Jump to content

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Not deleted/January 2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 1st

[edit]

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

[edit]

This is a well-used stub type (182 entries). However, its parentage is questionable. Currently, it's a child of {{music-stub}} (however, is hasn't been listed on WP:WSS/ST since the time of discovery). I see the following reasonable options:

  1. Just leave it as it is, and list it.
  2. Make {{album-stub}} its parent. However, albums are being divided by genre, and it makes sense to upmerge {{single-stub}} and sort singles by genre. But it may be left as a distinct subcat of {{album-stub}} as well.
  3. Make {{song-stub}} its parent. Songs are also divided by genre. Upmerging is also an option.

Given that Category:Singles is a subcat of Category:Songs, I would like to see it merged to {{song-stub}}. (Wouldn't really mind other two options, though.) Conscious 11:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Kept. See archived discussion here. --TheParanoidOne 16:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 2nd

[edit]

{{Africa-footyclub-stub}} / Category:African football club stubs

[edit]

In the 4 months this category exists, it has amassed 20 articles. I propose upmerging the articles to {{footyclub-stub}} and only re-creating this stub when it reaches the 60-80 stub threshold. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 19:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC) There are now 58 articles in the stub category, so I believe this category is finally viable. I hereby withdraw the nomination. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 00:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 3rd

[edit]

{{Musicbio-stub}}

[edit]

Redir. undeleted via WP:DRV. IMO the original reasons for deletion are still prfectly valid, and this is the proper place to relist. Delete. DES (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth is deleting the redirects akin to biting newbies?? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 15:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It deliberately increases the complexity of editing Wikipedia, pointlessly privileging experienced editors. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete ads re-creation of previosly deleted template. DRV should not have voted for undeletion without at least mentioning that such a vote was in process here at SFD. Grutness...wha? 07:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete another attempt by spui to destroy stub sorting's naming conventions. BL kiss the lizard 07:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per SPUI. Harmless redirect. FCYTravis 09:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • if it goes against naming conventions it isnt harmless BL kiss the lizard 09:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Naming conventions are like all policies - to be ignored when they don't serve the interests of writing an encyclopedia. I fail to see how a redirect interferes with writing an encyclopedia. Given the often-unintuitive stub type names (when I'm on newpages patrol, sometimes I've tried four or five different combinations before hitting a stub template that works), redirects are a perfectly legitimate solution. FCYTravis 09:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • the only people who regularly use stub templates are stub sorters who know what a stub name is becuase it follows naming conventions. the more redirects there are that dont follow the naming the more people see them and start making their own nonstandar name templates. so the more nonstandard redirects there are the more templates there are that stub sorters have to deal with that they cant automatically know the names of. that makes it harder to sort stubs. which interferes with the writing of the encyclopedia. BL kiss the lizard 09:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • What kind of hubris is that, "The only people who regularly use stub templates are stub sorters." That's bull. When I'm on newpages patrol and find stubs I make an effort to put a proper template on it. That job is *aided* by redirects. Please see WP:OWN - just because you do a *lot* of something does not make you the only person doing it and does not make your opinion the only one that is valid. It's *good* that we have a standardized system of template naming. If someone creates a stub template that's misnamed, just move it to the correct name. I don't see what the big deal is. You're acting like something that is, by definition, quick, cheap and easy, is a capital crime. Why is it a good thing to make it harder for people to access stub templates? Heck, might as well just delete all redirects to anywhere on the grounds that they make people think that creating articles with misspelled names is OK! FCYTravis 09:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • "The only people who regularly use stub templates are stub sorters"... this is because stub sorters alienate non-experts by making their task an elitist one, then personally attack such "outsiders" for using {{stub}} instead [1] [2]. This could be a self-perpetuating cycle, similar to the way these redirects get deleted by consensus at SFD (by professional stub sorters who find them annoying), then get restored by consensus at DRV (by the rest of the community, who found them useful). Again, don't bite newbies. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:17, Jan. 3, 2006
            • do you really think that those edits show that i was attacking someone for only using {{stub}}? Spui was deliberately adding a whining "i wont do this" message and thats what the edit was about. i couldnt care less if he only uses stub. most people who create stub articles only use a general stub template likes stub or geo-stub or bio-stub. thats why we have to clear a couple of hundred stubs a day from those categories. if people sorted stubs into the different stub catagories we wouldnt have over a hundred people in a specialist project sorting stubs. we wouldnt be doing any work if people sorted their own stubs. FYCTravis im sorry if you think i insulted you. you are one of the rare good guys who looks for the corrrect catagory. but most dont, they just use stub and are happy enough to let stub sorters sort stubs. as User:xoloz said at DRV "Stubsorting is a thankless job, and the strange gnomes fine users :) who accomplish it should have some deference for expertise and effort -- I just use "stub," and I don't mind at all." as for the consensus of the comunity, the count was 8-6 for restore at DRV with two others saying they were happy to keep them deleted but didn't actually vote either way. if they had voted then it would have been even even when there were none of the regular stub sorters voting cause we didnt know about it. and redirects for articles dont create the extra server load that redirects for templates do plus article redirects always tell the person using them that theyre redirects and template redirects dont so its a different thing. one of the big reasons redirects for stub templates are often deleted is the extra server load becuase wikis servers have enuf strain without that. BL kiss the lizard 11:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again. The redirect was deleted through process, and any attempt to claim otherwise and fool the noble people at WP:DRV is (again, like the mfd) an attempt to prove a point. Stub redirects belong on SFD until notice to the contrary. You alone, SPUI, can't enforce that change. You've already tried a myriad of ways to do so. When will you have had enough and give up? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 15:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete This whole controversy has convinced me we need to look at handling the redirect controversy via software engineering rather than human engineering as I mentioned at the RFD talk page. However until the naming guidelines get changed or a software engineer solution is provided, I'll stick with the best solution for now and vote to protect the naming guidelines in the manner that can be best done at this time. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SPUI. Ashibaka tock 18:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aecis. This does appear to be a violation of WP:POINT by SPUI. If you really think it belongs on RFD, transclude this section over there, or put in a link, or something. Stifle 10:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: confusing stub nomenclature causes real problems [3] which the stub sorters refuse to admit. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:27, Jan. 6, 2006
    • Exactly, it causes problems. Which is why we need one nomenclature, and one nomenclature only, so that each contributor will intuitively know what stub template to use. Creating dozens of redirects where the only difference is a space instead of a hyphen, Us instead of US, etc. only adds to the confusion. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 11:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "confusing stub nomenclature causes real problems". thats why we standardised it. why do you think we want rid of all the alternative nomenclature that cowboys keep making? to stop the problems! BL kiss the lizard 22:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alai 02:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good redirect. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{US-street-stub}}

