Jump to content

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/November

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 3

[edit]

various Buffyverse 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 all


Every article that was tagged with the -episode-stub was NOT a stub, so I removed the tags. whedon-stub is a redirect to {{Buffyverse-stub}}, so it should probably just be deleted. WP:BUFFY has been notified. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 19:51, 3 November 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.

{{MMA-bio-stub}} → {{mixedmartialart-bio-stub}} / Category:Mixed Martial Arts biography stubs → Category:Mixed martial arts biography stubs

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

The result of the debate was rename


Should be respectively expanded and de-capsed in line with recent treatment of MMA-stub. I shall draw a veil of this type being unproposed, having a huge image, and being a line and half long due to a spammy wikiproject ad (or at least, not dwell on those aspects too much). Alai 00:37, 3 November 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.

November 5

[edit]

Canada TV → Canadian TV

[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


Fix "WSS grammar" in each case. Alai 00:45, 5 November 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.

Category:British television channel stubs → Category:United Kingdom television channel 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


Per logical scope of the type, and names of both its perm parent, and the long-approved but only recently created UK-tv-stub (potential) parent. Alai 00:21, 5 November 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.

November 6

[edit]

Category:Sport in Belgium stubs → Category:Belgian sport 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


Per sibling cats, and tradition of avoiding propositions with 'stubs' suffixed in the category names. (Unproposed, a but small, but nothing that'll kill us.) Alai 23:18, 6 November 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.

"Dinobirds"

[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 as this was created and (ab)used by a single user and has met with much scorn on the Dinosaur project talk page. Dysmorodrepanis 04:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erk - I'm not surprised. Does anyone, anywhere use that horrible term? These are already covered by paleo-bird-stub anyway, so why is it needed? BTW, you may be interested in joining in a proposal I'm about to initiate at WP:WSS/P... Grutness...wha? 05:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make extinct. Alai 06:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I hear a meteor approaching ... Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 09:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Created by a user unfamiliar with formal scientific naming conventions. Wikipedia needs to present a professional appearance, even in template space. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What? No wonder a lot of researchers dislike Wikipedia as a reference source. Dinobirds... --¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 05:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Speedy Delete per above. --Bob 18:16, 7 November 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.

November 7

[edit]

Category:Azerbaijan religion 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


More work from User:Robertjohnsonrj: no template and surprisingly enough no contents (other than a category, which wasn't a stub category and has now been moved to somewhere more appropriate). Never proposed. Speediable in a couple of days if it remains empty, but I'm going through the formal process here just in case. Delete. Grutness...wha? 21:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait before deletion - If you say this user has been very active in the last 24 hours, then maybe he has plans for this category. By all means, if no work or linking to has occurred in a few days, then speedy it. Spawn Man 02:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. (He's been active in creating categories, seemingly on the basis of spurious redlinks -- someone should really rename "Wanted categories" -- not contents for same.) Alai 04:55, 8 November 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.

Category:Buildings and structures 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 speedy delete. MER-C 08:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Recently renamed to Category:Building and structure stubs and recreated (I hope in good faith) by User:Robertjohnsonrj, who has been VERY busy the last 24 hours. Pegship 12:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedied it as a re-creation. He has been busy, hasn't he... There are a couple more possible SFD's in there (see above). Grutness...wha? 21:59, 7 November 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.

Category:Martian stubs → Category:Mars 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


Not for stubs for little green multitentacled extraterrestrials, but for stubs relating to the planet Mars. Main category is Category:Mars, and - depite the logical reasons for suggesting using an adjectival form for countries on earth - the noun form is probably preferable here. Grutness...wha? 09:15, 7 November 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.

November 8

[edit]

Category:Actor stubs by county

[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


If correct, too narrow a scope; delete. If a typo, rename (possibly actor stubs by country?). Pegship 20:56, 8 November 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.

{{University of Virginia-stub}} → {{UniversityofVirginia-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


Or at the least, to something else without spaces, per the naming guidelines. Alai 17:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we decide a while ago that stub types for individual universities was a bad idea? Sure, this has a Wikiproject, but it also has just 11 stubs - and would therefore be better handled by a list than a stub category. I've no objection to a Virginia-university-stub, to cover all universities in Virginia, but I'd suggest deleting this, not renaming it. Grutness...wha? 05:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
correction - some of the articles marked with this were clearly not stubs - articles like Wahoos, for instance. There are effectively only six stubs which use this template. Grutness...wha? 06:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Followup - I note that the wikiproject is currently on MFD, too... Grutness...wha? 23:05, 9 November 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.

November 9

[edit]

Category:Historical 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 speedy delete. MER-C 05:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy delete; another re-creation from the earnest perusers of Special:Wantedcategories. *sigh* Pegship 00:06, 11 November 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.

Category:Finnish Artist stubs → Category:Finnish artist 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 speedy rename


Speedy rename; correct case. Not WPSS-approved, but quite decently populated and no comment made on the Discoveries page. The template is fine: {{Finland-artist-stub}}. Pegship 17:40, 10 November 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.

Category:Indian Punjabi-language films-stub

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

The result of the debate was delete


Delete. Film stubs are sorted by country or genre, not language; we have an {{India-film-stub}}; and the syntax is incorrect anyway. The template ({{Indian Punjabi-language films-stub}}) doesn't exist, so no action necessary there. Pegship 17:28, 10 November 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.

{{Victorian-rail-stub}} → {{Victoria-rail-stub}} / Category:Victorian rail stubs → Category:Victoria rail 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


Template doesn't follow the naming guidelines; category is distinctly confusing. Alai 09:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hows that confusing? --Dan027 11:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thats why it says "This category is for stub articles relating to Rail transport in Victoria. You can help Wikipedia by expanding them." im not stiring anyone up here, but i just dont like the sound of "Victoria-rail-stub", sounds like broken english. --Dan027 11:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked the Stub naming guidelines? Or similar stub types like Victoria-geo-stub (Cat:Victoria geography stubs)? Rename per nom. Grutness...wha? 22:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:30, 10 November 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.

Category:Programming language 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


A #-style redirect, no entries, linked from one talk page. Alai 08:19, 9 November 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.

Category:Olympic stubs → Category:Olympics stubs; Category:Winter Olympic stubs → Category:Winter Olympics 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


As below, but emphasis on the "noun phrase" part this time. Alai 04:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

above u are asking for a change of plural to singular, and here your asking for the opposite, why? --Dan027 11:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's doing no such thing. Hhe's arguing for a change from the adjectival form to the noun form, as stated in the stub naming guidelines. "Winter Olympics" is not a plural - or can you point out to me exactly what a "Winter Olympic" is? Grutness...wha? 22:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS - that's a rename, BTW. Grutness...wha? 22:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
go take your stress out on someone else mate, i was asking Alai the question not Grutness.
Perhaps you should post your question to Alai on Alai's talk page, then. Pegship 17:30, 10 November 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.

