The result of the debate was upmerge, along with 1908
Extremely small, suggest upmerging to parent (keeping the distinct template).
Alai
03:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was upmerge
A couple of days into the five-day debate about the creation of a template for Ohio historic places - during which support was slowly being gained for an upmerged template -
User:Paultyng decided to create both category and template before the discussion was complete. I've no objection to the template, but the category is likely to remain of below-threshold size (hence the reason for the suggestion of upmergal in the first place). Delete this category, and upmerge the template.
Grutness...
wha?
02:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete both template and category.
Having subnational bio-stubs is bad enough, but when we do have them we certainly don't give them such cumbersome names as this! Add to that the strange capitalisation and the fact that the word "notable" is specifically avoided in Wikipedia - if someone has an article (at least, one that doesn't go to AfD) then they are notable. A {{ Massachusetts-bio-stub}} (which this is, under a wildly inapporopriate name) would cause the same problems as other such subnational bio-stubs, due - as always - to the migratory habits of people.
Take one example from the ten or so stubs currently in this category: Bill O'Brien (American football). He's played for Georgia Tech, Maryland Terrapins (wow - great name!), and the Borwn Bears, and coached Duke Blue Devils and New England Patriots... so that would be stubs for Massachusetts, Maryland, Georgia, North Carolina, and Rhode Island bio-stubs, as well as the usual AmFootball-bio-stub.
All this stub is likely to do is cause a proliferation of multistubbing. As such, deletion is the best option. If, however, the consensus is to keep it, it will need drastic renaming. Grutness... wha? 02:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep I created this stub while I was looking through newly created Massachusetts articles and saw that some were about past historical figures or important current residents that would fit more under the Bio-stub, but they should also be included under project Massachusetts but really don't have anything to do with the state itself other than living there. This is a bad name for the template and if it is not deleted I will change the name and only put it on current residents and residents who lived there and are no longer living. A good example of this is the article Charles Johnson Maynard who is a notable person, but did not (according to the article) effect the state of Massachusetts. If deletion is necessary and is the better option then please delete it, but if not and its deleted then something can be improved. Yamaka122 13:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename/rescope
While splitting the parent, another editor came along and created categories for the templates I had created. All but this one reached 60, Ipropose renaming and rescoping this to ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:English football striker, pre 1960 birth stubs.
Waacstats
10:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
Not a useful way to split stubs. Unproposed, and not optimal template name (this is not a subtype of "of-the-USSR-stub"). Some indication of its lack of use is the severe undercategorising of its parent, which proclaims at the top that it was awarded 12000 times, yet contains only about 200 articles. We don't have similar stub types for other countries, for the reason that it's far more logical and useful to split by nationality and profession. HotSU weren't necessarily Socviet citizens (Egypt's President Nasser was one recipient, for instance). Also, for that same reason, making this a child of ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Russian people stubs is not only seriously flawed but in many cases (e.g., Estonians, Latvians) is likely to be highly provocative. Indeed, the only article currently stubbed with this is the biography of a Kazakh. Delete, and use the longstanding {{
Soviet-bio-stub}} instead.
Grutness...
wha?
01:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
Umproposed,. and there doesn't look like any chance of getting this anywhere near threshold size, even with a Wikiproject. ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Dinotopia appears at first to have only ten articles - and even if all of those were stubs we'd still be less than half-way to the WikiProject minimum threshold.
On closer inspection, though, the permcat actually only has three articles, a template, and six talkpages, and its only parent is a WikiProject category! So that template is uncomnnected to the general category hierarchy. Cleaning that up is not the job of SFD, but noting that the maximum current use possible for the stub template is only six articles - 20% of the minimum threshold with a WP - is.
A wikiproject with this few articles is better off listing them on a subpage of their project than creating more work for itself with a stub type, and certainly it will be wose than useless for general stub-sorting purposes. Delete, or at the very least, upmerge into something that is of a reasonable size. Grutness... wha? 02:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Oookay... let's go through your points one at a time. Details of stubs being proposed before creation are at Wikipedia: Stub, which you should have consulted in order to find out how a stub type should be created, and at {{ WikiProject}}, which you would have used to create your WikiProject. WikiProject templates are usually only created after a WikiProject is up and running in an active form - there is little point in having a mass of templates at an early stage, since the first part of creating a WikiProject is working out exactly what it will be doing - and until that's finalised, you won't know what templates you need. You point out yourself that you've more or less given up on the basic {{ Dinotopia}} template for pretty much exactly that reason. You say that in six months or so the project would cover about 25 articles - the minimum requirement for a stub template with an associated WikiProject is 30 existing stub articles - so even if you exceed your expectations by 20%, all of those articles woud have to be stubs before having a stub type is worthwhile. Less than that and it's far easier for you to keep track on articles on a separate WikiProject page, where you can also list what needs to be done with each article individually.
