Jump to content

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CMJ (talk | contribs) at 08:48, 17 December 2005 (→December 17: auto-stub). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:
    • 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)
  • 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 17

{{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]

{{P2P-stub}}

No category, recently created, unused. For peer-to-peer file sharing, which doesn't even have a main category. Delete; perhaps rename to {{filesharing-stub}} (or such) if that'd be viable. --Mairi 05:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{pro-life-stub}} / Category:Pro-life stubs

Newly created and added to 10 articles. Inherently POV and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Delete —Slicing (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

an easy POV-target. I'd be inclined to delete them, too... but these are redlinks. What's the real names? Grutness...wha? 05:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality deleted them one minute after I posted the listing here. —Slicing (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
no problem, then :) Grutness...wha? 05:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've undeleted them temporarily, because of an out of process deletion. That said, Delete.--Sean|Black 05:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 05:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice. (I wouldn't've minded seeing them stay deleted either, regardless of how out-of-process it was.) --Mairi 05:47, 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]

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]

{{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]

{{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]

December 14th

Category:Rock-album stubs

Only real problem with this is that the hyphen meeds to go. Rename to Category:Rock album stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 13th

{{Custom Stub}}

someones made a fix-all and confuse-everyone stub again. no catagory and this could give us several tens of thousands oif different types of catagory if it did have. luckily it was only used once. delete. can it be speedied as a recreation of something very similar thats been made before? BL kiss the lizard 05:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hooboy yes, this one is a big mess of worms. delete thoroughly. Grutness...wha? 09:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see how this could be used in any correct way. So people add {{Custom Stub|veeblefetzer}} at the end of an article, and then what? How is anyone going to find a list of veeblefetzer stubs? There's no category for them, and "what links here" from {{Custom Stub}} finds every other custom stub as well. This is useless. — JIP | Talk 12:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not the worst of ones, as it does file all its stubs into Category:Stubs and only customizes the text. (It uses includeonly to keep the template itself out of the category.) I've done the same thing on occassion, but by substing the stub template and commenting the change (see Peter of Spain). That said, non-standard template name, likely to confuse, blah, blah, delete. Caerwine Caerwhine 12:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I am the one who created the ill advised stub, Mea Culpa, I have seen the error of my ways. I would favor it being speedily removed. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 14:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This arrived unexpectedly today at WP:WSS/ST. While I realise that Category:Software stubs is one of our largest, I'm not convinced that this is a useful subcat. It certainly was never proposed or debated prior to creation, and Category:Malware with all its subcategories has only 140-odd articles, so the chances of it reaching the 60-65 threshold are not high. Grutness...wha? 09:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{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

{{Denmark_bio-stub}} / Category:Denmark biographical stubs

Duplicate (except the word "Denmark" rather than "Danish") of {{Denmark-bio-stub}} and Category:Danish people stubs. Was only used by three articles, and I've assigned those to the correct stub.

{{Newhampshire-stub}} (redirect)

Guess who? Delete. This is getting ridiculous. Karmafist seems determined to single-handedly stop all stub-sorting by having spend all our time hunting for his new creations. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{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]

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 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

Category:Nazi Germany stub articles → Category:Nazi Germany stubs

Remove the "articles" part of the name, as it's redundant. --TheParanoidOne 23:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


{{UT-stub}}, {{UT-bio-stub}}, and {{UT-geo-stub}} (Redirects)

These are all redirects to stubs from the Utah WikiProject, and said project doesn't even mention them (save on the talk page thereof). We don't need and shouldn't want a postal abbreviation here as a special case, so delete all three. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A case could be made for the ease of using an abbreviation for Massachusetts or North Carolina, due to the name's length - but even then it would be against stub naming guidelines. But Utah? Make them type an extra two letters! Grutness...wha? 05:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

For one thing, Kurdistan can refer to several different geographic areas, some of which cut across countries. Even if it just refers to the region in Iraq, Category:Iraq geography stubs has only 81 articles; also, Category:Kurdistan has only 21 articles. So it's quite unlikely to be large enough. Delete. --Mairi 02:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{EuroHist-stub}}

Unused malformed redirect of Euro-hist-stub. Delete. Grutness...wha? 10:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{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]

{{geoscience-bio-stub}}

I can't see any reason why this ungainly stub template shouldn't be {{geoscientist-stub}} instead. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:33, 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]

December 7th

{{ST-stub}}

Rename As mentioned below in the discussion for {{ST-ep-stub}}, this stub, which predates the naming guidelines, should be brought into compliance with the naming guidelines as {{StarTrek-stub}}. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canonize by renaming as proposed. Conscious 13:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
rename - Hayter 11:25, 15 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]

{{NZ-university-stub}} and Category:New Zealand university stubs

Has been on WSS/D for about two months now. Used on only 9 articles, and as Grutness said, there are only 10 universities in New Zealand. Aecis praatpaal 17:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


{{India-eco-stub}} and Category:Economy of India stubs

I suggest renaming to {{India-econ-stub}} and Category:Indian economics and finance stubs, per Caerwine on WSS/D. Aecis praatpaal 17:44, 6 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 3rd

{{Oceania-struct-stub}} / Category:Oceania buildings and structures stubs

Even as a parochially patriotic kiwi, I can see that an Oceania struct-stub template and category used by 149 stubs of which all but 21 are from Australia is better turned into an Australia-struct-stub, with the remaining stubs returned to the general struct-stub category. New Zealand is the only country with more than one of these remaining stubs (it has 16), and - with any luck - it will eventually move up to the point of a split itself (but not for a looong time). I suggest a rescope and rename. see below. Grutness...wha? 08:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support creation of Australia-struct-stub. Do you have a feeling for whether the shortage of other Oceania struct stubs is due to a shortage of structures, a shortage of articles about them (and thus a WP:BIAS issue), or that all the structures have non-stub articles? --Scott Davis Talk 09:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of each. There aren't as many prominent structures, to start with - most of the other countries in the region are either very small, somewhat undeveloped, or lightly populated. There won't be that many buildings in Vanuatu or Tonga worth writing articles about. Then there's a bit of article-bias - other that Australia and New Zealand there aren't too many Oceanian editors. But that refers back to their small populations and underdevelopment; other that Aus and NZ, the only country in the region with over a million population is Papua New Guinea, which is still not at the same technology level as a lot of countries. What's more, in the case of New Zealand what articles there are are often already past stub level. Maybe I should write a few more stubs :) Grutness...wha? 12:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was thinking - we need to make sure all the significant structures in the little islands (if there are any more such structures) get stubs as they don't have their own editors, then see if we can get rid of the category or if it's big enough by then.--Scott Davis Talk 12:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've gone through all the categories I can think of that might have some hiding in there, and it's improved things a bit... it might be possible to keep the oceania category and have australia as a subcat (BTW, Scott, unfortunately from the point of view of this category, airports are geo-, not struct-, since quite a lot of the ones still marked as stub are little more than bare flattened landing strips.). The count's now Australia 128, all other 40, and a wee bit of stub-creation in the next few days could get it up past 50 at least. Grutness...wha? 08:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Make that all others 43. Never thought I'd be writing an article on Government House in Fiji! Grutness...wha? 09:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's up to about 50 now, so I'm changing this to a proposal to keep Oceania-struct-stub but add Australia-struct-stub as a subcat of it (probably better done through WP:WSS/P). Still not much from the islands, so it's likely the same problem will come up again if New Zealand gets too many more struct-stubs (35 of the 50 are from there). Grutness...wha? 02:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support creation of Australia-struct-stub. Slark 02:05, 10 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.

