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 05:02, 11 October 2005 (→October 11th: rename Cat:United States television programme stubs). 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 11th

The parentage and text of the category indicates that it's for feminism, while the template text, since June, says "female-related" (the template as had both wordings in the past). Almost all the marked articles are about feminism. Female-related poses several problems, including cutting across multiple existing categories (medicine, psychology, politics, etc). Rename (either way, the template/category need to be clarified). --Mairi 23:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States television programme stubs → Category:United States television program stubs

(Was tagged with {{cfr}} by User:Jayc, but not listed on WP:CFD)
There's been some discussion on the talk page. "Program" is the common spelling in the US, and Manual of Style recommends using the relevant national variety of English for country-specific pages. And I can't think of any strong need for consistency in stub category names, unlike templates (although if there is, they could all be renamed to 'television series', which is used by most the main categories). Rename. -Mairi 05:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 10th

This move would do three things: 1) Bring it in line with its non-stub parent Category:Political parties; 2) remove that word "related"; 3) stop people potentially adding stubs about social get-togethers. Rename? Grutness...wha? 07:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could agree, but it will take a lot of work to do, since one has to visit all these stubs to rename the stub-category. Is there another solution. - Electionworld 08:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are two solutions - firstly a bot, since it's obvious which stubs need to be changed, and they would all simply need a null edit (in which case there would be virtually no work); secondly, I've put in a proposal at WP:WSS/P to split some subcategories off this, which would reduce the number of stubs in the category (in which case the articles would need re-stubbing anyway). Grutness...wha? 09:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{WV-road-stub}}

Pretty sure this one wasn't debated - if it had been, it would have been at {{WestVirginia-road-stub}}, the name to which I've redirected it. Since it's now at the new name, this incorrectly named one can be deleted. Grutness...wha? 07:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It actually was proposed, with some debate too, including mention that 2-letter postal abbrevations are undesirable. Delete. --Mairi 21:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree... I'd prefer that it was at {{West-Virginia-State-Highway-Stub}}, but to prevent further strife I accepted the old name. But it was proposed... I don't always create the road stubs immediately after they are approved (I like to do them in batches), and I didn't create this one. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I hadn't noticed the original proposal (that page is just so damn big I'm bound to miss a few) - but the name's not a good one anyway, so... XX-State-Highway-Stub would limit it to state highways, whereas XX-road-stub allows for urban raods and streets as well, so it's a bit more all inclusive. In any case, I still think that all the XX-State-Highway-Stub names need renaming (that would be such a long job, though, that I'm not ready to propose it any time soon). Grutness...wha? 03:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 8th

New guideline for country-related stub categories does away with *-related. Aecis 10:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support this and all similar -related removals. Grutness...wha? 22:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Washington-Metro-stub}}

Pretty much limited scope. Only has (count em) 3 articles. And it dosen't see mlike it gets much activity. Delete. Pacific Coast Highway 02:13, 8 October 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]

October 7th

{{Canada-place-stub}}

A long-deprecated redirect to {{Canada-geo-stub}}. Only two redirects use the "place" coding - this and Ireland-place-stub, which should also be deleted but is still fairly heavily populated. This one was taken to WP:TFD way back in January 2005 and moved to canada-geo-stub - back then it was in use, but it hasn't been since at least June, so has the time now come for its deletion? Grutness...wha? 11:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Fo-stub}}

Unused redirect to Faroe-stub (for the Faroe Islands). The category has only a couple of dozen stubs, and it definitely doesn't need an ambiguous template redirect. Grutness...wha? 10:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Mairi 19:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Boom-stub}}

For "exploding animal-related articles". Delete. --Mairi 02:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very limited scope; doesn't have near 50 existing appropriate articles. Mairi 04:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, an actual answer. Thank you. But if you don't mind my asking, why is that a problem anyways? Wikipedia is not paper, after all. Plus, there really isn't a good category to put the articles in--they were previously placed in Template:Biology-stub or Template:Weapon-stub, neither of which is anywhere near as accurate a moniker as the exploding animals one. Matt Yeager 05:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stub categories are not like ordinary categories - they have a completely different purpose. Whereas ordinary categories are for readers looking for other articles on the same subject, stub categories are specifically for editors who know about a particular subjects and can expand articles. For editors, having to sort through a stub category with thousands of articles is a hassle, since they may well overlook some they can actually deal with. Similarly, there's no point in having a stub category with only one or two articles, since it would soon be emptied by diligent editors. For that reason - ideally - a stub category should have between abouit 60 and 600 articles: enough for editors to really get their teeth into, but no so many as to be daunting or a hassle. Any stub types that are too general (and therefore have lots of articles) get split into more specific topics that will have fewer stubs. Any which are too specific, though, are likely to be deleted. It's all a balancing act, and - along with physically changing stub templates on articles - is the main job of the stub sorting WikiProject. (Oh, and that's a delete by the way). Grutness...wha? 07:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, conceded. (I still think it was hilarious.) Matt Yeager 23:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(NOTE: this stub has actually been vandalized. Take a look if you don't believe it!) Matt Yeager 06:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only for extra-solar planets, according to the template text. However, Category:Extrasolar planets has 79 articles, and by far most of those are about stars, which then either have a section or mention of an extrasolar planet. Not likely to have sufficient use. Delete. --Mairi 04:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough use to warrant a stub template. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ISTR standard procedure at the astronomical objects wikiproject is to list extrasolar panets as sections on the articles about the stars they circle, since very little is known about any of them yet. No doubt in time astronomers will find out more and separate articles will be made, but at the moment this stub type isn't needed. Grutness...wha? 07:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Grutness. DeleteA2Kafir 22:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 6th

