The result of the debate was delete
Seems to be a mostly unused stub-type (only 2 pages in the category.
Vivio Testarossa
Talk
Who 05:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename Austin-TX-stub, keep others as is
Following debate on category names at
Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2008/February/7#Several_Texas_city_categories, I'm moving this to a separate section (the categories were pretty straightforward, this may need more discussion).
Currently we have templates at:
At the very least, the Austin one needs moving, but should it be moved to {{ Austin-stub}}, or should it be moved to {{ AustinTX-stub}} (since Austin is a dab page)? And if the latter, is it worth moving the other two at the same time? Dallas-stub could refer to the 80s TV series, for instance. At the very least, AustinTX-stub seems logical, though the others may be worth changing as well. Grutness... wha? 00:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect template, delete category
I know - it sounds pretty extreme, but let me explain. Every country in the Middle East now has its own geo-stub template, meaning that this is a holding cell only, populated by 15 categories and about two stubs. It's become simply another empty space to keep monitoring ior stray stubs. This happened with
Cat:Southeast Asia geography stubs about a year ago, and the best solution there was simply redirect the template to
Cat:Asia geography stubs and move all the categories there too. Given that
Cat:Asia geography stubs has fewer than 100 articles, it's hardly going to overburden it. It also helps with the longstanding problem that "Middle East geography stubs" hasn't used anything other than an arbitrary definition of what is or isn't Middle Eastern (no Egypt, for instance). Suggest upmerging this to the Asian category, per the "Southeast Asia solution".
Grutness...
wha? 22:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep
Unproposed, no formatting in category, utterly unnecessary. The (unlinked) parent stubcat is in no need of splitting at present (fewer than 300 stubs), and the (unlinked) permcat has fewer than 120 articles, so there's a strong chance this wouldn't reach threshold. Delete.
Grutness...
wha? 23:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep
Unproposed, newly created stub type, already thoroughly covered by other stub types. The category might conceivably work as a parent-only container for the specific types for, example, classical compositions, classical albums, and classical musicians, but there is no indication there'd be any stubs that could use this that couldn't more effectively use one of the subtypes. As such, the template is redundant and should be deleted. Grutness... wha? 07:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep Stub proliferation is indeed a bad thing, but that is all the more reason to have ones that are broadly applicable. How are editors going to find out the 'correct' stub for concert halls as explained above? Only a stub expert would know! So that's decided! I am in favour of keeping the Classical-music-stub and deleting the strangely named (and doubtless little used) 'Classical album' and 'Classical music group' stubs. ('Classical composition' and 'Classical musician' are obviously worth keeping.) Thank you for the clarification. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 09:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was convert main template into a "please don't use", redirect other two to it; keep bassist stubbs cat, delete two national ones
This is essentially a procedural nomination, following on from recent changes in "facts on the ground". Firstly, the following have been emptied:
So unless they're going to be repopulated, by reverting the split into "bass guitarists" and "double bass players", they should be deleted as redundant. If that split is reverted, we should instead get rid of the long-standing Cat:bass guitarist stubs, which has been semi-duplicating these for a couple of years now. Then there's the matter of their populating templates:
If the term "bassist" is regarded as being inclusive of both, we should probably avoid using it to populate the bass guitarists, and either duplicate it, or turn it into a "football-style" deprecation message. If one thinks it primarily means the strumming faction, they might reasonably be kept as redirects. Alai ( talk) 19:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep/delete/modify, per the following:
It might be worth considering changing the "please don't use" templates to add some sort of glaring message like when an editor fails to subst a {{ cfd}} or {{ afd}} template. Grutness... wha? 23:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep template and
Cat:Arab cuisine stubs; delete other cats
We have an unproposed {{
Arab-cuisine-stub}} which given the existence of a long standing corresponding permanent category (
Cat:Arab cuisine) is probably worth keeping as an upmerged template at the very least. However, during creation, he managed to create three separate categories
Cat:Arab cuisine stubs (which matches the permanent category),
Cat:Arabic cuisine stubs (which matches our general preference for adjective forms), and the one which the template currently feeds into
Cat:Arab cuisine stub which breaks the stub category naming guidelines by using stub instead of stubs. Clearelt the last needs to be deleted, and at least one of the other two need to go as well, and possibly both if this stub doesn't meet the 60 stub threshold. I have no preference as for which of the two to keep if it does grow to threshold.
