it easier than writing out {{Argentina-Association-footballbio-stub}} instead of the shorter {{Argentina-footybio-stub}} which leaves the text This biographical article related to Argentine football is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. I really can't see how moving all instances of these templates to some other name could constitute good use of time and resources. King of the NorthEast 08:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be helpful to those of us (and there are many) who had never heard of the term and tried to tag articles with "soccer-stub" only to find there was no such thing. The word "footy" is not intuitive; for the same reason we have recently renamed the basketball stub templates from "hoops" to "basketball". Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Umm.. {{soccer-stub}} has been a redirect to footy-stub since November 2005. Nanonic (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bots can take care of the moving and keeping the stubs at "footy" makes zero sense because of the ambiguity in the name. If footy were used only for the round ball variety of football, I could see keeping the provincial shorthand, but that isn't the case. Whether *-footy-* becomes *-soccer-* or *-Associationfootball-* doesn't matter to me, but both have an advantage that *-footy-* will never have, that of being unambiguously about the version of football governed by the IFAB. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One further remark, when we make the change keep {{footy-stub}} as a redirect to the similarly ambiguous {{football-stub}} that exists solely to give chauvinists who insist that their version of football is tne one true football a target for their stub efforts. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indifferent mainly because the other sports that may use "footy" already have their own stub types and I haven't come across any instances of confusion arising from editors who've placed the wrong one on an article. I would prefer *-associationfootball-* if these do get moved, purely to avoid all the "it's football" - "not in my country it isn't" - "I live in the same country and it is" - "ok well not in my state it isn't" arguments that we're still having over the name. Adopting the term that no-one seems to use strikes me as wise in the long-run. Of course, it's a long stub name which may annoy those who prefer shorter ones, such as {{Amfoot-bio-stub}} instead of {{Americanfootball-bio-stub}}, no doubt some wag will propose {{Assfoot-bio-stub}} at some point. Nanonic (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Why should we require total disambiguation with internal titles, which are never seen in the article text itself? For every person who types "soccer-stub" before realizing it's actually at "footy-stub", there are probably ten people who have become used to typing "footy-stub" for years. There are plenty of arcane stub template names, and this is not one of the more strange ones - after all I've never heard "footy" used in any context other than to refer to association football. And quite frankly, considering that the majority of the world uses "football" in this sense, and an even greater majority would never use "footy" or "footballer" in any other sense, what's the need for this move? My policy with moves, especially outside the article space, is that if there is no compelling reason to change the status quo (a compelling reason would be a spelling error or naming convention error, in 99% of cases), then why bother? ugen64 (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that "footy" is a slang word, like "hoops", which we also have revised for reasons of clarity. I'm not advocating "soccer-stub", just suggesting we find something more accurate linguistically. Her Pegship (tis herself) 02:20, 12 February 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.

February 7

[edit]

Several Texas city 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 rename categories - relist templates for potential renaming


Rename to reduce ambiguity, fit the normal category naming conventions, and match parents Category:Austin, Texas, Category:Dallas, Texas, and Category:Houston, Texas. - Dravecky (talk) 05:20, 8 February 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.

{{Kosova-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 turned into fully-formed kosovo-geo-stub, kosova form then deleted. Not yet at threshold for separate category, but closing in


And so it goes again. Every time Kosovo gets close to independence, another group of Kosovo stub types appear. At present there are several, all redirects to Euro- or Serbia- equivalents. And all except this unproposed, newly created one, use "Kosovo", as is neutral and in keeping with the idea of noun forms. This one, however, does not. Given that there's already an acceptable redirect at {{Kosovo-geo-stub}} and also given the potential fractiousness of the term Kosova, this one should be deleted, speedily by precedent if possible. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If Kosovo were an independent state, we'd have at least an upmerged template, and a category if numbers indicated it; if Kosovo were an autonomous province of Serbia, we'd have at least an upmerged template, and a category if numbers indicated it. Alternative spellings are generally cause for redirects. So I'd favour redirecting this to {{Kosovo-geo-stub}}, turning that into a full-fledged template (rather than a redirect), populating it, and if it's over threshold, creating a dual-parented category. By the same token, if it doesn't, the template should itself be double-upmerged. Alai (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You miss the point of the name, Alai - Kosova is the Albanian name for Kosovo, and is one likely to cause offence to some people in the region. It's a bit like using the term "Rhodesia" to apply to modern Zimbabwe, or (dare I say it) "Danzig" to apply to Gdansk - for that reason, keeping it as a redirect is unwise, to say the least. As to the redirection of Kosovo-X-stub to the Euro-X-stub equivalents, that was done because of persistent editwarring over the templates. The only way that could easily be fixed is to make them into upmerged templates (or templates with categories) then preemptively protecting them from editing until such times that the area gets independence. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 10 February 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.

