Jump to content

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/April

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


April 28

[edit]

{{Levant-stub}} / Category:Levant 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 discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 16:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly-used stub type - all it seems to do is add an extra level between Middle-Eastern and individual country stub types, overlapping slightly with several European ones (the exact boundaries of the Levant are hazy, to say the least). It's extsited exactly one year and gained just two stubs. A commented-out note on the template says it's for use with a not-yet-existing WikiProject! Delete Grutness...wha? 00:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Delete. I've been wondering what to do with this for some time. I wasn't sure what could properly be tagged here, and the original builders have shown no interest in filling the category. Dawynn (talk) 15:08, 5 May 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.

April 27

[edit]

Category:Hong Kong rapid transit 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 discussion was category and associated template deleted, stubs resorted into new and existing types per discussion

Proposed renaming to Category:Hong Kong rail stubs. This category is not just about rapid transit, but also tram, funicular, light rail, conventional railway, and high speed rail. {{HongKong-rapidtransit-stub}} can be kept, with the addition of {{HongKong-rail-stub}}.

Oppose as unnecessarily pedantic for the purposes and goal of stub sorting. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Support with additions. Actually, a quick glance at the article titles indicates that the majority of these are railway stations. Suggest renaming category and building both {{HongKong-rail-stub}} and {{HongKong-rail-station-stub}}. Everything upmerging to the one category for now. Dawynn (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A problem arised since Category:MTR stubs was deleted and articles with {{MTR-stub}} have since been fed immediately to this category. The MTR is a network of metro, conventional railway, light rail, feeder buses and gondola lift cable car. And the MTR Corporation Limited is, besides being a rail transport operator in various countries, a property developer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.250.143.151 (talk • contribs)
  1. Please sign your posts. You can do this with 4 tildes at the end of what you've written: ~~~~
  2. I read the deletion log. It indicates that
    • The category was undersized.
    • The category was cryptically named.
{{MTR-stub}} now has some 84 articles tagged, which would remove the undersized concern. And there is a Category:MTR permcat, so I would think that a similarly named stub category would be acceptable, regardless of how "cryptic" it might be. I'm going to go for a speedy proposal to alleviate the concern related to this company. Dawynn (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please undelete Category:MTR stubs, instead of just recreate. The stub category was rescinded. 23:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.250.143.151 (talk • contribs)
Oppose, because of changes from the migration of {{tl}|MTR-stub}}. Removing the MTR-related articles out of the category seems to have tidied this up considerably. Dawynn (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't actually solved. The {{MTR-stub}} tag is imposed onto articles that aren't about rapid transit, but conventional railway, high speed rail and light rail (and property development as well), and upon Dawynn's speedy reconstruction Category:MTR stubs is made a subcat of Category:Hong Kong rapid transit stubs. I'd therefore be inclined to my original proposal- the addition of {{HK-rail-stub}} while preserving {{HK-rapidtransit-stub}}, and renaming the existing category to Category:Hong Kong rail stubs. 23:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.250.143.151 (talk • contribs)
The3 whole area of Hong JKong stubs is a mess, due to the efforts of an overzealous (long-since banned) Hong Kong editor several years back. This particular category probably needs a thorough assessment, and any sudden changes without that assessment may simply lead to more screw-ups further down the line (if you'll pardon the pun). I suggest any changes here be postponed until a thorough look can be made at how to fix this, or whether it needs fixing at all. It may require an overhaul more suited to new proposals at WP:WSS/P before any deletion is possible. Grutness...wha? 00:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current category clearly covers high speed rail, conventional railway and light rail, besides rapid transit. What you suggested isn't probably quite relevant. 10:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.250.143.151 (talk • contribs)
1) It's highly relevant. Have you, or anyone else, gone through to see exactly:
  • ...how many of the stubs are rail, how many are are high speed rail, how many are rapid transit and how many are light rail ?
  • ...how many more stubs are likely to exist now, or possible to exist in future, on each of those types?
  • ...how few stubs may remain unsorted if the largest section is removed from this category?
  • ...the background to the previous changes in MTR-stub with relevance both to stub-sorting standards and to permanent categories?
As it is, the re-creation of Category:MTR stubs has left only five stubs in this parent - which suggests that it does not need renaming, but rather needs deleting. In which case, where do those five stubs go? The reason that MTR stubs was initially expanded to include Hong Kong rapid transit in general was to allow for the inclusion of the tiny number of outstanding stubs in it. By re-creating that category, the problem has re-emerged. And part of the reason it was expanded to rapid transit stubs rather than rail stubs is because Category:MTR is a subcategory of Category:Rapid transit in Hong Kong rather than Category:Rail transport in Hong Kong. Stub sorting is simply following the permcats, as is standard,. If you have any problem with those permanent categories, here is not the place to bring it up. The stub categories should be returned to how they were at the time this nomination was made, for the time being at least.
2) Please SIGN your posts here! Add four tildes (~~~~), not five! Grutness...wha? 12:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has never been my request to recreate Category:MTR stubs. Dawynn did that. I'd say, without actually counting one by one, slightly more than half of those with {{MTR-stub}} are about conventional railway or light rail (these were tagged with {{KCR-stub}} before the MTRCL took over the operation of the KCR network on a 50-year lease). IMHO {{MTR-stub}} shall remain be fed into Category:Hong Kong rapid transit stubs, which shall be renamed to Category:Hong Kong rail stubs. 218.250.143.151 (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grutness what you revealed here has ignited my curiosity to look into the history of {{HK-rapidtransit-stub}} and Category:Hong Kong rapid transit stubs. They were created in September 2007, months before the MTRCL took over the KCR network in December 2007 on a 50-year lease. Before the takeover the MTRCL was an operator of a rapid transit system (plus a cable car system). Upon the takeover the MTRCL became an operator of rapid transit plus the KCR, which is a network of conventional railways, light rail, and feeder bus routes to the railways and the light rail systems (all these are rebranded as MTR since the takeover). In other words, back in September 2007 the MTR wasn't the sole determining factor for choosing -rapidtransit-stub over -rail-stub. The choice back then was indeed peculiar. The easy way out would be renaming the category as proposed, while postponing/undoing all other changes. 218.250.143.151 (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Grutness, Category:MTR wasn't a subcat of Category:Rapid transit in Hong Kong back in September 2007. 218.250.143.151 (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what its worth, I saw that the MTR-stub template had 80+ articles, and so, assuming that someone before me had properly tagged the articles, was justified in being rebuilt. However, it very well may be that MTR covers more than just rapid transit, so may not be a good fit in this category. Perhaps Category:MTR stubs should be a subcategory of Category:Hong Kong company stubs only. In that case, all the articles in Category:MTR stubs should be reviewed and double-tagged with tags indicating the purpose of the article. It would be worth proposing (on the proposal page) such things as {{HongKong-rail-stub}}, and {{HongKong-railstation-stub}}, amongst possible others. Dawynn (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New proposal can always be made, but the most efficient way out is to propose here to rename Category:Hong Kong rapid transit stubs to Category:Hong Kong rail stubs, to reflect its actual usage since its creation. 218.250.143.151 (talk) 08:27, 7 May 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.