I also have not added the templates to the main and talk pages of all the articles in the project, and I have not yet even edited all of them, therefore the "less than minimum" number of pages in the other categories as well.. In not quite sure what you mean by this - articles aren't added to permanent categories by wy of templates, and certainly you wouldn't want to have talk pages in a permanent category.
I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Categories, Wikipedia:Stub, and Template:WikiProject. If, later, you have 30 or more stub articles, then re-proposing a stub type might be a reasonable thing to do, but at the moment, there seems little point in having a stub type for your project. Grutness... wha? 01:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete
Incomplete stub type creation from mid-2006. No accompanying category. Should be deleted.
Mike Peel
06:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was upmerge
Incomplete stub type creation from October 2006. No accompanying category. Used in a single article, but should be deleted as too specific. --
Ricky81682 (
talk)
08:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
Despite its name, it's not a stub template - not even in the grading Stub-Sense type. As such, it 's desirable to have a less confusing name for it. Note that a different template with this name has been previously deleted, back in December last year. Rename - perhaps to something like {{
ContemporaryArtNotice}} - if it's needed at all (it's only used on one page).
Grutness...
wha?
11:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep both
Unproposed, but well-populated... in fact, at first glance, this seems a perfectly reasonable stub split. Problem is, this concatenates three related but separate fields, mathematics, philosophy, and computer science... and one of those already has a stub type - mathlogic-stub - which almost all of the stubs in ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Logic stubs should go into. As to size, the maths one already has 200 stubs, so upmerging that doesn't seem sensible. I propose renaming and rescoping this to ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Philosophical logic stubs and {{
Phil-logic-stub}} (or {{
Phillogic-stub}}? Why has the maths one not got a hyphen???) and restubbing the maths ones and the one or two computer science ones. Another possibility would be keeping it as a parent of the maths one and emptying out the ones better fitting in the subcategory, though making this more specifically for philosophical logic would be my favoured option.
Grutness...
wha?
06:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
There is no problem with creating a WikiProject Logic, at least not as far as I am concerned. When you do, using {{ Wikiproject}}, you will notice that it advises you not to create any stub templates without first proposing them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, as these are the people who actually deal with, use, and coordinate the stub system across Wikipedia. The same information is given at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of the canonical list of stub types, and at the top of most stub categories. In fact, most Wikiprojects do not need stub types at all - they are far better off with talk page banner templates, with which they can grade all articles which fall within their project, not just stubs. Examples of these templates are {{ WPBeatles}} and {{ WPBiography}}. And when you consider that stub templates are not used by individual specific projects but are used by wikipedia editors in general, it becomes necessary not to have two conflicting stub types. We now have two clearly overlapping stub types. As I pointed out, most of the stubs that you have added to your new ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Logic stubs should be in the existing, longstanding, and approved stub category ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Mathematical logic stubs, which is used by both WikiProject Stub sorting and editors of mathematical logic articles. Contacting them would have almost certainly made you aware of the fact that such a stub type existed (and presumably before considering a new WikiProject you must have contacted other editors who work on logic articles), and proposing the stub type, as advised, would have guaranteed that you'd have known it. Creating a new stub category which overlaps considerably with an existing one creates a major headache for stub sorters, and also for editors looking for articles to expand within their specialist fields. As such, keeping both is impractical and counterproductive - leaving it alone is not, if you'll pardon the term, logical. Grutness... wha? 11:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I've certainly no objection to it working the other way around with the deletion of {{ mathlogic-stub}} and its category, a reverse merger, if you like. In many ways, that would make more sense - the only reason I didn't suggest that in the first place was the size of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Mathematical logic stubs. Even so, a combined stub category of around 300 articles is not oversized. I've amended the nomination here accordingly. BTW - the proposal page is only for stub types that have not yet been created, and adding comments on this stub type there will only split and confuse the discussion process of it. Grutness... wha? 00:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Be well,
Opposed to mathlogic stub type rename/deletion. There are currently 150-200 article pages listed in the Mathematical logic stub category, and there are too few users/editors who are competent to edit or even review them, based on how long some of those articles have been stubs. Mathematical logic is a field requiring specialized mathematical knowledge at a philosophic/theoretic level to understand the often-cryptic language used, and from the standpoint of reviewing professors, mathematicians and math majors, deleting or renaming the category only serves to hide from them the included article stubs as candidates for improvement. These much-needed improvements include stub expansion to make those articles more accessible to Wikipedia users with less exposure to a college-level mathematics major requiring specialized emphasis in the field, a group that includes the vast majority of Wikipedia users.