[edit]

Redir. undeleted via WP:DRV. IMO the original reasons for deletion are still prfectly valid, and this is the proper place to relist. Delete. DES (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Us-rail-stub}}

[edit]

Redir. undeleted via WP:DRV. IMO the original reasons for deletion are still prfectly valid, and this is the proper place to relist. Delete. DES (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{NYCS stub}}

[edit]

Redir. undeleted via WP:DRV. IMO the original reasons for deletion are still prfectly valid, and this is the proper place to relist. Delete. DES (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 6th

[edit]

Category:Portuguese nobility stubs -> Category:Portuguese royalty stubs

[edit]

The corresponding template is {{Portugal-royal-stub}}, its wording refers to royalty. The stubs in the category are about the members of various royal families. As stub types distinguish between royalty and nobility, this category is confusing and needs renaming. (This one is from discoveries page, but has 77 stubs.) Conscious 08:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 7th

[edit]

{{Germany-university-stub}} / Category:Germany university stubs; {{Taiwan-university-stub}} / Category:Republic of China university stubs

[edit]

(October's discoveries) My only objection against these two stub types is that they are used on 25 and 21 articles respectively, despite the fact they were created on October 15, 2005. Weak delete. Conscious 07:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 9th

[edit]

{{Business-school-stub}} / Category:Business school stubs

[edit]

From stubberg. Created on September 27. Used on 6 articles. Delete. Conscious 10:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

From stubberg. Created on October 26. Used on 24 articles. Could be useful, but apparently isn't. Weak delete. Conscious 10:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. What will these stubs be marked as, without "comedy"? Comedy is so large, there's sure to be more and more stubs for the cat, as Wikipedia expands. -- user:zanimum
    if they're about comedians, then comedian-stub. for comedy films, comedy-film-stub. for tv programmes theres tvseries-stub. for comedy plays, theat-stub. that gets rid of most of them. (thats a delete btw) BL kiss the lizard 23:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles, such as double-take, that don't have an obvious stubtype, tho. (It's also now at 19 articles, after sorting appropriate articles into comedy-film-stub and comedian-stub.) --Mairi 03:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Separate from what? Where would you put Pirate joke? Night Gyr 08:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{Socio-stub}}? {{Vocab-stub}}? But that's not the point. Even if a stub template is very appropriate on one article (I agree that it is), that doesn't mean it is appropriate for other articles. The requirements clearly indicate that there is a minimum of roughly 60 articles for a stub type. This stub doesn't even come close. OTOH, if you or anyone else manages to add about 30 encyclopedic articles to this category, I shall reconsider my vote. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 20:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Image-Comics-stub}} / Category:Image Comics stubs

