Jump to content

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mairi (talk | contribs) at 04:45, 1 October 2005 (→Listings: elec-stub). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
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
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

October 1st

{{Elec-stub}} (redirect)

An unused redirect of {{electro-stub}} (created from a page move in April). However, it could just as easily refer to elections, or undoubtedly other things. Delete. --Mairi 04:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 30th

This is a discovered category (with stub {{Nigeria-stub}}) that at present has over 50 stubs and should soon gain some more as I sort through African stub types. However the category doesn't quite fit the old pattern (no "-") so I want to change the category name to fit the new pattern ASAP. Caerwine 00:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 29th

{{Names-stub}}/no cat.

A duplicate of the well-used {{name-stub}} that was created in June and has been used exactly once since. No category, and, due to the way it was created, if you click on the "edit it" wording, you'll end up editing Akash, no matter what page you find the template on. Delete Grutness...wha? 22:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Template:Meast-stub

This is an unused redirect of Template:MEast-stub, created apparently to catch spelling errors. No evidence that it ever did so exists and its been over three months since it was created. Caerwine 01:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Compilation album stubs

Thers only 1 album in it. It is already covered by {{album-stub}}. JobE6 02:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • DON'T be so hasty to dismiss this. Album stubs is at 18 pages and badly in need of splitting. While this may not be an optimum split, it certainly is a well defined one and would only need a stub to go with the category. Unless someone can propose a better split, I say keep this, and a stub and use it to start sorting the album stubs. Caerwine 03:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think there might be said for double-stubbing them both ways. Hopefully the vast majority of albums would only have two stubs -- could get messy if I'm wrong here. If we're only going to go with one such scheme thought, I'd go with the genre-based one (and flip-flop to a delete on this). Alai 04:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Robertehoward-stub}}/Category:Robert E. Howard stubs

Stub for books by a specific author, Robert E. Howard. Been around since July, still only has 32 articles. More specific than is needed. (Mentioned on Discoveries.) --Mairi 05:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 26th

Rename Template:UK-depot-stub --> Template:UK-railstation-stub

I just saw this and had a "What the..." moment, since it's not for depots at all, but for railway stations. Depot = place where stuff is stored temporarily before being moved off. A railway depot is somewhere trains are stored overnight, with not a passenger in sight. A railway station is somewhere passengers get on the trains. They're not even synonyms. WTH happened here? - SoM 15:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. Depot can also refer to things that aren't train-related. However, the second sentence of depot does say "It most often means a train station..." --Mairi 15:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although I agree that the term depot is not the most usual word for this in British/International English, it was named this way after quite a lengthly debate so as to be in line with other stub categories on such buildings. The term "station" - even as part of a compound such as "railstation", was deliberately avoided, since at that time "station-stub" referred to broadcast stations. It might be time to revisit this now, but if it is, then all similar stub names ({{US-depot-stub}}, for example) should be similarly renamed for consistency. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I think sometimes used for railways in the sense of bus depot, as well as the freight usage, but not for just any old station. And in any case, the depots are often physically separate from the stations. Alai 04:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Notionally all British passenger railway stations were also depots and those that weren't were called X Halt or Y Platform so that shippers knew not to sent parcels or goods there. This was in the days when railways were common carriers and are long gone. Stations that accepted goods and not passenger tended to be called "goods stations", repair-shops and the like were, sometimes, called depots - but there were (of course) regional and company variations. Saga City 14:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UK Comics stubs

Listed on CFD 13 Sep just listing here. ∞Who?¿? 18:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've done null-edits on the pages that were in the category; it's now empty. It was associated with {{UK-comics-stub}} until September 13, when it was changed to Category:UK comics stubs. --Mairi 19:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Qualifies for speedy delete then. ∞Who?¿? 00:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedelete. Alai 04:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Building-stub}} (redirect)

We seem to have been happy enough without this redirect to struct-stub for quite some time, so why someone should decide toc reate this now is beyond me. Unused (only created yesterday). Delete? Grutness...wha? 03:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it's been thru SfD before, Speedy Delete, otherwise Delete. Caerwine 13:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedily IAAP. Alai 04:59, 29 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 22nd

Rename Category:Typography stub -> Category:Typography stubs

Shouldnt this be plural? (hope Ive done this ok) BL Lacertae 23:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename {{Roman-stub}} to {{Ancient-Rome-stub}}