It was suggested that the template be renamed as well.

It was suggested that the category be renamed.

It was suggested that the stub be deleted instead.

It was suggested that the stub be deleted instead.

  • Delete With close to a year of existence, it has only 24 stubs, which is below the recommendation even if it had a WikiProject. There's also not much potential for more stubs given that the nation consists of only one small island, making it the smallest independ republic in terms of both area and population. Caerwine 21:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and restub to the hardly overpopulated oceania-stub. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment after some stub searching, it's now up to 42 stubs. --Mairi 04:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has quite a few stubs, and it bugs me that systemic bias issues are so regularly ignored on this page. Ambi 03:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's hardly systemic bias that this country only has 6000 people, and therefore not very many articles. It makes far more sense for editors who are able to expand articles on Pacific islands in general to be able to find them in one go. It makes a lot of sense to have individual main categories for every country, but not for individual countries to have their own stub categories, simply because stub categories are aimed at helping editors, and editors who know about some PI nations are very likely to know about others too. As it happens, there are probably enough stubs here for this category to survive, but if there hadn't been, it would have made far more sense to upmerge it. Grutness...wha? 03:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In concurrence with Ambi, believing the nation should get its own stub. --Allstar86 06:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested that the stub be deleted instead.

It was suggested that the stub be deleted instead.

  • Delete Too few stubs. Caerwine 21:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - SouthAm-stub can be used happily enough. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment -- The Guyana contingent of wikipedians is just beginning to trickle in and be more active. Guyana-stubs et al. should just be merged with the Caribbean-stubs since Guyana has nearly all of their ties to the Caribbean and precious little with the rest of South America. Their articles usually always are more Caribbean centric then South American and thus would be updated much faster as Caribbean-stubs and much less rapidly as South America Stubs. CaribDigita 02:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a bad idea to merge English-speaking countries in with Spanish-speaking areas, because different editors are able to expand them. Kappa 02:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are too few stubs at present to justify this stub type so Keep is not an option. Neither the South American nor the Caribbean stubs are particularly overloaded at present. With only Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguaym, Uruguay, and the Guianas lacking country level stubs at present, SouthAm-stub is not particularly crowded and has fewer stubs than Caribbean-stub. At most, I could see treating the Caribbean in a similar fashion as we do with the Middle East now and have stubs for the Guianas (Guyana, French Guiana, and Suriname) be double stubbed with both the Caribbean and the South American stub, just as stubs that would take {{Egypt-stub}} if it existed take {{Africa-stub}} and {{MEast-stub}} for now. Caerwine 05:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • With 38 stubs now, the geo stub category, and the 8 in the bio-stub that unless it grows soon that I'll be nominating for an up merge when this one concludes, I'm switching from delete to no vote. However, if kept, the category definitely needs a rename to Category:Guyana stubs.
        • It don't think it can be change back to "Guyana stubs" there was some vote a a few months back that everything should be converted to "(placename)-related stubs". CaribDigita 01:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Quite the reverse, there a was a vote last month in favor of eliminating all of the "-related"s from all stub categories. Mairi has been been keeping Mairibot busy with that and hasn't finishied. This one was part of that discussion, but because of the possibility of deleting the stub entirely was referred to this separate SfD instead.

It was suggested that the stub be deleted instead.

It was suggested that the stub be deleted instead.

  • Comment Only 24 stubs, the same as Nauru (see above) but unlike Nauri there's considerable potential for more stubs and it has a geography stub category with 76 stubs. I'm neutral on keeping it, but if kept, it should be renamed {{PapuaNewGuinea-stub}} & Category:Papua New Guinea stubs, with {{PNG-stub}} kept as a redirect. Caerwine 21:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this has enough potential. I've no real qualms about PNG-stub, either, since it's a very widely used abbreviation, though perhaps keeping it as the redirect only is better. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly rename. Firstly, there's plenty of potential for more, and it's a perfectly worthy stub topic. Secondly, I'm fairly sure that the current category is far from comprehensive; I do a bit of work in the area, and I think there's quite a few stubs in the area that just haven't been tagged. Ambi 03:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested that the category be renamed.

It was suggested that the stub be renamed as well.

December 1st

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

Not sure why this hasn't been noticed before, but there's no WikiProject Helsinki, and in nine months this category has attracted a scant 20 stubs, most of which could easily be fitted into the hardly overpopulated Category:Finland geography stubs. I think this one could easily be culled. Grutness...wha? 12:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd noticed it, but had other things I'd rather tend to first, but since it's been nominated, delete. Caerwine 14:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see why a city would have to have a WikiProject in order to have its own stub. I have created many articles as Helsinki-stubs, and I feel it helps distinguish them from Finland-stubs, which could be anywhere in Finland, even in places I've never visited. I would even prefer Tampere and Turku to have their own stubs. — JIP | Talk 15:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, they are too few. Conscious 17:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I'm becoming less keen on our no subdivision-stubs without a wikiproject, but 20 stubs is too few to justify keeping either way. --Mairi 22:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not that it matters much; I find it surprising just how insignificant matters people deal with here, following a formal procedure. In any case, some justification for my opinion: 1) I'm quite sure that there are _lots_ more articles in en.wiki that could be labeled as Helsinki stubs, but haven't been yet, 2) not all the articles fit "Finland geography stubs": some of them are about restaurants and other miscellaneous places of interest, for example. --Jonik 19:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the Helsinki-stub template and category are deleted, the Helsinki stubs that aren't about geography can be made into Finland stubs. But I still stand by my keep vote. — JIP | Talk 12:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'delete 20? a good editor shouldve cleared it by now! BL kiss the lizard 01:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As it happened there were only five non-geographical stubs anyway, all of which now have finland-stub plus a "type"-stub (e.g., restaurant-stub). Grutness...wha? 06:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

{{Washington-state-highway-stub}} / Category:Washington state highway stubs / {{Washington State Highway Stub}} {{Washington-State-Highway-Stub}}(redirect)

Needs to be changed after the strange SFD that didn't work. I am requesting that the template be moved to {{Washington-State-Highway-stub}}. Some have complained that then the category would be inconsistent, but that is because the category predates the WikiProject. Therefore I am requesting that it should be called Category:Washington State Highway stubs. See Talk:List of California State Routes/Archive2 for the why. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should change List of Current United States Senators to List of current United States senators... if we're going to follow the reasoning of "California state route." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See your friendly neighbourhood style guide for capitalisation of titles, which there's generally specific guidance (as I've previously suggested you do for the cases in question; I'll be very surprised if you find a comparable one). A vague analogy does not a precendent make. What's the point in continuing this, btw, if action is contingent on renaming the parent category, which is yet to make it as far as CFD? Alai 06:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been very busy... I'll get to it tonight or tomorrow. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Can we strive to do these in the opposite order in future? Not much point in opening a debate here that's going to be contingent on one that hasn't even started elsewhere, and if we follow that logic, won't be closeable until after that one is. Especially given the grief we're getting for failing to close debates in a timely fashion. Alai 07:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 30th

