Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/November

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 30[edit]

Europe road 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 Cat:Spain road stubs, Upmerge Cat:Portugal road stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Upmerge {{Spain-road-stub}} and {{Portugal-road-stub}} to their respective parent categories (Europe road stubs for both and then the respective country stub categories) and delete the categories. Both are way undersized (six and two articles) and not likely to reach sixty at any point soon. Dana boomer (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge Portugal; Populate Spain - I wouldn't be too sure of that - check here! Grutness...wha? 21:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Spanish one is now up to 62 articles, so keep that one. No chance of getting the Portuguese one up to threshold, though. BTW, I removed the {{sfd-t}} notices from the templates - it's only the categories which are up for deletion! Grutness...wha? 22:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:German Pirate Party politician stubs/Template:Germany-PIRATEN-politician-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


Delete both (upmerge to Cat:German politician stubs/{{Germany-politician-stub}}) - never proposed, has only 4 articles, permcat only has 3 articles, template misnamed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:33, 30 November 2010 (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 28[edit]

{{Kiev-city-geo-stub}}/Category:Kiev geography 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 discussion was upmerge. T. Canens (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This category is severely undersized, and should be upmerged. My suggestion would be to upmerge it to Category:Kiev Oblast geography stubs which is not currently its parent cat, but is the next largest government division. This would bring the parent cat to just under 100 articles. Dana boomer (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The template's badly named, too - KievCity-geo-stub, perhaps, but not Kiev-city-geo-stub (since it's not a subtype of some nonexistent city-geo-stub) Grutness...wha? 06:53, 29 November 2010 (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.

Ukraine geography 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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the subcategories of Category:Ukraine geography stubs are undersized. I propose to upmerge the following:

This would bring the main category up to around 275 articles. Dana boomer (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2010 (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.


Ukraine consist of 24 oblast (province) 1 autonomous republic and 2 city with special status. All of oblast may own subdivision by raions (districts). I promice you "restore" Cherkasy Oblast, Chernihiv Oblast, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, Kharkiv Oblast, Kherson Oblast, Khmelnytskyi Oblast, Mykolaiv Oblast, Rivne Oblast, Sumy Oblast, Zaporizhia Oblast - there are about 30000000 people live in those territory. Last attemting of admistrative reform in Ukraine - deliting oblast - was provided in 1941-1943 by Reichskommissar Erich Koch (he died in polish prison cell in 1986). --Leonid76 (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SavanesCI geography 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 to Cat:Savanes Region, Côte d'Ivoire geography stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Propose renaming Category:SavanesCI geography stubs to Category:Savanes, Côte d'Ivoire, geography stubs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. While SavanesCI works fine for the template, we typically use full English for the category titles. Template title was approved, but category name was not requested. Please discuss what should be the proper name for this category. Dawynn (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2010 (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.

Category:Drama film stubs by decade[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 merge. — ξxplicit 12:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Cat:Drama film stubs - this is the only "by decade" stub categoey. Other decade stub categories skip this categorization level - for example, Cat:1940s novel stubs is directly in Cat:Novel stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:35, 28 November 2010 (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]

Cat:Tennis tournaments in Texas[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 Wrong forum - moved to WP:CFD


Not necessary category. There is no categories for every federal state in the USA. This category appears only in Texas Open (tennis)-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's nbot a stub category, it's a permanent category, so it should be listed at WP:CFD. I've moved it there. Grutness...wha? 22:07, 27 November 2010 (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:Art documentary film stubs → Cat:Arts documentary film 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 to "...arts..."

More accurate and more inclusive title (mentioned after the fact over at WP:WSS/P). Possibly speediable, since I'm the only editor of this category, but I'm running it through here just in case. It would also be worth moving the template from {{art-documentary-film-stub}} to {{arts-documentary-film-stub}} (currently a redirect) and deleting the original name, to allow for the possibility of a future art-specific type. Grutness...wha? 04:33, 27 November 2010 (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 25[edit]

Catalonia 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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 20:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In both cases, upmerging should be to both the larger Catalan category and to the equivalent Spanish category (e.g., Catalonia-struct-stub to both Cat:Catalonia stubs and Cat:Spanish building and structure stubs). Other than that, I agree - these don't yet need separate categories. Grutness...wha? 05:43, 25 November 2010 (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.

Category:BDSM biography stubs/{{BDSM-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 Upmerge per nom. Ruslik_Zero 20:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This category is quite small (14 pages) and can easily be upmerged into its parent category (Category:BDSM stubs), making the parent category only around 80 articles. Dana boomer (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2010 (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.

