Jump to content

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

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.

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 discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

About this page

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

Putting a stub type on SfD, and what happens afterwards

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

Putting {{sfd-r}} on redirects

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

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

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

Possible reasons for the deletion of a stub type

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

What this page is not for

Typical voting options

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

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

Note to admins deleting stub types

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

Listings

July 3rd

{{Orkney-bio-stub}} / Category:Orkney people stubs

Delete - no corresponding cat. Created today to make a WP:POINT. Only 3 articles in Category:Natives of Orkney are stubs: StubSense. --Mais oui! 20:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs are sorted according to citizenship, not ethnicity and even if this was not the case, this one would be extremely unlikely to ever break 60+. Delete Valentinian (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Important to build an independent series of Orkney categories and stubs distinct from those of Scotland. The history and culture of Orkney (and Shetland) are quite distinct from that of Scotland, the islands maintain a close relationship with Norway and are often recognised as a part of Scandinavia. Nobody would think it reasonable for Wales to be covered by the English categories. (If citizenship is the criterion then all Scottish, English and Welsh categories would have to be subsumed under British.)Mallimak

Comment I am Danish so I am well aware of the history of Orkney and Shetland (or Ørkenøerne og Hjaltland to use the old Danish names). In Denmark the joke is occationally heard that the islands are Danish, and I'd be surprised if the Norwegians don't make similar jokes. But that's beside the point; stub templates and stub categories differ from ordinary categories. Ordinary categories can be specific to an ethnicity, but we base stub categories on citizenship. If a stub category becomes excessively big, we cut it down into smaller segments, and the UK belongs to this group. This is why Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have been singled out. But in order for Orkney to be singled out as well, we need 60+ existing stub articles for such a category to be considered big enough. I just can't imagine that this is currently the case for Orkney. Valentinian (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You may be aware of the history of Orkney and Shetland, but most Scots are not. Categorising Orkney and Shetland in with Scotland simply perpetuates this situation. I note that the Faroe islands have their own stub categories. Do they have 60+ stub articles? Mallimak
Category:Faroe Islands stubs has 47 stubs. Not the 60 you mention, but a reasonable number. More importantly it is the parent of Category:Faroe Islands geography stubs which has 105 stubs. --TheParanoidOne 22:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Faroes are 60+ now (sorting those had been on my to-do-list for ages!) Valentinian (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Likewise there is an Orkney-geo-stub. Why, therefore, should there not be an Orkney-bio-stub?Mallimak
The Orkney stub is not over- but seriously undersized. We use holder categories if a "child category" is 60+ and its "parent" is either 60+ or close to. {{Orkney-geo-stub}} is only used on 23 articles, so it does not need a "holder". Valentinian (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. sections of a country - even if theyve been historically seperate - dont get their own bio-stubs. bio-stubs are sorted by current country (except in very rare cases) and then by occupation. geo-stubs are completely different and are always split by subregion. The faroes are an autonomous territory so arent a fair (or fair isle) comparison so have their own stub types (and they dont, youll note, have a bio-stub). BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Valentian has now increased the number of Faroes stubs to over 60. I have started adding to the Orkney-bio stubs. It clearly makes sense to have a stub category in place ready to use. I see no sense in deleting the Orkney-bio stub I have created. It has a use and is being used. It obviously takes time to identify and/or create 60+ stubs.Mallimak
