Jump to content

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Valentinian (talk | contribs) at 18:23, 15 April 2006 (→April 15th: Cat:Ethiopia biography stubs should be renamed to standard format). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject Stub sorting
Information
Project page talk
- Stub types (sections) talk
- Stub types (full list) talk
- To do talk
- Naming conventions talk
- Redirects category talk
Wikipedia:Stub talk
Discussion
Proposals (A) talk
- Current month
Discussion talk
Criteria (A) (discontinued) talk
Deletion (Log) (discontinued) talk
Category
Shortcut
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

This page only deals with the deletion of stub types, which consist of a template and a category, and are intended to be used for sorting stubs. Stub templates that are missing categories and stub categories without associated templates are also appropriate here. All other templates or categories nominated for deletion have to be put on WP:TFD or WP:CFD, respectively.

About this page

This page is for the proposal, discussion, and voting on deletion of stub categories, stub templates, and stub redirects. By having the vote on these three closely related matters centralised on one page, it reduced the need for repeating identical arguments on several different Wikipedia deletion pages (WP:CFD, WP:TFD, and WP:RFD) and also reduces the workload on those pages.

Putting a stub type on SfD, and what happens afterwards

  • Mark the affected pages:
    • For deletion:
      • Put {{sfd-t}} on stub templates
      • Put {{sfd-c}} on stub categories
      • Put {{sfd-r}} on stub redirects, and include the redirect target after it (see below for details)
    • For renaming:
      • Put {{sfr-t|New-name}} (parameter optional) on stub templates
      • Put {{sfr-c|New name}} (parameter optional) on stub categories
  • List the stub type below in a new subsection at the top of the section which has the current date. If that section does not yet exist, create it.
    • Mention all affected pages in the subheading, like this:
      ==== {{tl|banana stub}} / [[:Category:Banana stubs]] / {{tl|YellowCurvyFruit-stub}} (redirect) ====
    • Also mention how many articles currently use the template, and if it is listed anywhere else.
    • Of course, state your reason for nominating the stub type for deletion!
  • After a voting period of seven days, action will be taken if there is consensus on the fate of the stub type. Please do not act before this period is over.
  • Archived discussions are logged per the instructions at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log, and are located at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted and Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Not deleted. If the decision is to rename the category or template, the discussion is logged on the "deleted" page, since the stub's name, at least, has been deleted.

Putting {{sfd-r}} on redirects

Given that the {{sfd-r}} template breaks redirection, it is necessary to change a stub redirect when adding the template, as follows:

#Redirect [[Template:foo-stub]] should be changed to:

{{sfd-r}}{{foo-stub}}

Possible reasons for the deletion of a stub type

  • They are not used in any article, and their category is empty
  • They overlap with other stub categories, or duplicate them outright
  • Their scope is too limited - As a rule of thumb, there should be at least 50 appropriate stubs in existence
  • The stub category or template is misnamed. In this case, make this clear when nominating and propose a new category or template name. Note that - in the case of a template but not a category - it may be more appropriate to make it into a redirect
  • They are malformed, misnamed, or deprecated redirects

What this page is not for

Typical voting options

  • Keep (do not delete or modify)
  • Delete (delete template and category)
  • Merge with xx-stub (Delete category, redirect template to xx-stub)
  • Merge with xx-stub without redirect (delete category and template, put xx-stub on all articles that use it)
  • Upmerge (merge to parent type)
  • Change scope (reword the template, typically giving it a larger scope. Usually also means renaming the category)
  • BJAODN (add to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, then delete)

When voting, please try to give a more substantial reason than simply "I like it/find it useful" or "I dislike it/don't find it useful"

Note to admins deleting stub types

It is important for consistency, and to avoid confusion on the parts of stub-sorters that stub types be removed from the stub type list when they are deleted. Please don't leave red links on WP:WSS/ST!

