Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Encephalon (talk | contribs) at 02:37, 5 April 2006 (→‎{{tl|People stub}}: remove bullet). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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
Shortcut
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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

About this page

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

Putting a stub type on SfD, and what happens afterwards

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

Putting {{sfd-r}} on redirects

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

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

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

Possible reasons for the deletion of a stub type

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

What this page is not for

Typical voting options

  • Keep (do not delete or modify)
  • Delete (delete template and category)
  • Merge with xx-stub (Delete category, redirect template to xx-stub)
  • Merge with xx-stub without redirect (delete category and template, put xx-stub on all articles that use it)
  • Upmerge (merge to parent type)
  • 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"

Important note to admins deleting stub types

Due to the automated counting of stubs within categories, it is vitally important that stub types are removed from the stub type list WP:WSS/ST when they are deleted! Don't leave red links on WP:WSS/ST!


Listings

April 5th

{{People stub}}

This stub was created by User:Bucky-Convigton, on March 16 2006. On the same day, it was nominated by User:LrdChaos for deletion, of TfD (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 16#Template:People stub). It was trending toward a deletion on TfD, being generally considered redundant, when it was speedily deleted some 13 hours after the nom was opened with the delete summary deliberate redundant (duplicate) stub type created by known vandal. The template was then recreated by User:SPUI who felt it was reasonable for this to be a redirect (to {{bio-stub}}). After a further speedy deletion, SPUI brought it to Wikipedia:Deletion review for consideration.

I have just closed the discussion at the Review. 4 people thought it ought to be a redirect, although it isn't clear if the circumstances were fully understood by all of them. Another 4 felt it should simply remain deleted. The question that needs answering is is it good practice for us to have a stub like this as a redirect to another stub? The best place for that question to be answered appears to me to be this forum, so I'm listing it here for your consideration. Regards —Encephalon 02:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{South-Gloucestershire-geo-stub}} / Cat:South Gloucestershire geography stubs

I'm a little reticent about bringing this here, as it does have a useful number of stubs. Someone decided (but did not propose) that this county was missing from our split of English geography stubs. Unfortunately, the split is by ceremonial counties (all of which were already covered), and this is an administrative county that is part of the ceremonial county of Gloucestershire. Glocestershire only has 250 stubs in total, so isn't really an urgent split, and thic could be an unfortunate precedent for an unnecessary further split of counties into smaller subdivisions. delete and reabsorb into {{Gloucestershire-geo-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 02:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 4th

{{bridge-game-stub}} / Category:Bridge (game) stubs /

D'oh guys did you have to make even SfD so complicated business? This was created by a new user, I reverted 5 linked pages and told him about the procedure (WP:WSS/P), and made a redirect out of it, but I'll notice you here, as I can't delete the category. So, it can safely be speedied. Duja 21:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per nom. Valentinian (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete both cat and template. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per What this page is not for, it's not for "discoveries," which are supposed to go to WP:WSS/D first, rather than be unilaterally depopulated and proposed here for deletion. I know, I didn't follow the rule (because I didn't know about it) when I created the stub type, but I hope you folks will follow your own rules on this one. A few more pieces of trivia:
    • I had only linked 3 pages, not 5 (see Special:Contributions/Matchups)
    • Why does this page say that types should be deleted if they have fewer than 50 pages, but elsewhere it says 60?
    • There are currently 33 entries in Category:Card game stubs which relate to bridge; there are also a few other articles in Category:Bridge which are not categorized as stubs, but could be.

