Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mairi (talk | contribs) at 06:48, 29 December 2005 (→The last of the -related's: emptied & deleted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcut
WikiProject Stub sorting
Information
Project page talk
- Stub types (sections) talk
- Stub types (full list) talk
- To do talk
- Naming conventions talk
- Redirects category talk
Wikipedia:Stub talk
Discussion
Proposals (A) talk
- Current month
Discussion talk
Criteria (A) (discontinued) talk
Deletion (Log) (discontinued) talk
Category
Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

This page only deals with the deletion of stub types, which consist of a template and a category, and are intended to be used for sorting stubs. Stub templates that are missing categories and stub categories without associated templates are also appropriate here. All other templates or categories nominated for deletion have to be put on WP:TFD or WP:CFD, respectively.

About this page

This page is for the proposal, discussion, and voting on deletion of stub categories, stub templates, and stub redirects. By having the vote on these three closely related matters centralised on one page, it reduced the need for repeating identical arguments on several different Wikipedia deletion pages (WP:CFD, WP:TFD, and WP:RFD) and also reduces the workload on those pages.

Putting a stub type on SfD, and what happens afterwards

  • Mark the affected pages:
    • For deletion:
      • Put {{sfd-t}} on stub templates
      • Put {{sfd-c}} on stub categories
      • Put {{sfd-r}} on stub redirects, and include the redirect target after it (see below for details)
    • For renaming:
      • Put {{sfr-t|New-name}} (parameter optional) on stub templates
      • Put {{sfr-c|New name}} (parameter optional) on stub categories
  • List the stub type below in a new subsection at the top of the section which has the current date. If that section does not yet exist, create it.
    • Mention all affected pages in the subheading, like this:
      ==== {{tl|banana stub}} / [[:Category:Banana stubs]] / {{tl|YellowCurvyFruit-stub}} (redirect) ====
    • Also mention how many articles currently use the template, and if it is listed anywhere else.
    • Of course, state your reason for nominating the stub type for deletion!
  • After a voting period of seven days, action will be taken if there is consensus on the fate of the stub type. Please do not act before this period is over.
  • Archived discussions are logged per the instructions at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log, and are located at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted and Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Not deleted. If the decision is to rename the category or template, the discussion is logged on the "deleted" page, since the stub's name, at least, has been deleted.

Putting {{sfd-r}} on redirects

Given that the {{sfd-r}} template breaks redirection, it is necessary to change a stub redirect when adding the template, as follows:

#Redirect [[Template:foo-stub]] should be changed to:

{{sfd-r}}{{foo-stub}}

Possible reasons for the deletion of a stub type

  • They are not used in any article, and their category is empty
  • They overlap with other stub categories, or duplicate them outright
  • Their scope is too limited - As a rule of thumb, there should be at least 50 appropriate stubs in existence
  • The stub category or template is misnamed. In this case, make this clear when nominating and propose a new category or template name. Note that - in the case of a template but not a category - it may be more appropriate to make it into a redirect
  • They are malformed, misnamed, or deprecated redirects

What this page is not for

Typical voting options

  • Keep (do not delete or modify)
  • Delete (delete template and category)
  • Merge with xx-stub (Delete category, redirect template to xx-stub)
  • Merge with xx-stub without redirect (delete category and template, put xx-stub on all articles that use it)
  • Change scope (reword the template, typically giving it a larger scope. Usually also means renaming the category)
  • BJAODN (add to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, then delete)

When voting, please try to give a more substantial reason than simply "I like it/find it useful" or "I dislike it/don't find it useful"


Listings

December 28th

{{Ancient-Egypt-struct-stub}}

Seeing that {{ancient-Egypt-building-stub}} was listed for deletion (see below), the creator of it re-created it at a new name (not a redirect, a new stub!). It's still the wrong name (it would be {{Egypt-struct-stub}} if needed), and it's still not needed. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 27th

Four Ancient Egypt stub types

Proposed today and created today. Unfortunately, between the time of proposal and creation, debate was clearly heading towards three of these being unnecessary and the fourth being made with another name. What's more, none of these have dedicated categories. None of them have been used on any articles. Grutness...wha? 11:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ancient-Egypt-military-stub}}

If needed, it should be {{Ancient-Egypt-mil-stub}}, but with only 350 Ancient Egypt stubs, it's unnecessary - it's unlikely to get anywhere near 60 stubs. At least rename it and give it a category, but preferably delete. Grutness...wha? 11:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ancient-Egypt-building-stub}}

