This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It is possible that, at least for a while, many of the items coming up here for deletion will be redirects. Adding the {{ sfd-t}} breaks the redirect if added either above or below the redirect line. This is ok for redirects that have been orphaned, but what about those that have not been? Should the deletion notice template be added to these? Courtland 12:29, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
OK, I'm fed up with complaints about redirects being deleted.
Let's just keep 'em all and hide them so that new people won't come along and use them but old people won't be "inconvenienced". That solution should satisfy most people, then some bold person comes along and makes {{ About United States stub}} and we hide it away so that that person can still use it and he/she doesn't complain while not giving others the suggestion to use it versus {{ US-stub}}. Then when the person who created the template tires of stub creation and tagging (which should take about a week in most cases) it will effectively never be used again.
This solution doesn't fit within the comfort zone of people who like beuracracy or neatness or nice clean edges, but it will work to satisfy the concerns of the persons this project serves ... which is not us the stub sorters.
With that said, I'd like to withdraw all the redirect deletion requests and get back to the business of making a difference, or trying to do so.
Courtland 13:02, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
{{ sikhi-stub}} is the first stub type to be deleted as per this page. Congratulations! See Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted/June 2005. -- grm_wnr Esc 12:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi there! I find the green template put on CFD and TFD rather appropriate, but could you please make it a bit smaller vertically? R adiant _>|< 12:40, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
"After a voting period of seven days, action will be taken if there is consensus on the fate of the stub type". What exactly constitutes "consensus" here? We're about to have the first one with several votes per side pass the seven day barrier (nickelodeon-stub). I'm not certain what the rule is here - is it kept if there's less than a 2/3 vote for delete, with possible renomination later, or what? Grutness... wha? 00:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
At what point should an entry be removed from the sfd-current template? With items that have been deleted it's obvious. But with items like the movie/film rename, it's not as clear cut. The decision has been made, but the item is still on the SFD page in some capacity. Remove when a decision has been made, or keep until it's worked its way through SFD completely? I would go for the former. -- TheParanoidOne 28 June 2005 21:42 (UTC)
Does anyone here monitor Category:Orphaned categories? There are currently 30 or so stub categories listed from user:Beland's May 16 analysis. Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) June 30, 2005 02:38 (UTC)
I suddenly realised this page wasn't listed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy - I have remedied. Grutness... wha? 2 July 2005 12:22 (UTC)
The following rules at WP:CSD are well worth noting with regard to SFD:
It's quite likely that several of the items that are coming through sfd can be speedily deleted under these rules. Grutness... wha? 2 July 2005 12:31 (UTC)
Is it worth adding {{ sfd-current}} at the top of WP:SFD? No, not to have it deleted, just for display. That way we'll instantly be able to check whether what's on the template tallies with what's on the page. Grutness... wha? 09:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I've added it. I've also moved the "how to use this page" instructions nearer to the top, because a lot of people seem to be ignoring them :( Grutness... wha? 12:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
(Copied across from "Criteria" talk page, where I first posted it): There are numerous stub categories relating to the United States, and there seems to be no common pattern of naming. Do we need one, and if so, what should it be? I mistakenly told one person that they should use US to name a particular category because it was our standard naming, but I see now I was completely wrong. Personally, I'd prefer not to use "American", as it is ambiguous, and stick with "United States" throughout, but I'm hoping to hear arguments on all sides of this one. If we stick to one standard it will mean a lot of categories coming through here for renaming (templates, I'm glad to say, all use US). Grutness... wha? 14:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
As you might know, I've been the main closer on this page since it's beginnings. Well, I've been out of town for a week now and couldn't close the discussions. Noone else did so either, so now I'm looking at a great big heap and actually, I don't have much time on my hands this week as well. I can close some of the easy ones (orphaned and ready to delete), but there's lots of discussions requiring restubbing and I can't really do that alone. SO: Please help orphaning stub types that have been cleared for deletion! Administrators, please close and archive a few discussion, or the backlog will swell to tremendous proportions before I can find the time to clear it. -- grm_wnr Esc 14:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to put this, so I'll just add it to the Talk page. Currently WP:TFD has Template:Stub-base nominated for deletion. Since it's really just an incomplete version of Template:Metastub, and since one person has suggested that it redirect to Metastub, the template probably should be handled by WP:STD instead of WP:TFD. BlankVerse ∅ 11:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
{{ VRC-Stub}} and its associated category were nominated by me for deletion but they have now moved beyond the seven day period, with no votes. A single person's vote is not a consensus, so the status quo should be maintained, ie. leave the stub type as is.
There doesn't seem to be anything written in the SFD guidelines about resubmissions, though. Are they possible? How long until an item can be resubmitted? And so on. -- TheParanoidOne 14:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
It may not be according to the rules, but couldn't we make one bulk vote here (I know, I know, there's copy and paste). Also, there seems to be more here than meets the eye... as the discussion wasn't properly concluded anyway Lectonar 10:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
As things stand at the moment, I seem to be doing the bulk of the archiving on sfd. I don't mind, overly, although I'm a little uneasy about it since I'm heavily involved in a lot of the votes, and ISTR that on pages like vfd voters are encouraged not to be the people who do the archiving. I'm open to any advice on this one. Also, I deliberately haven't archived one or two votes that are not unanimous or seem less-clear cut. Again, any advive or help would be welcome. Grutness... wha? 05:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
{{ fire-alarm-stub}} and it's associated category have now passed the 7 day voting period. I would say the concensus is to delete both, so I started to clear it out when I saw that the template never had sfd-t applied to it. This is a first - deletion concensus on an item that was never actually nominated for deletion. Anyone using said template would not be aware of the deletion debate. Should it be removed along with its category, as decided? -- TheParanoidOne 10:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
There's been a couple comments on votes that are past the 7-day point, and below the marker (on the debates about {{ Video game music composer-stub}} and {{ Japcorp-stub}}). Assuming ones below the marker are "closed", in that no one should comment/vote on them, that probably ought to be more clearly marked somewhere... -- Mairi 05:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Has anyone created a Bot for the replacement/renaming of templates? - Ravedave 03:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I've put a request on Wikipedia talk:Bots#Mairibot for permission to run a bot (using pywikipedia) to take care of the renames here. And it seems like most our renames (atleast for large categories) are direct replaces, so it ought to help alot. It'd also make it more practical to tackle removing -related from the country categories. -- Mairi 05:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I've just had to rollback User:SPUI for his unilateral that stub redirects shouldn't be handled on this page and removal of a large block of voting. I'm adding a note to the top of the page to make it clearer that stub redirects are discussed here (although everyone else seems to be well aware of how this page works now). Grutness... wha? 00:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
‹ The
stub template below has been proposed for deletion. Please share your thoughts at
this template's entry on the
Categories for discussion page.
Please do not edit or blank the template, or remove it from articles where it is used, while the discussion is in progress. ›, on stub redirects is actually highly misleading on the articles affected. I've created {{ sfd-r}}, which reads , for stub template redirects, which should be clearer, and adjusted the instructions accordingly. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Is there any way of speedy renaming the categories with "-related" as part of their names? The changes were all debated thoroughly at WP:WSS/P and the (unanimous IIRC0 consensus was to remove the word from category names (at least as far as country-specific categories was concerned). It would save a lot of them coming through here in dribs and drabs if all of them were speediable. Grutness... wha? 02:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Mairibot is now working on renaming Category:Football (soccer) player stubs to Category:Football (soccer) biography stubs (via null edits). Once that's done, I'll deal with UK-depot-stub (I wanted to start with a null-edit one), and then work thru the remaining renames. Some of them will still take a while, because of the required time between edits. -- Mairi 04:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
There is some discussion regarding the subst'ing of templates, and a bot is under development that will automate the task. I would like to ask your opinion on subst'ing stub templates. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Subst. R adiant _>|< 15:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
They work abit oddly now, and it affects orphaning them for deletion. Before, if you had Template:A that redirected to Template:B, uses of A would show up in Special:Whatlinkshere/A and on the page it's used on as a use of A. Now it only shows up on Special:Whatlinkshere/B. To make it more confusing, old uses (pages that haven't been edited since the change - I'm not sure when it happened, but within the past month), still follow the old method. The new method makes it alot harder to tell if a redirect has been orphaned when it's a frequently-used template that's redirected to - especially trying to change them by hand; it's doable, although an additional step, by bot. -- Mairi 17:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I have a quick question regarding the renaming of stub templates.