Category:Children's books stubs → Category:Children's book 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


Per the 'singular noun phrase' doctrine. Alai 04:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I cahnged the template on the current page to sfr. --Ohms law 17:49, 15 November 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.

November 11

[edit]

refactoring of Charitable/Philanthropic organization stubs

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

The result of the debate was keep phil template/cat (and possibly clarify scope), redirect charity template, delete charity cat


Looking at the stub type list, we somehow seem to have both {{charity-org-stub}} (Category:Charitable organization stubs) and {{philanthropy-org-stub}} (Category:Philanthropic organization stubs) , which seem to me to cover almost identical ground. Surely we don't need both? I propose deleting one of Category:Charitable organization stubs or Category:Philanthropic organization stubs and redirecting one of the two templates, so that these two types are merged. No real preference, though perhaps the philanthropic one has a slightly wider coverage and so should be the keeper. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The somehow being this proposal. The scopes seem significantly different to me (see the permcats), if the issue is size, and the phils aren't separately viable (I haven't re-checked), certainly keep both templates, without redirection. Alai 05:31, 12 November 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.

Template:Nagorno-Karabakh-stub / Category:Nagorno-Karabakh 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


What follows is the discussion as it was occurring at WP:TFD - it is quite clear from some of the discussion that the people commenting were unsure of stub guidelines as regards disputed territories, which is that they should not have stubs. Furthermore, no discussion had taken place as regards the category which this template fed into, and as such, there could be a horrible refactoring of discussion if it was added in at this stage. As such, I've preserved the comments below which should be taken into consideration in any debate, rather than simply allowing the debate to take its course and potentially causing problems if the result was delete as regards the un-mentioned category. Grutness...wha? 22:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 still in progress, with addition of category, on proper process page

Template:Nagorno-Karabakh-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nagorno-Karabakh is not an internationally recognised state and this template is controversial and divisive. Grandmaster 13:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Republic of China (Taiwan) is not widely recognized as a state and yet is has a template, therefore state recognition can not be used to determine whether or not a template for a state should exist. Although it's true that Nagorno-Karabakh is not widely recognized as an independent nation, it has been a de facto independent nation since 1993 (over 13 years): it has its own military and administration, independent of Azerbaijan. In 1991, the population voted for independence in a democratic referendum and they got it. Given that Nagorno-Karabakh has its own article, recognized flag and coat of arms in Wikipedia, then I see no reason why a stub for Nagorno-Karabakh should be deleted. As long as a Nagorno-Karabakh stub helps in organizing data, we have good reason to keep it.Serouj 13:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Taiwan has some recognition, NK has none whatsoever. NK is not a recognized state and it does not exist de-jure. Grandmaster 13:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that most people who want to delete this stub are Azeri (Grandmaster, Ulvi I.). Folks, we're not debating here whether or not Nagorno-Karabakh is a legitimate state or not; Let's keep political/ethnic debates out of this, as this isn't the right medium for that debate. Let's be objective: our goal is to help organize human knowledge in Wikipedia. Given that the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh is a human institution, being able to organize articles related to this institution via a stub for it helps attain the grander goal of Wikipedia: organization of humanity's knowledge. Thanks.Serouj 21:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why to drag stub-sorting into POV disputes? There seems to be no size-based rationale and even if it reaches the required threshold, a further point of dispute would be to choose a proper parent category. This is potentially divisive. I remember similar templates were proposed for Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and Abkhazia and both of them failed.--Kober 14:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kober, define "size-based rationale" please. I don't follow your logic. Thanks.Serouj 21:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Northern Turkish Republic of Cyprus" and "Taiwan" have been subject of international law, and is recognised with its leadership, while "NKR" has never been subject of international law. The conflict and the international dispute is between Republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan. It is the Presidents and Foreign Ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia that meet to discuss the resolution of the conflict, not the head of "NKR". Thus "NKR" cannot exist with its own stub here as an independent unit.

--Ulvi I. 19:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This isn't a debate of Nagorno-Karabkh's status as an independent republic. The real question is, "Does having a Nagorno-Karabakh stub help organize data in Wikipedia?" I think the answer is "yes," and therefore I support having it. We've got a Wikipedia article describing the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, its administration, its flag, coat of arms, etc, and I see no mark of any kind on that article that the contents of the article is "Disputed." A stub for this geographical and political entity follows...Serouj 21:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the stub says "Nagorno-Karabakh related." No one denies the existence of a region named Nagorno-Karabakh, therefore there is no POV hidden in this stub. What's wrong with stub-sorting about it? --Golbez 23:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, we've had a Category for Nagorno-Karabakh since October, 2004. If anything, having a Category for a "separatist state" is more significant than having a stub. As I mentioned previously, *any* human institution (separatist, revolutionary, or not) not only deserves, but also requires space in Wikipedia, as it's the collection of human knowledge. I am seeing the same arguments being regurgitated by the same types of people: "divisive," "controversial," etc... The truth of the matter is, it's not "divisive" and the proof of that is the Category on Nagorno-Karabakh, even the very article on Karabakh.
Also, Karabakh can no longer classify as a separatist state, because separatists are groups of people who are actively seeking autonomy (see the separatism article); We all know that Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians have already gained their independence. Therefore, the right word is de facto independent state. I've showed above that Palestine, also a de facto independent state, has a stub. It follows that Nagorno-Karabakh may have a stub. I have yet to see a logical argument to remove this stub.Serouj 19:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. California isn't an internationally-recognized nation, either, yet it has its own stub tag, {{California-stub}}. The flag argument is a poor rationale for deletion. It can easily (and has, in fact) been changed to anything you want if you think it's not neutral. Neil916 (Talk) 19:14, 10 November 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.

Strong delete for several reasons:

  1. as per precedent on disputed territories and unrecognised countries - compare the delete decisions for Ossetia, Chechnya, TRNC, Transdniestria et al in the past;
  2. for size reasons - there are fewer than 40 articles in the category, nowhere near the threshold requirement for a stub category - and several of those are not stubs;
  3. for permcat reasons - there is no Category:Nagorno-Karabakh, and as such the stub category should not exist. There is, however a Category:Nagorno Karabakh, so iff the vdecision is to keep this, it will need renaming.

