Jump to content

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/December

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




December 25

[edit]

{{Central Asian archaeology stub}} / Category:Central Asian archaeology 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 template renamed (no redirect) and upmerged

Never proposed (creator helpfully commented out the warning telling him not to create the stub type without proposal!). Only eight stubs, and as for the template name... I'd have no objection to an upmerged {{CAsia-archaeology-stub}}, but the current name is sub-sub-standard and should be deleted, an the category is unlikely to get to the required threshold in the near future. Grutness...wha? 04:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think an upmerged CAsia-archaeology-stub would be the best option; there are already a couple of by-continent upmerged templates in Cat:Archaeology stubs. I agree that the current naming is way off and should be deleted. Dana boomer (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2010 (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.

{{BS-geo-stub}} / Category:Black Sea 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 Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unproposed, and if it had been, it would almost certainly have been rejected. We don't split geography stubs by seas, unless the areas designated by the articles are in international waters (in which case, we use {{Marine-geo-stub}}). All of the articles marked with BS-geo-stub are already correctly marked with their national stub types, or - in one case - by the correct subnational types. If the other national types needed splitting further, then - like with all other similar types - they would also be done by subnational regions. What's more, the template name is not only non-standard, but distinctly misleading (BS is the ISO code for the Bahamas, and other than that could mean any of many things or places - the Black Sea isn't even offered as a potential option on the dab page!). At the very least the current template needs renaming (with deletion of the current name) but given that it is a thoroughly non-standard andd unnecessary split, it would be far better to delete both it and the category were deleted completely. Grutness...wha? 10:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo! Why not to organise the stub for different seas? After all, we have different stub for each country. Also, we have Category:Black Sea, so why not to have stub? -- User:Ykvach 19:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the stubs there are for specific seas are, as I said, already organised by their national jurisdictions except in those cases where the locations are in international waters. Given that in general terms editors are far more likely to work on geography stubs relating to a specific country, it makes perfect sense. If a stub is created for each sea as well, then it will simply be doubling up the number of templates on articles for little practical use.. Editors who are interested on working on specific subjects such as a particular sea are far more likely to be members of a WikiProject dedicated to that subject - and WikiProjects use banner templates rather than stub templates, as they are more versatile for their use. Grutness...wha? 21:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Grutness. Having separate stub categories by-sea and by-country makes little sense, as you end up with double the stub tags and little to no extra value. Dana boomer (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2010 (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.

December 24

[edit]

{{GreatBritain-botanist-stub}} / Category:British botanist 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. — ξxplicit 12:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There already is {{UK-botanist-stub}} and Category:United Kingdom botanist stubs, so I don't see any reason for this sub type and I think it should be deleted. Svick (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2010 (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.

{{Ayeyarwady-geo-stub}} / Category:Ayeyarwady Division geography stubs and {{Mandalay-geo-stub}}}} / Category:Mandalay Division 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

Rename from "X Division" to "X Region" per recent renaming of Burmese subdivisions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Category:Sagaing Region geography stubs —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:42, 25 December 2010 (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.

December 23

[edit]

Category:Methodist cathedral 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. --RL0919 (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never proposed, no stub template, underpopulated. Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:00, 23 December 2010 (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.

December 22

[edit]

{{Zürich-geo-stub}} / Category:Canton of Zürich 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. --RL0919 (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to {{Zurich-geo-stub}} and Category:Canton of Zurich geography stubs. Zürich has been renamed to Zurich, and all Zurich categories have been de-umlauted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the sake of consistency, though it may be easier to redirect the old template to the new one. Waacstats (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2010 (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.

December 21

[edit]

{{transportation-company-stub}} / Category:Transportation company 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. --RL0919 (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to {{transport-company-stub}} and Category:Transport company stubs. On CfD, we have renamed all general "Transportation" categories to "Transport" categories, in keeping with the usage of the majority of countries. These should follow, to match Category:Transport stubs.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2010 (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.