Various Chinese sports bio templates

[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 templates


Hi all - I've just noticed that several Chinese stub types designated (if the icons are anything to go by) for China PR simply use the word "China-" in their template names, wheras I'm pretty sure that ChinaPR- is standard. I'd like to nominate the following for renaming (with no preference for keeping/discarding the redirect), and suggest we may need to keep an eye out for others:

I've no objection to the use of the term China- when it's clearly for items which have a shared history between the Chinas, but unless I'm much mistaken in these cases that seems a little dubious. If these stub types are intended for both Chinas, then the icons definitely need changing, too! Grutness...wha? 02:01, 7 February 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.

{{Childrens-book-series-stub}} / Category:Children's book series 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 author request. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN round of applause 19:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unproposed, misnamed, and with no apparent likelihood of reaching threshold - indeed there is no parent category Category:Children's book series to check for numbers. Only used once. Other stub types for children's books all use the form {{Child-x-stub}}, thereby avoiding problems with the apostrophe (among other reasons), so if the template is kept it should be renamed. Given the lack of a parent category, though, it seems unnecessary to keep it. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Category:Series of children's books would be the parent.) So far there are only {{child-book-stub}}, {{child-lit-stub}}, and {{child-novel-stub}}, and a series stub isn't the next most needed (that would be {{child-picture-book-stub}} or {{child-nonfiction-book-stub}}). Delete. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:28, 8 February 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.

February 9

[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 and upmerge. Again.


Two undersized state school stub cats

[edit]

Whilst going through the state school stub cats to verify that what we should have on the stub list, I came across these two which are undersized. Suggest reupmerging them to their parents again, as this isn't the first time either of these was created too soon. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:32, 9 February 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.

February 11

[edit]

{{CAsia-studies-stub}} / Category:Central Asian studies 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 - to be honest - a peculiar one. At first glance, it's difficult to see how this would be different from a CAsia-stub, and it's only on closer look that it becomes clear that this is being used as a bio-stub type, mostly for academics whose area of expertise is Central Asia. As such, it cuts across such stub types as historian-stub, academic-stub, and their subtypes. Most of the few non bio-stubs this could take would naturally belong in the longstanding Category:Central Asian history stubs. It's worth noting that the parent permcat (Category:Central Asian studies) has fewer than 10 non-bio articles, and all of those, if stubs, would be well covered by the above combination. As to the parent stubcat, remerging this would leave it with a barely viable 65 stubs - definitely too few to even contemplate splitting. Delete. Grutness...wha? 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this caught anyone by surprise. My thought was that a lot of the stubs in question had been previously Central Asian history stubs, which seemed inaccurate. I felt it would be helpful to have a distinction between articles/stubs about Central Asia history as opposed to those who study that history (but aren't really part of it themselves). As for the limited number of articles at the moment, the idea was that more articles would be created (there are quite of number of articles, including non-bio articles, which can be created on the subject). I was simply trying to make things more organized. As for the unproposed, guilty as charged (pleading ignorance - I've now discovered and read about the proposing process). If it really bothers people, I won't fight deletion, but knowing which Central Asia studies articles are stubs (as opposed to just throwing them into the mass of history stubs) seems helpful to me. That was all. Otebig (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting historians by subject area as well as by their nationality strikes me as a good thing, but there hadn't been a good idea for how to make the stubs distinct from the *-historian-stub series. Merging them into a *-series-stub series of templates might work. However, it does seem that there are too few at present identified for a CAsia-studies at present, but upmerging Category:Central Asian studies stubs to a new {{Asia-studies-stub}} / Category:Asia studies stubs seems quite viable, keeping the existing {{CAsia-studies-stub}} as an upmerged template feeding into both Category:Asia studies stubs and Category:Central Asia stubs. {{Europe-studies-stub}} and {{Africa-studies-stub}} would also seem worthwhile. The Americas would prove a problem from the usual viewpoint of stub sorting, as the split there is clearly Latin America / Anglo America instead of our usual North America / South America, but a {{US-studies-stub}} / Category:American studies stubs would handle most of the distinction, leaving the remainder of the Americas to wait for now in an Category:Area studies stubs that would be the logical parent of all these stubs. Consider all the above to be a comment for now. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds plausible, though it does keep the problem as to whether it relates to people or other things. Most non bio-stub types can already be covered by other things (area history stubs, area politics stubs, and the like), and "X studies stubs" doesn't make it clear that it is being used primarily for people. The idea is a reasonable one, but it would need some tinkering with to name it, and unfortunately there is no such word as "Centralasiaologist". Perhaps rather than X-studies-stub, an X-scholar-stub for scholars concerned with particular regions would be a practical solution? Grutness...wha? 23:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still being a stub novice, I'm not quite sure what to do next -- should I propose a Central Asia-scholar-stub? Otebig (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just started debate on a range of scholar-stub types on the proposal page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2008/February#Scholar-stub_types - feel free to add any comments there. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Central Asian studies stubs. I think a Central Asian studies stub section makes much more sense than merging Central Asia into general historians or into Asian studies. Asia is larger on the map than Europe and the Americas combined and dividing it into regions only makes sense. There are a fair number of journals of Central Asian themes being published and it's a growing field of study, so keeping it separate is the right idea. Also, many academic departments combine Central Asia with Russia because of the historical connections, and lumping Central Asia with "Asian nations", whether it be China, Japan or S.E. Asia doesn't make much sense because the Central Asian states share more in common culturally, religiously and linguistically with the Middle East than they do with Asian nations. Central Asia is a distinct region, so let's keep it a distinct category.David Straub (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um... have you read all of the comments above? If so, which stubs do you think - other than the bio stubs, types for which have been proposed to replace this - wouldn't fit more naturally into the current Central Asian history, Central Asian geography, Central Asian politics, or general Central Asian stub types? Grutness...wha? 05:07, 14 February 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.