  • It shouldn't take that long. Not when you're creating substubs of the Earls of Orkney that could just as well be redirects band adding stub notices to short but non-stub articles. I removed the stub tags from the three non-stubs, but left alone the substubs for now in hopes that you will improve them to at least stubs. As things stand now, delete, but I am persuadable if enough stubs can be found to populate it. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or upmerge, delete the "important series" of stub types if those are unproposed and undersized too, and remind creator of WP:STUB, with particular reference stub proposal, and to size as measured in terms of existing stubs, and proposal, the lack of validity of slippery-slope reasoning, and that Orkney has been part of Scotland longer than Scotland's been in the United Kingdom. If there's any viable number of Orcadian stubs, start with an all-inclusive {{Orkney-stub}}, not with tiny candidate children. Sub-national splits of biographies are in any case problematic due to the difficulty in many cases of relating a person with a single such location, unless it relates clearly to their primary notability. (And yes, this does on occasion get fuzzy with regard to the "constituent countries" too, but there it's at least somewhat more distinct, and less likely to lead to massive multi-stubbing.) Alai 06:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per both BL and Alai. Note the discussion below as regards Cornwall We've recently had a very similar discussion about a Cornwall stub, which ended in its deletion. Counties - even ones with distinct historical differences from the country of which they are a part do not normally get their own stub types except for geo-stubs. Geo-stubs are split by national subdivision, which is the reason for the orkney-geo-stub. Bio-stubs and the like aren't - they are split primarily by nation and by occupation. The reason for this is clear, especially with modern biographies - geographical locations tend to stay in one place (seismic activity notwithstanding), but people move around. Someone like Mary Brunton, for instance, was Orcadian, but also spent much of her life in Edinburgh, and as such - if people were stubbed by subnational region - would need double stubbing. If she had lived in five different places, she would need five different stub templates, clearly overkill. Most people, however, are known for no more than two nationalities, and usually only for one occupation. Template overload becomes far less of a problem with the current system, and still makes the articles easy to find for editors. Grutness...wha? 12:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is the purpose of a stub category? Surely it is to list related stubs in one place. If I am an Orcadian, interested in expanding stubs of relevance to Orkney (in Orkney, it is not unlikely that I will be related to some of the "Orkney people"), am I really going to be bothered to trawl my way through massive British and Scotland stub lists trying to spot something of Orkney interest? I am concerned that the call for deletion has more to do with "category imperialism" than a genuine interest in adding knowledge to Wikipedia. (Mais oui! has been going through all my contributions changing every occurance of "Orcadian" to "Scottish", and will persist at it if I change them back again. What point is Mais oui! trying to make? Has s/he a problem with the concept of "Orcadian"?) Mallimak 19:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Mais_oui! has a history of going through articles changing "British" to "Scottish"- so it isn't very surprising he is opposing the changes you made. Astrotrain 19:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Mais_oui! has an obsession which is extremely unhelpful to those of us trying to write serious articles. I think the originator of an article is the best person to decide whether the subject is British, Orcadian, Scottish or whatever. I have lost patience trying to undo his changes (which is presumably what he is hoping).) Is there any way we can stop this guy? Mallimak 23:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I like Alai’s suggestion best. Judging by the number of publications published on Orkney and bought by Orcadians (yes, people living in Orkney) a more general Orkney stub collection is probably a more useful vehicle to grow a family of articles than merging the biographies with Scottish biographies and just having a tiny Orkney-geo collection. Gruelliebelkie 21:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI would find a merge of all Orkney-related stubs acceptable.Mallimak 23:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing Admin: the above contribution was the 2nd ever edit of User:Gruelliebelkie. --Mais oui! 22:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Not quite true. Up to now I did any edits I made without having first created a Wikipedia identity, but I thought an IP address is just not good enough for joining into a discussion. I constantly find little things to correct but am slowly branching out into more ambitious stuff.