When something is renamed, the old name is turned into a redirect to the new name. If a template has been renamed via SFD, should the redirect remain, or should it be deleted as well?
The reason I ask is that if it is the former, anyone can carry out template renames and log them. Whereas if it is the latter it would require an admin to carry out the deletion step.
There is of course the third option - a per-stub type decision.
I can't find anything about this on the SFD page. Any thoughts? -- TheParanoidOne 06:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Recent cases on this page have made me inclined to think that we need to be a bit more formal about what's "speediable", and what's not. The "speedying by acclaim" is all well and good, but if stub creators show up to protest the fate of their badly-named or entirely needless stub type, as is often the case, in practice it runs the duration (or longer!). I think we should agree some likely candidates for speedying, and have them "approved" for listing in the main listing of speedy deletion criteria. For starters, what about:
We can expand as necessary in conjunction with tightening up the stub type naming conventions, ideally with the latter somewhat ahead of the former, being incorporated as and when simple, established, and uncontroversial. Alai 18:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
While I appreciate the courtesy of this template, I think that everybody who wants to follow SFD has caught on to it by now, so I guess it may not be necessary any more to use the template to list all SFD discussions at CFD and TFD. Not sure if that'd save a lot of time actually but I thought I'd point it out. R adiant _>|< 15:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
...that I found while stub-sorting. It was appended to Cincinnati Subway, which was tagged with the generic {{ stub}}.
The comment was left by User:SPUI( talk). I thought I'd post it here, so that it reach the appropriate audience. I don't really know what he/she's talking about, seeing as {{ us-rail-stub}} exists and works, although it's got an ugly message on it, which is maybe the problem. - GTBacchus( talk) 07:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I have to ask: What actual benefit is there to deleting {{us-*-stub}}s, etc? Surely process should take second place to ease of use. - SoM 18:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
What benefit?
That enough reasons? They're just four quick ones off the top of my head... Grutness... wha? 22:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a potential group of speediable categories. technically, they're almost certain to be already speediable under the category rules, but spelling things out may help clarify things. This doesn't come up very often, but there's one on today's nominations which fulfils these criteria: Any category which is
These are usually either malformed or deprecated, and in stub-specific cases wouldn't get any articles unless someone added a template to them, so, by being over 24 hours old, they are guaranteed to have been empty for that time (unless a template has just been deleted or redirected, in which case, it's highly unlikely that a new one is about to be added). As such they would almost certainly come within the "24 hours and it's gone" rule for categories. Grutness... wha? 07:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I've just come across a weird one, possibly a problem with sfd-t, although I suspect it's probably with {{ Cayman-stub}}. Have a look at the bottom of the double-stubbed Grand Cayman. Seems OK, but the template that's up for deletion isn't Caribbean-geo-stub, it's Cayman-stub. so why is the sfd message above the geo-stub? My guess is that cayman-stub has somehow been coded to appear last on the article, but my knowledge of html isn't enough to know whether this is the real reason. Anyone have any ideas? Grutness... wha? 08:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Since karmafist logged the discussion without actually doing anything to the template (not even removing {{ sfd-t}}), I decided it was about time to get something done. The only thing there seemed to be consensus for (and that guidelines unambiguously call for) is ending in -stub, and having hyphens. So I renamed all the templates to end in -stub, and have hyphens. All except 2 are of the form Foo-State-Highway-stub, which being closest to the old names seemed the most sensible in absense of consenus. The exceptions are {{ Arizona-State-Route-stub}} (the original category and template used State Route, so that got kept) and {{ Washington-state-highway-stub}} (which matches the capitalization of the existing stub category and main category). All of them have redirects of the form Foo-state-highway-stub (and Foo-State-Highway-stub for Arizona and Washington); Arizona also has {{ Arizona-state-route-stub}}. The old names were kept as redirects, but the more anomalous ({{ Arizona State Route Stub}} and {{ New-Hampshire-State-Highway-stub}}) could probably go. If you want redirects from anything else, go create them.
My suggestion, for anyone who cares deeply about such things, would be to check the main category and stub category and see if they match as far as capitalization and use of highway/route. If they don't, nominate one or the other for renaming; as there's little point in having them be different. Individual nominations, or groups where you want the same exact thing to happen, would be far simpler.
It's a mess, but hopefully this brings abit more order to it. -- Mairi 21:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Mairi's sounds like a reasonable compromise - as a temporary measure at least. I'm of the opinion that these should have been dealt with separately rather than in one clump, and won't be at all surprised if they drift back to SFD on an individual basis over the next few months. As for Rschen7754's suggestion, I'm strongly against it. Why have this one as "-Stub" when every single other stub template is at "-stub"? Having it as {{ Washington-State-Highway-stub}} would make some sense though. Grutness... wha? 06:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm happy with the standard as it is now: {{ StateName-State-Highway-stub}}. But inevitably they will find their way back to SFD... Should we fix California to meet this standard? Texas has been fixed, and when I create the new stubs (at WP:WSS/P) I'll create them to this standard. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 06:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I have an additional debate at User talk:Rschen7754/Highway Capitalization. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 03:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Arguments are frequent on WP:SFD as to delete or not delete certain template redirects. I think establishing a guideline for redirect deletion would be helpful, such as:
or:
Or some middle way. This could be used to simplify the deletion process. Conscious 08:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that this stub category should not be deleted. The "book" section already is overpopulated, and it makes more sense to keep it so that people more interested in expanding articles about novels than articles about non-fiction books can navigate more easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophysduckling ( talk • contribs)
Greetings.
One of the things I mentioned in my recent RFA was that, if promoted to Admin, I would be more interested in helping out with the various xFD areas, where "x" doesn't equal "A". AFD gets all the admin glory, whereas the other various xFD pages seem relegated to the status of afterthought. Indeed, when I mention SFD on IRC, many people don't know what it stands for. (The common response is "What's SFD? Shit for Deletion?")
In any case, I was indeed promoted to admin a hair over a week ago, and now seek to make good on my campaign promises. I, along with a few other new admins, have already brought WP:RFD into some semblance of cohesion. However, at the time I was nominated for RFA, WP:RFD was pretty much ignored, had a backlog dating back 45 days, and nobody was showing much interest. So when I got the mop and bucket, there were no toes to step on when I started working on RFD.
WP:SFD, on the other hand, gives the impression of a well-established process, with regular participation by a core group of folks. In other words, many toes to potentially step on for novice admins like myself who might inadvertently allow their enthusiasm to exceed their experience.
I have raised these concerns on TheParanoidOne's talk page, and he feels that I should just dive in and help start clearing up the backlog, cleaning out the more obvious discussions. So that's what I'd like to do. But I figured that a little circumspection would go a long way in this case, so I'm giving folks a heads up here on the talk page.
All the best.