December 17

[edit]

Luxembourg

[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


And this is why demonyms are a problem. The following categories all use the term "Luxembourgian", which is an alternative name for the language of Luxembourg (also called Luxembourgisch) but is not the usual adjectival demonym for the country (which is usually either simply Luxembourg - as listed here - or Luxembourgish). Luxembourgers speak Luxembourgisch/Luxembourgian, but they are Luxembourg/Luxembourgish people and live in Luxembourg/Luxembourgish buildings in Luxembourg/Luxembourgish cities. As such, the following categories need renaming:

Standard WP practice seems to be to use "Luxembourgish", so perhaps the latter names are preferable. Grutness...wha? 12:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn. Grutness...wha? 21:38, 24 December 2010 (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.

{{Karachi-sport-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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I've just created {{Pakistan-sport-stub}} after proposing it at WP:WSS/P, andf there are a small handful of stubs it can be used on, so it's upmerged. Amazingly, we already had this unused template for just one city in the country. It seems like overkill, and it should almost certainly be deleted, especially since no other city in the world has a separate sport-stub. Grutness...wha? 11:47, 16 December 2010 (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.

{{Indiana-sports-stub}}/Category:Indiana sports stubs and {{Indiana-basketball-team-stub}}/Category:Indiana basketball team stubs

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Upmerge {{Indiana-basketball-team-stub}}, Delete others. Dawynn (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject of odd sport-stub types... these two have, between them, 18 articles - waaay below threshold - and no other US states (or national subdivisions of any country) have similar templates. What's more, the name of the sport-stub template is non-standard (it should be Indiana-sport-stub, not indiana-sports-stub). There's no indication that either of these stub types were ever proposed, either - which isn't too surprising (I doubt if they would have been approved). At the very least these need upmerging along with a template name change, but really there's no reason why these exist at all, so deletion is probably a more sensible move. Grutness...wha? 11:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, at least 16 states have state-basketball-team-stub templates, they're just almost all upmerged, see Category:United States basketball team stubs. I agree that the Indiana-sports-stub should be deleted, as there are no other general sports-by-state categories, but the basketball team one is actually following a general pattern and should probably be upmerged. Dana boomer (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I can live with that one remaining as an upmerged type. Grutness...wha? 21:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


December 13

[edit]

{{NewYork-State-Highway-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

I'd like to propose that this template, and it's associated category, Category:New York State Highway stubs be upmerged into {{NewYork-road-stub}} and Category:New York road stubs respectively. There are only 7 articles with the template sitting in the category. The parent stub type has 50 articles in its category. Imzadi 1979 → 10:29, 13 December 2010 (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.

December 12

[edit]

{{NorthWestFrontier-geo-stub}} → {{KhyberPakhtunkhwa-geo-stub}} (reversal of current redirect)

[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 14:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, six months ago, someone failed to follow instructions and nobody noticed. Because of a rename of Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province, a batch of categories were renamed at WP:CFD - including a stub category, and no-one said "take that one to SFD". What this means is that for the last six months, there's been an empty soft-redirect stub category (now deleted CSD:G8), and a no-longer-appropriately-named template pointing to an appropriately (but completely-differently-named) category. To clear this up, the template should be moved (keeping the current name as a redirect - I doubt many stub sorters will instantly get their heads around the spelling of the new name!) Grutness...wha? 10:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support the move. Mar4d (talk) 12:30, 17 December 2010 (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.

December 11

[edit]

{{Haringey-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


Unused, unproposed, and we're not yet at the stage of requiring separate stub types for individual London boroughs! Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:04, 11 December 2010 (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.

{{West-Africa-politician-stub}} and {{EastAfrica-politician-stub}} (plus redirect {{East-Africa-politician-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


All countries in Africa have their own politician stub templates, so Category:West African politician stubs and its Eastern equivalent are largely a parent-only categories. In any case, the standard naming would be {{AfricaW-politician-stub}} and {{AfricaE-politician-stub}}. Strangely, there don't seem to be north, souther, or central African equivalents. Redundant, unused; delete. Grutness...wha? 23:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Dana boomer (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2010 (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.

