Jump to content

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted/April 2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 1st

[edit]

{{Solareclipse-Astronomy-stub}}

[edit]

made one hour after being proposed rather than the usual week (why???). debate on it favours making a more general {{eclipse-stub}} instead. unused with a redlink category and a horrible name. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename {{ND-stub}}-> {{NorthDakota-stub}}

[edit]

We recently "acquired" ND-stub. There is a WikiProject, so such a stub is OK, but this one wasn't proposed at WP:WSS/P. If it had been, WP:ND would have been quickly told that state names are written in full in stub templates, as with NorthDakota-geo-stub. That way, there isn't potential confusion with other things beginning with ND, of which there are plenty. Rename, and delete the ambiguous original naming. BTW, I'm more than a little concerned that almost everything in Category:North Dakota stubs is actually a NorthDakota-geo-stub (golf courses are usually counted as geo-stubs). Grutness...wha? 01:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 2nd

[edit]

{{Wales-battle-stub}} / Category:Welsh battle stubs

[edit]

Previously very small, seems to have been self-emptied. Speedy delete. Alai 03:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More undersized by-state school stubs

[edit]

Specifically:

The largest of these is 21 stubs, and a couple are positively tiny. Upmerge to the recently-created {{US-west-school-stub}}, keeping all existing templates. Alai 15:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Music-history-stub}} / Category:Music history stubs

[edit]

Not merely very small, but seemingly actually shrinking: it's gone from 7 articles to 6 since the last db dump I looked at. Populate or delete. Alai 04:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Populate or delete. Conscious 07:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Shia-stub}} / Category:Shia stubs

[edit]

Another type we've been maintaining for a month, without knowing about it, and that has all of three articles. Delete. Alai 03:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Populate or delete. Conscious 07:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 3rd

[edit]

{{Jewish-hist-bio-stub}}

[edit]

Rejected at WP:WSS/P, unused, no category. Conscious 20:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Indian-Music-stub}} / Category:Indian Music stubs

[edit]

Ten articles, and they're a real grab-bag: most are actually bios, despite what one might suppose from the type names. Alai 05:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badly capitalised, too. Delete. Grutness...wha? 05:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Uzbek-stub}} / Category:Uzbekistan stubs

[edit]

Yet another undersized -stan-stub, ten articles, no signs of growth. Merge with Category:Central Asia stubs, which is yet to hit even a pageful. Oh, and the template is badly named, so rename or just delete. Alai 04:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge and delete template as per nom. Grutness...wha? 05:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge and delete template as per nom. Valentinian (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge + delete template = delete. Conscious 07:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 4th

[edit]

{{Symbol stub}}

[edit]

Category:Symbol stubs seems to think there's no template, and that it's just a holding category for the three sub-types, but someone "helpfully" added this later (never used, AFAIK). 4-day speedy, unless we decide it's a great idea after all, in which case rename to {{symbol-stub}}. Alai 18:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Robotech-stub}} / Category:Robotech stubs

[edit]

Yet another steady and even at ten stubs. Alai 03:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Too small. Grutness...wha? 04:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all tiny stub types. --TheParanoidOne 05:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The parent category is large, but this problem is going to be solved with the creation of {{anime-series-stub}}. Conscious 07:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too small. Valentinian (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep until creation of anime series stub, that way it will be easier to just throw these into that stub type. JoshuaZ 18:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too small. Amalas 17:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{astrologer-stub}} / Category:Astrologer stubs

[edit]

Ten articles, and not even a very monophyletic bunch, being a mixture of UK C-list celebs and 9th century Persian scholars. Only problem is where to re-sort them to: category has no stub parent whatsoever. Alai 03:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good word! It is a bit of a problem where to put them. The persian ones could at a pinch possibly go into astronomer-stub, but the modern ones certainly couldn't. Grutness...wha? 05:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all tiny stub types. --TheParanoidOne 05:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sort the British into {{UK-bio-stub}}. Conscious 07:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Conscious. Valentinian (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{ammo-stub}} / Category:Ammunition stubs

[edit]

Another too-small split of the firearms stubs. If this has any potential for growth, it doesn't seem to be showing any signs. Could go either way on the template, certainly delete the category. Alai 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Too small. Grutness...wha? 04:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all tiny stub types. --TheParanoidOne 05:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete template and category. Conscious 07:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete template and category. Too small. Valentinian (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Valentinian. Amalas 17:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 5th

[edit]

{{People stub}} and {{people-stub}} (speedied after recreation)

[edit]

This stub was created by User:Bucky-Convigton, on March 16 2006. On the same day, it was nominated by User:LrdChaos for deletion at TfD (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 16#Template:People stub). It was trending toward a deletion on TfD, being generally considered redundant, when it was speedily deleted some 13 hours after the nom was opened with the delete summary deliberate redundant (duplicate) stub type created by known vandal. The template was then recreated by User:SPUI who felt it was reasonable for this to be a redirect (to {{bio-stub}}). After a further speedy deletion, SPUI brought it to Wikipedia:Deletion review for consideration.

I have just closed the discussion at the Review. 4 people thought it ought to be a redirect, although it isn't clear if the circumstances were fully understood by all of them. Another 4 felt it should simply remain deleted. The question that needs answering is is it good practice for us to have a stub like this as a redirect to another stub? The best place for that question to be answered appears to me to be this forum, so I'm listing it here for your consideration. Regards —Encephalon 02:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete yet again. NO it is NOT alright as a redirect. this has been through the process here and been deleted twice now. how many times do we have to delete it? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may be thinking of {{people-stub}}, which SPUI also keeps creating. Alai 22:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was not intended to be a hint for him to recreate it again, so that it can further spuriously occupy us here. Speedied as a recreation (twice now) after "due process" deletion. Alai 14:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless as a redirect, the main stub name is shorter than this and this is a bad name anyways {{person stub}} might have made sense as a redirect. This does not. JoshuaZ 04:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why do we have naming conventions if people go on creating things which don't follow them? The whole purpose of those naming conventions is to stop the proliferation of template redirects with thousands of minute variations on agreed standard names. As per always, any stub redirects should follow the namin conventions, and the less template redirects there are in general the better, due to server load problems. In this particular case, a minor variation of this name was deleted as unnecessary over a year ago. The re-creation was speedied, the second re-creation of it was speedied, a third re-creation of it with a minor difference of name (people-stub) was deleted after going through SFD only about a month ago and now you're asking about a fourth re-creation of it??? If possible, speedy delete and protect the page. Grutness...wha? 05:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and now you're asking about a fourth re-creation of it???..." Are you addressing me? On the assumption that you are, understand that I was closing out a deletion review, and constrained both by a respect for my colleagues and a regard for doing things right. 6 good, thoughtful people in that review disagreed with you. As the matter is minor—this is not a blatant contravention of Wikipedia:Verifiability, for example, where I would be prepared to overule even a supermajority in favor of protecting the integrity of the encyclopedia; it's an esoteric utility issue with no clear solution—in my judgement it is best settled by discussion among people who both care for and are knowledgeable about these things, as the editors here are. Note also that my listing this on SfD does not mean I wish this template to be kept, quite the contrary. I am respecting the outcome of discussions in which some editors felt in good faith that this should be restored, and I decided that it needs consideration by people who know best about these issues.

