Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/February

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 28[edit]

Undersized Cat:Fictional universe stubs subcategories[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 all except Transformers stubs

Propose upmerging all of these to the parent category:

Dawynn (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support -- Y not? 16:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - chances are these have been reduced way below threshold by their respective WikiProjects. Grutness...wha? 22:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administritive note - the last one, being the primary stub category for Wikipedia:WikiProject Transformers, and having more than 30 stubs, can hardly be said to be undersized. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point - that one should probably stay, but be watched to see whether it drops further. Grutness...wha? 21:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transformers removed from list. Thanks for the reminder. Dawynn (talk) 13:18, 3 March 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.



February 23[edit]

Rename of 'politics' stub 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 discussion was Renbame both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking parallelism again. I see the following:

Propose moving the following:

Dawynn (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - though you can't really use NZ as an example, since it's both the noun form and the adjective form :) Grutness...wha? 22:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, makes sense. -- Y not? 16:35, 28 February 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.

February 21[edit]

Move of Cat:Rail stubs sub-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 discussion was reverse rename, per amended nomination

I see the following stub categories:

I propose moving the following categories for parallelism:

And at this point, I'm choosing to leave this one alone, unless someone has a suggestion:

Dawynn (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reverse move - If anything, the move should be in the other direction, given that the permcats are of the form "Rail in Foo" rather than "Fooian rail". Note also the continental stub categories, and further that "British rail" is likely to produce ambiguity given British Rail. The Danish one is a red herring, BTW, since the "rail station" tree is separate. As to New Zealand, you can move it from the noun form (New Zealand) to the adjective form (New Zealand) or vice versa if you like, but it'll make no difference ;) Grutness...wha? 23:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I started with the majority rule idea. But I have no objection to going the other ways, as long as everything ends up parallel. Just to be clear, the reverse move would be:
Dawynn (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is fairly frequent mild argument about which way to go... but the permcats are often the way they are to reduce any confusion there might be with the adjectives, and certainly British Rail might cause concern here. I won't be too annoyed if consensus is for your original suggestioon though. Grutness...wha? 22:08, 22 February 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.

February 19[edit]

{{2011s-single-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 discussion was "Delete'

This template doesn't make any sense, since there is no such thing as “2011s”. Svick (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True -and music templates and the like are done by decade, so delete and retag anything using it with 2010s... Grutness...wha? 21:43, 19 February 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.

{{Skiing and Snowboarding-stub}} / Cat:Skiing and snowboarding 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 delete template and create two new replacements. Keep category for now, but propose for split when size allows.

One glance at the template name should give some indication of the problem. This template - previously at the correctly named (via this forum) {{Ski-stub}} - was drastically rescoped when WikiProject Skiing changed its name (not that renaming a WikiProject should in any way affect the name or scope of a stub template...). Rather than proposing a second stub for snowboarding at WP:WSS/P, which would have been the more senible thing to do, the name was changed to a cumbersome and convention-defying name. I propose renaming this back to its original name of {{Ski-stub}} ({{Skiing-stub}} would perhaps be better), adding a separate {{Snowboarding-stub}}, deleting the current template name, and - if possible -splitting the category in the same way (the number of stubs is fairly slim, but given the presence of a WikiProject, the lower threshold is probably usable). Grutness...wha? 10:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll back Skiing-stub and snowbaording-stub, don't forgot each has its own bio categories as well, should make categories a bit easier to manage. Waacstats (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Templates done, but even with the bio subcats I don't think there's yet enough for a separate snowboarding category, so I've left the category as is - for now. Will probably need splitting later. Grutness...wha? 23:23, 1 March 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.

February 17[edit]

Cat:Korean football biography stubs / {{Korea-footy-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 discussion was Delete

These had already been cleared. The category is currently a soft redirect, but everything was still listed on the stub type list, as well as parent categories. I have now cleared all the connections, and these should be ultimately removed. They have already been replaced by appropriate North and South templates and categories. Dawynn (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundent. Waacstats (talk) 16:49, 20 February 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.

February 16[edit]

Cat:Chess opening 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 delete category, upmerge template, create two new related templates

Has shrunk to the point where it's not really a necessity to keep this separate - just nine stubs, and hardly likely to be lost among the fewer than 200 chess stubs if it's upmerged. A further proposal which might be useful is for separate upmerged {{Chess-tournament-stub}} and {{Chess-org-stub}} templates, given that over 40 of those stubs are for tournaments and around 30 are for associations and federations. Grutness...wha? 07:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, upmerge and a good shout on the two templates. Waacstats (talk) 13:17, 16 February 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.