If needed, it should be {{Egypt-struct-stub}}, but at last count there were only 12 Egyptian structures, ancient or modern, with stubs, it's unnecessary. At least rename it and give it a category, but preferably delete. Grutness...wha? 11:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ancient-Egypt-bio-stub}}

{{Greece-bio-stub}} covers both ancient and modern Greece adequately with no problems. {{Egypt-bio-stub}} - which already exists - covers both ancient and modern Egypt with no problems. Delete this one. Grutness...wha? 11:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS - for the time being, I've made this a redirect to Egypt-bio-stub. Grutness...wha? 11:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{Ancient-Egypt-mythology-stub}}

The only one which I'd vote to keep, but since we have {{Greek-myth-stub}}, {{Norse-myth-stub}} etc, this should be {{Egyptian-myth-stub}}. Rename, and give it a dedicated category. Grutness...wha? 11:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom to fit the naming convention for *-myth-stub, but also keep as a redirect from an alternate name. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename no need to redirect. someoe tryingto categorize that wouldbe familiar enoughto get the right template.. Circeus 01:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is getting ridiculous. This has been re-created with the new proposed name in the middle of a vote - there is still no correct category link, and the new name has a sfd notice on it. What's more, it was recreated by copy and paste - the old template still exists. Yorktown, please stop messing around with the template in the middle of a vote! Since there is now a completely separate template with a more standard name, there's no need to keep this old one or redirect it - the situation has changed enough that we probably need to start this vote all over again... Grutness...wha? 02:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Taking a closer look, I see I misread it. I could see keeping {{Ancient-Egypt-myth-stub}} as a redirect from an alternate name, but not the -mythology- form. After all, we have {{Ancient-Rome-myth-stub}} instead of {{Roman-myth-stub}}. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Author's Note:

After much consideration I have decided to delete {{Ancient-Egypt-military-stub}}. As for the other 3 stubs I am going to keep them. There are several dozen Ancient Egyptian pharaohs from this time period hence need for {{Ancient-Egypt-bio-stub}}. I am going to rename {{Ancient-Egypt-mythology-stub}} to {{Ancient-Egypt-myth-stub}}. In regards to {{Ancient-Egypt-building-stub}} there are over 60 unnamed pyramids in The Valley of The Kings that would fall under this category as well as several other Egyptian monuments. Though I will rename it {{Ancient-Egypt-struct-stub}}. Thank you for your time.

Yorktown1776 14:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those 60 unnamed pyramids are all located in Egypt and since {{Egypt-struct-stub}} is hardly full (it doesn't even exist yet) I fail to see the need to split off a separate stub for just Ancient Egypt at this time. Indeed, since they are unnamed, I find it highly unlikely that they are individually notable enough for each to have a separate article in a general purpose encylcopedia. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please wait until the sfd process is done rather than making what look like fairly arbitrary renames and other changes. Ancient-Egypt-struct-stub and Ancient-Egypt-myth-stub are still unacceptable names, so if you make those changes, they'll simply come back here to sfd anyway - making more work for everyone in the process. As to the 60 unnamed pyramids, if they do not all articles, then there is no need for a stub category for them. Also I don't know what you mean by the military stub being "removed" - it still exists and will still need to be dealt with. Grutness...wha? 23:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 24th

Category:Television biographical stubs to Category:Television biography stubs

Proposed name follows the [noun]-stub model. Aecis praatpaal 00:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 23rd

{{US-northeast-geo-stub}} and Category:Northeastern US geography stubs

every state in the US NE now has its own =geotemplat and no stubs use this template any more. so why do we need it? delete BL kiss the lizard 07:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative would be to redefine the northeast for the purposes of stub sorting. While we have been using the Census Bureau's split, that was likely because map images showing the regions were already on the wiki. There are other splits out there that would include Maryland, Delaware, and DC. Delaware and DC don't yet have geo stubs of their own, so making the move would keep this stub as viable and bring the southern geo stubs down to a single page. On the other hand, making this change would involve a good deal more work. Either change scope or delete. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lordy, it is empty! Yet another possibility might be to keep the category as a holding pen for those states, but delete the template. That would mean 1) no states in among the regions in the main US geo-stub category; 2) no constant emptying of US northeast into separate state categories. That would be a reasonable temporary solution until such times as all US states have categories (but given that Delaware has five geo-stubs, that may still be a while away). Grutness...wha? 01:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{New Hampshire politician-stub}}

another karmafist special. unused. misnamed. unneccesary. delete. BL kiss the lizard 06:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(rolls eyes) delete. Grutness...wha? 06:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Tolkienstub}} to {{tolkien-stub}}