Gruelliebelkie 22:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Missouri School Stubs

didn't we delete this recently? in any case it doesnt need capital s's. rename at least - if its a recreation deleting is also an option. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per Alai. This template uses two categories. If / when the material breaks threshold, a category can be created (and properly named) but 40 is not 60+. Valentinian (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't noticed that, well-spotted. I've no objection to it using two, just not these two. (i.e., Category:Midwestern United States school stubs and Category:Missouri stubs would be fine.) Alai 05:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 1st

Category:Disorder stubs

This category is empty and does not contain a stub template. Its description is "This category is for stub articles relating to disability. You can help Wikipedia by expanding them." As a duplicate of Category:Disability stubs and its template {{Disability-stub}}, this category should be deleted. Kurieeto 23:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Publisher stubs → Category:Publishing company stubs

The main category Category:Publishers recently got rescoped to a parent of Category:Publishers (people) and a new category Category:Publishing companies. Rename the stub category to match the non-stub parent. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 30th

no template / Cat:Computer vision stubs

I brought this up at /D back in April, when BL Lacertae wanted it deleted; two months later, it's about time this got sorted out. Parent category Cat:Computer vision has fewer than 100 pages encompassing all its subcategories. I suggest Merge with compu-stub without redirect. –Unint 02:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given that compu-stub is significantly oversized, I'm loathe to delete this entirely (though it's not clear how much it's helping, either). Perhaps replace with a (properly formed) {{image-processing-stub}}, or something along those lines? [1]. I have a real feeling of deja vu, though: did we already deal with something similar to this? Alai 03:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{GeelongStub}} / Category:Geelong Stubs

just about everything that could be wrong with this is. template is badly named. catagory is badly named. template format had to be fixed to show catagory properly. never proposed. only 10 stubs. mixture of geo-stubs, bio-stubs and neither-stubs but feeds into geo-stub catagory. delete now before anything else can be found wrong with it. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear lordy. And that's 10 stubs in two months, by the look og it, too. Delete. Grutness...wha? 03:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The parent project, being WikiProject Geelong has 123 articles assessed as being of stub class quality. There may very well be a need for this stub type however I take on board the comments of it being created in a somewhat messy and unproposed way. -- Longhair 06:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Valentinian (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 28th

{{ER-stub}}

The four article this stub is used on could better be called Template:Eritrea-stub, if needed as all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. if there are enough stubs for one a seperate eritrea-stub could be made but this name is bad. at least theres no catagory. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This appears to have been commented on in the June 22nd section below as part of the "Imthehappywanderer" discussion. Road Wizard 21:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
can it be speedied then? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so. Valentinian (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{itemstub}}

I think that Template:Expansion is the appropriate method, not this stub. Used in three articles. Also, this doesn't seem to fall under the typical stub organization. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was used on *lists* in all three cases. This is definitely not the way to go. Delete Valentinian (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{crime stub}}

Somebody has produced a duplicate template. I've resorted the three articles that used it (not all were actual stubs). It feeds into the Category:Crime stubs. Delete Valentinian (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{southcarolina-history-stub}} + Category:South Carolina History Stubs

The following is from wWP:WSS/D, courtesy of Aelfthrytha - This category was created last week, was not proposed, is malformed, and contains two stubs. This is aside from the fact that a split of {{US-hist-stub}} has not yet been begun because it isn't needed.

Delete per nom. Valentinian (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

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

June 27th

{{info-sci-stub}} / Category:Information science stubs

Speedy delete as a recreation of stub type that was deleted just last month. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete. Grutness...wha? 01:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. Am I going bonkers, or did NawlinWiki just recreate hundreds of articles recently speedied from Imthehappywanderer's category-creation-spree? (At least they seem to have been created more carefully this time.) Alai 02:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy . Valentinian (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{ai-stub}} / Category:Artificial intelligence stubs

More fun from the computer science wikiproject. The template is hopelessly ambiguous. At the very least it should be renamed, but with only 21 articles this unproposed stub should likely be deleted. Delete unless better popoulated and even then rename the template to {{compu-ai-stub}}. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there really that many stubs about Anguilla? Delete if this doesn't reach threshold, rename if it does. Grutness...wha? 01:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know, artificial insemination, abstract interpretation, Amnesty International. Rename, poke the wikiproject to see if they want to populate it (though I get the impression this is just another Kootism, rather than something the wikiproject at large actually supported), revisit in a while. This should be more than viable if anyone makes the effort: [2]. At worst, upmerge to comp-sci-. Alai 03:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidently, the abbreviation isn't as bad as some: note that AI is indeed a redirect to the topic at hand. OTOH, should at the very least be capitalised. (Perhaps have {{compu-AI-stub}} as the canonical template name, with redirects from AI- and compu-ai-.) Alai 03:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{ce-stub}} & {{cs-stub}} & {{se-stub}} & {{pl-stub}} (redirects)