To answer some of the specific comments above:

  1. California is a recognised subnational unit, and it is those that are used for naming stub categories.
  2. Stub types for other similar regions have always been deleted in the past with only two exceptions - those for Taiwan, which is internationally recognised by several nations and has been internationally recognised by many others in the past, and Palestine, a stub type that was created after long, hard debate with the agreement of wikipedia editors from both the Palestinian Territories and Israel and which even so has been the subject of considerable controversy since (including SFD debates).
  3. Whether having a Nagorno-Karabakh-stub helps organise articles on Wikipedia is a moot point. the number of stubs contained within the category is below the threshold number considered optimal for sorting articles, and the categories which has been split from were within the optimal range. As such, having this as a separate stub category may well cause more effort for editors.

Grutness...wha? 22:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the name: the permcat seems to depart from the name used in the main article, so I've nominated it for renaming. Alai 05:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per the arguments presented by Grutness. This template is controversial, it fails the criteria for size, and it will strongly empty Category:Armenia stubs and/or Category:Azerbaijan stubs, both of which are hardly full. I have sorted the South Caucasian material several times and it was pretty problematic just finding enough material to argue for even "one" template per country. These categories are still pretty empty and both are way below the number of articles normally required to split a category in two (500-800 stub articles is a good guideline). The political side of this issue has been discussed for many other entities in the past and the short story is that Nagorno-Karabakh / Artsakh / Qarabaq is a controversial entity and we should only have stub templates for internationally recognized entities that we can be pretty sure will not lead to neverending revert wars / stub wars. Having controversial templates around presents a strong risk for such a scenario; One editor will no doubt add a flag that another editor considers controversial and / or add such a template to some article(s) others will consider improper to include. Both situations have a high risk of ending in stubs being continuously added to / removed from articles and templates being changed back and forth between a flag version, a no-flag version and possibly other versions as well. Precedent has so far been to avoid any such situations completely. We shouldn't have distinct templates for any hotspot in the world, including Abkhazia, Chechnya, Republika Srpska, Kosovo, TRNC etc. etc. I have never been a great fan of both {{Palestine-stub}} and {{Taiwan-stub}} either. Although the situation is different for the latter two, both still smack of the same problem. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikimedia is not a propaganda machine nor a battleground, if we keep this then we are gonna have to accept stubs from other unregonized territories as, Northern Turkish Republic of Cyprus, Taiwan, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, etcetc. NKR is not regonized in the world. 85.146.213.29 20:18, 14 November 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.

November 12

[edit]

Category:Canada broadcasting stubs, rename(d)

[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


I missed this one from the earlier nom, until I mistakenly edited its /ST listing, instead of the one I'd actually just moved. But I've recatted these now anyway, for the sake of consistency, and the pointlessness of changing it back, so unless anyone yelps, I'll speedy the now-empty original. Alai 08:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Category:Canada radio station stubs, a subcat, now likewise emptied. Alai 12:31, 14 November 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.

November 14

[edit]

{{Ancient-Rome-lit-stub}}/Category:Latin literature 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 proposal withdrawn


I came belatedly to this discussion while trying to organize the literature stubs. Can we keep this and rename it {{Latin-lang-lit-stub}} / Category:Latin-language literature stubs (or some such)? There are many lit-stub articles which are non-fiction, written in Latin, and therefore don't go in poetry, drama, or mythology, and they're not necessarily books per se, so {{nonfiction-book-stub}} doesn't fly either. I'll get a count when I can. Her Pegship 20:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

A Latin lit stub mught be useful, although there'd be an obvious overlap with whatever template we use for Roman Catholic texts. I've definitely no objection to a keep with new template (deleting the original template), asssuming the numbers add up. Grutness...wha? 01:53, 15 November 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.

{{Houston-stub}} / Category:Houston stubs

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

The result of the debate was keep


Yes, there is a WikiProject, but no, there are not the required 30 stubs. In fact, there are five, four of which are geo-stubs and therefore should, if anything, be marked with houston-geo-stub (if US geo-stubs were split that way rather than by county). Created with no proposal last week. Either populate - properly - or delete. Grutness...wha? 06:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

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.

{{Ancient Roman creature 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


No dedicated category, no stubs, and a naming format that would offend Jupiter himself. Plus no indication whether this is for mythologicalk creatures (which would use Ancient-Roman-myth-stub) or for real creatures (Incitatus, anyone?). Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:10, 14 November 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.

Category:Cinematographer stubs

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

The result of the debate was keep


A weird one, this one - possibly a viable split if done properly, but this category has been added to articles by hand (i.e., there is no template). If it looks like a viable stub type, then creation of the template is possible. if not, delete. Grutness...wha? 06:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing, but it would be great if stub templates were actually shown in stub categories! Given that population of this seems likely, it seems a keeper. Grutness...wha? 21:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Entschuldigen Sie, mein Herr? The category didn't show any template but that's simply because it used incorrect code (I've fixed it). If you select one of the articles listed and click "edit this page" a template turns up alright. Think out of the box :) Oh yeah, Delete unless it gets a reasonable population. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be one of the more coherently defined film-bio subcat possibilities (too many of the others are "multi-classed" writers/directors/producers), I'd be inclined to say keep pro temps and monitor. Come to that, populate: doing a permcar search, there seems to be 33 possibilities in the film-bios, and 37 in the US-film-bios, not even counting the other national subtypes. Alai 19:34, 16 November 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.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Silver Dollar City/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


This... is a really bizarre one. I wasn't sure whether to bring it here or to WP:MFD, since it's a WikiProject's subpage... but it's being used as a stub template! What's more, it's been created by someone who read one tiny part of WP:STUB and ignored the rest. If it wasn't so sad it'd be hilarous... it uses the hypothetical example shown on WP:STUB, and, as such, puts the articles which use this template into the non-existent Category:B stubs. Silver Dollar City would never have near enough stub articles to warrant its own stub type anyway - there is no permcat, to start with, and appears to have at most some half a dozen articles in total. In any case this thing needs to be put out of its misery. Grutness...wha? 06:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at either venue or none. Alai 19:37, 16 November 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.

November 16

[edit]

Category:Film biographical stubs → Category:Film biography stubs; Category:United States film biographical stubs → Category:United States film biography stubs

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

The result of the debate was rename


"Noun phrase" convention, and consistency with descendents/siblings. Alai 19:33, 16 November 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.