German building and structure stub 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 discussion was upmerge the two remaining undersized categories

Several German states have their own building and structure stub categories - with one exception - they are all seriously undersized. Unless it is possible to populate them to somewhere near the 60-stub threshold, the following should be upmerged:

It may just be undersorting, and if it is I'll happily withdraw this proposal - but if it's not, then upmerging will be the simplest/best option. Grutness...wha? 07:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another one to add to my weekend todo list otherwise upmerge, the parent is hardly overflowing. Waacstats (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing noms for two which are now past threshold (well done, Waacstats, or whoever else it might have been who got Bavaria and Berlin to the threshold). The others are at 22, 34, 46, and 16 stubs respectively now. Still a chance some of them might reach threshold, especially Hesse and Hamburg. Grutness...wha? 11:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also managed to get Hesse up to 60 stubs. Grutness...wha? 12:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And Hamburg...just... Grutness...wha? 00:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did my best, but couldn't get either of the other two above 45 stubs, so upmerging still seems the best option for them. Grutness...wha? 23:29, 10 March 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.

{{Lanark-stub}} / Cat:Lanark 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 delete

I'm sorry, but this one is surely at the faintly ridiculous level. Lanark is a town of 8,000 people in Scotland. The category on Lanark only has nine articles, so the likelihood of there being 60 stubs (or even 30, given that there is a WikiProject) look remarkably remote. We have stub types for Glasgow and Edinburgh, but those are the only cities large enough to really warrant them in Scotland - and if we were to have more, Lanark would be a long way down the list (Stirling or Aberdeen, maybe, but one for Lanark is, to say the least, overkill). A separate stub template for Lanark is useless for WP:WSS, and for general editing use as well, and is totally unnecessary for the Lanark WikiProject since they're already using a banner assessment template which does all the stub template can and more besides. Delete. Grutness...wha? 07:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we are starting stub templates for places of 8000 we will soon have more of them than anything, I live in a fairly rural part of wales but have two towns of greater than that size within 10 miles and would never consider stub templates for either. (That is a delete) Waacstats (talk) 13:23, 16 February 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.

February 15[edit]

Category:Georgian cuisine 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 both

Double upmerge as underpopulated (permcat has 26 stubs); if kept, then rename to Cat:Georgian (country) cuisine stubs per other stub categories for this country. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support upmerge. There are two other cuisine categories which are seriously undersized and at least one of them (Cat:Armenian cuisine stubs) may need the same treatment (the other, Spain, is probably easily populable). Grutness...wha? 22:12, 15 February 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.

{{Old West-stub}} / Cat:American Old West stubs and {{Old West-bio-stub}} / Cat:American Old West 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 discussion was Keep American Old West stubs, upmerge the bio stubs into it. Change name of both templates

We seem to have acquired a couple of new unproposed stub types, both with faultily-named templates. No objection to keeping either - but at corrected names ({{OldWest-stub}} and {{OldWest-bio-stub}}, deleting current names, per standard naming conventions). The bio category may need upmerging, since both categories are undersized and only just reach 60 stubs between them. Grutness...wha? 22:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support suggested change. Waacstats (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support template rename, Oppose category deletion. I'm a new member of the project -- let's get a consensus on the template so we can lose the deletion notice. No worries on the upmerging because I'll be working on stubbing. --Hutcher (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The upmergiong is the only deletion being proposed - so you seem to be both opposing and supporting it...? Grutness...wha? 23:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support template rename and Oppose category deletion, per Hutcher. Furthermore, I thought it was policy for every stub template to have an automatically-linking category? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is policy for every stub category to have a category attached, but there isn't necessarily a one-to-one relation between the two. Many stub categories are upmerged into more general stub categories if they are only used on a small number of stubs ("small", for stub-sorting purposes being under 60). Grutness...wha? 23:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support template rename, Oppose category deletion per Hutcher and Wilhelmina Will. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 19:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support template rename, Oppose category deletion. Size of a category is relevant if the topic is not high traffic. Well-trodden topics like this one have potential for growth each.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, and general stub sorting rules are that once a topic template gets a significant number of stubs it gains its own category. So consolidating at the moment, while numbers are small, does not preclude splitting out a separate category again if numbers increase. Grutness...wha? 23:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support template rename, Oppose category deletion per reasons listed above.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support template rename and support consolidation in general. I think we can merge the stub cats, though I can see how that might cause confusion within the main (non-stub) cats. I also don't care deeply about the category merge, though when in doubt, I tend to prefer consolidation of small ones. However, 60 is enough to split, I'd feel differently if we were talking fewer than 10. Montanabw(talk) 19:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