{{Barbie-stub}}

Created 5 days ago, used on 3 articles. Lack it's own stub category. I see no reason to think there might be near 60 articles on barbies. Delete. --Mairi 22:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't 60 Barbie stubs, but alas, there easily could be. There are hundreds of different dolls that have been part of the Barbie lineup and that doesn't even count such ancilaries such as games, clothes, playsets, etc. Add in various cultutal tie-ins and it gets even worse. Thankfully Wikipedia has not yet attracted Barbie-cruft, it could. However stub sorting isn't crystal ball, so delete. Caerwine 01:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I ever talk my S.O. into contributing, we could have 100 stubs on Barbie in no time. But we haven't at the moment, so delete. Grutness...wha? 06:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Barbie is a very notable toy and deserves its own category, but this stub is used way too little. — JIP | Talk 15:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


{{China-road-stub}}; {{China-Road-Stub}}

China-road-stub is probably ok if marginal - it's seriously underpopulated (five stubs), wasn't proposed, and has an incorrectly named redlined category which should be China road stubs, not Chinese road stubs. In other words, we pretty much need to start over with it. Adding all the Chinese roads in the main Category:Road stubs will only take it to about 35 stubs. I'm ambivalent about it one way or the other but I'm putting it forward for discussion, due to the small number of stubs. Its unused redirect, though, is incorrectly capitalised and unnecessary, so I'm definitely in favour of deleting that. Grutness...wha? 06:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neither {{China-stub}} nor {{road-stub}} is currently overpopulated, and since it would need fixing anyway, may as well delete both the template and it's redirect, but with the option of recreating the stub type when it would have enough stubs. Caerwine 18:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redirect and keep template. We'll need it sooner or later. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If we keep the template, keep the redirect. --SPUI (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep of template; delete redirect. Alai 07:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, much too early for this stub. Conscious 20:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 29th

Category:Islamic-scholar-stub; Category:Islamic scholar stubs; Category:Islamic theologian stubs; {{Islamic-theologian-stub}}; {{Islamic-scholar-stub}}

Template {{islamic-theologian-stub}} was moved to {{islamic-scholar-stub}} yesterday. The category it feeds into was changed to Category:Islamic-scholar-stub. I think the template should be at least reworded to feed into category according to guidelines. Also, (as far as I can see) the move was completed without any consultation here, so another question is, which one should be deleted, the theologian version, or the scholar version? Conscious 08:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment no, i dont intend to included scholars of random things in the category, only scholars that study about Islam, no matter what they profes. Islamic-theologian-stub denotes that they study theology, while there are other aspects, such as history. The theologian stub exludes the non-muslim scholars of Islamic history, and it is therefore i renamed it to Islamic-scholar-stub. I tried with Islamic-theologian-stub, but User:Zora angrily reverted me, saying "he is NOT a theologian" [1]. I personaly dont care all that much, as long as i can include both Muslim and non-Muslim students of Islamic theology and/or history in the category. Anyhow, i think Islamic-sholar-stub rhymes better with list of Islamic scholars.
  • Delete This is a problematic category and deserves more thought than it has been given. There are two SEPARATE scholarly traditions, the Islamic (ulema, mullah, imam, qadi) and the Western/secular/academic, and there is little overlap between them. I hope that there's going to be more overlap in the future, but at present, the ulema regard the academics as heretics and the academics regard the ulema as remnants of the Middle Ages. To be very blunt, as I usually am. It seems just WRONG to put them both under one template, when they don't accept each others' expertise. If we had two templates, I don't know how they could be phrased so as not to offend either group. Zora 21:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment "Muslim-Islamic-scholar-stub" & "Non-Muslim-Islamic-scholar-stub"... lol... --Striver 01:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment No, because of people like Reza Aslan, who is Muslim, but firmly in the Western academic tradition. I don't think he has taken any of the traditional Islamic curriculum. Zora 03:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sounds like what is being sought is a stub for Islamicists, i.e., those who study the cultural and historical aspects of Islam without worrying about whether the Quran is revealed truth or not. {{Islamicist-stub}} might suffice, but until we have the 60 known stubs that are the recommended minimum, how about double-stubbing with {{Islam-stub}} and {{academic-bio-stub}} for now. Caerwine 03:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just now got through with restubbing all the articles in Category:Islamic-scholar-stub so that the misnamed categorty could be removed, as it is sure to be regardless of whether the decision is to keep Category:Islamic scholar stubs, Category:Islamic theologian stubs, or both. Some ended up being placed in neither of the two categories, as while the person in question did do some Islamic studies, it was in the context of a broader area of interest, so a broader stub was more appropriate. Most ended up being placed in the scholar stub category as given a choice between the two it seemed the most approriate, tho that was skewed by several substubs that only said X was an Islamic scholar. If the sample was representative, we might want to rethink whether an Islamic theologian stub will actually be viable. On the other hand, I think most of the articles were stubbed by the proponent of the scholar stub, so it's not surprising that they would fit more easily in that classification. That said, I'm changing my preference.

{{orgchem-stub}}

From the discoveries page. Only 41 stubs at the present, but I just added 8 stubs from {{chem-stub}} from just the first column in that 4 page stub type, so it should easily reach 60 with a full sorting. However, the template could possibly use a rework before being fully adopted. {{Organic-chemistry-stub}} is the obvious choice if we want avoid all abbreviations. {{Organic-chem-stub}} also makes sense. Probably want tavoid the "org" abbreviation so as to avoid confusion with the organizaion stubs. Caerwine 02:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know that I have a hard time remembering this abbreviation. When I was taking college chemistry, the high level tracks were always called "P-chem" (for physical chemistry) and "O-chem" (for organic chemistry). There may be a lot more stub articles mis-filed under {{biochem-stub}} that should properly be in {{orgchem-stub}}. -- EncycloPetey 02:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
O-chem seems more intuitive IMHO. Lincher 18:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What do phosphorus and oxygen have to do with C-chem? Caerwine Caerwhine 02:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to {{organic-chem-stub}} since we've been using chem as a standard abbreviation. Also create {{organic-chemistry-stub}} as a redirect. --Mairi 02:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{rapper-stub}}

Been on the discoveries page for over a month. Was created a little less than three months ago. No category. Used on 7 articles. I see three valid options, which I'm not going to choose from just yet, as I can see points in favor of all three.

  1. Delete the template and restub the articles with {{hiphop-stub}}
  2. Turn the template into a redirect to {{hiphop-stub}} and null edit the articles so as to place them in Category:Hip hop stubs.
  3. Make the template into a regular stub with category Category:Rapper stubs → Category:Rappers, Category:Hip hop stubs, and Category:Singer stubs. Hip hop stubs is at <400, while singer stubs is at 12 pages. However, when I did my recent sorting I gave rappers only the hiphop stub, so this ain't likely to thin the singer stubs much.