{{Eng-club-stub}} to {{England-footyclub-stub}}

This category should be renamed, according to the guidelines set by WP:WSS/P. Aecis 18:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Football (soccer) player stubs to Category:Football (soccer) biography stubs

This category contains more biographies than just player biographies. As the category itself says, "while the category was originally envisioned only for players, non-playing personnel (managers, coaches, chairmen, executives) can also be included in this category, as long as they are directly connected to the sport." I think a rename is needed to better fit the articles in this category.. Aecis 11:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming for stub categories must be directed to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from WP:CFD missed it earlier. ∞Who?¿? 04:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Perhaps it would be better to keep this category, plus create additional related and daughter stubs+categories. If you look at the category, the first page doesn't even get all the way through the letter A. Someone more familiar with fútbol will have to suggest the best way to divide up the articles. BlankVerse ∅ 11:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that would be an obvious one, I'd say - by nationality, in much the same way as the clubs are in the process of being divided. A large proportion of the managers and coaches are former players, but there are still some that aren't, and I'd be happier if they were kept in with the main category since the same editors are likely to know about them. I'd go ahead with the proposed move, but consider tallying up what nationalities can be split off. There are some that would just about be guaranteed (England, Italy, France, Germany, Brazil, and Argentina, to name just six). Grutness...wha? 11:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've gone through about 15% of the stubs (not particularly randomly), and found: English 59; Scottish 21; Norwegian, Australian 12; Northern Irish 10; Belgian, German, Turkish, Guinean, Brazilian 9; Argentinian 8 (out of 333 checked, of 2206 total). I'd say English and Scottish are fair enough, but the rest are only just big enough to warrant their own stub types. It might be best to split most by continent instead of country: I counted Europe 214 (including Eng/Scot), Africa 54, South America 24, and about 15 for each of the others. This way, the estimated totals for each category would be about: England 400, Scotland 140, Rest of Europe 900 (with possible further splits once we see exactly how many there are of each), Africa 350, South America 170, North America/Asia/Oceania 100 each. (Phew!) sjorford #£@%&$?! 13:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, those sound fair splits to me (by continent, plus the England and Scotland ones) - take this over to WP:WSS/P and run it past everyone there! Grutness...wha? 22:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename {{TN-geo-stub}}

Newly created, refers to Tamil Nadu, India. Probably much needed, but also definitely needs a new name, as TN is also the postal abbreviation for Tennessee, and an ISO code for Tunisia. Rename to {{TamilNadu-geo-stub}}. --Mairi 02:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O.K.--SivaKumar 04:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SivaKumar went ahead and created {{TamilNadu-geo-stub}}; I redirected TN-geo-stub to there. The redirect should be still deleted. Mairi 00:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Shan-stub}}

Created 2 days ago, unused. There is a new wikiproject, but it has one contributor. Furthermore, there's most likely less than 10 articles related to the author, not all of which are stubs. Delete. --Mairi 02:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time to prune the stub list a bit, methinks. This category has had less than 10 entries for several months now, as per this diff. I propose this be deleted, and the stubs merged into its parent, {{oceania-stub}}. --TheParanoidOne 21:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although I can see the worth of having individual stubs for every county, some of them - like these - will never get close to a viable population of stubs. And since Oceania-stub is hardly overburdened, I agree with delete. These can always be revived later if the need ever arises, anyway. Grutness...wha? 23:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another one for pruning. This category has also had less than 10 entries for several months now, as per this diff. I propose this be deleted, and the stubs merged into its parent, {{oceania-stub}}. --TheParanoidOne 21:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 5th

I think the proposed name meets the naming guidelines better. Aecis 22:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Phillipine literature stubs

