Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted/September 2005

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 2nd[edit]

{{Argentina-cult-stub}} / Category:Argentina culture stubs[edit]

Alas, the template refers to Argentinian culture, not cults. But, with Category:Argentina-related stubs having only 95 articles, and many of those decidedly not about culture, I don't think this stub is necessary. It's currently new and unused. Also, no other country (or even region) has a specific culture stub. --Mairi 04:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe this Culture stub should stay, I am adding new articles, and plan on adding more, and many culture of argentina related article ARE stubs but are not specified. I do not see the reason for deletion. Many users contribute on Argentine Cultural topics, such as artists, tv shows, music, and so on, why should this be deleted?, It is a tool that encourages at least creation of those articles, Since not much of Argentine related topics is documented. --San Marcos 07:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be upset now, but stubs are just a tool to get people who know about something to notice them...it's not really a category per se..and care to have a look at the threshold normally applied before a stub is created, and, while you're at it, have a look at procedure about creating stubs (I know you didn't create it) Lectonar 07:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe this stub, as well as the other one proposed for deletion is very new, and hasn't gotten enough attention. There are not many Argentine wikipedians on en.wikipedia, and proggress on Argentine related pages goes very slow.--San Marcos 08:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Surely that's all the more reason not to move things into more subcategories? The currently existing {{Argentina-stub}} is not oversized - the few Argentinian editors on wikipedia would be better served at present by that one umbrella category than by several stubs dealing with small numbers of articles. What's more, ""XXX culture stubs" is not part of the stub hierarchy, and would not have got that name if proposed on the proposals page (where it should have been proposed!). Most of the items are simply articles relating to Argentina in general, and are therefore adequately covered by argentina-stub. Grutness...wha? 09:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its true that Category:Argentina-related stubs has only 97 articles and that we are only a few Argentine wikipedians. But since short ago we have an average of 5 new articles per day checked at the Argentine Regional Board, most of which are stubs. Regarding Culture stubs, the culture of a community is much more than music and painting. These new categories might as well be overlapping so that People can be both among Biographies, but also at Politics, History or Culture if they ought to. I know, its a matter of thresholds, but if we are the ones using and checking this categories, and their only sin is to be over-specific , how could this be negative? -Mariano(t/c) 09:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's pretty much my point. Your new stub category doesn't fit in with the current hierarchy because it is combining lots of elements: art, politics, history, biography... The way you describe the things that could count as culture, it covers almost the entire Cat:Argentina-related stubs. So why bother? Be assured that when the general Argentina-related category gets too big, it will be a perfect candidate for a split - but it's not quite big enough for that split, and even if it was this wouldn't be the way to do it. Grutness...wha? 10:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need a new category to group cultural stubs. Not only there are very few of these stubs, but also, some of them are not even related to culture, or contain irrelevante information such as the name of a tv series. Therefore I believe this category is not necessary.

Voting[edit]

{{Argentina-hist-stub}} / Category:Argentina history stubs[edit]

As above, Category:Argentina-related stubs isn't large (and has very few history articles), and Category:History of Argentina (and children) contain 64 articles, many of which aren't stubs. Also new & unused. --Mairi 04:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is too new, and I do not see why it should be deleted. Too new, Argentina related proggress goes slow. User:Marianocecowski should really argue here, not me. --San Marcos 08:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC) (PS: Keep)[reply]
  • Given the small number of articles at the moment, the small number of editors working in this area, and also the overlapping nature of the histories of all South America's countries, a South America history stub would probably be viable, and would also be a reasonable compromise. I'd suggest the creation of {{SouthAm-hist-stub}} and associated category, and the redirection of the current stub to it. Grutness...wha? 10:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll second Grutnesss proposition her; seems the sensible thing to do Lectonar 11:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep or create a broader sub-category of Category:History stubs as that category has way too many articles in it directly and can use more subcats. However, if a broader sub-category is created, I suggest {{LatinAm-hist-stub}} so as to also include Mexico and Central America. Caerwine 19:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC):[reply]
    • I like the idea, but pinning down a consistent definition might be a little tricky, especially since we're dealing with history. Does it include the Caribbean islands, for instance? Or (the formerly British) Belize? How about early Floridian, Texan, or Californian history? Grutness...wha? 12:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 3rd[edit]

Cat:Relativity-related stubs/no template[edit]

Owing to a slightly fumbled pass when creating this one, {{relativity-stub}} fed into Cat:Relativity-related stubs... which fed into Cat:Relativity stubs. Given that the latter is the better name (IMHO), I've redirected the template to it, meaning this one is now orphaned and deprecated. Unless anyone has a strong preference for the name with "-related" on the end, I propose deleting this one. Grutness...wha? 13:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per above. Created mistakenly and now redundant. --TheParanoidOne 20:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, misnamed. I don't hang around WP:CFD much, so don't laugh too hard at my ignorance, but couldn't you have just waited 24 hours and then speedied this as a C2? —Cryptic (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're probably right. I just don't tend to think of stub types as being speediable. They are, of course. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Teesside-geo-stub}}/no category[edit]

As per Wikipedia policy on counties, British geographical items are being split according to the ceremonial counties - Teesside is not a ceremonial county, and is already covered by the Durham-geo-stub and Yorkshire-geo-stub. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Lectonar 09:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with {{NE-England-geo-stub}} or keep. Putting Teesside stubs under under “Yorkshire” is counterintuitive (it was widely reported that there were no Premiership football clubs left in Yorkshire when Leeds United were relegated last year and Middlesbrough stayed up). Susvolans ⇔ 15:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --18:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

September 5th[edit]

{{Route-stub}}[edit]

This stub isn't in the proper stub format, and it isn't even clear what it's supposed to be referring to. --Icarus 18:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

route-

{{uk-geo-stub}} (redirect)[edit]