    You write with much feeling about the numbers of times other stub templates similar to this one were speedily deleted in the past, and you argue that this makes for some sort of precedent. I am mildly bemused that you seem to expect editors to simply know this information and apply it when closing review discussions. We can only know what is discussed in the review or revealed through searches and/or viewing the history of the given template. If you felt strongly that the history of these other creations and speedy deletions from the past ought to be considered, why did you not enlighten us about them at the Review? Furthermore, you yourself suggested in the earlier TfD discussion that WP:SFD would be the best place for this discussion. This was minutes before you changed your mind, closed the TfD, and (twice) speedily deleted the template—again with no reference to the above history that you now seem to expect other editors to be perfectly aware of. Your sole comment on the matter at the Review pertained to the recent page protection. As these actions can hardly have been conducive toward a constructive solution, I find it unfortunate that you're taking this tone with an editor trying to bring this matter to an acceptable close. Finally, you would do well to not—ever—take that tone with your colleagues on Wikipedia—it is unhelpful and reflects poorly on those wielding it. Best wishes —Encephalon 08:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not annoyed with you and I'm sorry it came across that way. it';s not your fault that there is such an enormous loophole in WP's policies on page re-creation; nor is it your fault that one particualr wikipedian has been trying his hardest for nearly a year to cause the stub sorting on wikipedia to grind to a halt. I'm annoyed at SPUI who wasted such a huge amount of stub-sorters' time. And I'm extremely annoyed that there is nothing in the re-creation process that specifies that deletion process pages should be informed when a page re-creation is being debated. Surely it is only logical if a page is being suggested for re-creation that the process page that deleted it in the first place whould be notified of the ongoing debate - nopt presented with the newly created page as a fait accompli. I take strong objection to your comment I am mildly bemused that you seem to expect editors to simply know this information and apply it when closing review discussions - surely you should have checked! Given that there was a speedy deletion because it was an incorrect re-creation should have given some hint that there was a history of this stub type being deleted, and that re-creation of it was in contravention of a decision taken on one of the deletion forums? yet no attempt was made to contact the particular deletion forum by posting a query relating to this stub type on Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion, so that those involved in the initial deletion could comment on why that deletion took place in the first place! If that had been done, then all the relevant information would have been available - not just one person's long-standing ongoing gripe with WP:SFD and a discussion by a lot of neutral editors unaware of the processes that led to the initial deletion. You should have been aware of the entire situation prior to re-creating this stub, but standard WP policies means that this did not happen. I am not at all mildly bemused that it is expected that editors simply know that re-creation discussions are underway without any discussion or liaison with the process pages that were responsible for the initial deletion. Furthermore, you yourself suggested in the earlier TfD discussion that WP:SFD would be the best place for this discussion. So why did you not bring that discussion here? Why was no attempt made to contact this page prior to re-creation of the template? It is ridiculous to have one process page delete an item then have another one re-create it with no contact at all between the two process pages. If this is deleted again now, would we know if anyone decided to re-create it, or would the whole process have to begin again? This is a HUGE waste of everyone's time and energy here - much, I am sure, to SPUI's delight. Grutness...wha? 08:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and protect against deletion. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 09:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SPUI, I see that you recreated (twice) a new redirecting stub template, related to the one under discussion. I know that you are convinced of the utility of these redirects. However, many others are not. It is readily apparent that someone of your obvious intelligence can easily start dozens of pages like this one; may I ask that you do not, please? If instead you set out your reasons and meet the objections of others, you might obtain a consensus for your views. Now, it is quite possible that in the end fewer people will agree with you than disagree. Sometimes we have to accept that perfect agreement is unattainable, and move forward with what most believe to be in the best interests of the encyclopedia. A community project like Wikipedia works by trying to find a consensus on how to proceed, even when not everyone agrees with each other. It is more difficult to do this if there are continuous distractions. —Encephalon 07:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no redirect and protect against recreation. This joke has gone too far. Valentinian (talk) 10:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We seem to have had more than enough speedying on this already, and way more than enough WP:POINT-making. This is against the stub NGs (embedded space), and in purporting to facilitate stub-sorting, is just creating confusion and false expectation as to what the names of hundreds of biographical stub templates actually are. Unless we're to end up with 12 redirects for every stub template, which is the logical conclusion of SPUI's antics in this area, we should aim at a modicum of consistency. Alai 15:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's more a fault of the software, but if I type in what I think the stub should be, and I am wrong... I'm done, I'm just doing {{stub}}. It's 2006... it's reasonable to expect software shouldn't require exact, arbitrary syntax OR ELSE. And I think that's the sentiment behind redirects... exact syntax is obnoxious. I'm not quite sure what SPUI's motivation is here exactly, and I understand stub redirects create other problems... but let's not act like the current situation doesn't frustrate a lot of people. --W.marsh 15:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you're suggesting that we create on the order of tens of thousands of redirects, and as I say, hundreds to bio-stubs alone, surely you should take this up with the people who do indeed write the software. Either MediaWiki, or some sort of AWB facility, or perhaps a browser that supports template autocompletion, or something. If people simply use {{stub}}, fair enough (though signature-petitioning people to do so is just being obnoxious and provocative for its own sake, IMO, though I see that seems to have been (doubtless temporarily) suspended). Turning momentary frustration at not getting the right category, from using the wrong template, into a months-long campaign is not reasonable or useful, whatever its precise motivation. Reasonable guesses are only going to work so far: eventually people are going to have to waeken and actually look up the list if they want the right stub type. Alai 16:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've stopped wanting the "right stub type". {{stub}} is now correct for me. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 04:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yeh. so you keep saying. which makes it even more mysterious why you keep creating these useless and harmful redirects. im sure everyone here is very happy if you just use {{stub}} and stop wasting everyones time. most of us have more useful things to do that continually trying to stop one person from derailing the work of many other wikipedians. <BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then do those things. Those redirects aren't hurting you. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 09:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's false, as I've pointed out repeatedly. As you've stated you'll never use it, its deletion evidently isn't hurting you. Alai 14:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're trying to do them. If you'd stop creating useless redirects we might have more time to do them. As it is, some of us are busy trying to build an encyclopedia, since that seems to make more sense that deliberately trying to stymie what a large group of editors are trying to do. However, it seems some people may have other agendas. As to not hurting, they're hurting Wikipedia's servers and hurting our attempts to make stub naming easier for everyone. So, far we've succeeded in making it easier for all but one Wikipedian who seems to think that it's everyone else who's marching out of step. Grutness...wha? 09:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{South-Gloucestershire-geo-stub}} → {{SouthGloucestershire-geo-stub}}

[edit]

I'm a little reticent about bringing this here, as it does have a useful number of stubs. Someone decided (but did not propose) that this county was missing from our split of English geography stubs. Unfortunately, the split is by ceremonial counties (all of which were already covered), and this is an administrative county that is part of the ceremonial county of Gloucestershire. Glocestershire only has 250 stubs in total, so isn't really an urgent split, and thic could be an unfortunate precedent for an unnecessary further split of counties into smaller subdivisions. delete and reabsorb into {{Gloucestershire-geo-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 02:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What's the difficulty with creating geo-stubs for unitary authorities (as it would be more correct to call them: "administrative counties" went out with Ted Heath). They're all properly contained within a (ceremonial) county, so there's no cross-categorisation; and it's not undersized. I agree it's not an urgent split, but it's not an unreasonable one, and it's how we'd do it if size demanded. So why undo it, wait until size does demand it, and then redo it? Alai 22:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Gloucestershire covers a large area, and South Gloucestershire seems to me to be a valid category. It covers some of the areas which are neither really Bristol nor Gloucestershire, and were part of the now-dissolved Avon region. For example Bradley Stoke falls under South Gloucestershire for administrative reasons, however it is postal region BS (Bristol) and is seen geographically as Bristol, yet if this stub were destroyed, it would be referred to as Gloucestershire which would be false. Ian13/talk 10:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why this would be a problem at all; firstly, Bradley Stoke isn't a stub at all, and secondly, it does lie within Gloucestershire (as it's defined for ceremonial county and stub-sorting purposes), so its need for a non-Gloucestershire stub tag would be, let us say, less than pressing. Alai 14:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, South Gloucestershire does have a distinct identity from Gloucestershire. I'm not sure we should change everything over to Unitary Authorities, but certainly I think South Gloucestershire will justify its own stub category. Duncshine 12:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • given the above votes, I'll withdraw this nomination - with the one proviso that this should not become a precedent for further splits by unitary authority. The vast majority of the English county splits have only 100-300 stubs, and therefore aren't in need of further splitting. I'd sooner not suddenly see a Thurrock-geo-stub or a Scilly-geo-stub. The subdivision of England is a convoluted business, and if this does become a precedent the splitting could get very messy indeed. Grutness...wha? 12:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our main criteria for stub type creation are category coherence, and size. I see no argument that UAs aren't coherent categories, and so long as they're of reasonable size, they're not problematic as types as such. (They may not be especially needful, but that's a more benign question. Alai 14:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... OTOH, shouldn't this be renamed to {{SouthGloucestershire-geo-stub}}? Alai 14:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: Template kept but renamed to {{SouthGloucestershire-geo-stub}}. --TheParanoidOne 05:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 6th

[edit]

{{seuss-book-stub}} / Category:Dr. Seuss book stubs

[edit]

Created in December, used on 35 articles, apparently no growth potential. We're not subdividing books by author, are we? Merge to {{child-book-stub}} (which is at ~450 level, but there must be better ways to subdivide it). Conscious 13:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the permanent category Category:Books by Dr. Seuss contains just 50 items, so I see no sense to have a 35-item stub subcategory. Conscious 13:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Cyde Weys 13:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{tobacco-stub}}

[edit]

No category (hence no use :), created in November, used on 6 articles. Conscious 13:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Canada-athlete-stub}} / Category:Canadian athlete stubs -> {{Canada-sportbio-stub}} / Category:Canadian sportspeople stubs

[edit]

To match existing templates and categories. I also suggest to list this type at WP:WSS/ST, it's well-populated, and the precedant of creating national sportbio templates has already been set. Conscious 13:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What definition of athlete are you using? Maybe there's colloquial differences? Because in America it pretty much means "anyone who plays sports". It's certainly not limited to track and field. Is it different in Canada? --Cyde Weys 22:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, I don't really see any consensus on this thing one way or the other, so I'm going to leave things the way they are. --Cyde Weys 22:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 7th

[edit]

{{biographical-stub}}, {{man-stub}}, {{woman-stub}}; {{person-stub}}

[edit]