Matchups 02:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Symbol stub}}

Cat:Symbol stubs seems to think there's no template, and that it's just a holding category for the three sub-types, but someone "helpfully" added this later (never used, AFAIK). 4-day speedy, unless we decide it's a great idea after all, in which case rename to {{symbol-stub}}. Alai 18:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Robotech-stub}} / Cat:Robotech stubs

Yet another steady and even at ten stubs. Alai 03:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Too small. Grutness...wha? 04:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all tiny stub types. --TheParanoidOne 05:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The parent category is large, but this problem is going to be solved with the creation of {{anime-series-stub}}. Conscious 07:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too small. Valentinian (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep until creation of anime series stub, that way it will be easier to just throw these into that stub type. JoshuaZ 18:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{astrologer-stub}} / Cat:astrologer stubs

Ten articles, and not even a very monophyletic bunch, being a mixture of UK C-list celebs and 9th century Persian scholars. Only problem is where to re-sort them to: category has no stub parent whatsoever. Alai 03:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good word! It is a bit of a problem where to put them. The persian ones could at a pinch possibly go into astronomer-stub, but the modern ones certainly couldn't. Grutness...wha? 05:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all tiny stub types. --TheParanoidOne 05:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sort the British into {{UK-bio-stub}}. Conscious 07:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Conscious. Valentinian (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{ammo-stub}} / Cat:Ammunition stubs

Another too-small split of the firearms stubs. If this has any potential for growth, it doesn't seem to be showing any signs. Could go either way on the template, certainly delete the category. Alai 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Too small. Grutness...wha? 04:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all tiny stub types. --TheParanoidOne 05:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete template and category. Conscious 07:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete template and category. Too small. Valentinian (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 3rd

{{Jewish-hist-bio-stub}}

Rejected at WP:WSS/P, unused, no category. Conscious 20:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Indian-Music-stub}} / Cat:Indian_Music_stubs

Ten articles, and they're a real grab-bag: most are actually bios, despite what one might suppose from the type names. Alai 05:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badly capitalised, too. Delete. Grutness...wha? 05:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Valentinian (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and sort to proper categories. {{India-stub}} has seen some splits recently, and there seemed to be no need in this one. Conscious 07:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Uzbek-stub}} / Cat:Uzbekistan stubs

Yet another undersized -stan-stub, ten articles, no signs of growth. Merge with Cat:Central Asia stubs, which is yet to hit even a pageful. Oh, and the template is badly named, so rename or just delete. Alai 04:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge and delete template as per nom. Grutness...wha? 05:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge and delete template as per nom. Valentinian (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge + delete template = delete. Conscious 07:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Egyptian-myth-stub}} / Cat:Egyptian mythology stubs

A type that sounds very sensible, but is tiny, has always been tiny, and seems to be if anything shrinking. If this can't be populated', or rescoped, then delete as undersized. Alai 04:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be amazed if this one can't be populated from myth-stub and ancient-Egypt-stub. If it can't, though, perhaps it should be deleted for now and recreated if needed later. Should have a look for some possible stubs first, though! Grutness...wha? 05:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. ive had a look in the gods and goddesses cats and got it up to 50 stubs. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I somehow managed to read that as up to 50 with cat god(desse)s, which I thought was a lot even for Egyptian standards. Nom withdrawn -- but wish I'd listed it sooner! Alai 05:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • good work - certainly looks keepable now. Grutness...wha? 05:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 2nd

More undersized by-state school stubs

Specifically:

The largest of these is 21 stubs, and a couple are positively tiny. Upmerge to the recently-created {{US-west-school-stub}}, keeping all existing templates. Alai 15:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge. These US-region-school-stub categories are unique in that they have no associated template but still contain stubs. Conscious 07:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Music-history-stub}} / Cat:Music history stubs

Not merely very small, but seemingly actually shrinking: it's gone from 7 articles to 6 since the last db dump I looked at. Populate or delete. Alai 04:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Populate or delete. Conscious 07:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


{{Shia-stub}} / Cat:Shia stubs

Another type we've been maintaining for a month, without knowing about it, and that has all of three articles. Delete. Alai 03:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Populate or delete. Conscious 07:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


April 1st

{{Solareclipse-Astronomy-stub}}

made one hour after being proposed rather than the usual week (why???). debate on it favours making a more general {{eclipse-stub}} instead. unused with a redlink category and a horrible name. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename {{ND-stub}}-> {{NorthDakota-stub}}

