Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/November

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 1[edit]

Cat:Stubs that need expanding[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as creation by sockpuppet of blocked user

Apparently connected with {{expandstub}} below, though none of the articles marked with that template feed into it. We already have a category for stubs that need expanding - it's called Cat:Stubs. All stubs need expanding. Delete (preferably speedily, since it's empty) as redundant. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that the template won't feed this category, due to the way it's designed. for that reason, it seems to be being hand-filled (something stub categories never are). So now it's not only redundant, but it also doesn't work the way stub categories should. Sadly, since it's being filled, it's no longer speediable. Grutness...wha? 11:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed that due to the apparent original intent, we were discussing the two together. If not, then delete due to conceptual redundancy, and practical awkwardness. (Also non-standard/disputed grammar, to boot.) Alai (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE: Speedy - creator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a permblocked user. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{expandstub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as creation by sockpuppet of blocked user

Looks like an attempt to combine two different templates which serve widely different purposes - parameterised, too, which is strictly avoided for stubs. Not useful for the purposes of sorting stubs (quite the opposite - it's already leading to stubs being placed in non-existent categories due to the ease with which a spurious non-existent stub name can be used), and certainly not a viable replacement for either. Much more prominent than a standard stub template (which is one thing we try to avoid), overly linked to Wikispace, and a pain to edit (requires double the number of edits to add it or remove it, and due to its placement harder for newbie editors to edit around it). Delete Grutness...wha? 20:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it should be kept because:
  1. It's not an attempt to combine two contradicting templates, more an attempt to make inserting them much easier.
  2. It's parameterised as it probably wouldn't work if it wasn't. As for it being difficult to edit, well, thats why you put the whole article in only one parameter and the stubtype in a second.
  3. Also, if it takes double the number of edits, surely you'd think of it as an advantage?
  4. It's only in the mainspace to start with after another editor told me off for transcluding it in articles before it was in the mainspace. So far it's transcluded into 30+ articles, so deleting it will be a pig to remove.--O'delanca (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) it combines {{stub}} and {{expand}}, which are never used on the same articles (as noted at {{expand/doc}}); 2) putting the whole articles into the first parameter will require explaining a whole new way of doing things to every new editor on Wikipedia - currently it's far simpler to just add {{stub}} to the bottom, and since it's parametered it's, as I said, strictly to be avoided; 3) no, if it takes two edits to each article to add it and two to each article to remove it, by definition it doubles the work-load on anyone who uses it - especially stub sorters. this can never be seen as an advantage; 4) Since we use bots for moving the stub templates on hundreds of articles at a time (and often manually move similar numbers), 30+ is a piece of cake. I manually moved some 100 articles from one stub type to another yesterday afternoon - it's what stub sorters do here. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - it's even harder to use than I thought, since it appears to be quite often embedded within the article rather than at the start (under infoboxes and the like), making it more difficult to find the start of it to edit. And all the articles using it put the stub template in the wrong place, above footerinfoboxes and categories, so they'd all need editing anyway. Also, the "30+" articles it's transcluded into is actually about 18, if whatlinkshere is anything to go by. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more point - if this was to be used throughout the stubbing process, it would either need to be subst'ed, which would render many of the tools used by stub sorters (such as "whatlinkshere") inoperable, or it would end up being used potentially on half a million stubs (that's about how many there are currently, folks). It would make current problematical high-use templates look underused. I shudder to think what would happen it Wikipedia if it needed to be edited. Grutness...wha? 22:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no opinion about whether or not this template should be deleted. I suggested O'delanca move the template from userspace (where a user-subpage was being transcluded into articles) into template space. Just want to say it wasn't "telling him off" but it isn't an endorsement of the template. Protonk (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would be a "pig" if it were allowed to remain, whereupon it might gain more transclusions, thereby worsening all the above. Badly-designed, screws up articles, screws up stub-sorting. Strong delete. Or else, rename to a non-stub name, take to TFD and delete equally-strongly there. Alai (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; parameters and just the general construction make this rather tortuous for even an old hand like myself to use, and I don't see that it's any improvement over the current method. Her Pegship (tis herself) 02:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't understand why you find it so difficult to use. I don't know if it's just me and that I'm the only one that can understand it, but could you explain why it is so difficult to move?