I have corrected the typo in {{phil-lit-stub}} that led to the creation of this category and created the proper category at Category:Philippine literature stubs, but three articles continue to show up in this category. Why? NatusRoma 07:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They showed up because of a caching problem regarding categories on templates. Any edits (including null edits) on the affected articles fix the problem. It's now empty, so speedy delete once it's been empty for 24 hours. --Mairi 03:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the same problem none of the articles with the template currently feed into the correct category and will need null edits. However, none of them qualify as Philippines literature stubs (they're all Philippines writer stubs), so it should not be on any of them anyway. Also the name of the template is completely wrong (as - by WSS naming - it would refer to literature about philosophy). The stub type is currently under discussion at WP:WSS/D, and it is likely that it will be proposed for deletion soon. Grutness...wha? 06:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pentalog is apparently a French IT company. With no signs of having more than 2 related articles on Wikipedia (the template is on both). Delete. --Mairi 01:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Pt-footyclub-stub}}

For Portuguese football clubs. This wasn't one of the ones mentioned in the recent footyclub split; and for good reason: Category:Portuguese football clubs includes 29 articles, and List of football clubs in Portugal has a handful of additional relevant articles. Currently feeds into Category:European football club stubs, and used on 6 articles. Delete. --Mairi 01:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 4th

Category:UK geography stubs and Category:US geography stubs

In both cases, these have largely been emptied into subcategories, so it's a good time to rename both to wiki-standard, i.e., as Category:United Kingdom geography stubs and Category:United States geography stubs. Grutness...wha? 10:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of these needs to go. Both of them make reference tu {{EU-stub}} but the template feeds into the second. The first is empty but it is my understanding that the outcome of the "x-related" debates was that the "x-related" categories were to be scrapped. --TheParanoidOne 15:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is, although that decision was primarily for specific countries. I'd definitely be in favour of removing it from all stub categories, though, to bring the stub cat names more in line with the general cat names - so I'd favour the former name listed above. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well since I created the {{EU-stub}} so I may as well weigh in. It was initially created as European Union stubs however I hadn't been around long at the time I didn't follow proper procedures, like proposing it first &c. Now I wonder if it would not be better named Category:European Union operations stubs as it was created to be for articles relating specifically to operations of the European Union as a political entity as opposed just anything relating to the countries of the EU. I've tried to explain it at the top of the cat and in the template, I keep an eye on it and to be fair it's not that often that other articles end up in it but this might be an opportunity to change it if anyone thinks it appropriate? If not than I go for the former as -related makes it even less clear what it's specifically for. -- Lochaber 15:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 3rd

{{Dynamic}}

A "dynamic" stub template. Which'd cause so many problems if it were used (fortunately it isn't). Strong delete. --Mairi 02:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete post-haste. Agreed - this is far more likely to do harm than good. Grutness...wha? 04:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How is this different from {{metastub}} which is mentioned on WP:STUB? Should that be deleted as well? I actually prefer the wording in this template than the metastub one. --TheParanoidOne 09:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the name and the initial edit summary ("Dynamic stub. I am not searching for existing ones."), I interpreted it as for being used on articles, in place of a specific stub. This edit shows it being used as such (altho that's as much a problem with the individual user). I agree that the metastub wording could be better, tho. --Mairi 20:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete!!! BlankVerse ∅ 11:15, 8 October 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.

October 2nd

Australian city stubs, part 1

As per discussion at WP:WSS/P, the various Australian city-specific stubs should be renamed for consistency.

Adelaide

In the case of Adelaide, this also means deleting the separate transport stub and merging it and adelstub into a new Adelaide-stub (each has only about 30 stubs). Grutness...wha? 00:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hobart

In the case of Hobart, this proposal supersedes the proposed deletion of this stub type further down the page. This one also needs a category. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra

In this case, ACT-geo-stub would also be a viable option, since over 95% of the A.C.T.'s geo-stubs relate to Canberra. Either that or Canberra-geo-stub can be used for the name, with the template message making it clear that it can be used for the entire capital territory. (I'd favour the latter option). Grutness...wha? 00:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I oppose deleting cat:canberra_suburb_stubs. I think it should be kept as a subcategory of either cat:canberra_related_stubs or cat:canberra_geo_stubs (or both). There are a LOT of canberra suburb stubs, and I think a lot of other stubs will get lots in all the noise if they are all put into the same category (such as the lakes and ponds, mountains and hills and significant parks). Adz 12:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Emulation-stub}}