{{Comp-eng-stub}} → {{Compu-eng-stub}}, {{Comp-sci-stub}} → {{Compu-sci-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 no consensus


"Compu" is most prevelant, and is currently the recommended name for computer related stubs. {{Compu-sci-stub}} aparently already has a redirect to {{Comp-sci-stub}}, which seems backwards. --Ohms law 16:01, 16 November 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.

November 20

[edit]

{{uk-school-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


SPUI-like redirect from caps (created by FoN with characteristically friendly edit summary). I continue to think these create far more grief than they're ever likely to mitigate. Alai 12:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete (speedily if possible) as per precedent. Grutness...wha? 22:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I hate to do this, but... [1] and... [2]. Sigh. Grutness...wha? 22:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 15:51, 26 November 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.

{{Venet-painter-stub}} / Category:Venet painter 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


Stub category created out of process for Venet... erm, that is, Venetian painters. Contains two stubs. Note that painters, as with 99% of other bio-stubs, are split by current-day countries, and since Category:Italian painter stubs has under 120 stubs, it is hardly in need of splitting (although it is possible there is some undersorting there). This simply isn't useful , and just to rub salt in, Venet is a disambiguation page which gives as its main definitions pre-mediaeval peoples from various different parts of Europe. Note too that there is no permcat for Category:Venet painters, nor, indeed, is there one for Category:Venet, and the permcat for Category:Venetian painters contains only some 20 items. Delete. Grutness...wha? 04:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 11:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Worse, it's a redirect to a disambig. Clear as mud as to what's intended is Venetian, Venetan, and by what definition, period, etc. And not needed. Delete. Alai 12:24, 20 November 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.

November 22

[edit]

{{Canadian-scientist-stub}} to {{Canada-scientist-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


Bringing it in line with naming conventions. (Brought me quite a surprise when trying to sort...) Crystallina 02:28, 23 November 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.
[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 all, create Munich-stub


Relevant discussions:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Munich has been notified. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - These are related to WikiProject Munich and are very relevent to Wikipedia's resources on Munich. I honestly don't care if anyone outside the project uses them. These templates do help WikiProject Munich. Kingjeff 16:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete of the people types: footballers and politicians "born in Munich" are not suitable scopes, being entirely unrelated to their primary notability. (As Grutness would say, "people move around too much".) People notable primarily in Munich politics, specifically, would be OK as a scope, but is almost certainly too narrow. If WPJM wants to keep track of everyone born in München, then that's lovely for them, but keep it to talk-page templates, please (as I already told the creator, to no avail). Delete or upmerge anything else that's undersized. Create a top-level {{Munich-stub}} / Category:Munich stubs, which is the logical place to start. Alai 16:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The relevent policy here is Ignore all rules policy. Wikipedia:WikiProject says, A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia. If any project was expected to follow every single little rule, then how would any project expect to succeed? The point is the stub templates and categories may be unconventional according to Wikipedia policy and guideline, but it serves the purpose of Wikipedia's goal of creating creating a free encyclopedia. Kingjeff 17:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is exactly why many people think IAR is a silly "policy", since its effect is to negate all the others, given any person's view on what's "required" to serve WP's quality. (Of course in practice, some people are more effectively able to ignore the rules than others, another thing that's problematic about it.) I happen to think the stub guidelines make perfect sense in this case, and that a single person (let's be quite clear about this) creating multiple stub templates with tiny and inappropriate scopes is in fact counterproductive to said goal, for all the reasons normally rehearsed on such occasions. (Proliferation of numbers of stub types to maintain; tag and category clutter on each article; loss of "critical mass" in each stub type, potentially making them less likely to be expanded by people randomly happening across them.) Alai 17:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a "silly" policy at all. The purpose of that policy is to avoid hindering Wikipedia's progress. It helps avoid members like yourself to game the system. Kingjeff 19:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see my earlier suggestion to review WP:CIVIL was to little effect. (Or perhaps you're covering that with IAR, too.) You might want to consider WP:AGF, too. In what way am I "gaming the system"? I'm advocating following the stub guidelines because I think they are sensible, and because your stub types are not, for the reasons I've outlined. If you think I'm doing so because of some prior anti-Munich, anti-Wikiproject, or anti-yourself agenda, you're quite mistaken. IAR is indeed a silly "policy", since it's a) self-contradictory, and b) allows users like you to supposedly justify whatever actions pop into their heads, absent of any actual evidence that they're necessary to "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". Alai 21:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IAR is a perfectly senible policy - as long as the person ignoring the rules has read exactly what that page and the pnes linking from it have to say. You can Ignore all rules if you like, as long as you Wikipedia:Use common sense andaren't being a dick. Ignoring all rules for the benefit of Wikipedia is actually a good thing. But cases like this, where rules are being ignored and the result is disruption, fall foul of those other pages. Grutness...wha? 04:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But if one is already IARing, one can logically speaking "ignore" those rules too (even if they were of any objective use in the first place, which frankly they're not, but that's another day's work). Actually ignoring all rules for the objective benefit of Wikipedia would be a good thing, but having a "rule" to ignore all rules is entirely nonsensical, and only workable if either, there's general agreement as to what's "to the benefit of Wikipedia" in a particular instance (and IAR has been repeatedly reworded to indicate that's not the "official" interpretation, and currently makes no mention of consensus at all); or if there's an implicit pecking order as to who gets to determine the beneficence of a particular action (experience tells me this is the way it works in practice, and insofar as there's any real thought behind it at all, the way it's intended to work, especially given the route by which it became a "rule"). Alai 11:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the people types as per Alai. Delete the -geo since the scope is clearly too narrow. Keep the U-Bahn template (not listed here, but just to get the full picture). Delete or upmerge the rest. Support a generic {{Munich-stub}} (no skin off my nose if people prefer the name {{München-stub}} for that matter.) Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Let me make some points on why to keep these templates.
  1. These templates were well thought of. I could have had more then twice as many for WikiProject Munich.
  2. Hopefully, by the time WikiProject is finished, there will be no Munich-related stubs. So, hopefully, these stub templates are temporary.
  3. I didn't create them for everyone outside WikiProject Munich. Like I said in my previous point, I hope there will eventually be no Munich-related stubs. The whole point of this project is to cover the creation and editing of articles related to the City of Munich, its buroughs, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on. With good editing, like I said before, eventually will be no Munich-related stubs. So these templates will be no good after the project is done.
  4. In a WikiProject like this, topics can be broad. Users in Wikipedia have different interests and will be interested in different areas about Munich. Kingjeff 23:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "I didn't create them for everyone outside WikiProject Munich." By creating stub templates you are involving WikiProject Stub sorting. If you want to organize the articles that relate to Munich purely for the benefit of WikiProject Munich, there are other and indeed better ways of doing so that using stub notices. By creating stubs you are asking others outside your project to help that project. It just simply is not feasible for those involved in stub sorting to deal with tens of thousands of micro stub types, so that is why the guidelines call for minimum sizes. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete of the footy-bio and bio stubs, delete of the politician stub, and an upmerge of the others into a new {{Munich-stub}}. Let me counter some points brought up above:
  1. These templates were badly thought up and never proposed - no wikiproject of the size of this one needs more than one stub template - far larger wikiprojects all manage with three or fewer, and a new project like this one is making far more work for itself and everyone else by creating such a plethora of stub types. Long experience shows that too small a stub category will discourage rather than encourage editors, and that is exactly what is being done here.
  2. Stub templates are never temporary - Wikipedia is growing exponentially, and I don't recall any stub template ever being retired unless it has been superseded by two or more subtypes.
  3. No stub templates are WP:OWNed by any wikiproject. once they are created they are open for use by everyone, so keeping them in line with other stub templates helps the entire project.
  4. In a WikiProject like this, topics can be broad. As such, it makes no sense to pigeo-hole a small number of stubs into such narrowly defined stub types when an overall Munich-stub is a more logical measure.

