Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Not deleted/September 2005

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 4th[edit]

{{Finland-writer-stub}} / Cat:Finnish writer stubs[edit]

This one was slipped onto the stub type list about two months ago without anyone noticing (it hadn't gone through the proposal process). In those two months, seven stubs have been added to the category. I seriously doubt it could ever reach the threshold. Delete. Grutness...wha? 08:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; btw, we have a {{finland-bio-stub}}? Lectonar 08:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've gone through the Finland stubs and up to E in the Writer stubs and have gotten it up to 12 stubs at the moment. While it is doubtful that after I finish sorting through the Writer stubs in a couple of days that there will be enough to justify keeping Finnish writer stubs, there definititely will be enough to justify European writer stubs (well over 100 so far) and possibly Scandinavian writer stubs (28 stubs to date in my search). Therefore, I ask that if as I expect, the decision is to delete, that it's implementation be held off until a decision can be made concerning whether the Finnish writer stubs should go in European writer stubs or Scandinavian writer stubs. Caerwine 07:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - it would have to be Euro-writer-stub (probably extremely useful). Finland isn't in Scandinavia. Grutness...wha? 07:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If we add those 28 scandinavian stubs to my own findings (about 62 between French, Italian and German writers) we are well over the threashold for a "european-writer-stub". Question is if it's usefull to split by continent. The majority of the writers who doesn't go into the {{US-writer-stub}} seems to be European (with {{UK-writer-stub}} soaking up a fair number). While it would scertainly de-bloat {{Writer-stub}} I'm worried it would just move the problem to the new Euro writer stub instead, second only to stubs that make no mention of nationality whatsoever and who are therefore hard to subcategorise in theyr current form. --Sherool 09:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There would be nothing wrong with having this as a category anyway - it would be easier to see what needed to be split off from it then - the same method's been used in the past with other "by country" categories very effectively. And even if 75% of the writer stubs are from Europe, that would still leave two considerably smaller categories to work through for future splits. Grutness...wha? 06:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I remember, there are a fair number of japanese and brazilian authors/poets around too, but I think splitting off a {{Europe-writer-stub}} would be useful Lectonar 09:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I've completed going through all the writer stubs up to H (adding appropriate {{*-bio-stub}}'s as I go.} So far, I've come across well over 200 stubs so far that would go in {{Euro-writer-stub}} if that were the only geographic stub to be created, and the Finland writer stub count is at 26 and growing. (To be fair I also mined Finland stubs and Finnish bio stubs to get it that high, so I doubt if it'll go much higher.) There's also a definite need for a {{Canada-writer-stub}} (46 and growing) and Africa, Australia, France, Germany, East Asia, South Asia, and Nordic (to avoid differing interpretations of Scandanavia) all look promising, but I'll wait a few days until I complete my survey to make formal proposals with numbers to back them up. Caerwine 07:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Caerwine, if you can, try to keep what results you get from the survey in some form of spreadsheet, listing article name against nationality. From my work with the geo-stubs I know that it's 100 times easier to do the splitting if you know what articles need to be re-stubbed with each new template! Grutness...wha? 08:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's doubtful now that {{Nordic-writer-stub}} will be created given both the fact that there are those who don't like the idea and that Norway and Sweden are both close enough that if someone took the effort to go through their bio-stubs that they could probably find the necessary 60 stubs. While this stub type doesn't have enough to recommend normal creation, it also has enough to not make deletion worthwhile either. Caerwine 08:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 10th[edit]

{{State forest-stub}} / Cat:State forest stubs and {{State park-stub}} / Cat:State park stubs[edit]

