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

May 2[edit]

{{Pondicherry-geo-stub}} → {{Puducherry-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 rename — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lainagier (talk • contribs)

Indian state formerly known as Pondicherry, now (since 2006) Puducherry. Template currently used on a dozen-odd stubs; no cat (upmerged to Cat:India geography stubs). Would leaving a redirect be prudent? • Lainagier • talk • 03:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Seems sensible, given that the main category's also at Cat:Puducherry. A redirect would make sense, though, since - unlike Mumbhai - the new name is less likely to be widely known outside India for some time. Grutness...wha? 04:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move, and keep redirect, to conform with article space and principle of least confusion. Alai (talk) 16:21, 20 May 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.

May 30[edit]

Cat:Portuguese 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 del cat, upmerge tpl

Created last November; current roster of 33. Noted with associated template in Discoveries, where it was suggested the cat go to SFD. Propose delete the cat and upmerge {{Portugal-rugbyunion-bio-stub}} to Cat:Portuguese sportspeople stubs/Cat:Rugby union biography stubs. • Lainagier • talk • 00:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge. Template's ok, but category's too small. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 30 May 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.

{{Mario-stub}} / Cat:Mario-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

Stub type currently only contains 14 articles. Recommend outright deletion as all of the Mario-related stubs that are Nintendo-related are already Nintendo-stubs (the stub type's parent). MuZemike 05:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No point in this. I Smashed TALK! 14:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both this and the connected category Cat:Mario-related stubs, which uses the long-deprecated "-related" form of stub category name (we haven't had one of those here for a couple of years, at least!) Grutness...wha? 01:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now listed the category in the header, too - it was tagged, but not mentioned. Grutness...wha? 01:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. This is my first SFD nomination. MuZemike 23:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No point in having it around, and doesn't serve any greater purpose (the fact that it links to Fictional universe is pretty funny, though). Exemplary of one of the downsides of taskforces. ~ Amory (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - This was up-merged into Nintendo stubs, but then the specific category was created for it by the nominator. May I ask why? I didn't create this one, so I don't really care one way or the other. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I do care. Delete. I'm confused about why the cat was created, but there aren't enough pages any more to even justify an up-merge. In fairness, this was not created by the task-force, but one editor who apparently forgot about it. I found it by accident and tried to make it useful, but our cruft-levels have dwindled to the point where (thankfully) there is no use for it. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:25, 7 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.

{{Cocktail-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 redirect

This relates to discussions mentioned under {{bartending-stub}} below. Over two years ago, it was proposed that this stub be turned into a redirect to {{Mixed-drink-stub}}. It was also listed that it had been redirected. Unfortunately, iot never was redirected, and it seems the SFD actually suggested that it be kept. I'd like to propose that we do what we thought had happened at the time and redirect this template to {{mixed-drink-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 09:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, then replace incidents where it exists. --Jeremy (blah blah) 09:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, replace all instances with {{mixed-drink-stub}} or {{alcohol-stub}} as appropriate, then Delete once it's no longer used. — I believe that this was the original intention, though the ultimate deletion may not have been mentioned. "Cocktail" may be the more obvious name associated with these stubs, but that doesn't mean it's the best choice for the name. An offhand estimate would place about 85-95% of all mixed drinks as cocktails, but there are also things like punches, eggnog, and other non-alcoholic mixed drinks that don't fit into the category cocktail, but do in mixed drink. Due to considerable overlap, it's silly to keep both, and since cocktail is the slightly smaller subgroup, it seems like it should go. I think historically, cocktail-stubs was associated with WikiProject Cocktails. In January 2007, that WikiProject was renamed to WikiProject Mixed Drinks and the new mixed-drink-stub was created for the same reasons that the group changed its name and that I mentioned above. It encompasses the complete group of mixed drink articles instead of only 85-95% of them. It's past time for cocktail-stub to go away. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 12:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect What Will said - holdover from WP:Cocktails, and should be changed accordingly. Not in favor of eventual delete, however, as users will still find it a useful redirect. ~ Amory (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, agree with Amory, to set it as a redirect, but keep the "cocktail" redirect or set up a soft redirect, because for some reason, the word "cocktail" comes to mind more often than "mixed-drinks" does and seems to be the more intuitive word. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, it is more likely that people would categorize eggnog as a drink stub (I can't find a milk stub), and punches as a soft drink stub, than to use the mixed-drink stub. Because, as Will stated above, 85-95% of mixed drinks are better known as cocktails. Since that value is almost 100%, you can't expect people to put non-alcoholic drinks, eggnogs and punches into the mixed drinks stub category, because that would be the exception to the rule, being only 5% of the time. Herein lies the confusion! --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:58, 9 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.