Fairly innocuous, but probably worth getting rid of while it's virtually unused. Incorrect capitalisation - the guideline is to use capitals for proper nound - which country names are. Long since superseded by the rapidly diminishing {{UK-geo-stub}}, and used on virtually no articles (about 25 of 1500 UK geography stubs, all of which will soon be replaced with {{England-geo-stub}} anyway). Grutness...wha? 09:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and re-assign stubs as England or county geo-stubs. --David Edgar 15:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while it causes minimal impact.Saga City 20:08, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • NOTE. For some reason the "what links here" page of this template is not working properly (I've queried this at the Village Pump). For that reason, it's not possible to say what articles this template is used on. Cat:UK geography stubs is going down pretty fast, though - it would be better to wait until it is empty before deleting this stub redirect. Grutness...wha? 07:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template is being used on only one article. Aecis 15:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not true - as I said, there's a glitch. I've removed it from four articles since you added that comment! Grutness...wha? 01:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see. Would it help if someone was to deliberately put a typo in the template text (for instance "United Kigndom"), and then google for that typo? Aecis 15:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd suggest not; it's unlikely to be picked up by google's webcrawler before someone fixes it. Googling for the version of the template with the deletion message (which should in principle have the same effect) finds the template itself, but nothing else, for example. Alai 22:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • In any case, it'll be a moot point in a few days - Cat:UK geography stubs is now down to under 400 articles from 1200 last week (almost all of them are going into the separate country categories). In a few days time it'll be obvious that there are none left. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • UK geography stubs has been emptied, and uk-geo-stub's gone! Grutness...wha? 08:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Heroic effort, Grutty, well done. :) Of course, you realize that several hundred of them will be re-moving pretty soon anyway... (Labour on, Sisyphus.) Alai 03:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 6th[edit]

Rename of {{Kerala Geo Stub}}[edit]

Rename to {{Kerala-geo-stub}} to match other geo stubs. (I intend to make an attempt at fixing the categories on this one.) --TheParanoidOne 21:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very good idea. We also need someone who knows about Indian and Japanese geography to work out how to split those two large geo-stub categories properly - but that's not a discussion for this page. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modified the stub so that only the redirect now carries the sfd-t notice Caerwine 09:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename of {{Kerala Stub}}[edit]

Rename to {{Kerala-stub}} to match existing stub types. An alternative would be to delete it outright, as it has so few articles. --TheParanoidOne 21:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - only has six articles, at least one of which is a geo-stub. If kept it should be renamed and the huge icon should be shrunk. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently, now it has 48 articles. What gives? --Joy [shallot]
  • Modified the stub so that only the redirect now carries the sfd-t notice Caerwine 09:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 10th[edit]

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

Redirects to {{HeBible-stub}}. However, "Bible" refers to things other than the Hebrew Bible (such as the Christian Bible), so the redirect is misleading and ought to be deleted. It is also currently unused. --Mairi 20:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment' does HeBible-stub need a rename? It doesnt look like a brilliant name. BL Lacertae 00:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, it probably could do with a re-name. Any suggestions? Grutness...wha? 05:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect with possibilities should probably be deleted for the time being. --Joy [shallot] 11:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename of {{FR-stub}}[edit]

I was going to propose this for deletion but it has an amazing 144 stubs, so I now suggest a rename. What? Oh, right - Forgotten Realms. Not France, nor Fixed Relay, nor Fribourg, nor any of the dozen or so other possible FRs. {{ForgottenRealms-cvg-stub}} or just {{ForgottenRealms-stub}} is much closer to our standard naming. Oh, and someone needs to go through the category with null-edits - for the first two months of its existence it fed into the category as [[Category:Forgotten Realms stubs| ]], so very few of the items in there have been put in in alphabetical order! Grutness...wha? 11:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to {{ForgottenRealms-stub}}. cvg isn't appropriate; it's primarily for a pen-and-paper rpg, not a computer game. I've done the null edits. —Cryptic (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to ForgottenRealms-stub. Null edits done. --TheParanoidOne 11:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This should probably have a second parent of {{Fantasy-stub}} as there have been several books set in this universe, and I am pretty sure that some of the stubs are for those books or characters appearing primarily in those books. And list with the other "universe" stubs in the header of {{Book-stub}}, i think. DES (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a (sadly) main editor for the FR entries, I confirm most of is about the PnP RPG. Is there a way to automatically transform FR-stub into ForgottenRealms-stub (it had not been done yet, as one can see on the edit pages for relevant articles)? Reply to David Latapie 00:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have created the new name and modiied the stub list to use the new name. Now all that needs to be done is to restub with the new name. Caerwine 09:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have edited all articles containing it - all that is left are Wikipedia maintenance pages + one user page linking to it. --Misza13 14:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{General-Edu-stub}} / Cat:General Education stubs (take two)[edit]

Wow - déjà vu! We debated this one (it's below at #.7B.7BGeneral-Edu-stub.7D.7D .2F Cat: General Education stubs), but any deletion was held over while the education stubs overall were re-jigged. That's now happened, and this category is now redundant and empty. The template currently redirects to edu-stub, but it's improperly formed and unnecessary. Delete. Grutness...wha? 11:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; since everything's been moved around, there's no real need for this category/stub anymore. Kamezuki 11:28, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Just in case it needs to be said - delete. --Joy [shallot] 22:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Hl-stub}} / no category[edit]

Refers to Half-Life, not any thing else Hl or HL could refer to. Which makes it a very narrow topic (main category has only 96 articles), and unlikely to get nearly enough articles (currently unused, altho only a day old). Delete. If not, it definitely needs a rename. --Mairi 18:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I saw this and thought that someone had recreated the Hawaii-stub redirect (sans-serif. sigh) ! Grutness...wha? 19:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. This was feeding into Category:Stubs, from which I have now removed it. --TheParanoidOne 10:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{SA Route Stub}}/ co nategory[edit]