The stub template name needs a hyphen. This is a move that has already been requested at requested moves back in June, but nothing was done with that request. Another thing that might need fixing is the parent category, Category:Tolkien stubs. It lists Category:Tolkien stub as a subcategory, which is simply a redirect to Category:Tolkien stubs. I don't believe this circular categorization is what we need. Aecis praatpaal 00:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 22nd

{{world-music-song-stub}} → {{worldmusic-song-stub}}

Rename misnamed template. --Bruce1ee 09:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{American Football-stub}}

Karmafist strikes again. Delete this misnamed unused redirect. Grutness...wha? 07:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Television-stub}}

Karmafist strikes again. At least this one is better named, but weak delete, since it's still unnecessary. Grutness...wha? 07:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

Everything from here on down is old business; the current 7-day review period has ended. Everything from this point on should be dealt with and removed from the workflow. Move this marker up as time passes.

December 20th

{{hardware-cvg-stub}} → {{cvg-hardware-stub}}

While we do have stub templates of both the form *-cvg-stub and cvg-*-stub, the former are all used for genres and the pattern has been to place the cvg component where it would in ordinary language. Since this is for CVG hardware and not for "hardware computer and video games" I recommend we rename the template and delete the original. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{film-awards-stub}} / Category:Film awards stubs → {{film-award-stub}} / Category:Film award stubs

From plural to singular. Aecis praatpaal 14:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


December 17th

{{auto-stub}}

This stub is confusing since 'auto' is commonly used as an abbreviation for 'automatic.' An inexperience user, having only viewed automobile articles and encountered only auto-stub stubs, may create an article of their own and use auto-stub thinking that this will automagically create the appropriate stub. Delete and rename to automotive-stub or something less ambiguous. CMJ 08:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Mexican-American/Chicano Stub}} / Category:Mexican-American/Chicano Stubs; {{La Raza-stub}} (redirect) Category:La Raza stubs (old cat)