Caerwine
Caer’s whines 18:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The stub has grown to 35 references as I am writing this. I am sure it can achieve the necessary 60 references it needs to stay on. It just needs a little more time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufitul ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was speedily deleted
I discovered that a user had repointed {{
org-stub}} to point to this new category last month instead of the long existing category
Cat:Organization stubs. Since the existing category both has several sub categories and follows the naming guidelines for stub categories, I repointed the template to its original category and brought this new category here for deletion. Possibly this was done to fix a redlink in
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations since {{
topic}} which is used by the deletion sorting pages would by default create a link to this category. I've given {{
topic}} the appropriate parameter to make it point to the correct stub category.
Caerwine
Caer’s whines 02:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted after userfication
Despite its name, this is not a stub template. In fact, it's not really a template of any sort in the Wikipedia sense - it's more a basis for an article which should be in a sandbox somewhere - a template in the more generic sense of being a base model from which to make articles. It shouldn't be called anything "Stub", and it shouldn't be in template space. Perhaps userfying it to a user subpage (which I've suggested to its creator)would make sense if it's in use - if not, then deletion remains an option.
Grutness...
wha? 11:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename & upmerge
This stub template which has been on the
discovery page since last March has several problems:
Since there is an associated, but inactive Wikiproject ( Wikiproject Metabolic Pathways) it barely meets the 30 stub threshold, unless we don't count inactive Wikiprojects as triggering the lower threshold. The optional parameter merely adds text to the blurb text, so it isn't a major problem. If kept then {{ metabolism-stub}} is the logical template name for it. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep as is
I want to reopen the
|Discussion on February 7 that not inform
Wikipedia:WikiProject China. That proposal is to rename {{China- to {{PRChina-
But i against it:
Matthew_hk t c 14:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename/rescope to {{
Amusement-ride-stub}} - retention of current name as rediurect for the time being at least, though that may become the subject of a separate sfd later
This one's a longstanding and frequently-used stub, but it's name and scope has been worrying for a while. {{
Ride-stub}} is used for amusement parks and amusement park rides, but we also have the widely-overlapping {{
Amusement-park-stub}}. I'd like to suggest the deletion of the current name as overly ambiguous, to be replaced by a more strictly-scoped {{
Amusement-ride-stub}} which makes clear that it is only for the rides, and not for the parks.
Grutness...
wha? 23:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename all three to "Foo biography stubs"
nom includes
Cat:Medical biographical stubs
Propose rename to match other cats from biographical to biography. Waacstats ( talk) 11:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was upmerge
NRHP-stubs are in the process of being split by state, and in one or two cases where there are very large numbers within specific states, they have been split by county. We've never split by city, however, and if we were to, there are probably places we'd start with before Omaha. Note that this stub actually isn't what it says, anyway - its text suggests that it should be named DouglasNE-NRHP-stub, but giuven there are currently unlikely to be enough Nebraska-NRHP-stubs for more than an upmerged template, this seems a poor chocie for a separate template. Delete Grutness... wha? 03:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename
I seem to have accents, diacritics, and other ext-Latin matters on the brain at the moment... But that aside, this is wholly inconistent with both the permcat, perhaps somewhat tersely at
Cat:Centre, and the article, which is at
Centre, France. I'm not sure any of these are ideal, but let's either bring the stub cat somewhat more in line with the other two, or take one or both of those off for renaming, then revisit this.
Alai (
talk) 20:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
UPDATE: Permcat is now at Cat:Centre (region) - suggest the stubcat should follow suit. Grutness... wha? 23:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Upmerge to
Cat:Doctor Who stubs
Unproposed, though well formed, but hardly necessary. Yes, there is a Torchwood WikiProject, but there is also a hardly-overtaxed Doctor Who stub type which all these articles could easily be marked with, and given the size of the Torchwood permcat (which, with all its article subcats, barely scrapes to 60 articles, many of which cover both Torchwood and Doctor Who), it seems to be redundant to separate this out as a separate stub type. Delete, or at the very least upmerge into
Cat:Doctor Who stubs.
Grutness...
wha? 23:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was make current template into "deprecated, don't use" type, rename swiss template to JuraCH. Note: I have made a temporary
Cat:Jura geography stubs to be re-sorted, which can be freely deleted once these stubs have been reassigned.