As if to prove my point about the open-ended capacity of this line of reasoning for disruption and spurious multiplication of endless variations on "helpful" redirects, three more of these created by SPUI. Speedy delete as unused, hence "empty type". Alai 14:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per Alai. Some people ... Valentinian (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete all of these, and {{person-stub}}, which you missed. Do I sense yet another RFC brewing? Grutness...wha? 03:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reckon he must be innoculated or something by now. You'd think someone recently placed on probation would try to pick one fight at a time, but... Alai 04:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm completely baffled as to how {{biographical-stub}} is not a useful redirect. Could you perhaps explain?--Sean Black (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • well, firstly no stub templates use adjectival forms (as stated in the naming conventions). Secondly, bio-stub is used for all subtypes of bio-stub, so having biographical-stub will tempt anyone using it to think that it is standard and wonder why there are not, for example, US-biographical-stub, UK-biographical-stub, and Canada-biographical-stub (to name just three of a couple of hundred). In which case, they'll be tempted to create them. One of the main reasons there are naming guidelines in place is to stop this happening. So - might be the response - why are the naming standards so strict? With 1500 stub templates, each of which theoretically could have a dozen or more different redirect names, it would take all of our time to check whether they are correctly formed and are redirects rather than full templates. It's the same as with categories and articles. There are standard naming guidelines so that people don't suddenly start making duplicates with variant names. I for one would rather we didn't have to look out for us-bio-stub, UtdStates-bio-stub, unitedstates-bio-stub, America-bio-stub, UnitedStates-bio-stub, U.S.-bio-stub, U.S.A.-bio-stub, United-States-bio-stub, United-states-bio-stub, Utd-States-bio-stub, Utdstates-bio-stub, Utd-states-bio-stub, US-biography-stub, us-biography-stub, UtdStates-biography-stub, unitedstates-biography-stub, America-biography-stub, UnitedStates-biography-stub, U.S.-biography-stub, U.S.A.-biography-stub, United-States-biography-stub, United-states-biography-stub, Utd-States-biography-stub, Utdstates-biography-stub, Utd-states-biography-stub, US-biographical-stub, us-biographical-stub, UtdStates-biographical-stub, unitedstates-biographical-stub, America-biographical-stub, UnitedStates-biographical-stub, U.S.-biographical-stub, U.S.A.-biographical-stub, United-States-biographical-stub, United-states-biographical-stub, Utd-States-biographical-stub, Utdstates-biographical-stub, Utd-states-biographical-stub, US-person-stub, us-person-stub, UtdStates-person-stub, unitedstates-person-stub, America-person-stub, UnitedStates-person-stub, U.S.-person-stub, U.S.A.-person-stub, United-States-person-stub, United-states-person-stub, Utd-States-person-stub, Utdstates-person-stub, Utd-states-person-stub, US-people-stub, us-people-stub, UtdStates-people-stub, unitedstates-people-stub, America-people-stub, UnitedStates-people-stub, U.S.-people-stub, U.S.A.-people-stub, United-States-people-stub, United-states-people-stub, Utd-States-people-stub, Utdstates-people-stub, Utd-states-people-stub, US-man-stub, us-man-stub, UtdStates-man-stub, unitedstates-man-stub, America-man-stub, UnitedStates-man-stub, U.S.-man-stub, U.S.A.-man-stub, United-States-man-stub, United-states-man-stub, Utd-States-man-stub, Utdstates-man-stub, Utd-states-man-stub, US-woman-stub, us-woman-stub, UtdStates-woman-stub, unitedstates-woman-stub, America-woman-stub, UnitedStates-woman-stub, U.S.-woman-stub, U.S.A.-woman-stub, United-States-woman-stub, United-states-woman-stub, Utd-States-woman-stub, Utdstates-woman-stub, and Utd-states-woman-stub as redirects for US-bio-stub. Grutness...wha? 10:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You haven't explained how it's not useful. While I suppose having so many redirects could be unweildy, I am otherwise still baffled.--Sean Black (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where do you propose to draw the line between "useful", and "unwieldy", if not to say, "designed to sow needless confusion"? SPUI's on his sixth redirect to just one template; there's about 2000 stub types total. Which would be the more "useful", that we have about 12,000 template redirects (and doubtless more besides) on the offchance they'll make life more convenient for people sorting stubs (and note that the people who sort stubs a lot are the people voting to delete these); or that we entirely haphazardly have these redirects for some stub types, but not for others with a similar naming pattern. Making it marginally easier for people to find a dumping-ground category like Category:People stubs is no great help if it then creates confusion as to what template to use when they're looking for a more specific template in the same hierarchy. (I hesitate to give an example, as that'd traditionally be the cue for someone to create that template on an equally ad hoc basis.) The only saving grace is that neither SPUI nor anyone else is actually using these things, which reduces the scope for confusion, but doesn't exactly make them very useful, either. Alai 22:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{person-stub}} and {{biographical-stub}}, as they are perfectly reasonable redirects, and also mirror the language used in the stub template itself. The other two are a bit misleading (not to mention sexually divisive) and should probably be deleted, though. — Apr. 8, '06 [21:15] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • speedy delete all of them as per Alai. theyre unused and unneeded and SPUIs not making them out of a sense of need - hes said many times that he only ever uses {{stub}} - hes just doing ot to try to break WSS, same as hes tried before. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well that would be most appropriate, because WP:SFD is already broken, if you hadn't noticed. — Apr. 9, '06 [05:52] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • not really. it works fine when used properly. its only when people deliberately try and stuff around with it that there are problems. like here. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be entirely inappropriate, especially given the intersection of WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Probation. Nor do I find the argument that SFD is "broken" in the least compelling: this seems to amount to "you've deleted some redirects I liked using, so I'm going to openly disrupt and agitate against the whole process and wikiproject. If there's a problem with it, it's that it periodically fails to delete stuff that's pretty clearly well short of the criteria in the guidelines. Alai 14:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all this stuff, it's just a WP:POINT. Conscious 05:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. biographical-stub and person-stub are utterly useless. man-stub and woman-stub are mostly useless as well as being an unimportant way of classifying people. There are plently of other people-related stub types (writer-stub, politician-stub, etc) that work a lot better than simply male and female. Amalas 17:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't imagine they were intended as an actual split of the stub type; but as speculating as to why they were created is somewhat contrary to WP:AGF, I'll try to say no more than I've said to date. Alai 18:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Faroe-stub}} / Category:Faroe Islands stubs and {{Faroe-bio-stub}} / Category:Faroese people stubs

[edit]

Have been around from November/December. Have collected 19 and 15 articles, respectively. Merge to Category:Denmark stubs and Category:Danish people stubs. Second choice: merge them together (becomes first choice is there are 60 articles in total). Conscious 15:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename of {{Faroe-geo-stub}} / Category:Faroe geography stubs

[edit]

For consistency with the Faroe Islands article and the parent categories, and also with other island groups known without the word "islands" (eg, Azores-geo-stub, Maldives-geo-stub), this should be renamed to {{Faroes-geo-stub}} and Category:Faroe Islands geography stubs. Grutness...wha? 05:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and rename to {{Faroes-geo-stub}} and Category:Faroe Islands geography stubs. Valentinian (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can merge one item, V :) Grutness...wha? 09:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. For some reason I was still thinking about the -bio stub. The -geo stub should be the only child of the main category. Valentinian (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8th April

[edit]

Category:Delaware geography stubs

[edit]

Obviously we should keep the template for the sake of uniformity, but this is a seriously small type type, and ought by all ordinary criteria to be upmerged. Alai 16:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge per nom. Conscious 05:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting one. It's the only state which is nowhere near threshold. At the moment it's in an umbrella category (US-northeast) which has no template of its own, since it's not used other than to hold stat cats. I suggest redirecting the template to that rather than to the main United States category. Hopefully it will grow - Delaware's not that small. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Inverness-geo-stub}} / Category:Inverness-shire geography stubs

[edit]