--O'delanca (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I guess it's just the logistics of having the entire text of an (admittedly short) article encased within a template. It seems to me that if I were a noob trying to expand an article, I would click on the edit link, encounter the template, and be a bit daunted by not knowing which parts of it could be disturbed. Plus, I don't see how this is any quicker/easier/more efficient than just adding one line of stub template code to the bottom of an article. Last but not least, I agree with Grut that it's kind of obtrusive visually. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't make comments at different points in the thread, each with bolded "keeps": it gives the appearance of multiple (!)votes. Alai (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like if this was to be of any use it would need to substituted when used instead of transcluded. Otherwise new editors and editors with no understanding of template syntax will not be able to edit the pages. —Borgardetalk 12:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment After looking at one page it is transcluded on (J. J. Jeczalik), I am saying Strong delete, because this is not in conventional practice on how templates are used on wikipedia. It took me a while to find where the template finished, and I'm not exactly a newbie with templates. —Borgardetalk 12:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In any case, substing renders much of what WP:WSS does far more tricky - whatlinkshere is a widely used tool by stub-sorters. Grutness...wha? 22:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Substituting the {{expandstub}} template won't substitute the stub templates at the bottom, so that's no problem. But I still don't see a need for this template. —Borgardetalk 14:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, good point. The other concerns still apply, though. Grutness...wha? 22:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What I could suggest is I go across, substitute all the uses of the template, and state clearly on the template documentation that it must be substituted, if that would help. Also, the template does not use any syntax or parser functions, and yes I did find instances where both templates were used even before I'd been at work with it, such as with this one.--O'delanca (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's true that both templates can be found; there's a bot that goes through and prunes those instances on a regular basis. Maybe it missed that one, or someone reinstated it. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment to closing admin - User:O'delanca has now !voted keep three times. Grutness...wha? 22:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Peg, which bot is it that's pruning these? Was there an explicit decision to do this someplace? Pointer would be very handy, thanks. Alai (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm...just looked all over the place for the conversation in which I *thought* Grutness mentioned it. May be just a figment of my imagination...sorry! Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, OK. Sounded plausible, since there does appear to be a fundamental redundancy between the two. Grutness, can you shed any further light? Alai (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having a template that facilitates editors adding code for mutually redundant template-spam, that another process than has to go around substing it, and then a third ends up going around and removing the duplication, strikes me as the very essence of WikiFutility, wasting the time of all concerned, and clogging up the system and the histories with edits that achieve precisely nothing. Let's nip it in the bud now. Alai (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete because it breaks readability (and dated expand categorization - though that is an easy fix) if not substed, as well as sdatung. If substed AWB will remove the expand from stubs I think. Also allows use of non-existent stub templates. basically a nice idea, but quicker and celaner to just to add the stub template. Rich Farmbrough, 19:03 2 November 2008 (UTC).
    I have substed the existing uses and am looking at the wider problem of stubs with expand tags. Incidentally the cat was included with leading :, hence it was empty. Rich Farmbrough, 03:40 3 November 2008 (UTC).
    • Argh. Can you recall which they are? No stubs should ever be subst'ed - it makes it very difficult for stub-sorters to find them and deal with them, as explained above. Grutness...wha? 05:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Uh... don't worry. "User contribs" is my friend :) I've removed all instances of the template - but you have my solemn word that if the outcome of this process is keep, i shall personally replace them. Grutness...wha? 05:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well that shows how opaque this template is. "Subst:"ing the {{Expandstub}} template leaves an {{Expand}} at the top, and an appropriate stub template at the bottom. I did not of course subst: the actual stub templates, although I did remove the other incorrectly linked and transcluded elements. Rich Farmbrough, 12:25 3 November 2008 (UTC).
  • UPDATE: Speedy - creator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a permblocked user. (Also speedy this template's /doc page) Grutness...wha? 01:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 3[edit]