Grutness...wha? 04:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete listed stub templates and categories and create {{Munich-stub}}. As I might be away when that happens would someone remember to make Category:Munich U-Bahn stubs a subcategory of whichever Munich category will be created. Agathoclea 15:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kingjeff, if the only point of this template would be aiding the WikiProject Munich, I'd suggest adding parameters, which allow you to sort articles as you want to, to the project banner.--Carabinieri 00:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of these stub types and create {{Munich-stub}} in their place. The only one that comes close to have enough stubs to survive on its own is the footy-bio, and that's only because it includes a number of people that under the usual stub sorting rules would not be assigned Germany-footy-bio-stub, let alone Munich-footy-bio-stub under the usual rules of deciding where to place biography stubs geographically. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:18, 24 November 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.

{{joinery-stub}} → {{woodworking-stub}}; Category:Joinery stubs → Category:Woodworking 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 move/rename


To follow the permcat. Move template, keeping redirect, and rename category. Alai 03:21, 22 November 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.

November 25

[edit]

{{Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus-stub}} / Category:Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus 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


Basically, this is a copy of TRNC-stub, which was proposed and rejected in September (debate here. We do not split stub types by countries/regions that are disputed to the point of being only internationally recognised by one or two countries, for reasons of POV and potential accusations of bias. As such, similar stub types have been deleted in the past for places such as Transnistria and Kurdistan. To make matters worse, the stub template is very poorly named as regards stub naming guidelines, so even if it were to be kept it would need to be renamed. If that wasn't enough, this contains five stubs, of which four are actually cyprus-geo-stubs (Cyprus-X-stubs referring as they do to the entire island), so shouldn't be in a non geo-stub category anyway. Delete Grutness...wha? 23:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, 've just nopted that the earlier debate took place after the creation of TRNC-stub, which was then deleted. As such, this can be speedily deleted as a re-creation. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 15:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and make crystal-clear that {{Cyprus-stub}} is pan-island in scope. Alai 18:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I am the creator of this template. At the date of creation, I was no aware of first template TRNC-stub and deletion process. I didnt aimed to create a new edit-rv war or any new dispute in wiki. Since there is a country-TRNC- (recognized or unrecognized no matter) and many stub articles related with this country, I wanted to collect these stubs in one category. Now, I am not insist to keep this template if community wiev is delete. Regards.MustTC 08:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative method you could use (one used by some smaller wikiprojects) is to keep a subpage of your user page with a list of articles on it. Given the number of stub articles on TRNC that might actually be more useful to you, since you could note what is needed for each article on it as well. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or, use a talk-page template of some kind. Conventionally, these are per-wikiproject, but at any rate there's less concern about multiply-tagging than there is in the article per se. Alai 23:36, 29 November 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.

November 27

[edit]

Category:Sport Wrestler stubs → Category:Sport wrestler 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 speedy rename


Simple rename to match the usual capitalization rules and its non-stub parent Category:Sport wrestlers. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:55, 27 November 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.

{{Stub-RBARWS}} / Category:Red Bull Air Race World Series 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


Bewilderingly titled stub template for... guess. No? This Red Bull Air Race World Series related article is a stub.. No category (it feeds directly into Category:Stubs. No articles, either. Mind you, when you consider that Category:Red Bull Air Race World Series and its one subcat between them have only five articles (and four of them are biographies), and only two of them could be accurately dewscribed as stubs, it's not really suprising. Delete! Grutness...wha? 04:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the category mentioned above. No parent listed, stub or otherwise, only one stub article and that's a bio-stub. The creation of the category simply doubles the number of recommended deletions. Grutness...wha? 12:00, 27 November 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.

November 29

[edit]