I would oppose any Wikipedia action or policy that has a consequence of making any mathematics but especially any advanced or theoretical mathematics less accessible to the general using public as it would be against WP:ENC. The only possible benefit to come from article hiding on cat rename/deletion is that it would be easier for some of us to plant unverifiable information and original research on Wikipedia when it would be more appropriate to submit supported original research to an appropriate wiki journal at http://academia.wikia.com. Hotfeba 17:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I propose to remove mathlogic stub category. Splitting certain articles like domain of discourse and predicate between the discplines of math, philosophy, computer science and linguistics leads to improvished articles and more stubs! Giving a more rounded, inter-disicplinary interpretation of such terms would definitely improve readability. Many of the basic terms like proposition, theorem, relation have in fact been borrowed from philosophy or linguistics when formal logic was being set up. Having separate mathematics articles for these terms tend to lead to definitions that are too formal and cannot be understood by the general audience. Putting these terms in the context of language in general would make the article more accessible.
I do not think that we need to fear mathematicians cannot find the mathematical logic stubs to edit. As for as I know, mathematical logicians are a distinct lot. They are particularly concerned about their subject and interested in philosophy and philosophical logic in general. I expect if they were to search for logic stubs to expand, they would definitely check out logic (if logic were to become the broad umbrella once mathematical logic is removed as i propose), if they cannot find their articles in mathematics. I do not think there is a worry.
In fact, not all mathematicians recognize the work of logicians as worthwhile mathematics. To see things in a positive light, I think the work of logicians have grown sufficiently large to form a recognizable discipline of its own. However, the work of many logicians are motivated by philosophy and having a broad category of logic would be to place all these work together. Interested mathematicians will still come and visit us.
I give an example. Plurality of logics is not well-managed now. Most articles just put some rules there which doesn't really make sense. If we recall, many logics were invented to provide a language to solve paradoxes in philsophy. Placing these logics (and their rules) in the context of these paradoxes would definitely improve the articles beyond stub size and make the logic be more sense. Then basic mathematical facts like soundness or monoticity can also be put there.
The last thing that a general logic category would be good for is that there would be a place to put the philosophy of logic articles. For example, logic construed as a methodology of mathematics and the epistemology of logic. If there were still the math logic category then these things would just be jumbled in the philosophy of math pages. DesolateReality 11:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename
Rename of 2 categories due to recent de-upmerging of templates
probably spediable. Waacstats 15:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep both goose and swan, delete Goose-Stub redirect
Looks like someone decided that - since we have {{
Duck-stub}} as an alternative way of stubbing things in ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Anseriformes stubs, we should have one for geese, too. Probably a reasonable idea, but certainly not with a capital S. Delete this, with the suggestion of recreating it as the correctly-named {{
Goose-stub}}.
Grutness...
wha?
01:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep Taito-videogame-stub, delete Taito-stub
‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Square Enix stubs is looking quite a mess, with now four templates leading into it, despite it only having about 90 stubs. This one is more troublesome than the others, since it is ambiguously named (I assumed when I saw the name at
Special:Newpages that it was like Ratu-stub, but for Samoan nobility, since Taito is a very high rank in Samoa. According to
Taito - which is a disambiguoation page - it's also a place in Japan and a personal name in several countries. But no, it's another variant on a theme for Square Enix stubs. Delete, or at the very least rename. (As to {{
Taito-videogame-stub}}, it was created during discussion so needs discussing alongside this - very very weak keep on that one).
Grutness...
wha?
01:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep Warcraft template, delete Warcraft cat; create BlizzardEntertainment-stub & VivendiGames-stub templates; feed all templates into "Vivendi Games stubs"
RENAME to {{
Blizzard-Entertainment-stub}} {{
BlizzardEntertainment-stub}} (and/or {{
Vivendi-Games-stub}} {{
VivendiGames-stub}}) and
Category:Vivendi Games stubs. Similar to proposals below. Warcraft is a property of Blizzard Entertainment, which is owned by Vivendi Games. The category only contains 37 pages. Renaming would broaden the category to include the Starcraft and Diablo franchises from Blizzard, as well as Sierra games, and other Vivendi Games products.
JohnnyMrNinja
22:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename
RENAME to {{
Bethesda-Softworks-stub}} {{
BethesdaSoftworks-stub}} and
Category:Bethesda Softworks stubs. Similar to proposals below. Elder Scrolls is a property of Bethesda Softworks, and this rename would broaden the category to include all Bethesda articles (including the upcoming Fallout 3).
JohnnyMrNinja
22:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was closing, rename
RENAME to {{
Id-Software-stub}} {{
IdSoftware-stub}}and
Category:Id Software stubs. Similar to proposals below. Doom is a property of id Software. This will broaden the category to include all id games and properties, like Quake, Wolfenstein, etc.