This has the same problems as {{AfricanAmerican-stub}} below about being applied to people, which is what the current name would suggest. Furthermore, the current name is pretty awful, between the space, capital Stub and using two alternate names in the template name. And while there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexican-Americans/Chicanos, that suggests even more that this is intended for people. Delete --Mairi 04:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete as with the African-American one, we don't split by race, we don't use ambiguous names, and this cuts across all sorts of categories. And speedy delete Category:La Raza stubs if its already deprecated (what the <eth>; is La Raza anyway?). Grutness...wha? 05:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete {{La Raza-stub}} & Category:La Raza stubs. La Raza is a term used by some Hispanics, especially Mexicans to refer to themselves. It alludes specifically to their mestizo heritage, but it is of such unstable meaning right now it isn't a good stub name. It is a term that has crossed over into American English, most notably in the name of the National Council of La Raza and in the slogans used by several professional wrestlers. (Caerwine Caerwhine 06:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Why did I forget to sign earlier?)[reply]
thanks for that - I hadn't heard of that, and my small Spanish dictionary seems to suggest that "raza" means "breed", which didn't help much. Grutness...wha? 22:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The La Raza stub will be deleted soon enough, and is only serving as a redirect for pages that were created before the name change. The stub is not used for people who are Mexican-American or Chicano, but rather for topics related to Mexican-American and Chicano issues (the reason for the two terms is that there is a distinct difference for many people, although your dictionary may not mention it). I feel seperate categories for issues relating to history, music, art, language, etc would be great, but unfortunately, there are only a handful of articles dealing with topics relevant to Chicanos and Mexican-Americans on Wikipedia currently. If anything, maybe the existence of this template should be taken as incentive to write more articles! --Bfraga 00:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps to keep people out of it, the template should say "This non-biographical Mexican-American/Chicano-related article...", with a note on the category that it's not for people? If it's to be kept, it could use a shorter name. Given that the main category is Category:Mexican Americans, I'd suggest using that for the template and category, if it's kept. --Mairi 06:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spliting stubs by race is going to cut across too many catagoiries and make a mess of things. BL kiss the lizard 04:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In response, there are too few articles to justify your statement that it will "make a mess of things." Once a good number of articles relating to Chicano and Mexican-American topics are written, more specific stubs will be written. But until them, it only makes addding to Chicano/Mexican-American articles difficult. --Bfraga 05:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
then delete it becuase it hasnt enough stubs. if it had more it would definately cross the heirarchy as i said (and others did too). BL kiss the lizard 05:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But if it doesn't have enough stubs to cause an issue, then how could it be...causing...an...issue...? --Bfraga 23:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For a stub category to be useful for editors, it needs to have a reasonable population of stubs - that's why no new categories are created until there are at least a few dozen stubs for them (the usual threshold for creation is about 60). Yet, as the AfricanAmerican category below shows, this sort of category can cut across the hierarchy quite badly with less than ten stubs. If this category had enough stubs to be viable in terms of numbers, it would clash basly with existing categories. If it had few enough not to clash badly, it wouldn't have enough to be useful to editors. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are many articles that should have this stub tag that do not. If I were to mark them all, the category would be quite populous. Shall I? FWIW, I think the Mex-Am./Chic stub may be helpful for the members of WikiProject Mexican-Americans/Chicanos.--Rockero420 18:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out above, if you do, it'll clash badly with existing categories and cause a lot of problems with stub-sorting in general. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- this is part of an ongoing WikiProject. Joaquin Murietta 14:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see where this will clash any more strongly than the proposed stub for Aboriginal Canadians. I'm not at all happy with the name of the stub template but that's a separate problem from the existence of this stub. Since the non stub category is simply Category:Mexican Americans rename to {{MexicanAmerican-stub}} & Category:Mexican American stubs with potential redirects from the alternate names {{Chicano-stub}} and/or {{Mexican-American/Chicano-stub}} if the WikiProject wants them. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not the same thing. That one is for ethnic groups throughout Canada, and therefore can fit quite well within the current Canadian categories. This is for one specific ethnic group which crosses national boundaries 'and for the individual people within it. I would have no objection to a US-ethnic-stub to cover all ethnic groups within the United States, but there is a suggestion with this stub that (a) it would also deal with individual people (crossing the various occupation categories) and also - in the case of La Raza - would deal with people outside the US. If the scope of this stub was modified, it might be usable, but in its present form it's a bit too messy. Grutness...wha? 06:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 16th

{{AfricanAmerican-stub}} / Category:African American stubs

No category, created today and used once. While a stub for African-American history might be useful, a general stub like this cuts across many categories, particularly when it gets applied to people. There are also no existing stub types for individual ethnic groups. Delete --Mairi 08:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The template now has category too. --Mairi 04:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not at all useful, for the reasons mentioned. Grutness...wha? 09:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see where a stub for African American topics (history, politics, religion, organisations, etc.) could be useful, but the stub name should not be {{AfricanAmerican-stub}}, which would logically be only applied to people. I cannot think of a better name, but I'm sure there is one. The usefulness of the stub would be dependent on how many (and what type) of articles to which it could be applied. As for this stub name, delete it. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 13:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lectonar 13:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a notable subject that is bound to have many stubs associated with it.--Revolución (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete spliting by race cuts across too many catagories. BL kiss the lizard 04:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as with the articles relating to mexican-americans/chicanos, there are too few articles to divide it up on any basis other than race. Don't use a desire to not categorize things on racial lines to justify making it difficult to coordinate articles dealing with ethnic groups underrepresented on Wikipedia. You can't think of a better name because there isn't one. Believe me, it would be used. --Bfraga 05:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • not quite sure what you mean by "too few to split apart from by race" - the only stub currently marked with this is a US-poli-stub. The Chicano category contains a US-poli-stub, a US-newspaper-stub, a US-struct-stub, and a US-writer-stub. In other words, it has already cut across four categories and only has four stubs! Of these, if split further, one would be split by type of writer and one by location of structure, in keeping with other similar categories. Grutness...wha? 05:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not a tree and neither are categories and stubs. Frankly this cutting across categories complaint sounds more liek a reason to keep, not a reason to delete. The topic itself is well defined, has interested people, and is not well served by existing categories. I'm not 100% happy with the name, but I can't think of a better one that wouldn't be totally artificial and created solely to satisfy the hyper-treeists such as {{US-ethno-Africa-stub}} (Yuuch!) Caerwine Caerwhine 15:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Kosovo-geo-stub}} / Category:Kosovo geography stubs