Redirects to various european stubs, nope a collection of hopelessly ambiguous stub redirects from the good folks of the computer science wikiproject. Delete all with extreme prejudice. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, speedily if possible. Grutness...wha? 01:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Allan McInnes (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until the pips squeak. Alai 03:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedy, Dolph-wise, or by any other method) Valentinian (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, though with perhaps less sarcasm. -- – Zawersh 23:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Fm-stub}} / Category:Freemasonry stubs

never proposed, just been made. has two stubs and a nasty template name. delete unless it gets to threshhold - if it does rename the template to freemasonry-stub. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is now at the proposal page (better late than never...) So hold off on it for now - it will definitely need renaming if kept, though. Grutness...wha? 01:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perfectly valid. Ardenn 20:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please only debate this template in one location. Let's continue at the proposal page. Valentinian (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There have been no objections over the creation of the stub so long as it is renamed, so I have done so and removed the stub type for deletion template from the stub itself. I hope this isn't overstepping my bounds. OzLawyer 00:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which I've latter reverted, as neither process has run 7 days. I'd be happy with this if there's indeed 30 stubs primarily notable in connection with Freemasonry, without a bio-stub fishing exercise, which seems less than clear at this point. Alai 01:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the creator has already moved it to {{Freemasonry-stub}}, and changed the old name to a redirect. Delete {{Fm-stub}}. Not sure about the worth of the other one, but at least it's big enough. Valentinian (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 25th

Been at /D for a while, growing slowly, but certainly too small. Contrary to the consensus on how to split the uni-stubs (i.e. by country/region/subdivision, not by individual institution other than as a last resort in extreme cases), and badly-named. Ideally, upmerge to a to-be-created {{NorthCarolina-university-stub}}; failing which delete; failing which, rename both template and category per the naming guidelines. Alai 16:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge and consider doing the same with {{UGA-stub}}, {{OU-stub}}, and {{UTexas-stub}} and any other such stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Testify, brother. These suffer for pretty similar issues, and the two that are viably-sized look dubious to me in that the population seems to be overwhelmingly bio-stubs, and with a distinct suggestion of over-application (such and such played ball for us for a couple of years). Our experience with UTexas-stub might indicate that these are undeletable on "vote" numbers, though. Alai 20:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge into state-specific rather than university-specific types if viable, and move the bio-stubs back to where they belong. US-university is getting close to splitting, but this way is ridiculous. And remember Alai that this is not a vote pure and simple... reasoning is as important as actual numbers. Oh, and delete any and all stub categories that use the long-deprecated "-related" tag! Grutness...wha? 04:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware that's true in theory, hence the scare-quotes. But when three well-argued, guidelines-citing "deletes" prevail over half a dozen of "I vote keep, because I like it/find it useful/am able to do so", I might actually feel it to be actually true. (Prevailing being, an SFD is closed on such a basis, and we get only moderate levels of dog's abuse over it at DRV, AN/I, yadda-yadda. Alai 05:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 24th

{{Argentina-sport-stub}} & Category:Argentina sport stubs → {{Argentina-sport-bio-stub}} & Category:Argentine sportspeople stubs

