Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/September
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
September 30
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was upmerge to Category:Switzerland geography stubs. The Lucerne one will need a separate sfd nomination.
Only 4 articles. Scan can find 18 - not enough for a stub category. Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge, might have a look at Category:Canton of Lucerne geography stubs as well which appears to only have 12 articles. Waacstats (talk) 21:47, 6 October 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.
September 27
[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Replaced by Category:Cycle manufacturer stubs/{{cycle-manufacturer-stub}} - replacement and re-organization according to discussion. Stub template and category has no longer any articles. --Kslotte (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per discussion at WP:WSS/D Grutness...wha? 22:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete was already discussed. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per previous discussion. Waacstats (talk) 13:12, 30 September 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 rename to Australia-garden-stub, delete redirect
A peculiar case, this one. Rosiestep correctly proposes {{Botanical-garden-stub}} and {{Arboretum-stub}}, then creates both and this national variety less than a day into the discussion of them (there are both support and oppose comments at the discussion on the generic types, and other alternatives have been suggested). Given that (a) there's no decision yet on the generic types; (b) no discussion at all on by-nation types; (c) a good possibility that if they are approved they will be with different names; (d) no indication that by-nation types are even needed for such a generic stub type; and (e) no clear indication of whether both botanical gardens and botanic gardens should be covered by this (they are not always identical), I feel that this should be deleted. Grutness...wha? 22:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; not enough of them. Hesperian 06:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After discussion at WP:WSS/P, I'm changing this nomination to rename to {{Australia-garden-stub}}, but without keeping the current name as a redirect. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 7 October 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.
September 24
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Upmerge to Category:Psychoactive drug stubs. -Mairi (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Underpopulated (only 28 pages). Scan shows only a few more. Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmege until someone creates another 30 or so. Waacstats (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge Scope is too limited. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:09, 9 November 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.
September 22
[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 20:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An intersection of Category:Judaism stubs and Category:Theologian stubs. This intersection appears to only contain 4 articles. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - and delete the template as well. Not only is it poorly named, but it is highly misleading if it is intended to be an intersection of Judaism stubs and theologian stubs - the template states that it is for Jewish theologians - i.e., for theologians whose religious persuasion is Jewish, irrespective of whether their specialist area of research is Judaism or not. The category states that it is for articles related to jewish theology (a redirect to Jewish philosophy). Given that it is more than likely that some Jewish theologians - template definition - are concerned with other religious studies rather than Jewish theology - category definition - in the same way, for example, as there are Christians who are experts on Buddhism, the whole nature of the purpose for this stub type is pretty unclear. In any case, the topic is pretty thoroughly covered by {{Judaism-bio-stub}} - a stub type which seems, BTW, to be being fairly thoroughly misused to apply to any Jewish biography, whether the person whose article is marked with this template is notable for their religious work or not (why, for instance, are Sigmund Livingston, Henri Bernstein, Wilhelm Salomon Freund, and Jeff Ballabon marked with that stub? The various reli-bio-stub types - including this one -are for people whose main claim to fame is their religious work, not for people who simply happen to be of one particular faith) Grutness...wha? 11:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A category of stubs about theologians specializing in Judaism is one thing. But theologians who just so happen to be Jewish is another entirely. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:12, 9 November 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
double upmerge. Wizardman 20:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC) An intersection of Category:Biologist stubs and Category:Chinese scientist stubs, which doesn't seem to have that many stubs. Double upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Double upmerge per nom unless this can be brought up to 60 stubs. Cat Scan suggests that there are only eight likely candidates at the moment. Grutness...wha? 11:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Double upmerge per Grutness. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:14, 9 November 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.
September 21
[edit]Category:EP 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 withdrawn as nominator. — ξxplicit 03:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming: Category:EP stubs to Category:Extended play stubs
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Follow through with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 21#EPs categories, the category should be expanded to match, extended play. Also to avoid ambiguity, as EP leads to a disambiguation page. — ξxplicit 21:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (with caveat) - I support uniformity with whatever decision is reached at CFD. If the categories there are changed this shoudl be -if not, then this shouldn't either. Grutness...wha? 23:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- String support to match the CFD - and I have made a proposal to have these stub categories not need a separate process. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear - not again. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The CFD discussion has been closed as "No consensus", so the categories weren't renamed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn. Unfortunately, the CfD didn't go as expected, so I might as well withdraw this. — ξxplicit 03:46, 1 October 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.