This one's likely to be a more controversial one, especially the parks, which is a heavily-used category with several hundred stubs. However, I'd like to suggest their deletion. They go against the current hierarchy every bit as much as the deleted river and mountain stubs, and I suspect it would be far more useful to classify them by location (US state/region) rather than under these categories. Also, I keep on having to remove parks from all sorts of countries from the category - when the term "State Park" is a US-only (or maybe US and Canada only) designation - so the usage of these stub types is obviously not that clear. If the vote is to keep them, then I suggest they should at least be renamed by adding hyphens to the templates. BTW - check out the strange wording of the State forest category: This category is for stub articles relating to State forests or Stubs. Grutness...wha? 11:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - Deleting these templates will create many "messy" red links, which make articles look unprofessional. Removing those links will be a monumental task. --Ixfd64 22:28, 2005 September 10 (UTC)
    • Removing those redlinks is part of the deletion process, so your point is moot.--TheParanoidOne 22:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if they're to be kept, I'd suggest renaming to {{US-statepark-stub}} and {{US-stateforest-stub}}, as the current wording and usage indicates that the stub types are US-only (and I think they ought to be US-only, as the definitions in different countries, particularly for State forest, don't have that much in common). --Mairi 22:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gruntness usually knows what hes doing with the geography stubs and there wont be any red links becuase the templates would be replaced with state ones. BL Lacertae 00:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename adding "US" if necessary. I think it more likely someone will be interested in cleaning up state parks as a theme, rather than someone picking them up via a state or region geo-stub. — Eoghanacht talk 21:07, 2005 September 12 (UTC)
  • Delete. Put each park in the appropriate region/state geo subcategory. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:10, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to something less confusing. Alai 04:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on condition they are replaced by Grutness or a bot. Each state or country should get their own category. -Ravedave 03:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh. More work :) Not too hard a task, though - and there would be enough stubs there to move quite a few more states over the threshold for splitting. Grutness...wha? 05:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename to x-statepark-stub (where x is each state) sounds good to me.--Kralizec! 18:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the state park stub and I agree that it can be renamed to a more specific type (US-statepark-stub), as there are alot for each state. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fail to be convinced that they're worth booting out. Matt Yeager 00:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

silly question, but why are people still voting? Voting on this one closed nearly two weeks ago. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If its closed what is the decisision? The statepark stub still has the delete line on it. -Ravedave 19:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh - good question. Looks like a keep for now due to a split decision (3 keep, 4 delete, 3 rename, although one of those keeps may have been only through not understanding about restubbing), but I suspect they're likely to get nominated again at some point. Possibly separately, and especially the forest one, which is little used and is only on lists (which shouldn't have stub templates on them anyway). Grutness...wha? 23:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 12th[edit]

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

Currently empty, this stub feeds into Cat:Writer stubs. The overlapping nature of various forms makes this sort of differentiation tricky (which is probably why {{poet-stub}} redirects to {{writer-stub}}) As this one is empty, I would say delete this one, but a redirect seems reasonable also. Caerwine 00:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • We've not been splitting writers by type of work, so delete. Grutness...wha? 05:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is somewhat different from poet-stub, but the same rationale applies as below. (Keep.) --Joy [shallot] 13:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At this point, I think it's reasonable to say that there's enough consensus to turn this into a redirect, but not enough to delete it. Anyway, I'll wait until Monday, and f there's no disagreement, I'll remove the {sfd-t}'s for this and {poet-stub} and make this one into a redirect. Caerwine 05:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds fair. Same with the poet-stub? Grutness...wha? 05:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's Monday here :) and I replaced playwright-stub with a redirect to writer-stub. --Joy [shallot] 11:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Currently empty, this stub redirects to {{writer-stub}}. With this now empty, this would be a good time to delete the redirect while we're in the middle of doing a reorganization of the writer stubs. Caerwine 00:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • We've not been splitting writers by type of work, so delete. Grutness...wha? 05:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, this is not an "empty" stub with "no category", it is a redirect from an alternate name. I've even listed it on the list of redirects. Secondly, why the hell does such a redirect hurt? It's a known categorization method (poets vs. novelists vs. technical writers vs. whatever) that may help one day if we do start splitting on that criteria as well. Sure, in the meantime it may get trumped by a location-based split, but why does it bother you right now? My reaction may sound a bit over the top, but given that we still have thousands of people stubs to sort, I can't fathom how removing an intuitive stub redirect would help any cause whatsoever. --Joy [shallot] 08:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects put more strain on the servers, since two templates are called up every time one is used - that's why we've been slowly trying to get rid of a lot of the ones that are rarely used.
      • But you're contradicting yourself there. The amount of strain put on the servers when you're talking about a redirect accessed rarely is trivial compared to normal traffic. --Joy [shallot]
    • Also, a lot of poets are not only poets. Many many writers write in a lot of different genres, so splitting by type of writing isn't always that helpful. If we want to split by poets, or playwrights, or novelists, or whatever, we can definitely keep it in mind for later, but I really don't think it would ever be a particularly useful split. Grutness...wha? 10:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that splitting by type would increase the amount of double-stubbing, but I don't think that the latter is inherently wrong, on the contrary. --Joy [shallot] 13:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am at a bit of a disadvantage, having not been involved in the reorganization mentioned above, but as a data point, I found out about the proposed deletion when I added a poet-stub tag to an article about a poet... --Daedalus-Prime 19:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm in the same position as Daedalus-Prime. If there had been no stub, I'd have been puzzled, and would have suggested its creation. Many, many poets are either wholly or overwhelmingly known only for their poetry. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or create. I find it somewhat useful, especially when changing poetry stub into poet stub. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's safe to say that this proposal is at best a no consensus. Caerwine 05:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed the SfD notice from this redirect. Caerwine 23:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 20th[edit]

