Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/December/6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 6[edit]

{{Zoroastrianism-stub}} / Cat:Zoroastrianism 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 keep


From WP:WSS/D. A mite small. Might need resorting. Also open to upmerging. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, we only have 21 articles but a WikiProject does exist. Definite keep for the template, but since we have a WP, shouldn't we keep the category as well simply for simplicity's sake in the hope that this material grows? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, didn't know about the WikiProject. I probably should have looked a little harder. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Zoroastrianism is a major religion. ITs is also one of the oldest religions. The cat should stay because of the fact that Zoroastrianism articles are here on wiki. I will see if I can find stubs on Parsis to add to this and enlarge the number.Bakaman 01:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles on persons (Zoroastrians or otherwise) should be tagged with the appropriate xxx-bio-stub, and not with a {religion}-stub. Unless of course the article is on a person that is relevant to history/development/scholarship/etc of that religion (eg Kardir, Manek Dhalla etc). -- Fullstop 09:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, small even for a WPJified type, though. And populate, please. Alai 02:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to 27 articles now. Close enough. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 02:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Alai 02:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for the stub template. The category is less important but nonetheless useful since it allows for a quick check of which articles need development. -- Fullstop 09:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

various paranormal[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 redirect supernatural to paranormal-stub, upmerge cryptozoology


From WP:WSS/D. Related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal (which has been notified).

Delete. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete {{Supernatural-stub}} but keep {{Cryptozoology-stub}} with a possible merge with {{legendary-creature-stub}} given the nature of most such animals. Another possibility would be to upmerge to {{Cryptid-stub}} or {{Cryptobiology-stub}} so as to include plants as well as animals. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why did you put your comment out of order? Anyway... Cryptozoology distinctly diffrent then mythology. While, it may be a grey area when it comes to Bigfoot, the Cyclops is clearly not part of Cryptozoology. ---J.S (T/C) 23:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Important, used by project paranormal. I don't see a policy reason given why these should be deleted, nor is a stub template given as a suitable replacement. Keep both until more explanation is given. ---J.S (T/C) 22:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • supernatural-stub is clearly not being used by the project, because it's only on 8 articles. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete supernatural-stub - clearly not widely enough used and badly formed to boot. Cryptozoology... I'd weakly favour keeping as a separate item, though I can see some sense in the suggested merge with legendary-creature-stub. Grutness...wha? 05:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: (supernatural-stub) Every project needs a stub category. It is an important tool for editors looking for new projects for improvement. Unless a policy can be stated for its deletion (and under use is not acceptable because that is down to the education of users, not the validity of the stub), there is no reason to delete this cat at all. perfectblue 07:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If "every project needs its own stub category" is your reason for keeping, then it's a novel one, considering the number of Wikiproject-specific stub types have been deleted in the past. If a stub category is too small, it's not kept, whether there's a wikiproject or not - it's a perfectly "valid excuse", as you put it, as explained at WP:STUB (with regards to size considerations when a stub category is created) and at the top of this page (see here). What you're describing is what Wikiproject talk page templates are for (for example the ones on Talk:Day Tripper, Talk:Sodium, and Talk:Canadian pale), not what stub templates are for. Such a project template would be far more use for your project than a stub template would. Grutness...wha? 10:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not seeing a policy reason to delete actively used stub templates... and their are other unanswered questions... What stub templates should be used in the place of these two? I'm ok with stub-reorganisation, but I need more information before I can support this deletion. ---J.S (T/C) 15:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, supernatural isn't actively being used because it's only on 8 articles. There should be about 60 articles (or 30 in the case of a WP) for there too be a category. 8 falls far short of either of those numbers. Also as said above, cryptozoology overlaps with legendary-creature a bit, so you could use that instead. Or possibly have cryptozoology also feed into the legendary creature cat (one cat, two templates)? ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cryprozoology is very different then mythology... I can see the two templates feeding to one cat as reasonable, assuming the cat-name was general enough. But our project doesn't deal with legendary creatures, so it's nice to have cryptoids separate.
8 articles seems reasonable when a stub is adopted by a project. ---J.S (T/C) 16:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Also, it seems like J.S' question wasn't answered. If these two were deleted, what stub templates should be used in their place? --Careax 19:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8 articles isn't really reasonable. I already said "There should be about 60 articles (or 30 in the case of a WP)". Also, I already said "cryptozoology overlaps with legendary-creature a bit, so you could use that instead". How am I not answering your questions? ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 19:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What stub templates should be used in their place? Specifically in place of the supernatural stub? --Careax 20:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. It depends on the nature of those 8 articles. WP Paranormal has some other stub templates listed ({{myth-stub}} and {{para-stub}}) and there's also an {{occult-stub}}, so maybe one of those would work. Also, if you're looking for a stub that is solely for your WikiProject, you could always propose a {{Paranormal-stub}} that would encompass all of this. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the existing stubs would work for specific articles, but some articles aren't really applicable to any of them. But a new general paranormal stub might do it. Thanks for the response. --Careax 23:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Supernatural, Keep Cryptozoology. --InShaneee 19:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge or redirect to a {{paranormal-stub}}, split out more specific topics only when numbers genuinely justify this. And keep wikiproject links out of article-space templates, please. Alai 02:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: I've merged Template:Supernatural-stub to Template:Para-stub, and expanded para-stub's language to be open enough for all the sup-stubs. ---J.S (T/C) 03:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's getting there, but the template name is a little cryptic, and the category name is too narrow. {{paranormal-stub}} / Cat:paranormal stubs would surely be much clearer, and scope exactly in line with your 'project. Alai 03:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So is it just a case of switching the cat name and moving the template? I can run though with AWB and switch out the templates. ---J.S (T/C) 15:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. (Or I can do it by bot, though as it's not exactly huge...) Alai 01:39, 9 December 2006 (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.