Rather more specific than our current software stubs. And given that Category:Emulation software has 71 articles, probably not enough use for it, unless there's alot of uncategorized articles on the topic. Currently used on only 4 articles, altho it was created 3 days ago. Delete. --Mairi 04:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are many emulation articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Many...71. And since there need to be 50-60 stub articles for a stub category to be really viable, then either someone needs to do some work on the Emulation category in general or this is simply not worthwhile. Many of the items in the Emulation software category relate specifically to cvg anyway and are stubbed accordingly. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh? What's there isn't necessarily what there is. I mean, when someone said there wasn't enough articles in the company stubs, I doubled the Namco and Capcom ones.
      • That actually works directly against what we're trying to achieve with stub sorting. Categories are created because there are already enough stubs, so as to encourage editors to reduce the number of stubs by turning them into full articles. They don't exist so as to get editors to write more stubs. We're trying to reduce the number of stubs, not increase it! You'd have probably been better employed by writing fewer large articles than more tiny ones. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, that category includes all the articles listed at List of emulators and List of NES emulators (I went through both those lists before putting it up for deletion). --Mairi 00:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good precedent. Will undoubtedly increase...unfortunatley. --Herzog 01:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Will grow with time, and there is absolutly no harm in it being here. Havok (T/C) 10:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{HRF-bio-stub}}

Apparently for people who recieve the title Hero of the Russian Federation. Which cuts across standard categories, seems not particularly useful, and has very few suitable articles. Delete. --Mairi 04:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How does it cut across standard categories? Zach (Sound Off) 04:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC) (creator of the stub template)[reply]
The standard is to divide by occupation (such as writier, politician and military being common) after dividing by country, and this isn't specific to any occupation. --Mairi 05:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That I can agree on. While most of the awardings went to Chechnya veterans or cosmonauts, atheletes and some writters recieved the title. The main reason why I created the template is that not only this is only showing that it is not only a subject that relates to Russia, but it (mainly) establishes notability, which is very picky on here. If there was a central website, like with the Order of Canada, that lists everyone who got the hero title, I would have used that instead. Zach (Sound Off) 05:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is the woefully incomplete List of heroes of the Russian Federation. Establishing notability would also be accomplished by mentioning the title in the article. It's possible there'd be enough articles for a stub relating to Russian military, or the space program (I don't follow bio stubs closely enough to know). --Mairi 05:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am checking that now, and I also happened to create that list. Once it gets to a good size, it will be transwikied (hopefully). Zach (Sound Off) 05:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But since this is a keep/delete situation, I personally will side (and this should not be a big shock), but keep. I will happy to see this go after a while, but I am going to create these type stubs in the next few years, so they should meet Grutness's 50 article rule. Zach (Sound Off) 06:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It only has 10 stubs now and it doesn't fit into our existing schemes. However, if there were a WikiProject associated with the Heroes of the Russian Federation, I could see keeping it. There are other ways of keeping track of articles about the Heroes of the Russian Federation that need work, such as Category:Hero of the Russian Federation or List of heroes of the Russian Federation if it is a purely personal endeavour. Caerwine 01:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Historical Fiction book stubs -> Category:Historical fiction book stubs

More standard capitalization. And easier to do while it's still relatively new. --Mairi 21:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CFD would regard this as a speedy rename. Though we don't have set rules for speedying here, I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be counted in the same way. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 4 October 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]
  • Keep, at least until there are less than 300 stubs that use this template. At the moment, there are no less than 922 stubs that have this attached to them. Since the term is used to refer to both freight and passenger facilities, and readers don't see the stub name itself, expand those articles so that they no longer need the stub template. Although another 922 edits would help increase my own standing in WP:1000, there are other tasks here that will use my time better. slambo 15:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I haven't looked, but I'm confident that most of those 922 articles will be about passenger stations. As far as railways in Britain are concerned, a depot is a train storage/maintenance facility or a place for freight to be loaded/unloaded, never a place for passengers to get on or off trains. For instance, if you asked someone where "Waterloo Depot" was, they wouldn't know what you meant! However, the text of the stub template is fine, so as long as editors are aware of the template name, and are (grudgingly) willing to put up with it, it shouldn't be a problem. --RFBailey 12:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 22nd

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]
Comment I agree with Nantonos. Roman-stub should be for the entire Roman Empire and perhaps Ancient-Rome-stub should be a subset of Roman Empire, aka a stub for wikis related just to ancient rome and not to the empire as a whole. +MATIA ☎ 09:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:03, 10 October 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 19th

{{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 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 12th

{{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]
  • I am at a bit of a disadvantage, having not been involved in the reorganization mentioned above, but as a data point, I found out about the proposed deletion when I added a poet-stub tag to an article about a poet... --Daedalus-Prime 19:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm in the same position as Daedalus-Prime. If there had been no stub, I'd have been puzzled, and would have suggested its creation. Many, many poets are either wholly or overwhelmingly known only for their poetry. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:16, 6 October 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]
If its closed what is the decisision? The statepark stub still has the delete line on it. -Ravedave 19:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh - good question. Looks like a keep for now due to a split decision (3 keep, 4 delete, 3 rename, although one of those keeps may have been only through not understanding about restubbing), but I suspect they're likely to get nominated again at some point. Possibly separately, and especially the forest one, which is little used and is only on lists (which shouldn't have stub templates on them anyway). Grutness...wha? 23:23, 8 October 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=25254161"