::Support template rename; Oppose category deletion. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please note, those of you !voting "oppose" to the deletion of Cat:American Old West stubs, that I have not proposed it for deletion, and have only listed it here because of its connection with the stub templates listed. The proposal is to rename both templates and consolidate them into the AOW stub category, upmerging the bio category until such time as there are enough stubs for it to be viable in its own right. An AOW-specific stub type would still exist under this proposal. Grutness...wha? 23:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ah, understood... regarding the categories at least. With regards to the templates, are you suggesting that these stub templates be merged, and then have their particular template pages deleted, instead of simply redirected to where they were merged? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, both templates would remain, but they'd both put stubs into the same category (the bio one would probably also be linked with the US people stubs category). Grutness...wha? 05:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Consolidation of stub categories into more general parent stub categories if they are small. Easier to find them all in one place if someone actually wants to expand stubs. I hate going through a dozen nested cats with three articles each. So whatever the actual proposal is, here is where I'm coming from! (grin) Montanabw(talk) 05:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense - and is exactly the reason why WP:WSS has a threshold, so that there aren't hundreds of tiny two-stub categories to keep track of! Grutness...wha? 05:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grutness, now I fully understand what you propose and I Support your 05:59, 5 March 2011 comment. It makes sense; it's the right way to go. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:41, 5 March 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.

February 14[edit]

Some pluralised 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 discussion was Rename all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few simple renames here - all of these categories are incorrectly ina plural form:

Note that all three are undersized, so there be no objections from me if anyone thought upmerging was a better option. Grutness...wha? 21:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administritive note although all three are currewntly underrsized, a quick catscan shows that enough potential population exists for each of them (1, 2 3). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I thought that might be the case, which is why I didn't directly propose upmerging. Grutness...wha? 23:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. Waacstats (talk) 13:27, 16 February 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.

February 13[edit]

{{Lower Normandy-geo-stub}}, {{Upper Normandy-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 discussion was rename templates, deleting current names. May need revisiting at a future date, since this nom became a bit of a trainwreck with various opposing options.

Two more misnamed templates, each feeding into what should be parent-only stub cats (if such cats are needed at all - all Normandy geo-stubs are subdivided by departement, so having a separate level between them and Normandy overall seems superfluous). Delete. Grutness...wha? 03:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing nomination to rename to convention-consistent {{LowerNormandy-geo-stub}} and {{UpperNormandy-geo-stub}}, with deletion of current names, per comments below. Grutness...wha? 08:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Normandy is divided between Upper and Lower Normandy! The two have their own capitals, Caen and Rouen. However, the two should be under the Normandy stub, as well as the 5 departments. .--66.254.46.205 (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)147}}[reply]
This still does not answer the point that the stub types were unproposed, incorrectly formatted, and have not shown themselves to be of any use. The categories are far better as parent-only types, as is the case with other similar categories containing child subtypes - every stub marked with these templates could effectively be placed in one or more of the subcategories. As to why someone in New Zealand is deciding what is good and not good, I'm not deciding anything, and my location is irrelevant. I am following the guidelines and precepts of a global WikiProject which attempts to keep some kind of uniformity on stub types across the whole of Wikipedia. That is the reason why stub types are proposed before creation, to make sure that they do not foul up the existing system or create unnecessary extra work. If you had spent as many hours involved with such a project as you clearly have studying sarcasm, you might understand that. Some people have put in over a half a decade into stub work, "dear chap"! Now, again, explain why these stub types are needed, when every stub which uses or could use them could take the département templates, and also explain why they are incorrectly named. If you can do neither, then deletion is still the best option. Grutness...wha? 02:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would just have a {{Normandy-geo-stub}}, since the French government has recently united the two regions.--66.254.46.205 (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— 66.254.46.205 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
It certainly needs either one level or the other, not both. Either we're using Upper and Lower Normandy separately, in which case the templates need at the very least renaming to normal stub standard (and there is no need for a {{Normandy-stub}}), or we're using Normandy, in which case they're unnecessary. On closer inspection, it seems that the normandy level is the unnecessary one, unless, as you say, the French government has united the regions (though I can find no suggestion of that in our articles). I'm certainly prepared to withdraw this nomination (or, more correctly, change it to a rename to correct template names) unless there is indication of that merger of regions somewhere. Grutness...wha? 21:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did not create these two stubs, but I have noticed that they comprise for Lower Normandy, her three departments and articles, for a total of 1826 articles listed. For Upper Normandy, her two departments and articles, for a total of 734 articles listed. They are therefore very important. I would definitely vote to keep them. They are essential!--Chnou (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are all good arguments for having parent categories, but not for the templates - you might equally well say that we an Earth-stub is wothwhile because of the number of places on earth that we have separate stubs for. Only a handful of articles actually use these templates rather than their subtypes, so the idea of parent-only categories with contain only the subcategories is quite reasonable. Note a similar recent proposal to delete {{SouthAm-writer-stub}}. Having said that, the nomination was already changed to a rename before you added this, so the point is moot... 22:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Worth keeping! They have already been populated!--Mont-Joli (talk) 04:01, 16 March 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.