JohnnyMrNinja
22:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep, do not rename
RENAME to {{
Microsoft-videogame-stub}} and
Category:Microsoft video game stubs. Similar to Maxis proposal below. Rare (Rareware was the old name) is a Microsoft property, and there are only 22 pages in the category.This renaming would mean it could include Xbox articles, and other Microsoft-property games.
JohnnyMrNinja
22:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename to ElectronicArts-stub
RENAME to {{
EA-videogame-stub}} {{
ElectronicArts-stub}} and
Category:Electronic Arts stubs. Maxis is a part of EA, and there are only 2 pages in the category. EA is a huge company, with many properties. Besides, it doesn't really make sense to have a category for a property of a company, unless the company has a category that is over-full.
JohnnyMrNinja
21:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename
Please rename to {{
London-stub}} / ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:London stubs; well-intended edit goof.
Her Pegship
(tis herself)
17:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was moved to CFR
I'm proposing that category:murdered activists be deleted. I have largely depopulated it over the last few days, moving the articles into the very similar category category:assassinated activists. These indivisuals are specifically refered to as having been killed for political reasons in their WP bios, and so didn't fit into the originally-proposed use of the murdered activists category anyway (activists killed for non-political reasons). The reason I propose this be deleted entirely is that it is simply confusing, leading editors to list people in the wrong category. Secondarily, it hard to imagine why a categoy is need for people who happen to be both activists and murder victims, with no connection between the two.
Envirocorrector
22:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete in favor of talk page banner
Unproposed, of course. What, I hear you ask, is this for?
ECU, of course. Actually, only East Carolina University. Already covered, as is standard practice, by a state-specific university stub, and with no sign of it reaching threshold even if it was renamed to something less ambiguous. Deletion is the better option, though.
Grutness...
wha?
02:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
Unproposed and badly named (this template is not for people with the relatively common surname of Mohead). For the most part, permcats specific to bands are not kept (there have been any number of deletions of them at CFD), and certainly stub cats for individual bands are not used - musicians are stubbed according to instrument, and albums and sopngs are stubbed according to genre and era. What's more, there seem to be only about 80 articles on Motörhead in wikipedia, and many of them are not stubs, raising threshold concerns. There is a WikiProject, but from the parenting of the category (at ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Stub-Class Heavy Metal articles, it seems that there has been some confusion between stubs and Stub-Class articles. a talk-page banner template (cf. {{
WPBeatles}}) would be far more useful to the WikiProject concerned as they would be able to assign Stub, Start, B, A, and FA Classes to their articles, rather than removing articles from the current wikipedia-wide stub system for a stub type which is next to useless to anyone outside the project. Delete.
Grutness...
wha?
02:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
Unproposed, incorrectly formed name, and frankly unlikely to reach threshold. These are quite happily covered by crime-bio-stub. Delete.
Grutness...
wha?
01:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename
While I've no real objection to an upmerged template for osteopathic manipulative medicine stubs, this name is clearly too ambiguous (unless we also want an osteo-woman-med-stub). Rename - to {{
Osteo-manip-med-stub}}, perhaps?
Grutness...
wha?
00:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was redirect to para-psych-stub
Unproposed, newly-created duplicate of {{
Para-psych-stub}}. We clearly don't need both, and Para-psych-stub is in keeping with it being a subtype of both psych-stub and para-stub. Delete, or at the very least redirect.
Grutness...
wha?
01:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename
The entire batch of trades union stubs seem to have been renamed by SFD back in September 06, but for some reason this one still uses the old naming format. Rename to {{
SouthAfrica-trade-union-stub}}.
Valentinian
T /
C
07:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete
Unproposed, incorrectly-named duplicates of existing, correctly named {{
RhodeIsland-stub}} and {{
RhodeIsland-struct-stub}}, the latter redlinking to an even less appropriately named stub category. Delete, speedily if possible.
Grutness...
wha?
02:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was upmerge/delete
Keep template upmerged to the new ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Internet broadcasting stubs; delete category as underpopulated until it grows up.
Her Pegship
(tis herself)
23:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
{{
Digimon-stub}}
The result of the debate was delete
Delete this underpopulated category (1 item). Keep {{
Digimon-stub}}, as there is a corresponding Wikiproject, but upmerge to the parent company,
Category:Namco Bandai stubs. ~
JohnnyMrNinja
02:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
Delete per nom. —
Bob • (
talk) • 04:57, August 1, 2007 (UTC)
{{
NamcoBandai-stub}}
(Digimon's parent company) as opposed to the generic {{
anime-stub}}
or {{
vg-stub}}
. ~
JohnnyMrNinja
04:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replyThe result of the debate was upmerge
Unproposed, and inherently undersized. Upmerge.