Anyway, lets get this one settled. Caerwine 01:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Back when I was a clueless newbie, I made this template, and I regret it. Redirect to hip-hop. - Kookykman|(t)e

November 28th

Category:Australia biography stubs

Rename The usual form would be Category:Australian people stubs so as to parallel the non-stub parent Category:Australian people. Caerwine 01:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


November 27th

Category:Hair metal stubs {{hairmetal-stub}}

delete. i dont remember this being part of the music split thats been going on and every stub in its a musician so shouldnt be in there anyway. dumb idea. BL kiss the lizard 23:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a new template that I just created TODAY. I'm sure I would have stub-tagged more articles if I didn't live in front of my computer 24/7. Ever hear of giving something a fair chance before you condemn or criticize it. And for the record, I wasn't aware of any music split but if there is, let this be part of it. Cjmarsicano 00:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's plenty of articles in the hair metal category that could use this stub. Downwiththebass 00:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Change Scope We do have a few genre stub types, but hair metal is just a sub genre of heavy metal which aside from {{US-metal-band-stub}} doesn't have a genre stub of its own. Rename to {{metal-music-stub}} → Category:Heavy metal stubs → Category:Heavy metal. We don't need stubs for sub-genres until the parent is overfull. If the change scope is not undertaken then mark this as a delete. Caerwine 00:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Ever hear of giving something a fair chance before you condemn or criticize it"? How about "ever hear of following procedures"? Cjmarsicano, it may have only been created today, but it was created without checking first that it fit in well with the stub hierarchy (it doesn't). That's why any new stub types should be proposed through WP:WSS/P before they're created. I can see Caerwine's point that a metal-music-stub would be useful, but this one is for an ill-defined subgenre of it. Why have a stub type for a subgenre before there's a stub type for the main genre its part of? Grutness...wha? 05:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By that same token, why should I continue to license all of my contributions, major and minor, under Creative Commons and GDFL when I could just revert them back to standard copyright standards? Oh wait, never mind, I just did. Cjmarsicano 06:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why? For exactly the same reason. You were following standard Wikipedia procedures. Grutness...wha? 06:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not anymore I'm not, at least for the forseeable future. All licenses for all contributions of mine, major and minor, withdrawn from CC for that same forseeable future. Cjmarsicano 16:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can't withdraw something from CC once you've released it. You can, of course, not license any future contributions. Soo 17:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My CC licenses weren't that open to begin with, and contrary to your apparent "everything for free" mentality that doesn't actually work in the real world, yes I can bloddy well withdraw them. Cjmarsicano 18:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cjm, Every time you click the edit link, it says on the screen:
All edits are released under the GFDL (see WP:Copyrights).
...and then in bold text:
If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, do not submit it.
Just saying later that you take it back doesn't undo the fact that, by clicking "Save page", you agreed to those terms. I would encourage you to realize that, while some procedures may seem artitrary at first blush, and may be enforced cursorily and without explanation, it's not personal, and there's generally a sensible group of people behind it who just want to improve the Wikipedia. I've found that these stub-sorters tend to have good, or at least thoroughly-discussed, reasons for the things they do. Please remember WP:AGF. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Consider it my holding the right to edit and distribute my contributions hostage - I have never released them to the public domain. When things are much less anarchic and/or fascist around here, then I'll revert them back to CC2.5 - not before. And it's not just the dispute with this stub either - this is just the straw that sent the camel to the chiropractor. -- Cjmarsicano 18:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring policy until there's less anarchy sounds a bit like "the beatings will continue until morale improves" to me. Ignoring policy is pretty close to a dictionary definition of anarchy... Grutness...wha? 02:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The anarchy part I referred to has nothing to do with the debate over this stub. And as for my copyrights here, according to Wikipedia guidelines as I understand them, I can dictate the copyright status or lack thereof on my user page (which I have been doing for several months, BTW) ... which also means I don't have to recognize GDFL if I so choose, even if I had my copyrights under any CC protocol. Sorry to break the bad news to you. -- Cjmarsicano 00:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If this has nothing to do this this stub, I'm even less clear why we're discussing this here. But as I understand it, you're entirely incorrect. By submitting work to WP, you're releasing under the GFDL or whatever you say at the time on your user page, whichever is the more permissive. "Public domain" or "dual licence" is more permissive than the GFDL, and are OK; restricting distribution, or claiming any rights that the GFDL waives, isn't. You can't ever claim rights that your "publisher" requires that you sign away; and even if you could, you couldn't do it retrospectively, for material you'd already published under different conditions. If you don't like this, you could try suing wikipedia mirrors for copying your stuff without your permission, or challenge WP's own conditions as somehow void, but I don't see what else you could do about it (nor that those are likely to be successful). Disclaimer: I'm proud to say I'm not a copyright lawyer, or any other sort for that matter. Alai 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Grutness. Conscious 12:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Grutness. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rescope as per CW. Alai 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Give it time. Matt Yeager 04:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rescope as per Caerwine. If that doesn't happen, delete. --Mairi 04:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Airline stub subcategories

There's a small problem with the just created Category:African airline stubs, Category:Asian airline stubs, Category:European airline stubs, Category:North American airline stubs, Category:Oceanian airline stubs, Category:South American airline stubs, and Category:United States airline stubs. 6 use adjectives and 1 uses a noun. Now in this case, I think the noun form is preferable, so I want the 6 with the adjectives changed to use nouns, but if not, then the noun needs to be changed to the adjective: "American". Caerwine 22:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

they all look fine to me. since when is united states not an adjective? BL kiss the lizard 23:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American came to the consensus that for categories, the adjective form to be used is "American" not "United States" when referiing to the USA. Just because it's a stub category doesn't mean that it should ignore the general consensus on category names. If we wish to follow the convention either we use nouns and thus "United States" or we use adjectives and thus "American". Caerwine 00:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would "Airlines of foo stubs" be an alternative? Aecis praatpaal 11:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a form we've been using with other stub categories, but I have no problems with that, especially since the parent cats here are "Airlines of foo". As I've said before, (and probably will say again) I really don't care whether we use nouns or adjectives, but when we use adjectives it should be American that is used to refer to the United States. Caerwine 19:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the change of the name, the hundreds of stubs already in these subcategories should not have to be recategorized. I personally do not know whether such can be done automatically with a name change or if such an action requires the tedious hand corrections.Emersoni 20:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It will require restubbing with a null edit to get the stubs in the renamed category, but the Mairibot can do that without having to do it by hand. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect {{starwars-stub}}

Back during the debate over what to rename {{sw-stub}}, the Star Wars stub template, this was one of the two proposed versions, but the consensus was clearly in favor of {{StarWars-stub}}. However, Marudubshinki chose to create a redirect. I really don't see the need for the redirect, and it doesn't appear to be in use, so delete. Caerwine 18:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

del BL kiss the lizard 23:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is just the lowercase version of {{StarWars-stub}}, so it is bound to get used frequently. I do not want to have to remember that "Star Wars" should be capitalized in a stub type tag. Andrew_pmk | Talk 03:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you can remember that the films' titles are capitalised, and that the articles are capitalised, then I can't see why you'd not remember that the template is too. Grutness...wha? 05:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Template names aren't formatted and capitalized like real words often enough. I used the redirect just now, but changed it to get rid of the annoying deletion warning. — Phil Welch 21:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
stub templates are. have a look at WP:WSS/NG BL kiss the lizard 22:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete; I don't think there was any pressing need to list this for deletion, as it's existance doesn't cause any real problems; but since it's here, and it violates guidelines on capitalization, and it's not hard to remember that movie titles are capitalized (as are all proper nouns in stub templates), might as well delete it. --Mairi 03:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this is not used solely for movie articles. If you look at the Star War stub cat, most of the entries are from the Expanded Universe. --Maru (talk) Contribs 01:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the useful redirect. --SPUI (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It saves me considerable time, it is good design (so many stubs are lower cased as well, John Q. Editor could easily be forgiven thinking that it would be starwars-stub, not StarWars-stub), and really, what harm is it doing? Are you suggesting that there are two distinct entities or classifications for starwars vs. StarWars? --Maru (talk) Contribs 01:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incredulous keep. Gall. Do you guys want to delete everything? Matt Yeager 04:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:US scientist stubs