Irish provincial geo-stub templates/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 reorganise by county as suggested


Recently, all of the Irish county-geo-stub types were upmerged. Why all of them were, when several (e.g., {{Cork-geo-stub}}) were well past threshold is a mystery. Also a mystery is why they were upmerged to new provincial, rather than the existing national, level parents. Unfortunately, at the same time, four new provincial level templates were created, all of which are surplus to requirements (since the stubs are all sorted via county-level templates). Also, the creation of provincial level templates has been rejected in the past when it was proposed. Curiously, the edit summary for the deletions and creations reads "per SFD", yet I can find nothing in the SFD log to indicate that these were ever discussed!

One of the four, Ulster, is particularly problematic, because the province of Ulster includes all of Northern Ireland, as well as counties in the republic. As such, its use is somewhat of a red rag (or perhaps green or orange rag) to a potential political bull. Given that some of the county-level categories should not have been deleted in the first place, there's little point in the current set up.

I'd like to propose

  1. the deletion of the following templates:
  2. The re-creation of those county-level categories with more than 60 stubs:
  3. the deletion of the four provincial categories, with the remaining counties upmerged into Category:Ireland geography stubs.

This would leave the national category with only some 600-650 stubs, large but not uncomfortably so (not much larger than two of the current Provincial categories) - and given that many of the other counties are very close to the level for their own categories, it should not be a problem long-term. Several of the other templates can probably be got to 60 stubs, too. Grutness...wha? 22:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. seems there was discussion at sfd about this - but back then no county had more than about 25 stubs - that is definitely not the case now. Grutness...wha? 21:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions. This is broadly a good idea, and I think that the provincial stub categs were a daft idea, not least for the reasons set out by Grutness .... but:

  1. Why was this proposal not notified at WT:IE?
  2. If the threshold was 60 stubs, why was Category:County Mayo geography stubs not restored? (it would include 88 stubs)
  3. How many other counties with more than 60 stubs have been missed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see that Category:County Mayo geography stubs and Category:County Wicklow geography stubs have been restored since I asked this question.
Pity, though, not see any response to my question, or even an acknowledgement. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've only just seen these questions -Mayo and Wicklow were restored because they are now over 60 stubs (at the time of the proposal both of them were in the high 50s - I have checked for further stubs in both, as I also did with Cavan and got them to threshold). None of the other counties have over 60 stubs, though it's quite likely that several others can be massaged to that size - Limerick, for example, has close to 50 stubs, as does Clare, so it should be possible to find several more for each (sadly, my ancestral homeland of Co. Roscommon is way down at 31 stubs...). As to the question about WP:IE, that's a good question, it certainly should have been. Grutness...wha? 21:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Co. Limerick has also just passed threshold. Grutness...wha? 22:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grutness, I'm sorry that I missed what you had been doing to expand usage of the county stub tags, and thereby enable the creation of the Mayo, Cavan and Wicklow categs. Don't worry about Roscommon: that county is in the doghouse until either it returns the chunk of Lough Allen it stole from Leitrim, or at least improves its chunk of the R280 from its current abysmal state and gives back O'Carolan's grave. Unless it shapes up, all Roscommon's territory east of the N4 road will obviously be merged into Leitrim soon ;)
Seriously, tho ... while I do admire your great work with stubs, and regret the lack of support you get, it doesn't help to have an under-notified and under-attended SFD. Nor is good to see that what happened isn't what was advertised, even when (as in this case) the outcome is better than the proposal. All's well that ends well, but maybe something to think about for the future? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, mea culpa for the lack of notification - apologies. I did make some comment that it was worth trying to get other counties up to category-standard, though, so "isn't what's advertised" is a little bit harsh. As to Leitrim, I think my ancestors would have something to say about that...! Grutness...wha? 00:18, 27 December 2010 (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.

December 9

[edit]

Category:Computer 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. — ξxplicit 12:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Computer stubs to Category:Computing stubs. More consistent with project categories like Category:Computing templates. Consistent with WP:WikiProject Computing whose scope it matches (which was also renamed from WP:WikiProject Computers). More natural use – "computer stubs" sounds awkward. --Pnm (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2010 (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.

