Jump to content

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bearcat (talk | contribs) at 16:53, 17 September 2005 (→{{tl|Canada-poligeo-stub}} / [[:Category:Canadian political geography stubs]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

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

Putting a stub type on SfD, and what happens afterwards

  • Put {{sfd-t}} on the stub template
  • Put {{sfd-c}} on the stub category
  • List the new stub and/or category on Template:sfd-current. This will let several relevant pages know of the nomination
  • 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 the template as well as the category (if it exists), like this:
      ==== {{tl|banana stub}} / [[:Category:Banana stubs]] ====
    • 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.

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

What this page is not for

You should, however, notify the WikiProject Stub sorting of all stub types that are problematic but do not match the criteria for listing here.

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)
  • 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"

Current listings

According to {{sfd-current}}, the following stub types are being discussed on this page. If you notice a discrepancy, please correct the template. Template:Sfd-current

Listings

September 17th

{{AU-road-stub}} (now a redirect)

Apparently, for the last three months we've had a stub category for Australian roads - useful, but far more useful if someone had dcided to tell us it existed! The stub template was as named above. I've moved it to {{Australia-road-stub}}, as per our standard naming, but that leaves this redundant and incorrectly named redirect. I propose deletion of it (it will mean moving some 30 articles - no problem). Grutness...wha? 13:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 15th

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

Nightwish is apparently a Finnish band. Which doesn't have anywhere near 50 articles, much less that many stubs. Currently used on 3 articles. --Mairi 01:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - consider this... if every band in Finland got a stub template, what would the stub type tree look like? Even bands like The Beatles, U2 and (insert gigantic band of your choice) don't need stub categories, so why should a little-known Finnish band? Grutness...wha? 03:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet the criterea for a seperate stub.
    P.S. Nightwish is probably one of the better-known Finnish bands (at least among metal fans), they are fairly big in Northern Europe at least. That's naturaly besides the point here though. --Sherool 17:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies - I didn't realise it was a failry big band, but my vote remains the same. Grutness...wha?
  • Delete. Nightwish is indeed a Finnish band, and I've had the honour of seeing them play live once. But this does not meet the criteria for a separate stub. Aecis 15:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Helloproject-stub}} / Category:Hello! Project stubs

Created today; used on 1 article. Hello! Project is apparently a Japanese band-ish entity thing (the article doesn't say much on what it actually is), and Category:Hello! Project, and sub cats, have only 14 articles. --Mairi 02:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just created it today while I was at work, and was (and currently are) in the process of starting to add it to the appropriate articles. I think the addition of a brand new stub to the delete list is rather hasty. That category (Category:Hello! Project) needs a little fleshing out, too, I think. Cjmarsicano 02:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even big musical movements have not got separate stub categories - there are simply "Music-stub", "Band-stub", and "Musician-stub" - the latter subdivided in other, more intuitive ways. Cjmarsicano, please realise that stub categories don't have the same purpose as ordinary categories - while it may be perfectly alright for a band or pop genre to have an ordinary category, it makes no sense for every band or pop genre to have a separate stub category. Grutness...wha? 03:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that many of the articles that do or could fall under this category are pretty much stubs at the present time, I sincerely think that the stub is, for now, absolutely necessary. Cjmarsicano 04:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even if all the article-space pages that link to Hello! Project are stubs and are about that group (both of which are clearly not the case), there'd still be only 36 articles getting the stub. Which is less than the 50 existing articles criteria at the top of this page. --Mairi 04:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that creation of a category for this few stubs was rather hasty. Articles that could exist butter no parsnips, that's not what stub categories are for. Delete. If there's enough of them, a "j-pop" genre stub might be somewhat more viable. Alai 22:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sorry Cjmarsicano, but unless you can come up with at least 50 stub articles that could use this (or another very very good reason), it does not meet the criterea for a seperate stub type. --Sherool 17:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Canada-poligeo-stub}} / Category:Canadian political geography stubs

Drives straight through the hierarchy like a herd of buffalo. Canada's geography stubs are already adequately split by province - including those based on political divisions (lets face it, the provinces are political divisions). Concatenating "political" with "geography" is vague to say the least - does it refer to electorates? or to provinces and counties? If the former, it's well covered by the subcategories of canada-geo-stub. If the latter... it's well covered by the subcategories of canada-geo-stub. Never within a sniff of WP:WSS/P, and very very unlikely to be supported if it was. Delete, and delete quickly. Grutness...wha? 06:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

changed to rename - see below Grutness...wha?