{{Chicano-stub}} / Category:Mexican-American stubs

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

The result of the debate was no consensus


From WP:WSS/D. Too small and improper axis. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This is meant as a tool for the WikiProject Mexican-Americans. --evrik (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't we delete this before in some form? Strong delete per well-rehearsed arguments; race is not primary notability, and nownot how people should be 'sorted'. If wikiprojects happen to need "other axis" means to track 'their' articles, talk-page templates and categories should be used instead, or plain-old project-space lists. Alai 23:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has never been deleted before. For those of us who don't visit this page too often, could you please show where these statements are actually wikipedia policy?
      • race is not primary notability and [not] how people should be 'sorted'
      • If wikiprojects happen to need "other axis" means to track 'their' articles, talk-page templates and categories should be used instead
Thanks --evrik (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hope you don't mind settling for guidelines and actual practice. I think it's pretty evident that race isn't primary notability: you won't find a guideline stating that people are notable just for having a particular ethnicity, but rather for their being notable as musicians, politicians, etc, and that "just happens" to also be how they're sorted at present. That stub types should follow primary notability follows from WP:STUB#New_stub_categories, in particular the "Would your new category overlap with other categories?" point. The use of talk page templates as an alternative is just a helpful (one can only hope) suggestion: you're not required to do so (just so long as you don't use a stub type). But see Category:Stub-Class articles for precedent (you'll notice these are organised by specifically by wikiproject). Alai 17:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did manage to bring up a previous SFD discussion from January. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 01:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This fits in with the recommedation that the name be shortened, and here are more than 50 articles in th category. As for the last discussion (which i appreciate you finding) there ws only one person that voiced an opinion. --evrik (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, Amalas, that was the one I was thinking of. evrik, I think that one the contrary, the opinions of two people are pretty clear, given the detailed exposition of the nominator. Alai 17:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the relevant guideline here is Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, which permits such categories as long as the placement of people in them is NPOV and verifiable. Not sure, however, whether having such a stub category is a good idea (since stubs are often very weak on both WP:V and WP:NPOV). -- Visviva 01:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've no objection to there being such (permanent) categories: categories can happily be about matters of secondary significance (or tertiary, or indeed about dodecary significance...). But not stub types, since we don't want to have an arbitrarily large number of stub tags per article, and nor do we want stubs to be "apparently sorted" if they're tagged only by ethnic group. (We subdivide people on nationality largely as a matter of practicality, on the basis that USians are more likely to be familiar with their own Z-list celebs than those of the UK, etc, but I don't think the argument fruitfully extends to ethnicity.) Alai 12:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a stub, used by a wikiproject that focuses on a specific ethnic group. What is the problem with the stub being used for articls being tended by that wikiProject? --evrik (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep. Members of my project team, WikiProject Mexican-Americans use this page. If you are going to delete this stub then I suggest that one of you nominate the following for deletion as well: Ethnicity stubs, Ethnic group stubs, Ethnic group in Africa stubs, Ethnic group in Asia stubs, Indigenous peoples of Australia stubs, Indigenous peoples of North America stubs, Māori stubs, Pakistani ethnicity stubs, Roma stubs, and African American stubs. This list is by no means complete because I got tired. Regarding Alai's argument that USians are more likely to be familar with their own Z-list celebs but that the argument does not extend to ethnicity, lets use the Roma peoples (Gypsies) from the stub list above to illustrate my point. Here goes: Alai, please name 10 notable Gypsies in 60 seconds or less. If you can do it, you are probably a gypsy. Now let's go down the list with each ethnic group, finally reaching Mexican-American. Now, please name 10 notable Mexican-Americans in 60 seconds or less. I can do it with 25 seconds to spare. I am Mexican-American. Like Evik, I don't understand what the problem is. Just because this stub is not useful to any of you doesn't mean you have to delete it. Chicaneo 05:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you bother to look at most of those categories? Those are for ethnic groups, not people by ethnicity. Category:African American stubs only exists because when we did SFD it, the majority to delete it was evidently insufficient (just as evidently most of WSS look to be giving up the ghost on this one). (That it's tagged with the WPSS-cat and listed on /ST is simply mistaken.) People are not notable for their race, and this is the only-moderately-thin end of a very thick wedge. (Doubtless we'll shortly be seeing all if the multiply-hyphenated-American-stubs in due course.) If Wikiprojects want to introduce arbitrary cross-categorisations like this, then fine, just don't do it unde the aegis of "stub sorting", which it quite blatantly is not. The key word in what I said was "fruitfully": the existence of some editors focused on a particular ethnicity does not supercede people's actual notability, and throwing in a stub tag for every possible axis of classification just leads to template- and category-clutter. Ah well, there's always (non-)deletion review... Alai 05:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mexican-Americans are an ethnic group. One of the largest in the United States. The ethnicity and race of people is important. If what you have a problem with is the name, then I would support a move from {{Chicano-stub}} to {{Mexican-American stub}}. --evrik (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your use of the term "race" indicates to me that you do not understand that Mexican-Americans are of the White race, that Mexican-American is a type of Hispanic person, and Chicano is a sub-class of Mexican-Americans. These are all "ethnic" distinctions, not "race" distinctions. It seems to me that you are part of the systemic bias that Wikipedia is trying to eliminate. I'm really glad there is always non-delition review. 70.120.70.30 15:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC) aka Chicaneo - I forgot to log in.[reply]
      • Look at the stub categories that, well, I already suggested you look at. {{ethno-group-stub}} tags articles such as Chagharzai that are about an ethnic group, not as a means of tagging people by ethnic group. I do realize Mexican-Americans are an ethnic group; have I not been sufficiently clear that's why this should be deleted? I have a problem with the "-stub" part of the name, as this scope is entirely inappropriate as a stub type, for the reasons already expounded at some length. If you want a {{Chicano-bio}} talk-page template so as to be better able to track people by their ethnicity, irrespective of what they do for a living or are otherwise notable for, it's fine by me.
      • Chicaneo, your use of miscelleanous cobbled-together accusations indicates to me you've no interest in a discussion of whether this stub type conforms with stub-sorting custom and practice, and are just indulging in the time-dishonoured tactic of the "POV keep vote", with volleys of covering fire. What on earth is the "systematic bias" issue here? Wikipedia doesn't have enough articles on US businesspeople, actors and politicians (of any and all ethnicities), as against the rest of the world? You're correct however, the term "race" is not particularly accurate or useful, but that criticism is a little ironic, given we're discussion a stub-type that's applied to organisations with titles like Católicos por La Raza. Methinks linguistic imprecision isn't confined to . Then again, "white race" is not particularly useful or accurate either (in this discussion or in general), or come to that the term "race" at all. I should more precisely said "ethnicity" -- to exactly the same effect otherwise. Alai 05:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alai, while I share your concerns that this stub may be applied too broadly, the fact is that ethnicity is a significant factor in American culture, and there are people, organizations, and events whose primary notability come from that fact. Since you seem to feel that ethnicity is something we shouldn't be using for stub types, shall we do away with the Scottish and Welsh stub types, or do you have a geocentric bias when it comes to recognizing ethnicity as a factor in stubbing? OTOH, your concerns are not entirely without merit. Might it be possible that a {{Chicano-activism-stub}} would satisfy the needs of the wikiproject or is its mandate broader than just the people, events, and organizations associated with Chicano civil rights? Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there were any attempt whatsoever to scope and apply this only to people notable primarily in connection with their notability (civil rights activism, artists and musicians known in relation to Chicano culture, etc), it might indeed be defensible in that basis. That it's scoped to include "any Mexican-American whatsoever", applied in that manner, and bald-facedly defended as such makes it fairly clear that it in fact is not. Mexican-American content of first article in this category, quoted in full: "Garcia is of Mexican descent." I see not so much as a hint that intention was ever anything to do with primary notability, much less being confined to same. So far as I know, we're not tagging people with {{Scotland-bio-stub}} and {{Wales-bio-stub}} on the basis of those being "ethnic groups"; those 'nationalities' are admittedly a little fuzzier than those with actual citizenship, but along with other sub-sovereign-state-bio-types like {{HongKong-bio-stub}} (which is somewhat formally better defined in some respects) is at least "citizenship-like" enough to pass the 'own national football team' test. (Perhaps I have a pro-Hong-Kong geographic bias too, though, despite Instantnood's attempts to condition me otherwise?) At any rate, you can hardly quibble with the scoping rationale for {{MSP-stub}} or {{Scotland-royal-stub}}, I'd think. (Mind you, the latter is undersized, and was it ever proposed?) Alai 05:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Alai, Caerwine is correct ethnicity is a significant factor in American culture. I'm glad you recognize that the term "Chicano" is an ethnic group. Regarding your claim that I have no interest in a discussion of whether this stub type conforms with stub-sorting custom and practice, I have not discussed this because I have no solutions. You have lots of objections, and can see that people are arguing against the deletion of this stub, but you have not offered any solutions. Since you seem to be the sub expert with specialities in sorting, typing, and conformity, then offer a solution here. Critizing without offering a solution is non-productive. You argue that I am indulging "POV keep vote" tactics, you argue that there aren't enough articles on political people of any ethnic group, you critize that the use of titles like Católicos por La Raza are a part of the stub, but fail to realize that Catolocios por La Raza is a political association founded to address the concerns of the Chicano community. Do you approve of policicians sorted by ethnicity but not political organizations sorted as such? You tell me that I am using "miscelleanous cobbled-together accusations", but it is you who are using miscellaneous, cobbled-together arguments and criticims. If you can not offer your expert advice and an expert solution, then go ahead and delete it. We will find a way to either get it back or get a similar replacement. Si se puede! Never mind, I see that you did offer a solution. Sorry. Chicaneo 13:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My points about Catolocios por La Raza was simply that it illustrates the popularity of describing Mexican-Americans as a "race", despite the admitted problematic nature of doing so. (I shall go write 'ethnic group' 100 times.) I have no objection to a stub type being scoped in the way CW suggests (people and things 'notable in connection with Mexican-American culture, activism, etc'), which would obviously include just such articles. No failure of realization involved. Rather, what I object to is "sorting by ethnicity", for people who are notable for something else entirely, and "just happen" to be Chicano, such as the aforementioned Aimee Garcia. My 'POV keep' comment was probably not the most helpful, sorry, but arises from frustration with the tenor of this discussion. And on a side-note, am I missing some reason this is being used to tag Filipinos with no stated Mexican connection? (Philip Vera Cruz) Alai 21:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This will be my last post here, but I will come back to view your comments, if you have any. You may have the last word. First, regarding Catolocios por La Raza, The phrase La Raza does not translate "race" it is another way of saying "la gente" and "el pueblo" which translate to English as -> "the people". See also http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_701707079/La_Raza.html and http://www.answers.com/topic/la-raza and http://www.thefreedictionary.com/La+Raza. The single word "raza" does translate to the english word "race" but that is not the reference here. Regarding Aimee Garcia, popular actresses and actors who are Chicano, Mexican-American have never had starring roles in popular sitcoms on American TV prior to The George Lopez Show. Also, there have only been two sitcoms in the history of popular American TV that have depicted the life of Mexican Americans. The first one was in the '70 with an actor who took the stage name Freddie Prince and who starred in a sitcom named Chico and the Man, Freddie's co-star was of Russian/Polish descent and did not play a Mexican-American role. The star Freddie was not even Mexican American, although he played one, he was of Puerto Rican/German descent. The second sitcom occurred approx 20 years later. That sitcom was The George Lopez Show and actually had Mexican American Actors as the stars. There was one other show in the '50 that some mistakenly believe to be about Mexican Americans, named I Love Lucy. That one starred Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz. Desie, who was Cuban-American, played a Cuban-American on the show. So the reason Aimee Garcia is there is because she is part of Mexican-American history in the making. Regarding Philip Vera Cruz, he founded the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee, which later merged with the National Farm Workers Association to become United Farm Workers. United Farm Workers was co-founded by Cesar Chavez among others. Chavez is considered to be among the greatest civil rights leaders in American history along with Martin Luther King, Jr. (who fought for Black American civil rights) and other people. United Farm Workers, comprised other ethnic groups but mainly was made up of Mexican-American farm workers and was the first influencial minority labor union in US history. Vera Cruz is listed not because he is mistakenly believed to be Mexican-American, but because he was a major player in the history of the Mexican-American civil rights movement. For more information about the history of Mexican-Americans please see History of Mexican-Americans. As another person pointed out in a previous post, ethnicity is very important in American society. Thanks for "listening" to this very long post, Chicaneo 13:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been awhile and it seems that this hasn't been sorted out yet. Here's what I see:

  • Delete
    • Amalas (as nominator), per size & improper axis
    • Alai, per race not being primary notability
  • Keep
  • Other

So, basically, opinions are all over the place. Based on this, my personal suggestion would be to go with a WikiProject talk page template to track these stubs and other articles related to the project. That would allow for easy tracking for the WikiProject as well as keep POV out of stub categories. If there are any more opinions, please let me know. Thanks. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:49, 11 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.

{{Iceland-airline-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


From WP:WSS/D. Waaaay too small. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 21:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - you gotta be kidding me. -Patstuarttalk|edits 13:57, 6 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.

various <place>-history stubs

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

The result of the debate was keep Armenia, Korea; upmerge Croatia, Serbia


From WP:WSS/D.

I recommend either deleting all or upmerging templates. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • RECAP:
  1. Keep {{Armenia-hist-stub}} / Category:Armenian history stubs
  2. Keep {{Korea-hist-stub}} / Category:Korean history stubs
  3. Keep {{Croatia-hist-stub}} and recat to Category:Croatia stubs
  4. Delete Category:Croatian history stubs
  5. Keep {{Serbia-hist-stub}} and recat to Category:Serbia stubs
  6. Delete Category:Serbian history stubs

If there are no objections to this, I will close this later today. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:48, 6 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.

{{Free software-stub}} / Category:Free software stubs

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

The result of the debate was no consensus re:deletion, rename template


From WP:WSS/D. Not really the axis we want to split on, methinks. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. True, this axis is orthogonal to the type-of-software axis, but it's parallel to the existing ecosystem/platform axis, in that free software constitutes a cohesive ecosystem and platform distinct from the proprietary platforms.
  2. Potential for wide breakout, with later subsplit into Linux, KDE, LAMP, etc.
  3. Identification of expertise; a lot of contributors would rather (and are better placed to) contribute to articles on free software programs (etc.) than proprietary articles.
For the above, Keep. EdC 23:01, 29 November 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.