→
Ξxtreme Unction|
yakkity yak 20:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
If a stub is moved or otherwise redirected, is it necessary that the original stub be orphaned? → Ξxtreme Unction| yakkity yak 03:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Usually if the vote is for the template to be renamed, it is implied that the original name is deleted, unless there's a specific vote of keeping the old name as a redirect. A major reason for template renames on sfd is that the current names don't conform to naming guidelines, so the (misnamed) original versions aren't often kept. Grutness... wha? 09:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Given the occassional confusion, I've created two new templates for renames: {{ sfr-t}} and {{ sfr-c}} (I can't see redirects being renamed too often). The syntax is {{ sfr-t|New-name-stub}} and {{ sfr-c|New name stubs}}. The parameters are optional (for when there isn't a specific name in mind), and there's no ugly wikicode visible when the parameter is left out. I've left the text on {{ sfd-t}} and {{ sfd-c}} as "deletion or renaming" for now, until people are aware of the new templates. -- Mairi 23:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
This is just one big giant ... mess, for lack of a better word. This has so many problems with it. Too many items proposed in one go. Some have splintered off into their own SFD nominations (some dealt with, others not). Some have been renamed but others haven't. Claims to be the last, only to be followed by some more later on. Some have the sfd-c template on them, others don't. The sheer volume of entries and the splintering also makes it difficult to gauge what the concensus is for a particular entry. I have pushed through the changes for a few but I don't think I can reasonably do any more.
So I propose that we abandon this quagmire by logging the entire discussion under the Deleted section and noting down exactly what items were renamed. Possibly a note in the Not Deleted section as well, noting what wasn't changed (if anything) and pointing to the discussion on the Deleted page. Any items that still require changing can be renominated as appropriate.
I also propose that we never do anything like this again. Ever. (Please!)
Thoughts? -- TheParanoidOne 23:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 14 there was a consensus to rename a number of Tanakh related categories, including
Does anyone here think it's necessary to run this through sfd as well, or should someone just do the rename? -- Rick Block ( talk) 18:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Please note that SPUI has taken his WP:POINT crusade against this page to the village pump. R adiant _>|< 03:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Greetings.
I have revived the discussion regarding the issue of where stub redirects should properly be addressed on the RFD talk page. My comments there are, in the main, a repost of my comments on WP:VPP, with some minor refactoring.
Executive summary: At the time SFD subsumed the task of dealing with stub redirects, RFD was inactive and not under regular admin scrutiny. Thus, nobody was reading the RFD talk page, which is why nobody objected to SFD taking over the task of dealing with stub redirects.
RFD is now once again under regular admin scrutiny. Thus, the issue of where stub redirects should be handled should be revisited.
My comments on the RFD talk page provide greater detail. Interested parties are cordially invited to swing by and provide their insight.
All the best.
Ξxtreme Unction|
yakkity yak 14:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Per WP:DRV#Various stub template redirects, I have restored some stub redirects deleted by this process. Please see my comment at DRV for my reasoning. - Splash talk 23:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Extreme Unction has initiated an interesting discussion on the actual impact of template redirects. -- TheParanoidOne 00:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Ashibaka changed the template on the SFD page from deletiontools to deletiondebates. From Template talk:Deletiontools:
So, does anyone care? Personally I'm inclined to leave the new template as it seems less ... cluttered. -- TheParanoidOne 13:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
a word of warning. {{ Western sahara stub}} was deleted without being orphaned! ive just gone through and changed everything to {{ WesternSahara-stub}}. please make sure templates arent in use before removing them! BL kiss the lizard 23:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
{{ sfd-current}} is no longer used (it even says on it that it's deprecated), so I'm taking it to tfd. Hopefully there are no objections to that...? Grutness... wha? 06:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Here was a discussion about {{ Anti-Pope-stub}}, which was created out of process and without discussion on January 1. I don't see that the discussion had reached a consensus - it was perhaps headed towards merge/rescope {{ Pope-stub}}. The discussion was terminated and logged, and the template was deleted, but nobody rescoped {{ Pope-stub}}. A robot came along and changed all the {{ Anti-Pope-stub}}s into {{ Pope-stub}}s anyway, so the creator of {{ Anti-Pope-stub}} just started dumping them back into the generic {{ Stub}} category, because {{ Pope-stub}} was clearly inaccurate. I went around after him and double tagged them all with {{ RC-stub}} and {{ Reli-bio-stub}}, and figured the mess was over.
Now, {{ Anti-Pope-stub}} has been undeleted and renamed to {{ Antipope-stub}}. Nobody bothered to create the category, so I just now did that, so the stub wouldn't be category-less. That brings us up to date. (I haven't tracked down exactly who did most of these things, because that's essentially irrelevant to the real question, which follows...)
We should, at this point, EITHER Rescope {{ Pope-stub}}, rewrite the message accordingly, move the antipopes into it, and delete {{ Anti-Pope-stub}} (now a redirect), {{ Antipope-stub}}, and Category:Antipope stubs... OR just deal with {{ Antipope-stub}} now that it's properly named and attached to a category. Which'll it be? Should I be bringing this up at Discoveries, or Stubs for Deletion, or where? - GTBacchus( talk) 04:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, GTBacchus, for the trouble you've taken. I voted to keep and rename, but I would certainly have been open to changing my vote to "change wording of pope-stub, and use the same stub template for both". Looking at the vote as it stood just before the discussion was closed, I cannot see any consensus for deletion, but it is reversible, so no need to make a fuss!
I won't discuss the technical issues, as I don't fully understand them, although the knowledge that stubs should not be created unless they will have sixty articles would influence me into changing my original vote. I will just make three comments:
If a decision is made to delete the antipope stub template again, please wait until the pope template has been made suitable. I could easily add the words "or a claimant to the papacy", but I wouldn't attempt to start creating categories. I'm afraid that's beyond me at the moment.
This discussion has taken place on my talk page, Str1977's Patsw's, GTBacchus's, TheParanoidOne's and Chooserr's and probably others as well. Perhaps, to avoid fragmentation, we could complete the discussion here? Thanks. AnnH (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm moving another comment here from my talk page:
And yes, I fully agree that students of the papacy would have an interest in antipopes, so having pope and antipope together would be useful for stub expansion purposes. AnnH (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
As this indeed remains empty after 24h, I'll shortly speedy this, unless there are any objections in the immediate future. Alai 21:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
[2] Developer Jamesday has requested that images only be used for content, not decoration. The reason for this is that images cause a major server load problem; the actual size of the image is not really relevant. Hence, please remove images from stub templates, and use formatted or colored text instead. R adiant _>|< 11:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I see most other deletion process pages now have a handy-dandy table showing the three 9or four) steps to listing something for deletion. Should we do the same thing here, or is it complicated because of our double template/category process? Grutness... wha? 01:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
This preamble states that (truly) empty categories can be speedied after 24 hours. This a) isn't very useful, as typically an "empty" stub category has at least a stub-template, and b) isn't consistent with WP:CSD C1, which specifies empty for four days. I suggest we modify this in both respects: they're speediable if they contain no articles for four days. Alai 22:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_deletion#Whatlinkshere_appears_fixed. Grutness... wha? 09:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
One of the categories on Alai's recent list of small uncleared stubs was Cat:B stubs. Not only was the category name strange, but the seven stubs in there were unrelated to each other. It was only when i edited the articles that I saw the strange - and potentially very troubling - reason. A standard stub template - a parametered stub template - had been substed on all of the articles. The wording of the template therefore became whatever anyone wanted, and all the stubs were dutifully put into the same category. Not only did this make the category as random as Cat:Stubs, but it gave a very good indication of why parametered stub templates are a bad idea - there were some very odd choices for stub type names (have a look at [3], and [4], and maybe [5]!). Trouble is - where is the original of this template that has been diligently copied into articles six tinmes, by six different editors? Grutness... wha? 12:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we quite clearly need a) a more crisply worded stub creation size threshold, and b) a speedy deletion criterion to back it up. Otherwise, we're just endlessly wasting our time trying to delete these unilateral undersized splits that the splitters turn up to vote to keep, regardless of our current "rule of thumb", on the basis that their category deserves special pleading. Or simply that they don't give a hoot about sorting to usefully sized stub categories in the first place, and in some cases, have anything much to do with the actual project. If this continues to its illogical conclusion, we'll end up with 400,000 stub articles in about 100,000 different categories. (Aside from the US-bio-stubs, which will remain in the thousands, indefinitely...)