{{Manchester-railstation-stub}} and {{Manchester-geo-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was moved (snowballed)

Per discussion over at WP:WSS/P, these should probably be renamed to {{GreaterManchester-railstation-stub}} and {{GreaterManchester-geo-stub}} respectively for uniformity and more intuitive scoping (i.e., they already feed Greater Manchester categories). Rename, keeping the current names as redirects. Grutness...wha? 23:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional rename: Conditional that a bot (or a poor user!) will swap the old stub for the new one with the new name. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: the redirect will address my concern. Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  14:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: surely if the current one is turned into a redirect there'll be no need for a bot to change them? Nev1 (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very true, though when things are quiet at WP:WSS bot runs are occasionally done to empty redirects, IIRC. Grutness...wha? 10:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency with other templates. Waacstats (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as long as the redirect is in place GRB1972 (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy move, as obvious, not needing admin action, and semi-snowballed. Alai (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Cat:Football (soccer) stubs etc.[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus at CfD


There's a discussion over at WP:CFD over renaming the parent Cat:Football (soccer) and its offspring to Cat:Association football. I'm just listing these here as an adjunct to that nomination. Her Pegship (tis herself) 02:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would rather football or football(soccer) but think we should follow the lead of the CFD. Waacstats (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Me too, given that "Association" tends to imply the English Football Association - which doesn't control the others, but whatever they do at CFD should be mirrored here. Grutness...wha? 23:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instigator of the adjoining CfD, I oppose the change of most of these. The only ones that need changing are the ones that use "football (soccer)" in the title. Ones that use "football" are fine as they are. The United States one should not change either, as they commonly refer to association football as "soccer". I have stricken out all of the ones that don't need changing. – PeeJay 11:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, ok then. I had gathered vaguely that some in the cfd discussion wanted all the "football" cats changed, so went on a mind-numbing tagging spree. Never mind...Her Pegship (tis herself) 14:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's probably worth considering the New Zealand one as well - due to a change of name by the ruling body of the sport in NZ last year, categories to do with New Zealand football/soccer have a missmatch of names (some with soccer in brackets, some not) - they'll probably need to be cleared up both here and at CfD. Grutness...wha? 11:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, I'll reinclude the New Zealand clubs stub category in this nom. Since there's still a fair bit of confusion about the common name for the sport in New Zealand, "association football" should suffice for now. – PeeJay 17:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: CfD closed with no consensus. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the CfD is closed, I thought I would chime in and say that PeeJay's changes looked spot on. -- Chuq (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 4[edit]

baseball pitcher[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was redirected


following a recent proposal I have changed the Cat:Baseball pitcher stubs from being split by decade of activity to decade of birth therefore the following templates/categories are unused. Propose we delete the categories and redirect the templates to the main template {{Baseball-pitcher-stub}} for now.

Waacstats (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sounds reasonable - with an explanation in the top of the category as to what's going on, and an attempt to fix things up ASAP. Grutness...wha? 05:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that birth usually precedes being a pitcher by some time :) we may also need new templates for the 1860s and 1850s. Grutness...wha? 05:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 5[edit]

{{Soft drink-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted


NOTE: this isn't in any way connected to the long-standing {{soft-drink-stub}}. This one's just plain bizarre. This attempted stub template has a header followed by two transcluded stubs, one for food brands and one for television. Even more weirdly, the only article that uses this is for a soup company. Would have perhaps made sense if it had been for non-alcoholic beverages. If it had been naming compliant it could have been used as a redirect, but it ain't, so delete. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've fixed the one rogue transclusion. Speedy delete as unused. Alai (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obviously outdated, speedy delete. Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 22:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 7[edit]

Cat:South Africa rugby union biography stubs → Cat:South African rugby union biography stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename


Noticed this one today - all the other RU bio-stub cats are in the form "Fooian..." - somehow this one slipped through without the "n" on the end. "Rename' to match the others. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Straightforward, speedy as such. Alai (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Macedonia (region) -stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete


Very oddly-named stub type (in terms of naming conventions for stub templates), which has no category link (not even a redlink), and was used on one article already correctly marked with {{RMacedonia-geo-stub}}. Can't see any real purpose for this other than to confuse and conflate stubs which are already marked appropriately. If kept, it will need a major overhaul, but Deletion is a far better idea. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a stub that notes that the article is Macedonia related. People that know little history understand it.