Delete Rich Farmbrough 15:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation: There are something in the order of a thousand stubs on Canadian electoral districts scattered across the 'pedia at present... some flagged with {{Canada-gov-stub}}, some with {{Canada-poli-stub}}, and some with the various {{Canada-geo-stub}} tags. Rather than some "vague" concatenation of politics and geography, the category is very explicitly an analogue of {{UK-constituency-stub}}— indeed the category description says rather explicitly "This category is for political geography stub articles relating to Canada. These may include articles on specific federal and provincial electoral districts as well as regional political phenomena." (I chose a name that was a little more inclusive than just "constituency" so it could include constituency-related articles.) -The Tom 00:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems largely reasonable to me (as per my comments in /Discoveries), though a more exact analogy would have been preferable. Keep, but rename as "canada-constituency-stub", leave any non-constituencies behind in the Canadian politics stubs. Alai 02:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Given the explanation, I'm changing this to a proposed rename to canada-constituency-stub. "Political geography" is definitely the wrong name, though (that simply means all geography relating to political divisions as a whole - even the aticle Canada is therefore a Political geography article. Grutness...wha? 05:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as above. It's true that there are now so many electoral district articles that there should probably be a dedicated stub. Fawcett5 12:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I favour the rename option; The Tom's reasoning is valid, but Grutness is also right that political geography potentially includes every article about a Canadian province, territory, regional district, county, city, town, township, village or First Nation as well as electoral districts. Let's keep these stub cats as precise and specific as possible. Bearcat 16:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 14th

Delete Category:United States Armed Forces stubs

"Found" stub type; recreated as US-mil-stub/United_States_military_stubs, and template redirect, in line with discussions on the respective pages. Old category now empty. Alai 04:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, once it's been empty for 24 hours. --Mairi 04:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just needs a slight name tweak to remove that first unnecessary hyphen. While we're at it we can take out the "-related", too. Grutness...wha? 01:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Anti-stub}}

Has the text "Dear wikipedian, if you opened this page just for inserting a stub notice, please refrain from doing so. Improve instead the article by adding one more sentence. Thank you for your help." as a comment. WP:POINT, especially given the name. Can't see any good use for it either. --Mairi 03:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost speediable as nonsense. Grutness...wha? 04:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Wwiair-stub}} / Category:Wwiair-stub