Specifically: I suggest that if a stub category is under ten articles for a month or more, and contains no sub-categories, it be considered speediable. Alai 07:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
So now that we're listing new dates at the top... How are we listing nomination subsections within a date? Most recent to the top of the current section, or the bottom? We don't seem to be being 100% consistent about this at present. Alai 17:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I have logged {{ gothic-novel-stub}}, {{ philos-novel-stub}} and their associated categories under Not Deleted based on the requests by Eagle 101 to populate them using Gnome (Bot). I think it would be prudent to review these again in about a month. -- TheParanoidOne 21:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Please note that there's a new instruction on the SFD page for anyone deleting categories and templates. Eagle 101 has told me that leaving redlinks on the Stub type list stuffs up the automated counting, so it's very important that anyone deleting stub types removes them from the big list when they do so, rather than waiting until the discussions are archived. Grutness... wha? 03:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's reasonable for all of SFD to grind to a halt to facilitate a process that's sprung out of nowhere. (Mind you, relatively few of the nomination will even be on SFD.) IMO, if Eagle's bot falls over on redlinks, it shouldn't yet be running "live" at all. Conscious did a systematic semi-automated update just days ago, there's no sense in rushing into this. Alai 04:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
You know, I'll go with that. Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 04:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations to SFD - it has officially come of age! Today, it got its first "bad faith" nominations by someone from outside WP:WSS... Grutness... wha? 01:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest an addition to the speediable criteria - any stub type that has been proposed and rejected at WP:WSS/P, but gets created anyway. Grutness... wha? 18:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I've compiled another list of stub types with <40 articles (and no subtypes) at User:Alai/Small stubs3. Please update (by striking through, etc) as you take 'em here, or to discoveries, or deem them already dealt with. These are from the 16th March db dump, minus four recent deletions. Alai 21:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Cat:Georgia school stubs is up for renaming to Cat:Georgia (U.S. state) school stubs as part of a block nomination on georgia categories at WP:CFD#Georgia state schools categories. Given that it's a block nomination it's probably best handled there, but I thought I'd better notify anyone here who doesn't watch CFD. Grutness... wha? 01:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been going through Special:Unused categories and Special:Wanted categories (which explains the recent flurry of stub types appearing at SFD). I notice a few category redirects: Cat:Colour stubs, Cat:Indonesia-related stubs, and {{ US train station stubs}}. Is it OK to delete these now? The moves involved in the first two at least was quite some time ago... Grutness... wha? 06:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Title says it all, really: Wikipedia:Deletion review#Template:Kosovo-geo-stub. Grutness... wha? 08:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Can we please make it a policy to speedy rename abriviations they only serve to unnecesarily cluter this process. -- Cat out 12:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I have made a proposal to change the logging scheme of WP:SFD. Conscious 08:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I notice that redirecting stub categories appears to be frowned upon here, but renaming categories and deleting the old ones leads to a large number of broken links throughout Wikipedia. As an alternative, can people please check the "What links here" before deleting the old category, and where appropriate modifying the links? Thanks. Road Wizard 23:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
As a side issue, is there a template similar to Template:oldafdfull that can be used on the talk page of renamed stub categories to advise readers that the category was created through the SfD process and what the old name was? Road Wizard 06:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Having seen some comments about previously discussed items being reposted, I have decided to go ahead and draft a couple of templates similar to {{ oldafdfull}}. Currently they can be found on my sanbox page. Like the oldafdfull template they would be used on the talk page to link to the closed discussion and summarise the result. I have created 2 templates, one for keeping and one for renaming, because the archives for each are stored separately. I would appreciate comments on whether you think this is a good idea, and if so any suggestions for improvements. Thanks. Road Wizard 22:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
SFD has a severe backlog of cases that are ready to close, but need an admin to delete any stubs and templates. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
We should probably include some explicit voting options for renames: in particular, we don't seem to currently document the claimed default that (template) "rename" means "... and delete redirect". Also, I've just noticed that we say:
Personally I generally use (up)merge when I intend to suggest keeping separate templates, in the same category (i.e., these are conceptually distinct, we just have them in the same category for convenience) rather than a redirect (different typography or terminology for exactly the same thing). Am I off-base in my jargon? Alai 01:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
While my bot's now "street legal" and can run with a looser throttle, it'd still save a bit of renaming effort and server load if people populating a stub type on SFD cited as being both badly-named and undersized, if they were a tad bold and fixed the former, before addressing the latter; or at the least, created a redirect at the "correct" name. (I'm assuming the renaming is uncontroversial, and that existing usages won't be replaced until the discussion is closed.) Alai 18:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
There was discussion here on going over to a transclusion-based method of listing and logging on this page (and on /P, which has been carried out without incident). Dicussion seems to have trailed off: unless there's further input, I'm including to call qui tacet consentire videtur on this, and implement the change starting from the beginning of next month. Alai 23:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi --
I'm sorry to wade into something about which I know little, especially given that I've been deeply impressed by the wikipedia process as a whole. But for the second time in a very short period I've been involved in an overactive stub deletion campaign, and I think perhaps your heuristics for deleting stubs are not really one-size-fits-all.
The first one was for the artificial intelligence stub, which got saved even though I was apparently the first person to run into the message and it was more than 7 days after you guys set the flag up. The more recent one is computer vision, which is gone without a trace now when I had just achieved consensus with someone we should use it for an article they didn't think belonged in computer vision yet. Apparently it's been subsumed into computer science or something, which is fairly ridiculously broad.
I'm not sure that rules that work for train stations and tv shows work for science. You just can't expect pages that are mostly maintained by professionals to be policed weekly, or a fields articles to be wantonly expanded at some great rate. Esp. since these are geeky fields I think we are more likely to finish previous stubs than create new ones. yet at the same time, these busy people are precisely the ones who want precise stubbing, since they are less likely to wade through huge pages of stuff that they know little about.
I'm not sure that areas with relatively few authors / editors are always necessarily the ones least valuable for the wikipedia project.
Thanks for any attention -- Jaibe 03:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe I closed both of those, and "over-keen" is hardly the word: in the more recent case, it was deleted over a month after nomination, after being held open in the hopes of getting some meaningful input. Also bear in mind that it was never proposed: if "busy professionals" want their stuff to be there unattended months later, they'd be well advised to follow the creation guidelines in doing so in the first place. I think it goes without saying the "special pleading" for computer science topics as somehow suffering from "systematic bias" would go down like a lead balloon. Also bear in mind that deletions on size are without prejudice to later re-creation if more articles come along, or with a related by somewhat wider scope. I'd strongly suggest doing this later in the case of the computer-visions: find a reasonable number of articles for that, or for image processing, etc. It was, incidentally, rather hopelessly cripped as a stub type due to having no template, so every one of those articles would have to be individually "fixed", regardless. Alai 02:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I note that there's nothing about SFD on Wikipedia:Deletion process. Does anyone feel like adding something please? Grutness... wha? 01:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Note that there's several stub cats tagged as part of this CFD. I've pointed out they're out of scope there, and striken them out (but left them tagged). I think it makes little sense to run the two in parallel: let's wait and see what they do there, and then run them through SFR accordingly. Or at least wait and see which way the wind is blowing... Alai 02:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems that the recent rash of delete-the-template, keep-the-cat nominations all started off with this discussion on /P. We should try and clarify and codify our thinking on this. We may have some categories that were expressly never designed to be more than containers, but under what circumstances should we consider turning a previously fully-formed stub type into one? When the template is (apparently) not seeing any use? When we think the template shouldn't be used any more? Whenever we feel like it? Some or all of the above? Alai 00:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It is possible that, at least for a while, many of the items coming up here for deletion will be redirects. Adding the {{ sfd-t}} breaks the redirect if added either above or below the redirect line. This is ok for redirects that have been orphaned, but what about those that have not been? Should the deletion notice template be added to these? Courtland 12:29, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
OK, I'm fed up with complaints about redirects being deleted.