February 12[edit]

Cat:Hotels in Algeria 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 delete } Propose deletion. We can't even justify a Cat:African hotel (structure) stubs. We're definitely not ready for an Algerian category. Plus, this is not named correctly, based on similar discussions (current convention would be Cat:Algerian hotel(structure) stubs). There is no template. The permcat has only one article, so even a template is questionable. So many issues. Dawynn (talk) 15:46, 12 February 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.

February 11[edit]

Cat:Macedonian basketball stubs / {{macedonia-basketball-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 discussion was delete

Propose deletion of this category and template. There is no Cat:European basketball stubs category, so there is not a good place to categorize this. The category is undersized, and was never approved. Instead, I would suggest using the existing {{RMacedonia-basketball-bio-stub}} and creating {{RMacedonia-basketball-team-stub}}, and appropriately retagging each of the articles found here. Upmerge the new team template to Cat:Republic of Macedonia stubs and Cat:Europe basketball team stubs. Remaining articles that don't easily fall into these categories should be tagged with {{RMacedonia-stub}} and a second appropriate tag to be chosen according to the article. Suggest:

Dawynn (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. {{Sport-org-stub}} would be the one you're looking for, BTW. Grutness...wha? 21:34, 11 February 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.

Undersized Cat:Tamil Nadu 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

Propose upmerging:

Dawynn (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Several of the spellings of the district names seem a little different to the articles/permcat names, too. Grutness...wha? 22:07, 18 March 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.

Undersized Cat:Silesian 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

Propose upmerging:

Dawynn (talk) 15:10, 11 February 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.

February 10[edit]

{{chechnya-sub}}[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 delete. -Mairi (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming this to {{chechnya-stub}}. Dawynn (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no need to discuss this, as the original name is obviously wrong, so I had done the move. Svick (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have now redirected every reference to the correct template. Please delete the bad template. Dawynn (talk) 12:19, 11 February 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.

More UK -> British moves[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 rename per nomination

Looks like the following should have been done with the October 8 moves. Propose the following renames.

Notice that all of these upmerge eventually to Cat:British business biography stubs. Looks odd to have the parent category say "British" and all the subcategories say "United Kingdom". Dawynn (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they have that as a parent rather than upmerging to it, but point taken :) Grutness...wha? 00:14, 23 March 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.

Undersized 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 discussion was upmerge all except the Oregon newspapers one

The following categories all have less than 40 articles, and in each case, my attempt to add a {{popstub}} request has been rejected by other users, insisting that each category is as full as it will get. Propose upmerging each of these categories to the next higher level parent(s).