{{Hobstub}} / n.c.[edit]

Yes, there is a wikiproject for Hobart (how many of you guessed what Hobstub referred to?). it has one member, and has been in operation for nearly a year. This template's been around for most of that time, and there's no evidence it's ever been used. It's also badly named, malformed, and has no category. This one was proposed for deletion shortly before this page went active, but it looks like we never got around to doing anything about it. Googling on "site:en.wikipedia.org+Hobart+stub" gives 129 hits in total, but looking through the first 50 of them only yielded eight directly relating to the Tasmanian city (it's a fairly common surname). At that rate, there may be around 20 stubs in total that could take this and - wikiproject or no - it looks unlikely there'll be many more in the foreseeable future. Grutness...wha? 02:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Development of material related to Hobart has been slower as we have only a couple of Wikipedians from the state. However, it has been increasing markedly this year, and having a stub category for the city is really useful for aiding this. If this category is deleted, it'll be just wound into the national one, which will be as good as useless. There will be more stubs in this area, and I also contest Grutness' account of the number of Hobart stubs - I don't think there'd have to be too many more added to reach fifty, when suburbs, landmarks, schools and structures are taken into account. Ambi 02:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Debate on this and other Australian city stub types shifted to WP:WSS/P#Australian cities. Looks like some restructuring in general is in order. Grutness...wha? 00:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See further up this page for the new proposal, based on that discussion Grutness...wha? 10:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 22nd[edit]

{{Pokesectstub}} / Category:Pages with Pokémon section stubs[edit]

Mentioned on WP:WSS/Discoveries. It's apparently the only subject-specific variant of {{sectstub}}, and keeping it would create a precendent that could quickly become unmanageable. It's also only used on 12 articles. --Mairi 02:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm ambivalent about keeping it (mostly because of the precedent), it bear in mind that it's not used on many articles at a time, but tends to spend a week or so on an article, then be removed when someone actually explands the section in question. It's mostly used to call a lack of anime/manga/video game information in a Pokémon species article, so someone who actually knows about the anime/manga/games can add the info. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the idea of subject-specific sectstubs in theory has merit, it would need a separate wikiproject to run it, since the work load would be as big as - if not bigger than - that involved with stubs. Until such a project exists, my gut feeling is that subject-specific sectstubs are more trouble than they are worth, and as such should be deleted. Grutness...wha? 07:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. Agree with A Man In Black. Useful for the WP:PCP. --Celestianpower hab 13:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, I'd like to make an official proposal for WP:WSS... although I don't know exactly which page it's best to do it on. I suppose Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting would be best - see there for details. Grutness...wha? 03:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we ought to defer this discussion until the conclusion of that proposal... -Mairi 02:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly inclined to say delete, unless there's wider approval for the more general concept. Alai 04:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... I personally find it very useful when expanding Pokémon articles (especially when I don't know about a Pokémon's appearance in an animé, and hence I put this stub notice underneath the "In the animé" section of the article.)

September 29th[edit]

Delete Category:Compilation album stubs[edit]

Thers only 1 album in it. It is already covered by {{album-stub}}. Jobe6 02:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • DON'T be so hasty to dismiss this. Album stubs is at 18 pages and badly in need of splitting. While this may not be an optimum split, it certainly is a well defined one and would only need a stub to go with the category. Unless someone can propose a better split, I say keep this, and a stub and use it to start sorting the album stubs. Caerwine 03:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem I see is that splitting by type of album (compilation, soundtrack, live album, etc) isn't going to get us anywhere close to convenient sizes. I'd rather see it split by genre; we also already have {{jazz-stub}} and {{hiphop-stub}}. --Mairi 03:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think there might be said for double-stubbing them both ways. Hopefully the vast majority of albums would only have two stubs -- could get messy if I'm wrong here. If we're only going to go with one such scheme thought, I'd go with the genre-based one (and flip-flop to a delete on this). Alai 04:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - this needs spliting badly BL Lacertae 00:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/September_2005&oldid=1138683621"