We recently "acquired" ND-stub. There is a WikiProject, so such a stub is OK, but this one wasn't proposed at WP:WSS/P. If it had been, WP:ND would have been quickly told that state names are written in full in stub templates, as with NorthDakota-geo-stub. That way, there isn't potential confusion with other things beginning with ND, of which there are plenty. Rename, and delete the ambiguous original naming. BTW, I'm more than a little concerned that almost everything in Cat:North Dakota stubs is actually a NorthDakota-geo-stub (golf courses are usually counted as geo-stubs). Grutness...wha? 01:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess it's ok if we rename the stub. I took care of the golf course articles...they now use the geo stub instead of the plain ND stub. --MatthewUND(talk) 03:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Owch but it's small, now, even for a stub-type with a bona fide WPJ. I suppose it's mildly useful as parent of the geos and the politicos. You guys need to write some stubs on... something. :) Rename. Alai 04:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • surely there must be some sports teams - the "Bismarck Battleships" or something...? Radio stations? Newspapers? Shopping malls???' I'll see whether I can find some suitable stubs...  :) Grutness...wha? 12:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for now, but I'll be feeling like deleting it if it doesn't grow. Conscious 07:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. If it doesn't grow soon it should be deleted. Valentinian (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, but to {{northdakota-stub}} if possible, the shifting for ND bothered me enough. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 31st

{{bomber-stub}} / Bomber stubs

Two reasons for nomination. Firstly, there are not quite 50 articles, and secondly, it overlaps with the new(er) system of sorting aircraft stubs by date rather than type, so Merge with the various subcategories of Aircraft Stubs --GW_Simulations 20:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exceptionally strong keep. It overlaps with the newer "system", because the latter is badly thought out, arbitrary, and was at the time of its (unproposed) introduction a cross-categorisation with this pre-existing type. It should never have been introduced for that reason, and rather "by aircaft type" stub types should have (and still should be) introduced instead. Notice that several of "the new system's" stub-types are < 50 articles, and always have been, so the first reason for nomination is equally curious. Bomber-stub was previously well over 60, and I have to wonder if there isn't ad hoc depopulation going on here, rather than expansion of the articles to non-stubs. Repopulate/resort, or if necessary rescope to "mil-aircraft-stub". Alai 22:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I told you before, it was proposed, only due to a contradiction between templates, this was made on what is supposedly the wrong page. --GW_Simulations 11:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The proposal page is indeed here: see WP:STUB for the non-supposedness of this. "We discussed this on some other page and decided to do something contradicting existing stub types and a current proposal" is a recipe for chaos, not useful co-ordinatation. Alai 13:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Template that was in effect at the time is misleading. Anyway, let's not argue over this, when it is not the subject of the discussion. --GW_Simulations 13:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I take your point about the {{verylarge}}: King Stub himself has said so, after all. Anyway, I mention this not to re-upbraid you on "process" issue; I entirely accept it was done in good faith. Rather, my point is we certainly don't have a consensus that by-decade is the correct scheme, and arguably we have a pro forma consensus that by-type is (but as the two discussions happened in separate places, that would probably be overstating things). Alai 14:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Sonora-stub}} / Sonora stubs

Created on March 16th by Abögarp. Used on only four stubs. Parent stub category Mexico stubs is at ~230 stubs so is not in dire need of splitting yet. --TheParanoidOne 05:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Valentinian (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete unless there's a wikiproject (if there's a wikiproject for sonora, then weak delete). Grutness...wha? 12:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on size and lack of need. Alai 22:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Conscious 07:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