How many things is it possible to have wrong with one template? This one, for South African regional routes, has about 150 articles - all assigned to Cat:South Africa-related stubs and Cat:Road stubs, and is badly named, to boot. I propose renaming it as {{SA-road-stub}} (which will allow it to also take the few South African non-highway road stubs), and giving it a dedicated category. Grutness...wha? 11:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed Since it's been a week, I'll go ahead and create the category and change the existing stub to point to it. I don't feel like doing the actual work of revising the stub or editting the articles that use it. Caerwine 14:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've renamed the stub template, it's really a speedy rename candidate because it's trivially contrary to the naming convention. The category was already done. --Joy [shallot] 11:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 12th[edit]

{{Venezuela-writer-stub}} / no category[edit]

Currently empty, this stub feeds into Cat:Writer stubs. I can safely say that there aren't at present but at most 50 writer stubs for all of South America, let alone Venezuela, so please let's delete this one fast. Caerwine 00:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • You know the writer stubs better than anyone, so I'm willing to take your word on this. Since there aren't even enough for a south America writer stub at the moment, this does sound unlikely. Delete. Grutness...wha? 05:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as you guys. Alai 04:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Mn-stub}} / no category[edit]

Refers to Minnesota (MN is the postal abbreviation). Newly created, and has only 1 article. But since {{US-stub}} has less than 400 articles, I can't see this getting much use beyond geo-stubs (which ought to get a separate template if necessary) or a few bio stubs. But even if it's kept, I don't see any reason to keep the current name, even as a redirect. --Mairi 01:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Iff it was kept it should be renamed. Even if we were using the abbreviations (which we're not) it should be MN, not Mn. But unless there's a separate WikiProject there probably isn't really a call for having a correctly named {{Minnesota-stub}}. (In other words, if there's a Wikiproject, rename. If not, delete). Grutness...wha? 05:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There doesn't appear to be a wikiproject, based on the list or category. --Mairi 05:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 13th[edit]

Rename of {{Dk-stub}} and {{Danish-bio-stub}}[edit]

The general rule for one word place names in stubs is to not abreviate and not to adjectivize. There is already a {{Denmark-geo-stub}}. These two should be made the redirects to match the general rule as {{Denmark-stub}} and {{Denmark-bio-stub}} currently exist. The former as a redirect and the latter as a separate stub. Caerwine 07:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • As above, at the very least reverse the redirects so that {{Denmark-stub}} and {{Denmark-bio-stub}} are the main templates. Better still would be to delete the misnamed stubs. Grutness...wha? 07:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no reason to keep them if they already exist. - SoothingR 09:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Susvolans ⇔ 07:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alai 04:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC) D'eh, I mean, rename. Must have been on a deletionist roll or something. :) Alai 16:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename 1) Yes, {{Danish-bio-stub}} is redundant to {{Denmark-bio-stub}} and can be removed. 2) {{Denmark-stub}} is NOT a stub but a mere redirect to {{Dk-stub}}! I have no problem with renaming it, but make sure that this stub is only renamed and not just killed off. I like my national stub. --Valentinian 11:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think anyone wants to see the end to a separate stub type for Denmark. The heading on this is rename - Dk-stub is non-standard and should be deleted and replaced by the name Denmark-stub. Grutness...wha? 22:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{MK-noble-stub}} / Category:Macedonian nobility stubs[edit]

Newly created, used on 7 articles; with a less than intuitive abbreviation (altho it is the ISO one for the modern country). However, I can't see it getting nearly enough use; Category:Macedonian monarchs has only 33 articles, not all of which are stubs (there isn't a category for nobility/royalty in general, and Category:Macedonian people is quite sparse). So delete. --Mairi 06:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I doubt we'd even get enough articles for a Macedonia-bio-stub to be useful. Plus, of course, there's the possibility of complaints about what is meant by "Macedonian" - a can of worms I'd rather not have anyone open. If kept, it's a definite rename, but I don't see any reason why it should be kept. Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sparsity and can-of-wormity makes any Macedon stub not worthy at this time. Caerwine 07:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - reffering to this country as ROM or fYROM is one thing. Having in ancient Macedonians (let's say 400 bC) a wiki link ([[Republic of Macedonia|Macedonian]]) to that country (let's say 1992 aD), is absolutely unacceptable. MATIA 09:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename of {{Leb-stub}}[edit]

The general rule for one word place names in stubs is to not abreviate and the corresponding bio stub is already {{Lebanon-bio-stub}}. There is no {{Lebanon-geo-stub}}. Recommend renaming this to {{Lebanon-stub}} so as to keep the need to guess while stubbing to a minimum. We have so many stubs these days that clarity is more imporant than bevity. Caerwine 06:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. If and when a geo-stub is made, it will be lebanon-geo-stub. This one's needed a rename for a while. Grutness...wha? 06:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. But this template is used more than 70 times. Who will change them all? CG 17:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 70? I and a couple of other stub sorters are busy re-stubbing 1500 UK-geo-stubs. 70 is nothing. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


{{Sa-stub}}[edit]

A little used redirect to the less dubiously named (but still not brilliant) {{SA-stub}} (stubs about to South Africa). As with Uk-geo-stub ( listed here a few days ago), this doesn't follow the naming guidelines. Grutness...wha? 07:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I use it, and find it usefull and quick to type in --Jcw69 13:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
sa-stub's hardly obvious - it could refer to just about anything. If you had to guess what it stood for, the one thing it'd least likely to refer to beginning with sa is something which uses capital letters - like a country name. Much more likely to be something like small arms, systems analysis, Sanskrit, or any of the dozens of things listed at SA and Sa. In any case, SA-stub's just as quick, and when you consider that really we should be talking about changing it to SouthAfrica-stub, SA-stub's not too bad an option. Grutness...wha? 13:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Needless duplication with SA-stub. However, I don't agree with the statement that "SA-stub" is itself also unsuitable, as Template names are chosen for their ease of use and not ease of guessing. Readers of the articles will not have to guess what "SA-stub" means, for example. Impi 10:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lectonar 09:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe ZA-stub, since .za is South Africa's TLD. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
MM. Not so sure I like that - SA is the usual English abbreviation (or RSA); ZA is the Afrikaans "Zuid Afrika". I think keeping the English names might be better. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even Afrikaans (which spells it "Suid-Afrika") but Dutch, which used to be one of South Africa's official languages until the 1920s. Anyway, I might be ok with such a move if there is a conflict with other stubs over the "SA" bit, but so far I've seen no evidence of any other stub category needing the "SA" abbreviation. Basically, considering the fact that South Africa is most commonly known by the "SA" abbreviation, and is also likely to have more stubs than any of the other articles in the SA list, I think it's fine to keep it at "SA-stub". Impi 10:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think several people here are getting the wrong end of the stick. Although I think SA-stub is a fairly dubious name (as I said above), I'm not suggesting that that is changed. All I'm suggesting is the deletion of its redirect {{sa-stub}}. South Africa is a proper noun, and as such is abbreviated as SA, upper case, not sa. SA-stub is okay (though not brilliant) - it's in line with things like US-stub, NZ-stub, and UK-stub. sa-stub is not ok. Grutness...wha? 13:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SA-stub is just as easy to type, and properly capitalized. --Mairi 14:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Alai 04:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Sg-geo-stub}} and {{Sg-stub}}[edit]