September 15
[edit]International cricket tour stubs by country
[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
- Category:International cricket tour of New Zealand stubs (1 article)
- Category:International cricket tour of India stubs (9 articles)
- Category:International cricket tour of Pakistan stubs (1 article)
- Category:International cricket tour of South Africa stubs (5 articles)
- Category:International cricket tour of Sri Lanka stubs (4 articles)
- Category:International cricket tour of West Indies stubs (2 articles)
Upmerge - all seem to be too small. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like there's been some good work done by WP Cricket. When these were proposed, the parent had over 600 stubs. if these are re-upmerged, the parent will only have about 50 articles. So reupmerge seems a good option. Grutness...wha? 00:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, none of these categories had a {{sfd-c}} notification template on it. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC) (they do now)[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 until it gains sufficient stubs, per original creation proposal
Exists since December 2008, yet still empty. Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Was proposed (see here), but with the proviso that the categories should only be made for those which reach 60 stubs. As such, Upmerge template, with no prejudice against re-creation of category later if needed. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, neither the category nor the template had a notification template on it. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC) (they do now)[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.
September 10
[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Rename, to match all other subcategories of Category:Religious biography stubs. Grutness...wha? 10:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for consistency. Waacstats (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support renaming for consistency with not only the other subcategories, but the main category. Mm40 (talk) 11:45, 14 September 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 Delete
Given the number of unsubcategorised Category:Latvia stubs, splitting off regions seems a poor option. It could be seen as a good move with Category:Latvia geography stubs, since that is getting close to the golden number of 800 stubs, but if we were to split it, then Livonia would not be a prime candidate for a split. Latvia's administrative reguions are a bit difficult, since they've recently changed from five regions divided into 26 districts and 7 cities, but this year they changed to 109 municipalities. But even if we used the old Historical regions of Latvia (which are too vague to use easily) we wouldn't be considering Livonia as a major split. I suggest deleting these and considering a proposal to split the geo-stubs either into the five regions, 33 districts/cities, or 109 municipalities. Each of the nominated templates was only used on one article, BTW. Grutness...wha? 12:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete as too vague a region Waacstats (talk) 14:54, 12 September 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.
Category:KwaZulu Natal geography 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
- Moved from WP:CFD
- Propose renaming Category:KwaZulu Natal geography stubs to Category:KwaZulu-Natal geography stubs
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Should be renamed for consistency with KwaZulu-Natal and other related articles and categories. snigbrook (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- rename per nom. Grutness...wha? 22:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per article and perm category. Waacstats (talk) 14:51, 12 September 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.
September 8
[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. Borgarde (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unused. Waacstats (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And as badly named. Grutness...wha? 23:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unused. Waacstats (talk) 12:24, 8 September 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.
{{Pipidae-stub}}
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was upmerge
- Used on 1 article. Category definitely not needed. If kept should be upmerged somewhere. Borgarde (talk) 04:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- may turn out to be useful, upmerge to Category:Amphibian stubs to see if it grows any. Waacstats (talk) 12:26, 8 September 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.
{{Dravidian-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. Don't know if this is useful. Borgarde (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unused and possibly confusing. Waacstats (talk) 12:27, 8 September 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.
{{D&DVG 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 and upmerge, for now at least - current name not kept as a redirect
- Incorrectly named, used on 3 stubs I think. If kept should be renamed to {{D&D-videogame-stub}} per other templates and kept upmerged. Borgarde (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as incorrectly named, had it been at the name suggested I would have said upmerge, but I don't think it is worth creating. Waacstats (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename and keep. I think that there are enough articles that could have this template (a lot of the pages in Category:Dungeons & Dragons video games and its subcats are stubs), that having this template is better than both the VG and D&D stub templates on the same article. However, there would be only, say, thirty articles to which it would apply, and I'm not sure about the stub guidelines on this matter. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals says 60 articles, or 30 if it's primary stub type of a WikiProject. I don't believe we have a project specifically for D&D video games. Pagrashtak 01:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:D&DTF? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a task force, not a WikiProject. Although, I don't spend a lot of time around the stub proposal area, so I don't know how that's interpreted. Consider my vote a rename if that's how stubs usually go. Pagrashtak 01:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:D&DTF? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete
- This template was proposed in March with a recommendation not to create, it is not used on any articles. Should be deleted. Borgarde (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unused. Waacstats (talk) 12:29, 8 September 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.