February 12

[edit]

Category:Medical Book stubs / {{medical-book-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


Moved from CFD; not sure if there are enough items for it, but it need renaming at least. Someone created it today and even placed the {{WPSS-cat}} banner on it, despite its not having been proposed. Whaddaya think? Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • rename and upmerge as {{med-book-stub}}, deleting current template name. If it reaches threshold by the end of the process period, then keep the category but renames with lower case B. I'd just found this on my daily trawl through newpages/templates and was about to bring it here, but looks like you beat me to it :) I've put a notice on the creator's page, BTW. Grutness...wha? 04:33, 12 February 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.

February 14

[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 template upmerged; category deleted


Category:Algerian film stubs

[edit]

This and its associated template, {{Algeria-film-stub}} were both created unproposed a few hours ago. I've no-objection to an upmerged Algeria-film-stub template, but given that the parent permcat Category:Algerian films has only ten articles, it seems somewhat unlikely that there would be the required 60 existing stubs for a category. Delete category, and upmerge template to Category:African film stubs Grutness...wha? 00:29, 14 February 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


Category:Mobile Stub

[edit]

There is no template, and the name should not be capitalized. I falls under Category:Wireless stubs {{Wireless-stub}}, which for some reason includes the stubs in Category:Mobile. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 10:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. BTW, I've also suggested a rename of the parent category at CfD - my initial thought was this was a subtype of Alabama-geo-stub. I don't know enough about the subject to know whether "mobile" and "wireless" are identical or whether one has a larger scope than the other, but I'm fairly sure that either the stubs in this category (all three of them!) would accept wireless-stub as it is at present, or wireless-stub could be upscoped slightly to accept them. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:46, 22 February 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.

February 17

[edit]

{{Frasier-stub}} / Category:Frasier 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


Thought I'd pick some easier ones today. This one has had 2 articles since March 2007, and the parent contains 5 articles and 7 infoboxes. The other sub-cats are for episodes or characters, each of which have their own types, and lastly, I think we only have series-specific types for really behemoth franchises like Doctor Who and Star Trek. Delete, please. Her Pegship (tis herself) 02:19, 17 February 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.

{{BRoy-stub}} / Category:British royalty 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 reverse redirect, delete


Apparently {{UK-royal-stub}} redirects to this template, but the category page says to use {{UK-royal-stub}}. On the Discoveries page, it's noted that the associated WP uses "BRoy", so I assume this was a well-meant slip. I suggest we reverse the redirect, and possible delete {{BRoy-stub}} as well. Her Pegship (tis herself) 02:19, 17 February 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.

