Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/April
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
April 25
[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. The original title is more gramatical and sounds better. However consensus says that consistency is more important. Until the time when all these can be changed, the category should be renamed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per naming conventions to match {{Scotland-school-stub}} and the other UK school stub categories. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support, with extension to other possible similar categories. This one's a bit of a problem by the looks of it. A lot countries use the adjectival form for the categories ("Canadian school stubs", "Australian school stubs", etc) - the ratio's about 3 to 2 in favour of them. It seems to be mainly the European ones that don't, for some reason. I'd suggest either changing all the European (which are in Category:European school stubs, not Category:Europe schools stubs, note) and similar ones to the adjectival form or changing all of them to the noun form. I'm swayed towards the idea of using noun form for them all, simply because of the possible confusion between nationality and language (is an English school one in England, or one that teaches English? What about a Japanese school?) Whatever happens, there needs to be some kind of uniformity, so it's either change all of the countries to adjectival form or change them all to noun form. In either case, subnational regions should be left in the noun form and the UK and US ones should be at "United Kingdom" and "United States" (as is standard practice for stub types). The template matter is irrelevant, BTW, all stub templates should be in the noun form. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. No such convention; precedents highly mixed; proposed name is extremely clumsy and goes against all normal English usage and category naming. Alai (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know we tend to disagree on which way these things should be named, but surely some form of uniformity is desirable with these? Grutness...wha? 01:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support to match similar categories in Category:United Kingdom school stubs, specifically Category:Northern Ireland school stubs and Category:Wales school stubs, and to avoid confusion surrounding whether "Scottish" denotes location or language. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 06:15, 19 June 2009 (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 21
[edit]{{Toponymy-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
Unused stub template, created by sockpuppet of blocked user. The template was used on Stand, Greater Manchester but was removed by another user, and the category was never created. —Snigbrook 13:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, and per my comments when I brought this one to WP:WSS/D a few months back. Surprised to discover the creator of it was blocked, but you live and learn... Grutness...wha? 23:57, 21 April 2009 (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 19
[edit]Spanish geography stub types
[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 variously upmerge' and rename, per nom'
Despite being told several times over the past year and a half when he caused various problems for stub-sorting, that stub types have certain standards and that the naming, creation, and upkeep of them has to meet certain criteria, User:Satesclop has recently been creating and modifying a considerable number of templates. New ones in the last few days - apart from the Ceuta and Melilla ones mentioned yesterday - include the following problematical templates and categories:
- {{BalearicIslands-geo-stub}}/Category:Balearic Islands geography stubs - will almost certainly need upmerging, and the template should
probablydefinitely be at {{Balearics-geo-stub}} , since the term "Balearics" is unambiguous (we usually only use the XIslands form if doing otherwise would be confusing, and since the non geo equivalent is at {{Balearics-stub}}. - {{Cantabria-geo-stub}}/Category:Cantabria geography stubs - will almost certainly need upmerging
- {{Murcia-geo-stub}}/Category:Region of Murcia geography stubs - will almost certainly need upmerging
- Category:Valencian Community geography stubs - a duplicate of the existing Category:Valencia geography stubs, but potentially a better name. One of the should be deleted, probably the plain Valencia one.
- Category:La Rioja geography stubs - well below threshold (18 stubs) and misnamed (there are two La Riojas - this should be, if kept - at Category:La Rioja (Spain) geography stubs. Delete, unless in can be got to threshold - if it can, rename.
He also made changes to 12 other geo-stub categories - largely involving removing parent categories and interwiki links - and 9 other geo-stub templates, all of which have been either partially or completely reverted. Grutness...wha? 08:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Granada
[edit]On a related subject, one of Satesclop's earlier unproposed creations was Category:Granada province geography stubs. It has reached threshold, but should be at Category:Granada (province) geography stubs. Rename. Grutness...wha? 08:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are stubs of Andalusia, Estremadura, La Rioja, Canary Islands, Aragon or Castile and León, why there can no be categories of the rest of Spanish autonomies?