Alai
04:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was upmerge, along with 1908
Extremely small, suggest upmerging to parent (keeping the distinct template).
Alai
03:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was upmerge
A couple of days into the five-day debate about the creation of a template for Ohio historic places - during which support was slowly being gained for an upmerged template -
User:Paultyng decided to create both category and template before the discussion was complete. I've no objection to the template, but the category is likely to remain of below-threshold size (hence the reason for the suggestion of upmergal in the first place). Delete this category, and upmerge the template.
Grutness...
wha?
02:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete both template and category.
Having subnational bio-stubs is bad enough, but when we do have them we certainly don't give them such cumbersome names as this! Add to that the strange capitalisation and the fact that the word "notable" is specifically avoided in Wikipedia - if someone has an article (at least, one that doesn't go to AfD) then they are notable. A {{ Massachusetts-bio-stub}} (which this is, under a wildly inapporopriate name) would cause the same problems as other such subnational bio-stubs, due - as always - to the migratory habits of people.
Take one example from the ten or so stubs currently in this category: Bill O'Brien (American football). He's played for Georgia Tech, Maryland Terrapins (wow - great name!), and the Borwn Bears, and coached Duke Blue Devils and New England Patriots... so that would be stubs for Massachusetts, Maryland, Georgia, North Carolina, and Rhode Island bio-stubs, as well as the usual AmFootball-bio-stub.
All this stub is likely to do is cause a proliferation of multistubbing. As such, deletion is the best option. If, however, the consensus is to keep it, it will need drastic renaming. Grutness... wha? 02:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep I created this stub while I was looking through newly created Massachusetts articles and saw that some were about past historical figures or important current residents that would fit more under the Bio-stub, but they should also be included under project Massachusetts but really don't have anything to do with the state itself other than living there. This is a bad name for the template and if it is not deleted I will change the name and only put it on current residents and residents who lived there and are no longer living. A good example of this is the article Charles Johnson Maynard who is a notable person, but did not (according to the article) effect the state of Massachusetts. If deletion is necessary and is the better option then please delete it, but if not and its deleted then something can be improved. Yamaka122 13:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename/rescope
While splitting the parent, another editor came along and created categories for the templates I had created. All but this one reached 60, Ipropose renaming and rescoping this to ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:English football striker, pre 1960 birth stubs.
Waacstats
10:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
Not a useful way to split stubs. Unproposed, and not optimal template name (this is not a subtype of "of-the-USSR-stub"). Some indication of its lack of use is the severe undercategorising of its parent, which proclaims at the top that it was awarded 12000 times, yet contains only about 200 articles. We don't have similar stub types for other countries, for the reason that it's far more logical and useful to split by nationality and profession. HotSU weren't necessarily Socviet citizens (Egypt's President Nasser was one recipient, for instance). Also, for that same reason, making this a child of ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Russian people stubs is not only seriously flawed but in many cases (e.g., Estonians, Latvians) is likely to be highly provocative. Indeed, the only article currently stubbed with this is the biography of a Kazakh. Delete, and use the longstanding {{
Soviet-bio-stub}} instead.
Grutness...
wha?
01:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
Umproposed,. and there doesn't look like any chance of getting this anywhere near threshold size, even with a Wikiproject. ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Dinotopia appears at first to have only ten articles - and even if all of those were stubs we'd still be less than half-way to the WikiProject minimum threshold.
On closer inspection, though, the permcat actually only has three articles, a template, and six talkpages, and its only parent is a WikiProject category! So that template is uncomnnected to the general category hierarchy. Cleaning that up is not the job of SFD, but noting that the maximum current use possible for the stub template is only six articles - 20% of the minimum threshold with a WP - is.
A wikiproject with this few articles is better off listing them on a subpage of their project than creating more work for itself with a stub type, and certainly it will be wose than useless for general stub-sorting purposes. Delete, or at the very least, upmerge into something that is of a reasonable size. Grutness... wha? 02:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Oookay... let's go through your points one at a time. Details of stubs being proposed before creation are at Wikipedia: Stub, which you should have consulted in order to find out how a stub type should be created, and at {{ WikiProject}}, which you would have used to create your WikiProject. WikiProject templates are usually only created after a WikiProject is up and running in an active form - there is little point in having a mass of templates at an early stage, since the first part of creating a WikiProject is working out exactly what it will be doing - and until that's finalised, you won't know what templates you need. You point out yourself that you've more or less given up on the basic {{ Dinotopia}} template for pretty much exactly that reason. You say that in six months or so the project would cover about 25 articles - the minimum requirement for a stub template with an associated WikiProject is 30 existing stub articles - so even if you exceed your expectations by 20%, all of those articles woud have to be stubs before having a stub type is worthwhile. Less than that and it's far easier for you to keep track on articles on a separate WikiProject page, where you can also list what needs to be done with each article individually.