[edit]

Created on October 11. Used on 26 articles. A Google search suggests there's not many Image Comics stubs in the parent category. Delete. Conscious 07:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems like a useful stub... Image is the 3rd or 4th largest US publisher of comic books... many titles do not yet have articles (see Image Comics) and would likely be stubs when they are created. Moving everything up to the parent category doesn't seem to be very productive. --W.marsh 15:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're trying to categorise the stubs that we have now. Not necessarily the ones that might possibly maybe exist at some point in the future. Stub categories are not the same as normal categories I'm afraid. Also, the "everything" you speak of is only 27 stubs :) --TheParanoidOne 23:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eh well like I said, it's useful. A lot of people just read titles from one publisher, and don't really have interest or knowledge of titles by other publishers... so dividing stubs between the big 3 publishers just seems logical to me. I don't really see what merging them up accomplishes but losing a bit of organization, however small it may seem. --W.marsh 23:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and indirectly per TPO. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 21:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rescope if feasible to do so, as the parent category isn't small by any means, otherwise delete until such time as it's of viable size. Alai 02:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created the stub and category to try and reduce the huge size of the comics-stub category.--KrossTalk 05:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cattheory-stub}} / Category:Category theory stubs

[edit]

From stubberg. Created on October 2. Used on 15 articles. Delete. If kept, rename to {{categorytheory-stub}}. Conscious 10:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 15th

[edit]

{{Panama-bio-stub}}

[edit]

From stubberg. Created on July 30, used on 1 article. Delete or merge to {{CentralAm-bio-stub}}. If kept, rename to {{JeronimodelaOssa-stub}}. Conscious 08:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 16th

[edit]

{{martialartbio-stub}}

[edit]

This stub should be re-named to {{martialart-bio-stub}} in line with other stubs. --Valentinian 19:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not all that much, now that we've got the Mairibot to do it. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 20:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A bot would certainly be an advantage. I completely forgot about that possibility. Well, I believe that it would be better if the sport stubs were changed to the standard "-bio-stub" but it probably involves a lot of work and I'll leave that decision to the rest of you. --Valentinian 22:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's also TPO-bot. But I'd agree that having them follow the -bio-stub standard would make sense. It takes little effort to rename things by bot, so I wouldn't mind seeing it done. --Mairi 23:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was a genuine reason for doing it this way - to keep all occupation-stubs with the same number of hyphens (so footybio-stub and, say, writer-stub were both the same "level" of split), but in reality there's probably little reason for that to be done. Grutness...wha? 23:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes some sense. But now that we have things like {{film-bio-stub}} and {{academic-bio-stub}}, all the occupation-stubs don't have the same number of hyphens anyway... --Mairi 01:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 26th

[edit]

{{US-hiphop-band-stub}} //Category:United States hiphop musical group stubs

[edit]

