Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/December/29

December 29[edit]

{{Cebu-stub}} / no cat[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete

From WP:WSS/D. Not used on any articles. Probably speediable. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and yes, probably speedily. Grutness...wha? 23:17, 29 December 2006 (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.

{{FireService-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Fire Service stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename and upmerge

From WP:WSS/D. Redundant to existing {{emergency-services-stub}}. Used on only 5 articles. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I created the template and as one of the WikiProject Fire Service creators, it is my task to tag articles as stubs. I haven't gotten around to it yet because I had been working on my other WikiProjects, Youngstown and U.S. Congress. The "emergency services" are broad and include police, fire, ems, rescue and related fields. This is simply for fire service related articles. --Daysleeper47 15:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are at least a couple of stubs stuck in {{US-bio-stub}} that could use this stub (or the more generic {{emergency-services-stub}} now that I am aware of it. However, rename to {{firefighting-stub}} → ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Firefighting stubs to match the appropriate non-stub parent category: ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Firefighting. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are only about 120 articles in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Emergency services stubs, so I'm not sure we need to split out firefighting just yet. Do you think there are more untagged emergency services stubs out there? ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to {[tl|firefighting-stub}} and upmerge for now. If it gets bigger it can always get a category later, and whatlinkshere will still be available for any that wants it. Grutness...wha? 23:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to firefighting and upmerge per above. I think currently it's too narrow. --Brand спойт 01:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and upmerge. Alai 03:14, 5 January 2007 (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.

rename of {{Archbishop-of-York-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename

Rename to match {{ArchbishopofCanterbury-stub}}. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom. Grutness...wha? 23:17, 29 December 2006 (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.

rename of {{Bishop-of-Durham-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename

Rename to match {{ArchbishopofCanterbury-stub}}. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom. Grutness...wha? 23:17, 29 December 2006 (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.

{{Physiology-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Physiology stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete

From WP:WSS/D. A bit small at 16 articles, and there are less than 200 articles in the corresponding permcat. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also of note, it looks like the template and cat were created 16 November, but then the template was deleted on 17 November "per WP:SFD". Here's the previous discussion. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:43, 29 December 2006 (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.

{{Wikimedia-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Wikimedia stubs and {{MediaWiki-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:MediaWiki stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete

From WP:WSS/D. Merge w/ {{Wikipedia-stub}}. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikimedia-stub is not used on any articles, MediaWiki is used on 2 articles, but they do not properly populate into the category. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge? Seems to me that Wikipedia stub and MediaWiki stub are both subordinate to Wikimedia stub, so if anything Wikimedia is the one that should be kept, with Wikipedia-stub also kept as a redirect (MediaWiki-stub can go). I'd suggest simply changing it to Wiki-stub, but that would imply the inclusion of all Wiki-based websites, not just those connected with WM/WP. Grutness...wha? 23:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to the Wikimedia suggestion, instead of Wikipedia. Regards. --Mac 06:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is, there's no ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Wikimedia (any more), and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Wikimedia Foundation is narrower than the intended scope. Given the lack of current population, though... Alai 03:25, 5 January 2007 (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.

{{Andalusia-bio-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Andalusian people stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge

From WP:WSS/D. "Created back in May and used on 40 articles. Non-standard scope and I'm pretty sure the image used is the picture of a secessionist leader." ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The stub is useful and very close to the advisable minimum of 50. I will review any unlabelled stubs and marked them accordingly during the weekend. Regarding the image, it is PD portrait of Blas Infante, "Father of modern Andalusia", as officially legislated by the Andalusian Parliament on 14 April 1983[1]. Hardly a POV choice! (NB: Compare with {{Scotland-bio-stub}}). Therefore, Strong Keep. Asterion^talk 14:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm glad if the image is neutral, but I don't see the point in splitting off the material for Andalusia, since the Spanish material isn't that great. The number of British articles is completely bloated, so the UK bios have been subdivided by constituent nation, but this is pretty much the exception that proves the rule. I don't see the same need here, and it seems more logical to me e.g. to have articles about the Moors grouped in the same category nomatter if the persons in question lived in Andalusia or in what is now parts of Castile or Aragon. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 10:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there should be a different stub for Al-Andalus, as opposed to modern Andalusia (i.e. Andalusi bio stub). Also a reminder that as for the Statute of Autonomy, Andalusia is defined as a Nacionalidad. Andalusia-bio-stub feeds into Spain-bio-stub, so no content is lost. Regards, Asterion^talk 13:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for asking so bluntly, but what is a "Nacionalidad"? An ethnicity / "constituent nation" / protected minority / home-ruling region or something completely different? My Spanish is terrible. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 00:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My fault. Both Nacionalidad and Nación as in the statutes of autonomy for Andalusia, Basque Country, Catalonia and Galicia (the autonomous communities of Spain with more devolved rights) are usually translated as Nation, but not in the sense of Constituent Nation as in the United Kingdom Act of Union. The concept is difficult to grasp indeed! On a practical basis, I do actually agree that there are too few bio stubs to warrant a separate category. So it might make pragmatical sense to upmerge but I would argue in principle against protection against recreation. Thanks, Asterion^talk 00:58, 2 January 2007 (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.

{{Tenacious D-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete

Never proposed, of course. No cat, though there is a redlink to one. Malformed name. And split by artist. 60 stubs? Your guess. Currently the only artists with their own stub types are the Beatles and Tenacious D. Which ranks Tenacious D above Elvis, the BeeGees, U2, the Beach Boys, Elton John, Eminem, Van Halen, Pink Floyd, Weird Al... you name it. Not. Tenacious Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Used on a massive 8 articles or so. Splitting by artist is not a good idea. I shudder at the thought of {{MasterFatman-stub}} or {{BigFatSnake-stub}} as children of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Danish musical group stubs. Delete Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 13:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomCaerwine Caer’s whines 18:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Scope too narrow. --TheParanoidOne 06:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Asterion^talk 10:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NRV. Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 09:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No question.. Rehevkor 23:25, 4 January 2007 (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.