I also have not added the templates to the main and talk pages of all the articles in the project, and I have not yet even edited all of them, therefore the "less than minimum" number of pages in the other categories as well.. In not quite sure what you mean by this - articles aren't added to permanent categories by wy of templates, and certainly you wouldn't want to have talk pages in a permanent category.
I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Categories, Wikipedia:Stub, and Template:WikiProject. If, later, you have 30 or more stub articles, then re-proposing a stub type might be a reasonable thing to do, but at the moment, there seems little point in having a stub type for your project. Grutness... wha? 01:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete
Incomplete stub type creation from mid-2006. No accompanying category. Should be deleted.
Mike Peel
06:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was upmerge
Incomplete stub type creation from October 2006. No accompanying category. Used in a single article, but should be deleted as too specific. --
Ricky81682 (
talk)
08:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
Despite its name, it's not a stub template - not even in the grading Stub-Sense type. As such, it 's desirable to have a less confusing name for it. Note that a different template with this name has been previously deleted, back in December last year. Rename - perhaps to something like {{
ContemporaryArtNotice}} - if it's needed at all (it's only used on one page).
Grutness...
wha?
11:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep both
Unproposed, but well-populated... in fact, at first glance, this seems a perfectly reasonable stub split. Problem is, this concatenates three related but separate fields, mathematics, philosophy, and computer science... and one of those already has a stub type - mathlogic-stub - which almost all of the stubs in ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Logic stubs should go into. As to size, the maths one already has 200 stubs, so upmerging that doesn't seem sensible. I propose renaming and rescoping this to ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Philosophical logic stubs and {{
Phil-logic-stub}} (or {{
Phillogic-stub}}? Why has the maths one not got a hyphen???) and restubbing the maths ones and the one or two computer science ones. Another possibility would be keeping it as a parent of the maths one and emptying out the ones better fitting in the subcategory, though making this more specifically for philosophical logic would be my favoured option.
Grutness...
wha?
06:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
There is no problem with creating a WikiProject Logic, at least not as far as I am concerned. When you do, using {{ Wikiproject}}, you will notice that it advises you not to create any stub templates without first proposing them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, as these are the people who actually deal with, use, and coordinate the stub system across Wikipedia. The same information is given at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of the canonical list of stub types, and at the top of most stub categories. In fact, most Wikiprojects do not need stub types at all - they are far better off with talk page banner templates, with which they can grade all articles which fall within their project, not just stubs. Examples of these templates are {{ WPBeatles}} and {{ WPBiography}}. And when you consider that stub templates are not used by individual specific projects but are used by wikipedia editors in general, it becomes necessary not to have two conflicting stub types. We now have two clearly overlapping stub types. As I pointed out, most of the stubs that you have added to your new ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Logic stubs should be in the existing, longstanding, and approved stub category ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Mathematical logic stubs, which is used by both WikiProject Stub sorting and editors of mathematical logic articles. Contacting them would have almost certainly made you aware of the fact that such a stub type existed (and presumably before considering a new WikiProject you must have contacted other editors who work on logic articles), and proposing the stub type, as advised, would have guaranteed that you'd have known it. Creating a new stub category which overlaps considerably with an existing one creates a major headache for stub sorters, and also for editors looking for articles to expand within their specialist fields. As such, keeping both is impractical and counterproductive - leaving it alone is not, if you'll pardon the term, logical. Grutness... wha? 11:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I've certainly no objection to it working the other way around with the deletion of {{ mathlogic-stub}} and its category, a reverse merger, if you like. In many ways, that would make more sense - the only reason I didn't suggest that in the first place was the size of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Mathematical logic stubs. Even so, a combined stub category of around 300 articles is not oversized. I've amended the nomination here accordingly. BTW - the proposal page is only for stub types that have not yet been created, and adding comments on this stub type there will only split and confuse the discussion process of it. Grutness... wha? 00:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Be well,
Opposed to mathlogic stub type rename/deletion. There are currently 150-200 article pages listed in the Mathematical logic stub category, and there are too few users/editors who are competent to edit or even review them, based on how long some of those articles have been stubs. Mathematical logic is a field requiring specialized mathematical knowledge at a philosophic/theoretic level to understand the often-cryptic language used, and from the standpoint of reviewing professors, mathematicians and math majors, deleting or renaming the category only serves to hide from them the included article stubs as candidates for improvement. These much-needed improvements include stub expansion to make those articles more accessible to Wikipedia users with less exposure to a college-level mathematics major requiring specialized emphasis in the field, a group that includes the vast majority of Wikipedia users.