Most of the hip-hop artists on Wikipedia are from the US, so its redundant with {{hiphop-stub}}. Also, this stub is being used on American rappers and DJs indiscriminately-- not just hip hop bands. Defintely needs deletion, as its redundant and pointless. (Used currently by 147 articles)--Urthogie 16:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce, what I'm saying is that if we put all the US artists into that it would be just as overloaded.--Urthogie 11:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{US-hiphop-band-stub}} is for US hiphop bands/groups only. {{hiphop-stub}} is for all other hiphop acts/musicians, that is non-US hiphop bands/groups and all hiphop musicians (US and non-US). {{US-hiphop-band-stub}} currently has 149 stub articles. If we delete this stub template, these 149 article will have to be moved to {{hiphop-stub}}, which will then grow from its current 422 articles to 571 articles. --Bruce1ee 12:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, almost every guy in the stub type you created currently does not fit that description-- a lot of them are individual rappers. If I were to move all the non groups from it, it would have so few left.--Urthogie 15:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then shouldn't you do so? Then a) they'll be more correctly categorised, and b) we can more clearly assess the size of the remainder. Alai 15:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair as a temporary solution. Can I have some help in sorting out the non-bands and the non-us guys into hiphop-stub? Thanks for any friendly volunteers!--Urthogie 15:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I found two. On an admittedly non-exhaustive check, most of the ones I looked at seemed kosher. Alai 03:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make something clear. A hip hop group is not a hip hop band. A hip hop band is live instruments. An example would be The roots. Most of these are just groups. Does that make sense? There would be like 5 things left in this category once we wasted our time sorting through.--Urthogie 12:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a word, no; that didn't make a lot of sense at all, sorry. Why is them being "just groups" (several are duos, also) make them inappropriately sorted in a "groups" category? Alai 18:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The stub is called "{{US-hiphop-band-stub}}," not {{US-hiphop-group-stub}}.--Urthogie 19:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the category says groups. If the distinction is significant, or the inconsistency bothers you, perhaps you should be voting to rename, rather than delete? Alai 20:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My whole point is that this was created along with all those other band categories, without thinking about proper set categorization within hip-hop categories. How about this-- we make it hiphop-groups-stub. Why? Because we have hip hop albums stubs, hip hop songs stubs, etc. It makes sense to make it on that level for now. If we find that its overloaded, we can split it into multiple stub types. So what would you think that rename?--Urthogie 20:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your whole point seems to be a little fluid, but I'd be in favour of such a rename. Alai 20:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, well what would be the most reasonable way to go about pursuing such a rename without pissing people off/surprising them?
Well, this is the right place... If there's no rush of votes before the original nom closes, you could relist as a rename request. Not impossible some people may be pissed off by the "rapid relisting", though. OTOH, you could just create US-hh-b, as a redirect for the time being. Alai 20:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has all got very messy, so here's a redux from my POV:
  1. in stub sorting, the use of the word "band" as part of a template simply means any musical ensemble. Simon and Garfunkel are a "band", so are the London Symphonic Orchestra. It doesn't simply refer to 3-8 piece ensembles playing instruments. As such, rap duos can be perfectly well stubbed with hiphop-band-stub. The template is simply a tool for editors, and the actual wording of the template is far more important than the shorthand used for its name.
  2. if solo hiphop and rap artists are being marked with either hiphop-band-stub or hiphop-stub, and they are in danger of "flooding the category", then there is clearly a need for a separate hiphop-musician-stub. I think thatc reating the separate musician category, for solo artists, would go a long way to clearing up this mess.
  3. given (2), Category:Hip hop stubs can be - and should be - a parent category for hiphop-band-stub, hiphop-musician-stub, hiphop-album-stub, hiphop-song-stub, and any other similar stub types.
Grutness...wha? 22:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested rename

[edit]

Does anyone oppose a rename of the stub to {{hiphop-group-stub}} and the category to Category:Hip hop group stubs?--Urthogie 22:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I read up on it. I'll do this at some point soon.--Urthogie 18:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little lost: do what soon? Isn't that what you just did? Alai 22:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the rescoping. Some people have sorted {{US-hiphop-band-stub}}s out, let's not mix them with non-US stubs again. As for the template name, I'm pretty happy with the current one, which is in line with other <country>-<genre>-band-stubs. If the name {{US-hiphop-band-stub}} is incorrect, reword the template/category text. After all, we mark poets with {{writer-stub}}.

On the other hand, having templates like separate {{hiphop-band-stub}} and {{hiphop-bio-stub}} could be useful. Let's take that to WP:WSS/P if anyone bothers. Conscious 19:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being in line with other stubs shouldn't be what we decide based on-- stub categories should be based on the articles themselves. And the categorization we had just didn't make enough sense on that level.--Urthogie 19:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be about three variants deep at this point, and the discussion period's a little far advanced to get any consensus for a last-minute change to a rename or rescope. I oppose on the basis of general confusion: please relist later with some clarity about what's being requested, ideally after some discussion with other editors involved to establish some form of plan here. Alai 22:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urthogie has already moved Category:United States hiphop musical group stubs to Category:Hip hop group stubs, leaving a redirect. However the articles still point to the old category name. -- Robert Weemeyer 23:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me strength. I've just reverted this mess, and listed the residual template and cat. I'm tempted to speedy-delete them at once, but I'll adhere to proprieties... Alai 03:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


January 27th

[edit]

Melody Nelson

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/January_2006&oldid=1063331097"