While we're on the subject of abbreviations, these two should probably go. The first is an orphaned redirect to {{Singapore-geo-stub}}, the second works the other way - {{Singapore-stub}} currently redirects to it. Grutness...wha? 07:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd personally prefer a keep. The abbreviation 'SG' is common and much shorter. - Mailer Diablo 19:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're not the one who has to remove stub articles about South Georgia from Cat:Singapore geography stubs, or Stargate stubs from Cat:Singapore-related stubs! SG (not Sg, note) might be common in Singapore, but I doubt it's particularly common elsewhere. And WP:WSS deliberately avoids abbreviations - even common ones - as they are too ambiguous. Have a look at SG, and you'll see how ambiguous it is. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Common just in Singapore? United Airlines seems to think otherwise. It's used for in example, top level domains, and being a country having the priority, so Keep. -- Natalinasmpf 22:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not whether it is common to refer to Singapore as SG outside of Singapore or not. The issue is whether this particular template is unambiguous enough. And in those cases, noone/nothing has priority. Fact of the matter is that the sg-combination can refer to many things. Grutness mentioned but a few. And in cases of stub templates, confusion has to be avoided at all costs. {{singapore-geo-stub}} and {{singapore-stub}} only require a few extra letters, but they can avoid a lot of problems. So rename per Grutness. Aecis 23:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and fix {{Singapore-stub}}. The abbreviation is far from clear, given the other potential uses; I for one was unable to guess what it refered to when just looking at the template names. --Mairi 01:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; it makes sense to follow the URL domain convention. --Vsion 10:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...except that our naming guidelines don't use the domain conventions, because they're confusing when you're also working on non-geography stubs and regional-geography stubs. Our naming guidelines specifically say to avoid abbreviations - hence the reason other ISO/URL abbreviations have always been deleted previously. Grutness...wha? 01:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Wikipedia is international, and ambiguous abbreviations are bad. Susvolans ⇔ 17:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: too confusing. Alai 04:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (moderate): I suspect it may be ambiguous internationally, despite the good arguments for it --Dpr 19:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 14th[edit]

Delete Cat:United_States_Armed_Forces_stubs[edit]

"Found" stub type; recreated as US-mil-stub/United_States_military_stubs, and template redirect, in line with discussions on the respective pages. Old category now empty. Alai 04:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, once it's been empty for 24 hours. --Mairi 04:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Anti-stub}}[edit]

Has the text "Dear wikipedian, if you opened this page just for inserting a stub notice, please refrain from doing so. Improve instead the article by adding one more sentence. Thank you for your help." as a comment. WP:POINT, especially given the name. Can't see any good use for it either. --Mairi 03:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost speediable as nonsense. Grutness...wha? 04:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Aecis 22:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:Northern-Ireland-related stubs → Cat:Northern Ireland stubs[edit]

Just needs a slight name tweak to remove that first unnecessary hyphen. While we're at it we can take out the "-related", too. Grutness...wha? 01:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Are we going to start a slow crusade to eliminate the "-related" stub categories? I don't really mind if that is the plan, but at present the "-related"s outnumber the plains.
  • Rename as per nom. --Mairi 04:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Wwiair-stub}} / Cat:Wwiair-stub[edit]