Perhaps the single most badly named stub category I have yet seen. Not mentioned at WP:WSS/P, let alone debated prior to creation. It is, if you can work your way through the TXT-style name, for World War I aviation. We have currently only 53 World War I stubs in Category:World War I stubs, and Category:World War I aviation only has 11 articles other than fighter aces (who ould get a bio-stub of some form or another). If kept it would need drastic renaming, but I can see no reason to keep this completely unnecessary stub category. Oh, and by the way, the template links to two categories - this one and aviation stubs - and Category:Wwiair-stub has no parent categories. Grutness...wha? 04:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename/help fixI am the creator of this stub. I do not debate that it could use a better name, but I will debate with deleting it altogether. The stub is currently on only a few pages because it has been created fairly recently (within the past few months) and I have not had time to stub other articles yet. In terms of WWI aircraft alone, there are many articles yet to be created or expanded upon (please see the yet incomplete List of military aircraft of Germany in WWI and List of military aircraft of Britain in WWI). It can at least be argued that I personally use this stub template to find articles that need to be expanded. Merging with Category:World War I stubs would at first seem like a nice idea, but personally I only edit WWI aviation articles, which are sorely lacking on Wikipedia. It would be lacking even more to have this useful stub taken away... I don't understand why you feel it needs to be deleted? It is obviously in use and is not completely arbitrary, which should at least grant it the right to continue to exist.
Also, I didn't come to Wikipedia to be an expert Wikipedian, so apologies for badly naming the stub and not mentioning it in WP:WSS/P. Please link to WP:WSS/P so I can add it. I'm just here to contribute data that hasn't yet been added.
-FranksValli 05:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It currently has no stubs at all! Merging with WWI stubs not merely seems like a good idea, it's pretty per force, given their sizes. They can be split back out if they later grow in numbers. Personal convenience really isn't a great argument for retaining such micro-categories... isn't that what watch lists and to-do lists are for? Alai 06:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It did have two stubs - both of which were better in other categories. There's no point in linking WP:WSS/P to it - the P stands for "proposals" - it's where stub types are proposed for debate, prior to creation. Stub types shouldn't be created until they have been debated there, in order to check whether they are correctly named and categorised (this one isn't), have the required 60-100 stubs to reach threshold (this one hasn't),, and fit in with the stub hierarchy (this one doesn't). As for being created "within the past few months", it would be expected that a viable stub category - even if incorrectly created - would have over threshold well within a month. This one had two stubs - not surprising given the very small number of stub articles on this subject. Splitting it off later if the WWI stub category gets too big is always an option, but at the moment there's no point at all in doing so. Grutness...wha? 06:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What would one do to properly name, categorize, and fit this stub into stub hierarchy? Also, I didn't know about the 60 article minimum until now. There are definitely this many pages that will need this stub. Should I spend my time doing it only to have the stub likely deleted after I've stubbed all the articles? I'm getting really annoyed by this kind of crap on Wikipedia. Please pardon my frustration. FranksValli 06:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh what the hell, I guess we should delete it. I don't have the time to argue this here, I was just trying to contribute and mark pages that needed to be expanded. As I'm getting fond of saying for things on Wikipedia in general, NUKE IT (I guess when you're not a Wikipedia power user, you have to bend over and take it). FranksValli 07:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that you're upset (and for the others above: be nice!), but you have to understand us: a lot of especially Grutness's (and other contributors) time has gone into the whole stub-thingie to get it to the current status, but I think that you would be fine with the Category:World War I aviation and adding a{{WWI-stub}} notice; as far as I can fathom it, you're the one adding these stub-notices, but on the other hand you argue that you use them to find stub articles to be expanded? And if you're into the topic: it should not be too difficult for you to browse the WWI-stubs for aviators and/or planes... :)Lectonar 09:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my outbursts yesterday guys, that's my fault. Thanks for the advice Lectonar, I wasn't aware of stub templates or any of that - I'll let you guys deal with this stuff (even if it means deleting it). Since I don't have enough time to stub articles right now, I'll just use the WWI-stubs as you suggest. If it gets to the point where I am editing a lot, I guess I should propose a WWI aviation stub. Again, sorry for my comments, I get frustrated easily unfortunately. FranksValli 18:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if you took my comments above the wrong way. The threshold level is important, though, otherwise we would have thousands of different stub types and editors would have the devil's own job trying to find anything. It's hard enough keeping track of all the stub categories there are now! Plus we'd have the constant problem of stub categories emptying out completely. If enough stubs on WWI aviation are ever created or found, this could be a useful category - the only thing really stopping it now is the size of the categories it would be a child of. Oh, and if it was recreated at a later date, then since we have WWI-stub and aero-stub, WWI-aero-stub would be the likely name for it. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 13th

{{MK-noble-stub}} / Category:Macedonian nobility stubs

Newly created, used on 7 articles; with a less than intuitive abbreviation (altho it is the ISO one for the modern country). However, I can't see it getting nearly enough use; Category:Macedonian monarchs has only 33 articles, not all of which are stubs (there isn't a category for nobility/royalty in general, and Category:Macedonian people is quite sparse). So delete. --Mairi 06:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I doubt we'd even get enough articles for a Macedonia-bio-stub to be useful. Plus, of course, there's the possibility of complaints about what is meant by "Macedonian" - a can of worms I'd rather not have anyone open. If kept, it's a definite rename, but I don't see any reason why it should be kept. Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sparsity and can-of-wormity makes any Macedon stub not worthy at this time. Caerwine 07:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - reffering to this country as ROM or fYROM is one thing. Having in ancient Macedonians (let's say 400 bC) a wiki link ([[Republic of Macedonia|Macedonian]]) to that country (let's say 1992 aD), is absolutely unacceptable. MATIA 09:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename of {{Leb-stub}}

The general rule for one word place names in stubs is to not abreviate and the corresponding bio stub is already {{Lebanon-bio-stub}}. There is no {{Lebanon-geo-stub}}. Recommend renaming this to {{Lebanon-stub}} so as to keep the need to guess while stubbing to a minimum. We have so many stubs these days that clarity is more imporant than bevity. Caerwine 06:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename of {{Dk-stub}} and {{Danish-bio-stub}}

The general rule for one word place names in stubs is to not abreviate and not to adjectivize. There is already a {{Denmark-geo-stub}}. These two should be made the redirects to match the general rule as {{Denmark-stub}} and {{Denmark-bio-stub}} currently exist. The former as a redirect and the latter as a separate stub. Caerwine 07:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Sg-geo-stub}} and {{Sg-stub}}