{{AquaticInvert-stub}} / Category:Aquatic Invertebrate 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


The template was originally nominated back on January 21 but since then the creator removed the notice and added a category that also violates the naming guidelines. Relisting here for deletion as it has only 4 tagged articles, cuts across existing stub categories, and has bad names for both the template and the category. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What do you mean? If you check my talk page, the issue was resolved. And, it has already proved useful. Let's say there's a stub on an invertebrate, and it lives underwater. Then let's say there's an invertebrate on land. Using that stub template, you can differentiate between the two. Jourdy288 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me address the points I raised individually.
      1. It does not follow the naming guidelines for stub types. If this stub followed the the naming guidelines, it would be something like {{aquatic-invertebrate-stub}} / Category:Aquatic invertebrate stubs.
      2. It is undersized. Stub types should generally have at a minimum 60 stubs, which is reduced to a minimum of 30 stubs, but at present it only has 7 stubs.
      3. Finally, there's the fact that Wikipedia categorizes organisms primarily by their taxonomy and not by the type of habitat they live in. Habitat is a distinctly secondary scheme.
      Sorting by habitat might have proved a useful tool for splitting the invertebrate stubs if we had exhausted the possibilities of taxonomy, but we hadn't. Indeed, Invertebrate stubs itself is a rather poor grouping given that about 97% of all animals are invertebrates. At least you can rest assured that your effort has spurred this project towards developing stub templates for each phylum. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as this area is covered by various other stub types. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, due to the fact that it still has use, as, stubs I marked with it have been appropriateley changed, as in all those echinoderm stubs I marked with my stub, are now changed to echinoderm stub. Again, I say keep, as it is still much more descriptive and draws a major line.

Jourdy288 (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Further, howether, I notice your point on renaming, and I agree.

Jourdy288 (talk) 17:59, 27 February 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.

February 19

[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


Category:Polish artists stubs → Category:Polish artist stubs

[edit]

This should have been caught during the recent proposal, but wasn't. Hopefully this can be speedied. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:43, 19 February 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.

February 21

[edit]

{{SA-composer-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


SA is ambiguous, but in this case is supposed to be South America and not South Africa or any other SA meaning. Rename to {{SouthAm-composer-stub}} to match the naming guidelines. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:35, 21 February 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.

{{SW-org-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


Seems to be some confusion here. This is an unproposed stub template, but it leads into a Stub-Class category. If the intention was to create a Stub-Class template then this should be renamed to something like {{Stub-Class SW-org}}, but if so, something's definitely wrong, since the appearance of the template is also that of a stub template. There's also the problem that it says it's for "a social work concept or organisation", yet there's no way that a concept should get anby form of org-stub. If the aim was to create an actual stub template, then it needs a category or to be upmerged properly, and it also needs a less ambiguous name ({{Socialwork-stub}} or similar). However, I'm not really sure how much call there'd be for a template like that, and given that we'd need to start over from the top with this it would probably be simpler to delete it and (re-)propose it from scratch. Grutness...wha? 12:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with deletion. I will research the need some more and make a proposal in the near future if this seems like a good process. My intent was to bring more attention to these stub articles regarding subjects that I think the encyclopedia really needs. However, I was obviously confused. Sorry about my screw up. I hope this did not cause too much disruption. Ursasapien (talk) 05:14, 22 February 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.

{{Rabinical-bio-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 as rabbi-stub


Unproposed and entirely redundant with the long-standing {{Judaism-bio-stub}}. And rabbinical usually has two "b"s. Delete. Grutness...wha? 12:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template should be kept. It is not redundant with {{Judaism-bio-stub}} because that template can refer to any jewish personality and not specifically rabbis.Nerguy (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make clear one point {{Judaism-bio-stub}} is for people who are notable specifically because of some contribution they made to their religion, not just simply because they are a Jew who may be notable for other reasons. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to renaming to {{rabbi-stub}}. The naming guidelines prefer using nouns over adjectives, and furthermore they also prefer correct spelling, so it needs renaming at a minimum in any event. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want it renamed as {{rabbi-stub}}, that is reasonable. Also, not all people who contribute to the Jewish religion are rabbis. Many are lay leaders.Nerguy (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Rabbi-stub}} sounds fair to me as well. Your point about lay leaders makes sense. Caerwine's point is worth noting re Judaism-bio-stub being specifically for people most notable for their religious work, though. Grutness...wha? 23:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lay leaders can also do some religious work. Nerguy (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't make them Rabbi's
More to the point, a reli-bio-stub of any kind is for people whose primary notability is for their religious work. That will not necessarily be true for all lay leaders, though it will be for many. A Rabbi-stub would be specifically for people who have been ordained. Grutness...wha? 22:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Grutness and it just should be renamed.Nerguy (talk) 03:14, 27 February 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.