Newly created category for the newly created template. Should be Category:American scientist stubs to follow the usual practice for such stubs. Even if we were going to use nation names instead of nation adjectives it would have been Category:United States scientist stubs, but with the adjective form being used for the British, French, and German scientists as well, lets go ahead and get this standardized while it still won't take much restubbing. Caerwine 06:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]



November 26th

Rename Category:Composers stubs

A simple rename from plural to singular so that the category is Category:Composer stubs instead. Caerwine 04:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Might be worth considering starting to split this (by nationality?) soon, too - it looks big. Grutness...wha? 04:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Should be thinned somewhat once the songwriter stub is created, so I don't see a reason to rush into creating the nation based splits just yet. Unless someone beats me to it, I'll get to doing that (but not the actual restubbing for a while) as I do some archiving from the proposals page this weekend. Caerwine 07:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Alai 07:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 24th

The last of the -related's

There is still a truck load of -related stub categories. I say we fix these, to get it over with. Some of these may already be discussed below, and some stub categories I proposed already exist.
Geographical

  1. Category:Africa-related stubs --> Category:Africa stubs
  2. Category:Albania-related stubs --> Category:Albania stubs
  3. Category:Argentina-related stubs --> Category:Argentina stubs
  4. Category:Australia-related stubs --> Category:Australia stubs
  5. Category:Austria-related stubs --> Category:Austria stubs
  6. Category:Azerbaijan-related stubs --> Category:Azerbaijan stubs (SEE NOTE BELOW)
  7. Category:Bangladesh-related stubs --> Category:Bangladesh stubs
  8. Category:Belgium-related stubs --> Category:Belgium stubs
  9. Category:Brazil-related stubs --> Category:Brazil stubs
  10. Category:Bulgaria-related stubs --> Category:Bulgaria stubs
  11. Category:California-related stubs --> Category:California stubs
  12. Category:Cambodia-related stubs --> Category:Cambodia stubs (SEE NOTE BELOW)
  13. Category:Canada-related stubs --> Category:Canada stubs
  14. Category:Caribbean-related stubs --> Category:Caribbean stubs
  15. Category:Cayman Islands-related stubs --> Category:Cayman Islands stubs
  16. Category:Central America-related stubs --> Category:Central America stubs
  17. Category:Central Asia-related stubs --> Category:Central Asia stubs
  18. Category:Chicago-related stubs --> Category:Chicago stubs
  19. Category:Chile-related stubs --> Category:Chile stubs
  20. Category:China-related stubs --> Category:China stubs
  21. Category:Colombia-related stubs --> Category:Colombia stubs (SEE NOTE BELOW)
  22. Category:Croatia-related stubs --> Category:Croatia stubs
  23. Category:Denmark-related stubs --> Category:Denmark stubs
  24. Category:Estonia-related stubs --> Category:Estonia stubs
  25. Category:Fiji-related stubs --> Category:Fiji stubs
  26. Category:Finland-related stubs --> Category:Finland stubs
  27. Category:France-related stubs --> Category:France stubs
  28. Category:Germany-related stubs --> Category:Germany stubs
  29. Category:Greece-related stubs --> Category:Greece stubs
  30. Category:Greenland-related stubs --> Category:Greenland stubs
  31. Category:Guyana-related stubs --> Category:Guyana stubs (SEE NOTE BELOW)
  32. Category:Hawaii-related stubs --> Category:Hawaii stubs
  33. Category:Hong Kong-related stubs --> Category:Hong Kong stubs (SEE NOTE BELOW)
  34. Category:Hungary-related stubs --> Category:Hungary stubs
  35. Category:Iceland-related stubs --> Category:Iceland stubs (SEE NOTE BELOW)
  36. Category:India-related stubs --> Category:India stubs
  37. Category:Indonesia-related stubs --> Category:Indonesia stubs (SEE NOTE BELOW)
  38. Category:Iran-related stubs --> Category:Iran stubs
  39. Category:Iraq-related stubs --> Category:Iraq stubs
  40. Category:Ireland-related stubs --> Category:Ireland stubs
  41. Category:Israel-related stubs --> Category:Israel stubs
  42. Category:Italy-related stubs --> Category:Italy stubs
  43. Category:Japan-related stubs --> Category:Japan stubs
  44. Category:Korea-related stubs --> Category:Korea stubs
  45. Category:Laos-related stubs --> Category:Laos stubs
  46. Category:Lithuania-related stubs --> Category:Lithuania stubs
  47. Category:Maldives-related stubs --> Category:Maldives stubs
  48. Category:Maryland-related stubs --> Category:Maryland stubs (SEE NOTE BELOW)
  49. Category:Mexico-related stubs --> Category:Mexico stubs
  50. Category:Middle East-related stubs --> Category:Middle East stubs
  51. Category:Moldova-related stubs --> Category:Moldova stubs
  52. Category:Morocco-related stubs --> Category:Morocco stubs
  53. Category:Nauru-related stubs --> Category:Nauru stubs (SEE NOTE BELOW)
  54. Category:Nepal-related stubs --> Category:Nepal stubs
  55. Category:New York City-related stubs --> Category:New York City stubs
  56. Category:New Zealand-related stubs --> Category:New Zealand stubs
  57. Category:Norway-related stubs --> Category:Norway stubs
  58. Category:Oceania-related stubs --> Category:Oceania stubs
  59. Category:Ottawa-related stubs --> Category:Ottawa stubs
  60. Category:Pakistan-related stubs --> Category:Pakistan stubs
  61. Category:Palestine-related stubs --> Category:Palestine stubs
  62. Category:Papua New Guinea-related stubs --> Category:Papua New Guinea stubs
  63. Category:Peru-related stubs --> Category:Peru stubs
  64. Category:Philadelphia-related stubs --> Category:Philadelphia stubs (SEE NOTE BELOW)
  65. Category:Poland-related stubs --> Category:Poland stubs
  66. Category:Portugal-related stubs --> Category:Portugal stubs
  67. Category:Quebec-related stubs --> Category:Quebec stubs
  68. Category:Romania-related stubs --> Category:Romania stubs
  69. Category:Russia-related stubs --> Category:Russia stubs
  70. Category:Rwanda-related stubs --> Category:Rwanda stubs
  71. Category:Singapore-related stubs --> Category:Singapore stubs
  72. Category:Slovakia-related stubs --> Category:Slovakia stubs
  73. Category:South America-related stubs --> Category:South America stubs
  74. Category:Spain-related stubs --> Category:Spain stubs
  75. Category:Sri Lanka-related stubs --> Category:Sri Lanka stubs
  76. Category:Suriname-related stubs --> Category:Suriname stubs
  77. Category:Sweden-related stubs --> Category:Sweden stubs
  78. Category:Switzerland-related stubs --> Category:Switzerland stubs
  79. Category:Syria-related stubs --> Category:Syria stubs
  80. Category:Taiwan-related stubs --> Category:Taiwan stubs
  81. Category:Texas-related stubs --> Category:Texas stubs
  82. Category:Thailand-related stubs --> Category:Thailand stubs
  83. Category:Tibet-related stubs --> Category:Tibet stubs
  84. Category:Turkey-related stubs --> Category:Turkey stubs
  85. Category:Uganda-related stubs --> Category:Uganda stubs
  86. Category:Ukraine-related stubs --> Category:Ukraine stubs
  87. Category:United Kingdom-related stubs --> Category:United Kingdom stubs
  88. Category:United States-related stubs --> Category:United States stubs
  89. Category:Utah-related stubs --> Category:Utah stubs
  90. Category:Venezuela-related stubs --> Category:Venezuela stubs