Central Illinois geography 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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 20:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge the three templates that make up Category:Champaign-Urbana geography stubs, the two that make up Category:Charleston-Mattoon geography stubs and the two that make up Category:Galesburg MSA geography stubs into the parent cat of Category:Central Illinois geography stubs and delete the cats. The three cats together make up only 34 articles, which will raise the parent cat to around 350. Dana boomer (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2010 (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.

Category:Harrisburg area road stubs/{{Har-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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Delete this improperly named template and very tiny category. The single article can easily be recategorized by adding the {{Pennsylvania-road-stub}} template, which would add it to the proper category. Dana boomer (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Category is unnecessary; template is both unnecessary and pretty horribly named, as a quick glance at Har will testify. Grutness...wha? 05:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dough4872 02:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this was for a WikiProject that I believe is now defunct. --Rschen7754 02:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Delete the previous wikiproject was merged into the PA project. Imzadi 1979 → 03:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete stub template of a once WikiProject, later task force that no longer exists. – TMF 03:48, 30 November 2010 (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.

Warhammer 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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Upmerge the templates for Category:Warhammer 40,000 stubs and Category:Warhammer Fantasy stubs to the main category Category:Wargame stubs and delete the categories. The two subcats are very small and will bring the main cat to less than 150 articles. Dana boomer (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2010 (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.

Category:Windmill stubs/{{windmill-stub}}/{{Netherlands-windmill-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 Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


These two templates should be upmerged into the main category Category:Building and structure stubs and the category they make up deleted. The templates are on only three articles together, so the category is far undersized. Dana boomer (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge - catscan can only find a few more which would help populate it - nowhere near 60. Grutness...wha? 09:50, 26 November 2010 (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 19[edit]

{{Welsh-Academics}}[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Oddly named, not in use and old (2009). Stub Discoveries. --Kslotte (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We already have a correctly named {{Wales-academic-bio-stub}} for anything which could use this (a template which may well need to be upmerged, BTW... its category doesn't look easily populable) Grutness...wha? 22:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update - I've populated the category as far as I can, and it's still just under the 40-stub mark, so it will almost certainly need to be upmerged. Grutness...wha? 22:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Welsh-Academics template/cat; Upmerge Wales-academic-bio-stub template; per Grutness. Dana boomer (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2010 (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 17[edit]

Category:Croatian architect 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. --RL0919 (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge into Cat:Croatian people stubs and Cat:European architect stubs - only 16 articles, scan doesn't find many more. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and Category:Croatian architects contains only 26 architects. --Kslotte (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2010 (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]

Template:Selonia-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 Delete. --RL0919 (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete - completely malformed, used only on a single article, weird categorization. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Already adequately covered by zemgale-geo-stub, which is well below the required level for a split. Grutness...wha? 23:27, 16 November 2010 (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.

Category:Sciuridae 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. --RL0919 (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Cat:Sciuridae stubs/{{Sciuridae-stub}} should be renamed to Cat:Squirrel stubs/{{squirrel-stub}} to match permcat name, Category:Squirrels, and use the common name in stead of the scientific name for these familiar rodents. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename I was going to propose this for the reasons above, at the same time as changing the text. —innotata 18:27, 30 November 2010 (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.

Category:Brachiopod 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 No consensus. --RL0919 (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Upmerge - Underpopulated, permcat contains only 57 articles. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - looking at the list of brachiopod genera, the underlying problem seems to be a lack of editors interested in writing about brachiopods, rather than a lack of brachiopods to write about. J. Spencer (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it also looks like not all brachiopod articles are properly categorised, and certainly not all the stubs. —innotata 19:54, 2 December 2010 (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 15[edit]

Category: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 Withdrawn. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Rename to Cat:Unsorted stubs - other stub categories aren't child categories of this one, so most stubs aren't in the deep content of this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose rename: I don't see the problem. Other stub categories are indeed logically child categories of this (well, I suppose they are, though fortunately their listing is suppressed on the main category page), just as "British politicians" is a child of the unsorted "Politicians" and "British people" categories. If the top level stub categories were all listed on the main category page, this would just slow down the process of looking at that page to stub-sort. And I am proud to announce that I have just emptied the category, in defiance of the template's instruction: "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress."! PamD (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I can see the point, I'm not entirely sure it would make much sense - perhaps it would be make more sense to simply make Cat:Stub categories and/or Cat:Top-level stub categories a subcat of Cat:Stubs. It's important that the main stub category doesn't get swamped with the full list of cats that's in Cat:stub categories for ease of maintenance - but perhaps it does need to be linked into the tree. Grutness...wha? 22:17, 15 November 2010 (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 14[edit]

Template:Kerman-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 Courcelles 04:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Unapproved, unused template. From Category:Kermān Province it seems there isn't enough articles that could use this template. Svick (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2010 (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]