keep it because it points Macedonia as a whole not as divided.Vlatko (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a stub template that is very badly formed and which would require considerable effort to get it corrected - and when it was it would duplicate existing templates for both areas ({{RMacedonia-stub}} and {{Greece-stub}}, along with all their subtypes) which refer to themselves by the name Macedonia. As such, there is no purpose for it. As for referring to Macedonia as a whole, regions which cross current national borders usually get both stub types. I realise there's not always the friendliest of feelings across this particular border, but that shouldn't cause problems with double-stubbing here when necessary. Grutness...wha? 22:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. -geo-stubs use the present borders of modern political entities. Varying from this practice would be gratuitous edit-war fodder, especially in cases like this, of well-known contentiousness. Alai (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have to point that Macedonia through history was whole, it is divided in the last century. No matter the political view. Everything regarding Macedonia should include this stub.Vlatko (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't have to point that out at all. There are large numbers of countries that were whole at some point in their history and are not now - and they don't have stub types. With a few very rare exceptions, stub types relating to countries use current national boundaries, as explained above by both me and Alai. Grutness...wha? 22:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if so, as you are saying, still every article regarded that is connected with Macedonia is also related, with, and for the stub should stayVlatko (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an assertion without apparent foundation, and frankly a pretty unlikely one. Your favoured scope would against all current practice, as you've been told repeatedly, and it would blatantly provocative of flames and revert wars, as would any number of "X region" of "Greater Y" scopings of (alleged) historical entities, or ought-to-have-been-entities, that take "bites" out of recognised present-day countries. Alai (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Macedonia has its own history, it's not up to anyone's belief to create a new point of view, only because someone has romantic-history points, not real ones. Propagandas should be stopped in any form, the stub is a real one and you know it. Vlatko (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Macedonia has its own -geo-stub type. It's not up to anyone's POV-pushing (and IMO borderline trolling) to create a new one, which, if it were to ever be used, would instantly create a furore on the affected article, by carving out chunks of neighbouring countries (which all also have their own -geo-stub types, which would be correctly used. I see only one person pushing "propaganda" here, and I strongly urge you to stop. Alai (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are pushing the propaganda for Macedonia deconsolidation. In which way did I create a propaganda, here I have no intentions. It is you who stops a true connection. I do not have to point how petty your jokes are (non consensual voting). Vlatko (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Deconsolidation"? What the heck? Is there some part of "current political boundaries" that's unclear to you? Or do you simply think that this "definition-defying" region is some sort of exception to the practice we follow everywhere else? If at some point you chose to address the point about the massive scope for disruption if someone were so reckless as to start tagging places in Greece or Bulgaria as being part of the "Macedonian region", please let me know. Otherwise, just knock it off: I personally see absolutely nothing in the least funny here. Alai (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there's nothing that can't be covered in RMacedonia, Greece or Bulgaria geo-stubs. I see no reason for it. --Laveol T 00:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This stub is a general abbreviation for all articles related to Macedonia as a term. The meaning is obvious not implicative. Ehat are you so afraid of? Vlatko (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one is mentioning fear, humor, or any other emotional or political implication, except you. If you are not willing to discuss this stub type on its merits as a technical component of Wikipedia, not a national or regional political or historic issue, then you need to find another forum. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My intention is not to make or do some political conflict :), I simply think that is good the stub to be used as general abbreviation for Macedonia related articles. Isn't that obvious?Vlatko T 18:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oookay. Vlatkoto - firstly, as already explained, the stub type is already covered by other stub types, and is not needed for that reason. If, however, you wish to consider it from the the political viewpoint, consider how many problems it is likely to cause as a stub type. Consider an analogy. for much of its recent history, Pakistan was part of British India. Once the region won its hard-fought-for independence from Britain, it engaged in a series of bloody wars with India, and even today there is only an uneasy peace between the two nations, and decidedly mixed feelings towards the UK. Consider if you were a Pakistani, how would you feel if someone created a {{BritishIndia-stub}} template and added it to the article on your home town. Would you be likely to leave it there, or would you remove it? Would you feel inclined to leave a heated comment on the user page of the editor who had added the template? A similar problem exists here. As you are no doubt only too aware, the relationship between the Former Yugoslav Republic, Greece, and Bulgaria is not entirely friendly. The use of a template which attempts to indicate that the articles for the entire region belong together is not likely to do anything except engender edit wars and heated arguments. So the stub type isn't useful from the point of view of stub sorting, and would be detrimental to cooperation on Wikipedia in terms for its potential as an edit-war magnet. Grutness...wha? 23:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that you said above, but here the case is different, the region represents a whole, it is divided between four states, it is still just a pointer. None will be offended.Vlatko T 01:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alai. Icewedge (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being against longstanding precedent for stub types. Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{China-health-stub}} / Cat:Chinese health stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete


An unproposed mishmash - mainly of of PRChina-hospital-stub and {{China-university-stub}} articles and with a few culture-stub articles thrown in for good measure - using the ambiguous term "China" where the term PRChina is more appropriate ("China" is only used on stub template names where there's likely to be a clear bias towards pre-1949 subjects. In fact, {{China-university-stub}} probably need renaming for this reason - sdee below). No other country has a specific health-stub subtype - the only such subtypes are related to specific topics of health study or concern (e.g., Cat:Dentistry stubs). I will note that there is currently no {{PRChina-hospital-stub}} type - this should probably be rectified (and I'll propose same at WP:WSS/P). Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{China-university-stub}} / Cat:China university stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename


Given that we have a separate {{Taiwan-university-stub}}, I'm not entirely sure why this template isn't at {{PRChina-university-stub}}, as is usual for stub types relating primarily to the PRC. Propose renaming to {{PRChina-university-stub}} and Cat:People's Republic of China university stubs respectively. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 9[edit]

Cat:Harry Potter stubs/{{HarryPotter-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete - empty
Unpopulated for a while, unlikely to be populated. Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 10[edit]

More footy cleanup[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename
As noted during the nom below, there are some anomalies among the Oceanian footy sub-cats. (The Oceanian parent cat uses "football (soccer)" in each case.) Rename:

Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Support - The term 'Australian Football' is ambiguous and use of it is constantly in dispute, so AFL/Aussie Rules generally add the term rules (despite the official name of the sport being Australian Football) and soccer adds (soccer) (despite the FFA trying to avoid using the s word and media campaigns to claim the word football). Think there may be a TFD as well to come out of this. The Kiwis can sort themselves out.The-Pope (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We do have {{AFL-bio-stub}} / Cat:Australian rules biography stubs; would it help if the scope of the "soccer" stub category were spelled out clearly? (Also, if it's the stub template that should be altered, that should be addressed here rather than TfD.) Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest using "association football" in place of "football (soccer)" above. (I don't have a preference one way or the other but the primary article is "association football" and we should be consistent.) -- Chuq (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change to "football (soccer)". The sport is known in these two countries primarily as soccer, though the controlling body in both countries uses the term football. As such, the combined, unambiguous term is a good option (something similar to this should also be done with the mix'n'match permcats). Chuq, the term "association football" is rarely met with in either country, and consistency is usually overriden by local usage in such cases. Grutness...wha? 08:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, renaming of the Australian stub type, as "Australian football" is ambiguous and when presented with such a phrase, most Australians would think of Australian rules football. No opinion on the NZ stub types. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Here in NZ if you said "football" there'd be about a 50/50 split between people thinking you meant soccer and people thinking you meant rugby union. It's usage to mean rugby is possibly slowly fading, but it'll be decades before its clear-cut that soccer is the sport intended by the term. Grutness...wha? 05:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 11[edit]