Perhaps the single most badly named stub category I have yet seen. Not mentioned at WP:WSS/P, let alone debated prior to creation. It is, if you can work your way through the TXT-style name, for World War I aviation. We have currently only 53 World War I stubs in Cat:World War I stubs, and Cat:World War I aviation only has 11 articles other than fighter aces (who ould get a bio-stub of some form or another). If kept it would need drastic renaming, but I can see no reason to keep this completely unnecessary stub category. Oh, and by the way, the template links to two categories - this one and aviation stubs - and Cat:Wwiair-stub has no parent categories. Grutness...wha? 04:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename/help fixI am the creator of this stub. I do not debate that it could use a better name, but I will debate with deleting it altogether. The stub is currently on only a few pages because it has been created fairly recently (within the past few months) and I have not had time to stub other articles yet. In terms of WWI aircraft alone, there are many articles yet to be created or expanded upon (please see the yet incomplete List of military aircraft of Germany in WWI and List of military aircraft of Britain in WWI). It can at least be argued that I personally use this stub template to find articles that need to be expanded. Merging with Cat:World War I stubs would at first seem like a nice idea, but personally I only edit WWI aviation articles, which are sorely lacking on Wikipedia. It would be lacking even more to have this useful stub taken away... I don't understand why you feel it needs to be deleted? It is obviously in use and is not completely arbitrary, which should at least grant it the right to continue to exist.
Also, I didn't come to Wikipedia to be an expert Wikipedian, so apologies for badly naming the stub and not mentioning it in WP:WSS/P. Please link to WP:WSS/P so I can add it. I'm just here to contribute data that hasn't yet been added.
-FranksValli 05:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It currently has no stubs at all! Merging with WWI stubs not merely seems like a good idea, it's pretty per force, given their sizes. They can be split back out if they later grow in numbers. Personal convenience really isn't a great argument for retaining such micro-categories... isn't that what watch lists and to-do lists are for? Alai 06:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It did have two stubs - both of which were better in other categories. There's no point in linking WP:WSS/P to it - the P stands for "proposals" - it's where stub types are proposed for debate, prior to creation. Stub types shouldn't be created until they have been debated there, in order to check whether they are correctly named and categorised (this one isn't), have the required 60-100 stubs to reach threshold (this one hasn't),, and fit in with the stub hierarchy (this one doesn't). As for being created "within the past few months", it would be expected that a viable stub category - even if incorrectly created - would have over threshold well within a month. This one had two stubs - not surprising given the very small number of stub articles on this subject. Splitting it off later if the WWI stub category gets too big is always an option, but at the moment there's no point at all in doing so. Grutness...wha? 06:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What would one do to properly name, categorize, and fit this stub into stub hierarchy? Also, I didn't know about the 60 article minimum until now. There are definitely this many pages that will need this stub. Should I spend my time doing it only to have the stub likely deleted after I've stubbed all the articles? I'm getting really annoyed by this kind of crap on Wikipedia. Please pardon my frustration. FranksValli 06:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh what the hell, I guess we should delete it. I don't have the time to argue this here, I was just trying to contribute and mark pages that needed to be expanded. As I'm getting fond of saying for things on Wikipedia in general, NUKE IT (I guess when you're not a Wikipedia power user, you have to bend over and take it). FranksValli 07:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that you're upset (and for the others above: be nice!), but you have to understand us: a lot of especially Grutness's (and other contributors) time has gone into the whole stub-thingie to get it to the current status, but I think that you would be fine with the Cat:World War I aviation and adding a{{WWI-stub}} notice; as far as I can fathom it, you're the one adding these stub-notices, but on the other hand you argue that you use them to find stub articles to be expanded? And if you're into the topic: it should not be too difficult for you to browse the WWI-stubs for aviators and/or planes... :)Lectonar 09:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my outbursts yesterday guys, that's my fault. Thanks for the advice Lectonar, I wasn't aware of stub templates or any of that - I'll let you guys deal with this stuff (even if it means deleting it). Since I don't have enough time to stub articles right now, I'll just use the WWI-stubs as you suggest. If it gets to the point where I am editing a lot, I guess I should propose a WWI aviation stub. Again, sorry for my comments, I get frustrated easily unfortunately. FranksValli 18:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if you took my comments above the wrong way. The threshold level is important, though, otherwise we would have thousands of different stub types and editors would have the devil's own job trying to find anything. It's hard enough keeping track of all the stub categories there are now! Plus we'd have the constant problem of stub categories emptying out completely. If enough stubs on WWI aviation are ever created or found, this could be a useful category - the only thing really stopping it now is the size of the categories it would be a child of. Oh, and if it was recreated at a later date, then since we have WWI-stub and aero-stub, WWI-aero-stub would be the likely name for it. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 15th[edit]

{{Canada-poligeo-stub}} / Category:Canadian political geography stubs[edit]

Drives straight through the hierarchy like a herd of buffalo. Canada's geography stubs are already adequately split by province - including those based on political divisions (lets face it, the provinces are political divisions). Concatenating "political" with "geography" is vague to say the least - does it refer to electorates? or to provinces and counties? If the former, it's well covered by the subcategories of canada-geo-stub. If the latter... it's well covered by the subcategories of canada-geo-stub. Never within a sniff of WP:WSS/P, and very very unlikely to be supported if it was. Delete, and delete quickly. Grutness...wha? 06:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

changed to rename - see below Grutness...wha?

Delete Rich Farmbrough 15:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation: There are something in the order of a thousand stubs on Canadian electoral districts scattered across the 'pedia at present... some flagged with {{Canada-gov-stub}}, some with {{Canada-poli-stub}}, and some with the various {{Canada-geo-stub}} tags. Rather than some "vague" concatenation of politics and geography, the category is very explicitly an analogue of {{UK-constituency-stub}}— indeed the category description says rather explicitly "This category is for political geography stub articles relating to Canada. These may include articles on specific federal and provincial electoral districts as well as regional political phenomena." (I chose a name that was a little more inclusive than just "constituency" so it could include constituency-related articles.) -The Tom 00:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems largely reasonable to me (as per my comments in /Discoveries), though a more exact analogy would have been preferable. Keep, but rename as "canada-constituency-stub", leave any non-constituencies behind in the Canadian politics stubs. Alai 02:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Given the explanation, I'm changing this to a proposed rename to canada-constituency-stub. "Political geography" is definitely the wrong name, though (that simply means all geography relating to political divisions as a whole - even the aticle Canada is therefore a Political geography article. Grutness...wha? 05:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as above. It's true that there are now so many electoral district articles that there should probably be a dedicated stub. Fawcett5 12:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I favour the rename option; The Tom's reasoning is valid, but Grutness is also right that political geography potentially includes every article about a Canadian province, territory, regional district, county, city, town, township, village or First Nation as well as electoral districts. Let's keep these stub cats as precise and specific as possible. Bearcat 16:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to {{Canada-constituency-stub}} . The arguments presented so far have been valid ones. We already have general stubs with broad scope in this area - we don't need another one; make this one have narrower focus. Mindmatrix 23:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Canada-constituency-stub as above. --Mairi 15:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Sounds fine to me. I'd say merge if there weren't so many constituencies. Karmafist 22:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nightwish is apparently a Finnish band. Which doesn't have anywhere near 50 articles, much less that many stubs. Currently used on 3 articles. --Mairi 01:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - consider this... if every band in Finland got a stub template, what would the stub type tree look like? Even bands like The Beatles, U2 and (insert gigantic band of your choice) don't need stub categories, so why should a little-known Finnish band? Grutness...wha? 03:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet the criterea for a seperate stub.
    P.S. Nightwish is probably one of the better-known Finnish bands (at least among metal fans), they are fairly big in Northern Europe at least. That's naturaly besides the point here though. --Sherool 17:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies - I didn't realise it was a failry big band, but my vote remains the same. Grutness...wha?
  • Delete. Nightwish is indeed a Finnish band, and I've had the honour of seeing them play live once. But this does not meet the criteria for a separate stub. Aecis 15:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I love Nightwish, but this is going overboard. There is no need for its own stub category. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 03:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Helloproject-stub}} / Category:Hello! Project stubs[edit]