{{Uic-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 replace witha stub type for all Illinois university stubs


Unproposed, and without even a redlinked category. There is no such thing as a uic - there are several UICs, however and this stub type seems to be intended for one of them, the University of Illinois in Chicago. University are usually divided by state, not by individual university (and certainly not for individual campus!), and this is hardly likely to reach the required splittability threshold (it currently is used on two articles). Delete, or rescope to cover all universities in Illinois, or at the very least the whole of the University of Illinois. Grutness...wha? 12:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong - it had two noincluded category links - a permcat and a redlink Category:UIC stubs. Grutness...wha? 12:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not proposing it. It should indeed be on more pages; however, I was working on that. However, if you are proposing to also eliminate the UIUC-stub in favor of stub for the entire University of Illinois system, then I suppose that would also be fine. But as is, the UIUC-stub is not useful for anything relating the the University of Illinois at Chicago. What is done for the University of California at Berkeley versus the University of California at Los Angeles? And is that perceived as a model to be followed?--Cumulant (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What UIUC-stub??? Erg - another one never proposed. Sigh...that also goes on the SFD list. As for California, its universities all use {{California-university-stub}}. There is no UCLA-stub or UCB-stub (let alone Ucla-stub or Ucb-stub) - and yes, the state-university-stub formulation is the perceived model to be followed. Henc e my original suggestion that this be rescoped to cover all universities in illinois. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 25 February 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.

February 25

[edit]

{{Uiuc-stub}} / Category:UIUC 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 replace witha stub type for all Illinois university stubs


Discovered belatedly through discussion on Uic-stub, below, this was was never proposed, was incorrectly formatted (fixed), and has not got halfway to threshold even after 20 months in existence. There seems to be a bit of a mix-n-match going on with US university stubs overall, but most of them use state-university-stub as their form (which keeps them in line with other splits of US stubs). Suggest renaming/rescopinging this into a new {{Illinois-university-stub}}, either upmerged or - if numbers are sufficient - along with Category:Illinois university stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would support merging this stub category into "university in Illinois" or similar, per nom. Otherwise, it should not be deleted because the stub type should be specific, and it's used on 20 or so articles. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:17, 11 March 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.