Dawynn (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - for the Africa stubs. Which parent do you propose upmerging to? African sportspeople or cycling, golf, handball, either way you lose something. These seem to be the right level of "granularity".
  • Neutral - on the aikido stub.
  • Oppose - on the Oregon newspaper, which should have a parent of Category:Western United States newspaper stubs, which then has the same problem as the Africa stubs, upmerge to Oregon stubs or Western United States newspaper stubs? Tewapack (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, this is precisely why we allow for multiple upmerges on templates. So, yes, the upmerges would look like this:
Dawynn (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not the Oregon newspaper stub should be deleted, but I take some exception to the the characterization of my removal of {{popcat}} as "rejection". This implies I ignored the directive. I only "insist" that the category is as full as it will get--as I mentioned in the edit summary--because that is the truth. As it stands, the category contains 38 entries. I used the tool and I think I added a couple of tags. I even just now looked for any I may have missed "by hand" and only discovered one deserving of a Prod instead. If the threshold of 40 is writ in stone, that's fair enough, but I somewhat cynically ask if it would simply be better for me to whip up a couple one-sentence stubs in order to save y'all the trouble of upmerging. Though I don't have a strong opinion about the category's deletion, I do think it's going to be much harder for interested editors to improve the articles if they are upmerged. Though I generally applaud the better organization of anything, which this effort appears to be, I think we have to take a step back and think of our readers and fellow editors. Is this upmerge going to do anything to help these article become "unstubbed?" or is it organization for organization's sake? Valfontis (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that the threshold is actually 60, which seems extraordinarily high and unattainable for this regional category, though I suppose I could easily write 22 stubs from Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of US Newspapers/Oregon. Anyway, if the the threshold is 60, then clearly it should be upmerged, though again, although I understand the need to draw the line somewhere, it doesn't seem like that action will aid in getting these articles expanded. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upmerging. Yes, multiple categories is the standard way to go in such cases, as has been pointed out. Valfontis, removing popcat once the category has been filled to its current maximum possible is not a rejection, but having that maximum possible below the 60-stub threshold is. 60 is not "extraordinarily high", because it is the same standard over all stub categories and has been found to be an optimum level for both stub sorters and stub editors. If there were different standards for different categories the job of keeping control of stub sorting would quickly become impossible. Yes, doubly upmerging will quite probably help these articles become unstubbed, since a lot of Oregonian editors who wouldn'tt naturally think of looking in a newspaper category might readily find the articles in a more general Oregon category, and similarly more editors working on newspaper articles would probably find the articles in a slightly broader regional category. See User:Grutness/Stub rationales, which explains the reasoning behind such upmergings. Grutness...wha? 22:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but apparently I didn't come across too clearly. The tag added here doesn't say anything about bringing the amount up to 60 and it's been years since I delved into the inner workings of stub sorting, so I didn't remember it was 60. So I still don't think I rejected anything, since there was nothing to reject. It's not like I said--"no way, I ain't gonna populate this category". I used the tool and populated it as much as it could be, and removed the tag, per the instructions. Maybe an additional instruction could be added to the template that "populate" means "60 or more". And I only meant that 60 is a high number for a category about a topic that involves a small state and a small topic area about that state. In other words, unless a concerted effort is made, there ain't no way the category could get up to 60--I'm not saying "it's not fair" or asking for a special exception or anything like that. Just acknowledging that it's unlikely the cat would get populated up to the current standard. It's not a value judgement. Do whatever it takes to make this system work for you, I have no problem with it, just the already stated concern with folks finding these things easily, which you have addressed. Thank you. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, that template doesn't say anything about the stub threshold because it's a general template used on all small categories, not just stub ones. The two other templates on the page both point to more specific stub-related information, though. And no, in the sense of a conscious rejection it wasn't, but an admission (in the form of the removal of the template) that it was as full as currently possible is an indication that the category would remain undersized and therefore was potentially a deletion candidate. As to the size limit, you'd be surprised - it's more than possible that the number of articles on Oregonian newspapers will increase over time to the poinbt where it is no longer an issue. Grutness...wha? 21:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not sure what's going on with you two, but "rejection" and "admission" seem like pretty strong words for what otherwise looks like a kinda mundane little discussion about tidying up. Am I missing something? Is there something to argue about here? -Pete (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Um... only that they're not "pretty strong words"? They're just standard words you use in a discussion on a process page like this. If you note the original proposal on this page it says: my attempt to add a {{popstub}} request has been rejected by other users, which is a fair comment given that the template was removed. It's not surprising at all that the word rejection is being used in discussion over it. Grutness...wha? 00:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No strong preference -- I've never really understood why stub tags are as granular as they are. However, as someone with a particular interest in this particular topic, it seems potentially useful to have all Oregon newspaper stubs categorized, for possible future collaboration projects. (I should note that one of the earliest and most successful WikiProject Oregon Collaborations of the Week resulted in a GA for the Eugene Register Guard article.) As long as a stub tag within the Oregon stub category remains, though, I'm not too worried about it. -Pete (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It strikes me that unless there is a specific WikiProject Oregon newspapers, then the category's not that necessary. If the articles are upmerged into the respective general US newspapers and Oregon stub categories, they would actually be more obvious and therefore more likely to be picjked for collaboration topics. It's worth noting that at the time of the CotW you mention, the article was just in those general stub categories (even the Oregon-newspaper-stub template didn't exist then, let alone a stand-alone category). Again, the stub rationale page I linked above is worth looking at. Grutness...wha? 21:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone has made a concerted effort to populate the Oregon newspaper category. With over 50 articles, I'm going to take this off of the deletion nomination. Dawynn (talk) 10:36, 9 March 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.

February 9[edit]

{{Wrpg-videogame-stub}}/Category:Western role-playing video game stubs/{{Jrpg-videogame-stub}}/Category:Japanese role-playing video game 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.