Created today; used on 1 article. Hello! Project is apparently a Japanese band-ish entity thing (the article doesn't say much on what it actually is), and Category:Hello! Project, and sub cats, have only 14 articles. --Mairi 02:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just created it today while I was at work, and was (and currently are) in the process of starting to add it to the appropriate articles. I think the addition of a brand new stub to the delete list is rather hasty. That category (Category:Hello! Project) needs a little fleshing out, too, I think. Cjmarsicano 02:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even big musical movements have not got separate stub categories - there are simply "Music-stub", "Band-stub", and "Musician-stub" - the latter subdivided in other, more intuitive ways. Cjmarsicano, please realise that stub categories don't have the same purpose as ordinary categories - while it may be perfectly alright for a band or pop genre to have an ordinary category, it makes no sense for every band or pop genre to have a separate stub category. Grutness...wha? 03:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that many of the articles that do or could fall under this category are pretty much stubs at the present time, I sincerely think that the stub is, for now, absolutely necessary. Cjmarsicano 04:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even if all the article-space pages that link to Hello! Project are stubs and are about that group (both of which are clearly not the case), there'd still be only 36 articles getting the stub. Which is less than the 50 existing articles criteria at the top of this page. --Mairi 04:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that creation of a category for this few stubs was rather hasty. Articles that could exist butter no parsnips, that's not what stub categories are for. Delete. If there's enough of them, a "j-pop" genre stub might be somewhat more viable. Alai 22:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sorry Cjmarsicano, but unless you can come up with at least 50 stub articles that could use this (or another very very good reason), it does not meet the criterea for a seperate stub type. --Sherool 17:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 17th[edit]

{{AU-road-stub}} (now a redirect)[edit]

Apparently, for the last three months we've had a stub category for Australian roads - useful, but far more useful if someone had dcided to tell us it existed! The stub template was as named above. I've moved it to {{Australia-road-stub}}, as per our standard naming, but that leaves this redundant and incorrectly named redirect. I propose deletion of it (it will mean moving some 30 articles - no problem). Grutness...wha? 13:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, for consistency's sakes. Alai 04:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 18th[edit]

Cat:Haiti-stub stubs[edit]

Reasonable category - appalling name. Rename to Cat:Haiti stubs! Grutness...wha? 08:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy rename. Aecis 11:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 19th[edit]

Category:Barney & Friends related stubs[edit]

Not a true stub category, malformed, has only two entries. Just moved this proposal for deletion here from Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_19. Kamezuki 04:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • There isn't even an ordinary category for "Barney & Friends", and this would be well enough covered by {{PBS-stub}}, so delete. Grutness...wha? 12:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deploy ear-muffs, and delete. Alai 17:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh my God... Delete Lectonar 11:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because I love you, I found a few stubs to add to the category. Seriously tho, rather than simply deleting, move these to a "Barney & Friends" category first. Caerwine 11:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Caribbean Community-stub}} / Cat:Caribbean Community-related stubs[edit]

Used on one article, which doesn't even appear in the category. Not exactly liable to sudden dramatic expansion either; it's been around since July. Alai 17:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC) Merge I agree that its doubtful that this can get to 60 stubs anytime soon. Merge into {{UN-stub}} by restubbing the single article and deleting the template and category. Caerwine 19:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Nfl-stub}} / Cat:National Football League stubs[edit]

Unsanctioned creation yesterday (discovered when it was added to the stub list) with four stubs. The subject is already well covered by {{Amfootball-stub}} and Cat:American football stubs, a category not so big that it needs splitting (the older category contains just under 300 stubs, many of which can and should be moved into the equivalent bio-stub category). Also badly titled - if kept it should be at the very least changed to NFL-stub, and even then it is likely to be confused with the Australian national football league (also known as the NFL). Grutness...wha? 03:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This stub was created as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League in a little more than three hours before it was nominated for deletion. So if this stub is deleted, it will set the precendant that any WikiProject-specific stubs are not safe from deletion. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • One more thing: Assume good faith. The user who created this stub probably was unaware about the stub listing procedures. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • When did I not assume good faith? As to being unaware of the stub listing procedures, WP:WSS discovered it when it was added to the main stub list - which gives full details of the stub creation process at the top. Grutness...wha?
      • Uhh wooops. Sorry I never knew there was any sort of stub creation process. Just delete if you want to, although I do think it is useful because there are many other American football leauges other than the NFL. JobE6 22:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a good precedent to me; why ought they to be "safe" from deletion, contra any other procedures? After all, articles created by Wikiprojects aren't "safe", either. Wikiprojects aren't supposed to be hermetically sealed bubbles. I'm sure Grutness wasn't imputing any bad faith here, just pointing out the "issues". In any case, delete; I've mentioned it to the 'project. Alai 17:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, I forgot that it is mentioned above under "What this page is not for" that "Stub types that have a limited scope, but where there is a WikiProject on the specific topic". But also assume good faith that Grutness probably did not realize it was created as part of any WikiProject. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment: I've winnowed out the bios that lept out at me from {{Amfootball-stub}}, and there's 270 stubs left. Mind you, the bios are now well over 900, and they should probably be split, but that's work for another page. Alai 18:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If kept, at the very least, the template should be renamed {{NFL-stub}}. Caerwine 19:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not realise that there was a Wikiproject on the N.F.L. However, several things are worth noting here. 1) There is already an adequate stub category which contains now under 300 stubs. It should not be that difficult to sift through which ones are and which ones are not connected to the wikiproject from that. 2) If it is decided to keep this template, then it will need to be renamed. 3) Wikiproject related stubs are not "safe" - one or two have been in the past ({{Hobstub}} comes to mind - although I see that's now back (why?)) and renamed quite a number of others. It is just that the threshold for creating or keeping a stub is considerably lower when a Wikiproject is involved. 4) Although it may well be true in this case, it's getting increasingly difficult to believe how many people aren't aware of the stub-creation process, given that it's listed or linked to on every page related to stubs and most stub categories on Wikipedia! Grutness...wha? 01:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, adequately covered by {{Amfootball-stub}}; in this case I don't think the existance of a wikiproject provides reason to keep. --Mairi 05:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I make the count of actual votes here 3-0 for deletion, but many of the comments imply a desire to keep, so I'm not sure whether this counts as a vote for deletion or not. As such, I'll leave it to someone else to log and deal with. Grutness...wha? 11:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 21st[edit]

