The result of the debate was upmerge
Relisting this, since it was closed as "no consensus" - something rarely if ever done at SFD. The original debate is at
Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/August/17. The earlier debate ended with two calls for keeping and three of upmerging. The situation has changed little since that time - in tyhe last five months neither category has moved close to meeting the required threshold for a stub category (the larger of them is at only 41 stubs). We also now have the very first - and hopefully only ever - stub category redirect, since the original category of
Category:ESA stubs was perplexingly made into a redirect. I repeat my earlier suggestion, to keep {{
ESA-stub}} and {{
NASA-stub}} but to upmerge them into a new category of
Category:Space program stubs, at least until such time as they are big enough to stand alone - something which they have not achieved even after five months of scrutiny.
Grutness...
wha?
04:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was upmerge squash, keep squash-bio
Seems like a reasonable idea to have templates for this sport, though the categories may well be premature - there's no sign that these are likely to reach threshold at the moment - even given the presence of a WikiProject - so they may need to be upmerged. There is, however, a major problem.
Squash is a dab page, so the template should not be called {{
Squash-stub}}. Suggest renaming the templates (and not keeping the current names as redirects) to {{
Squash-sport-stub}} and {{
Squash-sport-bio-stub}} and - unless the required number of stubs can be found quickly, upmerging both. If kept, the parenting of the categories will need massive improvement, too. BTW, {{
Squash-stub}} also uses that horrible Asbox thing, so will need recoded properly.
Grutness...
wha?
00:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete - superseded by new proposed types
Unproposed, and of very limited use. The piping on the template is bewildering and the category needs better parents, but the main problems are the lack of suitable parents.
Category:Sports organization stubs is not oversized}}, we don't even have an
Category:Orienteering stubs, and there is no such category as
Category:Orienteering organizations (with either spelling). The nearest appropriate permcat parent is
Category:Orienteering clubs, and even if everything in that category was a stub it still wouldn't meet threshold. Just not needed or practical. Delete.
Grutness...
wha?
00:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was 'delete'--
Aervanath (
talk)
15:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
Unproposed, and definitely seems to be an inappropriate way to split stubs. If the Dalits were an ethnic group, it would be questionable but borderline, but this is a split for an Indian caste. The first paragraph of the article
Dalit tells you instantly why it would be very problematical to have this as a stub: a self-designated name for "a mixed population of numerous caste groups [who] speak various languages [and who are] impossible to differentiate [...] on the basis of phenotypes or genetics alone" We don't have separate stub types for individual social groups in general, especially not self-designated ones - it would run directly across the stub hierarchy and make for multi-stubbing for the sake of multi-stubbing. Most of the things that this stub could possibly be used on have far more appropriate stub types available. What's more, the template itself is a problem, with no stub category of any kind (it links to a permcat) and with an inappropriate link in its text. Delete.
Grutness...
wha?
00:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename
Per recent changes at CFD, which saw all "canoers" categories renamed to the more widely-used term "canoeists", rename:
Grutness... wha? 06:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was deleted by author
Unproposed and split along an un-useful axis. We don't split science stubs by the location of the science - science is worldwide and - theoretically at least - crosses all national borders. Instead, we split by the (topical) area of study. Unless there's a specific scientific topic which relates only to Japan, it makes no sense to have this stub type. Delete.
Grutness...
wha?
23:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
basically an unproposed duplicate of {{
vocab-stub}}. Redlinked category, and both the article whioch use this are borderline AfD material for moving to Wiktionary anyway. Delete.
Grutness...
wha?
23:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename
Straightforward rename to match both the parent permcat and other "Foo terminology stubs" categories.
Grutness...
wha?
23:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete--
Aervanath (
talk)
15:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
An unproposed stub type, with a non-standard name (this is not a subtype of {{
Of-Russia-stub}}). Also, similar types have either been deleted or opposed prior to creation in the past (ISTR Zscout390 proposing this particular stub type about two years back), since being awarded an honour isn't necessarily a good way to split stubs (it makes far more sense to split them by occupation, which is how country-bio-stubs are normally split). At the very least this needs a rename to {{
Hero-Russia-stub}} or similar, but outridght deletion is also probably worth considering.
Grutness...
wha?
22:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename
One of those terrible right hand doesn't know what the left hand's doing things.
Waay back when, this was a discovery - at {{
GreaterManchester-health-stub}}. Back then, standard stub naming was "Manchester-x-stub", so it was renamed. Since then, we've changed all other stub types to "GreraterManchester-x-stub"...so this one needs to move again. Luckily it's only used on a handful of articles! Rename, preferably losing the redirect.
Grutness...
wha?
06:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename
As above - standard is now to use "GreaterManchester-foo-stub". Rename, preferably losing the redirect.
Grutness...
wha?
07:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename per nom
"Central African" can mean "of the Central African Republic", in the same way "South African" can mean "of the Republic of South Africa". However, all of these stub categories refer to the region known as Central Africa, not to CAR specifically (though CAR is in Central Africa). To clarify the meaning of these and to differentiate them from the CAR stub categories, these should be renamed to "Central Africa XXX stubs", in the way that Central Africa geography stubs is already named. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename
All non-stub categories that refer to the U.S. state of Washington were recently renamed at CfD from the format "Washington" to "Washington (U.S. state)". Now nominating relevant stubs in Category:Washington (U.S. state) to conform with this format as well. I don't see a need to change the template names, but others who know more about stubbing may have better opinions than mine about this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep sauropoda, del ornithischian as undersized, not required, & misformed
For once, beign unproposed is actually a major reason for something being here, rather than just mentioned in passing. {{
Ornithischia-stub}} (the name at which {{
Ornithischian-stub}} would be if it were correctly named) was opposed when it was proposed for creation
two years ago, for good reasons which still apply. The ambiguity of the fossil evidence is a major factor in particular why the Orinithischian stub type is likely to be a problem - certainly enough of a problem that it needs serious debate before any suggestion of it being created - it would certainly need a visit to
WP:WSS/P rather than a unilateral creation.
The sauropodomorph category I've largely listed here because it was created by the same editor at the same time, so it makes sense to bundle them together for debate, though it too has problems, as mentioned below.
As to the mechanics of the stubs, the templates seem fine, but the categories are severely lacking (no permcat parents, only one stub cat parent, and no listing in Category:Stub categories). The one parent, Category:Dinosaur stubs is not in need of splitting in terms of size, though there is at least some indication in the 320 articles in Category:Ornithischians that it may have some use if there are enough stubs (which has yet to be proven). There is, however, no Category:Sauropodomorpha, which is perhaps surprising - it's two main subtypes, sauropoda and prosauropoda both have their own categories, so it would make sense if there were (a stub type for it would also be in line with the existing one for theropods). Perhaps the solution here is mroe a non-stub one, in the creation of such a permcat. Without it, there shouldn't be a stub type, but I'd like some input from WP:WikiProject Palaeontology and other related groups before creating in. Grutness... wha? 00:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Sorry if I sounded grouchy, but I really would have liked to have finished this, or come close to doing so, before the day was up. Abyssal ( talk) 07:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was withdrawn nom - keep
The template has existed quite happily for a year and a half and has garnered nearly 20 articles in that time. Today, someone decided - without proposal and despite the fact that 60 is the required minimum - that there were enough stubs to de-upmerge the template and create a new category. Delete category and re-upmerge template.
Grutness...
wha?
01:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was del per nom
Incorrectly named, unproposed, redlinked template for stub articles relating to
TransLink (South East Queensland). - a subject which has no dedicated permcat and which, judging by the article's whatlinkshere (and removing all the - already properly stubbed stations), is going to struggle mightily to get to the required threshold. Note:In the unlikely even of this being kept, it will need moving to a more apprporiate name, such as {{
TransLinkQLD-stub}}, given that the company is not called Translink and
Translink is a dab page. Delete.
Grutness...
wha?
01:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
Keep i would like to see this stub type kept so it can be used to easily sorted articles that are stubs as part of Wikipedia:Translink mattythebatty ( talk) 03:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC) ps.sorry for not proposing reply
no what i mean is other projects have stubs linked to them like wikiproject brisbane and australia mattman ( talk) 07:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
this is what i mean to have that stub for that type of stub for the translink seq articles also another coment is that the rail and bus stubs are too general as it covers the whole of australia not just queensland or southeast queensland mattman ( talk) 23:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep
When
Category:European museum stubs was created, it was deliberately created as a parent-only type, taking stubs from country-specific templates. Unfortunately, an editor has decided that a europe-specific template is needed, despite the fact that it would get virtually no use (are there any museums in Europe that aren't in a European country?), and was deliberately not created earlier. Delete.
Grutness...
wha?
00:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
This category is for
stub articles relating to
museums in
Europe. You can help by expanding them. To add an article to this category, use {{
Europe-museum-stub}} instead of {{
stub}} . |
when the link to the template was red? Shouldn't it have been something more like this:
This category is for stub articles relating to church buildings in Europe. You can help by expanding them. |
Not everyone spends all of their time here tagging stubs. If you don't make these things clearer in the categories, you're just setting yourself up to be misunderstood. As I have said below, I will follow your arcane procedures in the future, if I sort any more stubs at all. Litho derm 19:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC) reply
This category is maintained by
WikiProject Stub sorting. Please propose new stub templates and categories here before creation. |
The result of the debate was delete
Two unproposed types created yesterday, both with non-convention-compliant names, neither with linked stub categories, both with problems with scope, neither with similarly-named permcats, both unnecessary, neither proposed. Delete both (keep neither).
Grutness...
wha?
01:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
This unproposed stub type sounds like a reasonable idea at first, but there are some significant problems with it. The template's redlinked. There's no equivalent permcat for
Category:Santiago Metro. No sign whatsoever that this will reach threshold - without a permcat, it's difficult to tell, but given that the metro's article
Santiago Metro seems to have nothing but redlinks and links to fewer than 40 articles, it would appear that there are nowhere near the required number of stubs to go with it. Some form of upmerge into a more general South American rapid transit category might be reasonable, but outright deletion remains an option.