Result was delete. As templates are currently in use, they'll be redirected to the generic {{rpg-videogame-stub}} until they can be cleared. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • While it may be easy to populate these categories, this distinction is not helpful to stub-sorting. These are not sub-genres, these are merely where the game was produced. There are not matching parent categories (Western RPGs, Japanese RPGS). Seeing as how even Japanese games are published in the West with English dubbing and menus, this doesn't do much to help separate them. Templates link to an article on cultural differences that was deleted and redirected for similar reasons. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge stubs into an "RPG-videogame-stub" category. These categories are somewhat arbitrary. Nomader (Talk) 21:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even the term "Western" paints too broad a brush. Is that to include all games made by Canada, Mexico, Brazil, United States, Britain, France, Spain, Germany, etc etc? While "JRPG" only focuses on those made in Japan, at the expense of Chinese, Korean, Indonesian, etc games? They are silly categories, with one focused only on one nation and the other stacking several countries against it. The people who use these labels are obviously bias. --Therpgfanatic (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While trends do exist, the categories should be deleted as they can be loaded terms in and of themselves and many games are not distinctly labeled as such.陣内Jinnai 21:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a point of clarification. As can be easily read about at Role-playing video game#Cultural differences, and History of role-playing video games#Cultural differences, the terms "Western" and "Japanese" here have nothing to do with the country of origin, although games made in Japan and other eastern Asian countries tend to follow the "Japanese" pattern, while those made in the US and Europe tend to follow the Western pattern. Japanese games are extremely linear, use pre-made, typically pre-named characters, and focus more on a plot line than on the character. Prime examples are Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy. Games made for consoles, where controls are very simplified, typically fall into this category. Western games typically allow for the user to define their own characters, allow for open-ended gameplay, and focus more on building the character, sometimes not even caring whether the player follows a plot. See the main games of the Elder Scrolls series for an extreme example. (Daggerfall was a huge world that had a plot, but didn't care at all whether the user paid attention to the plot) It's a fine line of distinction, and often difficult to find sources that indicate what category a particular game falls into. I initially tried to draw this distinction, and have since lost interest in maintaining it. Since few other seem to care, I'm OK with deleting, as long as both classifications are removed. Dawynn (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That cultural differences article is in dispute due to unreliable sources; as in, all the sources are editorials who do not cite their research. --Therpgfanatic (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a minor point of clarification, these are disputedly reliable sources. Consensus has not been reached, but is currently in discussion. --Teancum (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did not know that. I will freely admit that you can almost never find any references in reviews to anyone calling an RPG a Western RPG. But it is not uncommon to read about one referred to as a Japanese-style or console-style RPG. However, even that distinction does not come up often enough for reputable citing. Dawynn (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 8[edit]

Unneeded North American hotel company templates[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 delete/move per unopposed amendment to proposal

Requesting delete for the following templates, each of which is already empty:

Keeping the US category, as well as the North American (4 P) and Mexican (1 P) templates. Dawynn 13:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. Seems that these are empty because you've been mass-editing article to orphan them, recating them as structures instead of companies. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 19:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I've only be doing this in cases where the article is about a structure, not a company. I can't help it that we have no stub hotel company articles for these countries. And I don't see a reason to pad out the stub categories simply with empty templates. I have kept continental categories for each continent. Dawynn (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why the focus on 'structure'? Hotels are about accommodation, hospitality, service, and most are ordinary structures. There are millions of hotels in the world, and may thousands should warrant articles. You're moving the granularity in entirely the wrong direction: "continental"? Give me a break. Greenland may be a stretch, but warmer places will warrant categorization at the level of cities and towns, not countries. Ditto for the belows. Jack Merridew 21:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I was doing some other stub-sorting work when I came across this problem. All the templates were labeled *-hotel-company-stub, yet the verbiage all talked about individual hotels. For instance, the Bahamas template stated "This article about a hotel or resort in the Bahamas is a stub." So, regardless of who may have created these templates and categories to begin with, there was no focus. It was labeled as company, but the templates and categories talked about the individual hotels, and were classified under building and structure categories.
  2. Stub sorting has never, ever been about how many articles there *should* be. Ideally, our project shouldn't exist at all. It would be better if every article written for Wikipedia was long enough to justify at least a "start" class rating. We try our best to classify the stub articles that exist into categories of reasonable size. We may classify articles by city, if enough articles exist to justify the classfication. Otherwise, we move up to larger regions, whether states, countries, or, yes, continents.
  • I chose, when I saw the mess that was this hotel-company-stub scheme to differentiate between company and structures. It was approved by our current admins. But once I moved the individual hotel articles into structure categories, there were very few company articles left. Believe it or not, I could not even find enough US company articles to truly justify a category. Yes, there are several US hotel company articles, but many of these no longer qualify as stubs. As you indicate, there are plenty of hotels out there. Many countries may see "hotel (structure) stubs" categories. We may even be able to justify city categories for London and New York. But companies? There just aren't many. Dawynn (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the new proposal under Africa for -hotel-stub. Applying this proposal to North America would look something like this.
Is this proposal more acceptable? Dawynn (talk) 02:20, 20 February 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.

Unneeded Oceanian hotel company templates[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 delete/move per unopposed amendment to proposal

Requesting delete for the following templates, each of which already has no articles:

Keeping the Oceania template for now, with its sole article. Dawynn (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object, as above; these were inappropriately orphaned and recategorized. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 19:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As above, there is nothing inappropriate. Companies have been classified as companies, and structures as structures. Dawynn (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the new proposal under Africa for -hotel-stub. Applying this proposal to Oceania would look something like this.
No point in breaking down by individual countries when there are only 31 articles. Is this proposal more acceptable? Dawynn (talk) 01:51, 20 February 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.