March 29th

{{Child-bio-stub}} / Cat:Young people stubs

Created yesterday, used on 1 article. Surely must be deleted, this stub type doesn't fit into the scheme. Conscious 05:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There's nothing that requires that stub types form a tree. This could easily be used as a co-parent with {{actor-stub}} for a {{child-actor-stub}} or a co-parent with {{crime-bio-stub}} for a {{child-crime-bio-stub}} (Wikipedia does tend a bit towards mauldin articles about child crime victims.). However, I doubt the probability that there will be many editors looking for articles about generic children. If kept, the category definitely needs a rename to Cat:Child stubs to match the non-stub parent category Cat:Children. It also would be definitely worth having Cat:Child stubs as a templateless parent stub category if we ever did get two or more {{child-*-stub}} stub types like the non-existant ones I used as examples above. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I agree that fitting into the scheme isn't that relevant, I'm concerned about the time-sensitive nature of these stub markers, especially because many stubs stay without being touched for quite some time. This seems almost asking to have a fair number of people labled with these stubs when they are too old for them to reasonably apply. JoshuaZ 06:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, children tend to grow up (except murder victims, sadly :( ). Conscious 06:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should almost certainly be deleted. Stub types don't have to form a tree, true. But it is overwhelmingly preferable if they do, to ensure that the stub categories have useful numbers of stubs, are useful to specific editors, and have logical stub parents. They should also reflect the main categories to which they are subcategories. Note that there is no Cat:Young people - I suspect that if one was created it would soon turn up at WP:CFD. Grutness...wha? 07:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can see the (sad) reason why this one was created, but Joshua and Grutness have a point. Valentinian (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than waiting for JonBenét Ramsey jokes, I suggest deleting this immediately. — Mar. 29, '06 [09:04] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Delete. Would agree with the immediately if I could think of any actual pretext. Alai 14:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete just use a bio stub isntead. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 14:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cable-TV}}

The text of this template is the only thing that indicates that it is a stub template, but yikes! It feeds into the main category Cat:Cable television and currently no articles use the template. Even if a stub type for cable TV be useful, the template name is malformed, so please delete this; speedily if possible. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and speedied it. Not sure it quite qualified for a speedy, but given that it's been around for two weeks with no evidence it's ever been used, I doubt anyone will object. If they do I'll blame you ;) Grutness...wha? 08:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that if well-formed empty types are speediable, then badly-formed types that are in effect empty are too. Alai 14:07, 29 March 2006 (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.


March 20th

{{Centre-Russia-geo-stub}}

I propose to rename this template to {{Central-Russia-geo-stub}}. The proposed name is more grammatically correct and avoids the British/American spelling issue. There are currently 162 stubs of this type.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see Ёzhiki's points, and I think that complies with the naming guidelines. The question is whether {{Northwest-Russia-stub}} and {{South-Russia-stub}} should also be renamed. Actually, it may be better for consistency to create {{Center-Russia-geo-stub}} (ah, it's already here) and keep nouns in all of these templates. Conscious 17:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentRename as per Alai....Uhhh....educate me...I plan to be here for a while and I don't get this at all. (someone show me the naming guidelnes please.:-) and whatever else I should know.
I've been here for ages, and I don't get it either. :) As far as I can see, "Central Russia" is a noun phrase, and is used in the WP article as the English name of the federal district, so that seems like a good rename to me. Northwest- vs. Northwestern-, etc, seems a finer judgement. Perhaps create redirects if people are liable to start using either/or. Eagle, see WP:WSS/NG for said guidelines. Alai 05:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AlaiEagle (talk) (desk) 20:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But please keep the existing names as redirects if it's renamed. Conscious 06:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me. Alai 07:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Central-Russia sounds better to me, too. No objection to renaming and keeping the old one as a redirect. Grutness...wha? 08:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreee - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 14:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