This would place the template in line with the convention used by {{Ancient-Egypt-stub}}, {{Ancient-Greece-stub}}, and the just created {{Ancient-Rome-bio-stub}} Caerwine 18:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I created this stub before the Ancient Greece, etc ones were made. {{Ancient-Rome-stub}} makes far more sense. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Roman means of the Romans, and applies to the entire Roman Empire. Ancient Rome could be mistaked for just the (ancient) city of Rome. There is a risk of miscategorisation therefore, if the stub is simply renamed. --Nantonos 03:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment However, Ancient Rome is the name of the article about the entire civilization, not just the city. With Roman-stub, it's possible some people (not aware of standard stub-name conventions) would think it was for biographical articles about Romans. --Mairi 04:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you redirect it? the {{bio-stub}} + {{roman-stub}} grouping is going to be made into a ((rome-bio-stub)) or something along those lines soon.--Rayc 03:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see why that should make any difference. The new bio-stub could simply be named Ancient-Roman-bio-stub (in fact it should be, for the same reason this one should be renamed). Grutness...wha? 07:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it already exists and is named {{Ancient-Rome-bio-stub}}, as Caerwine mentioned in the nomination. --Mairi 13:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Alai 04:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Makes sense to me. --Dhartung | Talk 09:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{pol-stub}}

A little quiz for you: Is this (a) for stubs about the police? (b) a redirect to {[tl|Poland-stub}}? (c) a redirect to {{Poli-stub}}? or (d) for stubs about polymers? The answer is (b), but you see the problem. Created in March and used on a mere eight articles, surely Poland-stub alone is adequate? Grutness...wha? 09:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Singapore television stubs (no template)

Deprecated since the re-structuring of the broadcasting stubs hierarchy - the template that led here now leads to Category:Singapore broadcasting stubs, which is hardly in need of splitting at the moment. Delete. Grutness...wha? 08:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also speedy delete. --Mairi 04:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Vabio-stub}} / Category:Biography of Virginians stubs

User:Mairi puts it best at WP:WSS/D: Even if we want to divide US-bio-stub by state, there are so many things wrong with this stub type. Both the category and template greatly need renaming. The category needs parent categories, and the template has some formatting issue that causes the text to wrap. If kept, {{Virginia-bio-stub}} and Category:Virginian people stubs would be the names that should be used. However, argument recently at WP:WSS/P and D has favoured not having separate state-bio-stubs, since dividing by occupation the the more obvious second division. Thus, my vote is delete. Grutness...wha? 07:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Pokesectstub}} / Category:Pages with Pokémon section stubs

Mentioned on WP:WSS/Discoveries. It's apparently the only subject-specific variant of {{sectstub}}, and keeping it would create a precendent that could quickly become unmanageable. It's also only used on 12 articles. --Mairi 02:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep... I personally find it very useful when expanding Pokémon articles (especially when I don't know about a Pokémon's appearance in an animé, and hence I put this stub notice underneath the "In the animé" section of the article.)

September 21st

{{Applied Science-stub}} and {{Applied science-stub}}

Identical (neither is a redirect), created by the same anon user. Both unused, and feed into Category:Science stubs. Very broad (and not necessarily precisely defined), and cuts across our current division by field. --Mairi 04:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can come up with a good use for it. Nah - just delete. It would need such a thorough overhaul that we'd have to start again from scratch, anyway. Grutness...wha? 05:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lectonar 11:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. Alai 04:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 20th

{{Hobstub}} / n.c.

Yes, there is a wikiproject for Hobart (how many of you guessed what Hobstub referred to?). it has one member, and has been in operation for nearly a year. This template's been around for most of that time, and there's no evidence it's ever been used. It's also badly named, malformed, and has no category. This one was proposed for deletion shortly before this page went active, but it looks like we never got around to doing anything about it. Googling on "site:en.wikipedia.org+Hobart+stub" gives 129 hits in total, but looking through the first 50 of them only yielded eight directly relating to the Tasmanian city (it's a fairly common surname). At that rate, there may be around 20 stubs in total that could take this and - wikiproject or no - it looks unlikely there'll be many more in the foreseeable future. Grutness...wha? 02:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Development of material related to Hobart has been slower as we have only a couple of Wikipedians from the state. However, it has been increasing markedly this year, and having a stub category for the city is really useful for aiding this. If this category is deleted, it'll be just wound into the national one, which will be as good as useless. There will be more stubs in this area, and I also contest Grutness' account of the number of Hobart stubs - I don't think there'd have to be too many more added to reach fifty, when suburbs, landmarks, schools and structures are taken into account. Ambi 02:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Debate on this and other Australian city stub types shifted to WP:WSS/P#Australian cities. Looks like some restructuring in general is in order. Grutness...wha? 00:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 19th

