Jump to content

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/February/13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 13

[edit]

Template:Marvel-villain-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 keep, rename cat to supervillain


Moved from WP:TFD
Template:Marvel-villain-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Following numerous discussions at CfD regarding categories containing the the "villain" and the inherent POV associated with it, it seems to follow that this template be removed with instances replaced with the more general Template:Marvel-Comics-stub. Further, this template has generated the category Category:Marvel Comics villain stubs for the same reasons this category should be deleted as well. J Greb 01:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Gibraltar-Fauna-Stub}} (upmerged)

[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


This one is pretty clearly unnecessary. never proposed, miscapitalised, and given that (a) there are only 48 Gibraltar stubs overall (b) there is no Category:Fauna of Gibraltar, and (c) Fauna is stubbed by taxonomy, not national boundaries, this seems a fairly unlikely choice for a stub type. It will certainly not reach the desired threshold number of stubs. Delete. Grutness...wha? 02:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Cinema-stub}} / Category:Cinema 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


Unproposed and cuts across stub classification to some extent. Vaguely plausible scope, but probably a far better thing to do would be to upmerge this into the theatre stubs and split by country from there, especially since many structures have been both live and film theatres during their existence. Category is also misspelt. Grutness...wha? 02:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this stub is meant to represent the stubs of actual cinema theare buildings as opposed to cinema in general so agree with deletion. The spelling 'cinema' seems ok though. Bobbacon 08:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think G. was referring to the "spelling" of "stubs" in the category name, on the pattern of, well, every other stub cat... Alai 12:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. As to cinema-stub being for the buildings, I hadn't even considered the possibility it was for cinema in general, but you're right it is a bit vague. If upmerging is considered the most useful outcome it would probably need to be re-created as {{cinema-struct-stub}} to make that clearer (with that feeding into the theatre buildings category). My original point remains, though, that a lot of older cinemas started out life as live theatres, and some structures are still used for both purposes - so expanding the theatre building category to cover both is probably a sensible option. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