March 7th

{{MLS-Stub}} / Cat:Major League Soccer stubs

Used on 11 articles, template is very poorly named (cryptic abbreviation, non-NC "-Stub"). Wouldn't a more sensible scope be US soccer in general? Alai 00:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US-footy-stub would make a lot more sense than this - rename/rescope Grutness...wha? 12:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Football stubs aren't split by region. There are footybio, footy-org and footyclub. Cat:Football (soccer) stubs is quite small (under 100) not that large (under 400). Just delete. Conscious 12:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ah, er, yeah. good point. make that a delete then... Grutness...wha? 13:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Though to be fair, the footybios and footyclubs are then split into regions (and countries), so doing this isn't massively unreasonable (though one-dimensional-split purists will doubtless insist the two shouldn't ever "commute"). I also note we have a slight inconsistency in that the bios are split into "North American", while the clubs are "US". Hrm. Alai 17:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd have no objection to splitting the footy-stub parent by region as well either now or later (hell, there are enough things split by both region and variety), but if we did it would be good to keep it consistent. So I suppose this should be deleted for now, and we can revisit it later as to splitting by region. I note that most of these stubs are for football competitions - would there be any use for a footy-competition-stub? Grutness...wha? 11:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. {{US-soccer-stub}} would be ideal. Merge with any other stub types relating to football (soccer) in the United States if the category population is too small. Oh, and, by the way, nobody in the U.S. has any idea what the fuck "footy" is supposed to mean, but again, that's what redirects are for. — Mar. 12, '06 [16:19] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    • I must admit that "footy" isn't a brilliant name - they could all do with renaming, and - like it or not - soccer is the only term that would be known worldwide. Where I live, footy means Rugby union. Grutness...wha? 05:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A rename would be an excellent idea. I don't think anyone in Denmark / Scandinavia has the faintest idea about "footy" is supposed to mean (I read it as a misspelled abbreviation). "Soccer" is not ideal, but it's probably the only internationally recognized word. Valentinian (talk) 07:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 6th