I would oppose any Wikipedia action or policy that has a consequence of making any mathematics but especially any advanced or theoretical mathematics less accessible to the general using public as it would be against WP:ENC. The only possible benefit to come from article hiding on cat rename/deletion is that it would be easier for some of us to plant unverifiable information and original research on Wikipedia when it would be more appropriate to submit supported original research to an appropriate wiki journal at http://academia.wikia.com. Hotfeba 17:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I propose to remove mathlogic stub category. Splitting certain articles like domain of discourse and predicate between the discplines of math, philosophy, computer science and linguistics leads to improvished articles and more stubs! Giving a more rounded, inter-disicplinary interpretation of such terms would definitely improve readability. Many of the basic terms like proposition, theorem, relation have in fact been borrowed from philosophy or linguistics when formal logic was being set up. Having separate mathematics articles for these terms tend to lead to definitions that are too formal and cannot be understood by the general audience. Putting these terms in the context of language in general would make the article more accessible.
I do not think that we need to fear mathematicians cannot find the mathematical logic stubs to edit. As for as I know, mathematical logicians are a distinct lot. They are particularly concerned about their subject and interested in philosophy and philosophical logic in general. I expect if they were to search for logic stubs to expand, they would definitely check out logic (if logic were to become the broad umbrella once mathematical logic is removed as i propose), if they cannot find their articles in mathematics. I do not think there is a worry.
In fact, not all mathematicians recognize the work of logicians as worthwhile mathematics. To see things in a positive light, I think the work of logicians have grown sufficiently large to form a recognizable discipline of its own. However, the work of many logicians are motivated by philosophy and having a broad category of logic would be to place all these work together. Interested mathematicians will still come and visit us.
I give an example. Plurality of logics is not well-managed now. Most articles just put some rules there which doesn't really make sense. If we recall, many logics were invented to provide a language to solve paradoxes in philsophy. Placing these logics (and their rules) in the context of these paradoxes would definitely improve the articles beyond stub size and make the logic be more sense. Then basic mathematical facts like soundness or monoticity can also be put there.
The last thing that a general logic category would be good for is that there would be a place to put the philosophy of logic articles. For example, logic construed as a methodology of mathematics and the epistemology of logic. If there were still the math logic category then these things would just be jumbled in the philosophy of math pages. DesolateReality 11:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename
Rename of 2 categories due to recent de-upmerging of templates
probably spediable. Waacstats 15:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep both goose and swan, delete Goose-Stub redirect
Looks like someone decided that - since we have {{
Duck-stub}} as an alternative way of stubbing things in ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Anseriformes stubs, we should have one for geese, too. Probably a reasonable idea, but certainly not with a capital S. Delete this, with the suggestion of recreating it as the correctly-named {{
Goose-stub}}.
Grutness...
wha?
01:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep Taito-videogame-stub, delete Taito-stub
‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Square Enix stubs is looking quite a mess, with now four templates leading into it, despite it only having about 90 stubs. This one is more troublesome than the others, since it is ambiguously named (I assumed when I saw the name at
Special:Newpages that it was like Ratu-stub, but for Samoan nobility, since Taito is a very high rank in Samoa. According to
Taito - which is a disambiguoation page - it's also a place in Japan and a personal name in several countries. But no, it's another variant on a theme for Square Enix stubs. Delete, or at the very least rename. (As to {{
Taito-videogame-stub}}, it was created during discussion so needs discussing alongside this - very very weak keep on that one).
Grutness...
wha?
01:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep Warcraft template, delete Warcraft cat; create BlizzardEntertainment-stub & VivendiGames-stub templates; feed all templates into "Vivendi Games stubs"
RENAME to {{
Blizzard-Entertainment-stub}} {{
BlizzardEntertainment-stub}} (and/or {{
Vivendi-Games-stub}} {{
VivendiGames-stub}}) and
Category:Vivendi Games stubs. Similar to proposals below. Warcraft is a property of Blizzard Entertainment, which is owned by Vivendi Games. The category only contains 37 pages. Renaming would broaden the category to include the Starcraft and Diablo franchises from Blizzard, as well as Sierra games, and other Vivendi Games products.
JohnnyMrNinja
22:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename
RENAME to {{
Bethesda-Softworks-stub}} {{
BethesdaSoftworks-stub}} and
Category:Bethesda Softworks stubs. Similar to proposals below. Elder Scrolls is a property of Bethesda Softworks, and this rename would broaden the category to include all Bethesda articles (including the upcoming Fallout 3).
JohnnyMrNinja
22:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was closing, rename
RENAME to {{
Id-Software-stub}} {{
IdSoftware-stub}}and
Category:Id Software stubs. Similar to proposals below. Doom is a property of id Software. This will broaden the category to include all id games and properties, like Quake, Wolfenstein, etc.