Maharashtra geography stubs sub cats[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 per nom without creating new stub templates. Ruslik_Zero 20:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This category is a little odd. Only one of the six sub categories has its own stub template - for the others their pages have been added by adding the category directly rather than using a template. However, the six cats have been further split into sub-sub-cats, most of which are undersized, but all of which have their own templates. So, I would like to upmerge some of the sub-sub cats into the subcats. Based on the size of the parent cats, none of these are likely to grow to the necessary size in the near future:

This will make all of the sub cats of a reasonable size (although it won't correct the issue of them not having their own templates) and will upload a bunch of WAY too small cats (many of these are under 20 stubs, several are under 10). Dana boomer (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Except not with those names... Those stub tags are all already in use for the districts within the division with the same name. For example, {{Aurangabad-geo-stub}} is currently used for Aurangabad district, which is a unit of Aurangabad Division, which is the one that needs a stub tag. Dana boomer (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom, and make the Divisional categories into container/parent-only types (i.e., no templates of their own, but populated using the district templates). Grutness...wha? 22:31, 3 January 2011 (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 8[edit]

Midwestern road 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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Upmerge - Category:Michigan road stubs, Category:Minnesota road stubs and Category:Nebraska road stubs into Category:Midwestern United States road stubs. The sub cats are all under ten articles, and with the US Roads WP's recent stub-busting work, it is unlikely these will grow to 60+ in the near future. Dana boomer (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the complement! You have my support on the consolidation. (P.S. The Michigan subproject of USRD hasn't had a stub in many moons. Those that are left aren't state highways.) Imzadi 1979 → 23:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the stub templates, but upmerge the categories into the Midwestern United States road stubs categories. Dough4872 21:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The proposal would leave the templates alone. (Previous templates still exist even though the dedicated categories have been upmerged.) Imzadi 1979 → 21:57, 9 November 2010 (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]

Cat:Documentary films about music stubs → Cat:Music documentary film 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Seems this category got moved with negligible debate earlier this year, due to a renaming of the permcat. Now, normally, stub cats do follow permcats - unless by doing so the names become nonsensically ungrammatical, which this one clearly is; these are not films about music stubs, they're stubs for films about music. Not only that, but it's become plural (...films...) which stub categories never are. To match the permcat, it should be "Documentary film about music stubs" - but that's even more nonsensical. Discussion at WP:WSS/P seems to suggest that the former name was better, or that this should, at the very least, be brought up for some kind of discussion here again (including, I note, from one of the two people who were part of the renaming debate!). Personally, my !vote is a rename, back to the way things were before. Grutness...wha? 09:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on documentary films but I can't think of any on music stubs. I agree that reversing the rename is a good idea. Waacstats (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2010 (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 2[edit]

Templates for Category:Science fiction stubs and subcats[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. Jafeluv (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Propose renaming:

And several other templates

Reason: I think that sf is to vague; scifi is much more meaningfull. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong oppose. "Scifi" is widely regarded by most "hard-core" science fiction fans as a gross insult. It would be akin to changing {{UK-bio-stub}} to {{pommybastard-stub}}. Check the "Definitions" section of Science fiction.
I would have no objection to the templates all being changed to {{sci-fict-stub}}, although that would reduce their scope, as sf-stub covers not just science fiction, but all forms of speculative fiction (including such things as science fantasy and alternative history fiction). Grutness...wha? 10:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I know that it's bad form to claim to be an expert on a subject in a deletion debate, but as (a) a published sf author; (b) Fan Guest of Honour at the 1996 NZ national convention; and (c) former president of the NZ National association for science fiction, I have some knowledge of the area :) Grutness...wha? 10:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to renaming, but please keep the redirects in place. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Grutness; also, San Francisco apart, I don't think that the abbreviation "SF"/"sf"/"s.f." has any other meanings in common use with which confusion may arise. Yes, the dab page SF is stuffed with them: but how many are genuine, how many fail WP:MADEUP? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There's no benefit to the proposed rename, and the term "scifi" has always been out of favour. Also, these are template names seen only by Wikipedia editors, not article titles seen by all readers. IMHO these don't have to be longwinded and fully descriptive; anything editors can remember easily will do — brevity here is a virtue. Shreevatsa (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. "SF" stands for both "speculative fiction" and "science fiction", the term "scifi" is generally disliked by science fiction fans, and, as said above, the rename serves no useful purpose. -- Chronulator (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose for all the reasons already stated. "Scifi" is generally used more for media-type science fiction such as Star Trek and Star Wars, whereas "sf" is an all-encompassing term to refer to all science fiction (and speculative fiction, as already pointed out). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose on the grounds stated above, especially per Grutness. - Dravecky (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2010 (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/2010/November&oldid=399320676"