Unneeded South American hotel company templates[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 delete/move per unopposed amendment to proposal

Requesting delete for the following templates, each of which already has no articles:

Keeping the South American template for now, with its sole article. Dawynn (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object, as above; these were inappropriately orphaned and recategorized. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 19:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As above, there is nothing inappropriate. Companies have been classified as companies, and structures as structures. Dawynn (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the new proposal under Africa for -hotel-stub. Applying this proposal to South America would look something like this.
As for Africa, with only 24 articles, since we can't even support a category, there's no need for separate country templates. Is this proposal more acceptable? Dawynn (talk) 01:42, 20 February 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.

Unneeded US hotel company templates[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 delete/move per unopposed amendment to proposal

Requesting delete for the following templates, each of which already has no articles:

Keeping the US category for now, but with a {{popstub}} tag. I was surprised how few stub articles I could find for the US. Granted, I was being fairly conservative as to what I was considering a "stub". Dawynn (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object, as above; these were inappropriately orphaned and recategorized. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 19:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As above, there is nothing inappropriate. Companies have been classified as companies, and structures as structures. Dawynn (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the new proposal under Africa for -hotel-stub. Applying this proposal to the US would look something like this.
Is this proposal more acceptable? Dawynn (talk) 02:06, 20 February 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.

Unneeded European hotel company templates[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 delete/move per unopposed amendment to proposal

Requesting delete for the following templates, each of which already has no articles:

Keeping the European category, as they are nearing enough articles to justify the category. (58 articles, but 11 are templates) Dawynn (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object, as above; these were inappropriately orphaned and recategorized. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 19:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As above, there is nothing inappropriate. Companies have been classified as companies, and structures as structures. Dawynn (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the new proposal under Africa for -hotel-stub. Applying this proposal to Europe would look something like this.
Is this more acceptable? Dawynn (talk) 01:26, 20 February 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.

Unneeded African hotel company templates[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 delete/move per unopposed amendment to proposal

Requesting delete for the following templates, each of which already has no articles:

Which leaves just two templates for African hotel companies (the general Africa template, and Uganda), with 1 article each Dawynn (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object, as above; these were inappropriately orphaned and recategorized. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 19:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As above, there is nothing inappropriate. Companies have been classified as companies, and structures as structures. Dawynn (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Object to all Redirect them to xxxx-hotel-struct-stub then and restub sort them by country.... How many hotels does Australian have for instance?? 80.3.26.54 (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I don't think that answers the problem either. When all the -hotel- tags were -hotel-company- tags, we had all the individual hotels tagged as -company-. I don't really want to encourage a move the other way -- tagging hotel companies as structures. There are true hotel company stub articles (see African Sun Limited). In fact, I might not have even raised an issue, if the tags had simply stated -hotel-stub, because I could see both companies and individual hotels tagged as -hotel-stub, although how one would categorize such things is a bit tricky. But the original tags were -hotel-company-stub tags. OK, I worked with that, making sure that all the -hotel-company-stub tags were on -hotel-company- articles. (I will finish that work today). The question was what to call the individual hotel articles. -hotel-struct-stub made sense to me, but has evidently raised issues in other people's minds. And now that we have both, what is the best thing to do with the admittedly mostly empty -hotel-company-stub landscape. Dawynn (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not move them all to hotel-stub then? It would seemingly avoid confusion over what is a company or a structure. Because all hotels are companies, even individual country hotels, its just that some are run by international hotel firms. I would prefer Hotel stubs covering both companies and structures were in one stub category too. 80.3.26.54 (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The permcats are not lined up this way. category:Hotels by country carries a distinct set of articles separate from those found in category:Hospitality companies and category:Hotel and leisure companies.
  2. It would be even harder to break by country or other divisions if we threw everything into one big pot. How many European hotel companies honestly have hotels in only a single country? How many US hotel companies have hotels in only a single state? We can break the individual hotels according to country / state because they are in a specific location. We can break the companies according to where the home base is, but that's more awkward, and honestly, often undocumented.
Effectively, we would run into the same problem, just under different terminology. The individual hotels, whether we call them structures or not, are sortable according to location. The hotel companies are not, and would need to be in the upper level categories anyway (most by continent, or possibly for the US, just at the national level, some only at the global level). You'd still have the same separation issues, no matter what you call them.
Would the following proposal be more acceptable (considering only Africa)?
Move category Cat:Hotel (structure) stubs to Cat:Hotel stubs; template {{hotel-struct-stub}} to {{hotel-stub}}
Redirect Cat:Hotel company stubs to Cat:Hotel stubs; template {{hotel-company-stub}} to {{hotel-stub}}
Redirect {{Africa-hotel-struct-stub}} (38 P) to new template {{Africa-hotel-stub}} which will be an upmerge to Cat:Hotel stubs
Remove the following:
I don't see a need to break this down into individual countries until we can muster enough articles to make a whole category. Current article count: 41. I can look at the other continents later. Feel free to comment as to whether this is the direction we want to go. Dawynn (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So now we have two proposals (by me), with no final resolution from anyone else as to which is preferred. Considering only the problem of trying to differentiate in the future between structures and companies (and whether an individual hotel is a structure, a company, or both), I think it would be easier going forward to just take "company" and "structure" and all implications of company and structure out of the templates, categories, and verbiage. Barring any further objections, after another 7 days, I will move everything in that direction. This is basically the final proposal that I had put in each of these discussions. Consider this then the warning of a deadline for this discussion. Dawynn (talk) 13:31, 22 March 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.