Non-geographical

  1. Category:Anglican-related stubs --> Category:Anglicanism stubs
  2. Category:Ayyavazhi-related stubs --> Category:Ayyavazhi stubs
  3. Category:BDSM-related stubs --> Category:BDSM stubs
  4. Category:Bahá'í-related stubs --> Category:Bahá'í stubs (SEE NOTE BELOW)
  5. Category:Catholic-related stubs --> Category:Catholicism stubs (SEE NOTE BELOW)
  6. Category:Christianity-related stubs --> Category:Christianity stubs
  7. Category:Eastern Orthodox Christianity-related stubs --> Category:Eastern Orthodox Christianity stubs
  8. Category:Fashion-related biographical stubs --> Category:Fashion biography stubs
  9. Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh-related stubs --> Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh stubs
  10. Category:Hinduism-related stubs --> Category:Hinduism stubs
  11. Category:Jehovah's Witnesses-related stubs --> Category:Jehovah's Witnesses stubs
  12. Category:Jewish history-related stubs --> Category:Jewish history stubs (SEE NOTE BELOW)
  13. Category:Judaism-related stubs --> Category:Judaism stubs
  14. Category:Law-related biographical stubs --> Category:Law biography stubs [See new Sfd above on 11 December]
  15. Category:Lutheran-related stubs --> Category:Lutheranism stubs
  16. Category:Pornography-related stubs --> Category:Pornography stubs
  17. Category:Quaker-related stubs --> Category:Quakers stubs
  18. Category:SEPTA-related stubs --> Category:SEPTA stubs

Aecis praatpaal 11:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grutness...wha? 01:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Problem cases

(see my comment above) The following from the above list have specific problems:

Minor problem with these - none of them are listed on WP:WSS/ST

In these three cases, we might want to think about changing the template name at the same time

These three, I propose deletion of. There are no wikiprojects for Maryland or Philadelphia (AFAIK), so precedent would suggest deletion. And the nauru category is tiny and can easily be upmerged into Category:Oceania-related stubs Finally, if there's no objections, I'm going to make a redirect for {{Bahá'í-stub}} at {{Bahai-stub}}, simply for ease of use. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, I agree with the renames, here are the exceptions.

  • Azerbaijan Too small. There is an existing proposal to create a {{Caucasus-stub}} which has passed the 7-day requirement, but hasn't yet been created. Go ahead and combine the two, and only have to do it once.
  • Guyana Too small, even if you fold in the undersized Guyanese people stubs, its still too small.
  • Laos Too small by itself, but if you fold in the undersized Laotian people stubs, it's still small, but not too small.
  • Maryland Too small, and for US subdivisions, we've been following a rule of wanting a WikiProject for non-geo stub types.
  • Nauru Too small, and not much likelihood of major expansion.
  • Papua New Guinea Too small, but with some potential, and a subcat, still, with it being the same size as Nauru, I'd prefer that it be discussed separately.
  • Anglican I'd prefer a Category:Anglican Communion stubs, but the parent cat is Category:Anglicanism so I can see where you're getting the name. Still, I'd prefer a fuller discussion, possibly even refering the name of the parent cat for a rename on CfD and then conforming the stub cat to that result.
  • Catholic The parent cat is Category:Roman Catholic Church and there are some Catholics who are not Roman Catholics, so I'd prefer to see that reflected in the category name with either Category:Roman Catholic Church stubs, Category:Roman Catholicism stubs or Category:Roman Catholic stubs.
  • Eastern Orthodox Christianity I say follow the parent cat Category:Eastern Orthodoxy and rename the category Category:Eastern Orthodoxy stubs instead.
  • Quaker What's wrong with using Category:Quakerism stubs to parallel the existing Category:Quakerism?

Anyway, none of this is considering any potential stub name renamimg we might want to do at the same time, but I don't have time today to see of there any others besides what's been mentioned that should be brought to notice. Caerwine 08:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My vote would be to leave the {{RC-stub}} stub alone. Catholics generally don't call themselves "Roman Catholics". Note, for example the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Calling ourselves "Roman Cathlics" would exclude Eastern-rite Cathlics, whom we consider to be fully part of the Catholic Church. The term "Roman Catholic" is generally used by Anglicans, who want to emphasize their belief that the Anglican Church is part of the Catholic Church. Of course, to agree or to disagree would be POV, but that's not the point. (Although I never use "Roman Catholic" myself, I'm happy to go along with Wikipedia policy regarding the naming of articles, e.g. Roman Catholic Church, the main article, to which Catholic Church redirects.) But the difference in POV relates to whether or not Anglicans are Catholics. They believe that they are, but they do not believe that "Roman" Catholics are not. So, to have that stub on (Roman) Catholic articles such as Legion of Mary is perfectly appropriate, because there is no question about whether or not or not it's part of Catholicism. (People might disagree as to whether or not the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ, but that's a separate issue.) The Lambeth Conferences article currently has an {{anglican-stub}}. I personally think the article is too long to have a stub template, but I don't think there's any problem in calling it an Anglican-related stub. If a significant number of people argued that the Roman Catholic Church is not part of the Catholic Church, then a case could be made for getting rid of the "Catholic" template. Otherwise, I think it should be left as it is. AnnH (talk) 12:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are also the churches of the Utrecht Union which are Catholic, but not Roman, as well as a variety of minor schsms. In any case, I agree that there's enough here worth discussing for changes to not be made as part of this broad spectrum SfD, but rather a narrow one where just this stub type would be discussed. Caerwine 18:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How many stub articles are there for which this issue is real?
Isn't just another push of the POV which asserts that there are many "Catholic Churches" other than the Catholic Church? There are hundreds of groups which claim for themselves to be a "Catholic Church" and have their own bishops. Does each of them merit their own special stub? patsw 18:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's far less POV than it would be to imply that the Roman Catholic Church is the only Catholic church. (Incidentally, Catholic gives a nice summary of the various churches that consider themselves Catholic without recognizing the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.) That said, I'm not arguing here for stubs for other Catholic denominations. Those can and should be stubbed with {{Christianity-stub}} until such time as those other sects have 60 stub articles as would be the norm for any stub type. In any case, the controversy here is sufficent that I think it would be best to not change {{RC-stub}} & Category:Catholic-related stubs as a result of this SfD and instead have a separate SfD on the pair. Caerwine 20:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as above that {{RC-stub}} should stay as is. FWIW. --Elliskev 21:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing my objections over the Anglicanism stub (for the time being) and Grutness withdrew his over the Philadelphia stub, so my count that leaves twelve stubs with -related in their stub category to be resolved. I've opened twelve separate SfD's on the remaining stubs to which dissatidfaction with doing just the category rename was registered. Caerwine 21:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Category:Cambodia-related stubs, Category:Colombia-related stubs, Category:Iceland-related stubs and Category:Indonesia-related stubs have "SEE NOTE BELOW" next to them, and are listed in the Problem cases, but nothing more is said about them. Cambodia and Iceland are abit on the small side, but other than that I can't see anything wrong with them. What's the problem with those 4? --Mairi 04:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