We've recently twice deleted variations on a Kosovo-stub, so I doubt we want this more specific one. Also unlikely to be of sufficient size. Delete --Mairi 08:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete for all the same reasons that we deleted {{Kosovo-stub}}. Category:Montenegro geography stubs is woefully undersized - this one would be far worse. Grutness...wha? 09:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 15th

{{Search-engine-optimization-stub}}

No category, no indication it's ever been used either. Complex name, though not malnamed. But would we ever get anywhere near enough stubs to make this worthwhile? A search-engine-stub would probably struggle to reach threshold. But a search-engine-optimisation-stub? Delete. Grutness...wha? 10:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Mairi 06:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{ethnic-stub}} (redirect) Category:Ethnicity stubs & {{ethno-stub}}

The first two need at the very least to have some cleanup done with them, even if kept. As can be seen here the trouble began back around June, but it never did get completely cleared up. There are 44 stubs in Category:Ethnicity stubs that with a null edit would be added to Category:Ethnic group stubs instead and only three articles that use {{ethnic-stub}}. Category:Ethnicity is the parent of Category:Ethnic groups in the non stub categories but the two stub categories have no linkage. With the proposed {{ethno-activist-stub}} ready to be created, I discovered this situation as I was looking around to make certain I gave it the appropriate non-stub parent. Category:Ethnicity stubs would seem to me to be a better parent for Category:Minority rights activist stubs than Category:Ethnic group stubs so I favor keeping the cat either with or wothout a stub template. However I see several alternatives here about what to do with {{ethno-stub}} none of which I have a preference for at this time, but with the first two being discussed, it seemed approporiate to discuss it now.

  1. Leave {{ethno-stub}} where it is and have Category:Ethnicity stubs be a templateless stub category.
  2. Leave {{ethno-stub}} where it is and give Category:Ethnicity stubs a template of its very own.
  3. Rescope {{ethno-stub}} to be the stub template of Category:Ethnicity stubs and give Category:Ethnic group stubs a new stub template such as {{ethno-group-stub}}

I'm neutral about what to do with {{ethnic-stub}} but I figured this was an appropriate time to discuss whether to officially bring it in out of the cold and add it to the list of approved redirects or to extinguish it. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's clear that as far as {{ethno-stub}} is concerned, option 3 is the consensus, but no one else seems to have commented on the {{ethnic-stub}} redirect. Any opinions, cause without some, that part looks like it'll be closed with no consensus. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • given that it's only been used three times, I don't think anyone would be too inconvenienced if it was deleted. We don't use adjectival stub names, anyway (not that "ethno" is exactly a noun form). Grutness...wha? 06:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also go with delete (although it's now used more than 3 times), since we don't use adjectival forms, and it's not clear whether it ought to redirect to ethno-stub or ethno-group-stub. --Mairi 06:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


December 13th

{{New Mexico-politician-stub}}, {{South Carolina-politician-stub}}

These templates should lose the space in their names:

Conscious 14:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 11th

Both Category:Law-related biographical stubs and the newly created Category:American law-related biographical stubs have a small problem of parentage which I noticed as I created the latter for the {{US-law-bio-stub}}. Namely what non-stub category should be its parent? The stub text suggests that Category:Jurists would be approporiate (whihc includes lawyers, judges, and law professors, but instead the stub category had Category:Law (which is too broad) as its non-stub parent. The parent was part of the the -related SFD of 24 November, but I've noted this nomination here. As named, the stub category would also seem to encompass non-jurists who have some relation to the law, but there do not exist non-stub categories that would correspond to that broader scope, while Category:Jurists, Category:American jurists and quite a number of cats in Category:Jurists by nationality already exist. Therefor I recommend that we:

Rename to Category:Jurist stubs and Category:American jurist stubs and limit the scope to just jurists. This is not intended to affect the variety of redirects to {{law-bio-stub}}. Jurist is not a common enough term that I would be comfortable with ditching the redirects from alternate names in this case. If the explict scoping is not felt to be appropriate then the previously planned rename to Category:Law biography stubs and Category:American law biography stubs should be carried out instead. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename of three Buildings and structures stub categories