{{Mario-game-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 discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Delete. Unused. Malformed. Never requested. Dawynn (talk) 11:38, 8 February 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.

Cat:Philadelphia 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 move to match permcat

Permcat is now at Cat:Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, so this should probably be moved to Cat:Philadelphia, Pennsylvania stubs to match. Grutness...wha? 04:14, 8 February 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.

February 7[edit]

Hotel 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 renamed/moved/deleted per extended discussions on related Feb. 8 stub types

A couple of subcats of Cat:Hotel (structure) stubs were speedied without time for there to be any comments on naming issues. Given that the rest of the tree uses the form "Hotel (structure) stubs", it would make sense for the new tcategories to do likewise, especially since the alternative is both coumbersome and still ambiguous about whether it's the buildings or the companies. As such, I suggest the following renames:

Grutness...wha? 22:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for getting jumpy on that. I was following the pattern of the perm cats for the country categories. I have no real preference either way and will follow the community's decision on this. Dawynn (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we are splitting between company and buildings I think we need structure in the title, but given the recent moves would this not be Cat:Brirish hotel (structure) stubs and Cat:American hotel (structure) stubs. Waacstats 13:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or even "British...", yeah, that would be just as good. I was simply going by the "of/in the Foo" permcat => "Foo stubs" approach. Grutness...wha? 21:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. I thought the purpose of the UK -> British and US -> American moves was to make the stub categories fall more in line with the perm cats. Here the perm cats are Cat:Hotels in the United States and Cat:Hotels in the United Kingdom. Frankly, given the hub-bub that 'structure' has caused for these categories, I'm willing to take 'structure' out of all the titles, as long as we don't start lumping the companies and structures back together (thus making things impossible to sort). Do we need to change all of the new categories?
I want to keep -hotel-struct- in the template title just so that taggers think about whether the article is about a structure or a company. Dawynn (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone's suggesting changing the templates. The standard way of aligning a stub cat name with a permcat name is this:
Using a form like Cat:Bars in Foo stubs leads to category names which are not only cumbersome but also often misleading. Grutness...wha? 21:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See February 8 for ongoing discussion about whether to delineate between structures and companies, or whether to create -hotel-stub templates. Dawynn (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the shift in direction from the Feb 8 discussions, I created:
Dawynn (talk) 18:32, 29 March 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.

Category:Washington (U.S. state) 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 Rename all per the renames of similar categories on CfD.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion resulting in Category:Washington (U.S. state) being renamed to Category:Washington (state). All non-stub subcategories will be renamed (eventually) via CFD (see e.g., here) or CFDS. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support based on related moves. Waacstats 13:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per recent move. --AdmrBoltz 21:22, 10 February 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.

February 6[edit]

Redirect of hotel company templates[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 withdrawn

Having discovered that the vast majority of articles labeled as *-hotel-company-stub should have been labeled as *-hotel-struct-stubs, I'm proposing that the majority of the hotel company templates be redirected to the continental level.

I'm still in the process of migrating articles over to the new struct templates, so some of these still appear to have plenty of articles. For now, I'll leave the US and UK company templates alone. However, I expect to be able to delete all of the following categories, and upmerge any of the remaining templates to Cat:Hotel company stubs:

With any luck, we'll still have enough for a category. Dawynn (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems a little drastic, but I've no objection. One of them's wrongly named anyway - we've been using NewZealand- rather than NZ- for quite some time. Grutness...wha? 20:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I think that the templates should be upmerged, not redirected. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing this request. As I complete research in each continent, I will return with requests to remove the templates that serve no pupose. Dawynn (talk) 12:27, 8 February 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.



February 1[edit]

Category:Toys stubs/Template:toys-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 discussion was rename both category and template. Current template name kept as a redirect

Rename to Cat:Toy stubs/{{toy-stub}} - all other stub categories with names of objects or beings use the singular (i.e Cat:Magazine stubs, not Cat:Magazines stubs), and per correct English grammar. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Seems strange that this was ever created at the plural form to start with. Grutness...wha? 22:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree that it is strange so lets change it. Waacstats (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It will look better as well. --Bsadowski1 06:20, 5 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2011/February&oldid=417889387"