OK, blame me for this one. Template name seemed OK at the time, but a less brilliant idea now that we have hundreds of articles in the newly-split French Jura-geos. I suggest we move this to {{
JuraCH-geo-stub}}. What we do with the redirect I throw open to the floor. BTW, has anyone else noticed the assorted Swiss stub types that are funny-looking, due to the transclusion of
Portal:Switzerland/Stub? Methinks another WPJ whacky scheme is afoot.
Alai (
talk) 01:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete the purpleosaurus
Redlinked, and to the best of my knowledge never used (certainly currently unused). There is no
Cat:Barney & Friends episodes, and
Cat:Barney & Friends has a mere 40 articles, of which a casual sampling reveals very few are stubs. Simply not needed. Delete.
Grutness...
wha? 00:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
About as useless a stub type as imaginable - no parent permcat, and only about four articles which are about this forum, only one of which is a stub. Pointless. Delete.
Grutness...
wha? 23:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep but reword to clarify scope (see Severo's comment at the end of this discussion)
Though I can see the rationale behind this one, it's not in line with normal stub-splitting practice, and is too wide a scope to be of much use. This stub type is not for people specifically associated with LGBT activism (if it was, then there might be less of a problem) - it's for LGBT people in general - people who would normally be split by either occupation or nationality. Splitting by sexual preference strikes me as an unhelpful method of sorting these articles, and one which will simply add an extra template to the bottom of the articles. There'd be no doubt this could reach threshold, given that it's likely that 5-10% of all bio-stubs could qualify for this template - itsm practicality, however, is severely limited. Either rescope to cover only LGBT activists, or delete.
Grutness...
wha? 02:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Strong keep. It would make managing LGBT biography articles much easier. It is not "too wide to be useful": the fact that it would be used on many LGBT bios means it will be helpful. It seems utterly appropriate that editors with an interest in LGBT people & issues have a way to easily identify and contribute to articles where a person's LGBT-ness is relevant enough to be mentioned. Queerudite ( talk) 12:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Rescope – could be useful for people who derive their notability through LGBT issues. It should not be used on a biography where LGBT issues are not the main notability of the subject. Severo T C 22:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn
Unproposed, and seems unnecessary. Upmerged into the Irish peerage stubs category, which, at fewer than 200 stubs, is not going to need splitting for a considerable time, if at all.
Grutness...
wha? 23:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
Seems to be a mostly unused stub-type (only 2 pages in the category.
Vivio Testarossa
Talk
Who 05:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename Austin-TX-stub, keep others as is
Following debate on category names at
Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2008/February/7#Several_Texas_city_categories, I'm moving this to a separate section (the categories were pretty straightforward, this may need more discussion).
Currently we have templates at:
At the very least, the Austin one needs moving, but should it be moved to {{ Austin-stub}}, or should it be moved to {{ AustinTX-stub}} (since Austin is a dab page)? And if the latter, is it worth moving the other two at the same time? Dallas-stub could refer to the 80s TV series, for instance. At the very least, AustinTX-stub seems logical, though the others may be worth changing as well. Grutness... wha? 00:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect template, delete category
I know - it sounds pretty extreme, but let me explain. Every country in the Middle East now has its own geo-stub template, meaning that this is a holding cell only, populated by 15 categories and about two stubs. It's become simply another empty space to keep monitoring ior stray stubs. This happened with
Cat:Southeast Asia geography stubs about a year ago, and the best solution there was simply redirect the template to
Cat:Asia geography stubs and move all the categories there too. Given that
Cat:Asia geography stubs has fewer than 100 articles, it's hardly going to overburden it. It also helps with the longstanding problem that "Middle East geography stubs" hasn't used anything other than an arbitrary definition of what is or isn't Middle Eastern (no Egypt, for instance). Suggest upmerging this to the Asian category, per the "Southeast Asia solution".
Grutness...
wha? 22:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep
Unproposed, no formatting in category, utterly unnecessary. The (unlinked) parent stubcat is in no need of splitting at present (fewer than 300 stubs), and the (unlinked) permcat has fewer than 120 articles, so there's a strong chance this wouldn't reach threshold. Delete.