April 25

[edit]

Category:Dicruridae 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 discussion was Upmerge per nom. Ruslik_Zero 16:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Delete category, Upmerge template. According to the main article (Drongo), recent taxonomic changes have made this a much smaller family, with only about 26 species. Dawynn (talk) 14:48, 25 April 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.

April 23

[edit]

Category:Syrian sports 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 discussion was Rename per nom. Ruslik_Zero 17:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming to Category:Syrian sport stubs to fit in with over 100 other stub cats. Waacstats (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S'port - change per nom. Grutness...wha?
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.

{{Red-dwarf-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 moot. {{Red-dwarf-stub}} was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G7, and {{reddwarf-star-stub}} has been created in its place. (non-admin closure) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriately named template. While I have no doubt that a template for red dwarf stars would be useful, this is not a subtype of dwarf-stub, it is a subtype of star-stub, and should be named correspondingly as {{reddwarf-star-stub}}, as pointed out during its proposal ai WP:WSS/P, and per other similar subtypes of star-stub. Rename, and delete the current unused name. Grutness...wha? 23:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the main article is called Red dwarf. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why "reddwarf-star-stub" instead of "red-dwarf-star-stub"? Dwarf star is an article as well. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main article may be red dwarf, but - as with all similar types - it is a subtype of star-stub and should be listed as such. As to why reddwarf rather than red-dwarf, we don't have a separate type for dwarf stars overall, which is what red-dwarf-star-stub would imply. Each hyphen indicates a level of hierarchy, as explained at WP:WSS/NC. If we needed and had a separate dwarf-star-stub, then using the extra hyphen would make sense, but there's no indication currently that one is needed, and certainly one has never been proposed. Grutness...wha? 21:14, 23 April 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.