- This happens because an ignoramus from New Zealand interferes in matters that he does not know on Spain... Satesclop 20:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your kind words. I suggest you read the rules on when stub categories should and should not be made, as laid out at WP:STUB. While you're there, it would be worth your while to also read WP:Etiquette. Grutness...wha? 01:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No one, ignoramus or otherwise, has proposed such categories in the correct venue, Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. If you want something done, do it properly. Rename Granada, btw. Pegship (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those keeping track may be interested to know that I've just had to roll back about 40 changes that Satesclop made to geo-stub categories and templates. He's one step away from a block. Grutness...wha? 02:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alas, I'm waiting for someone else to close this, as you and I are interested parties. Pegship (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've left a note with someone who can hopefully close it. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alas, I'm waiting for someone else to close this, as you and I are interested parties. Pegship (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2009 (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]{{Western-film-actor-stub}} (no cat)
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete
Although there is a permcat Category:Western (genre) film actors, stub types in the actor area are split by nationality and/or medium, but not by genre. Even if someone is only known for Westerns, the number of such folks would be very small, not enough for a stub cat. Not only that, but it was created in 2006 and never used. I suggest we delete this type in order to stick with the existing nationality/medium format. Pegship (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2009 (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 upmerge templates per G
Two unproposed categories that haven't got a hope of getting anywhere near close to threshold. The two templates were (and have been reverted to being) redirects to {{Plazadesoberanía-geo-stub}} which, as explained in the text of that template, is for both the PdS areas and Spain's autonomous cities in North Africa. That is an upmerged template as between Ceuta, Melilla, and the PdS there are not enough stubs for a category. Individually, Ceuta and melilla have fewer than ten geo-stubs each. As such, the chances of these two being anywhere close to the threshold of 60 are nil. Reupmerge. Grutness...wha? 21:42, 18 April 2009 (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]{{Călăraşi-geo-temp}}
[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 a redundant test template. Not used, and we have an acceptable {{Călăraşi-geo-stub}}, so there's no need for it. Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:29, 12 April 2009 (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 11
[edit]{{Int-org-stub}} → {{International-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 redirected
We have {{International-dev-stub}}, {{International-law-stub}}, {{International-trade-stub}}... and {{int-org-stub}}. For uniformity's sake, this one should be brought into line. Keeping a redirect from the current name wouldn't be a problem, but the main name should be like the others. Grutness...wha? 00:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- per WP:BEBOLD, I went ahead and just did it. This page is really more for deletions, not moves. — BQZip01 — talk 21:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the part of WP:BEBOLD which says that it is for articles but that more care needs to be taken with templates and categories! I brought it here because it is quite feasible that someone would have said that it was better to change the other three, or that the redirect created by such a move should be deleted. Also please read the details at the top of this page under "About this page". It is standard practice to bring such proposed changes to SFD, which works is subtly different ways to other xFD process pages. Grutness...wha? 03:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I agree with the guidance that "more care" needs to be taken, but in this case, there shouldn't be any far-reaching consequences. If it is interfering with anything please revert the changes immediately. I didn't take this decision lightly; I considered the ramifications of such a change and opted to be bold. I agree that this is certainly a place for moves, but my point was that it is more geared towards deletions than moves. Sorry if I wasn't more clear. — BQZip01 — talk 03:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt there's any problem in this particular case. It was more of heads-up that -despite the pages title - renames are generally handled here too (even seemingly straightforward ones). Grutness...wha? 23:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I agree with the guidance that "more care" needs to be taken, but in this case, there shouldn't be any far-reaching consequences. If it is interfering with anything please revert the changes immediately. I didn't take this decision lightly; I considered the ramifications of such a change and opted to be bold. I agree that this is certainly a place for moves, but my point was that it is more geared towards deletions than moves. Sorry if I wasn't more clear. — BQZip01 — talk 03:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the part of WP:BEBOLD which says that it is for articles but that more care needs to be taken with templates and categories! I brought it here because it is quite feasible that someone would have said that it was better to change the other three, or that the redirect created by such a move should be deleted. Also please read the details at the top of this page under "About this page". It is standard practice to bring such proposed changes to SFD, which works is subtly different ways to other xFD process pages. Grutness...wha? 03:24, 15 April 2009 (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]{{Connacht-geo-stub}}