Category:Scottish buildings and structures stubs, Category:UK buildings and structures stubs, and Category:US buildings and structures stubs should be renamed to follow the pattern of the other buildings and structures stub categories to be Category:Scotland buildings and structures stubs, Category:United Kingdom buildings and structures stubs, and Category:United States buildings and structures stubs. Not the most urgent of fixes, but as long as I noticed them while adding the new stub types for France, Italy, and Japan, I decided to bring them here. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 10th

{{District of Columbia-stub}}

Not a redirect - a duplicate. Karmafist clearly decided we needed more work on this page, so there's this incorrectly named template to delete as well. If anyone wants to start an RFC against karmafist, let me know, because he's inching towards one... Grutness...wha? 23:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 9th

Rename Category:Pub stub

As with the Nazi stub below, the category needs a rename to end in the standard " stubs" as Category:Pub stubs Caerwine Caerwhine 04:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do we even need Category:Pub stubs? It's only ever had a few dozen stubs, and if the London ones were in Category:London buildings and structures stubs (where they'd probably see more action) it would reduce it to about 40 stubs in total. I wouldn't object if this one was deleted. But failing that, yes, a rename would be useful. Grutness...wha? 14:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this already covered by the bars in {{restaurant-stub}}? Aecis praatpaal 19:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There 59 stubs in this category. Weak delete, but rename if kept. Conscious 15:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Alai 04:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{District Of Columbia-stub}}

While we can argue the pros and cons of whether we should have specific state-stubs (or in this case, district-stub) without WikiProjects, this does need a rename. User:Karmafist merrily created this and Virginia-stub without reference to WP:WSS/P, and the redirect below. Personally, I'm definitely softening on the "no project, no stub" stance" (and have called for debate at the foot of WP:WSS/P about it) but this needs a rename. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with renaming it, but let's make a redirect there to whatever the new stub is. The newcomers and non-cruftinators will be turned off to putting stubs on articles as guideposts to let others know that they're small and need to be improved, which is their only purpose anyway other than perhaps methods of categorization.
There's no need to propose anything when it can just be done. karmafist 03:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{New Hampshire-stub}} (redirect)

At the same time as the above, Karmafist also made this redirect which runs contrary to naming practice. Delete this, at least. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 8th

{{Europe-mil-stub}}

Somehow, when this one was made, it was made with "Europe" rather than the standard "Euro"". Rename to the more standard {{Euro-mil-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 10:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


{{hist-book-stub}} & Category:Historical fiction book stubs

While taking a look at whether the proposed {{hist-film-stub}} would be worth creating, I discovered that its parent cat would be Category:Period films. It then struck me that by using "period fiction" instead of "historical fiction" for this stub type, we would be able to have a stub type about history books without having to resort to the {{hist-text-stub}} that Grutness has been suggesting without much enthusiasm from others. Therefore I propose that we:

Rename to {{period-book-stub}} & Category:Period fiction book stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW the current parent category of this is Category:Historical novels. --Mairi 00:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, and "historical fiction" is by far more used as a term than "period fiction". Without the other potential use of the stub template for non-fiction hostory books, I wouldn't have even proposed this one. If there were some other way to break the log jam that has kept the non fiction book stubs from being split despite the fact that they need to be, I'd take it, but the other suggested method ("-text-") has not received much favor on the proposals page. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps rename the template to {{hist-fict-stub}} (or any variation on the abbreviations) or {{hist-novel-stub}}? --Mairi 04:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{histfict-book-stub}} might be a possibility, but between the abbreviations and the fact that {{histfict-film-stub}} would be far less obvious than {{period-film-stub}} makes me slightly leery, but not so leery that I'd out and out oppose it if others favored it. Caerwine Caerwhine 11:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could be wrong, but doesn't "historical fiction" refer to a fictional work concerning a real event or person (such as the movie Amadeus is a fictional work about a historically important person: Mozart) whereas "period fiction" concerns a story at a differnt time, but not about historical events or people? I'm not completely sure, but it's what I've always understood about it.Rt66lt 22:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 6th