April 19

[edit]

Category:Alborz Province 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 discussion was Upmerge per nom. Ruslik_Zero 17:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permcat article count less than 20. Delete category, upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be the first time a stub cat has been larger than it's permcat parent, but it doesn't look like this is the case so delete category and upmerge template to Iran geo stubs. Waacstats (talk) 23:13, 22 April 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.

April 18

[edit]

More premature Ukrainian footballer 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 discussion was delete. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion of category, upmerge of template. The 1980's and even the 1970's catgories are filling in nicely. The 1990's and 1960's are showing some improvement (approaching 30), but the following categories are still lagging severely behind. Perhaps because players may have associated more as Soviet.

Dawynn (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the whole lot and the (I assume) recently created goalkeeper split as well. The categories wouldn't be too large if all the articles were put back in the by position cats, asfor the goalkeepers, I don't think any country has split them yet. Waacstats (talk) 23:16, 22 April 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.

April 17

[edit]

Category:Members of the Welsh Assembly 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 discussion was upmerge and delete. R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Members of the National Assembly for Wales stubs, per the permacat (Category:Members of the National Assembly for Wales) and main article (Member of the National Assembly for Wales).

The stub category is underpopulated, however, so perhaps it should be upmerged. It seems a shame to upmerge all the way to Category:British politician stubs and Category:Welsh people stubs, but Category:Welsh politician stubs might be an appropriate higher-level category. Using AWB's list-compare feature, I found 57 articles that are in both Category:British politician stubs and Category:Welsh people stubs. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:38, 17 April 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.

Template:Small-village-of-about-1,000-inhabitants-in-Kent-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 and WP:DAFT

moved from TfD
Template:Small-village-of-about-1,000-inhabitants-in-Kent-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Malformed template of no apparent usefulness. PamD (talk) 20:49, 16 April 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.

April 15

[edit]

Category:G.I. Joe 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 discussion was Proposal removed

Propose removal of category, upmerge of template. This category has been dropping in size recently. I ran a catscan and reviewed the articles in the category, resulting in 1 add and 2 removes. Many of the G.I. Joe articles are becoming start class or better. Dawynn (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm. I'm a bit loath to delete this, simply because it's such a newly proposed category. But if it's so small... you sure there aren't any more stubs lurking out there? Grutness...wha? 00:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't noticed that. Removing deletion proposal for now. Dawynn (talk) 02:45, 18 April 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.

April 13

[edit]

More premature Ukrainian footballers

[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 upmerge

Propose deletion of the following categories, upmerge of templates. If we dump all of these back into the parent category, then the parent category will have a little over 100 articles. This does not need splitting at this time:

Dawynn (talk) 12:00, 13 April 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.

Recreated potato stub & 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 discussion was upmerge template

Created in December 2010 by Nono64, populated by approximately 22 articles. It is a recreation of of a previously deleted stub and category (Discussion is here). --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:44, 13 April 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.

"Spacy" template names, part 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 discussion was rename, delete current names

The following templates have names which go against stub naming conventions through having spaces in them. They should all be renamed, with the current names deleted once they have been depopulated. Since they're all likely to be unproposed, chances are some of them will have other problems, too. I'm separating out the two which may need extra work, so as to avoid a potential trainwreck.

Grutness...wha? 02:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: It looks like the West Nusa Tenggara one was incorrectly moved from {{WNusaTenggara-geo-stub}} some time back - I've moved it back to its former name. The incorrect (spacy) name doesn't seem to be much used. Grutness...wha? 11:56, 13 April 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.

"Spacy" template names, part 2: Altai Republic

[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 rename and upmerge template

As above.

This one seems to have been moved at some point from the correct name to this variant - several of the stubs are actaually marked with the correct stub name. I've moved it back to the correct name, and it looks like the spacy version is unused and can be deleted.

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.

"Spacy" template names, part 3: Canon law

[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 rename both template and category, delete non-convention name

As above.

It's worth noting that there seems to be a lot of ambiguity on Wikipedia as to whether this legal code is "Canon law" or "Canon Law" (different capitalisation) - the articles and categories are a haphazard mix of the two, but the permcat parent and key article both uise a lower case "l". Grutness...wha? 02:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Category:Canon law (Catholic Church) stubs? Otherwise, I see no issues. Dawynn (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - yeah. Got my {{tl}} and {{cl}} mixed up :) Grutness...wha? 23:15, 13 April 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.