{{Stargate-stub}} / Category:Stargate stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete


There are currently 24 articles with this stub categorization, nearly all of them for actors and producers (semi-)involved with the Stargate franchise (they are/can be tagged with the people stub templates like {{tv-bio-stub}}). All in-universe Stargate stubs were merged some time ago. WP:WikiProject Stargate introduced the regular quality assessment, including the new Category:Stub-Class Stargate articles, some months ago, so the old manual categorization is redundant now. – sgeureka t•c 19:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the unused {{Stargate-episode-stub}} and Cat:Stargate episode stubs to this nomination. In neither case is there any necessity for such categorisation. These stub types have survived for three and a half and two and a half years respectively with only a paltry number of stubs. The categories are astonishingly verbose, and - as you point out - there is nothing here that a Stub-Class rating on a talk page assessment template wouldn't achieve more effectively. Couple that with the fact that Category conventions deliberately avoid assigning actors to categories on the basis of roles they have played. Remove them and you're down to just nine stubs - all but one of them for writers or similar. Delete. Grutness...wha? 22:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 13[edit]

Cat:Stub parent categories[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename


Created by someone who is not clear on its scope ("stub categories which have a whole cohesive range of smaller categories") nor its usefulness; see discussion here. I suggest we either delete it, or re-scope and rename it as Cat:Top-level stub categories as suggested by others. Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename as first choice - it does seem like it would have some use, as long as its purpose is "what it says on the can". Would be quite open to an outright deletion, though. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This category takes the current Category:Stub categories which contains over 6,000 entries and refines that down to 46 items. To me, it seems to be of such obvious usefulness and benefit, that i'm a bit surprised it is being proposed for deletion. This is not a "stub type." it is a category. i would like this matter to be addressed in a broad discussion with the Wikipedia community. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So far, the only person to whom its use seems clear is you. What exactly are the criteria for including a category in Cat:Stub parent categories? Here's some speculation on my part:
  • Possibility #1: To include top-level stub categories, i.e. those which are not parented? I'm looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/List of stubs and seeing the top-level categories, which don't align to your selections for this category, so that's not the current scope of it.
  • Possibility #2: To include stub categories which serve only as parents with no corresponding stub template? (See here for a list of examples.) Those don't align with your selections either.
  • Corollary: If your intention was to create a separate category for stub cats that are parents only (with no template), you have not explained this either as your rationale or in the scope of the category. In the permcat realm, Cat:Parent categories features a template that makes it clear that "Due to the scope of this category, it should contain only subcategories and a limited number of directly-related pages." This template may appear on stub categories, thus adding it to Cat:Parent categories, but that is not apparently the scope of Cat:Stub parent categories.

Also, the heading on this page does say that stub categories without templates should be discussed here, so the lack of a dedicated template is not cause for change of venue. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean all significant parent categories which encompass a single topic, without any subsidiary divisions based on criteria such as time, geographical location, etc etc. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Cat:Top-level stub categories, ie those stub categories which are not children of any other stub category, so that looking at this whole group gives an ancestor for every recognised stub category. This is not immediately visible from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/List of stubs: Cat:Music stubs is not a child of any other category, but appears in that listing as a subsection of "Culture". But the category as it exists, with a subjective listing of "significant" parent categories, is not useful. PamD (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename. I feel that providing a convenient place to find such high-level groupings easily in one convenient place will be somewhat beneficial to readers and users. Clearly, almost all topics there constitute a significant topic area in their own right. the general scope of this category can emerge from a broad consensus-driven group effort, and the broad consensus on what categories a number of people would like to see here, and what they might find convenient. it does not have to be set in stone in this manner right at the outset. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How will renaming it to something more accurate hinder that? In any case, where are all these people who find it useful? So far you appear to be the only person supporting this being kept in its current form. Those who regularly use stub types so far seem to think that it would not be useful under the current name but might be if effectively rescoped. Grutness...wha? 20:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
dude your continual references to me personally are not considered to be proper Wikpedia etiquette. please stop doing them. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I have done is ask questions in response to statements you have made. I don't see how you could consider that these questions are "continual references to you personally". I would suggest that - rather than suggesting that my comments in some way encroaches on wikiquette - you actually attempt to answer the points I have raised. Grutness...wha? 05:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

where are all these people who find it useful? So far you appear to be the only person supporting this being kept in its current form.