{{Applied Science-stub}} and {{Applied science-stub}}[edit]

Identical (neither is a redirect), created by the same anon user. Both unused, and feed into Category:Science stubs. Very broad (and not necessarily precisely defined), and cuts across our current division by field. --Mairi 04:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can come up with a good use for it. Nah - just delete. It would need such a thorough overhaul that we'd have to start again from scratch, anyway. Grutness...wha? 05:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lectonar 11:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. Alai 04:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


September 22nd[edit]

Rename {{Roman-stub}} to {{Ancient-Rome-stub}}[edit]

This would place the template in line with the convention used by {{Ancient-Egypt-stub}}, {{Ancient-Greece-stub}}, and the just created {{Ancient-Rome-bio-stub}} Caerwine 18:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I created this stub before the Ancient Greece, etc ones were made. {{Ancient-Rome-stub}} makes far more sense. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Roman means of the Romans, and applies to the entire Roman Empire. Ancient Rome could be mistaked for just the (ancient) city of Rome. There is a risk of miscategorisation therefore, if the stub is simply renamed. --Nantonos 03:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment However, Ancient Rome is the name of the article about the entire civilization, not just the city. With Roman-stub, it's possible some people (not aware of standard stub-name conventions) would think it was for biographical articles about Romans. --Mairi 04:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you redirect it? the {{bio-stub}} + {{roman-stub}} grouping is going to be made into a ((rome-bio-stub)) or something along those lines soon.--Rayc 03:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see why that should make any difference. The new bio-stub could simply be named Ancient-Roman-bio-stub (in fact it should be, for the same reason this one should be renamed). Grutness...wha? 07:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it already exists and is named {{Ancient-Rome-bio-stub}}, as Caerwine mentioned in the nomination. --Mairi 13:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Alai 04:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Makes sense to me. --Dhartung | Talk 09:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Nantonos. Roman-stub should be for the entire Roman Empire and perhaps Ancient-Rome-stub should be a subset of Roman Empire, aka a stub for wikis related just to ancient rome and not to the empire as a whole. +MATIA ☎ 09:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New stub created and the old stub turned into a redirect for the new one, now we just need for people to begin making the switch. Caerwine 21:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Rename Category:Typography stub -> Category:Typography stubs[edit]

Shouldnt this be plural? (hope Ive done this ok) BL Lacertae 23:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy rename; or atleast we ought to have speedy renames for such uncontroversial fixes. --Mairi 04:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Mairi; Speedy rename. Kamezuki 04:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename. Alai 04:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:British law stubs (no template)[edit]

Currently a redirect to Cat:UK law stubs. Which is a shame, since the category's actually at Cat:United Kingdom law stubs! Delete. Grutness...wha? 08:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete since it's been empty for well over 24 hours. --Mairi 20:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:Victoria (Australia) geography stubs (no template)[edit]

Unused. Looks like it was accidentally created during the making of Cat:Victoria geography stubs. While it's feasible that people in british Columbia or Hong Kong could get confused, the name of category that's being used is probably adequate. Delete. Grutness...wha? 08:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete; empty for over 24 hours. --Mairi 21:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{pol-stub}}[edit]

A little quiz for you: Is this (a) for stubs about the police? (b) a redirect to {[tl|Poland-stub}}? (c) a redirect to {{Poli-stub}}? or (d) for stubs about polymers? The answer is (b), but you see the problem. Created in March and used on a mere eight articles, surely Poland-stub alone is adequate? Grutness...wha? 09:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I went ahead restubbed the eight articles, one of which had to be restubed to {{poli-stub}}! Caerwine 18:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without even thinking about it. --Joy [shallot] 22:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alai 04:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's useful and I like short stub names more. Halibutt 18:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect, Polish editors like me are used to it by now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why did only eight articles use this whereas poland-stub is used by nearly 600 articles? And there was clear confusion since opne of those eight wasn't even a Polish stub! Grutness...wha? 23:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete confusing name. poland is only three letters longer so shouldnt be a problem. BL Lacertae 00:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, name is needlessly confusing, especially when there is a better alternative. Lankiveil 07:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Cat:Singapore television stubs (no template)[edit]

Deprecated since the re-structuring of the broadcasting stubs hierarchy - the template that led here now leads to Cat:Singapore broadcasting stubs, which is hardly in need of splitting at the moment. Delete. Grutness...wha? 08:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also speedy delete. --Mairi 04:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete *drew 09:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Alai 04:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Vabio-stub}} / Cat:Biography of Virginians stubs[edit]

User:Mairi puts it best at WP:WSS/D: Even if we want to divide US-bio-stub by state, there are so many things wrong with this stub type. Both the category and template greatly need renaming. The category needs parent categories, and the template has some formatting issue that causes the text to wrap. If kept, {{Virginia-bio-stub}} and Cat:Virginian people stubs would be the names that should be used. However, argument recently at WP:WSS/P and D has favoured not having separate state-bio-stubs, since dividing by occupation the more obvious second division. Thus, my vote is delete. Grutness...wha? 07:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If we are to keep it, the name absolutely has to be changed to something that makes a modicum of sense to the average observer. --Joy [shallot] 00:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, strongly in favour of the US-occupation- sub-division. Alai 04:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Mairi 05:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete BL Lacertae 00:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 26th[edit]