Let's just keep 'em all and hide them so that new people won't come along and use them but old people won't be "inconvenienced". That solution should satisfy most people, then some bold person comes along and makes {{ About United States stub}} and we hide it away so that that person can still use it and he/she doesn't complain while not giving others the suggestion to use it versus {{ US-stub}}. Then when the person who created the template tires of stub creation and tagging (which should take about a week in most cases) it will effectively never be used again.
This solution doesn't fit within the comfort zone of people who like beuracracy or neatness or nice clean edges, but it will work to satisfy the concerns of the persons this project serves ... which is not us the stub sorters.
With that said, I'd like to withdraw all the redirect deletion requests and get back to the business of making a difference, or trying to do so.
Courtland 13:02, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
{{ sikhi-stub}} is the first stub type to be deleted as per this page. Congratulations! See Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted/June 2005. -- grm_wnr Esc 12:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi there! I find the green template put on CFD and TFD rather appropriate, but could you please make it a bit smaller vertically? R adiant _>|< 12:40, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
"After a voting period of seven days, action will be taken if there is consensus on the fate of the stub type". What exactly constitutes "consensus" here? We're about to have the first one with several votes per side pass the seven day barrier (nickelodeon-stub). I'm not certain what the rule is here - is it kept if there's less than a 2/3 vote for delete, with possible renomination later, or what? Grutness... wha? 00:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
At what point should an entry be removed from the sfd-current template? With items that have been deleted it's obvious. But with items like the movie/film rename, it's not as clear cut. The decision has been made, but the item is still on the SFD page in some capacity. Remove when a decision has been made, or keep until it's worked its way through SFD completely? I would go for the former. -- TheParanoidOne 28 June 2005 21:42 (UTC)
Does anyone here monitor Category:Orphaned categories? There are currently 30 or so stub categories listed from user:Beland's May 16 analysis. Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) June 30, 2005 02:38 (UTC)
I suddenly realised this page wasn't listed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy - I have remedied. Grutness... wha? 2 July 2005 12:22 (UTC)
The following rules at WP:CSD are well worth noting with regard to SFD:
It's quite likely that several of the items that are coming through sfd can be speedily deleted under these rules. Grutness... wha? 2 July 2005 12:31 (UTC)
Is it worth adding {{ sfd-current}} at the top of WP:SFD? No, not to have it deleted, just for display. That way we'll instantly be able to check whether what's on the template tallies with what's on the page. Grutness... wha? 09:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I've added it. I've also moved the "how to use this page" instructions nearer to the top, because a lot of people seem to be ignoring them :( Grutness... wha? 12:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
(Copied across from "Criteria" talk page, where I first posted it): There are numerous stub categories relating to the United States, and there seems to be no common pattern of naming. Do we need one, and if so, what should it be? I mistakenly told one person that they should use US to name a particular category because it was our standard naming, but I see now I was completely wrong. Personally, I'd prefer not to use "American", as it is ambiguous, and stick with "United States" throughout, but I'm hoping to hear arguments on all sides of this one. If we stick to one standard it will mean a lot of categories coming through here for renaming (templates, I'm glad to say, all use US). Grutness... wha? 14:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
As you might know, I've been the main closer on this page since it's beginnings. Well, I've been out of town for a week now and couldn't close the discussions. Noone else did so either, so now I'm looking at a great big heap and actually, I don't have much time on my hands this week as well. I can close some of the easy ones (orphaned and ready to delete), but there's lots of discussions requiring restubbing and I can't really do that alone. SO: Please help orphaning stub types that have been cleared for deletion! Administrators, please close and archive a few discussion, or the backlog will swell to tremendous proportions before I can find the time to clear it. -- grm_wnr Esc 14:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to put this, so I'll just add it to the Talk page. Currently WP:TFD has Template:Stub-base nominated for deletion. Since it's really just an incomplete version of Template:Metastub, and since one person has suggested that it redirect to Metastub, the template probably should be handled by WP:STD instead of WP:TFD. BlankVerse ∅ 11:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
{{ VRC-Stub}} and its associated category were nominated by me for deletion but they have now moved beyond the seven day period, with no votes. A single person's vote is not a consensus, so the status quo should be maintained, ie. leave the stub type as is.
There doesn't seem to be anything written in the SFD guidelines about resubmissions, though. Are they possible? How long until an item can be resubmitted? And so on. -- TheParanoidOne 14:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
It may not be according to the rules, but couldn't we make one bulk vote here (I know, I know, there's copy and paste). Also, there seems to be more here than meets the eye... as the discussion wasn't properly concluded anyway Lectonar 10:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
As things stand at the moment, I seem to be doing the bulk of the archiving on sfd. I don't mind, overly, although I'm a little uneasy about it since I'm heavily involved in a lot of the votes, and ISTR that on pages like vfd voters are encouraged not to be the people who do the archiving. I'm open to any advice on this one. Also, I deliberately haven't archived one or two votes that are not unanimous or seem less-clear cut. Again, any advive or help would be welcome. Grutness... wha? 05:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
{{ fire-alarm-stub}} and it's associated category have now passed the 7 day voting period. I would say the concensus is to delete both, so I started to clear it out when I saw that the template never had sfd-t applied to it. This is a first - deletion concensus on an item that was never actually nominated for deletion. Anyone using said template would not be aware of the deletion debate. Should it be removed along with its category, as decided? -- TheParanoidOne 10:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
There's been a couple comments on votes that are past the 7-day point, and below the marker (on the debates about {{ Video game music composer-stub}} and {{ Japcorp-stub}}). Assuming ones below the marker are "closed", in that no one should comment/vote on them, that probably ought to be more clearly marked somewhere... -- Mairi 05:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Has anyone created a Bot for the replacement/renaming of templates? - Ravedave 03:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I've put a request on Wikipedia talk:Bots#Mairibot for permission to run a bot (using pywikipedia) to take care of the renames here. And it seems like most our renames (atleast for large categories) are direct replaces, so it ought to help alot. It'd also make it more practical to tackle removing -related from the country categories. -- Mairi 05:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I've just had to rollback User:SPUI for his unilateral that stub redirects shouldn't be handled on this page and removal of a large block of voting. I'm adding a note to the top of the page to make it clearer that stub redirects are discussed here (although everyone else seems to be well aware of how this page works now). Grutness... wha? 00:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
‹ The
stub template below has been proposed for deletion. Please share your thoughts at
this template's entry on the
Categories for discussion page.
Please do not edit or blank the template, or remove it from articles where it is used, while the discussion is in progress. ›, on stub redirects is actually highly misleading on the articles affected. I've created {{ sfd-r}}, which reads , for stub template redirects, which should be clearer, and adjusted the instructions accordingly. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Is there any way of speedy renaming the categories with "-related" as part of their names? The changes were all debated thoroughly at WP:WSS/P and the (unanimous IIRC0 consensus was to remove the word from category names (at least as far as country-specific categories was concerned). It would save a lot of them coming through here in dribs and drabs if all of them were speediable. Grutness... wha? 02:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Mairibot is now working on renaming Category:Football (soccer) player stubs to Category:Football (soccer) biography stubs (via null edits). Once that's done, I'll deal with UK-depot-stub (I wanted to start with a null-edit one), and then work thru the remaining renames. Some of them will still take a while, because of the required time between edits. -- Mairi 04:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
There is some discussion regarding the subst'ing of templates, and a bot is under development that will automate the task. I would like to ask your opinion on subst'ing stub templates. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Subst. R adiant _>|< 15:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
They work abit oddly now, and it affects orphaning them for deletion. Before, if you had Template:A that redirected to Template:B, uses of A would show up in Special:Whatlinkshere/A and on the page it's used on as a use of A. Now it only shows up on Special:Whatlinkshere/B. To make it more confusing, old uses (pages that haven't been edited since the change - I'm not sure when it happened, but within the past month), still follow the old method. The new method makes it alot harder to tell if a redirect has been orphaned when it's a frequently-used template that's redirected to - especially trying to change them by hand; it's doable, although an additional step, by bot. -- Mairi 17:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I have a quick question regarding the renaming of stub templates.