National food and cuisine stubs

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

The result of the debate was keep


Unproposed, and with a misnamed template. And that's assuming we have "cuisine stubs", which we don't - this should either be a food-stub or a drink-stub. And we haven't split food by ethnicity, either. A renamed Turkey-food-stub would be better, but even then I'd have some serious doubts about the number of stubs, considering that Category:Turkish cuisine only has 88 articles. First choice delete, second choice rename. Grutness...wha? 02:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually we do have {{cuisine-stub}} / Category:Cuisine stubs with well over 500 stubs and four (now five subtypes). The subtypes have varying names and provenances, but the cuisine stub was properly proposed and placed on the stub list back in December 2005. While most of these are likely local dishes rather than an entire set of customs, the permacat is Category:Turkish cuisine not Turkish cuisines or Turkish foods. I can live with a {{Turkey-food-stub}} and/or a {{Turkey-cuisine-stub}}, so the only question in my mind is whether or not there are sufficient stubs. We probably ought to bring the others here as well so we decide their fate as well, so I'm adding them to this discussion. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that I've finished tagging the other four, I'm ready to talk. Both India and Mexico have enough stubs at present, the other three don't, tho to be fair to the Spanish one, that one has so far limited itself to just actual cuisines so far rather than foods found in that cuisine with its tags. I can see the sense of a stub type for the dishes in a national cuisine where we have enough of them to matter and the relevant permcats will be of the form Fooian cuisine I can live with either using Fooian cuisine stubs or Fooian food and cuisine stubs and then using both {{Foo-food-stub}} and {{Foo-cuisine-stub}} to feed into it. However, for now, unless someone is willing to stub search the relevant permcat for stubs, keep only the India, Mexico, and Spain ones for now. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Turkish cuisine stub}} ;Unproposed, yes, I did a mistake due to the lack of info about wiki rules. I am ready to make proposal if necessary now.
    • Cuisine is not equal Food. It is more comprehensive;for ex; Instruments, tradition etc.
    • There will be numerous article created under the scope of WP-Turkey,but there are enough article related with Turkish cuisine which are tagged already with Turkey-Stub which I begun to change with this new template to give a guidance to the participants of that project.
  • So,My vote is KEEP. Regards. MustTC 17:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - If there is a Turkish cuisine stub, there are others we are not going to clog it up, and they are not Turkish foods, also stop spamming articles with that stub you tagged tons that are not even stubs! Jamaana 06:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cretanforever 19:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm well aware of the distinction between food and cuisine, however most of the articles that are about a regional cuisine will be about the food, because there isn't likely to be that many separate stub articles that can be written about the other aspects since until they can be expanded past the point of a stub, they likely belong merged into the Cuisine of Turkey article. However, assuming you started from the beginning of the alphabet with your examination of the existing Turkish stubs, Then based on the ones already in the subtype, I strongly doubt that there exist the 60+ stubs to justify a separate stub type at this time, and we don't generally keep stub types based on the promise that there will be more stubs real soon now. At best an upmerged template might be worth keeping if there are 30+ stubs, and a quick look at the Turkish stubs indicates that there are ~30. Even if kept. the stub must be renamed to conform to the naming guidelines. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but modify the name if necessary.. Baristarim 06:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Baristarim... Chapultepec 09:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have nothing against this stub, but I think it has been over-used for articles which could no doubt become more complete, but are well beyond the status of stubs. The other problem is that a lot of the articles it is being used for are, yes, part of Turkish cuisine, but they are also part of Armenian, Greek, Lebanese, Bulgarian, etc. cuisine. Do we really want to tag them with a dozen stub notices? Perhaps some editor who is not from the region could take a look at a few of the examples and give an opinion. --Macrakis 16:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're not wrong. People adding this tag to kebab, and then using popup-based anti-vandalism tools to revert the (predictable and blatantly correct) removal of same, are "having a laugh", and should desist before their behaviour reaches assorted other forums. I also note it was added to Alanya kebab, which article states "Such kebab is completely unknown in Turkey." On another note, I've moved this to {{Turkish-cuisine-stub}} to minimally conform to the naming guidelines, though if the scope is supposed to be "food actually from present-day Turkey", then Turkey- would be more conventional. Alai 17:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this seems true. Soon the related articles will abound with lots of stubs. If the stub in question will continue to be used, it should take place in the articles that won't cause a conflict with the other cuisine categories. Chapultepec 19:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments;
    • Turkey-cuisine is not Turkish cuisine; "Hamburger" is in Turkey cuisine but not belong to Turkish cuisine. Turkish cuisine can not be restricted with the borders of Turkey.
    • Stub is stub. Even if ,any article which contains a lot of paragraphs can be stub.In many articles-in this scope- there are plentifull of data; but away from to give correct info to readers.
    • In some hours in wiki-without a large investigation- I found and tagged more than 60 articles-in this scope-.
    • So; there should be a stub template, and name is Turkish cuisine. MustTC 09:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no doubt that you've tagged more than 60 articles. However, your judgement as to the "scope" (tandoor? Turkish?), and as to what's a stub (kebab? -- stub may be stub, but stub is not this) is very suspect (assuming it's actually being exercised at all). You're also using it in addition to {{cuisine-stub}}, and continuing to use the non-NG template name, so this activity resembles "stub sorting" barely at all. The stub-sorting project gets endless grief about over-tagging of stubs, and about lack of consistency in template names, so stuff like this is really the last thing it needs. If you're going to ignore any particular definition of "Turkish", ignore the primary notability of a topic, ignore what's actually a stub or not, ignore the stub naming conventions, and continue to mis-use the "undo" button a) in a content dispute, and b) to make what are plain bad edits, then not only will you not achieve the keep-through-category-padding you presumably want, but you'll be in very real danger of your behaviour being examined in a more formal manner. Alai 14:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We should make them by regions, for example Caucasus, Middle eastern etc, because like this other nationalities would want this and it would cause a mess.
For me, not cause a mess.Why we should make regional.What make sense, "Middle eastern cuisine" or "Caucasus cuisine"?. Cuisine is strongly related with culture.These regional cuisines are a collection of different cuisines, we can not talk-except some cases- about a specific cuisine in one geographic area.MustTC 14:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, Middle eastern is considered a culture, it makes more sense sounds less POV, all those you tagged are Turkish related but also belongs to other cultures than you want us to clog it up with Italian, Armenian, Azeri, Iranian etc? because if we make like Mexican cuisine stub we need more because its not fair do you get my drift? Nareklm 14:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many foods are shared among multiple cuisines. Though there is certainly a wonderful variety of kebabs in Turkish cuisine, kebab is found from Serbia to Pakistan, as documented in the kebab article. Compote is a dish with a French name which is popular in most of Europe (especially Eastern Europe) as well as the Middle East (and also found in North America under the name "stewed fruit (notably prunes)", yet Mustafa Akalp has tagged it with the Turkish cuisine stub label. That isn't helpful. --Macrakis 19:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My vote is still keep, but I think we should take care of not having a conflict with the other cuisines while placing the tag in the articles. Otherwise in the near future we will be able to see lots of national cuisine stubs in the related articles which will certainly be a mess. Chapultepec 20:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Valid point. However, most of those articles will (hopefully) become longer soon so that we won't need the stubs. Baristarim 20:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2007/February/13&oldid=1140544920"