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete
- Delete, per discusion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Discoveries/Log/2009/February#.7B.7BTl.7CConnacht-geo-stub.7D.7D. Consensus there is that since Irish geography is categorised by county, this lone by-province stub type is unhelpful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- Comment. That's a pretty elastic definition of consensus, BHG. A good argument made by another user at the above discussion is that, by convention, anything that belongs to more than four counties requires a stub that embraces them all. So it's not exactly true to imply that all "Irish geography is categorised by county". While this argument probably does not apply to Connacht, it could to other Irish provinces. Mejor Los Indios (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply You made that argument at WP:WSS/D, and nobody agreed with you. Just like nobody supported your creation of by-province geographical categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I didn't make that argument, Grutness did. I don't know why you keep bringing up categorisation by province; I've already explained that the mutual exclusivity of the geo-stubs renders the comparison inadequate. Mejor Los Indios (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't. I simply said that leaving this one province with its own geo-stub would leave a precedent for others. I also made it clear that anything in more than four counties already has a stub type which embraces them all - Ireland-geo-stub - per very longstanding and extremely wide precedent. As such, this should be deleted. Grutness...wha? 21:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You did say anything that belongs to more than four counties requires a stub that embraces them all. There's no reason we can't have intermediate levels between county and country; other countries do. Wikipedia is one long line of precedents, there's nothing wrong with that. Mejor Los Indios (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ireland doesn't have hundreds of counties, it only has 32. That's not enough to need an intermediate level of stub template, particularly for a regional division which is not used for other geograhical categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In any case, there are two good reasons why provinces should not be used as an intermediary stage: 1) one of them crosses a national boundary, making it difficult for the purposes of sorting stubs by nation; 2) the provinces of Ireland are not a part of the local government organisation of Ireland. When a country is split by subnational units for the purposes of stub sorting, the administrative units as currently in existence are used for the next level down. As Local government in the Republic of Ireland and Counties of Ireland make clear, counties are the first-level administrative divisions in Ireland. Grutness...wha? 01:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC) (whose ancestry, somewhat coincidentally, is from Roscommon).[reply]
- You did say anything that belongs to more than four counties requires a stub that embraces them all. There's no reason we can't have intermediate levels between county and country; other countries do. Wikipedia is one long line of precedents, there's nothing wrong with that. Mejor Los Indios (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't. I simply said that leaving this one province with its own geo-stub would leave a precedent for others. I also made it clear that anything in more than four counties already has a stub type which embraces them all - Ireland-geo-stub - per very longstanding and extremely wide precedent. As such, this should be deleted. Grutness...wha? 21:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I didn't make that argument, Grutness did. I don't know why you keep bringing up categorisation by province; I've already explained that the mutual exclusivity of the geo-stubs renders the comparison inadequate. Mejor Los Indios (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply You made that argument at WP:WSS/D, and nobody agreed with you. Just like nobody supported your creation of by-province geographical categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 4 April 2009 (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 1
[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 cat, upmerge tpl
- Rename to {{CookIsland-politician-stub}} / Category:Cook Island politician stubs
- The correct adjective for something from the Cook Islands is "Cook Island". The parent category is Category:Cook Island politicians, and the ultimate parent is Category:Cook Island people. Compare also to all the other categories that use this adjective. The template name wouldn't necessarily need to be changed (since it could be said to correctly represent the country as a noun, rather than an adjective), but it probably would be helpful if it was for consistency' sake. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep template at current name; Delete category (upmerge template). You seem to forget that we always use "Noun-X-stub" as trhe standard template form, which would be CookIslands-politician-stub. There's no way this will reach threshold, though, so it should be upmerged into Category:Oceanian politician stubs and Category:Cook Islands stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (nom). Well I'll be dinged, I did forget that—though it seems obvious enough to me now. I'm willing to withdraw the proposals as stated. I'm not familiar enough with what the required threshold would be to say whether or not the category should be kept, but I'm more than willing to take your word for it and agree that it be deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 60 existing stubs (unless there's a Cook Island politics WikProjects, when the threshold would drop to 30). we're usually a bit lenient on deletion - if there are 50+ it's usually regarded as close enough. I doubt you'll find more than a dozen or so stubs for this, though. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 3 April 2009 (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.