When something is renamed, the old name is turned into a redirect to the new name. If a template has been renamed via SFD, should the redirect remain, or should it be deleted as well?
The reason I ask is that if it is the former, anyone can carry out template renames and log them. Whereas if it is the latter it would require an admin to carry out the deletion step.
There is of course the third option - a per-stub type decision.
I can't find anything about this on the SFD page. Any thoughts? -- TheParanoidOne 06:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Recent cases on this page have made me inclined to think that we need to be a bit more formal about what's "speediable", and what's not. The "speedying by acclaim" is all well and good, but if stub creators show up to protest the fate of their badly-named or entirely needless stub type, as is often the case, in practice it runs the duration (or longer!). I think we should agree some likely candidates for speedying, and have them "approved" for listing in the main listing of speedy deletion criteria. For starters, what about:
We can expand as necessary in conjunction with tightening up the stub type naming conventions, ideally with the latter somewhat ahead of the former, being incorporated as and when simple, established, and uncontroversial. Alai 18:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
While I appreciate the courtesy of this template, I think that everybody who wants to follow SFD has caught on to it by now, so I guess it may not be necessary any more to use the template to list all SFD discussions at CFD and TFD. Not sure if that'd save a lot of time actually but I thought I'd point it out. R adiant _>|< 15:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
...that I found while stub-sorting. It was appended to Cincinnati Subway, which was tagged with the generic {{ stub}}.
The comment was left by User:SPUI( talk). I thought I'd post it here, so that it reach the appropriate audience. I don't really know what he/she's talking about, seeing as {{ us-rail-stub}} exists and works, although it's got an ugly message on it, which is maybe the problem. - GTBacchus( talk) 07:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I have to ask: What actual benefit is there to deleting {{us-*-stub}}s, etc? Surely process should take second place to ease of use. - SoM 18:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
What benefit?
That enough reasons? They're just four quick ones off the top of my head... Grutness... wha? 22:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a potential group of speediable categories. technically, they're almost certain to be already speediable under the category rules, but spelling things out may help clarify things. This doesn't come up very often, but there's one on today's nominations which fulfils these criteria: Any category which is
These are usually either malformed or deprecated, and in stub-specific cases wouldn't get any articles unless someone added a template to them, so, by being over 24 hours old, they are guaranteed to have been empty for that time (unless a template has just been deleted or redirected, in which case, it's highly unlikely that a new one is about to be added). As such they would almost certainly come within the "24 hours and it's gone" rule for categories. Grutness... wha? 07:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I've just come across a weird one, possibly a problem with sfd-t, although I suspect it's probably with {{ Cayman-stub}}. Have a look at the bottom of the double-stubbed Grand Cayman. Seems OK, but the template that's up for deletion isn't Caribbean-geo-stub, it's Cayman-stub. so why is the sfd message above the geo-stub? My guess is that cayman-stub has somehow been coded to appear last on the article, but my knowledge of html isn't enough to know whether this is the real reason. Anyone have any ideas? Grutness... wha? 08:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Since karmafist logged the discussion without actually doing anything to the template (not even removing {{ sfd-t}}), I decided it was about time to get something done. The only thing there seemed to be consensus for (and that guidelines unambiguously call for) is ending in -stub, and having hyphens. So I renamed all the templates to end in -stub, and have hyphens. All except 2 are of the form Foo-State-Highway-stub, which being closest to the old names seemed the most sensible in absense of consenus. The exceptions are {{ Arizona-State-Route-stub}} (the original category and template used State Route, so that got kept) and {{ Washington-state-highway-stub}} (which matches the capitalization of the existing stub category and main category). All of them have redirects of the form Foo-state-highway-stub (and Foo-State-Highway-stub for Arizona and Washington); Arizona also has {{ Arizona-state-route-stub}}. The old names were kept as redirects, but the more anomalous ({{ Arizona State Route Stub}} and {{ New-Hampshire-State-Highway-stub}}) could probably go. If you want redirects from anything else, go create them.
My suggestion, for anyone who cares deeply about such things, would be to check the main category and stub category and see if they match as far as capitalization and use of highway/route. If they don't, nominate one or the other for renaming; as there's little point in having them be different. Individual nominations, or groups where you want the same exact thing to happen, would be far simpler.
It's a mess, but hopefully this brings abit more order to it. -- Mairi 21:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Mairi's sounds like a reasonable compromise - as a temporary measure at least. I'm of the opinion that these should have been dealt with separately rather than in one clump, and won't be at all surprised if they drift back to SFD on an individual basis over the next few months. As for Rschen7754's suggestion, I'm strongly against it. Why have this one as "-Stub" when every single other stub template is at "-stub"? Having it as {{ Washington-State-Highway-stub}} would make some sense though. Grutness... wha? 06:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm happy with the standard as it is now: {{ StateName-State-Highway-stub}}. But inevitably they will find their way back to SFD... Should we fix California to meet this standard? Texas has been fixed, and when I create the new stubs (at WP:WSS/P) I'll create them to this standard. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 06:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I have an additional debate at User talk:Rschen7754/Highway Capitalization. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 03:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Arguments are frequent on WP:SFD as to delete or not delete certain template redirects. I think establishing a guideline for redirect deletion would be helpful, such as:
or:
Or some middle way. This could be used to simplify the deletion process. Conscious 08:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that this stub category should not be deleted. The "book" section already is overpopulated, and it makes more sense to keep it so that people more interested in expanding articles about novels than articles about non-fiction books can navigate more easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophysduckling ( talk • contribs)
Greetings.
One of the things I mentioned in my recent RFA was that, if promoted to Admin, I would be more interested in helping out with the various xFD areas, where "x" doesn't equal "A". AFD gets all the admin glory, whereas the other various xFD pages seem relegated to the status of afterthought. Indeed, when I mention SFD on IRC, many people don't know what it stands for. (The common response is "What's SFD? Shit for Deletion?")
In any case, I was indeed promoted to admin a hair over a week ago, and now seek to make good on my campaign promises. I, along with a few other new admins, have already brought WP:RFD into some semblance of cohesion. However, at the time I was nominated for RFA, WP:RFD was pretty much ignored, had a backlog dating back 45 days, and nobody was showing much interest. So when I got the mop and bucket, there were no toes to step on when I started working on RFD.
WP:SFD, on the other hand, gives the impression of a well-established process, with regular participation by a core group of folks. In other words, many toes to potentially step on for novice admins like myself who might inadvertently allow their enthusiasm to exceed their experience.
I have raised these concerns on TheParanoidOne's talk page, and he feels that I should just dive in and help start clearing up the backlog, cleaning out the more obvious discussions. So that's what I'd like to do. But I figured that a little circumspection would go a long way in this case, so I'm giving folks a heads up here on the talk page.
All the best.