As pointed out at WP:WSS/P during debate on a proposed Scottish-castle-stub, we still have this embarrassing remnant of the aborted attempt to split Scotland's geography stubs. It's confusing, in that Inverness can refer to many different overlappping parts of Scotland, and also uses the long-redundant lieutenancy area, which was deemed a bad way to split the stubs. There are only 13 of these, so it wouldn't hurt to delete this and upmerge them back into the main Scotland category for now. And if anyone can come up with a good way of splitting the Scottish geo-stubs, it'd be good to hear it! Grutness...wha? 03:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Note: Lieutenancy areas of Scotland are not "redundant", just very, very obscure indeed. Most people have never heard of them, let alone know in which one they might live. The cat was misnamed too: the lieutenancy area is called "Inverness", not "Inverness-shire". These 12 stubs (if you exclude the Template) should go into the new {{Highland-geo-stub}} which I am about to propose over at Proposals. See ya there.--Mais oui! 03:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • you'd have no trouble with that proposal here - there are a huge number of stubs relating to the old Caithness/R&C/Inverness area, most of which would go into Highland if I'm not mistaken. A combined Shetland/Orkney geo-stub might be useful too... but this is a topic for elsewhere. Grutness...wha? 04:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Obscure" is hyberbole, even without the verys. Essentially they're the trad. counties, dusted off and smooshed around a little. (And if you think those are hopelessly obscure, just ask someone of A Certain Age what they write in postal addresses.) Alai 04:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • well, note what I said about what's actually written in the articles themselves. I definitely still tend to think in terms of places like Ross & Cromarty (mind you, I moved from the UK in the 1970s). Grutness...wha? 05:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)Note that the lieutenancy areas aren't redundant at all, they're relatively recently established, and entirely current. (Mind you, this isn't the name of one.) OTOH, they're no less numerous than the unitary authorities, so they're not actually of any more utility for "threshold" purposes; they're not used as permanents; and they overlap awkwardly with the UAs (and they're not really direct analogues with the English CCs, which was part of the logic of using these). Given the size, this one looks like a terminally dead duck anyway, so let's just delete it, or replace with {{Highland-geo-stub}} if that's viable. As for how to split them in general, we'll probably have to put up with a significant "rump" for quite some time, as most of the UAs won't be splittable, though there's no reason not to do those that are. Unfortunately, none of the larger subdivisions schemes are both current, and of comparable significance to the current LGs. Some of them do at least properly include them, so are possible catch-alls, depending which UAs turn out to be undersized. Electoral boards or Parliamentary regions are probably the most plausible; off the top of my head I'd favour the latter. If they're almost all undersized, going with one or other of these (more or less arbitrary, and naturally mutually incompatible) conglomeration schemes might be necessary to get this <800. Alai 04:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Grinner 08:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{EU-law-stub}} / Category:European Union law stubs

[edit]

Eight articles. Admittedly Category:Law stubs is seriously oversized (and undersorted?), but this doesn't seem to be very effective in helping. Possible upmerge in the hopes of future population and category recreation. Alai 16:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Themepark-stub}} / Category:Theme Park stubs

[edit]

Only nine articles, and as I recall, we're sorting these geographically in the first instance. Alai 16:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del. not a good way to split and too small as well. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 19:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete virtually unused, and not a good way of splitting them. Never proposed, either. Grutness...wha? 07:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9th April

[edit]

{{BBC-radio-stub}}/Category:BBC Radio Stubs and {{BBC-TV-stub}}/Category:BBC Television Stubs

[edit]

Discovered in December. Categories contain 4 and 8 articles, respectively. This might be a reasonable split, but the parent category Category:BBC stubs is at <250 level, so I say we just delete them. Also note improper capitalization. Conscious 07:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11th April

[edit]

Category:Netherlands school stubs

[edit]

Even more undersized; upmerge, as below. Alai 20:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agree. A new umbrella cat for Europe is more useful with cats this small. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:German school stubs

[edit]

This does appear on WP:WSS/P, after a fashion, but seems to be significantly undersized. Best to upmerge to a new Category:European school stubs, I think. Alai 17:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agree as above. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 12th

[edit]

Category:US rail stubs → Category:United States rail stubs

[edit]
i found this at WP:CFD and have moved it here 9no vote). BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US -> United States. Standard argument that's been discussed and agreed to here before. There are other categories that are subcategories of Category:United States stubs that also need this treatment. —Markles 17:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one was obvious so I went ahead and changed the category in the stub template. I haven't deleted the old category yet, and the new category isn't populated yet, so there's still a fair amount of work to be done. --Cyde Weys 13:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:US rail stubs is now empty; I've updated the main Category:Rail stubs description page and the three subcategories of the former category to the new name; Category:US train station stubs should probably also get the same treatment. Slambo (Speak) 14:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea, I just modified everything to point at Category:US train station stubs. Now we just wait until the old category is depopulated and delete this one as well. --Cyde Weys 23:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this is the tip of a rather large iceberg - about nine stub categories use "US" and about a dozen use "UK" in their names. All of them should probably be dealt with sometime soon. Grutness...wha? 13:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any objection to creating the new categories and updating all of the affected templates? Seems best to do this while everyone is in agreement and before we forget. Vegaswikian 21:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are the names of the other ones? I can have Cydebot (talk · contribs) help with the template substitutions. I don't check this page regularly so if you need me or Cydebot, post a message to my talk page. --Cyde Weys 22:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 13th

[edit]

{{Games Workshop-stub}}

[edit]

Created in November 2005. Used on 7 stubs. No associated stub category. I initially thought that it was related to Warhammer Fantasy Stub as there was an overlap in stubs on which they were both used, but that was just a coincidence. --TheParanoidOne 20:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't follow how it's a coincidence: it'd be a proper supertype, surely? Weak keep if this can be populated by Misc. GW. Stuff, such as the above, otherwise delete as undersized. Alai 22:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked through Category:Warhammer Fantasy Stub first and the first couple of stubs I looked at contained this template, hence I thought that this was the template associated with that category. Looking at the rest of the stubs showed that this wasn't the case. They were distinct entities that were being individually applied. The first few I looked at just happened to be contained within the intersection of the category and template. Hence the coincidence. It was a throwaway statement which is not entirely pertinent to the matter at hand, namely a little-used stub template with no associated category. --TheParanoidOne 09:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iff kept, then rename to GamesWorkshop-stub, as per WSS/NG. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Warhammer Fantasy Stub

[edit]

Created in February 2006. No associated stub template. Used on <25 stubs (I removed a few which were clearly not stubs). No entries in WhatLinksHere. If for some reason this is kept, it should be renamed from "Stub" to "stubs". --TheParanoidOne 20:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Inheritance Trilogy-stub}} → {{Inheritance-Trilogy-stub}}

[edit]

Per naming conventions.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 14:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per size guidelines. Not only are there only 30 articles, they have that telling "minor characters not worth a full article and will remain stubs forever until merged into a 'minor character in' article" look about them. Alai 22:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the 31 articles in the stub category are mostly all articles on major characters in the trilogy, and I don't suspect that they're going to be deleted in the near future, or merged into Minor characters in the Inheritance Trilogy. Case in point: Saphira Bjartskular, the most major character of the series, is the shortest of the stubs.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 05:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unconvinced on the "mostly all articles on major characters" claim; the first article I looked at not on the "major characters" list on the IH template began "Anurin is a minor character..." (Self-described) minor characters don't need separate articles; trilogies don't have thirty "major characters", much less 60. Alai 23:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the articles will almost certainly end up at sfd, as Alai points out. In any case, it would need a rename, though probably camelcap rather than hyphen. And why are both the above items blue-linked? Grutness...wha? 01:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. When I listed here, the 2nd template was still a blue link.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 05:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like User:Icelandic Hurricane took it upon himself to move the template while it was being debated :/ Grutness...wha? 05:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently mid-discussion moves are becoming all the rage. Alai 23:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(further comment) - there are only 59 stubs in all the Category:Inheritance category and its subcats, so the chances of there being 60 stubs overall is nil. Grutness...wha? 06:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are now 36 articles in the subcategory of stubs. Icelandic Hurricane #12 11:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(comment) If kept, the template should be renamed to {{InheritanceTrilogy-stub}} as per NG. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 14th

[edit]

{{dm-stub}} and redirect {{DM-stub}}/Category:Disaster management stubs

[edit]