April 11

[edit]

{{WikiLeaks-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

Unproposed, malformed stub template, unlinked to any category, stub or permanent. Given that the WikiLeaks permcat has fewer than 50 articles, many of which are well beyond stub length (a random sample of ten articles found only two stubs, and one of those was borderline), and that we have other stub types which could be used for any of them, this seems fairly un-useful at present. Delete. Grutness...wha? 14:17, 11 April 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.

Category:Diving biography 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 discussion was delete, create new acrobatic diving category

Dawynn (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two extra notes:

  • Original discussion can be reviewed here: February 2009 archive.
  • Consider that the permcats do not combine the two activities.

In this case, I'm proposing to follow the permcats, rather than the historical precedent. Dawynn (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support we've just done similar with the parent Category:Diving stubs, so this should follow suit, especially given the lack of permcat. I'd be happier if there was a double-upmerge of the underwater bio template so that it stayed in some form of bio category as well... sadly at only 28 stubs it's too thin for its own category yet. Grutness...wha? 13:34, 11 April 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.

Category:RoboCop character 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 discussion was delete both

Propose delete category, upmerge template to Category:Science fiction stubs. Category:RoboCop has less than 20 articles altogether. Template name is {{RoboCop-stub}}. Not sure why this was created as a much more limited category than the template called for, but even a RoboCop stub category would be greatly undersized. Willing to hear suggestions on better places to upmerge / double-upmerge. Dawynn (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both category and template. 17 articles in the permcat is nowhere near enough to even start thinking about a stub cat (or a template really for that matter) even if every single one of them were a stub. And this isn't a case of undersorting - the one stub marked with this template is the only stub in the Category:RoboCop permcat parent! Note too that the text of the template says that it's for characters (despite the name of the template itself), so there's something seriously amiss with it. Simply not needed. Grutness...wha? 13:34, 11 April 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.

Category:United States history book 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 discussion was default to status quo. General apathy wins

The following nomination has been relisted to generate more discussion. The previous discussion is in the box below. Subsequent comments should be made below the box. No further edits should be made to this section.
Moved from talk page as a procedural nom

Category:United States history book stubs was nominated on 28 February for speedy renaming to Category:History book about the United States stubs. Since it is a stub category, it is ineligible for speedy renaming, and the listing has been removed. I am posting this notice here so that a discussion about the category, if it is thought to be necessary, can be initiated. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably worth discussing, though the new name is pretty cumbersome, and unless a better name can be found I'd be leaning towards keeping it as is. Though I can see the point of differentiating between books from and about the US, I can't help but wonder whether there's a better name (stub category names don't always exactly reflect permcat names). Anyone have any better possible names? Grutness...wha? 22:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is older, pre-relist discussion. No further edits should be made above this point. Subsequent comments should be made below.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 10

[edit]

Premature Ukrainian football 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 discussion was upmerge

Looks like someone created decade of birth subcategories for Ukrainian football players. While all of these are undersized, I'm willing to allow a grace period as these get filled. However, I believe the following to be premature. I think we would be hard-pressed to find enough kids worldwide that, at age 11 or younger, have established an encyclopedia-worthy playing career.

Dawynn (talk) 11:02, 10 April 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.


April 7

[edit]

Category:Star Trek character 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 discussion was delete category, upmerge template

Propose removal of the category, upmerge of template. A recent catscan based on article size for the permcat and subsequent article review had the effect of removing most of the tags from existing tagged articles. Kudos to the Star Trek team for bringing these articles at least up to Start class! Propose upmerging template to Category:Star Trek stubs and Category:Science fiction character stubs. Dawynn (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – a success, I think. SeveroTC 15:00, 8 April 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.

Category:Korean sports venue 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 discussion was delete category, upmerge templates

Dawynn (talk) 14:16, 7 April 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.

Category:Korean building and structure stubs / {{Korea-struct-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 category and template

Dawynn (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support this and the other proposal on Korea above. I think with the exception of categories where there is considerable pre-1950 content (e.g., Korean history stubs, Korean people stubs) the combined NK/SK (um, PRK/RoK) categories weren't really meant to stay around permanently. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 8 April 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.