Grutness...
wha? 23:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep
Unproposed, newly created stub type, already thoroughly covered by other stub types. The category might conceivably work as a parent-only container for the specific types for, example, classical compositions, classical albums, and classical musicians, but there is no indication there'd be any stubs that could use this that couldn't more effectively use one of the subtypes. As such, the template is redundant and should be deleted. Grutness... wha? 07:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep Stub proliferation is indeed a bad thing, but that is all the more reason to have ones that are broadly applicable. How are editors going to find out the 'correct' stub for concert halls as explained above? Only a stub expert would know! So that's decided! I am in favour of keeping the Classical-music-stub and deleting the strangely named (and doubtless little used) 'Classical album' and 'Classical music group' stubs. ('Classical composition' and 'Classical musician' are obviously worth keeping.) Thank you for the clarification. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 09:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was convert main template into a "please don't use", redirect other two to it; keep bassist stubbs cat, delete two national ones
This is essentially a procedural nomination, following on from recent changes in "facts on the ground". Firstly, the following have been emptied:
So unless they're going to be repopulated, by reverting the split into "bass guitarists" and "double bass players", they should be deleted as redundant. If that split is reverted, we should instead get rid of the long-standing Cat:bass guitarist stubs, which has been semi-duplicating these for a couple of years now. Then there's the matter of their populating templates:
If the term "bassist" is regarded as being inclusive of both, we should probably avoid using it to populate the bass guitarists, and either duplicate it, or turn it into a "football-style" deprecation message. If one thinks it primarily means the strumming faction, they might reasonably be kept as redirects. Alai ( talk) 19:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep/delete/modify, per the following:
It might be worth considering changing the "please don't use" templates to add some sort of glaring message like when an editor fails to subst a {{ cfd}} or {{ afd}} template. Grutness... wha? 23:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep template and
Cat:Arab cuisine stubs; delete other cats
We have an unproposed {{
Arab-cuisine-stub}} which given the existence of a long standing corresponding permanent category (
Cat:Arab cuisine) is probably worth keeping as an upmerged template at the very least. However, during creation, he managed to create three separate categories
Cat:Arab cuisine stubs (which matches the permanent category),
Cat:Arabic cuisine stubs (which matches our general preference for adjective forms), and the one which the template currently feeds into
Cat:Arab cuisine stub which breaks the stub category naming guidelines by using stub instead of stubs. Clearelt the last needs to be deleted, and at least one of the other two need to go as well, and possibly both if this stub doesn't meet the 60 stub threshold. I have no preference as for which of the two to keep if it does grow to threshold.
Caerwine
Caer’s whines 18:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The stub has grown to 35 references as I am writing this. I am sure it can achieve the necessary 60 references it needs to stay on. It just needs a little more time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufitul ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was speedily deleted
I discovered that a user had repointed {{
org-stub}} to point to this new category last month instead of the long existing category
Cat:Organization stubs. Since the existing category both has several sub categories and follows the naming guidelines for stub categories, I repointed the template to its original category and brought this new category here for deletion. Possibly this was done to fix a redlink in
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations since {{
topic}} which is used by the deletion sorting pages would by default create a link to this category. I've given {{
topic}} the appropriate parameter to make it point to the correct stub category.
Caerwine
Caer’s whines 02:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted after userfication
Despite its name, this is not a stub template. In fact, it's not really a template of any sort in the Wikipedia sense - it's more a basis for an article which should be in a sandbox somewhere - a template in the more generic sense of being a base model from which to make articles. It shouldn't be called anything "Stub", and it shouldn't be in template space. Perhaps userfying it to a user subpage (which I've suggested to its creator)would make sense if it's in use - if not, then deletion remains an option.
Grutness...
wha? 11:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename & upmerge
This stub template which has been on the
discovery page since last March has several problems:
Since there is an associated, but inactive Wikiproject ( Wikiproject Metabolic Pathways) it barely meets the 30 stub threshold, unless we don't count inactive Wikiprojects as triggering the lower threshold. The optional parameter merely adds text to the blurb text, so it isn't a major problem. If kept then {{ metabolism-stub}} is the logical template name for it. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep as is
I want to reopen the
|Discussion on February 7 that not inform
Wikipedia:WikiProject China. That proposal is to rename {{China- to {{PRChina-
But i against it:
Matthew_hk t c 14:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename/rescope to {{
Amusement-ride-stub}} - retention of current name as rediurect for the time being at least, though that may become the subject of a separate sfd later
This one's a longstanding and frequently-used stub, but it's name and scope has been worrying for a while. {{
Ride-stub}} is used for amusement parks and amusement park rides, but we also have the widely-overlapping {{
Amusement-park-stub}}. I'd like to suggest the deletion of the current name as overly ambiguous, to be replaced by a more strictly-scoped {{
Amusement-ride-stub}} which makes clear that it is only for the rides, and not for the parks.