Grutness...
wha?
01:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
Recently depopulated through merges, no longer needed.
Pagra
shtak
16:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
I found just one article with this template Fort Nassau (North River) and {{ AlbanyCountyNY-geo-stub}} covered that well enough. -- Salix ( talk): 18:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Long time since we've seen a stub that defies the naming conventions quite as comprehensively as this: sections run together without hyphens, incorrect use of abbreviation, capital S in stub. Not a bad assortment for just one template. Add to that that it appears to be being used as a geo-stub (the only items this was on were geo-stubs already correctly marked as such). Unproposed, with a redlink category and split by an ill-defined section of the state (which the article on the subject describes as "an imprecise regional definition") - a state which has its own accepted stub types ({{ NewYork-stub}} and its subtypes). While I can see the possibility of splitting geo-stubs, possibly with a geo-stub for the city itself to reduce strain on the state category (which would be a reasonable proposal, given that Category:New York geography stubs is pretty large), the need for a separate stub type of this nature is questionable, to say the least. Appears to be connected to a brand new WikiProject - one whose creator may need to read the section on WP:STUB about why WikiProjects are better off with talk-page templates. Delete. Grutness... wha? 00:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply
I recently noticed the addition to an article the geo-stub of Albany County. As I work on many many many Albany and CD articles and have never seen a county level stub, are there now, or going to be soon, county level stubs for each county? If so I suggest leaving out Bronx, New York, Queens, Kings, and Richmond counties as they are coterminous with the five boroughs of the City and I do believe the city already has its own stub. Oh, and of course I have to ask- First, if these stubs ARE new where were they proposed and discussed before being made so I know where in the future to propose new stubs and comment on stubs? I assume that they werent just made first before going through the proper proposal, I would have liked to have commented on them, especially if ones were already made for the boroughs, as I think one for the City is enough instead of individual ones for the boroughs/counties. And second- Pegship mentioned once there are a sufficient number of county articles in county categories then a regional category without a template is made to include the county ones (if I understood her right), in which case can it be explained where to build this regional category for the CD to include the county stub template. I cant speak for Wadester but I can live with deleting the CD template IF and ONLY if this regional category is created to coral all the county stub templates. Camelbinky ( talk) 05:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
I dont see what the January 27 link has to do with this. Please explain to me why there is a NYC stub template that is put on NYC stubs instead of using the county ones you claim should be used. Do you think the NYC stub template should be deleted then? I am not talking about upmerged CATEGORIES of templates, I am talking about stub templates, those things at the bottom of the article that say "This is an article about a stub in New York City, you can help expand it" blah blah blah under your point of view, if I correctly understand you is that it should say "The Bronx" instead of NYC. You have not addressed that very fundamental issue and that could be why you think I am "hammering at" you. I only ask you address issues that I bring up so I can fully understand your point of view. It makes me want to cry as well when I ask for clarification or ask a question or bring up a point and the other person ignores them and talks about something completely different. I would like to know about your point of view on the NYC stub and if it should go away in favor of ones for the individual counties and why you believe the counties should be used if you think that way. I have brought this issue to the wikiprojects NY and NYC, you may bring your explanation to those discussion pages if you wish so you can have your say and defend your point of view. I just want clarification and explanation, who knows maybe I will agree with you, but without all the facts that isnt possible. Camelbinky ( talk) 23:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Ok, first off on the advice of Doncram I apologize to Pegship if there has been any bad feelings about this, but I must point out it is ironic seeing as how when I defended Wadester about Grutness's impoliteness Pegship defended Grutness saying there was none, so now I got accused of doing the same thing to Pegship. Kharma and irony. Technically not irony, the definition of irony is not what most people think. Anyways.
Now THAT was a great explanation as to why we should have five instead of one stubs and one that makes a good amount of sense! Thank you! For the record, it was not you (Pegship) who basically called me stupid, that was someone on my talk page, trying to defend you honorable but in actuality just insulting me, it is not my place to say their name, that is their decision. I have also been accused of using my opinions in this argument as facts, if I state something as a fact, IT IS A FACT. The example used in my talk page by that person was the Bronx as "the Bronx" versus "Bronx County" and as I stated it is Bronx County but as a borough the official name is "the Bronx", it is not my opinion it is fact, and one that is even mentioned in the Bronx article if it had been read completely. If something is my opinion, I will say so, if it is fact I will state it as fact. I dont know what other facts that person or anyone else may have thought was my opinion, but please look in wikipedia articles and other sources if anything that I put forth as a fact looks dubious first before assuming it is my opinion and not truly a fact. Pegship, I now agree with you that making stubs according to counties can be useful as it makes a smaller category of articles and smaller lists on the category pages. My only problem is that (unless I am wrong) it seems the policy is going to be to do ALL states by counties (or their equivalent by a different name, Alaska doesnt have counties FACT not opinion). Is this correct? If so has any decision or discussion been done about Virginia which has independent cities, some of which are quite small in both pop. and geography but are NOT within counties, do they get treated as counties for stubs of their own? (Similarly St Louis in Missouri is not a part of any county even though St Louis County surrounds it FACT not opinion) and 2- what about places within cities that cross partly into multiple counties? As stated before (and not my opinion, it is FACT) KC, Missouri goes into many counties and to have stubs based on counties would cause stub articles on places within that city to be categorized by the county in which they are in, and not in KC and since KC does not take up all the area in each county (like NYC does) it doesnt seem possibly to put the stubs into a higher category as that would pull in the articles in the individual counties that are outside of KC as well. I know all of this is irrelevant to the CD deletion argument (another complaint by your defender on my talk page) but might as well do this here instead going back and forth on our talk pages, I personally hate having to read my responses on one page and someone else's on another page (now THAT is an OPINION). Camelbinky ( talk) 16:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was deleted
The article is NPOV innuendo (male friendship as a way of pushing women out?). It should be clearly labelled as a feminist film theory concept and probably merged into the longer articles on feminist theory.