April 6

[edit]

Category:Dice game stubs

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

The result of the discussion was upmerge

Propose category delete, template upmerge. Permcat has 75 articles, but many of these are decent length. I was only able to find about 19 stubs, but my tagging efforts lately are a bit conservative. Dawynn (talk) 13:44, 6 April 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.

Category:Album stubs by Japanese artists

[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 rename to Category:Japan album stubs

I am not sure whether this should be renamed to Category:Album by Japanese artists stubs, Category:Albums by Japanese artist stubs or something else altogether, but a name-change is needed—the current title suggests that the category contains stubs (about albums) by Japanese artists. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:24, 6 April 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.

Category:Cincinnati stubs / Category:Louisville stubs / Category:Pittsburgh stubs

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

The result of the discussion was rename per nomination

Propose adding state disambiguators, per the convention of the permacats. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:44, 6 April 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.

April 5

[edit]

Category:Serbian sculptor 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 discussion was upmerge

Propose delete category, upmerge template. Only 16 articles in the permcat. Dawynn (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This category is work in progress, as part of the new stub creation for reconstruction of List of Serbs article. Please leave it until work is finished, as it will be populated much more then now. --WhiteWriter speaks 16:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/upmerge although without prejudice for recreation of the category if/when it reaches threshold whether that is tomorrow or in a decade. SeveroTC 18:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this can be brought up to that threshold before this nom is closed, fine, otherwise delete for now per Severo. No problem with re-creating the category once it reaches the 60-stub threshold, but until then it shouldn't exist. Grutness...wha? 21:43, 5 April 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.

April 4

[edit]

Category:Great Britain election 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 discussion was upmerge

Propose delete category, upmerge template. Only 21 articles in the permcat and its subcategories. Dawynn (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful: Perhaps the category could be upmerged to Category:British election stubs, but Great Britain as a country does not belong to the same era as the United Kingdom. So long as UK templates and categories use the term "UK" instead of "British", GB alternatives will be needed. Moonraker2 (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Categories can't be upmerged. The template can be kept, with its 'GB' name for all I care (others may have different opinions). And I would be willing to hear advice as to where best to upmerge, but the current category is greatly undersized. Can we upmerge the template to Category:British election stubs?
Just so we don't discriminate, I'm willing to add Category:Northern Ireland election stubs (10 P) to the deletion nomination. I would suggest upmerging the template to Category:British election stubs in this case also. But I'm open to other upmerge suggestions. Dawynn (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I'm wondering if there is a syntax misunderstanding here. Please see above for definition of upmerge. Dawynn (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a view on deleting Category:Northern Ireland election stubs, Northern Ireland is at least part of the United Kingdom, but the Kingdom of Great Britain isn't. However, you said "The template can be kept, with its 'GB' name for all I care", and I suppose if we agree on that then that meets my objection, thank you. Moonraker2 (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nominator. Which is also to say I support Moonraker2's identical "opposing" idea. Keep the N.I. one as is for now, but it needs to grow to be viable and may need revisiting soon. Grutness...wha? 22:48, 11 April 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.

{{NorthAm-footyclub-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 template

Propose delete. We now have templates for the US, Canada, Mexico, all Cental American nations (with a Central America sub-category), and a Caribbean subcategory with its own template along with several Caribbean national templates. I will propose a template for Greenland on the proposal page. I don't think that the North American template is needed anymore. I propose deleting it, and turning the category into a parent-only category. Dawynn (talk) 13:29, 4 April 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.


April 1

[edit]

Category:Azerbaijani film stubs

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

The result of the discussion was upmerge

Propose delete category, upmerge template. Permcat only has about 20 articles. Dawynn (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

support delete and rename. Waacstats (talk) 21:56, 3 April 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.

Category:Archbishop of Canterbury 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 discussion was combine categories into new archbishop category; make relevant extra template

Propose deletion of category, upmerge of template. I have reviewed all of the articles in permcat Category:Archbishops of Canterbury. Most of these are lengthy articles. I only found 20 that could be considered "stubs", and some of these were pushing the boundaries. Dawynn (talk) 12:54, 1 April 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.

Copenhagen Metro-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 rename

{{Copenhagen Metro-stub}} - unproposed but I sorted and found 20 articles to make it borderline viable - but needs rename to {{Copenhagen-metro-stub}}. SeveroTC 07:47, 1 April 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/2011/April&oldid=422529579"