→
Ξxtreme Unction|
yakkity yak 20:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
If a stub is moved or otherwise redirected, is it necessary that the original stub be orphaned? → Ξxtreme Unction| yakkity yak 03:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Usually if the vote is for the template to be renamed, it is implied that the original name is deleted, unless there's a specific vote of keeping the old name as a redirect. A major reason for template renames on sfd is that the current names don't conform to naming guidelines, so the (misnamed) original versions aren't often kept. Grutness... wha? 09:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Given the occassional confusion, I've created two new templates for renames: {{ sfr-t}} and {{ sfr-c}} (I can't see redirects being renamed too often). The syntax is {{ sfr-t|New-name-stub}} and {{ sfr-c|New name stubs}}. The parameters are optional (for when there isn't a specific name in mind), and there's no ugly wikicode visible when the parameter is left out. I've left the text on {{ sfd-t}} and {{ sfd-c}} as "deletion or renaming" for now, until people are aware of the new templates. -- Mairi 23:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
This is just one big giant ... mess, for lack of a better word. This has so many problems with it. Too many items proposed in one go. Some have splintered off into their own SFD nominations (some dealt with, others not). Some have been renamed but others haven't. Claims to be the last, only to be followed by some more later on. Some have the sfd-c template on them, others don't. The sheer volume of entries and the splintering also makes it difficult to gauge what the concensus is for a particular entry. I have pushed through the changes for a few but I don't think I can reasonably do any more.
So I propose that we abandon this quagmire by logging the entire discussion under the Deleted section and noting down exactly what items were renamed. Possibly a note in the Not Deleted section as well, noting what wasn't changed (if anything) and pointing to the discussion on the Deleted page. Any items that still require changing can be renominated as appropriate.
I also propose that we never do anything like this again. Ever. (Please!)
Thoughts? -- TheParanoidOne 23:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 14 there was a consensus to rename a number of Tanakh related categories, including
Does anyone here think it's necessary to run this through sfd as well, or should someone just do the rename? -- Rick Block ( talk) 18:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Please note that SPUI has taken his WP:POINT crusade against this page to the village pump. R adiant _>|< 03:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Greetings.
I have revived the discussion regarding the issue of where stub redirects should properly be addressed on the RFD talk page. My comments there are, in the main, a repost of my comments on WP:VPP, with some minor refactoring.
Executive summary: At the time SFD subsumed the task of dealing with stub redirects, RFD was inactive and not under regular admin scrutiny. Thus, nobody was reading the RFD talk page, which is why nobody objected to SFD taking over the task of dealing with stub redirects.
RFD is now once again under regular admin scrutiny. Thus, the issue of where stub redirects should be handled should be revisited.
My comments on the RFD talk page provide greater detail. Interested parties are cordially invited to swing by and provide their insight.
All the best.
Ξxtreme Unction|
yakkity yak 14:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Per WP:DRV#Various stub template redirects, I have restored some stub redirects deleted by this process. Please see my comment at DRV for my reasoning. - Splash talk 23:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Extreme Unction has initiated an interesting discussion on the actual impact of template redirects. -- TheParanoidOne 00:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Ashibaka changed the template on the SFD page from deletiontools to deletiondebates. From Template talk:Deletiontools:
So, does anyone care? Personally I'm inclined to leave the new template as it seems less ... cluttered. -- TheParanoidOne 13:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
a word of warning. {{ Western sahara stub}} was deleted without being orphaned! ive just gone through and changed everything to {{ WesternSahara-stub}}. please make sure templates arent in use before removing them! BL kiss the lizard 23:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
{{ sfd-current}} is no longer used (it even says on it that it's deprecated), so I'm taking it to tfd. Hopefully there are no objections to that...? Grutness... wha? 06:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Here was a discussion about {{ Anti-Pope-stub}}, which was created out of process and without discussion on January 1. I don't see that the discussion had reached a consensus - it was perhaps headed towards merge/rescope {{ Pope-stub}}. The discussion was terminated and logged, and the template was deleted, but nobody rescoped {{ Pope-stub}}. A robot came along and changed all the {{ Anti-Pope-stub}}s into {{ Pope-stub}}s anyway, so the creator of {{ Anti-Pope-stub}} just started dumping them back into the generic {{ Stub}} category, because {{ Pope-stub}} was clearly inaccurate. I went around after him and double tagged them all with {{ RC-stub}} and {{ Reli-bio-stub}}, and figured the mess was over.
Now, {{ Anti-Pope-stub}} has been undeleted and renamed to {{ Antipope-stub}}. Nobody bothered to create the category, so I just now did that, so the stub wouldn't be category-less. That brings us up to date. (I haven't tracked down exactly who did most of these things, because that's essentially irrelevant to the real question, which follows...)
We should, at this point, EITHER Rescope {{ Pope-stub}}, rewrite the message accordingly, move the antipopes into it, and delete {{ Anti-Pope-stub}} (now a redirect), {{ Antipope-stub}}, and Category:Antipope stubs... OR just deal with {{ Antipope-stub}} now that it's properly named and attached to a category. Which'll it be? Should I be bringing this up at Discoveries, or Stubs for Deletion, or where? - GTBacchus( talk) 04:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, GTBacchus, for the trouble you've taken. I voted to keep and rename, but I would certainly have been open to changing my vote to "change wording of pope-stub, and use the same stub template for both". Looking at the vote as it stood just before the discussion was closed, I cannot see any consensus for deletion, but it is reversible, so no need to make a fuss!
I won't discuss the technical issues, as I don't fully understand them, although the knowledge that stubs should not be created unless they will have sixty articles would influence me into changing my original vote. I will just make three comments:
If a decision is made to delete the antipope stub template again, please wait until the pope template has been made suitable. I could easily add the words "or a claimant to the papacy", but I wouldn't attempt to start creating categories. I'm afraid that's beyond me at the moment.
This discussion has taken place on my talk page, Str1977's Patsw's, GTBacchus's, TheParanoidOne's and Chooserr's and probably others as well. Perhaps, to avoid fragmentation, we could complete the discussion here? Thanks. AnnH (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm moving another comment here from my talk page:
And yes, I fully agree that students of the papacy would have an interest in antipopes, so having pope and antipope together would be useful for stub expansion purposes. AnnH (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
As this indeed remains empty after 24h, I'll shortly speedy this, unless there are any objections in the immediate future. Alai 21:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
[2] Developer Jamesday has requested that images only be used for content, not decoration. The reason for this is that images cause a major server load problem; the actual size of the image is not really relevant. Hence, please remove images from stub templates, and use formatted or colored text instead. R adiant _>|< 11:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I see most other deletion process pages now have a handy-dandy table showing the three 9or four) steps to listing something for deletion. Should we do the same thing here, or is it complicated because of our double template/category process? Grutness... wha? 01:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
This preamble states that (truly) empty categories can be speedied after 24 hours. This a) isn't very useful, as typically an "empty" stub category has at least a stub-template, and b) isn't consistent with WP:CSD C1, which specifies empty for four days. I suggest we modify this in both respects: they're speediable if they contain no articles for four days. Alai 22:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_deletion#Whatlinkshere_appears_fixed. Grutness... wha? 09:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
One of the categories on Alai's recent list of small uncleared stubs was Cat:B stubs. Not only was the category name strange, but the seven stubs in there were unrelated to each other. It was only when i edited the articles that I saw the strange - and potentially very troubling - reason. A standard stub template - a parametered stub template - had been substed on all of the articles. The wording of the template therefore became whatever anyone wanted, and all the stubs were dutifully put into the same category. Not only did this make the category as random as Cat:Stubs, but it gave a very good indication of why parametered stub templates are a bad idea - there were some very odd choices for stub type names (have a look at [3], and [4], and maybe [5]!). Trouble is - where is the original of this template that has been diligently copied into articles six tinmes, by six different editors? Grutness... wha? 12:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we quite clearly need a) a more crisply worded stub creation size threshold, and b) a speedy deletion criterion to back it up. Otherwise, we're just endlessly wasting our time trying to delete these unilateral undersized splits that the splitters turn up to vote to keep, regardless of our current "rule of thumb", on the basis that their category deserves special pleading. Or simply that they don't give a hoot about sorting to usefully sized stub categories in the first place, and in some cases, have anything much to do with the actual project. If this continues to its illogical conclusion, we'll end up with 400,000 stub articles in about 100,000 different categories. (Aside from the US-bio-stubs, which will remain in the thousands, indefinitely...)