Listings

April 15th

Category:Ethiopia biography stubs → Category:Ethiopian people stubs

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]

{{Goosebumps-stub}}

Only eight articles - never likely to reach threshold, never proposed, no category. delete. Grutness...wha? 12:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about you add more stuff to it before deleting it? The Goosebumps section list over 60 books that need to be given entries, so chances are the stub will probably used again in the future. Don't delete.--CyberGhostface 14:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Far too narrow. Stub types are for where there's at least 60 existing articles, not 60 possible articles (even assuming those merit articles). Delete. Alai 17:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

{{Bolivia-stub}}

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

{{Digitaldivide-stub}}

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}}

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}}

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]

April 14th

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

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]

April 13th

Category:Warhammer Fantasy Stub

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]

{{Games Workshop-stub}}

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]

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

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]
  • 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]
(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]

April 12th

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

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]

April 11th

{{footy-stub}} → {{soccer-stub}}, and descendants

As noted elsewhere, this whole hierarchy is named in a way that does very little to resolve the "what kind of 'football', is that Union, League, Gaelic, Aussie Rules, or NFL?" ambiguity, and adds to it confusion by informal reference. To aid international understanding, rename to the unambig "soccer-", throughout, but keep redirects from existing names. Alai 02:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

support. Soccer might not be the first word that springs to mind for the sport in many countries, but it's the only name that's internationally understood to always refer to this one sport. Football (and even the colloquial "footy") is sadly a bit too ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 03:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose. I don't think "footy" is so obscure that it cuases confusion. There are a huge number of articles that use this template and its descendents (literally thousands). Are you really prepared to change every single one of them? Tompw 12:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
a few small comments: (1) footy isn't obscure - it's potentially misleading. Where I live, "footy" means Rugby Union (although as a follower of the one true code I know what it really means). Over the ditch "footy" means AFL. (2) the proposal includes the idea of keeping the current names as redirects. Because of this any change of articles to the new name could be done gradually - in many cases when the categories are further split (like the proposed US-soccer-stub on WP:WSS/P at the moment). (3) even if the idea was to change them all over at once, that's what bots are for, so it wouldn't be much of a hassle. Grutness...wha? 13:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose we have been over and over and over this name thing, football is a/the correct name for the sport no matter what else followers of other codes want to call it. Footy is a nice contraction. Bob Palin 05:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good grief. Let's go over (and over and over and over and over) it some more until we end up with a more reasonable result, then. Followers of this code also call it "soccer" (among other things). No other code is called "soccer". Many (many, many, many) other codes are called "football". Many of them may be colloquially referred to as "footy", which may elsewhere be understand as referring to something else, or not understood at all. The categories do not use "footy", and use "football" only as qualified as "soccer". Retention of the existing names as redirects has been stipulated. This is, as the NFL contingent would say, a "no-brainer". If anyone can't stand to type "soccer", and want to continue to use the originals, or to create additional redirects from {{association-football-stub}} or whatever else, no-one would be stopping them. Alai 06:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
careful with that last comment Alai... someone who shall remain nameless may be reading! Grutness...wha? 06:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, was that my hallux I just barraged? Yes, I left that "or whatever else" a little open-ended, lest we end up with a scattergun of different templates for no particular reason. Alai 07:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Eivindt@c 22:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't like the term "soccer" since it is not European English (yet) but it is still the term most users will recognize. Valentinian (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose in the strongest terms. What will American football stubs become? And then do we need Canadian football, Ausie rule, Gaelic, etc.? Footy is primarily a British term for what North Americans would call Soccer. Most North Americans would associate gird iron with their game before they would assiciate footy with it. Please just leave it as football-stub. --Walter Görlitz 01:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat. In Australia, "footy" is AFL. In New Zealand, "footy" is Rugby Union. In the US, no-one has heard of "footy". But no matter where you are in the world, you'll recognisse the meaning of the word "soccer", even if it is not the primary name for the code. It is that lack of ambiguity which makes it ideal as a stub template name. Grutness...wha? 02:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the basis for this opposition (assuming there is one). Why do you ask about Americal football stubs? I'm not proposing they'd change at all. I'm certainly not proposing that they are moved to "football-" or "footy", if that'd what you're inferring (or indeed, implying), and I'd be strongly opposed to doing so, for much the same reasons I'm opposed to this stub type using either of those names: ambiguity, and scope for confusion. Note it's not possible to "leave it alone as football-stub", since it's not "football-stub". Alai 01:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I originally searched for American Football (and Canadian Football) stubs and did not find them. I took a different tack and found them. I change my opposition. If there is confusion, as there appears to be, creating either a soccer stub or a footy stub is not required. A link on the stub category page or in the football stub alone directing people to the other possible stubs should suffice. Footy is not a common term and obviously has alternate meanings as well, so you're not clearing the matter up. Soccer is not commonly used either, but it would be my choice if there was extremely stron opposition to keeing it as a football stub. --Walter Görlitz 18:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Although I do not like the term soccer, the term football is a bit ambiguous. Soccer-stub would be a more accurate stub type. --Siva1979Talk to me 11:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONGLY OPPOSE - Leave it the way it is. For the last time, please!. Brysull 2006-04-13T07:26-5:00
OPPOSE - I'm new to this debate, so forgive me if this is old ground. I think trying to decide between slang terms as the basis for the stubs is unencyclopaedic. I think the only way to ensure unambiguity is to have 'Association Football' as a stub, and also 'Australian Rules Football', 'American Football', and any other formal names. Footy and soccer are localised slang terms. Many British and some European people will actually take offense at the use of 'soccer' for what they/we call 'football'; and 'footy' can be spelled differently (footie) and has almost as many meanings as football anyway. If we're going to do this, I think we should give each sport its proper name, then do redirects where people search using slang terms. Duncshine 12:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Soccer" is as colloquial as "footy", and "football" or an alternative spelling is recognised over most of the non-English-speaking world. If you're going to rename every subcategory (and don't forget it doesn't actually appear in the article text anyway), it should be to "association-football-stub" Cedders 15:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nick C 17:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Come on, how many times? Budgiekiller 18:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this is the first time this has ever been at sfd. Grutness...wha? 23:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Again and again and again... Can't you guys get a life and stop beating this dead horse? Nanouk 18:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this is the first time this has ever been at sfd. Grutness...wha? 23:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This ridiculous name discussion has been all over wikipedia, numerous times. It's old, tiresome, and it won't get better with repeating it again and again. Go and work on some articles instead, do something useful. --Nanouk 06:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Might I remind you of WP:CIVIL? FWIW, if you're interested (which no doubt you aren't) without people sorting stubs chances are Wikipedia would not be usable at all now (so it is fairly useful). Making stub templates easily comprehensible to all editors is a vital part of that job, and as such is useful - far more useful than opposing it on the grounds that you prefer to use one name over another. Using colloquialisms that are not universally understood for the names of stub templates defeats the objective of making them universally understandable. If you could prove that no English-speaking countries think of sports other than association football when they hear the word "Footy", then keeping the current names would be perfectly acceptable. But you can't, because it's not true. Now, if you are willing to argue to the points raised, rather than insulting people, feel free. If you just intend to be insulting, take it elsewhere. Grutness...wha? 07:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not insulting, I'm just suggesting to do something else than trying do drag people into this argumentum ad nauseam. Have a nice day, Nanouk 12:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, hopefully for the last time. – Elisson • Talk 18:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is. CTOAGN (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. Alias Flood 02:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Football" refers to only one thing to the rest of the world and that is what's academically named "association football". Think Asia, Africa, Latin America &c.. --Pkchan 03:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Don't quite see what everyone has against redirects. Or even if anyone voting oppose even knows it is about redirects. BTW, this is footy - Nomadic1 05:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, the word "footy" is completely alien to most contributors from e.g. Continental Europe (just to give an obvious example), so the current situation is rather crappy. Nobody is suggesting a grouping of the European, American, or Australian games into the same category, so don't worry about that scenario. Problem is that "soccer" is *the* internationally recognized word, nomatter if some of us personally hate the term. Valentinian (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 10th

Category:Netherlands school stubs

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

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 9th

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

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]

{{Mumbai-stub}}

This one needs to be dealt with. Currently, it feeds into Category:Mumbai and Category:Maharashtra geography stubs. It looks like it's used for geographical features as well as other items related to Mumbai. It's used on 67 articles. As geographical use seems to dominate, my first-sight suggestion is to rename it to {{Mumbai-geo-stub}} and possibly give it a separate category. Conscious 07:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • the way I see it there are two options: 1) move all the geo-stubs back into the Maharashtra category and see whether enough stubs remain for Mumbai-stub to be viable; 2) do what you suggest and turn it into a Mumbai-geo-stub. Personally I'd be happier if the first of those options was the one done, since we haven't been making city-specific geo-stubs unless there is a WikiProject. But given the number of geo-stubs, your suggestion might well be the better one. Is there a Maharashtra-stub (i.e., non-geo)? And/or is there a WikiProject? Grutness...wha? 12:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 8th