{{Alien-stub}} / Category:Alien 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 to Alien-sf-stub, upmerge to Science fiction stubs, delete Alien stubs
Where to start? Unproposed. Unused. There is no Category:Aliens or Category:Alien. Ambiguous name (illegal aliens? no. Extraterrestrials? no. The Alien fim series? yes). Even being lenient and adding in the Predator categories to the Alien series category (Category:Alien (film series)), yields only some 75 articles (difficult to count for certain, given the cross-categorisation of items in both parent and child categories). It would take nearly half of them to be stubs for this to reach threshold even with a WikiProject. Currently effectively handled by various film-, sf-, and videogame- stub types. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created this one, as part of the construction of Wikiproject Alien which I'm still working on and based off another WikiProject. I wasn't familiar with the proposals process or the threshold requirement. Unfortunately I would guestimate that a good deal of the Alien and Predator-related articles are in fact stubs (which is why I'm launching the project), so I could see it being used quite a bit, but if you feel it is better handled by other stub types then so be it. If you have further guidance for me on the project I've undertaken, please go ahead and message me on my talk page. I'm using the "learn by doing" method so I need all the coaching I can get. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the categories you mention don't exist yet because I'm still constructing them. Once they're created I'd planned to start placing project tags and stub tags on the articles that require them. The fact that the stub type is unused and uncategorized currently is because I only created it yesterday. I'm still deferring to your experience on the matter, I just wanted to address those specific points. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point about those categories is that they shouldn't exist. The correct category for the Alien film series already exists (Category:Alien (film series)). Any category simply called Category:Aliens or Category:Alien would be a deletion candidate due to its ambiguity - too many things have those names and Alien is a disambiguation page. For the same reason, there should not be a category called Category:Alien stubs, not a template called {{Alien-stub}}. If kept, this would need to be renamed to {{Alien-film-stub}} / Category:Alien (film series) stubs or similar, though I would still question the need for it at all. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your points about the disambiguation of the category. I think the confusion there is that it doesn't just cover the film series, but also comics, video games, and other media. The primary media is of course the film series, but I'm hoping to move/expand Alien (film series) into something more like Star Wars as sort of the parent article for the project, so that it includes discussions of those other media. Similarly my hope is to rename Category:Alien (film series) into something more inclusive of the franchise as a whole and its various media. The problem is settling on a proper disambiguation, since "alien" applies to so many things unrelated to the franchise (Alien (fiction series) maybe?). I've started assessing, sorting, and tagging articles withing the project and have tagged about 65 stubs so far. So my preferred course of action would be to rename the categories and stub to make it all fall under a uniform umbrella term. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps {{Alien-media-stub}} might be more clear, and would not be limited to just the films. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 02:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since stub categories follow permanent category names for the most party, your best course of action would be to try to change the permcat name at WP:CFD before making any stub categories. You may have problems though, since the term "Alien" is so ambiguous. Perhaps suggesting something like "Alien (entertainment franchise)" or similar might work, but I'm sure someone at CFD would be able to suggest better alternatives. In any case, starting with the stub category is definitely putting the cart before the horse. Grutness...wha? 00:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we reach a conclusion on this? Currently it seems there isn't a consensus, as I (the creator) would like to keep the stub type as it is useful for Wikiproject Alien, and 2 other editors (Grutnes & Pegship) would like to delete it. As stated there are currently 63 articles that use the template, and the threshold for inclusion is 50 according to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion#Possible reasons for the deletion of a stub type. I don't believe it meets any of the 6 reasons for deletion listed in that section. I defer to the experience of other editors here, as this is my first attempt at working with stub types, and I will not be upset if the conclusion is to delete. However, given that it has been almost 3 months since the deletion proposal was made and there have only been 3 voiced opinions with no apparent consensus, I believe the logical conclusion should be no consensus and a default to keep. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If we do keep this stub type, it still needs a new format in order to distinguish it from articles about little green wo/men. :P Any ideas? Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I propose a No consensus because this SfD has lasted 3 months now and there still isn't any clear majority. 2/3 for delete isn't a large enough group of people, so either the nom get more supporters, or no consensus DA PIE EATER (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd oppose that. "No consensus" is generally not used at SfD (the usual process is relisting or simply leaving here until things become clear), and this particular sfd was held up for a considerable time due to changes to the permcats. I agree with Pegship's comment move to delete, given that the only opposition to deleting came from the creator of the stub type. The stub type still does not agree in naming with the permanent category, and the presence of assessment articles now makes this stub type redundant. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New proposal
[edit]

Given that this is hanging around here as a deadlock at the moment, I'd like to propose the following:

Of the two category choices, I'd favour the latter, since currently there are far too few articles for a separate stub category (24), even with the presence of a WikiProject. Given that the WikiProject has its own assessment template, it is unlikely to disadvantage them any either way. Grutness...wha? 09:08, 14 June 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.

February 29

[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 renamed to non-stub name, redirect deleted


{{Church-directory-stub}}/ redlink/ {{Church-directory-dev}}

[edit]

This one's a really strange one. unproposed, and - according to its text - for lists "of Christian church bodies or Christian denominations (not Church buildings)". All articles on these subjects are currently well-covered by other stub types. Lists aren't, because - by definition - lists aren't stubs (they usually get {{listdev}} rather than stub templates). There is, of course, no permanent parent Category:Church directories - instead, there's an equally strange Category:Find a Christian church, which is heading to WP:CFD in a moment or two. Delete as unsalvageable. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say a prayer for it before burying it. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - I have changed the name (Template:Church-directory-dev)and format to reflect the {{listdev}} template as stated above. This template is need so folks understand it is a directory of Christian church bodies or Christian denominations-- not church buildings). --Carlaude (talk) 04:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We still need to delete the redirect left behind by the move, but since the creator agrees and has depopulated the old name, this should be speediable hopefully. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close enough for jazz. Thanks Carlaude. Grutness...wha? 23:26, 29 February 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/February&oldid=195012875"