{{ST-ep-stub}}

I believe that this one, albeit poetic, is a bit too ambiguous. ST isn't just the abbreviation of Star Trek, it's also the ISO country code for São Tomé and Príncipe, the ISO language code for Sesotho and the NATO country code for Saint Lucia. EP is usually used for the European parliament or extended play music recordings. I propose renaming this to {{StarTrek-episode-stub}}. Aecis praatpaal 23:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm half inclined to suggest that we up merge this one into {{ST-stub}} instead (which also needs a rename) At around 400 stubs the combined stub type would not be overlarge. All the Star Trek episode stubs have "(X episode)" [where X refers to the particular series] at the end of the article name so it's not as if the episodes need a separate stub stype to be distinguishable and no other series has a seperate episode stub type. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


{{ITC Entertainment Productions-stub}} and Category:ITC Entertainment stubs

Barely used, doesn't really seem viable, cuts right across the existing hierarchy. Has a Wikiproject, but doesn't have enough articles for a Wikiproject to get its own stub. Aecis praatpaal 17:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with support for renaming Template:ITV-stub or an agreed short version if necessary. -- Cjmarsicano 20:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd go for {{ITCDistributions-stub}} or {{ITC-Distributions-stub}}. I don't know where Template:ITV-stub came from, though: ITC shows were specifically not ITV shows; they just happened to usually (but by no means always) be shown on ITV in the UK thanks to ATV's ownership of ITC. In the main, they were produced in order to sell them into syndication in the United States - the UK sales were a by-product. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the category has it has more than enough now for a Wikiproject stub. Rename to {{ITCEntertainment-stub}}. (Where is "ITC Distributions" coming from as an idea for a name? That doesn't even exist as a redirect in Wikipedia?) Caerwine Caerwhine 10:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. ITC Distributions is the description we're using in the Wikiproject. The project started as being about ITC productions, but once the can was open, the worms got everywhere: ITC was a producer, financer and distributor and the line is rarely very clear. The term "An ITC World-Wide Distribution" is seen on a lot of ITC and ATV programmes - it was a phrase carefully chosen by the Independent Television Authority to ensure that ITC stuff was held at arms-length from ATV's stuff. All of this is very complex and very difficult to explain (that's why there's no article explaining it). It's also not a particularly likely search term for readers - and many editors here have an embolism if you create a redirect that they don't think it's likely anyone will search for - whether they know the subject or not. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 11:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but would also support shortening the stub's name to something more convenient. The JPS 14:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know how this process completes, but if no one has any objections, would it now be ok to rename this stub and category (and any relevant pages (if any)) to follow the name ITC Distributions as standard? Howie ☎ 15:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Category:ITC Entertainment stubs now needs to be deleted, as a page move was not possible. It has been replaced with Category:ITC Distributions stubs as discussed above. Howie ☎ 03:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 2nd

This is a series of separate SfD's to which individual problems or objections of simply removing the -related from the stub category were made.

It was suggested that both the template and the category be renamed.

Unfinished business

To orphan

Stub types in this section have been deemed deletable and have to be removed from all articles using them, so that they can be deleted.

{{journal-stub}} & Category:Scientific journal stubs

The stub has been on the proposals page long enough that it was creatible, but the name of the template and the scope of the category don't match up with the discussion. I recommend that we rename the template to {{sci-journal-stub}} as was discussed in the proposal since the 128 stubs placed in the category clearly show that it is large enough and then create a new {{journal-stub}} → Category:Journal stubs → Category:Journals to serve for journals in the other academic disciplines. Caerwine 06:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree about moving {{journal-stub}} to {{sci-journal-stub}}. I will restub all the articles in the category. Bmdavll talk 06:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support Caerwine's suggestions. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree there's a mismatch here, but I'm not convinced we need a separate category for non-science peer-reviewed journals; would this even hit threshold? In the permanent categories, scientific journals are a large, hierarchical category, and the others are all teeny. What about, we rescope journal-stub to peer-reviewed journals in general, accordingly rename category to Category:Journal stubs (as per permie) or Category:Peer-reviewed journal stubs if we want to be super-clear. If these are larger than they appear after creation and sorting down, we can re-split at a later date. Alai 05:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just did a census of the first column of the first page and found 6 stubs suitable for a general journal stub category and an additional one suitable for the science journal one. Assuming the rest of the category keeps that same rough proportion, it looks like there are about 70 non-science journal stubs. I won't promise 60 stubs, but it won't be too badly underpopulated in even a worst case. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]



To delete

Stub types in this section have been orphaned and can be deleted.

Listings to log

Stub types with completed discussions which have not yet been logged; remove from this page entirely when logged. Anyone can do this, not just an admin; please see the directions at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion&oldid=33094404"