Proposed - three days after they were made. dm-stub and DM-stub are hopelessly named - virtually no-one would think of disaster management when hearing the letters DM. As to the category, there is no Category:Disaster management and many of the articles marked with this stub simply refer to disasters rather than their management per se. There is a wikiproject, so it seems, so I'm hesitant to propose deletion, and would instead suggest renaming these to {{disaster-stub}} and Category:Disaster stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong rename as per nom, and exceedingly weak keep. (Things are not good when we have to rescope a Wikiproject just to keep a stub type.) Alai 01:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a question of rescoping the project - disaster stub would be just as useful for a disaster management WP as a dm-stub - and given how most articles on disasters also talk (or should talk) about how they were dealt with, it's hardly going to change the parameters much. As it is, over a third of the stubs put into this category - presumably by the WP - are on individual disasters rather than disaster management per se. Grutness...wha? 03:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, I recently started the WP on disaster management. I did so to introduce more disaster policy and management articles in Wiki, which currently is strongly focused on the disasters themselves. We tried to distance ourselves from using the word 'disasters' on its own as to avoid further overemphasis on the 'events'. I am basically happy with the renaming of the stub, but the category needs more discussion. We are currently developing a new hierarchy on relevant subjects on our WP talkpage. Finally, you have to excuse me for not following proper formalia in the creation of the stub. It was my first stub and I should have read up more on the process. Sorry for that! --Drdan 08:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that - if you take the actual disasters out of the category as it is at the moment, it will leave it extremely thin (far thinner than is really viable for a stub category - even as it is it's pretty small). We could also do with a category dealing with disasters themselves anyway. By rescoping this category we'd have one that would be usable by both our WikiProjects: You'd have one containing the stubs directly relevant to your project alongside others with at least an indirect bearing on it; we'd have a category that would be of a reasonable size for any editors looking for articles on disaster-related topics. I'd still be inclined to rename the category, though I'm willing to be swayed. Grutness...wha? 10:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, but my intention with the stub was to include disasters, hazards, organisations, as well as policy and management theory. An alernative term used in some literature is disasterology. I find it sounding too much like astrology, but it could be a way for us to meet halways.
If you look at Category:Disaster you see that it contains all subjects mentioned above whereas Category:Disasters refers to the events. Should we opt for your suggestion, we should use 'disasters'. --Drdan 08:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
surely in that case we should use the opposite? If as you say Category:Disaster includes everything, then the name Category:Disaster stubs would reflect that perfectly. They would be stubs relating to disaster - not stubs relating to disasters. In any case, the wording of the template could easily make it clear that the stub refers to both the events and the management of them. Grutness...wha? 13:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the distinction is moot, as both would map to Category:Disaster stubs, and not Category:Disasters stubs, which would sound very awkward. Alai 17:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you got me. I sorta wanted to change the disaster category before creating the stub, but as things stand I am happy with your original proposal of Category:Disaster stubs and {{disaster-stub}}. Not great in terms of intuitivity, but the best that we can get. Drdan 17:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do we proceed? Can we settled on my last? Can I start the renaming? (FYI changed my sig 'Drdan' to be more inline with my username) --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 09:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might be a little late in the game, but I would suggest renaming DM to be more descriptive, e.g. disastermanagement would be more appropriate than to disaster. I think that it might be appropriate to try to bifurcate disasters from disaster management, and the DM tag could be removed from those articles about disasters so that it can focus on agencies, procedures, histories, etc.--Wikiwriter706 00:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done - please review, make sure everything is neat and tidy, and then delete this section. --Cyde Weys 22:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15th April

[edit]

Category:New Hampshire school stubs, Category:Rhode Island school stubs, Category:Vermont school stubs

[edit]

All extremely small, upmerge to Category:Northeastern United States school stubs, as per earlier treatment of the other regions. Alai 20:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ethiopia biography stubs → Category:Ethiopian people stubs

[edit]

Created today to house a new stub proposed on WP:WSS. Should be renamed to standard format. Speedily if possible. Valentinian (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Bolivia-stub}}

[edit]

Not proposed, no category, and a massive four stubs. Upmerge and delete. Grutness...wha? 12:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objection to keeping the template either. Valentinian (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Digitaldivide-stub}}

[edit]

One whole stub uses this template, which was not greeted warmly when mentioned on WP:WSS/P and has no category - unnecessary and woefully undersized. Grutness...wha? 13:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Sailing-stub}}

[edit]

Two stubs use this one, which was never proposed and has no category. This one potentially could be useful, but unless there's evidence of enough stubs it's not needed (ISTR a count of water-sport related stubs a couple of months back indicated that this one wasn't particularly useful). Grutness...wha? 13:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Colorado-politician-stub}}

[edit]

As with the above, this might be useful - but not if it is only used on two articles! Unless it can be shown that there are enough stubs for this to reach threshold it should be upmerged. Again, there is no category and was no proposal. Grutness...wha? 13:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{VA-road-stub}} and {{NC-road-stub}}

[edit]

Not Victoria, or the Vatican City. I hesitate to bring more state road stubs here, but these do need renaming, at least to remove the ambiguous abbreviations, even if nothing else. Oh, and they have no category and a pitiful number of stubs each. Grutness...wha? 12:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will support renaming of the Virginia one, but I will not support its deletion. I will also do the same for North Carolina, but I won't fight to keep it. I'm trying to get a WikiProject up for Virginia Highways. --MPD01605 17:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Georgia-(U.S. state)-school-stub}} → {{GeorgiaUS-school-stub}}

[edit]

This ridiculously named template needs renaming. The proposed new name reflects the GeorgiaUS-geo-stub - it currently has no category but the redlink points to Category:Georgia school stubs it should also be changed - to Category:Georgia (U.S. state) school stubs. 38 stubs, whicyh is thin, but not impossibly so. Grutness...wha? 12:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

considering there were double-redirects involved with this template, and there don't seem to have been any objections so far, I'm moving things to the new name. If there are votes against the move, then I'll move them back. Grutness...wha? 07:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a deprecated ambiguous redirect at {{Georgia-school-stub}} which should go. Grutness...wha? 07:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{BG-stub}} / Category:Battlestar Galactica stubs

[edit]

Never likely to get within a bull's roar of threshold - it currently has seven stubs. Template name is pretty awful, too (no, not Bulgaria!). Delete. Grutness...wha? 12:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard that expression before (grin). Delete. If a miracle raises it to 60, then rename. Valentinian (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A good old kiwi expression - it's meaning is pretty obvious :) Grutness...wha? 00:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it reaches a viable threshold. --TheParanoidOne 11:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I (and many others) enjoy this show, it does not need its own stub template. Delete Amalas 20:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 16th

[edit]

Category:Digimon semi-stubs → something else, please!

[edit]