The result of the debate was rename
Not sure why, but this category is at a non-standard name. All other RoC-related categories, stub and otherwise, are simply at "Taiwan". Seems to be my fault, since I created the category several years ago - no excuse, I'm afraid :/
Grutness...
wha?
05:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete
Buckethead does not merit special pleading, {{ 2000s-rock-album-stub}}, {{ 2000s-metal-album-stub}} seem to be the most appropriate types. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guitarists/Buckethead task force informed ----
With one notable exception (The Beatles), we do not split music stubs by individual artists. The category has been thoroughly populated by a messy mix of articles, many of which have only a vague tangential connection to Buckethead (of the handful I checked, there were two for albums where he appeared as a guest guitarist on some tracks, for instance). This thoroughly cuts across the stub hierarchy, mixing albums, individual tracks, bands, and ghu knows what else. Another good example of a case where a talk-page WikiProject template is a good idea but a stub type is a bad idea. Delete. Grutness... wha? 00:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete until definition becomes more solid
Hard on the heels of a recent unproposed split of paleontology stubs comes another one, also with considerable problems. The template name is one such - given that the only reptiliomorphs are prehistoric, there is no need whatsoever for the "Paleo" prefix. The category is unparented, stub or permcat, which would be simple to fix if this is kept, but given the size of the permanent category
Category:Reptiliomorphs, upmerging might be a more prudent option if the template is kept - there's no way on current article numbers that this will reach the necessary threshold for a stub category. A more serious problem, though, is the fact that the definition of reptiliomorph seems to be in a state of flux. The article indicates that there have been several definitions of the term over the years, and implies that two different ones are still in use. Given that there are already discussions underway about reducing the size of the parenmt
Category:Paleontology stubs - discussions which do not include a split-out of reptiliomorphs, deletion may be the best option.
Grutness...
wha?
00:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedy rename sexuality stubs
I hate reopening closed debates, but this time it seems to be necessary... A debate on renaming
Category:Sex stubs occurred here on
December 29th, which resulted in the consensus of "rename". Unfortunately, by my reading of the discussion, the consensus was a rename to
Category:Sexuality stubs, and the category got renamed
Category:Sex and sexuality stubs. Either point out that I'm wrong or rename correctly this time :)
Grutness...
wha?
23:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename
Unproposed, but may be a useful type. if kept, though, both the template and the category need renaming, since they should be singular, not plural ({{
Year-stub}} /
Category:Year stubs). Rename, but don't keep the current name as a redirect.
Grutness...
wha?
00:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
Unproposed, and frankly unlikely to see much use, if any. Malformed, with no category link, edit link, or link to
WP:STUB. Delete unlesss some significant use can be demonstrated.
Grutness...
wha?
00:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename
This one's a straightforward one, at least. They do have buildings in the UAE, so we shouldn't have missed them out when the category was named :)
Grutness...
wha?
00:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename & create parent
We have
Category:New York City stubs, but not a -geo- category. The upmerged -geo- templates I created for NYC apparently are formed contrary to popular opinion, so I also propose a rename of those:
Normally the parent category would be proposed at WSS/P, but since it's part & parcel of the template naming issue I thought I'd better put it here. See Jan 22 discussion for more background. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete
Where to start? Unproposed, splitting out stubs for one type of feature (which we don't have and would be unlikely to have a parent type for) for one national park (and we don't have separate stubs for individual park, even big ones like Yellowstone). Distinctly undersized (the permcat only has 60 articles, and I can't for a moment believe that all of them would be stubs). Incorrectly parented category (these are geographical features, and as such would be geo-stubs, not generic stubs). And neither Category:Wyoming geography stubs nor Category:Montana geography stubs is anywhere close to being oversized (and if they were, we'd primarily split by county). Seems to be another case of a specific WikiProject (or in this case, not even a full project but a task force) overlooking the fact that talk-page assessment templates are more suited to individual projects that a Wiki-wide stub type. Delete. Grutness... wha? 22:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was upmerge
Relisting this, since it was closed as "no consensus" - something rarely if ever done at SFD. The original debate is at
Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/August/17. The earlier debate ended with two calls for keeping and three of upmerging. The situation has changed little since that time - in tyhe last five months neither category has moved close to meeting the required threshold for a stub category (the larger of them is at only 41 stubs). We also now have the very first - and hopefully only ever - stub category redirect, since the original category of
Category:ESA stubs was perplexingly made into a redirect. I repeat my earlier suggestion, to keep {{
ESA-stub}} and {{
NASA-stub}} but to upmerge them into a new category of
Category:Space program stubs, at least until such time as they are big enough to stand alone - something which they have not achieved even after five months of scrutiny.