Category:UK Comics stubs[edit]

Listed on CFD 13 Sep just listing here. ∞Who?¿? 18:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've done null-edits on the pages that were in the category; it's now empty. It was associated with {{UK-comics-stub}} until September 13, when it was changed to Category:UK comics stubs. --Mairi 19:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Qualifies for speedy delete then. ∞Who?¿? 00:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedelete. Alai 04:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

We seem to have been happy enough without this redirect to struct-stub for quite some time, so why someone should decide toc reate this now is beyond me. Unused (only created yesterday). Delete? Grutness...wha? 03:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it's been thru SfD before, Speedy Delete, otherwise Delete. Caerwine 13:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedily IAAP. Alai 04:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Template:UK-depot-stub --> Template:UK-railstation-stub[edit]

I just saw this and had a "What the..." moment, since it's not for depots at all, but for railway stations. Depot = place where stuff is stored temporarily before being moved off. A railway depot is somewhere trains are stored overnight, with not a passenger in sight. A railway station is somewhere passengers get on the trains. They're not even synonyms. WTH happened here? - SoM 15:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. Depot can also refer to things that aren't train-related. However, the second sentence of depot does say "It most often means a train station..." --Mairi 15:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although I agree that the term depot is not the most usual word for this in British/International English, it was named this way after quite a lengthly debate so as to be in line with other stub categories on such buildings. The term "station" - even as part of a compound such as "railstation", was deliberately avoided, since at that time "station-stub" referred to broadcast stations. It might be time to revisit this now, but if it is, then all similar stub names ({{US-depot-stub}}, for example) should be similarly renamed for consistency. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. For reference, here's what I could find of that discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#Problem with the new station stubs and Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria/Archive14. Station-stub has also been moved to broadcast-stub, and the redirect was then deleted. --Mairi 00:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, well, rename them all then. If this is intended for railway stations, referring to freight depots is hugely nonintuitive. It's not "not the most common term," it's simply not used. No-one would ever say "I'm going down to the local depot to catch a train," they'd say "station," possibly prefixing train or railway to it. And the stations are called X Station, not X Depot. - SoM 00:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Times must have changed since I was a young trainspotter in north London. The term certainly was used for railway station. Not often, but occasionally. Grutness...wha? 01:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also hear it used occasionally for railway station, in Washington DC and nearby states. --Mairi 02:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think times have changed enough for them to be in the UK, though! :) Grutness...wha? 07:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I think sometimes used for railways in the sense of bus depot, as well as the freight usage, but not for just any old station. And in any case, the depots are often physically separate from the stations. Alai 04:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Notionally all British passenger railway stations were also depots and those that weren't were called X Halt or Y Platform so that shippers knew not to sent parcels or goods there. This was in the days when railways were common carriers and are long gone. Stations that accepted goods and not passenger tended to be called "goods stations", repair-shops and the like were, sometimes, called depots - but there were (of course) regional and company variations. Saga City 14:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least until there are less than 300 stubs that use this template. At the moment, there are no less than 922 stubs that have this attached to them. Since the term is used to refer to both freight and passenger facilities, and readers don't see the stub name itself, expand those articles so that they no longer need the stub template. Although another 922 edits would help increase my own standing in WP:1000, there are other tasks here that will use my time better. slambo 15:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I haven't looked, but I'm confident that most of those 922 articles will be about passenger stations. As far as railways in Britain are concerned, a depot is a train storage/maintenance facility or a place for freight to be loaded/unloaded, never a place for passengers to get on or off trains. For instance, if you asked someone where "Waterloo Depot" was, they wouldn't know what you meant! However, the text of the stub template is fine, so as long as editors are aware of the template name, and are (grudgingly) willing to put up with it, it shouldn't be a problem. --RFBailey 12:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The current name is hugely non-intuitive and, certainly for the article I spotted it on, it is also wrong! In the context of public transport in the United Kingdom, depot exlcusively means a place where the busses/trains are storred and/or maintained. I am not aware of any train depots that routinely allow public access - even when they are on the same site as a boarding/disembarking place the latter will be called X station and the former X depot. What international useage is is irrelevant as this is explicitly for UK railway topics. Thryduulf 18:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 29th[edit]

{{Names-stub}}/no cat.[edit]

A duplicate of the well-used {{name-stub}} that was created in June and has been used exactly once since. No category, and, due to the way it was created, if you click on the "edit it" wording, you'll end up editing Akash, no matter what page you find the template on. Delete Grutness...wha? 22:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Template:Meast-stub[edit]

This is an unused redirect of Template:MEast-stub, created apparently to catch spelling errors. No evidence that it ever did so exists and its been over three months since it was created. Caerwine 01:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks positively confusing without the CamelCaps, doesn't seem very useful, as per nom. Alai 04:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. it's easy to spot spelling errors - they redlink. This one looks like it should be a stub for vesinon, prok, befe, mutotn and other types of meast. Grutness...wha? 04:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Robertehoward-stub}}/Category:Robert E. Howard stubs[edit]

Stub for books by a specific author, Robert E. Howard. Been around since July, still only has 32 articles. More specific than is needed. (Mentioned on Discoveries.) --Mairi 05:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Zero comments the first time through, relisting. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Worth noting that many of the stubs in this category should probably be merged - I've also taken two to afd. Grutness...wha? 05:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too specific --Alynna 00:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --TheParanoidOne 21:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 30th[edit]

Rename Category:Nigeria related stubs → Category:Nigeria stubs[edit]

This is a discovered category (with stub {{Nigeria-stub}}) that at present has over 50 stubs and should soon gain some more as I sort through African stub types. However the category doesn't quite fit the old pattern (no "-") so I want to change the category name to fit the new pattern ASAP. Caerwine 00:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - the sooner we get these categories shifted to the "official" names, the better. Grutness...wha? 04:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/September_2005&oldid=1086090111"