that is not a phrasing which is ever used, ever, in a discussion of wikipedia policy. if a person is a minority of one, their views are still given some validity. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is used, where such wording is appropriate, such as here. The point here is that you do indeed seem to be a minority of one, but yet keep suggesting that there are more people who find it useful - in your own words, it is useful "to users of Wikipedia and readers". Yet none of these users and readers have indicated that it is of any use to them in its current form. Proof by assertion is not a valid argument, and neither is WP:ILIKEIT, which seems to be the other main argument being put forward. If it is as useful; as you maintain, there should be many !votes here to keep the category in its current form. So far, you have created a category in a form that everyone who seems to have an opinion on other than you finds to be at the very least incorrectly titled.
When discussion took place as to its usefulness, you decided that it needed to be taken to WP:AN, of all paces (hardly the most appropriate forum). When an uninvolved admin checked out the discussions/he concluded that you weren't being helpful and key questions were remaining unaddressed as to the category's usefulness. In response, rather than answering the concerns raised, you stated that the category "spoke for itself" - something it clearly does not do - and hinted that there had been an assumption of bad faith by those of us who had taken part in the discussion process. If there had been any assumption of bad faith at all, it was not by those wishing to find out what the use of the category was and - once having done so - wished to see it renamed to reflect its purpose. In this deletion process discussion, your first comments were to suggest that this was the wrong forum (it is not, as the page's instructions make clear) and that this matter needed a broad discussion within the wikipedia community - well, this page should give that - it's perfectly wide open for anyone who wishes to discuss it, yet you are still the only person speaking up in support of it at its current name.
Yes, your views are valid as one person's views, and I have never suggested otherwise. The views of myself and others are also equally valid, and given that it appears that those taking part in this debate seem- with one exception - to consider this at the very least needing a rescope, these views must be taken into consideration. This is not in any way bad wikiquette - it is simply a statement of the state of the debate. I would like to ask you to keep to wikiquette yourself, and to assume good faith on those taking part in this debate, whose aims are simply to make the current ambiguously-scoped category something that is useful and appropriately named if possible, or else to get rid of it. Grutness...wha? 22:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i do not find the approach you display in this discussion to be overall in keeping with the more appropriate, customary or best ways for resolving these issues. I really hope the rest of the discussion here conforms with appropriate Wikipedia procedures. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
by the way, for the record, here is the text of the request which i made at WP:AN. thanks.

Hi. I need some help. I started a new category related to stubs which we sorely need. now someone has instituted a request for deletion. various editors admit the need for this category, but they seem to want to delete it over minute differences. Can some admins please help and provide an opinion? I appreciate it.

the category is: category: stub parent categories. It is being proposed for deletion at: Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2008/November/13. there is also a major discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#parent_categories]. please feel free to provide some input. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you don't find reasoned, level debate to be the best way of resolving these issues. Unfortunately, that is the way that these issues are resolved on Wikipedia. You've been here a while - you should know that. And there was no need to repeat here what you said at WP:AN - as has been pointed out to you by two of the administrators who regularly patrol that page (myself and Alai), it was an inappropriate use for that forum. Now, please will you try to conform to the usual Wikipedia standards of debate as expected in these pages, rather than continuing with this seeming assumption that those who disagree with this category are somehow in violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? So far, you have argued via proof by assertion and by WP:ILIKEIT, and have continued from there to argue ad hominem. None of these arguments are helping the category, and none of them belong in the sort of debate which these pages require. Please argue to the points raised, rather than countering them with unrelated suggestions as to the motives or methods of the asker. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your reply. i have posted a reply to Pegship below, (starting with "Ok, I do appreciate...") which might respond equally well to your legitimate concerns. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion or renaming, actually. It's not so much everyone else being picky and minute as it is you being vague and obtuse. Your opinion, lone though it may be, would carry more weight and be more convincing if you could be more specific as to the purpose of this category. And you're welcome. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hi. ok. thanks for your feedback. actually, i'm not really concerned about how weighty or convincing my opinion is, as long as I've had the chance to be heard. so i appreciate the chance to be heard on this. thanks (again). --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
by the way, I'm ignoring your desciption of me being vague and obtuse. sorry, but some here seem to exhibit some of the rudest behaviors I've seen at such forums. i have not made a single personal comment about anyone personally. that seems to occur habitually here. apparently some here have no idea of the ways that contentious issues are settled here at Wikipedia.
Sorry. I guess I meant to say that your statements are vague and obtuse. I'm sure your language in person is delightfully understandable. (And no, I'm not being sarcastic, just earnest). Meanwhile, would you mind addressing the unclear scope of the category? Thanks. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I do appreciate your very helpful answer, in that case. Truthfully, I don't have much more specific ideas on this category than what I've already stated. I will gladly yield to whatever consensus is reached here through this discussion. i greatly appreciate your extremely helpful and constructive desire to seek out my views, and to make sure that all of my views are heard. that's very helpful of you. thanks again. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
again, the fact I'm saying these words should not drive you to post further denigrating posts. don't let things get to you so much. also, learn to distinguish between someone who is making entirely legitimate comments about how they feel affected by the tone of the process, and people who make needless comments about the personality, trustworthiness or quality of other people.--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Cat:top-level stub categories per above. Current name and scoping statement are hopelessly open-ended, but a well-defined umbrella would actually be quite useful, especially as in past discussions there's been a complete lack of enthusiasm for top-high level "containers" that would group these. I'm somewhat boggled that this has been listed on WP:AN, which strikes me as a wildly inappropriate venue. Alai (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong rename - I think such a category is useful, but it's name should reflect it's content better. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong rename as above. Forms a very handy structural resource for compulsive stub cat organizers like myself; nailing down its purpose and parameters gels it as a valuable tool.  • Lainagier • talk • 01:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 16[edit]

Cat:Montserratian people stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge template, delete category

Unproposed, but more importantly never likely to get anywhere near threshold. It would require almost 1.5% of Montserrat's population to each have stub articles for this to get to threshold. Currently contains three articles. For some reason, the creator also seems to assume that Cat:North American football (soccer) biography stubs would be the most sensible parent for this category. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: unlikely to ever meet the threshold for a viable stub. Not really necessary. Would also support an upmerge if someone could find a suitable target. Randomran (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


November 21[edit]

{{SouthAfrica-media-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete and create separate templates for tv and film


I can only assume this was a misinterpretation of the discussion at WP:WSS/P, which IMO clearly supports a category for South African media stubs, but with separate templates for the different media type. Delete this, and create separate {{SouthAfrica-tv-stub}} and {{SouthAfrica-film-stub}} (and any others which might be necessary, if any) in its place, to accompany the existing ones for newspapers and radio stations. Grutness...wha? 12:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot not to create it. Anyway, I support deletion if the necesscary templates are made.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create the separate templates for media type. Discussion seems to reveal a consensus that this makes more sense. Randomran (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 26[edit]

{{Videogame-fict-stub}} and {{Videogame-char-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete


A quick look at both of these categories (Category:Video game fictional element stubs and Category:Video game character stubs) reveals that these templates are substantially unused. I doubt these lists can be populated to the usual standard of 60+ articles, since stubby elements of video games are usually sufficiently covered within their main articles. For any stub articles that are still out there, the can be sufficiently covered with {{Fict-char-stub}} or {{Videogame-stub}}. I would support an upmerge to {{Videogame-stub}}, since that seems to be a common outcome of these kinds of discussions. Randomran (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This is unnecessary and redundant because of the other stub categories. TTN (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom reasoning; appropriate templates already in place. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 27[edit]

{{Bulgaria-settlement-stub}} / Cat:Bulgaria settlement stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete
Unproposed (well, proposed after the fact, which isn't really a proposal, more a "post-posal"). Against all normal stub-splitting practice, which is to never split geo-stubs by actual type of location, but always by subnational region. Rationale for splitting it out - according to creator - was to separate it from stubs which wouldn't have normally been regarded as geo-stubs anyway, so it's more a case of faulty sorting of non-geo-stub types as geo-stubs than any actual need for this stub type. Delete, ASAP. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Makes more sense to sort by region than by type, as that's the usual way of handling this stuff. Randomran (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If someone is gung-ho to split these, would could templatise by province, but since those are almost certain to be much too small at present, upmerge to the former oblasts -- which, conveniently, are typically three or so of the current provinces. Alai (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, delete it. I made a mistake with this stub and category, and I acknowledge that. I made it without prior reading the relevant page. I have deleted it from the listings on Wikiproject Bulgaria, and replaced everywhere where it occurred with the {{Bulgaria-geo-stub}} template. Sorry for causing any trouble.--P.Marlow (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; thanks for understanding. Given that we have the consent of the creator, and that it's now empty, I think we can speedy this. Alai (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Art museum and gallery categories[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all cats
We seem to have had three non-standard category names for some time, two of which are also very ungainly. I'd like to propose the following renames:

Grutness...wha? 05:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename, for the avoidance of all manifestations of stub grammar. Alai (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Place-stub}} (redirect)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete
Not a biggie, but one that grates every time I see it - which nowadays is practically never. It's an old manifestation of {{geo-stub}}, dating from the very early days of stub-sorting, and virtually never used. I regularly sort through Cat:Geography stubs (usually five or so times a week), and in the last two years I doubt I've seen this more than twice. It's simply not used, and I seriously doubt we'd be any worse off it we ditched it. We may even be better off, since anyone who does still think this is the proper name would automatically look in the wrong place for country-specific geo-stub names. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion as this is a no longer needed redirect. Waacstats (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 29[edit]

Cat:Foo political party stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename per nom, with rev of North/West Africa per Grutness


rename from foo to fooian to avoid stub grammer. This relates to

and Cat:Ukraine political party stubs currently at WP:WSS/P. Waacstats (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong oppose. The last one on the list shows he reason why using an adjectival demonym is hazardous. Even when the basic gist of a weird one like that for Burkina Faso is grabbed, it's still very easy to misspell something like Burkinabé (note the accent). Usual stub naming says that if the permcat is "X in Foo" and "X of Foo", the stub category at "Foo X stubs", and it only becomes "Fooian X stubs" when the permcat is at "Fooian X". For that reason, I'd oppose this, though I'm willing to reconsider if you can convince the people at CFD that the permcats should be at "Fooian politican parties". I would support two changes to the above, though:
...per Cat:North Africa and Cat:West Africa. Grutness...wha? 20:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for anything except "Burkina Faso" as normal English language usage. For that one I'd like to see some evidence about what the normal attributive usage actually is. This nonsense is all a result of a rod for we've made for our own backs by only coming around by inches to the concept that if you're going to scramble the order of the words in a category name, and sticks "stubs" on the end, there are one or two other grammatical considerations that come into play, such as avoiding double plurals, and, well, this. Alai (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thoughts, since we have permcats at Cat:Burkinabé law and Cat:Burkinabé society, that seems a perfectly reasonable usage. Support that one too. Alai (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would certainly be good if we had Cat:Burkinabé law stubs, but - as I've pointed out elsewhere, permcats often don't use adjectival forms for very good reasons, and we should follow suit in those cases. Creating an artificial "Stubcats use adjectives even when permcats deliberately don't" is far worse than the"Stub Grammar (TM)" idea of us using adjectives when permcats use adjectives and nouns when permcats use nouns. Grutness...wha? 22:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What do you mean, "deliberately don't"? I've demonstrated that there's no such systematic avoidance: some use noun phrases, with propositions, others use adjectives attributively. It is not "following the permcats" to junk the prepositions, but keep the noun phrase as is, regardless of whether that's an idiomatic usage. That is something that no permcat naming scheme would ever do, so to characterise in that manner is entirely wrong-headed. I can't think of any much more "artificial" than to have a mixture of "Ukraine" and "Ukrainian" both being used attributively, and nor do I see it as helpful to anyone on the (relatively rare) instances where someone has to remember the actual category: quite the reverse, in fact. Things have been heading this way for some time, and frankly if you had some deep-seated objection, you really should have spoken up fore now. Alai (talk) 04:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 30[edit]

{{Youtube-videos-stub}} (redlinked)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete

Incorrectly named, redlinked, and unproposed, not to mention the fact that the usefulness of this is questionable, to say the least. If kept, it would need to be upmewrged and renamed to the naming-compliant {{YouTube-video-stub}}, but given that most youTube video articles are speedily deleted, the rationale behind having such a template is wanting. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Internet-meme-stub}} ((redlinked)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete.
Created by the same person as the YouTube one above, and perhaps marginally more useful, though it too is redlinked, unproposed, and faces the same problems of populability (again, most internet memes are deletable, the few remaining are usually quickly written up beyond stub size). if kept, it would need upmerging, but Deleteion seems preferable. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

"Europe" subtypes renaming[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus


Per the 22 other subtypes of Cat:Europe stubs that use the form "European" (not counting the 'original usage' case of "European Union"), and well, the English language. Alai (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very strong oppose to Universities, since the premcats are of the form "Universities in Noun", as are all the other stub cats - if you change the Europe one, it'll be the only one of about 35 university stubs categories not to use a noun form; ditto Political parties (which is already listed below - listing it twice in two days is overkill, I'd say). As for rail, we don't follow permcats at all with this one. Theoretically it should be Cat:Europe rail transport stubs, since the permcat is at Cat:Rail transport in Europe. Grutness...wha? 22:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I plan on nominating the rest of the universities immediately afterwards, so don't let that concern you too much. Or I'll do so immediately, if you want to be having the same conversation and/or dialogue of the deaf in yet another location. And on the parties: so, they're already in hand, so the objection hardly has even that much standing. I had missed that there was a Europe-level perm-parent for the rails -- typically there isn't, the continents are just there for our "lumping" purposes as a rule, so I thought that we might see a brief respite from the "follow the permcat" argument. OK, let's go with Cat:European rail transport stubs, then. This "theory" seems to be entirely your own. It's not part of the naming guidelines, it's not followed on the ground, recent creations and renaming and particular have not followed the "standard" you claim, and unless I'm entirely misrembering, you yourself have supported such. Like I say, there are 22 subtypes at "European" -- you telling me that those are all counter-consensual rogue operations? Alai (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2008/November&oldid=255099574"