{{hindu-myth-stub}} / Category:Hindu mythology stubs

not proposed. the parent does need splitting fairly soon but im not convinced this is the best way to do it - other religions are split by sects, biographies and texts and not by what parts of it are a myth and what parts arent. does have a good number of stubs tho, so its only a weak delete. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC) withdrawn. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there's a POV naming issue here, it could be renamed hindu-deity-stub or something similar. Otherwise it looks like a fairly coherent class of contents. (Obviously for several other major world religions this would be a strong "delete as undersized" if they had a directly analogous stub type...) Alai 00:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess there is no need to delete this stub, except that there is a whole deal of subcategorization that is required. There are a good number of stubs, and it's a good thing to put in basic information in an entry and then mark it as a stub. WikiProject Hinduism would greatly benefit from this.:—Karthik.raman 05:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be inclined to keep, as I'm not sure these would significantly overlap with other typical splits. They might overlap with sects (I don't know enough about Hinduism to know if much of the mythology is specific to individual sects), and some might be stretched to go into biographies, but other than that I think seperating out mythology would fit with other splits. And it's large enough and hindu-stub needs splitting enough. Mairi 06:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Have you even seen how big the Hinduism stub category is? It's huge. As of right now there's over a hundred hindu mythology stubs. There's also a category and a project dedicated to Hindu Mythology which is extremely big. And it was proposed. Ask Alai. --Dangerous-Boy 08:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess we might want to place a disclaimer from Category:Hindu mythology in the category page. Conscious 08:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Delaware geography stubs

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]

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

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

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]

{{Disney-comics-stub}} / Category:Disney Comics stubs (withdrawn)

Created in December, used on 11 articles. Splitting comics by topic doesn't strike me as good idea. Conscious 04:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mmmm. Is Disney a topic or is it the company that makes them? If the latter, then we have DC Comics and Marvel Comics stubs, so why not? It is piteously small, though, so a weak delete unless enlarged. Grutness...wha? 05:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's a company, the size issue remains. Conscious 16:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

Old business

Everything from here on down is old business; the current 7-day review period has ended. Everything from this point on should be dealt with and removed from the workflow. Move this marker up as time passes.

April 7th

{{Philippines-politician-stub}} / Category:Filipino politician stubs

Created in December, used on 20 articles. The parent category Category:Filipino people stubs in also undersized, so I propose upmerging. Conscious 16:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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]

{{biosci-stub}} -> {{biology-stub}}

This one always confused me. Conscious 15:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 6th

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

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}}

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

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]

April 5th

{{Mexico-cuisine-stub}} / Category:Mexican cuisine stubs

With a mere 11 articles, can it be rescoped? Or populated? Or upmerged in a bifurcated fashion? Who knows. If not, then delete. Alai 23:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the Mexican cuisine, you will see a very long, yet still very incomplete list of Mexican cuisine with numerous redlinks. My opinion is that the category is just currently underpopulated and could easily get 50 or more articles. BlankVerse 08:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another undersized split of the firearms. Surely this one is populable, even if it's unnecessary? Populate, upmerge or delete entirely, I don't much mind which. Alai 23:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Mexico-stadium-stub}} / Category:Mexico stadium stubs

Tiny population; possibly rescope to Central America/Latin America/the Americas in general? Alai 22:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

never poroposed. A latin american stadium stub would be good tho - there are loads of south american ones, especially argentinian ones. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually ISTR it's Peru with most of the stadium stubs - but yes, rescoping to latin America would be useful. We don't even have Mexico-struct-stub! Grutness...wha? 23:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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]

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

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]


Unfinished business

To orphan

Stub types in this section have been deemed deletable and have to be removed from all articles using them, so that they can be deleted.

To delete

Stub types in this section have been orphaned and can be deleted.

Listings to log

Stub types with completed discussions which have not yet been logged; remove from this page entirely when logged. Anyone can do this, not just an admin; please see the directions at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion&oldid=48594430"