December 7

[edit]

{{2007-song-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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Propose deletion. Not used. And as far as I'm aware, we categorize by decades, not individual years. Dawynn (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2010 (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:Gujarat 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 merge all to Category:Gujarat geography stubs — ξxplicit 12:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gujarat geography stubs was split into its various districts without any proposal. I have taken the time to review all of the articles in {{Gujarat-geo-stub}} and {{India-geo-stub}} and verify that all had a more distinct home, if possible (to the best of my ability). Still, none of the districts meets the 60 article criteria. The following list of categories have 20 or less articles. I propose that all of these categories be deleted, until more articles can be found to justify their existence. The associated templates should be kept, but should upmerge to Category:Gujarat geography stubs.

This will add 256 articles back to Category:Gujarat geography stubs. Dawynn (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2010 (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.

December 6

[edit]

{{Encode-stub}} / Category:Encoding 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. — ξxplicit 12:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No articles. And it seems to cover the same territory as Category:Cryptography stubs. Had been listed under Category:Underpopulated stub categories with no response. Dawynn (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2010 (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.



December 1

[edit]

Template:Multiple 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 discussion was delete. No one has explained how this template "make[s] life easier for editors". T. Canens (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was procedural close. This is not a stub type, it needs to go to TfD if it is to be deleted. 81.178.146.52 (talk)

Reopened. If sent to tfD, it will be sent straight back here. it is a stub template. Grutness...wha? 21:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - makes stub soritng using semi-automated tools (suchg as AWB) more difficult - let's say, for example, that it were determined (at some point, not ncessarily now) that there's enough Scotish mathematicians to justify giving it its own stub tag. Under the old system, we would have a {{Scotland-scientist-stub}} and a {{UK-mathematician-stub}} on the page; we could then tell AWB to remove either one (if present) and add a {{Scotland-mathematician-stub}}. The new system makes this much more difficult (note that a notable mathematician may also happen to be a notable politician, and have a stub tag for that). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above and per previous arguments at various WP:WSS talk pages. Grutness...wha? 21:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I think the logic for this template is unnecessarily complicated I think its a good idea and in fact was just discussing it with a couple of other editors when this SfD was mentioned. It is harder true but not that hard using regex to do. I believe if we start using template the AWB developers could add logic to AWB to support it. Also, as with most templates like this there is no "requirement" to use it so if you don't know how it works or don't know how to program in regex then just add the normal stub template and at some point a bot or person will add it to the template if needed. --Kumioko (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While well-intentioned, this template just makes stub type maintenance harder. Having closed some of the SFD backlog, I can attest that it is already a pain to update stub type templates on dozens or even hundreds of articles. Add "learn regex" to the requirements for managing this and the SFD backlog will be counted in years rather than months. --RL0919 (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated tools and bots are here to serve editors and decisions about the best method to apply should not be made by considering what is in the bot's best interest. Bots and tools can be updated. This is a handy template which could make life easier for editors, so I recommend keeping it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no argument here suggesting deletion for the sake of what is best for the bots - the only deletion arguments here are for what is best for the editors. As RL0919 has pointed out, this template will make life far harder for editors trying to maintain stubs. The only commenters here who have mentioned its use by bots are those saying keep - yet stub sorting is rarely done by bots and, as you have said yourself, "decisions about the best method to apply should not be made by considering what is in the bot's best interest" - which would mean that it is the keep comments that should be reappraised for that interest of editors, not the delete ones. Grutness...wha? 21:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The two editors who gave reasons for suggesting that this template should be deleted both mentioned bots or automated tools. Od Mishehu thought that it would make stub sorting with AWB harder. RL0919 mentioned regular expressions, which is bot language. You yourself gave little rationale except "per previous arguments", which is not very helpful. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    RL0919 certainly did not mention using automatic tools, and though you may construe my comments as including previous comments relating to bots, I have never used a bot and find this template to be far more likely to cause problems for human editors - hence my reference to my arguments on this subject previously at various WP:WSS pages, which have never referred to bots but always focussed on the problems which such templates would cause to smanual stub-sorters. The original nominator is the only one of the three people who have commented here supporting deletion who mentioned bots as part of a deletion argument. By way of contrast, both of those who !voted keep used bots as a major part of their reasoning. Grutness...wha? 21:38, 18 January 2011 (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/2010/December&oldid=405183984"