Used on one article, which doesn't even appear in the category. Not exactly liable to sudden dramatic expansion either; it's been around since July. Alai 17:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC) Merge I agree that its doubtful that this can get to 60 stubs anytime soon. Merge into {{UN-stub}} by restubbing the single article and deleting the template and category. Caerwine 19:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Nfl-stub}} / Category:National Football League stubs

Unsanctioned creation yesterday (discovered when it was added to the stub list) with four stubs. The subject is already well covered by {{Amfootball-stub}} and Category:American football stubs, a category not so big that it needs splitting (the older category contains just under 300 stubs, many of which can and should be moved into the equivalent bio-stub category). Also badly titled - if kept it should be at the very least changed to NFL-stub, and even then it is likely to be confused with the Australian national football league (also known as the NFL). Grutness...wha? 03:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This stub was created as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League in a little more than three hours before it was nominated for deletion. So if this stub is deleted, it will set the precendant that any WikiProject-specific stubs are not safe from deletion. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a good precedent to me; why ought they to be "safe" from deletion, contra any other procedures? After all, articles created by Wikiprojects aren't "safe", either. Wikiprojects aren't supposed to be hermetically sealed bubbles. I'm sure Grutness wasn't imputing any bad faith here, just pointing out the "issues". In any case, delete; I've mentioned it to the 'project. Alai 17:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, I forgot that it is mentioned above under "What this page is not for" that "Stub types that have a limited scope, but where there is a WikiProject on the specific topic". But also assume good faith that Grutness probably did not realize it was created as part of any WikiProject. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment: I've winnowed out the bios that lept out at me from {{Amfootball-stub}}, and there's 270 stubs left. Mind you, the bios are now well over 900, and they should probably be split, but that's work for another page. Alai 18:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If kept, at the very least, the template should be renamed {{NFL-stub}}. Caerwine 19:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not realise that there was a Wikiproject on the N.F.L. However, several things are worth noting here. 1) There is already an adequate stub category which contains now under 300 stubs. It should not be that difficult to sift through which ones are and which ones are not connected to the wikiproject from that. 2) If it is decided to keep this template, then it will need to be renamed. 3) Wikiproject related stubs are not "safe" - one or two have been in the past ({{Hobstub}} comes to mind - although I see that's now back (why?)) and renamed quite a number of others. It is just that the threshold for creating or keeping a stub is considerably lower when a Wikiproject is involved. 4) Although it may well be true in this case, it's getting increasingly difficult to believe how many people aren't aware of the stub-creation process, given that it's listed or linked to on every page related to stubs and most stub categories on Wikipedia! Grutness...wha? 01:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, adequately covered by {{Amfootball-stub}}; in this case I don't think the existance of a wikiproject provides reason to keep. --Mairi 05:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{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]
  • Rename to {{Canada-constituency-stub}} . The arguments presented so far have been valid ones. We already have general stubs with broad scope in this area - we don't need another one; make this one have narrower focus. Mindmatrix 23:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 14th

{{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

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]
The issue is not whether it is common to refer to Singapore as SG outside of Singapore or not. The issue is whether this particular template is unambiguous enough. And in those cases, noone/nothing has priority. Fact of the matter is that the sg-combination can refer to many things. Grutness mentioned but a few. And in cases of stub templates, confusion has to be avoided at all costs. {{singapore-geo-stub}} and {{singapore-stub}} only require a few extra letters, but they can avoid a lot of problems. So rename per Grutness. Aecis 23:15, 20 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]
Delete. SA-stub is just as easy to type, and properly capitalized. --Mairi 14:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Alai 04:59, 29 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]

{{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]

Keep. I fail to be convinced that they're worth booting out. Matt Yeager 00:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

silly question, but why are people still voting? Voting on this one closed nearly two weeks ago. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 1 October 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]

{{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]

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=24457342"