As we don't have semi-stubs for deletion, I'm bringing this here. A change of venue to CFD is an option. This name is gratuitously horrible and needlessly confusing, and inclusion is being handled by a pointlessly "esotericly" coded stub tag using {{qif}}, using a parameter to select which category the (semi-)stub is sorted into. Or it was, before I reverted that. Rename to Category:Digimon articles in need of expansion, in which case also replace the template by a non-parametric one, or just delete the whole mess. Alai 18:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the stub category and the one who changed the template, I must say I don't know what you're problem is. I understand if you want to change the category name, that makes sense to me. But this is not a seperate stub type, these are still Digimon stubs.
The problem came when some wikipedians disputed that many Digimon articles were no longer stubs. This was the compromise I made with them, so that they'd stop removing the tags altogether. I know using qif is a bit odd, but I don't see anything wrong with it, and I really don't understand why you have such a strong objection to it. I was trying to avoid creating a whole other template, because then that template would probably just go up for deletion like this stub-type is. There's about a thousand of these Digimon articles, and I'm working really hard with WikiProject Digimon Systems Update to try to make these articles acceptable. I've even nominated many of them for deletion, merged others, and expanded others.
The stub template modification and category are tools to aid in this huge process. If you'd like to suggest a better way of doing this, then I'm all for it, but please don't make this whole thing harder. -- Ned Scott 20:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:STUB. Those guidelines make it relatively clear what a stub is; they describe how stub templates should be coded. In both those respects, this templates and its use are distinctly not in compliance: Alice McCoy (Digimon) is not a stub, and shouldn't have a stub tag on it; stub tags shouldn't feed into non-stub categories (much less conditionally). If the articles remain small and keep getting merged, deleted, etc, well, perhaps there's a reason for that. Please stop changing the template back to the non-conformant version: I think I've make it copiously clear that my change is "with good reason". If a separate non-stub template were nominated for deletion, that would be discussed on its merits: that's no reason to have a stub template be mis-coded and misapplied, which is clearly and presently problematic over and above anything else that might cause it to be objected to, and which is the order of business here. Alai 22:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, but OTHER users will not. I know this is a dirty way of handling the situation, but it is the lesser of two evils. If you have an alternative solution please give it. I know there's a reason some get deleted, and I'm not trying to save the articles, necessarily, I'm trying to organize the efforts of WP:DIGI. And could you give me some freaking time to go over the "semi-stub" articles so I can change them to a new template BEFORE you change it back. I have read WP:STUB and I am not convinced that it represents your view. By removing the qif from {{digi-stub}} you are basically removing this stub type BEFORE the discussion has ended. When something is an AfD, it is not deleted first and then discussed. Look, I agree with you, this was not the best way to do this, but throw me a freakin' bone. Instead of trying to help the situation you're just making it a pain in the ass. I'll change how this is all handled by the end of the day, hopefully my solution will be acceptable to you as well. You could have just said "hey, here's a better way of doing this".-- Ned Scott 22:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted it back so I can get a listing of the articles again. Also, you're removing the "stub type" before discussion is over. I fail to see where it is "forbidden" to use qif for a stub template. I do agree that a better name / comment / whatever should be applied rather than "semi-stub", it was simply all that I could think of at the time. Let me make this clear, I don't care that you are an administrator, and I don't take kindly to your threats of protecting the template. How I handled the stub was not "wrong", it was just not the best way of doing it. I have read the guidelines, and still do not see where I have done "wrong". Even if there is a statement that cites "proper" stub template usage, wikipedia is pretty clear that there is always the possibility for exceptions for certain situations. Also, this was all done as a tool for WP:DIGI, a specific use. I will improve how this is handled, but not because it was "wrong", but to improve it. Needing improvement is not the same as the wrong way of doing things. -- Ned Scott 22:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does saying "I'm refraining from doing so myself" somehow constititute a "threat" that I'm going to to do that very thing? I "don't take kindly" to your inaccurate (not to say uncivil) characterisation of what I said. WP:STUB has a model for the coding of stub templates: your modification diverges dramatically from this. That it doesn't exhaustively list all the ways not to code a template hardly changes this. The guidelines also refer you to WP:WSS/P for the creation of "new stub types" (if that what this supposed to this is supposed to be), which you did not do. The guidelines define what a stub is; this may debatable in some cases, but isn't it clear that defining a category specifically for stubs that aren't stubs is inherently problematic? If it's not clear from the guidelines that this is indeed "wrong", I'd appreciate input on how it might be made clearer. (I'm fairly sure there's a statement that 'stub type = template + category', which in itself precludes the 'parametrised family' approach.) SFD is filled with people stating their stub type is a "special case" (or equally, people citing other people's "special case" is a precedent for their own scheme: if you want a "specific use" that WSS takes no interest in, then please avoid the whole "stub" terminology. Your objection to my "removing" a type without 'due process' ignores that I was simply fixing a malformed template, which doesn't require a 7-day duscussion, and which in any case made no material difference to the existing category population. If it made further population more difficult while the nomination was in progress, then, all well and good. This objection is also somewhat ironic given the lack of "process" in creating this in the first place. Alai 23:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the real issue here is that you feel this is a whole new stub type and I do not. One of the reasons I used the same template with a qif was because I felt they were still the same stub type, but wanted a different message on the bottom to satisfy some of the other users. Nothing more.
I've already gone through and changed articles from using {{digi-stub|1}} to using {{digi-expand}} as you suggested. As long as the same idea is able to be applied then it doesn't bother me to change it. -- Ned Scott 00:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it's not clear what it is: as I alluded to, I had second thoughts about taking this to CFD, rather than here, due to the "semi-stubs" terminology, which pretty much encodes the whole "are they or aren't they?" lack of clarity. It matters less whether there's zero, one, or two stub types as whether non-stubs are being placed in stub categories, or vice versa, and whether the coding of templates makes this transparent, or obscure. But it's pretty hard to argue that a new stub category doesn't entail a new stub type. Alai 01:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a sub-category under Digimon stubs. Do you not understand what a sub-category is? Even if I am incorrect on that, I'm not trying to "argue" that, I'm telling you, at the time I did not see it as a new stub type, and making a new stub type was not my intention. Are you going to "argue" what my intentions are now? As for the category issue, incase you forgot, that was the one thing I did agree with you on, that calling them "semi-stubs" wasn't the best idea. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Delete it as thoroughly and delete it as decisively as it is possible to delete anything. Then delete it again, to be on the safe side. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SEMI-STUB. This whole business seems identical to the "Start" categories (that were deleted) and the "Substubs" category (which was deleted). We don't grade stubs by different level according to how near to being a completed article they are. Either something's a stub or it isn't. If it's a stub, mark it as such. If it's too big to be a stub and still needs expansion, then put the {{expansion}} on it. Don't create a whole new class of articles. Grutness...wha? 07:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even take the time to read any of the discussion first? There is NOTHING TO DELETE ANYMORE. This issue has already been resolved. All that's left is to change the cat. I'm sorry if I ruined your chance to be a dick. -- Ned Scott 07:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I read the discussion first - I'm not an idiot. That doesn't change the point that there should be no grading of stubs - stubs are stubs, non-stubs are non-stubs. The category still remains with a stub name - which is clearly incorrect because these are not stubs, or semi-stubs, they are non-stub artricles that need expanding. As such, the category name is incorrect. As I pointed out, this is exactly what happened in other cases recently. The category is still a blue-link, which it shouldn't be. The same is true with {{digi-stub}}. So where do you get the idea there's nothing do delete any more? It may also be informative to you that {{Semi-stub}} was speedily deleted last month by MarkSweep with the comment "there are only stubs; no sub-stubs, semi-stubs, demi-stubs, hemi-stubs, etc.; use {{expand}} if an article is incomplete)". If you'd read my comments rather than just leaping to a response, perhaps it would have given you more of an option to remain WP:CIVIL. Now argue to the point instead of name-calling, and we might get somewhere. Grutness...wha? 10:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
....So you didn't read what I said. One of the things I brought up was that I was listing articles that were still stubs, but some anime fans disagreed because they put a picture and an infobox on the article. I was never trying to suggest listing non-stubs with stubs. Of course {{digi-stub}} is still blue, default usage of that stub-type was never disputed. And although I agree that the cat should be changed too, this is stub types for deletion, not categories for deletion, so if you want to get technical, it's illrelevant to state here that the cat is still active. (It won't be for long, I'm about to move it). I can't help but think that none of this would have ever been an issue if I had just thought of a better name than "semi-stub" to call the category at the time. And saying stuff like Delete it as thoroughly and delete it as decisively as it is possible to delete anything. Then delete it again, to be on the safe side. is not very WP:CIVIL either (which is what rubbed me the wrong way about your comment. I'm sorry and I don't mean for more confrontation about such a minor issue). (and citing m:Don't be a dick isn't the same thing as name-calling) -- Ned Scott 10:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you mentioned that the articles you were listing were still stubs. You clearly didn't read that I said that if they were stubs they were stubs - not semi-stubs. As I said above and you clearly didn't read: stubs are stubs, non-stubs are non-stubs. Neither of these two things means that something is a "semi-stub" - there is no such thing. If you'd thought of a better name, it wouldn't have been an issue, true. And if you'd looked at the history of naming stubs and articles needing expansion in the past you would have seen better names. Similarly, if you'd consulted with people who deal with stubs you'd have been told a better name. But you didn't - you simply named it with a variant name stub type that has been deleted in the past and has caused problems here, and at TFD, and at CFD in the past. Which is why my initial comment was so vehement - we don't need these daft stub gradation names clogging things up again. Especially since it's clear these are not a variant somewhere between stubs and non-stubs. By your own admission, they are stubs, pure and simple. So why put them in a category for things that need expansion when simply calling them stubs automatically implies that? Do you think we have "stubs that shouldn't be expanded"? These are simply digi-stubs - yes, I apologise for that; digi-stub is still blue for a good reason of course - though the category still has a blue link which it shouldn't (it simply doubles up on the stub category and therefore should be deleted). Oh, and if calling someone a dick is your idea of civility, then I feel very sorry for you, because if you try that sort of stunt down at your nearest pub, you're going to find yourself with a broken nose pretty damn quick. Grutness...wha? 11:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TIME OUT guys. Ned you need to be more civil. this is no place for name calling (yes it was uncivil) and you should have checked before making this unneccesary cat (delete btw). Grutness let the red haze clear a bit. you seem to have got the wrong end of the stick about what Ned was suggesting and your initial comments were a too strong. Both of you take a few deep breaths and count to 10. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 11:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17th April

[edit]

{{Tintin-stub}} & Category:Tintin stubs rescope

[edit]

This stub type from the Discoveries page is at 24 stubs too small. Now since we have articles about Franco-Belgian comics that indicate that the European Francophone comics market is effectively a single market, I propose rescoping the stub type to {{FrancoBelgian-comics-stub}} & Category:Franco-Belgian comics stubs with a new non-stub parent category of Category:Franco-Belgian comics as well. Altogther, the type would have 73 stubs. I realise that FrancoBelgian is slightly innovative, but neither national category is large enough and it does reflect reality and existing article names. Failing a rescope, I must recommend we delete the stub type, tho I would hate to see the nice icon the creator came up with for the template be effectively tossed away. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what about one catagory with two templates - belgium- and france-? that way if we want to we can split it easier later. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 03:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with multiple templates, but I only see the need for a single category, even if it were larger due to the fact that any editor likely to be interested in these likely won't care much whether they were printed in France or Belgium. Culture is really an area that ought to have be divided primarily by language and then of needed by country, but that would affect more than just this stub if that was made the standard. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 19th

[edit]

Category:Northeastern US geography stubs to Category:Northeastern United States geography stubs

[edit]

also:

moved from CFD Grutness...wha?

US to United States. Note there is no template associated with this category. Vegaswikian 21:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20th April

[edit]

{{Gvrd-bio-stub}} / Category:Vancouver people stubs/GVRD people stubs

[edit]

empty, never proposed, and ISTR we dealt with the weirdly and unguessably-named gvrd things about a month ago. Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{AFStub}} / Category:Artemis Fowl stubs

[edit]

One whole stub. never proposed, ridiculously named template, ridiculously specialised stub type. Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. will we get sixty stubs for artemis fowl? i dont think so... BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

various Battle stubs

[edit]

Seems that User:Rshu had fn recently, creating all these without proposing them, and not telling anyone or seemingly even using any of them (yes, that's right, they're all empty). Unless they can be populated, they should be deleted. Grutness...wha? 06:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{MV-newspaper-stub}} / Category:Maldives newspaper stubs

[edit]

Given the size of the Maldives, it's possible that it doesn't have 60 newspapers, let alone stubs about them all. And the addition of the ToC template to the category is either hubris or a joke, surely? As it is, this (badly named and never proposed) stub type has five stubs. Upmerge and delete. Grutness...wha? 06:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Maldives-bio-stub}} / Category:Maldivian people stubs

[edit]

...and this unproposed stub type has just four stubs. Upmerge and delete. Grutness...wha? 06:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{BritOT-geo-stub}} and Category:British Overseas Territories geography stubs(rescope/rename)

[edit]

I proposed the following last week at WP:WSS/P - there has been no opposition to it there.