{{Teletubbies 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


Need I say more? Okay, I will. Used on two of the (seemingly) only four articles on Teletubbies on wikipedia. There is no Category:Teletubbies, but that's presumably okay because this stub template doesn't have a dedicated category either - it's got no category at all in fact. Not to mention the space-ridden name. Never prposed, funnily enough. if it had been, I don't think we'd have had such a template. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 29 November 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.

November 30

[edit]

Category:History of Ukraine stubs -> Category:Ukrainian history 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


Consistent with naming guidelines. The rest of the cats in the parent are in the format "Xian history stubs" - crz crztalk 23:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Alai 03:40, 1 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.

2 footyclub cats

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

The result of the debate was delete


See the related proposal. These 2 cats are too small and their templates will be upmerged.

~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:34, 30 November 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.

{{Microsoft-stub}} / Category:Microsoft stubs

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

The result of the debate was no consensus


From WP:WSS/D. I'm not sure if this is the right way to go. The articles should probably be resorted into things like {{US-business-bio-stub}} or {{software-stub}} or whatever. (As a side note, the category creator's user page is full-protected, so I was unable to notify) ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that we also have {{Windows-stub}} and Category:Microsoft Windows stubs around. Anybody remember if they were proposed? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, back when the template/cat was created, I don't think it was proposed, but there was a semi-approval for it in August 2006. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; no good reason has been given to delete this stub. Neither {{US-business-bio-stub}} nor {{software-stub}} are appropriate destinations. We have some 70-odd articles tagged with this stub (somewhat up from the 20 claimed at WP:WSS/D), and it's actually extremely helpful for editors looking for work to have these things grouped together. We have several hundred articles covering Microsoft's products and technologies, a Wikiproject, 5 FAs, 4 GAs, and quite a number of regular contributors. Removing a useful method of keeping organised would be rather offensive. -/- Warren 19:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any more opinions on this? I think I'm going to keep both this and Windows stub, so unless I hear otherwise, I will list them on WP:STUBS later today. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:56, 7 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.
[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 exoplanet, keep venus template & upmerge? to astrogeology, delete all other cats


~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Isn't there also concern on the first that it's being used on articles about stars with planets? As nom on the rest; sped the latter eight. Alai 16:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure about that. I just took a quick look at a few of the articles, and it almost seems as if they could be split into two - one for the star and one for the planet (there is both a star infobox and a planet infobox). A few of the others could use to be resorted (I found one about a telescope...). We may want to create a {{planet-stub}} to use the existing cat, and upmerge {{extrasolar-planet-stub}} into it. This would still require the deletion of the exoplanet template/cat. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Splitting the articles in two would come under the aegis of the Astronomy WikiProject - we complain about other WPs stepping on our toes, I'm loath to do the same to one of them. As for the other ones listed above, I could see a case for renaming exoplanet stub, deleting the other individual planet ones, but possibly keeping the dwarf, giant and terrestrial ones as upmerged templates at least - it seems to be most logical way to split solar system planets up. Grutness...wha? 23:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mind you, I wasn't suggesting that we split the articles, I was just trying to clarify why it seemed that a planet tag was being used on a seemingly star-related article. It's also moot at this point about dwarf, giant, and terrestrial because they've been speedied... ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 00:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In order to keep and upmerge the templates, they'd first have to be created... Wasn't the gist of the earlier suggestion to scope this as "solar systems"/"planetary systems"/"stars with planets", or something to that effect? Alai 03:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interestingly enough, extrasolar planet is on the Main Page today... Here's my plan of action for later today, if no one objects:
  1. rename exoplanet as nom, keeping cat
  2. create {{planet-stub}} to feed into Category:Planet stubs
  3. retag Venus articles w/ planet-stub if applicable
  4. delete Venus template and cat

~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be rather misleading, since they're mostly mountains and coronae. What about keeping the template, and upmerging (sidewaysmerging?) to the target of the above, Category:Astrogeology stubs? And then, deleting the Category:Planet stubs as empty. Alai 05:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:43, 8 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.

Category:Richmond upon Thames geography stubs / {{richmond-geo-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was delete


From WP:WSS/D. Unnecessary split of items already covered by Category:London geography stubs. Certainly not a county, which is how England is split geographically - never proposed, and with only nine stubs (5 railstation-stubs, 3 struct-stubs and one genuine geo-stub). Not to mention the frankly ridiculously ambiguous template name (have you checked Richmond?). Delete. Grutness...wha? 04:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Too small. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree on the name, and on the more-misused-than-used observation, but I'm pretty sure that splitting London by borough is something we'll be looking at doing before too long, unless the mythical point at which stub growth actually stops is reached. Alai 16:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If needed, I'd rather see splits of London stubs by feature rather than location. MRSC • Talk 17:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not entirely happy with that idea either, though a separate {{london-road-stub}} and resorting the things that should be in {{london-struct-stub}} would probably reduce the size of the cat considerably (I count over 40 roads and 15 mis-sorts on the first page of the category alone). If we were splitting the london geo-stubs into separate parts, I think a basic "north of the river"/"south of the river" would be a reasonable compromise. Though it's not used for permcats, it is the way that Londoners themselves tend to think of the city. If we were to split by feature, parks are the most liely by the looks of it. Grutness...wha? 23:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fact, I think I'll propose {{london-road-stub}} - looks like there are nearly 100 of them... Grutness...wha? 23:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd have thought than "inner" and "outer" would be greatly preferably to "north" and "south", especially as the latter divides a borough (this one, as it happens), and the former does not. Alai 00:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agree with feature split e.g. roads, not sure about inner/outer; what to do with Newham, Haringey and Greenwich...? Although an "executive decision" can be taken on where they should be included it will not be immediately obvious; and some people may not consider Roehampton for example to be "inner". MRSC • Talk 07:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree that those are inobvious, if not essentially arbitrary. However, if templatised on a per-borough basis, it's not something those doing the actual sorting would have to worry about. Alai 17:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • That is quite innovative. It might be better to make the per-borough templates map to the five London_Plan#Sub_regions. We have quite a few contributors who stick to "their side" of London so it would provide a place them to look for new articles to edit. MRSC • Talk 19:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's a fairly standard thing to do, we're just too lazy to update the stub guidlines to include it. :) I wasn't up on that particular Kennism: that does seem a useful division, if it scores reasonably on the "generally accepted" front. (I don't see permcats for any of these schemes for subdividing London/grouping boroughs, though...) Alai 20:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All London Boroughs should be handled the same way Regan123 21:47, 1 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2006/November&oldid=95339683"