I am relisting this so soon because I am of the opinion that this was wrongly logged by the sole opponent of its deletion as no consensus. The previous discussion had 4 people give an opinion and the 3 were in favor of eliminating {{Argentina-sport-stub}} and 1 opposed. Having the sole opponent logging it as no consensus is decidely not kosher. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete like it should have been before. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per BL Valentinian (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC) I guess this one needs clarification so:[reply]
Rename with no redirects since it is clearly above threshold. Precedent is established by e.g. the German material. (This way Argentina will have its template and we will have the consistent name system). Everybody happy? Valentinian (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there was some misunderstanding regarding the different format of those supporting the original nomination (in which case the closer is clueless, and shouldn't be meddling with processes they're unfamiliar with), this looks like bad-faith unilateral stroke-pulling (in which case an admin should know better than to perform such stunts). Speedily re-close, resort as nom (whether by renaming or deletion, it's really six and half a dozen), and "have word with" original closer. Alai 01:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the previous voting had only 3 votes, one fore rename, one for deletion, and one for keeping. I don't know how do you get the idea I acted in bad faith. If you so strongly want re-structure the Argentine sports stubs even if then they will be less useful to the Argentine contributors, go ahead, but don't go around pointing fingers. I closed the debate becase 8 days had already passed, and I closed it as no concensus because there was not one, so please stop acussing me with nonsenses. Mariano(t/c) 12:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How will a template be "less useful to the Argentine contributors" because it will be named in line with all similar material? This posting is about a rename since the standard name is "(contry name)-sport-bio-stub". A standardised name simply means that users do not have to play "what's the name" to use the templates. Valentinian (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is that "(contry name)-sport-bio-stub" doesn't include venues and other non biographical articles, while (contry name)-sport-stub does. BTW, I didn't count the nomination as a vote since it was not implicit. I'm not against doing this for the third time, I was just upset for being accused of not being fair. Mariano(t/c) 08:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: to be precise there were 4 votes (original nomination plus 3 others). 2 rename, 1 delete, 1 keep. Road Wizard 12:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is the case, it nevertheless means that three editors believed that the template was problematic. It is not uncommon for the vote to continue a few days longer if no clear consensus emerges quickly (but this practice is not described properly on this page.) It seems a pretty good guess that this case would have been given a few days more consideration had it not been closed so soon. Everybody - please assume good faith. Valentinian (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since SPUI decided to be his usual charming self concerning redirects, I'm restubbing the sports people to use the {{Argentina-sport-bio-stub}} redirect so that if it is decided that the concensus is to do the rescope it will be ready to do. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 I'm astounded. After I finished with Argentina-sport-stub, I decided to also sort Argentina-bio-stub. Considering all the fuss that was raised over this stub, when I just now sorted Argentine-bio-stub, I expected to find only a few more stubs that would go under an Argentina-sport-bio-stub. Make that 73 additional stubs. Not only are there now way more than enough known stubs to populate Argentina-sport-bio-stub, there probably are enough for a separate Argentina-footy-bio-stub, but I'll let someone else worry about doing the count and proposal if they care, since SouthAm-footy-bio-stub is only around 600 stubs and likely has a latent Brazil-footy-bio-stub lurking within it as well. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
slight delete. I love my fellow Hispanic brothers from Argentina (Vamos Argentinaaa!!!) and all Argentines do is awesome-but out of respect for the flag, I just do not like the half flag image portrayed in this stub's picture. Antonio 33% Puerto Rican heart, 33% Mexican, %33 Argentine 07:55, 5 July 2006

June 21st

Category:Library stubs → Category:Library and information science stubs

Given the smallish size of this category (and the related template {{library-stub}} from the discoveries page, and the fact that a number of the existing stubs already require the broader scope, how about making it official with a change of name (and of its non-stub parent)? Caerwine Caerwhine 14:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 9th