JohnnyMrNinja
22:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep, do not rename
RENAME to {{
Microsoft-videogame-stub}} and
Category:Microsoft video game stubs. Similar to Maxis proposal below. Rare (Rareware was the old name) is a Microsoft property, and there are only 22 pages in the category.This renaming would mean it could include Xbox articles, and other Microsoft-property games.
JohnnyMrNinja
22:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename to ElectronicArts-stub
RENAME to {{
EA-videogame-stub}} {{
ElectronicArts-stub}} and
Category:Electronic Arts stubs. Maxis is a part of EA, and there are only 2 pages in the category. EA is a huge company, with many properties. Besides, it doesn't really make sense to have a category for a property of a company, unless the company has a category that is over-full.
JohnnyMrNinja
21:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename
Please rename to {{
London-stub}} / ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:London stubs; well-intended edit goof.
Her Pegship
(tis herself)
17:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was moved to CFR
I'm proposing that category:murdered activists be deleted. I have largely depopulated it over the last few days, moving the articles into the very similar category category:assassinated activists. These indivisuals are specifically refered to as having been killed for political reasons in their WP bios, and so didn't fit into the originally-proposed use of the murdered activists category anyway (activists killed for non-political reasons). The reason I propose this be deleted entirely is that it is simply confusing, leading editors to list people in the wrong category. Secondarily, it hard to imagine why a categoy is need for people who happen to be both activists and murder victims, with no connection between the two.
Envirocorrector
22:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete in favor of talk page banner
Unproposed, of course. What, I hear you ask, is this for?
ECU, of course. Actually, only East Carolina University. Already covered, as is standard practice, by a state-specific university stub, and with no sign of it reaching threshold even if it was renamed to something less ambiguous. Deletion is the better option, though.
Grutness...
wha?
02:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
Unproposed and badly named (this template is not for people with the relatively common surname of Mohead). For the most part, permcats specific to bands are not kept (there have been any number of deletions of them at CFD), and certainly stub cats for individual bands are not used - musicians are stubbed according to instrument, and albums and sopngs are stubbed according to genre and era. What's more, there seem to be only about 80 articles on Motörhead in wikipedia, and many of them are not stubs, raising threshold concerns. There is a WikiProject, but from the parenting of the category (at ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Stub-Class Heavy Metal articles, it seems that there has been some confusion between stubs and Stub-Class articles. a talk-page banner template (cf. {{
WPBeatles}}) would be far more useful to the WikiProject concerned as they would be able to assign Stub, Start, B, A, and FA Classes to their articles, rather than removing articles from the current wikipedia-wide stub system for a stub type which is next to useless to anyone outside the project. Delete.
Grutness...
wha?
02:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
Unproposed, incorrectly formed name, and frankly unlikely to reach threshold. These are quite happily covered by crime-bio-stub. Delete.
Grutness...
wha?
01:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename
While I've no real objection to an upmerged template for osteopathic manipulative medicine stubs, this name is clearly too ambiguous (unless we also want an osteo-woman-med-stub). Rename - to {{
Osteo-manip-med-stub}}, perhaps?
Grutness...
wha?
00:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was redirect to para-psych-stub
Unproposed, newly-created duplicate of {{
Para-psych-stub}}. We clearly don't need both, and Para-psych-stub is in keeping with it being a subtype of both psych-stub and para-stub. Delete, or at the very least redirect.
Grutness...
wha?
01:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename
The entire batch of trades union stubs seem to have been renamed by SFD back in September 06, but for some reason this one still uses the old naming format. Rename to {{
SouthAfrica-trade-union-stub}}.
Valentinian
T /
C
07:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete
Unproposed, incorrectly-named duplicates of existing, correctly named {{
RhodeIsland-stub}} and {{
RhodeIsland-struct-stub}}, the latter redlinking to an even less appropriately named stub category. Delete, speedily if possible.
Grutness...
wha?
02:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was upmerge/delete
Keep template upmerged to the new ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Internet broadcasting stubs; delete category as underpopulated until it grows up.
Her Pegship
(tis herself)
23:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
{{
Digimon-stub}}
The result of the debate was delete
Delete this underpopulated category (1 item). Keep {{
Digimon-stub}}, as there is a corresponding Wikiproject, but upmerge to the parent company,
Category:Namco Bandai stubs. ~
JohnnyMrNinja
02:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
Delete per nom. —
Bob • (
talk) • 04:57, August 1, 2007 (UTC)
{{
NamcoBandai-stub}}
(Digimon's parent company) as opposed to the generic {{
anime-stub}}
or {{
vg-stub}}
. ~
JohnnyMrNinja
04:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replyThe result of the debate was upmerge
Unproposed, and inherently undersized. Upmerge.
Alai
04:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
reply