Grutness...
wha?
04:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was upmerge squash, keep squash-bio
Seems like a reasonable idea to have templates for this sport, though the categories may well be premature - there's no sign that these are likely to reach threshold at the moment - even given the presence of a WikiProject - so they may need to be upmerged. There is, however, a major problem.
Squash is a dab page, so the template should not be called {{
Squash-stub}}. Suggest renaming the templates (and not keeping the current names as redirects) to {{
Squash-sport-stub}} and {{
Squash-sport-bio-stub}} and - unless the required number of stubs can be found quickly, upmerging both. If kept, the parenting of the categories will need massive improvement, too. BTW, {{
Squash-stub}} also uses that horrible Asbox thing, so will need recoded properly.
Grutness...
wha?
00:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete - superseded by new proposed types
Unproposed, and of very limited use. The piping on the template is bewildering and the category needs better parents, but the main problems are the lack of suitable parents.
Category:Sports organization stubs is not oversized}}, we don't even have an
Category:Orienteering stubs, and there is no such category as
Category:Orienteering organizations (with either spelling). The nearest appropriate permcat parent is
Category:Orienteering clubs, and even if everything in that category was a stub it still wouldn't meet threshold. Just not needed or practical. Delete.
Grutness...
wha?
00:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was 'delete'--
Aervanath (
talk)
15:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
Unproposed, and definitely seems to be an inappropriate way to split stubs. If the Dalits were an ethnic group, it would be questionable but borderline, but this is a split for an Indian caste. The first paragraph of the article
Dalit tells you instantly why it would be very problematical to have this as a stub: a self-designated name for "a mixed population of numerous caste groups [who] speak various languages [and who are] impossible to differentiate [...] on the basis of phenotypes or genetics alone" We don't have separate stub types for individual social groups in general, especially not self-designated ones - it would run directly across the stub hierarchy and make for multi-stubbing for the sake of multi-stubbing. Most of the things that this stub could possibly be used on have far more appropriate stub types available. What's more, the template itself is a problem, with no stub category of any kind (it links to a permcat) and with an inappropriate link in its text. Delete.
Grutness...
wha?
00:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename
Per recent changes at CFD, which saw all "canoers" categories renamed to the more widely-used term "canoeists", rename:
Grutness... wha? 06:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was deleted by author
Unproposed and split along an un-useful axis. We don't split science stubs by the location of the science - science is worldwide and - theoretically at least - crosses all national borders. Instead, we split by the (topical) area of study. Unless there's a specific scientific topic which relates only to Japan, it makes no sense to have this stub type. Delete.
Grutness...
wha?
23:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
basically an unproposed duplicate of {{
vocab-stub}}. Redlinked category, and both the article whioch use this are borderline AfD material for moving to Wiktionary anyway. Delete.
Grutness...
wha?
23:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename
Straightforward rename to match both the parent permcat and other "Foo terminology stubs" categories.
Grutness...
wha?
23:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete--
Aervanath (
talk)
15:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
An unproposed stub type, with a non-standard name (this is not a subtype of {{
Of-Russia-stub}}). Also, similar types have either been deleted or opposed prior to creation in the past (ISTR Zscout390 proposing this particular stub type about two years back), since being awarded an honour isn't necessarily a good way to split stubs (it makes far more sense to split them by occupation, which is how country-bio-stubs are normally split). At the very least this needs a rename to {{
Hero-Russia-stub}} or similar, but outridght deletion is also probably worth considering.
Grutness...
wha?
22:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename
One of those terrible right hand doesn't know what the left hand's doing things.
Waay back when, this was a discovery - at {{
GreaterManchester-health-stub}}. Back then, standard stub naming was "Manchester-x-stub", so it was renamed. Since then, we've changed all other stub types to "GreraterManchester-x-stub"...so this one needs to move again. Luckily it's only used on a handful of articles! Rename, preferably losing the redirect.
Grutness...
wha?
06:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename
As above - standard is now to use "GreaterManchester-foo-stub". Rename, preferably losing the redirect.
Grutness...
wha?
07:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename per nom
"Central African" can mean "of the Central African Republic", in the same way "South African" can mean "of the Republic of South Africa". However, all of these stub categories refer to the region known as Central Africa, not to CAR specifically (though CAR is in Central Africa). To clarify the meaning of these and to differentiate them from the CAR stub categories, these should be renamed to "Central Africa XXX stubs", in the way that Central Africa geography stubs is already named. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename
All non-stub categories that refer to the U.S. state of Washington were recently renamed at CfD from the format "Washington" to "Washington (U.S. state)". Now nominating relevant stubs in Category:Washington (U.S. state) to conform with this format as well. I don't see a need to change the template names, but others who know more about stubbing may have better opinions than mine about this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep sauropoda, del ornithischian as undersized, not required, & misformed
For once, beign unproposed is actually a major reason for something being here, rather than just mentioned in passing. {{
Ornithischia-stub}} (the name at which {{
Ornithischian-stub}} would be if it were correctly named) was opposed when it was proposed for creation
two years ago, for good reasons which still apply. The ambiguity of the fossil evidence is a major factor in particular why the Orinithischian stub type is likely to be a problem - certainly enough of a problem that it needs serious debate before any suggestion of it being created - it would certainly need a visit to
WP:WSS/P rather than a unilateral creation.
The sauropodomorph category I've largely listed here because it was created by the same editor at the same time, so it makes sense to bundle them together for debate, though it too has problems, as mentioned below.
As to the mechanics of the stubs, the templates seem fine, but the categories are severely lacking (no permcat parents, only one stub cat parent, and no listing in Category:Stub categories). The one parent, Category:Dinosaur stubs is not in need of splitting in terms of size, though there is at least some indication in the 320 articles in Category:Ornithischians that it may have some use if there are enough stubs (which has yet to be proven). There is, however, no Category:Sauropodomorpha, which is perhaps surprising - it's two main subtypes, sauropoda and prosauropoda both have their own categories, so it would make sense if there were (a stub type for it would also be in line with the existing one for theropods). Perhaps the solution here is mroe a non-stub one, in the creation of such a permcat. Without it, there shouldn't be a stub type, but I'd like some input from WP:WikiProject Palaeontology and other related groups before creating in. Grutness... wha? 00:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Sorry if I sounded grouchy, but I really would have liked to have finished this, or come close to doing so, before the day was up. Abyssal ( talk) 07:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was withdrawn nom - keep
The template has existed quite happily for a year and a half and has garnered nearly 20 articles in that time. Today, someone decided - without proposal and despite the fact that 60 is the required minimum - that there were enough stubs to de-upmerge the template and create a new category. Delete category and re-upmerge template.
Grutness...
wha?
01:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was del per nom
Incorrectly named, unproposed, redlinked template for stub articles relating to
TransLink (South East Queensland). - a subject which has no dedicated permcat and which, judging by the article's whatlinkshere (and removing all the - already properly stubbed stations), is going to struggle mightily to get to the required threshold. Note:In the unlikely even of this being kept, it will need moving to a more apprporiate name, such as {{
TransLinkQLD-stub}}, given that the company is not called Translink and
Translink is a dab page. Delete.
Grutness...
wha?
01:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
Keep i would like to see this stub type kept so it can be used to easily sorted articles that are stubs as part of Wikipedia:Translink mattythebatty ( talk) 03:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC) ps.sorry for not proposing reply
no what i mean is other projects have stubs linked to them like wikiproject brisbane and australia mattman ( talk) 07:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
this is what i mean to have that stub for that type of stub for the translink seq articles also another coment is that the rail and bus stubs are too general as it covers the whole of australia not just queensland or southeast queensland mattman ( talk) 23:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep
When
Category:European museum stubs was created, it was deliberately created as a parent-only type, taking stubs from country-specific templates. Unfortunately, an editor has decided that a europe-specific template is needed, despite the fact that it would get virtually no use (are there any museums in Europe that aren't in a European country?), and was deliberately not created earlier. Delete.
Grutness...
wha?
00:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
This category is for
stub articles relating to
museums in
Europe. You can help by expanding them. To add an article to this category, use {{
Europe-museum-stub}} instead of {{
stub}} . |
when the link to the template was red? Shouldn't it have been something more like this:
This category is for stub articles relating to church buildings in Europe. You can help by expanding them. |
Not everyone spends all of their time here tagging stubs. If you don't make these things clearer in the categories, you're just setting yourself up to be misunderstood. As I have said below, I will follow your arcane procedures in the future, if I sort any more stubs at all. Litho derm 19:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC) reply
This category is maintained by
WikiProject Stub sorting. Please propose new stub templates and categories here before creation. |
The result of the debate was delete
Two unproposed types created yesterday, both with non-convention-compliant names, neither with linked stub categories, both with problems with scope, neither with similarly-named permcats, both unnecessary, neither proposed. Delete both (keep neither).
Grutness...
wha?
01:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
This unproposed stub type sounds like a reasonable idea at first, but there are some significant problems with it. The template's redlinked. There's no equivalent permcat for
Category:Santiago Metro. No sign whatsoever that this will reach threshold - without a permcat, it's difficult to tell, but given that the metro's article
Santiago Metro seems to have nothing but redlinks and links to fewer than 40 articles, it would appear that there are nowhere near the required number of stubs to go with it. Some form of upmerge into a more general South American rapid transit category might be reasonable, but outright deletion remains an option.