Canadian provincial (non-geo) types

All unproposed, all by the same editor, almost all vastly undersized, almost all incorrectly named. given the spaces in the template names). Delete all but the last, which rename per the NGs. Alai 03:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename any which get close to threshold by the end of this debate as per NG - delete the rest (or at least upmerge). I doubt any but NS will make it, but you never know. Grutness...wha? 04:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second that one. Valentinian (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but Rename as necessary). I suspect that there are plenty of stub articles that belong under these stubs, but someone has not taken the time to apply them to the appropriate articles (which, I'll admit, is a big job). That is the kind of job I am happy to help with, but it certainly isn't an easy one. Agent 86 00:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't be radically opposed to upmerging (i.e., keeping the template, fed into the Canadian stubs for the time being) if someone wants to try to populate them, But given that some of them are used all of twice, with one of those being a triple-stubbing that'd be better off back in the parent type, I really amn't holding my breath. Alai 01:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've already tackled New Brunswick, and I don't think the results were all that bad for the little time I had available to work on it. However, the folks are in town and it's the first time in forever that I've seen the old man on Father's Day that I doubt I'll be spending much more time on it this weekend. Agent 86 01:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't mean to sound as if I was cracking the whip. :) As I say, I'd have no objections to keeping the template, say with a view to revisit in a month or so. Alai 02:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps Manitoba, PEI and NB could be merged into Canadian Maritimes stubs? The three territories could be merged into Canadian territory stubs as well. Manitoba should be kept. BoojiBoy 13:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Worth having. Ardenn 21:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow Up. I assume BoojiBoy meant merging NS, PEI and NB together. In any event, in addition to New Brunswick, I've now updated articles with the PEI stub, and think all three stubs ought to remain. Manitoba ought to be its own stub. (I haven't checked to see if the other two prarie provinces have their own stubs). As for merging the territories, I haven't looked at the number of articles for any of those areas, but if the numbers don't warrant it, some sort of Canadian territories stubs is worth consideration. (The PEI and NB stubs still need to be fixed so that the spaces are removed, but I'll leave something for someone else!) Agent 86 22:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assumed he meant that too. PEI is fine now, so by all means keep that, but the remainder are still very undersized. (Aside from NB, which is still distinctly so.) If these don't grow, they're really not viable as they stand, and are pretty marginal even if merged along those lines. Alai 01:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think what I've been able to do in the last while demonstrates these have merit. In fact, I'm thinking that I might even propose stubs for Alberta and Saskatchewan (in the proper manner, unlike how these nominees came to be). Agent 86 08:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Glad to see more of these waxing thresholdwards. I'd imagine the two you mentioned are quite likely to be populable (though a size guestimate would be handy), given that the smaller provinces seem to have turned out to be. I'm far from convinced that necessarily makes the territorial ones numerically viable -- they're not even obviously so if they were merged, unless there's significant numbers left to find. Alai 20:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed the Manitoba stub template was never affixed with the {{sfd-t}} template. I have added it now. I assume it was overlooked in error. Agent 86 15:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Must have been, unless I was subliminally thinking upmerge, rather than template-deletion (which would have been plausible, though not how I nominated it). Alai 20:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Worse case senario... merge and create "Canadian Maritime Provinces stub" and "Canadian Territories stub". DMighton 18:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that the {{Northwest Territories-stub}} is also tagged as being nominated for deletion, but was not listed as a part of this discussion. If it is kept, it should be renamed according to the usual standards. In any event, the current counts for the three provincial stub categories in this proposal ought to suffice so that the nominations for those stubs can be closed (as "Keep"). The NWT category has a respectable number, leaving only the Yukon and Nunavut (I haven't done much work on either, yet). A proposal for their merger with NWT might be in order, but I'm happy to leave them as-is. Agent 86 18:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep any that are sufficiently close to threshold - upmerge the others back into Canada (keep and re-point the templates) - as is surely standard practice by now in this sort of situation, or, if they will reach threshold, separate territories/maritimes combinations as per DMighton. Rename the malformed "Northwest Territories-stub", "Prince Edward Island-stub", "New Brunswick-stub" and "Yukon Territory-stub", and delete the malnamed "Nova Scotia-stub" redirect. Grutness...wha? 23:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 4th