At the moment Category:British Overseas Territories geography stubs covers a rag-tag of colonies and territories across the planet, many of them double-stubbed with things like caribbean-geo-stub or oceania-geo-stub. If the British Indian Ocean Territories were moved into the East Africa category (where Seychelles is, which they're often considered alongside), then the only ones not double-stubbed are the British South Atlantic Territories - South Georgia, the Falklands, Ascension, etc. I'd like to propose moving BIOT's stubs and renaming the category and template to Category:British Atlantic territories geography stubs and {{UK-Atlantic-geo-stub}}. It would lower the category's size to slightly below threshold (about 50), but it's a short term thing which would lead to better categorisation over all.

Grutness...wha? 01:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The present system is a mess, so this seems like a good idea. Valentinian (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
good idea. this ones been a problem long enough. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 21st

[edit]

{{Wagon-stub}}

[edit]

To go along with the recently speedied Category:Station Wagon Stubs. Never proposed. My main objection is that it doesn't fit within the existing auto stub organization ({{Modern-auto-stub}} for cars produced 1975-present, {{Classicpow-auto-stub}} for cars produced 1945-1975, etc...). Category:Modern auto stubs might be able to be split, but I don't think this is the best way to do it. --Interiot 20:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete this. not a good way to split the stubs. if we were going to split modern cars, then US, japan, Europe would probably be better than model type. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Amalas 20:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Castle-stub}}/Category:Castle stubs

[edit]

never proposed, used twice since creation two months ago. There is a scotland-castle-stub, which was agreed to because scotland's structure stubs were about 50-50 castles and everything else. But I'm loath to have this one since struct-stub is already a huge nightmare due to the two-way split of articles (everything was being split beautifully by country and region until stubs for different types of structures started being made - the fewer of them there are, the easier it is to work out what is where). As it is, a germany-castle-stub might conceivably be useful, as might one of the UK (other than scotland, for reasons given above), but one for all castles everywhere seems like a huge amount of work and will add further to the confusion and edit-warring that already exist with struct-stub templates. Grutness...wha? 14:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 23rd

[edit]

Undersized Norwegian geo stubs

[edit]

Possibly created in some confusion as to what there was consensus on the proposals page to create (i.e. stub templates for all the counties). Upmerge until such time as they pass threshold. Alai 10:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Aust-Agder is now up to 62 so that one should be kept. Valentinian (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{CW-stub}} / Category:CW network stubs

[edit]

Another cryptic singleton. Alai 09:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

country and western? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, this refers to The CW Television Network. As such, I think it needs to be properly populated before deleting. Amalas 20:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you mean "instead of" - populating it then deleting it sounds like a bad move :) (rename to CW-tv-stub, BTW, and bring it back again for potential deletion if it's not populated soon). Grutness...wha? 01:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{ASP-stub}} / Category:ASP World Tour stubs

[edit]

One article. Small enough? And cryptic enough? More sensible would be {{surf-stub}} or {{surfing-stub}}, if that would be viable. Alai 09:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

surfing-stub would be good if theres enough articles. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24th April

[edit]

Stub category redirects

[edit]

I notice we have several stub category redirects. Since stubs are always added to categories via templates, these seem redundant to me. Unless there are any reasons for keeping them that I haven't thought of, it would make sense to me if they were deleted. Probably not a big thing, but worth bringing here anyway. The redirected categories in question are:

(Oh, and since these are category redirects, I've put the sfd notices on their talk pages) Grutness...wha? 07:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of three naval ships categories

[edit]
I decided to take Cyde up on his offer of using the Cydebot for the (uncontroversial) renaming of the UK and US categories to United kingdom and United States, and I noticed three ategories that might be tweaked in a slightly different way as far as their titles are concerned. My only concern is that they might include more ships than those my proposed new titles would allowfor, but I thought I'd suggest them here anyway: What say? Grutness...wha? 05:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ahh. skip it. Someone only half-updated the stub type list at some point. These categories have been changed, but the piping of them on WP:WSS/ST was botched. Mind you, I'd still be intrested in any comments as to whether my proposed names would be more or less useful. Grutness...wha? 06:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, I prefer something that actually has the name of the country in it. "Royal Navy" is kind of ambiguous. What about something like Category:United Kingdom Royal Navy ship stubs? --Cyde Weys 05:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not that ambiguous. IIRC every other country does have its country name in the title - Jordan's navy is the Royal Jordanian Navy, Austalia's is the Royal Australian navy, The Netherlands have the Royal Dutch Navy, for instance. The British one though is officially just the Royal Navy. Same as no-one thinks of the "United States Navy" as being from the Estados Unidos Mexicanos :) Grutness...wha? 07:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, doesn't it give you a wave of nostalgia for the days when "imperialism" was proud to have a capital "I"? Well, OK, maybe not... I certainly think that having both "United Kingdom" and "Royal Navy" in the category name is over-egging things (and "British Royal Navy" would sound to my ear a lot like London Times), would be happy enough with either one alone (the difference in scope is sufficiently slight as to be well worth ignoring in practice). Alai 19:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's like stamps, really. Britain never puts its name on them because, well, they invented them and everyone ought to know where the stamps come from! :) Grutness...wha? 08:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Baiting-stub}} / Category:Baiting stubs

[edit]

Very small, and very narrow. (OTOH, there's a Wikiproject.) At the minimum, I'd suggest this be rescoped to blood sports in general, and populated up to somewhere approaching 30 stubs, else deleted. Obviously I'd have to strongly oppose the addition of stub-sorter baiting, popular though that is in some quarters. :) Alai 02:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We only just have enough stubs for fishing as a whole, without one just for the bait :). Delete (more seriously, though, perhaps a more general bloodsport-stub may be needed sometime). Grutness...wha? 05:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP hello I created this stub, it is meant for bait (dogs), it is still required. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 02:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being used on only 2 articles doesn't make a strong case for it being 'required' by anyone... Mairi 03:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being excessively small. Still only used on two stubs. The list of articles on the Project page seems sufficient. A stub type is not needed. --TheParanoidOne 09:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Submg-stub}} / Category:Submachinegun stubs

[edit]

If I try hard, I could imagine this being viable, but as it stands it was never proposed, doesn't have a great name, is used on one article, and is a sub-type of the non-oversized Category:Firearms stubs. Use it or lose it. Alai 01:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Running stubs / Category:Running biography stubs

[edit]

Sensible-sounding, and there's a wikiproject, but very small nonetheless, and especially so for having them split between two separate categories. Populate both, or else upmerge the latter to the former, or simply delete the smaller. Alai 01:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

26th April

[edit]

{{auditing-stub}} / Category:Auditing stubs

[edit]

Tiny and unnecessary: upmerge to Category:Accounting stubs, or just delete. Alai 02:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Pakistan-actor-stub}} / Category:Pakistani actors stubs

[edit]

Only two articles. Alai 02:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Guanajuato-stub}} / Category:Guanajuato stubs

[edit]

The Mexican stubs are only two listings pages, and this is only two articles. Alai 02:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Texas stub}}

[edit]

Malnamed duplicate of {{Texas-stub}}. TimBentley (talk) 02:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hotel stubs

[edit]

Only ten articles, and not how we're splitting the buildings and structures, but it has a sensible-sounding child type, Category:Hotel company stubs. Is a downmerge a topologically feasible operation? Alai 23:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move the articles back to the struct-stub categories and delete the cat. Hotel company stubs was proposed and is a natural child of company stubs, not this. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:North Dakota school stubs

[edit]

Note that I've just speedied this as a recreation of a recent decision here. Alai 23:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Erotic-novel-stub}} / Category:Erotic novel stubs

[edit]

Part of the alleged split of Category:Novel stubs that's been threatened for about three months now. Which is indeed needed, but this split has in that time yielded eight articles, which is a sorting rate of ten days per article, the very reciprocal of that which might be desirable. Is this populable, or not? Quit teasing us! Strongly urge upmerging until some sort of viability is established. Alai 22:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{JungleJam-stub}} / Category:Jungle Jam stubs

[edit]

Seven articles, and the permanent (and only) parent is no largely: seems extremely narrow, and never going to hit anything like threshold. Category:Radio show stubs isn't particularly in need of splitting. Alai 22:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete for the reasons given. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UK organisation stubs → Category:United Kingdom organisation stubs

[edit]

And likewise AFICT the last "UK". Alai 18:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename. Must've missed this when I asked Cyde about the others. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:US tennis biography stubs → Category:United States tennis biography stubs

[edit]