While we're on the subject of abbreviations, these two should probably go. The first is an orphaned redirect to {{Singapore-geo-stub}}, the second works the other way - {{Singapore-stub}} currently redirects to it. Grutness...wha? 07:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Common just in Singapore? United Airlines seems to think otherwise. It's used for in example, top level domains, and being a country having the priority, so Keep. -- Natalinasmpf 22:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Sa-stub}}

A little used redirect to the less dubiously named (but still not brilliant) {{SA-stub}} (stubs about to South Africa). As with Uk-geo-stub ( listed here a few days ago), this doesn't follow the naming guidelines. Grutness...wha? 07:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I use it, and find it usefull and quick to type in --Jcw69 13:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
sa-stub's hardly obvious - it could refer to just about anything. If you had to guess what it stood for, the one thing it'd least likely to refer to beginning with sa is something which uses capital letters - like a country name. Much more likely to be something like small arms, systems analysis, Sanskrit, or any of the dozens of things listed at SA and Sa. In any case, SA-stub's just as quick, and when you consider that really we should be talking about changing it to SouthAfrica-stub, SA-stub's not too bad an option. Grutness...wha? 13:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Needless duplication with SA-stub. However, I don't agree with the statement that "SA-stub" is itself also unsuitable, as Template names are chosen for their ease of use and not ease of guessing. Readers of the articles will not have to guess what "SA-stub" means, for example. Impi 10:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lectonar 09:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe ZA-stub, since .za is South Africa's TLD. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
MM. Not so sure I like that - SA is the usual English abbreviation (or RSA); ZA is the Afrikaans "Zuid Afrika". I think keeping the English names might be better. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even Afrikaans (which spells it "Suid-Afrika") but Dutch, which used to be one of South Africa's official languages until the 1920s. Anyway, I might be ok with such a move if there is a conflict with other stubs over the "SA" bit, but so far I've seen no evidence of any other stub category needing the "SA" abbreviation. Basically, considering the fact that South Africa is most commonly known by the "SA" abbreviation, and is also likely to have more stubs than any of the other articles in the SA list, I think it's fine to keep it at "SA-stub". Impi 10:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think several people here are getting the wrong end of the stick. Although I think SA-stub is a fairly dubious name (as I said above), I'm not suggesting that that is changed. All I'm suggesting is the deletion of its redirect {{sa-stub}}. South Africa is a proper noun, and as such is abbreviated as SA, upper case, not sa. SA-stub is okay (though not brilliant) - it's in line with things like US-stub, NZ-stub, and UK-stub. sa-stub is not ok. Grutness...wha? 13:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 12th

{{Venezuela-writer-stub}} / no category

Currently empty, this stub feeds into Category:Writer stubs. I can safely say that there aren't at present but at most 50 writer stubs for all of South America, let alone Venezuela, so please let's delete this one fast. Caerwine 00:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • You know the writer stubs better than anyone, so I'm willing to take your word on this. Since there aren't even enough for a south America writer stub at the moment, this does sound unlikely. Delete. Grutness...wha? 05:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{playwright-stub}} / no category

Currently empty, this stub feeds into Category:Writer stubs. The overlapping nature of various forms makes this sort of differentiation tricky (which is probably why {{poet-stub}} redirects to {{writer-stub}}) As this one is empty, I would say delete this one, but a redirect seems reasonable also. Caerwine 00:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{poet-stub}} (redirect)

Currently empty, this stub redirects to {{writer-stub}}. With this now empty, this would be a good time to delete the redirect while we're in the middle of doing a reorganization of the writer stubs. Caerwine 00:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • We've not been splitting writers by type of work, so delete. Grutness...wha? 05:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, this is not an "empty" stub with "no category", it is a redirect from an alternate name. I've even listed it on the list of redirects. Secondly, why the hell does such a redirect hurt? It's a known categorization method (poets vs. novelists vs. technical writers vs. whatever) that may help one day if we do start splitting on that criteria as well. Sure, in the meantime it may get trumped by a location-based split, but why does it bother you right now? My reaction may sound a bit over the top, but given that we still have thousands of people stubs to sort, I can't fathom how removing an intuitive stub redirect would help any cause whatsoever. --Joy [shallot] 08:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects put more strain on the servers, since two templates are called up every time one is used - that's why we've been slowly trying to get rid of a lot of the ones that are rarely used.
      • But you're contradicting yourself there. The amount of strain put on the servers when you're talking about a redirect accessed rarely is trivial compared to normal traffic. --Joy [shallot]
    • Also, a lot of poets are not only poets. Many many writers write in a lot of different genres, so splitting by type of writing isn't always that helpful. If we want to split by poets, or playwrights, or novelists, or whatever, we can definitely keep it in mind for later, but I really don't think it would ever be a particularly useful split. Grutness...wha? 10:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Mn-stub}} / no category