{{SerbiaMontenegro-stub}} / Category:Serbia and Montenegro stubs and {{SerbiaMontenegro-geo-stub}} / Category:Serbia and Montenegro geography stubs

Never gained much use and the country shuffled off its mortal coil yesterday. While the former might be worth retaining in a historical sense (a la {{Soviet-stub}}), it's already been emptied and last time I checked there was something like three articles in the parent, so no great loss there. I must confess to already re-parenting the respective Serbian and Montenegrin geo cats up a level to the European geo parent, so apologies for breaching convention, but haven't made any edits to the various official trees. Someone's already emptied the S&M geo cat, too, which may have implications for the ongoing Kosovo headache. The Tom 03:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Mind you, the Montenegrin categories are very small - it may be a case of watching them to see whether they grow. if they don't something may have to be done with them. Kosovo...sigh. I suppose we'll hear about that sooner or later. Grutness...wha? 05:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Montenegro, the generic and -geo categories have 55 articles each and the -bio category is above threshold (68). Given the recent events, they'll probably have a good growth potential. And the K-word situation is just ... tricky. In any case, there's no use to keep the {{SerbiaMontenegro-geo-stub}}. I don't have any clear preferences regarding the generic {{SerbiaMontenegro-stub}}, but on the drop of a hat, {{Yugoslavia-stub}} seems like a better keep. Valentinian (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see two problems with this last suggestion. 1) {{SerbiaMontenegro-stub}} is currently not used at all, and we usually require at least 60 stubs to keep a template. I might be wrong, but I just can't imagine this one reaching this number. 2) I don't think double-stubbing will be relevant in most cases. The state union is now pushing up flowers since both Montenegro and Serbia have declared their independence from it, and the material has generally already been tagged with either "Serbia" or "Montenegro". But my main concern is the size issue. Valentinian (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know. Someone has been busy depopulating the article. My point is that if we have a Pre-1992 Yugo stub, we should surely need a FRYugo one too? E Asterion u talking to me? 23:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wouldnt it be easier to just rescope the yugoslavia stubcategory to cover S/M and the federal republic as well? it would be far less confusing to have stubs relating to the federal republic of yugoslavia covered by yugoslavia-stub! BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Yugoslavia stubs should be rescoped to include FRY (and KoSCS if need be). Both the category and the {{Yugoslavia-stub}} will need a bit of text tweaking. BTW, I've been populating the Yugo-stub some as I've been going thru the Euro hist stubs to populate the newly created Norway-hist-stub, and I've noticed that the Yugo-stub doesn't meet the 60 stub minimum right now either so it could use a merge for that reason as well. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Just noticed that Yugoslavia stubs wasn't on the stub list. I've added it to the History by era section of the list since I'm certain it's suppposesd to an approved stub type. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A rescoped {{Yugoslavia-stub}} sounds like a good idea. Valentinian (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong pain in the arse. Oh yeah, you wanted something actionable, rather than a general complaint... Delete. I was rather suspicious of the depopulation, but it seems to have been as a result of more (highly predictable) silliness over Kosovo (Kosovo! Serbia! Albania! None of the above!), and as these types offer no logical solution to that issue, they might as well just clog up Euro-geo-stub for a little longer. Rescope Yugo-stub to cover all the various now-historical salami-sliced successor states, as well as the Cold War era origina. 21:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's called "Balkanisation" for good reasons! The mystery of the kosovo-geo-stubs has been solved, BTW - as a compromise they're being kept in the main Europe geography stubs catgory. At least all sides seem to agree that Kosovo's in Europe. And with only 25 or so stubs there's litle need of a separate template yet. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reason for the temp now that SaM dissolved. All articles relating to both SaM are being split between Serbia and Montenegro <the countries not the union country>. -- Crna Gora 08:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 31st