November 18th

{{California State Highway Stub}}

This template, lacking hyphens, doesn't seem to follow the naming guidelines. Aecis [[User_talk:Aecis|<sup>praatpaal</sup>]] 12:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support a rename to either {{CaliforniaStateHighway-stub}} or {{California-State-Highway-stub}}. As a recoving roadgeek myself, I realize that it would be futile to attempt to convince them that {{California-road-stub}} would do. Caerwine 20:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great jumpin' jehosephat. OK, I suppose that not technically a valid voting option, but still. Not calling it -road-stub is fair enough (ish), since there are multiple different categories of CA roads, but nevertheless, this is one naming mess. The main article is at state highway/state route. California law uses "State route". The WPJ is at "California Highway". The corresponding permanent category -- which should be a parent, but is not(!) -- is at Category:California state highways. Ideally, this should use a) the stub naming conventions, b) CA's own terminology, and c) normal rules of English capitalisation, which would mandate either (1) {{CaliforniaStateRoute-stub}} (camel-capsing back again) or (2) {{California-state-route-stub}}. If we go for "highway" for "consistency" (!), then m.m. (Options 3 and 4.) If we have to Caps No Matter What, as per Rschen's traditional panoply of arguments (that I still can make neither head nor tail of), rate those as options (5) and (6). Under no circumstances have any spaces, or terminal capitalised "Stub". (At that point I switch from voting STV to just plain OCD, as a recent contributer ever so kindly put it.) Alai 20:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix hyphens and lowercase stub. See the debates below... Also a redirect exists at {{Californiastatehighway-stub}}. Do we just want to use this one? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hrm, I'm surprised you'd suggest that one, given your insistence otherwise on caps. I think having neither hyphens or camel-case is a bad idea, as it invites the brain to play tricks on one while parsing it. (Cali-for-niast-at-ehig-hway...) Rate that one at about alternative 4.6 for me (shortly behind Californiastateroute-stub). Alai 23:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

contribs) 23:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to something else: I care not a whit about capitalization, etc., I'll let everyone else decide. However, I strongly support moving to either {{California-road-stub}} or {{California-highway-stub}} or something similar. Why? Because the corresponding WikiProject is really about any California highway, it doesn't have to be a state route --- the WikiProject covers U.S. highways, Interstates, county routes, etc. Notice what the template says: it talks about highways generically. -- hike395 06:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Um, not quite... the WP specifically covers California State Routes. That includes all U.S. Highways and Interstates in California as well (as the highway code does not differentiate between them). County Routes are handled by Wikipedia:WikiProject California County Routes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake about the county routes. I think the point is still valid, though. -- hike395 06:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The WPJ defines its scope thus: "This WikiProject aims primarily to encourage participation in creating or expanding articles about state highways in California." (The term "highways", and the lower case both sic, note). So it's perfectly reasonable to have two distinguished stub-types (though why it needs two separate projects beats me), and the name should make clear the distinction in scope. So some sort of "state" (or "State"...) qualifier seems reasonable to me. If this means I just agreed with R7754 on an aspect of road-stub naming, then so be it, I'll own that. :) Alai 01:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have an entire debate about this subject... at the very bottom of the page. I suspect that it will remain unsolved for a long time. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC) We resolved the other states... I support a move to the standard {{California-State-Highway-stub}} where the AZ, MO, TX, MI, MA, MD, NV, and NH stubs are now, and where Washington will probably be moved. See talk page for details. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment- If you "correct" the capitalization of "California State Route" to be "California state route" then you should also "correct" the capitalization of "United States Senator" to be "United States senator." They're both classifications of things... and you can say "senator" just as you can say "state highway".... but adding "United States" makes the whole thing capitalized just as adding "California" makes the whole thing capitalized. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