Grutness...
wha? 23:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename all three to "Foo biography stubs"
nom includes
Cat:Medical biographical stubs
Propose rename to match other cats from biographical to biography. Waacstats ( talk) 11:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was upmerge
NRHP-stubs are in the process of being split by state, and in one or two cases where there are very large numbers within specific states, they have been split by county. We've never split by city, however, and if we were to, there are probably places we'd start with before Omaha. Note that this stub actually isn't what it says, anyway - its text suggests that it should be named DouglasNE-NRHP-stub, but giuven there are currently unlikely to be enough Nebraska-NRHP-stubs for more than an upmerged template, this seems a poor chocie for a separate template. Delete Grutness... wha? 03:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename
I seem to have accents, diacritics, and other ext-Latin matters on the brain at the moment... But that aside, this is wholly inconistent with both the permcat, perhaps somewhat tersely at
Cat:Centre, and the article, which is at
Centre, France. I'm not sure any of these are ideal, but let's either bring the stub cat somewhat more in line with the other two, or take one or both of those off for renaming, then revisit this.
Alai (
talk) 20:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
UPDATE: Permcat is now at Cat:Centre (region) - suggest the stubcat should follow suit. Grutness... wha? 23:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Upmerge to
Cat:Doctor Who stubs
Unproposed, though well formed, but hardly necessary. Yes, there is a Torchwood WikiProject, but there is also a hardly-overtaxed Doctor Who stub type which all these articles could easily be marked with, and given the size of the Torchwood permcat (which, with all its article subcats, barely scrapes to 60 articles, many of which cover both Torchwood and Doctor Who), it seems to be redundant to separate this out as a separate stub type. Delete, or at the very least upmerge into
Cat:Doctor Who stubs.
Grutness...
wha? 23:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was make current template into "deprecated, don't use" type, rename swiss template to JuraCH. Note: I have made a temporary
Cat:Jura geography stubs to be re-sorted, which can be freely deleted once these stubs have been reassigned.
OK, blame me for this one. Template name seemed OK at the time, but a less brilliant idea now that we have hundreds of articles in the newly-split French Jura-geos. I suggest we move this to {{
JuraCH-geo-stub}}. What we do with the redirect I throw open to the floor. BTW, has anyone else noticed the assorted Swiss stub types that are funny-looking, due to the transclusion of
Portal:Switzerland/Stub? Methinks another WPJ whacky scheme is afoot.
Alai (
talk) 01:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete the purpleosaurus
Redlinked, and to the best of my knowledge never used (certainly currently unused). There is no
Cat:Barney & Friends episodes, and
Cat:Barney & Friends has a mere 40 articles, of which a casual sampling reveals very few are stubs. Simply not needed. Delete.
Grutness...
wha? 00:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
About as useless a stub type as imaginable - no parent permcat, and only about four articles which are about this forum, only one of which is a stub. Pointless. Delete.
Grutness...
wha? 23:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep but reword to clarify scope (see Severo's comment at the end of this discussion)
Though I can see the rationale behind this one, it's not in line with normal stub-splitting practice, and is too wide a scope to be of much use. This stub type is not for people specifically associated with LGBT activism (if it was, then there might be less of a problem) - it's for LGBT people in general - people who would normally be split by either occupation or nationality. Splitting by sexual preference strikes me as an unhelpful method of sorting these articles, and one which will simply add an extra template to the bottom of the articles. There'd be no doubt this could reach threshold, given that it's likely that 5-10% of all bio-stubs could qualify for this template - itsm practicality, however, is severely limited. Either rescope to cover only LGBT activists, or delete.
Grutness...
wha? 02:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Strong keep. It would make managing LGBT biography articles much easier. It is not "too wide to be useful": the fact that it would be used on many LGBT bios means it will be helpful. It seems utterly appropriate that editors with an interest in LGBT people & issues have a way to easily identify and contribute to articles where a person's LGBT-ness is relevant enough to be mentioned. Queerudite ( talk) 12:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Rescope – could be useful for people who derive their notability through LGBT issues. It should not be used on a biography where LGBT issues are not the main notability of the subject. Severo T C 22:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn
Unproposed, and seems unnecessary. Upmerged into the Irish peerage stubs category, which, at fewer than 200 stubs, is not going to need splitting for a considerable time, if at all.
Grutness...
wha? 23:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
reply