Refers to Minnesota (MN is the postal abbreviation). Newly created, and has only 1 article. But since {{US-stub}} has less than 400 articles, I can't see this getting much use beyond geo-stubs (which ought to get a separate template if necessary) or a few bio stubs. But even if it's kept, I don't see any reason to keep the current name, even as a redirect. --Mairi 01:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 10th

{{State forest-stub}} / Category:State forest stubs and {{State park-stub}} / Category:State park stubs

This one's likely to be a more controversial one, especially the parks, which is a heavily-used category with several hundred stubs. However, I'd like to suggest their deletion. They go against the current hierarchy every bit as much as the deleted river and mountain stubs, and I suspect it would be far more useful to classify them by location (US state/region) rather than under these categories. Also, I keep on having to remove parks from all sorts of countries from the category - when the term "State Park" is a US-only (or maybe US and Canada only) designation - so the usage of these stub types is obviously not that clear. If the vote is to keep them, then I suggest they should at least be renamed by adding hyphens to the templates. BTW - check out the strange wording of the State forest category: This category is for stub articles relating to State forests or Stubs. Grutness...wha? 11:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - Deleting these templates will create many "messy" red links, which make articles look unprofessional. Removing those links will be a monumental task. --Ixfd64 22:28, 2005 September 10 (UTC)
  • Comment if they're to be kept, I'd suggest renaming to {{US-statepark-stub}} and {{US-stateforest-stub}}, as the current wording and usage indicates that the stub types are US-only (and I think they ought to be US-only, as the definitions in different countries, particularly for State forest, don't have that much in common). --Mairi 22:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gruntness usually knows what hes doing with the geography stubs and there wont be any red links becuase the templates would be replaced with state ones. BL Lacertae 00:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename adding "US" if necessary. I think it more likely someone will be interested in cleaning up state parks as a theme, rather than someone picking them up via a state or region geo-stub. — Eoghanacht talk 21:07, 2005 September 12 (UTC)
  • Delete. Put each park in the appropriate region/state geo subcategory. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:10, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

{{SA Route Stub}}/ co nategory

How many things is it possible to have wrong with one template? This one, for South African regional routes, has about 150 articles - all assigned to Category:South Africa-related stubs and Category:Road stubs, and is badly named, to boot. I propose renaming it as {{SA-road-stub}} (which will allow it to also take the few South African non-highway road stubs), and giving it a dedicated category. Grutness...wha? 11:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed Since it's been a week, I'll go ahead and create the category and change the existing stub to point to it. I don't feel like doing the actual work of revising the stub or editting the articles that use it. Caerwine 14:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename of {{FR-stub}}

I was going to propose this for deletion but it has an amazing 144 stubs, so I now suggest a rename. What? Oh, right - Forgotten Realms. Not France, nor Fixed Relay, nor Fribourg, nor any of the dozen or so other possible FRs. {{ForgottenRealms-cvg-stub}} or just {{ForgottenRealms-stub}} is much closer to our standard naming. Oh, and someone needs to go through the category with null-edits - for the first two months of its existence it fed into the category as [[Category:Forgotten Realms stubs| ]], so very few of the items in there have been put in in alphabetical order! Grutness...wha? 11:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{General-Edu-stub}} / Category:General Education stubs (take two)

Wow - déjà vu! We debated this one (it's below at #.7B.7BGeneral-Edu-stub.7D.7D .2F Cat: General Education stubs), but any deletion was held over while the education stubs overall were re-jigged. That's now happened, and this category is now redundant and empty. The template currently redirects to edu-stub, but it's improperly formed and unnecessary. Delete. Grutness...wha? 11:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Hl-stub}} / no category

Refers to Half-Life, not any thing else Hl or HL could refer to. Which makes it a very narrow topic (main category has only 96 articles), and unlikely to get nearly enough articles (currently unused, altho only a day old). Delete. If not, it definitely needs a rename. --Mairi 18:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Bible-stub}} (redirect)

Redirects to {{HeBible-stub}}. However, "Bible" refers to things other than the Hebrew Bible (such as the Christian Bible), so the redirect is misleading and ought to be deleted. It is also currently unused. --Mairi 20:33, 10 September 2005 (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.