As far as I can tell the last "US" in a stub category name, and a relatively dinky one. Alai 18:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename as per above one. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Australia-settler-stub}} / Category:Australia settler stubs

[edit]

And on just two. Alai 07:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised this one hasn't grown - it may simply be a case of undersorting - I don't see that a worldwide settler stub would be that helpful since I doubt anyone knowing about settlers in one country would necessarily want to edit artcles about settlers elsewhere. Either keep to see if it grows or upmerge into Australia-bio-stub. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{vlog-stub}} / Category:Blogging stubs

[edit]

Despite the general-sounding category, this is apparently only for video blogs, which seems unduly narrow to me. There might be something to be said for rescoping to blogs in general. Otherwise, delete. Alai 07:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename template and rescope. Sounds reasonable. There are a few blog articles coming through now. Grutness...wha? 06:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about the number/distribution of blogging stubs, but the rename template and rescope option sounds reasonable for the moment. Reviewing it in about a month would be good. --TheParanoidOne 10:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ukraine-hist-stub}} / Category:History of Ukraine stubs

[edit]

Used on a mighty three articles. I assume Ukraine has slightly more history than that, so no fixed opinion as to whether to populate, upmerge or delete. Alai 07:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 27th

[edit]

{{NL-stub}} / Category:Nuevo León stubs

[edit]

Horribly-named template, renaming would be a necessity. But I reckon just delete: this is not going to be anything like viable for a long while. The Mexico-stubs and indeed geo-stubs aren't especially numerous, and splitting them between 32 states is going to produce a lot of very undersized stub types. Might be possible to split by the eight regions, though I'm not clear how significant these are in the Mexican scheme of things. Alai 04:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Guanajuato below. Delete. NL is Netherlands, anyway. Grutness...wha? 05:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NL is universally used for the Netherlands. Valentinian (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Square Enix-stub}} / Category:Square Enix stubs; {{FinalFantasy-stub}} / Category:Final Fantasy stubs

[edit]

At a minimum, we need to rename the space-filled template to comply with the NGs. Both types are very small, I'd suggest we smoosh 'em together to make one good one (or at least, a better one). Alai 04:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename or rescope, per nom. Don't mind which, though they are desperately small. Grutness...wha? 05:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 27th

[edit]

{{Kurdistan-bio-stub}} / Category:Kurdish people stubs

[edit]
  • A similar vote has deleted Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/March_2006#March_15th
  • Same user recreated the deleted Template:Kurdistan-politician-stub which I speedied as per vote on March 15th
  • The stub category is small and problematic
    • (~76 articles barely satisfying the 60 article limit). Neither iraqi, turkish, syrian, or iranian-bio stubs are overloaded.
    • I wouldnt consider it neutral as 'Kurdistan' is a contraverisal term defining a region which also is a proposed country...
    • I also supect the stub category is unnecesarily inflated.
Cat chi? 11:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cat chi? 11:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • uhoh. delete. same problems as other kurdish cats. same problem as kosovo, transdinistra and all others like them. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and BL. Valentinian (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. ILovEPlankton 15:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever else it is, this type isn't too small. If you're looking for things to delete on size, start about the 10s of this list, and work your way on down. If you get up to 76 (now 87), I'll be very impressed. This is also in no way whatsoever "speediable" on the grounds of an (at most somewhat) similar type having been deleted. Alai 18:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What category type does this stub fall under? Ethnicty? Nationality? Country?
    Is there any reason not to tag a kurd living in turkey under {{Turkey-bio-stub}}. We do not tag based on ethnicty elsewhere.
    Cat chi? 13:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perfectly valid nationality categorisation. Well populated. --Mais oui! 09:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it's ethnicity, not nationality. Do they have Kurdish passports? Delete. Conscious 11:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or at the very least rename & rescope to Kurd-bio-stub) - badly scoped. Kurdistan is a cultural region, the boundaries of which are unclear and disputed. Armenians, Turks, Arabs and Iranians live in Kurdistan too, including some opposed (vehemently or even violently) to Kurdish independence... but I rather doubt the creator intended to include them ;) If it is to be kept with the apparently intended scope, it must be at Kurd-bio-stub, not Kurdistan-bio-stub. However, even this wouldn't fit into the stub category tree. We would sort ethnically and culturally Russians from East Ukraine as a Ukraine bio stub, I don't see why we can't sort an ethnically and culturally Kurdish person from Turkey using Turkey bio stub; that's not a claim that they are ethnically and culturally Turkish, it's just saying they are a person from Turkey whose article could do with being lengthened. The only thing that makes me tend towards keeping this is that there is interest in expanding Kurdish-related articles which transcends national boundaries; unfortunately it is very hard for stub-catting to cope with such an arrangement (especially in terms of parent cats). There is no reason for a WikiProject or User not to create a "List of Kurdish-related articles (biographical or otherwise) needing expansion" but it's difficult to use the machinery of stub-catting to sort the articles directly. TheGrappler 01:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The stub category tree is in any case more of a forest anyway, or more precisely, a dag rooted at Category:Stub categories, which has a sillily large number of children; and is missing much top level structure. I agree on the name, and I'm two minds on a Kurd-stub type of any kind, but let's bear in mind that "country-ness", either in a legal sense, or in a number-of-tanks sense, is not the be-all-and-end-all of stub viability, "notable topic-ness" is (together with size). It's not unusual to double-stub people with multiple "nationalities"; it's certainly not infeasible to double-stub people with their nationality and their main notability where that's tied into their ethnic identity. What's less clear is whether that applies to the current population, and what's even less clear still -- if not to say, highly unlikely -- is whether if such a stub continued to exist, that it'd only ever be used in that manner. Alai 04:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A large number of linked people are historic figures who were notable for reasons other than their ethnicity. The articles in question appear in Category:Kurdish people as well as its sub categories (often multiple times) so this is kinda redudent to place them in a sub stub category as well... Next thing you know we will have AfricanAmerican-bio-stub and etc... thngs can get quite ugly... Cat chi? 16:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's a difference between saying that someone is notable for their ethnicity (which would be silly), and that their ethnicity relates to their notability (a politian in a Kurdish-separatist party, a writer in the Kurdish language, etc). The fact the there's a permanent category is not a reason not to have a stub category: just the reverse. Redundancy between use of permanent categories is another matter, but also not very relevant here. Alai 17:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • True, I suppose. I still do not believe it should be a stub type as it doesnt fit anywhere and it is not like we have thousands of kurd-bio articles... Also consider historic personalities whom had significant impact on human history of whom everybody declares "ownership". Sorting them by country is bad enough, sorting by ethnicity would easily be a nightmare. We can easly have personalities apearing in 5 or 6 or even more stub categories in adition to country ones... Cat chi? 18:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Kurdistan is a geographic region, not a political one (except in Iraq). —Khoikhoi 02:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 28th

[edit]

{{life-stub}} / Category:Life stub

[edit]

April 30th

[edit]

{{Plan 9 stub}} / Category:Plan 9 stubs

[edit]

Not the Ed Wood movie, but the OS. 11 articles. At a minimum, should rename the template to conform to the NGs, and the category to be less ambiguous. Alai 05:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

either rename or delete. Would it grow to 60? Grutness...wha? 07:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC) (I was hoping it was about the movie :)[reply]

Category:Pitcairn stubs

[edit]

Another small and non-only very slowly growing type; parent is about half a listing page. Upmerge. Alai 05:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

actually, "non-growing" isn't quite right, since I added one to it yesterday. But you're right about it being desperately small. Upmerging to oceania-stub is probably reasonable, especially since almost everything in there would actually fit into a subcat of it (there are a couple of oceania-bio-stubs, and the rest are already marked oceania-geo-stub). Grutness...wha? 07:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly doesn't seem to be converging to 60 in any sort of hurry. Alai 18:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it looks as though one stub that was in here until recently has grown to beyond stub length (yay!), so it's not converging to 60 at all :). (I take back my "non-growing" comments!) Grutness...wha? 08:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as per Grutness. --TheParanoidOne 10:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the fun of it, I've tried to populated it, and it is now up to 23 articles. Well, there's a lot of redlinks relating to its former governors and magistrates ... Seriously, I don't think it'd be worth the effort :) Valentinian (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh - yeah, I thought that's what you were up to (Pitkern's on my watch list since I did a bit of an overhaul of the article a few months back). With only 60 people living on the island, it would really be stretching it to come up with 60 stubs, even though I could probably write half a dozen or so more geo-stubs for it if I put my mind to it. That would still leave us well short of threshold, though. Grutness...wha? 14:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Maratha-stub}} / Category:Maratha Empire stubs

[edit]

Small, and has been small for some time. Parent is largeish, but not oversized. Alai 05:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

upmerge into the South Asia history stubs category would be sensible, I suspect. Grutness...wha? 07:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as per Grutness. --TheParanoidOne 10:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or upmerge). Conscious 11:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - Runcorn 15:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/April_2006&oldid=1108716004"