Grutness...
wha?
01:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
Recently depopulated through merges, no longer needed.
Pagra
shtak
16:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
I found just one article with this template Fort Nassau (North River) and {{ AlbanyCountyNY-geo-stub}} covered that well enough. -- Salix ( talk): 18:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Long time since we've seen a stub that defies the naming conventions quite as comprehensively as this: sections run together without hyphens, incorrect use of abbreviation, capital S in stub. Not a bad assortment for just one template. Add to that that it appears to be being used as a geo-stub (the only items this was on were geo-stubs already correctly marked as such). Unproposed, with a redlink category and split by an ill-defined section of the state (which the article on the subject describes as "an imprecise regional definition") - a state which has its own accepted stub types ({{ NewYork-stub}} and its subtypes). While I can see the possibility of splitting geo-stubs, possibly with a geo-stub for the city itself to reduce strain on the state category (which would be a reasonable proposal, given that Category:New York geography stubs is pretty large), the need for a separate stub type of this nature is questionable, to say the least. Appears to be connected to a brand new WikiProject - one whose creator may need to read the section on WP:STUB about why WikiProjects are better off with talk-page templates. Delete. Grutness... wha? 00:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply
I recently noticed the addition to an article the geo-stub of Albany County. As I work on many many many Albany and CD articles and have never seen a county level stub, are there now, or going to be soon, county level stubs for each county? If so I suggest leaving out Bronx, New York, Queens, Kings, and Richmond counties as they are coterminous with the five boroughs of the City and I do believe the city already has its own stub. Oh, and of course I have to ask- First, if these stubs ARE new where were they proposed and discussed before being made so I know where in the future to propose new stubs and comment on stubs? I assume that they werent just made first before going through the proper proposal, I would have liked to have commented on them, especially if ones were already made for the boroughs, as I think one for the City is enough instead of individual ones for the boroughs/counties. And second- Pegship mentioned once there are a sufficient number of county articles in county categories then a regional category without a template is made to include the county ones (if I understood her right), in which case can it be explained where to build this regional category for the CD to include the county stub template. I cant speak for Wadester but I can live with deleting the CD template IF and ONLY if this regional category is created to coral all the county stub templates. Camelbinky ( talk) 05:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
I dont see what the January 27 link has to do with this. Please explain to me why there is a NYC stub template that is put on NYC stubs instead of using the county ones you claim should be used. Do you think the NYC stub template should be deleted then? I am not talking about upmerged CATEGORIES of templates, I am talking about stub templates, those things at the bottom of the article that say "This is an article about a stub in New York City, you can help expand it" blah blah blah under your point of view, if I correctly understand you is that it should say "The Bronx" instead of NYC. You have not addressed that very fundamental issue and that could be why you think I am "hammering at" you. I only ask you address issues that I bring up so I can fully understand your point of view. It makes me want to cry as well when I ask for clarification or ask a question or bring up a point and the other person ignores them and talks about something completely different. I would like to know about your point of view on the NYC stub and if it should go away in favor of ones for the individual counties and why you believe the counties should be used if you think that way. I have brought this issue to the wikiprojects NY and NYC, you may bring your explanation to those discussion pages if you wish so you can have your say and defend your point of view. I just want clarification and explanation, who knows maybe I will agree with you, but without all the facts that isnt possible. Camelbinky ( talk) 23:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Ok, first off on the advice of Doncram I apologize to Pegship if there has been any bad feelings about this, but I must point out it is ironic seeing as how when I defended Wadester about Grutness's impoliteness Pegship defended Grutness saying there was none, so now I got accused of doing the same thing to Pegship. Kharma and irony. Technically not irony, the definition of irony is not what most people think. Anyways.
Now THAT was a great explanation as to why we should have five instead of one stubs and one that makes a good amount of sense! Thank you! For the record, it was not you (Pegship) who basically called me stupid, that was someone on my talk page, trying to defend you honorable but in actuality just insulting me, it is not my place to say their name, that is their decision. I have also been accused of using my opinions in this argument as facts, if I state something as a fact, IT IS A FACT. The example used in my talk page by that person was the Bronx as "the Bronx" versus "Bronx County" and as I stated it is Bronx County but as a borough the official name is "the Bronx", it is not my opinion it is fact, and one that is even mentioned in the Bronx article if it had been read completely. If something is my opinion, I will say so, if it is fact I will state it as fact. I dont know what other facts that person or anyone else may have thought was my opinion, but please look in wikipedia articles and other sources if anything that I put forth as a fact looks dubious first before assuming it is my opinion and not truly a fact. Pegship, I now agree with you that making stubs according to counties can be useful as it makes a smaller category of articles and smaller lists on the category pages. My only problem is that (unless I am wrong) it seems the policy is going to be to do ALL states by counties (or their equivalent by a different name, Alaska doesnt have counties FACT not opinion). Is this correct? If so has any decision or discussion been done about Virginia which has independent cities, some of which are quite small in both pop. and geography but are NOT within counties, do they get treated as counties for stubs of their own? (Similarly St Louis in Missouri is not a part of any county even though St Louis County surrounds it FACT not opinion) and 2- what about places within cities that cross partly into multiple counties? As stated before (and not my opinion, it is FACT) KC, Missouri goes into many counties and to have stubs based on counties would cause stub articles on places within that city to be categorized by the county in which they are in, and not in KC and since KC does not take up all the area in each county (like NYC does) it doesnt seem possibly to put the stubs into a higher category as that would pull in the articles in the individual counties that are outside of KC as well. I know all of this is irrelevant to the CD deletion argument (another complaint by your defender on my talk page) but might as well do this here instead going back and forth on our talk pages, I personally hate having to read my responses on one page and someone else's on another page (now THAT is an OPINION). Camelbinky ( talk) 16:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was deleted
The article is NPOV innuendo (male friendship as a way of pushing women out?). It should be clearly labelled as a feminist film theory concept and probably merged into the longer articles on feminist theory.