September 6th

Rename of {{Kerala Geo Stub}}

Rename to {{Kerala-geo-stub}} to match other geo stubs. (I intend to make an attempt at fixing the categories on this one.) --TheParanoidOne 21:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very good idea. We also need someone who knows about Indian and Japanese geography to work out how to split those two large geo-stub categories properly - but that's not a discussion for this page. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename of {{Kerala Stub}}

Rename to {{Kerala-stub}} to match existing stub types. An alternative would be to delete it outright, as it has so few articles. --TheParanoidOne 21:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 5th

{{uk-geo-stub}} (redirect)

Fairly innocuous, but probably worth getting rid of while it's virtually unused. Incorrect capitalisation - the guideline is to use capitals for proper nound - which country names are. Long since superseded by the rapidly diminishing {{UK-geo-stub}}, and used on virtually no articles (about 25 of 1500 UK geography stubs, all of which will soon be replaced with {{England-geo-stub}} anyway). Grutness...wha? 09:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Route-stub}}

This stub isn't in the proper stub format, and it isn't even clear what it's supposed to be referring to. --Icarus 18:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 4th

{{Finland-writer-stub}} / Category:Finnish writer stubs

This one was slipped onto the stub type list about two months ago without anyone noticing (it hadn't gone through the proposal process). In those two months, seven stubs have been added to the category. I seriously doubt it could ever reach the threshold. Delete. Grutness...wha? 08:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; btw, we have a {{finland-bio-stub}}? Lectonar 08:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've gone through the Finland stubs and up to E in the Writer stubs and have gotten it up to 12 stubs at the moment. While it is doubtful that after I finish sorting through the Writer stubs in a couple of days that there will be enough to justify keeping Finnish writer stubs, there definititely will be enough to justify European writer stubs (well over 100 so far) and possibly Scandinavian writer stubs (28 stubs to date in my search). Therefore, I ask that if as I expect, the decision is to delete, that it's implementation be held off until a decision can be made concerning whether the Finnish writer stubs should go in European writer stubs or Scandinavian writer stubs. Caerwine 07:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - it would have to be Euro-writer-stub (probably extremely useful). Finland isn't in Scandinavia. Grutness...wha? 07:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If we add those 28 scandinavian stubs to my own findings (about 62 between French, Italian and German writers) we are well over the threashold for a "european-writer-stub". Question is if it's usefull to split by continent. The majority of the writers who doesn't go into the {{US-writer-stub}} seems to be European (with {{UK-writer-stub}} soaking up a fair number). While it would scertainly de-bloat {{Writer-stub}} I'm worried it would just move the problem to the new Euro writer stub instead, second only to stubs that make no mention of nationality whatsoever and who are therefore hard to subcategorise in theyr current form. --Sherool 09:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There would be nothing wrong with having this as a category anyway - it would be easier to see what needed to be split off from it then - the same method's been used in the past with other "by country" categories very effectively. And even if 75% of the writer stubs are from Europe, that would still leave two considerably smaller categories to work through for future splits. Grutness...wha? 06:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I remember, there are a fair number of japanese and brazilian authors/poets around too, but I think splitting off a {{Europe-writer-stub}} would be useful Lectonar 09:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I've completed going through all the writer stubs up to H (adding appropriate {{*-bio-stub}}'s as I go.} So far, I've come across well over 200 stubs so far that would go in {{Euro-writer-stub}} if that were the only geographic stub to be created, and the Finland writer stub count is at 26 and growing. (To be fair I also mined Finland stubs and Finnish bio stubs to get it that high, so I doubt if it'll go much higher.) There's also a definite need for a {{Canada-writer-stub}} (46 and growing) and Africa, Australia, France, Germany, East Asia, South Asia, and Nordic (to avoid differing interpretations of Scandanavia) all look promising, but I'll wait a few days until I complete my survey to make formal proposals with numbers to back them up. Caerwine 07:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 3rd

{{Teesside-geo-stub}}/no category

As per Wikipedia policy on counties, British geographical items are being split according to the ceremonial counties - Teesside is not a ceremonial county, and is already covered by the Durham-geo-stub and Yorkshire-geo-stub. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


August 26th

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

Too specific; there aren't anywhere near 60 micronation stubs (or even 60 micronation articles); there might be 10 such stubs. --Mairi 22:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...and since Micronation articles are almost always VFD'd... delete. Grutness...wha? 06:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • micro-Delete Lectonar 11:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Micronations are an interesting phenomenon. There are several historically notable micronations such as Sealand and the Conch Republic. Yea, by their very nature they are small and usually not very notable, but the ones which are notable, still need some way to classify themselves with a stub. It seems that there are 32 micronations listed in Category:Micronations, three of which are stubbed as history, Carribean, and New Zealand. Heh, the Kingdom of Redonda and Redonda even need to be merged! (Yeah, I'll do it.) Frankly, more of those articles should be stubbed, in my opinion. But the fact that there is an obvious problem figuring out what these micronations should be stubbed under makes me belive that we need this. I mean, what else would we categorize these articles under? Unless we can come up with a good way to categorize these stubs in one place, I think we should keep this stub. (Hoo-boy, this is a long argument. Heh.) Syrae Faileas 17:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm not going to unilaterally merge. There was a talk page. I'll be nice and ask first.  ;) Syrae Faileas 18:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While that is a good point about them being difficult to classify (and I agree that micronations are interesting), I don't think 3 articles, regardless of how hard they are to categorize, justify a stub template (especially given that the standard is somewhere in the range of 50-60 stub articles). They should definitely be stubbed with a geo-stub template appropriate for where they are (regardless of what happens to micronation-stub), and probably {{hist-stub}} or {{culture-stub}} depending on the nature of the micronation. I think that if we start creating stub templates for every small collection of articles that's otherwise hard to classify, it'll become near-impossible for stub-sorters to do that job, and somewhat harder for editors to find articles to work on (because the stub categories will become too fine-grained). Atleast in this case, Category:Micronations has just 35 articles, so it's not too hard to look thru. --Mairi 18:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If the standard is 50-60 stub articles needed to be considered a usable stub, then we should consider deleting things like Category:Singapore broadcasting stubs with 5 articles, Category:Finnish writer stubs, or even the empty Category:Hip hop DJs stubs. I can also concieve of stubbing more of the Micronation articles than are currently stubbed because some of them are quite limited in their content and are only about 1-3 sentances long with a list or two of links or info. If I did that, there might be almost 10 Micronation stubbed articles. Syrae Faileas - «Talk» 17:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Singaporean stub is supported by a wikiproject. The Hip Hop DJ stub category was associated with a long-deleted template, and as such has been speedied. As for the Finnish writer stub, if we'd noticed that someone had slipped it into the stub list, it would have been up here before now. I've proposed it for deletion now. Grutness...wha? 08:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 23rd

Category:Lebanon stubs

Template:leb-stub changed its category to Category:Lebanon-related stubs. CG 20:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)