{{arena-stub}} / Cat:Arena 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


Either rename to {{icehockey-arena-stub}}/{{icehockey-stadium-stub}}/{{icehockey-venue-stub}} or just delete. Most of these are double-tagged by state, so I'm not sure an additional by-sport template is really necessary. Also brings up problems of multi-sport arenas (which is why they're split by state, I assume). As a side note, we might need a {{Canada-sports-venue-stub}}, just based on the contents of this category. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indifferent Flibirigit 20:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get rid of the hockey references if kept. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Many of these aren't even solely sports venues, but it's still possible to identify a primary use and/or form of structure. Alai 03:02, 8 December 2006 (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.

{{Molecular and Cellular Biology-stub}} / Cat:Molecular and Cellular Biology 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 lots of stuff happened - see final solution by Amalas


From WP:WSS/D. Previously deleted. Overlaps existing {{cell-biology-stub}}. Awful template name. The associated WikiProject has been notified. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom as re-creation. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete yet - WP:MCB is trying to gain a consensus view of the best way to reorganise the relevant cell, molecular, and protein stubs. A speedy deletion would not be helpful here. Dr Aaron 08:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have also left comments on the WP:MCB talk page Dr Aaron 08:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete yet. The subjects covered by this stub are not all cell biology, so the overlap is only partial. TimVickers 19:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In theory this can be speedily deleted as a re-creation, but it's probably not a good idea since there is reorganisation going on at the WikiProject. It should definitely go though - it crosses other categories horribly and is painfully named. Grutness...wha? 20:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes, we have been notified, but I must say I take some minor exception to the tone of the notice. If you want us to change it, there are much nicer ways of going about it. After all, not everybody is familiar with your guidelines. I request however that you stay deletion at least long enough to let us change everything over to the stub name that you like. – ClockworkSoul 23:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do apologize for the tone. I was putting a number of things up for deletion and after awhile, my notifications and descriptions get more and more terse. I do often forget that not everyone knows about the guidelines (I've been here awhile, so it happens), but that's also why I linked to them in the notification. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 23:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly merge both into Cat:molecular and cellular biology stubs if there's a scoping difficulty with the existing type. If an additional template is required, please make it NG-compliant: perhaps {{molecular-biology-stub}}, for those that are not precisely {{cell-biology-stub}}s. Don't worry about these being 'cast adrift': if there's an identifiable destination, they can and will be 'botted over at the close of the discussion. Alai 02:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I've done this, with the agreement of the wikiproject. Basically this seems to be the root cat for quite a large hierarchy, and might ultimately help attend to matters such as the biochems, which have been more or less projectless to this point, so it seems to be basically sensible as regards scope. Alai 22:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the updated hierarchy, based on the permcats:

I think this covers everything and this can now be closed. Hopefully. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:52, 13 December 2006 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2006/December/6&oldid=1084292420"