The result of the debate was rename
Not sure why, but this category is at a non-standard name. All other RoC-related categories, stub and otherwise, are simply at "Taiwan". Seems to be my fault, since I created the category several years ago - no excuse, I'm afraid :/
Grutness...
wha?
05:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete
Buckethead does not merit special pleading, {{ 2000s-rock-album-stub}}, {{ 2000s-metal-album-stub}} seem to be the most appropriate types. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guitarists/Buckethead task force informed ----
With one notable exception (The Beatles), we do not split music stubs by individual artists. The category has been thoroughly populated by a messy mix of articles, many of which have only a vague tangential connection to Buckethead (of the handful I checked, there were two for albums where he appeared as a guest guitarist on some tracks, for instance). This thoroughly cuts across the stub hierarchy, mixing albums, individual tracks, bands, and ghu knows what else. Another good example of a case where a talk-page WikiProject template is a good idea but a stub type is a bad idea. Delete. Grutness... wha? 00:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete until definition becomes more solid
Hard on the heels of a recent unproposed split of paleontology stubs comes another one, also with considerable problems. The template name is one such - given that the only reptiliomorphs are prehistoric, there is no need whatsoever for the "Paleo" prefix. The category is unparented, stub or permcat, which would be simple to fix if this is kept, but given the size of the permanent category
Category:Reptiliomorphs, upmerging might be a more prudent option if the template is kept - there's no way on current article numbers that this will reach the necessary threshold for a stub category. A more serious problem, though, is the fact that the definition of reptiliomorph seems to be in a state of flux. The article indicates that there have been several definitions of the term over the years, and implies that two different ones are still in use. Given that there are already discussions underway about reducing the size of the parenmt
Category:Paleontology stubs - discussions which do not include a split-out of reptiliomorphs, deletion may be the best option.
Grutness...
wha?
00:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedy rename sexuality stubs
I hate reopening closed debates, but this time it seems to be necessary... A debate on renaming
Category:Sex stubs occurred here on
December 29th, which resulted in the consensus of "rename". Unfortunately, by my reading of the discussion, the consensus was a rename to
Category:Sexuality stubs, and the category got renamed
Category:Sex and sexuality stubs. Either point out that I'm wrong or rename correctly this time :)
Grutness...
wha?
23:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename
Unproposed, but may be a useful type. if kept, though, both the template and the category need renaming, since they should be singular, not plural ({{
Year-stub}} /
Category:Year stubs). Rename, but don't keep the current name as a redirect.
Grutness...
wha?
00:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
Unproposed, and frankly unlikely to see much use, if any. Malformed, with no category link, edit link, or link to
WP:STUB. Delete unlesss some significant use can be demonstrated.
Grutness...
wha?
00:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename
This one's a straightforward one, at least. They do have buildings in the UAE, so we shouldn't have missed them out when the category was named :)
Grutness...
wha?
00:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename & create parent
We have
Category:New York City stubs, but not a -geo- category. The upmerged -geo- templates I created for NYC apparently are formed contrary to popular opinion, so I also propose a rename of those:
Normally the parent category would be proposed at WSS/P, but since it's part & parcel of the template naming issue I thought I'd better put it here. See Jan 22 discussion for more background. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete
Where to start? Unproposed, splitting out stubs for one type of feature (which we don't have and would be unlikely to have a parent type for) for one national park (and we don't have separate stubs for individual park, even big ones like Yellowstone). Distinctly undersized (the permcat only has 60 articles, and I can't for a moment believe that all of them would be stubs). Incorrectly parented category (these are geographical features, and as such would be geo-stubs, not generic stubs). And neither Category:Wyoming geography stubs nor Category:Montana geography stubs is anywhere close to being oversized (and if they were, we'd primarily split by county). Seems to be another case of a specific WikiProject (or in this case, not even a full project but a task force) overlooking the fact that talk-page assessment templates are more suited to individual projects that a Wiki-wide stub type. Delete. Grutness... wha? 22:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply