Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/February

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 4[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

--Salix (talk): 23:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Advergame-game-stub}}[edit]

Unproposed, and distinctly borderline as regards the usual split by type of game. A rescope to {{Advergaming-stub}} might be a more useful stub type than this, given that many advergames are already covered by other genre-game-stub types. Grutness...wha? 07:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete for all the resons above and the fact that it is currently not used on any article. Waacstats (talk) 09:05, 6 February 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.

{{Aircrash-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 rename as aviation-accident-stub, keep redirect


While the basic premise for this (unproposed) stub type is a reasonable one, the name is not. As a subtype of {{aviation-stub}} (as listed) and {{disaster-stub}} (as should be listed), the name should be {{aviation-disaster-stub}}. Rename, and don't keep the current name as a redirect. Grutness...wha? 07:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the stub, I disagree, as not all accidents/incidents that are to be covered under the stub rise to the level of "disaster". AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not all aviation incidents are crashes, either - so why did you call this "aircrash-stub"? (the pedant in me also wants to point out that the air isn't what's doing the crashing, but that's by the by :) Would you accept {{aviation-incident-stub}}? Grutness...wha? 22:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds to me like a reasonable comprimise, though not an area of expertise. Waacstats (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept the compromise, although I'd point out that our notability guidelines are listed as WP:AIRCRASH. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 06:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe leaving a rtedirect in place from the old template name would be a reasonable idea too? Grutness...wha? 00:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If a decision is reached to rename, a redirect is clearly a good idea because of the guideline page, but there is another good reason to keep it. It avoids unneccesary wordiness. - Mgm|(talk) 11:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to {{aviation-accident-stub}} with redirect from {{aircrash-stub}}. Should have a similar {{aviation-incident-stub}}. We should follow the best sources, not tabloid news.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:58, 13 March 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.

February 5[edit]

{{Bangladesh-Media-stub}} / Cat:Bangladesh media 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

- Nabla (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unproposed. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the template is incorrectly named (media is a common noun, so doesn't get a capital M), we've always frowned on the idea of having a specific template for media, instead using ones for specific media where possible. The creation of an upmerged {{Bangladesh-tv-stub}} or similar might be worthwhile, but a media-stub, (and especially a "Media-stub"), no. The category, BTW, is a mess. Not only does it inexplicably have Cat:South Asian history stubs as a parent, but it also has five permcats as child types - a definite no-no. Delete, with no prejudice against proper proposal of by-media upmerged types at [{WP:WSS/P]]. Grutness...wha? 23:19, 4 February 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.

February 6[edit]

{{Child-stub}} / Cat:Child-related 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


I discovered the category in uncategorized categories and listed it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2009/February. Grutness noted multiple problems with it:

    • Never proposed
    • Uses deprecated "Foo-related stubs" name format
    • Vague/ambiguous/overlapping scope

I figure you folks will know what to do with it.--Stepheng3 (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my earlier comments at WSS/D. Only used twice in ten months, and no clear reason for it to exist. The disparty between the two stubs using it gives some indication of the problem: one's a medical condition and the other's an social workers' union. Is this stub type for children? Children's health? Education? Developmental psychology? Social welfare? Most of the things that could use this are already well-established parts of the stub tree. Note: If the consensus is to keep, the category will need renaming from the "Foo-related" form, and some stub and permcat aprents will be needed. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment - I've just realised that I actually noted this one as a discovery some time back - the comments I made at the time about possible new proposals still hold. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 7 February 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.

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/February/7 Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/February/8

February 9[edit]

{{American folk singer-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 rename as US-folk-singer-stub, upmerged if necessary


Unproposed, incorrectly named, unused template with no category link, superfluous to existing, correctly-named stub types for the same subject. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion as unused but what I can't seem to find the correctly named stub type - {{US-folk-singer-stub}} may be useful, atleast upmerged. The US singers are getting large again Waacstats (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. My assumption that we had one was misguided. In that case renaming and upmerging would make sense. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 10 February 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.

{{Azerbaijan-eco-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

Not used anymore - Nabla (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unproposed upmerged template. If it had been proposed, we'd have pointed out that "eco" is no longer used in stub names, since it can refer to economics, ecology, and many other subjects which have stub types within the stub tree. I seriously doubt that this template is needed, given the size of Cat:Azerbaijan stubs (only a fraction over 200 stubs) and also given the fact that AFAIK there are no other by-nation economy stubs, so suggest deletion. Even in the unlikely event that it is useful it needs renaming to the more standard {{Azerbaijan-econ-stub}}, with deletion of the current name. Currently used on only one article, which isn't an econ-stub, but is, rather, a bank-stub. Perhaps an Azerbaijan-company-stub would be more useful and appropriate? Grutness...wha? 00:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its supposed to be Azerbaijan-economy-stub, which is very usefull. Do you want me to move it to economy instead? Baku87 (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not until discussion here is finished, then if the consensus is to move it'll be done. Changing it in mid-discussion only confuses things. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cat:Economics and finance stubs are generally split by topic, rather than geography. I suggest we start with -company- per Grutness, if that's what the author means by economy. Pegship (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best option would be to use Azerbaijan-economy-stub if we just use company it will exlude other economical project such as Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline or South Caucasus Pipeline these are not companies but they are related to the economy of Azerbaijan. So in order to cover the entire sphere of Azerbaijani economics we should use economy if we would use company then we would have to create more sub-stubs to cover evertyhing. Baku87 (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give us a count as to how many articles would be so tagged? Pegship (talk) 00:57, 24 February 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.

{{Eco-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 Replace with econ- or ecology- as needed


follow-up to the above comments... we still do have eco-stub as a redirect to ecology-stub. And it's currently being used on several ecology stubs and several economy stubs (which highlights the reason we shouldn't still have it around). I've emptied some of the economy ones out of it, but it should probably be got rid of completely. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 9 February 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.

February 12[edit]

{{LGBT-rights-stub}} / Cat:LGBT rights 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 speedied after creator's consent


Normally, this unproposed stub type might seem like a reasonable addition to the range of available stubs. Unfortunately, in this case, it cuts right through the middle of a series of stubs that were approved only a month ago. Any stubs that are connected with LGBT rights are most likely to be either covered by the awaiting-creation {{LGBT-org-stub}} and {{LGBT-law-stub}}. Delete this, and hurry up with the creation of the approved types. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (per nom's reasoning, and related thread at WT:LGBT#LGBT stubs) good-faith stub creation, but conflicts with already-approved stub scheme. Outsider80 (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appologize, I didn't know there was a Wikiproject just for stub sorting. I thought LGBT stubs would fall under the LGBT Wikiproject. I did create a {{LGBT-film-stub}} as well, but it looks like it was already awaiting creation. --Pinkkeith (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh yes, my vote, speedy delete :) --Pinkkeith (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and now that I know someone needs them I'll create those other lgbt types right away. Cheers, Pegship (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, pegs , much appreciated. btw, any admin seeing this might want to go ahead and delete {{LGBT-bio-stub}} to avoid it mistakenly being used. (per the WikiProject Stub sorting link posted above by Grutness, the bio stub was decided to not be used) I would tag it for speedy, but it already is tagged for SFD. Thx, Outsider80 (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to Pinkkeith for understanding - and with his !vote this can be speedied. Outsider80 - unfortunately the bio-stub can't be speedied, given the outcome of the last deletion debate on it, which was to reword it to clarify its use (for people intrinsically involved in LGBT politics, history, or culture, not just for people who are LGBT - e.g., Brenda Howard yes, Brian Epstein no). It should have been reworded and the notice removed - not sure why that hasn't happened. Renominating it for deletion might make sense, though. Grutness...wha? 00:09, 13 February 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.

February 14[edit]

Cat:Latvian church 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


I've just created {{Latvia-church-stub}} as an upmerge to Cat:European church stubs, pending the additional articles to warrant making it separate, but an editor from WP Latvia has created this cat straight away. Delete, until such time as there are 60+ Latvian church stubs. HeartofaDog (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/upmerge unless it can be successfully filled to threshold with currently existing stubs. This is why upmerged templates should have some sort of commented-out text saying not to add a category - e.g., here. Grutness...wha? 23:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll put that on all of the new foo-church-stubs too - thanks.HeartofaDog (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reason to have a category that goes against the (guidelines? policy? whatever...) for category sizes. Nyttend (talk) 18:54, 25 March 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.

February 15[edit]

{{War-stub}} / Cat:War 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, and judging by the wording, the much-vaunted asbox is confusing even for long-established users. The idea of a Cat:War stubs isn't a bad one, though it would possibly be far better as a parent-only type for subcategories on specific wars. There's no sign that Cat:Military history stubs is oversized - and considering the undersorting in it, it should be much smaller. There's no sign that this split is particularly useful. Grutness...wha? 00:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - good-faith creation, but the Military history stub already serves this purpose. Outsider80 (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wars usually involve a military or two right? Term war is objective (one person may define a battle or skirmish what another would define as a war) Valley2city‽ 07:14, 16 February 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.

{{Waronterror-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


As above, and with the same meaningless wording. The category and articles seem confused as wether the correct title of this campaing in "War on Terror" or "War on Terrorism", but either way, if needed, the template needs to match it, capital T and all. The template may be useful, and the idea of renaming (and losing the current name) makes some sense. To whichever name, though, depends on a CFD which I'm about to launch. Grutness...wha? 00:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - meaningless (due to its ambiguity) political phrase used by the last U.S. presidency & already abandoned by the present. If such a stub is actually needed (if there are actually enough stubs to fill it), a better wording could be found. Outsider80 (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete additionally it doesn't even mention "War on Terror" in the stub, instead "This War article about War is a stub". That could be ANY war, not just the WoT. Valley2city‽ 07:11, 16 February 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.

February 16[edit]

Stub category redirects[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


Since stub categories are to be populated by templates, not directly, they don't need category redirects. I think we should delete them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete definitely. In fact, they're speediable, since they've been empty for quite a while. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, they are not speedy deletable. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While that's true for redirected categories in general terms, it could easily be argued (and I would argue) that these ones, since they were populated only by templates which have been re-targeted, qualify under CSD:G8 - "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page, such as... categories populated by deleted or retargeted templates...." Grutness...wha? 22:30, 17 February 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.

February 17[edit]

{{Geologic-formation-stub}} / Cat:Geologic formation 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 keep.
Non-admin close.

Created seemingly as part of the recent split of geology stubs - though this one was never proposed as part of that split and would be redundant to every other part of the split proposed. The proposal was for various regional geology stubs, to cover "Rock formations, cratons, hotspots, outcrops, faultlines, things like that.", as I noted at the time - and as was supported at the time. By splitting out geologic formations from this, it defeats the purpose of having regional-geology-stub cover them, especially as a large proportion of them will be subcategorised as regional geology from specific places. I'd suggest deleting this and continuing with the originally proposed split by region. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further note - several categories were also created at the time for what should have been upmerged templates which were listed as only having separate categories if they reached threshold. Unless the threshold is reached, these categories may also require listing here. Grutness...wha? 01:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems rather absurd, please see this list third item. Now after you digest that please either: wipe that list or delete this silliness. Or, maybe you-all don't want anyone outside some stub-clique messing with your turf. Now, sorry 'bout the bristlyness, but I find your note on my talk rather incivil. The geologic-formation-stub (that was on that list as approved or whatever) is a much more defined area ... and in my cruising through the first page of geology-stubs I restubbed more to that than to the regional stubs. Therefore as this was a proposed stub type from your list, this deletion notice is simply null and void as someone here hasn't kept tabs on existing (yeah rather old) proposals. Further, do I continue working on reducing the geology-stubs, or am I wasting my time? Apology expected. Vsmith (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regional geology and stratigraphic formations are fundamentally different. Regional geology of some arbitrary area is about the entire geologic history of that area. Articles about geologic formations are about the specific rock units, and these can often be found in several regions. As an editor, having the two stub classes would help me to find articles that I would like to edit, depending on my expertise. This should be kept, in addition to the fact that it seems its reason for deletion is void. Awickert (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The note on Vsmith's talk page is a "canned" standard message; please don't expect an apology for it as G did not create the wording. The main reason there are old items on the to do list is that there is so much work to be done and so few to do it, which is also the reason for the seeming wonkiness of this project. I can't speak to the distinction between regional geology and geologic formation, so will reserve comment for now. And I do hope Vsmith and others will keep working on the geo stubs -- as I said, we're overworked even for gnomes. :) Pegship (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reccomend a speedy keep, as this was an improper SFD. I have been working to reduce the geology-stubs - restubbed over 100. The disputed stub cat currently has 59 valid articles and I've only reached the letter I. Rather than drop a canned message, Grutness should have discussed his concerns. If you have subject matter savvy editors working to alleviate a backlog, it's adviseable to work with them to better understand the topic -- and geologic-formation-stubs are far more meaningful than regional-geology-stubs as pointed out above by another subject matter expert, Awickert. Vsmith (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's some background: the geologic formation type was proposed in June 2007, then placed on the to do list; an inquiry was made (by me) in September, asking how it should be formed. It's possible that this was forgotten (I gave up on it and moved on). Thus, this is not an "improper" or "silly" SfD, possibly just misinformed. Also, we do work with "subject-savvy editors" (of whom Grutness is one in the geology dept), which is why there's a process for proposing stub types, so these editors can comment and contribute. Lastly, this is not a discussion over which is more meaningful, but which is more needed in the organization of stubs. Pegship (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note geography is distinct from geology and savvy with geog does not mean savvy with geol. As to the meaningful vs organization ... organization w/out meaning makes no sense. Vsmith (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, as a well-educated librarian, I understand the difference between geology and geography. Pegship (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, please, as per reasons above. Whatever the background of the category is, I edit plenty of geology articles and I find it useful, so there's one vote at least. Awickert (talk) 07:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OOOKAY. Let's get this straight. As far as I see it, the situation is as follows. Two years ago, a stub type was proposed and never created. Last month, a series of other stub types were proposed without me (the proposer) having any memory of the previous proposal. The two types - that proposed in 2007 and that proposed last month - oppose each other, in that anything stubbed with one would automatically be stubbed with one of the others, serving virtually the same purpose. As far as I see it, one of two things can happen: (a) delete this one and keep the ones proposed in January, or (b) keep this one and delete the ones proposed in January. Certainly there is no way in heave or earth that both types should exist, as they render each other redundant. In normal circumstances, any new stub type which crosses one already proposed and approved would instantly reopen the earlier type for reassessment. I do not know why this didn't happen in this case, but it definitely changes the playing field as far as the earlier proposal is concerned. Given that the newer proposal is a more widely scoped stub type and will more readily produce splittable numbers of stubs, I would suggest that it Would be the better stub type to keep. It would have been excellent if information about the earlier approved type had been mentioned when the newer proposal was made last month - if it had been, this whole business would never have arisen. As for "dropping a canned message", put that down partly to having 10 of the last 24 hours in hospital in extreme pain, and partly down to the fact that that is exactly what the message is for. As it is, I did add an extra paragraph to the message indicating why the geologic-formation-stub was counterproductive to the other stubs that had been made - this part was not a canned message, but was, rather, a wish to find out why it had been made. As such, and for all the other reasons mentioned above, I stick by my original call - this should be deleted, as the other stubs made at the same time render it of no worth to stub sorting. As to Awickert's comments, they are true, but geologic formations by their very nature are part of the regional geology of a specific area. You will note, for instance, that Cat:Geologic formations of the United States is a natural subcategory of Cat:Geology of the United States - i.e., a regional geology category. As such, they can and should be stubbed by an appropriate stub for whichever region they are located in. They may overlap several areas, as Awickert suggests, but they do that in a similar way, for example, to the way rivers and mountains may be part of the geography of more than one country. As always in these cases, the solution is multistubbing. It's certainly worth noting that a considerable proportion of those stubs which have been marked with geologic-formation-stub are only in one country, and the use of that stub template would probably prevent several potential category splits on a by-country level for the regional geology stub types. Grutness...wha? 07:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, G; again, I plead ignorance. I was under the impression that these two could coexist in harmony - i.e. geologic formation stubs for generic descriptions of types of formations, and regional geography geology stubs for formations in specific locations, thus I did not speak up in the January discussion. Pegship (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for my editing under the influence of irritation above. However, the geologic-formations-stub is valid and helpful as noted above. Too bad I wasn't aware of it before - not a regular around here, back when I started a few stubs there was no work group, we just created what was obviously needed.
I see the two, geologic formation and regional geology stubs, as quite compatable with formations in one (could be stratigraphy-stub) and all other miscellaneous regional stubs in the regional geology stub cat. There should be plenty to reach your majic number of 60 for both. Now, the country specific stubs may fall short of that ... dunno yet. Not familiar with that 60 threshold or the reasons for it. Anyway, keep both the formation and the regional stubs as valid and helpful to editors adding content. The US, Canada and Aussie stubs - well wait to see how things develope. Vsmith (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A note for clarity. In the geologic-formation-stub, the formations to be included are the formally recognized stratigraphic units (be they groups, formations, members, ...) and not just any old pile of rocks that may be referred to informally as a rock formation. Not sure that the non-geologists in the audience are aware of the technical distinction. Vsmith (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many thousands of stratigraphic units and geological formations exists and are well documented. Even if the proposal process was not rigorously followed, this stub type can be very useful, an can co-exist with stub sorting by region. --Qyd (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, finished pass through cat:geology-stubs, now down to 611 from about 900 stubs. The cat:geology-formations-stub now has 119 included stubs. Also the cat:regional-geology-stub has 109 stubs, the cat:US-geology-stub has 74 stubs, cat:Canada-geology-stub has only 24 stubs and the cat:Australia-geology-stub has only 17 included stubs. Seems the later two are a bit shy of the "60" figure I've seen around here. As mentioned above the inclusion of Canadian formation stubs w/in the Canadian-geology-stubs would have probably made it reach the "60"; however, there weren't nearly enough Australian formation stub articles to affect its outcome. Looks to me like the Canada and Australia-geology stubs should be upmerged as you-all say here into the regional-geology-stub cat pending creation of more articles fitting there.
Regional-geology-stub, US-geology-stub and geologic-formation-stub are all valid stub cats with plenty of articles and potential for growth. Vsmith (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Vsmith and Awickert. Black Tusk (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we close this already? --Qyd (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 19[edit]

{{BMB-stub}}, {{BM-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 All articles, but one, already had a country-band-stub category, so I simply removed this one, and added a country specific one for the article that did not had it already. - Nabla (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unproposed, and with major problems:

  1. Not for any of the many things listed at BMB - and if had been for any of them the title would still have been ambiguous. Connected to one of the even larger list of things at BM, but ceratinly not the most likely (I'd have considered that Bermuda, Bahasa Melayu, and Burning Man were more likely if asked what BM-stub might be for).
  2. Not linked to a stub category. It is, however, linked to a Stub-Class assessment category, a distinct confusion between two unconnected processes.
  3. Already covered by other stub types.

For all those reasons, this should be deleted. Point 2 in particular indicates that a talk page assessment template should be being used, not a stub template. Grutness...wha? 23:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per #1 & #2. If for a band, we may indeed use more metal band stub types (none listed on the master list nor found while cruising), but not like this. Pegship (talk) 19:12, 20 February 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.

February 24[edit]

{{TexasTech-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 Keep template and upmerge category to Cat:Texas university stubs, per Pegship's suggestion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Unproposed, and unnecessary. Tertiary institutions in the US are divided for the purpose of stub sorting - except in very rare circumstances - by location. We have {{Texas-university-stub}} for that purpose, and it's hardly overstretched. In this case there seems to be the same old confusion in the creators mind as to whether this is for stubbing or assessment - it links with a Stub-Class Assessment category (and as such should not have a stub template, but instead should have a talk page assessment template - which would probably be far more appropriate). Delete, and point creator of this towards Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now appears to have gained a category, Cat:Texas Tech University stubs, despiote no indications of its size. If the consensus is to keep the template, ti will need upmerging. Grutness...wha? 22:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that was created along with the stub. I was just unsure about the overall structure. Hence the reversion of my own edits in its regard. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sorry about it being uproposed. Sometimes I forget how rule-oriented Wikipedia is. I do have a question, though. If it is appropriate to delete the template {{TexasTech-stub}}, is it also appropriate to delete {{UTexas-stub}}? If so, that is fine, I will nominate it. If not, please explain to me the difference so I can bring {{TexasTech-stub}} up to the same standard. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. UTexas-stub was deleted at one point, then was later proposed and accepted once it was shown that it had enough stubs to support a stand-alone stub category (60 stubs). Given the size of the parent permanent category for the university, there's no indication that the same would be true for Texas Tech, especially given that alumni would not normally get a university stub, and neither would sportspeople. Grutness...wha? 22:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only bring up the UTexas-stub because it was the inspiration and model for the TexasTech-stub. Category:University of Texas at Austin stubs is full of alumni and sportspeople. In fact, over 2/3 of the articles are biographical stubs. Like the University of Texas at Austin, Texas Tech has both a portal and a WikiProject. Additionally, Texas Tech University is a feautred article. There are currently 93 stubs associated with the project. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentHowdy. As someone who recently created a Texas A&M version of this template, and spent over an hour putting our new template on several pages, I honestly, think I have a middle ground. all three universities have wikiprojects, with most of our pages ranked in wikiproject 1.0, I can understand why a second stub category with the exact same pages really does not make much sense. I do understand the value of having something on the bottom of the page. As wikipedia editors, we sometimes forget that the vast majority of wikipedia viewers are not editors, and they do not check the talk page. A blurb of text on the actual article that says, this page is editable, and please help expand it, could encourage people who ordinarily would not edit wikipedia pages to pitch in. I propose merging the TAMU, Texas, and Tech, stub article templates. A lot more like {{Texas-sports-venue-stub}}. The super category created would not be duplicate of the individial Wikiproject's wikipedia 1.0 stub categories, and it could include universities in Texas that do not have wikiprojects. Thus, we would have the advertisement to help pitch in on our pages, and not have three categories that are pretty much duplicates of wikiproject 1.0 categories. Thoughts? Oldag07 (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and/or merge along the lines of the Cat:Texas university stubs suggestion. The proliferation of these on bios is not a good sign, though; stubs wouldn't normally be sorted on such a basis, and using in that manner strikes me as the sort of arbitrary "things this particular WPJ is interested in" scoping that works better for talk-page templates and categories. (Bios whose primary notability relates to a given institution are fine, but "is a grad from"/"played football" articles are not.) Alai (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)`[reply]
  • Commnent: I just noticed the stub {{Texas-university-stub}}. I think it would be appropriate to combine into this the three universities mentioned here (Texas Tech, Texas A&M, and University of Texas) as well as other such schools in the state. I only support this if it is all-or-none, as I see no reason for any of the schools to have their own stub if the other schools are not allowed to. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and agree that this type of classification should be handled via talk page templates and assessment categories. I share Alai's concern about stub tagging of biographies on the basis of person by university attended or person by employer ("coached football for"). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 20:24, 15 June 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.

February 27[edit]

{{Ireland-old-mil-bio-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


I have replaced the few uses of it with Ireland-mil-bio-stub, please correct if/where I am wrong. Thanks - Nabla (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unproposed and unnecessary duplicate of {{Ireland-mil-bio-stub}} which seems to attempt to split Irish military biographies by age (age of people, or by historical age?) Either way, this is something that isn't done, and if it were done it wouldn't be by such ambiguous terms as "old". Given that Ireland-mil-bio-stub is still so little-used that it is an upmerged template, there's no way on earth that a split of it - even by a more sensible way than this - would be appropriate. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but it depends on the philosophy and usage of {{Ireland-mil-bio-stub}}. If the latter is reserved for biographical articles on those who have served in the armed forces of the Irish Free State and the Irish Republic then there is no need for {{Ireland-old-mil-bio-stub}} and it can go.

If a specifically Irish stub is to be applied to any Irishman who has served in the British or other forces then {{Ireland-mil-bio-stub}} is inappropriate as it has the flag adopted in 1936 for a state created only in 1921. For that purpose I created a version with an older flag. I stumbled across the original stub attached to an article on a peer who served only in the forces of the United Kingdom and who lived in Northern Ireland, not the state whose flag the original stub bears. (In the end I just switched him to the Brtish military stub.)

Presumably the appropriate military stub depends on which army the man served in, not his national / sub-national identity. In that case any Irishman who distinguished himself in the service of King and country gets the British military stub (and any who disgraced himself serving the French gets the French one) and the new stub can be deleted without tears.

Howard Alexander (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response - {{Ireland-mil-bio-stub}} is intended for use for Irish military biographies back to the days of Brian Boru and beyond. As with all such mil-bio-stubs, there is no historical date set. And you're right, the NI one should have used the UK stub - that's the very reason why we use the term "United Kingdom" not "British". Grutness...wha? 04:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in favor of the broader Ireland-mil-bio-stub, with perhaps a change to as the image? Pegship (talk) 03:34, 15 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2009/February&oldid=444241492"