{{Postal-stub}} / Category:Postal stubs and Category:Philately stubs

Created in January 2006 but used on only six stubs. Delete based on tiny size. Not sure where they should be put though ... --TheParanoidOne 05:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented on WP:WSS/D, a slight re-scoping of philately-stub could easily cover these items. In any case this stub type isn't needed - delete. Grutness...wha? 05:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which seems to me to argue for rescoping this type, as the more inclusive, and upmerging the phil-stubs to here, keeping both templates. Alai 07:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this due to general lack of clarity as to a Plan; I've added an SFR tag to the phil-stub cat, so's we can rescope that, which seems to me to be the best option. Alai 19:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I'd be in favour of anything that combines these two stub types into one category and (preferably) one template. The real question as far as i'm concerned is whatit should be called. Perhaps keeping both templates and making it Category:Philatelic and postal stubs might be a reasonable solution (although noun forms would probably be better). Grutness...wha? 04:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Post and philately stubs, perhaps? (Sounds slightly less awkward to my ear than the reverse.) Alai 10:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Never proposed, only 17 stubs, vaguely enigmatic name, and adequately covered by Category:Dungeons & Dragons stubs which is only around the 400-stub mark. Either delete or upmerge. Grutness...wha? 05:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • upmerge, of the two Percy Snoodle 10:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename to a more general D&D campaign setting stub or something like this. It would not be a bad idea to create a good subcategory for the 400-so D&D one mentioned above. On the other hand, note that three other D&D campaign settings stubs have quite a few stubs: Category:Dragonlance stubs with 66, Category:Forgotten Realms stubs with 110 and Category:Greyhawk stubs with 137. I think that Eberron is the youngest of D&D settings but it seems to be gaining popularity, and I expect the number of stubs in that category will only increase. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've no objection to the re-creation of this when it reaches a viable level, but at the moment it's really too small. If we're going to think about a split of the main category a quick scan through the D&D stubs suggests that a D&D-creature-stub or similar might be more useful. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find the category useful, as D&D settings can be very different. I just discovered the Eberron stub category, and I'm glad it exists separately from other D&D stubs, because I have a lot of knowledge specific to Eberron. Being able to find Eberron stubs without having to wade through material concerning, say, Forgotten Realms, is very nice. Also, as Piotrus says, the category will likely increase. Zorblek (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as sub-category of D&D. If there are 400-odd D&D stubs, then it stands to reason that some degree of organisation will prove useful - and dividing some of them, at least, along Setting-specific lines, looks entirely reasonable to me.GMPax 06:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm a bit late with my comment, but to me it doesn't make much sense to only consider a stub category based on the number of stubs it contains. It might be a reasonable guideline, but more important should be the usefulness of the category, and personally I believe it is needed. The obvious way to divide D&D stubs is to do it according to setting. Links go to other topics within the same setting, but more rarely to similar topics in other settings. Eberron is still very lacking when it comes to major events, organizations and well known people. One way to go about it would be to begin by creating stubs, but I don't think Wikipedia would be better for it. --Maggu 12:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And who says they currently need to be divided at all? "Usefulness of the category" is so subjective as to permit essentially complete duplication of the permanent category space as stub types, which road lies utter madness. Upmerge -- a template should be essentially as "useful" as a category for this few, or a project-page list; it can be easily be split back out if it ever does actually grow. Alai 17:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There sure are a lot of people who have never edited an Eberron article but yet have opinions about this... Why is it so very important to kill off a category which clearly several editors find useful? I don't think it's possible to define a universal criteria for when a stub category should exist, and I strongly believe the D&D stub category should be divided. (Preventing "utter madness" is the reason for having these discussions, right?) Just take a look at the edits people do. Wikipedia editors working on D&D are clearly divided along setting-specific lines, and there are a lot of D&D stubs. To prevent the interesting stubs from being drowned among hundreds of irrelevant stubs for other settings, setting-specific stubs are useful, even if one of the four categories happens to contain only 20 stubs at the moment. --Maggu 18:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And there sure are a lot of people who've little in the way of involvement with WSS, who've opinions on the creation and keeping of stub types (that're entirely at variance with the stub guidelines), if we're going to get into that sort of line of argument. It's no more and no less important than "killing off" other stub types that're significantly undersized, and if we can't kill off this, on the basis of a few "I find it usefuls" (see guidance on such rationales at top of this page), we're ultimately likely to meet the same fate as with those. You claim that several people clearly find it useful; I'm more persuaded that lots of people fail to understand the logic of stub-sorting, and get highly defensive when their home-brew re-splits are questioned on the basis of established practice. "These discussion" are likewise part of the problem, since the defenders invariably use similar arguments for keep-no-matter-what, don't engage with either the rationale for the guidelines, or any of the suggested alternatives for tracking small numbers of stubs (as I've just provided, and you've just ignored) and the guidelines often go unenforced on the basis of said "votes" leading to "no consensus" to abide by same. Iterate as necessary, and we end up with 500,000 stubs split into 25,000 stub types, each of which 3-4 people "clearly find useful". If you can explain to me how to keep this one, and delete or upmerge every other unproposed stub type with 19 articles in it, splitting a two-listing-pages parent, I'd be highly receptive. Alai 20:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Established practice? I might not be into stub sorting, but as far as I can see the guidelines clearly state "As a rule of thumb", and I argue that the scope is not too limited. As mentioned above, just look at the number of stubs in the other setting categories. There are four official settings published by Wizards of the Coast. There should be four subcategories. And, I have to admit, I do utterly fail to see the problem with having 25,000 stub types, as long as each article contains only one stub template. (I'm pretty sure that's the case for every single article in the Eberron category.) If the people involved in the relevant project feel a stub category is superfluous, I'm sure it can be handled within the project. Finally, I'm also curious about the "suggested alternatives for tracking small numbers of stubs". I'm sorry. I didn't mean to ignore them, but I can't seem to find them. Where were those again? --Maggu 17:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Official WotC settings" are absolutely neither here nor there. You won't find a statement in the stub guidelines saying that 'categories are to be created by game-company definitions of officialness, and size criteria be blowed'. What you will find is: "Will there be a significant number of stubs in this category; are there enough article stubs to warrant this new type? Typically the threshold ranges from 100 to 300 articles. [...] In general any new category must have at least 60 articles."
            • The alternatives aren't in the guidelines (though that might not be a bad plan...), but I mentioned them above: you can use a list in the project space; where there's a template, but not a category (as I've suggested in this case), you can use the "What links here" to dynamically track current usage. In particular the template option enables one to re-split easily if usage grows to the point where a separate category is indeed indicated. Alai 18:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished business

To orphan

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

To delete

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

Listings to log

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion&oldid=62145017"