September 7
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete
A category for 5 articles? I think the template should be upmerged to Category:Paraguayan people stubs and Category:Writer stubs. Borgarde (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge. Indeed it should - even more so since this has only four articles (you counted the template!). Looks like it was created without proposal two years ago by User:Jbmurray, and hasn't gained any more stubs in all that time. Of course, if another 56 can be found, it would be worth keeping, but judging from the size of the two stub parent categories and the history of the category so far, that doesn't seem likely. Grutness...wha? 10:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Find another 56, I don't think theres that many in the parent and its permanent sub cats, defeinite upmerge. Waacstats (talk) 12:32, 8 September 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.
September 1
[edit]{{PL-stub}} / {{Prog-lang-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 to {{Prog-lang-stub}}, delete {{PL-stub}} --Mairi (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unproposed stub which defies the naming conventions for stub templates. PL could stand for any of dozens of things, of which Poland would seem the most likely by some distance. It is, however, for computer programming language. The template certainly seems useful enough, and its associated category (which also needs renaming from the plural to the singular as Category:Programming language topic stubs) is full enough. Rename, but do not keep the current name as a redirect. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've renamed it to {{Prog-lang-stub}}, which is probably sufficiently explicit give how the other stubs in Category:Computer science stub templates are named. You'll probably need to use a script to fix all uses if you delete the redirect though. No objection to renaming the category. Pcap ping 23:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish you'd read the note at the top of the page which says "DO NOT rename any stub type that has been nominated here while discussion is still in progress. Any necessary renaming will be done when the discussion is closed." Prog-lang-stub is an equally bad name, since this is a computing-based stub - not a linguistics one, and lang-stub types are all for linguistics stubs (also, prog could be progressive, computer program, television programme, or any of several other things). I've added the new name to the nomination - it should also be deleted and renamed once a rename to a more appropriate name has been discussed, and not before. Grutness...wha? 03:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to {{proglang-stub}}, and delete redirects. I believe that the claim that "prog" has other meanings is irrelevant, since none of them have anything called "language". However, "lang-stub" isn't a natural component, since a programming language isn't really a language. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Linguists consider programming languages languages, e.g. [1]. Pcap ping 09:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to "prog-lang-stub". This name is quite natural to use and I don't find any of the names it could supposedly be confused for to be at all plausible. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per Od Mishehu and Cybercobra. Sorry, Grutness, but I don't think those other uses of "prog" could be used plausibly with "lang" or "language." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:18, 9 November 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.
Category:Computer language 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 Merge to Category:Programming language topic stubs. -Mairi (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The following - up to the dividing line - is from the listing at WP:CFD.
- Category:Computer language stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Since we don't have an article on "computer language" for almost a year now, I propose this category be deleted. The only reason I'm doing this busy work rater than redirecting {{compu-lang-stub}} to {{PL-stub}} is that an administrator thinks it is necessary and undid my redirect although he has no comment on content of my action, only the form thereof. Pcap ping 10:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the category and Redirect the stub. "Computer language" = "Programming language", the two are synonyms, having parallel stub templates and categories is duplicative and unnecessary. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks like uncontroversial maintenance to me. — Miym (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the stub and category where originally named "computer language" so they could include languages which where not specifically designed for use as programming languages (e.g. PostScript, XML and friends). It might still be useful to use a somewhat more generic name for this reason, but may also be over-generification, as I suspect a vast majority of these stubs are indeed only related to programming concepts. —Ruud 11:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Close - and relist at WP:SFD. Otto4711 (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently Twinkle cannot automatically file the stub category deletion discussion in the right place. Someone care to move this discussion over there? Pcap ping 00:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the Category:Programming language topic stubs listed immediately above. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Grutness. "Computer language" and "programming language" are one and the same. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:21, 9 November 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.