November 15th

{{Mea-stub}}, Category:Missing Encyclopedic Articles stubs

Another odd one. This isn't really a stub template or category, it's just named as one. It a request for expansion. As such, it should surely be named {{Mea-expand}} and Category:Missing Encyclopedia Articles requests for expansion. The thing is part of the MEA wikiproject, wasn't cleared through WP:WSS, yet bizarrely has the WP:WSS template at the top of the category asking people not to do anything with the category without consulting WP:WSS (a clear case of do what i say not do what I do...). This should be at least renamed, since if it's regarded as a stub template and category it's going to bugger with the hierarchy royally (articles in this category will be from every imaginable stub category), since someone is sooner or later bound to start replacing category stubs with this template, thinking it's more useful stub template. If it's named as an expand template or something similar, it'll be far more likely that people will add it as a supplementary template rather than a replacement.Grutness 12:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (I'm the creator.) It is a stub notice, not an expansion notice, as it's only applicable for stubs. It's just a useful way for us to keep track of those stubs that are full articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica or World Book or whatever, so that we can go in and expand these. I don't see how it's hurting anything. It's non-hierarchical, true, as it's used in addition to the hierarchical ones. I believe it's useful to have a way of saying "this is a stub that is a full article in another encyclopedia", and a stub-notice seems to me to be the best way to do that. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 12:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is only the name. If it's called a stub template (e.g., Mea-stub), then it's only a matter of time before people start replacing hierarchical stub templates with it (I've already had to replace one of the "real" stub templates on one of the articles in that category, so it's clearly not only being used as an addition). As far as I can see it, there are two options - renaming it so that this is less likely to happen, or deleting it entirely because it's got the potential to ruin all the work which WP:WSS has done over the last year and a quarter. As it is, the message that's on there isn't saying "this is a stub that is a full article in another encyclopedia" - it's saying "this article is a high priority for expansion". As such, calling it {{Mea-expand}} makes far more sense (since it's more like {{expand}} than {{stub}}), and won't interfere with the work being done by another wikiproject. Grutness 13:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Correction - I've just fixed another three (Cabira, Cabimas, Moulin (geology) that had had the hierarchical stubs removed. And I've only checked eight so far! I'm changing my vote from rename to delete. This is far too dangerous to all the work we've done at WP:WSS, so the sooner it's gone the better. Grutness 13:18, 15 November 2005
Eh? Cabira and Cabimas were never in a WSS category until you added them to one just now, so that's statement is not true at all. Pcb21| [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 13:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see the confusion here. Those articles never had stub tags. I added the mea-stub tag, hoping someone would add a hierarchical tag as well. You now have, Grutness - thanks! By the way, why do you think anyone would remove the hierarchical stub notices? No one has so far, and I'll bet it turns out to not be a problem. Also, I understand that you would prefer it say "expand" instead of "stub", but that's not what it was designed for. It's specifically for stubs only, as the template says. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The articles never had stub tags. well, there's proof positive of a problem. Either they should have had stub tags (without them, we'd have never been able to categorise them in the stub hierarchy) or they didn't need them, in which case you're putting this new request for expansion template on something that isn't a stub. Either way, there's something wrong with the system as it stands. Either tthis new "stub needs to be deleted since it cuts across the stub hierarchy, or it needs to be made clear that it isn't a stub template and thus articles also need to be marked with a hierarchical stub template. As it is at the moment, you have stub articles without stub templates on them because your requests for expansion are removing them from the stub system, either before or after a hierarchical stub templates can be added to them - In which cased, they won't reach the specific editors who can help them, as they won't ever reach specialist categories. And have a look at what the template says. What part of "A high priority for expansion" does not equate with the purpose of an {{expand}} template? As to it being something inthat another encyclopaedia has much more fully, the same can probably be said of almost every article that Wikipedia has in stub form, since there are specialist encyclopaediae on virtually every imaginable subject, so if you intend to add it to all of those, you'll simply be duplicating the work of {{stub}}, which we worked long and hard to clear earlier this year. PLEASE at the very least rename this to a name which better reflects its purpose, like Template:Mea-expand. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your response indicates that we need to keep our two projects separate. Please advise the easiest way to do that. Pcb21 Pete 00:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One very simple way. Don't use the word stub in your templates or categories. otherwise, they'll be interpreted as being connected to stub sorting (i.e., with WP:WSS). As to whether we need to keep the two projects separate, that's another matter. personally, I think the opposite - that the two projects would work far better if they worked in tandem and cooperated, rather than one of them creating tools which could easily be misinterpreted as those used in a different way by the other. Grutness...wha? 07:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I totally follow Grutness's line of argument, however having a category of such stubs is undoubtedly useful for the MEA project. If it helps at all, I've removed the template on the category page that suggested a connection with WP:WPSS. Keep. (via edit conflict) Pcb21| [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 13:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the stub template and category. If an article needs to be expanded (whether a stub or not), add the {{expansion}} template. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't maintain the origin of the idea for the page, which is the whole point of the tag in the first place, so is not a solution that we can run with. Pcb21| [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 15:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, replace with a talk-page template (or otherwise). Can't for the life of me think why it's necessary or desirable to indicate "ownership" of an article by MEA, but if it were, why only the stubs? Aren't "started by the MEA" and "is a stub (of a particular type)" manifestly orthogonal properties? In order to track these, a list or (non-stub) category should be perfectly adequate. The very fact that all these stubs will necessarily have to be tagged a minimum of twice (the supposed normal maximum, recall) should raise alarm bells. And lastly, an existing article being tagged as "missing" is more than a little counterintuitive. Alai 17:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • At a minimum the template could use a rename to {{MEA-stub}} to match the capitalization used by the category or preferably something less cryptic. Personally I think it would be more useful to the MEA project if instead of this tag, it has a series of tags such as {{MEA-1911|Foo}}
    The topic of this article is also covered by the 1911 Britannica article Foo, but has not yet had the Britannica text incorporated into this article.
  • (continued) That would cover both stub and non-stub articles for which the corresponding PD encylopedia article hasn't yet been processed, and give an indication of where work needs to be done. Caerwine 18:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The purpose of this template is to highlight articles that were tagged as potentially "missing" by the MEA project, that are not (or are no longer) strictly missing, but are still stubs, and therefore need to be de-stubbed before the MEA is done with them. I think we all (most?) can agree that this is a worthy goal. The question is, is this the best way to acheive it? I'm open to other suggestions - some have been given above. Keep in mind I created this tag in order to improve Wikipedia, and it is being used to improve Wikipedia. But it's possible the same gains could be made in less obtrusive ways, such as a category without a template or a talk-page template. Constructive suggestions are great, but let's not be hostile to people working to improve things. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a solution would be to go by what Grutness has proposed in the nomination: move the template to {{Mea-expand}} and move the category to Category:Missing Encyclopedia Articles requests for expansion, thereby moving it from the stub hierarchy to the expansion hierarchy. For the stub sortings, I think it's best to use the existing templates, or to propose new ones, when necessary. Aecis [[User_talk:Aecis|<sup>praatpaal</sup>]] 21:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The trouble is, as I've said before, this template isn't meant for that. This is meant only for stubs. It's just a note that says "The subject of this stub article has been identified by the Missing Encyclopedic Articles project as being a high priority for expansion." Very simple. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • A very simple solution could be to apply the {{mea-expand}} only to stub articles. Make it a guideline for your WikiProject. When the article has been expanded sufficiently, remove the stub and the expand tags. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 21:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem with that is that stubs are usually sorted by the subject of the stub itself (and rightly so, imo), and not by the goal of Wikipedia maintenance projects (I don't know if you technically are one, but I hope you catch my drift). Aecis [[User_talk:Aecis|<sup>praatpaal</sup>]] 21:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to something not with the word stub. if the things grutness found had had the templates changed then its going to be a problem for the stub sorters. if the things marked werent marked as stubs then either its a problem for the stub sorters because they should have been and will be hidden in this new catagory or its not only being used for stubs so its wrongly named. so its wrong all ways. BL kiss the lizard 23:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Quadell: It is clear that the word "stub" is a reserved word with a specific meaning in Wikipedia these days. Let us remove ourselves from these hordes by renaming the template (and category) to contain the string "stub" and continue as we were. Obviously the text itself will continue to mention "this is a stub" but they don't care about that. This is pure dumb silly wikipolitics that we can neatly sidestep and get on with our lives. 00:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Pcb, is that a change of vote to "rename", or just freeform disapprobation? I really don't see how a handful of people arguing for a consistent use of categorisation constitutes "hordes" indulging in "wikipolitics". Note that for the past five months, the MEA project has given this advice: "If the article you create is a stub (a short article), please give it the correct stub tag." (That'd also be about five months before the creation of mea-stub.) Therefore all stubs created by the project ought in any case to contain a "normal" stub tag (though one would expect that to be the case in any event, really), and the "is a stub" information would already be present. Having a non-stub-template bearing a "stub" message would be confusing and pointless (just as having a non-hierarchical stub template would be). Talk-page templates are the norm for articles originated/maintained/"owned" by particular wikiprojects, and I don't see why that solution isn't satisfactory, not to say preferable, in this instance. Alai 03:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something not containing the word "stub" per above arguments. --Alynna 01:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we don't need the redundant clutter on stub articles. Doesn't stub imply expand alresdy? Vsmith 13:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly delete as a stub template but possibly rename to a talk page template as per Alai. It makes sense to keep this separate from regular stub-sorting. --Dvyost 05:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the stub template; the wikiproject can decide what they'd like to use instead. --Mairi 08:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's adding unneeded clutter to stub pages. Stub means expand as possible - don't need the extra empty stuffing that this is. Vsmith 04:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post mortem comment Obviously a fairly clear delete, but given the popularity of rename, and the fact that'd remove it from our domain, I've asked at the WPJ page if they instead want this moved to a MEA-expand template, or a talk-page template, etc. Any thoughts welcome here too. Alai 06:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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]

It was suggested that the template be renamed as well.

TODO: 1) Change all Hong-Kong-stub to HongKong-stub 2) Move everything else out of the -related category. --TheParanoidOne 16:07, 14 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=31713761"