August 18th

{{General-Edu-stub}} / Category:General Education stubs

This one is an annoying one... someone seems to have decided just to create more work for everyone. Not only were all the articles in perfectly acceptable Category:Education stubs suddenly moved to this new, badly capitalised category with no debate on WP:WSS/P, but a new, badly capitalised template was created at the same time. If any changes were wanted, then changing the wording of th existing template would have done the job. Now we have a pointless new malformed category and template to deal with, just at the point when the old was was about to be split (UK-edu-stub and US-edu-stub are both on the proposals page for creation). So we get more work to do and another week to wait before anything can be done to split the category. Brilliant. Delete with all prejudice. Grutness...wha? 06:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in Wiki years it's quite old. I made this back in April at a time when the only other education stub was the edu-stub which was meant for structures. The articles weren't moved recently but have been accumulating since the category was created. I posted it for comment on the proposal page and waited seven days before creation. It doesn't seem to have made it into the archive from the period but in any case, it was created within process at a time when there were fewer stubs and no real naming guidlines. Not only that but it's been listed in Stub types since April when there was only one other education stub template. Delete if it's time has passed but it's existence certainly shouldn't be a surprise. Rx StrangeLove 06:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I apologise - I take it that it isn't you who's moved things around in the categories, though. Category:Education stubs was up for deletion at CFD because someone had decided to move everything from there to Category:General Education stubs (which is still incorrectly capitalised, no matter how long it's been there!). Category:Education stubs is now empty - it shouldn't be, it's got a purpose separate from the purported purpose of Category:Education stubs. So someone else has misunderstood the difference between the two categories, and a lot of extra work is needed to put it right. Grutness...wha? 06:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I didn't move them but I understand the extra work. Re:spelling, you're right but I thought it looked weird for the subject not to be capitalised..."my bad" as the kids say. Anyway, no big deal but I could tell that you were bugged and I didn't want to be the villain..sigh, vanity thy name is Wiki. Rx StrangeLove 14:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What template is/was associated with Category:Education stubs? As it looks like {{edu-stub}} is restricted to universities (for whatever odd reason...) --Mairi 19:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, actually. Edu-stub should be about education, with a separate University-stub for universities and other tertiary institutes. I've argued in the past for a separate UK-university-stub and US-university-stub... perhaps an overhaul is needed in general (no pun intended) here. I'll take this over to WP:WSS/P for some discussion. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that we keep this stub type. It is very possible for a stub to be about education, but not fit cleanly into a university or school stub category. Some examples could be stubs concerning styles of teaching or types of examinations. I realize that this category is liable to become large due to editors sorting stubs in general categories, but I think General Education is still a useful stub category. Solarusdude 20:10, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A category for education stubs is needed, but I prefer Grutness's proposal , on the Proposals page. --Mairi 21:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now that I've seen the proposal by Grutness, his way makes more sense. I am in support of it. Solarusdude 03:48, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
We already talked about this months ago on the old WP:WSS/C, but someone carelessly deleted that discussion without any regard to the fairly clear conclusions that we had reached. Well, at least there was no confusion with regard to the fact that the present situation was confusing. :) Cf. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria/Archive16#Category:Education_stubs_and_the_situation_with_education-related_stubs_in_general --Joy <small>[shallot] 21:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A general overhaul of the university and education stub categories has begun - this vote should be held over until it has been completed Grutness...wha? 09:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 15th

{{Video game music composer-stub}} / (no category)

Appallingly oversepcialised and named. used on five articles. Unnecessary. Grutness...wha? 06:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • That lists adds another 15 stubs (altho some of those may in fact be musicians, not composers; not all the articles are clear). My vote still stands, and I agree with Lectonar. --Mairi 23:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can't decide if this should be deleted or not, but if it is kept I wouldn't mind seeing a stub category for Polyphonic Ringtone Composers being added. Kevin 09:03, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The term video game musician is less specialized than video game music composer, so the stub template should be changed to read "This article about a video game musician is a stub", and be renamed cvg_musician-stub. It is pointless to be on the side of Lectonar and Mairi in this case. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 01:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The category is not too specialized but needs to be have more people properly associated with it. Many of them compose exclusively for video games. The suggestion of a video game musician category is not a bad idea to slightly de-specialize the stub, though I'm worried about people improperly associating mainstream artists whose tracks were merely licensed for use in popular sports games (e.g. Madden NFL, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater). Nonetheless, there are too many VG music composers out there to delete the stub. Thanks to Tedius for adding more associations, while I'll also work on more. Liontamer 12:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep: #1 rename as per Tedius with Mairi's revision, that should prevent miscategorisation and make the subset wide enough to be worth keeping; #2 Apply *only* to people who make music primarily for video games, not the odd track-submitter, and make this clear on the stub talk page/definition. --zippedmartin 23:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and give it a work-over. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 04:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Considering how video games are becoming increasingly significant in culture, and considering how some video game musicians have become celebrities, I'd say it's worth it. ~GMH 19:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep yet rename to {{cvg-musician-stub}} as suggested. Hall Monitor 23:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Japcorp-stub}} / (no category)

Poorly (and possibly offensively) named, no category. Used in only 4 articles. --Mairi 07:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where I come from it's definitely a derogatory term. I can imagine it could be a heavily used stub, but it needs renaming to {{Japan-corp-stub}} - but only if we're splitting corp-stub by country (I can't honestly remember)> If we're not, then deleting it would definitely be a reasonable option. If we keep it, it'll definitely need a category. Grutness...wha? 09:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It looks we're dividing corp-stub by type of corporation ({{tech-corp-stub}}, {{aero-corp-stub}}, {{food-corp-stub}}, etc), altho we do have {{India-corp-stub}} as an exception to that. --Mairi 17:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I won't object to {{Japan-corp-stub}}. And because Japan is the second economy in the world, I don't think it will be much of a problem to fill it. IIRC there are more than enough stubs for the category. Having said that, I think I would object to a {{US-corp-stub}}: I'm afraid that that would become incredibly overpopulated. Aecis 13:53, 16 August 2005 (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=23402061"