Specifically: I suggest that if a stub category is under ten articles for a month or more, and contains no sub-categories, it be considered speediable. Alai 07:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
So now that we're listing new dates at the top... How are we listing nomination subsections within a date? Most recent to the top of the current section, or the bottom? We don't seem to be being 100% consistent about this at present. Alai 17:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I have logged {{ gothic-novel-stub}}, {{ philos-novel-stub}} and their associated categories under Not Deleted based on the requests by Eagle 101 to populate them using Gnome (Bot). I think it would be prudent to review these again in about a month. -- TheParanoidOne 21:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Please note that there's a new instruction on the SFD page for anyone deleting categories and templates. Eagle 101 has told me that leaving redlinks on the Stub type list stuffs up the automated counting, so it's very important that anyone deleting stub types removes them from the big list when they do so, rather than waiting until the discussions are archived. Grutness... wha? 03:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's reasonable for all of SFD to grind to a halt to facilitate a process that's sprung out of nowhere. (Mind you, relatively few of the nomination will even be on SFD.) IMO, if Eagle's bot falls over on redlinks, it shouldn't yet be running "live" at all. Conscious did a systematic semi-automated update just days ago, there's no sense in rushing into this. Alai 04:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
You know, I'll go with that. Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 04:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations to SFD - it has officially come of age! Today, it got its first "bad faith" nominations by someone from outside WP:WSS... Grutness... wha? 01:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest an addition to the speediable criteria - any stub type that has been proposed and rejected at WP:WSS/P, but gets created anyway. Grutness... wha? 18:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I've compiled another list of stub types with <40 articles (and no subtypes) at User:Alai/Small stubs3. Please update (by striking through, etc) as you take 'em here, or to discoveries, or deem them already dealt with. These are from the 16th March db dump, minus four recent deletions. Alai 21:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Cat:Georgia school stubs is up for renaming to Cat:Georgia (U.S. state) school stubs as part of a block nomination on georgia categories at WP:CFD#Georgia state schools categories. Given that it's a block nomination it's probably best handled there, but I thought I'd better notify anyone here who doesn't watch CFD. Grutness... wha? 01:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been going through Special:Unused categories and Special:Wanted categories (which explains the recent flurry of stub types appearing at SFD). I notice a few category redirects: Cat:Colour stubs, Cat:Indonesia-related stubs, and {{ US train station stubs}}. Is it OK to delete these now? The moves involved in the first two at least was quite some time ago... Grutness... wha? 06:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Title says it all, really: Wikipedia:Deletion review#Template:Kosovo-geo-stub. Grutness... wha? 08:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Can we please make it a policy to speedy rename abriviations they only serve to unnecesarily cluter this process. -- Cat out 12:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I have made a proposal to change the logging scheme of WP:SFD. Conscious 08:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I notice that redirecting stub categories appears to be frowned upon here, but renaming categories and deleting the old ones leads to a large number of broken links throughout Wikipedia. As an alternative, can people please check the "What links here" before deleting the old category, and where appropriate modifying the links? Thanks. Road Wizard 23:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
As a side issue, is there a template similar to Template:oldafdfull that can be used on the talk page of renamed stub categories to advise readers that the category was created through the SfD process and what the old name was? Road Wizard 06:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Having seen some comments about previously discussed items being reposted, I have decided to go ahead and draft a couple of templates similar to {{ oldafdfull}}. Currently they can be found on my sanbox page. Like the oldafdfull template they would be used on the talk page to link to the closed discussion and summarise the result. I have created 2 templates, one for keeping and one for renaming, because the archives for each are stored separately. I would appreciate comments on whether you think this is a good idea, and if so any suggestions for improvements. Thanks. Road Wizard 22:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
SFD has a severe backlog of cases that are ready to close, but need an admin to delete any stubs and templates. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
We should probably include some explicit voting options for renames: in particular, we don't seem to currently document the claimed default that (template) "rename" means "... and delete redirect". Also, I've just noticed that we say:
Personally I generally use (up)merge when I intend to suggest keeping separate templates, in the same category (i.e., these are conceptually distinct, we just have them in the same category for convenience) rather than a redirect (different typography or terminology for exactly the same thing). Am I off-base in my jargon? Alai 01:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
While my bot's now "street legal" and can run with a looser throttle, it'd still save a bit of renaming effort and server load if people populating a stub type on SFD cited as being both badly-named and undersized, if they were a tad bold and fixed the former, before addressing the latter; or at the least, created a redirect at the "correct" name. (I'm assuming the renaming is uncontroversial, and that existing usages won't be replaced until the discussion is closed.) Alai 18:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
There was discussion here on going over to a transclusion-based method of listing and logging on this page (and on /P, which has been carried out without incident). Dicussion seems to have trailed off: unless there's further input, I'm including to call qui tacet consentire videtur on this, and implement the change starting from the beginning of next month. Alai 23:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi --
I'm sorry to wade into something about which I know little, especially given that I've been deeply impressed by the wikipedia process as a whole. But for the second time in a very short period I've been involved in an overactive stub deletion campaign, and I think perhaps your heuristics for deleting stubs are not really one-size-fits-all.
The first one was for the artificial intelligence stub, which got saved even though I was apparently the first person to run into the message and it was more than 7 days after you guys set the flag up. The more recent one is computer vision, which is gone without a trace now when I had just achieved consensus with someone we should use it for an article they didn't think belonged in computer vision yet. Apparently it's been subsumed into computer science or something, which is fairly ridiculously broad.
I'm not sure that rules that work for train stations and tv shows work for science. You just can't expect pages that are mostly maintained by professionals to be policed weekly, or a fields articles to be wantonly expanded at some great rate. Esp. since these are geeky fields I think we are more likely to finish previous stubs than create new ones. yet at the same time, these busy people are precisely the ones who want precise stubbing, since they are less likely to wade through huge pages of stuff that they know little about.
I'm not sure that areas with relatively few authors / editors are always necessarily the ones least valuable for the wikipedia project.
Thanks for any attention -- Jaibe 03:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe I closed both of those, and "over-keen" is hardly the word: in the more recent case, it was deleted over a month after nomination, after being held open in the hopes of getting some meaningful input. Also bear in mind that it was never proposed: if "busy professionals" want their stuff to be there unattended months later, they'd be well advised to follow the creation guidelines in doing so in the first place. I think it goes without saying the "special pleading" for computer science topics as somehow suffering from "systematic bias" would go down like a lead balloon. Also bear in mind that deletions on size are without prejudice to later re-creation if more articles come along, or with a related by somewhat wider scope. I'd strongly suggest doing this later in the case of the computer-visions: find a reasonable number of articles for that, or for image processing, etc. It was, incidentally, rather hopelessly cripped as a stub type due to having no template, so every one of those articles would have to be individually "fixed", regardless. Alai 02:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I note that there's nothing about SFD on Wikipedia:Deletion process. Does anyone feel like adding something please? Grutness... wha? 01:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Note that there's several stub cats tagged as part of this CFD. I've pointed out they're out of scope there, and striken them out (but left them tagged). I think it makes little sense to run the two in parallel: let's wait and see what they do there, and then run them through SFR accordingly. Or at least wait and see which way the wind is blowing... Alai 02:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems that the recent rash of delete-the-template, keep-the-cat nominations all started off with this discussion on /P. We should try and clarify and codify our thinking on this. We may have some categories that were expressly never designed to be more than containers, but under what circumstances should we consider turning a previously fully-formed stub type into one? When the template is (apparently) not seeing any use? When we think the template shouldn't be used any more? Whenever we feel like it? Some or all of the above? Alai 00:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)