{{Vancouver-bio-stub}}/Cat:Vancouver people stubs

Biography stubs are always split by country and/or occupation - never by subnational region (except for politicians). These should be simply canada-bio-stub or one of its occupation-based subcategories. Even if we were going to split by subnational region, it should be BritishColumbia-bio-stub, not Vancounver-bio-stub. Never proposed, only four articles (though there is a Wikiproject). "Delete'. Grutness...wha? 05:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. see lower down. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 21:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If deleted, perhaps replacing it with {{vancouver-stub}} would make more sense? --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 01:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea, though perhaps {{BritishColumbia-stub}} would be a better scope, and more in the general pattern. I'd suggest taking that to WP:WSS/P, as it has its own merits independently of the fate of this type. Alai 01:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there's a wikiproject, strike that, Vancouver-stub is fine. Alai 02:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment II: The stub and category are both quite new (not even a half-month old) -- there hasn't been enough time given for the category to populate yet (it hasn't even gotten off its feet because of insufficient time passed). --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 01:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination cites grounds other than size, though. If someone is super-specific to Vancouver (as opposed to simply being born, or having worked there, etc, etc) the general Vancouver stub type is surely adequate, until such time as that gets over-sized (as opposed to, merely just-above-WPJ-threshold). Alai 02:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rescope/rename to {{vancouver-stub}} (we have those for other cities with wikiprojects like chicago and nw york) and double-stub people with canada-bio or one of its subcats. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That already exists, so that's effectively a vote to "merge" (which is effectively, a vote to delete :) -- at least as regards the category). Alai 23:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have no objection to that either - with the double-stubbing with canada-bio. Same applies below, too. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge with {{vancouver-stub}}. I am the creator of this template and even I think that's a better idea. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 04:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note that WikiProject Vancouver differentiates between Vancouver proper and the GVRD (which is the official name for the entire Vancouver metropolitan area). If there is a rescoping of this stub to {{vancouver-stub}}, then {{gvrd-stub}} will need to be applied to wherever necessary as well. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 07:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking what an unfortunate choice of name {{gvrd-stub}} was... then I noticed the category. That can't by any reasonable criterion be the "common name", and does the one wikiproject really need two (or more) stub types? I'm inclined to say merge those as well. Alai 08:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. There certainly isn't any call for that much overlap - and yet again, this was never proposed. Any other unporoposed Vancouver stubs hiding out there, B-H? Mind you, it is worth noting that the Australian city WikiProjects have both standard and geo-stubs - perhaps rescoping things to Vancouver-stub and Vancouver-geo-stub would help things out? Grutness...wha? 09:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Greater Vancouver stubs were proposed and a consensus was reached within the WikiProject because the metropolitan area of Vancouver differentiates between Vancouver proper and its surroundings (they are all "Greater Vancouver" but not "Vancouver). This problem was brought up by another member of the WikiProject. So yes, that was proposed within the WikiProject and it was agreed upon by an overwhelming majority of the WikiProject participants (everyone but two or three agreed upon it). It was needed simply because of the complexities in municipalities in the region. (As for the common name, yes, "GVRD" is the common name of the area. Stupid, but true.) And as for a geo-stub, I can propose it in the WikiProject talk page and see if people want it...
But the important thing here is that Greater Vancouver cities are NOT under the control of Vancouver, and are self-governing entities. You have to live in Vancouver to understand the situation, but even the cities next to Vancouver proper are not considered "Vancouver." That is why a Greater Vancouver/GVRD stub type is needed. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 20:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject hadn't ever heard of these stub types until they were proposed for deletion. There was never any proposal at WP:WSS/P to make these stub types, and no discussion about them. If they had been, they would have been given better names and scope. There may have been a proposal within the Vancouver WikiProject, but that's not where stub types should be proposed. Grutness...wha? 22:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The important thing here is that wiki policy is "common names", and you can't argue something is the common name in one breath, and that "you have to live in Vancouver to understand the situation" in the next. The very fact that these are being dealt with by the Vancouver wikiproject tells us something about how these would be commonly regarded. This is yet another reason why these "we discussed it on the page and got a consensus, why would we ever bother proposing this the place we're supposed to?" manoeuvres are a bad plan. Alai 21:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both "GVRD" and "Greater Vancouver" are common names. The WikiProject was initially designed for just Vancouver proper but the members felt the scope was too limited. If I had predicted this when I was starting the WikiProject, I would've called it "WikiProject Greater Vancouver" or something like that. But yes, "GVRD" and "Greater Vancouver" are both common names, hence the naming of the stubs. Nobody calls a city like Richmond (which is immediately south of Vancouver) Vancouver -- it's always seen as part of the GVRD or GREATER Vancouver. This was the whole reason for the GVRD stubs to begin with. (Imagine if nobody considered Staten Island part of NYC, but rather Greater NYC. Same situation.) There is a method to this madness. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 02:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GVRD is most certainly OT the common name worldwide, and stub types have to be easily understood by editors everywhere. Something is either in Vancouver or in the rest of British Columbia. Grutness...wha? 22:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Touch of the vice versas too, though, I think. If the WPJ is really attached to the current structure, at the very least the category should be renamed (to something without a /, and only using the word "stubs" once, and dropping the abbreviation: Cat:Greater Vancouver Regional District stubs, or just Cat:Greater Vancouver stubs). I'd prefer to get rid of the abbreviation from the template name, too. Alai 02:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, I don't hear people say "Greater Vancouver Regional District" a lot, but a renaming would be acceptable. Although there is the question of which name to use, since "Greater Vancouver" and "GVRD (Greater Vancouver Regional District)" are both in common usage almost equally. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 02:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, the permanent category is Cat:Greater Vancouver Regional District. Alai 03:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the size of the categories in question (5, 35, and 0), I suggest that they be merged. It'll be even easier to handle all these 40 stubs if they aren't scattered. The category should be named Cat:Greater Vancouver Regional District stubs (as a catch-all concept), and the template should be {{gvrd-stub}} (I know we avoid abbreviations, but GVRD doesn't seem to have any other meaning). But for those of us who don't know or remember what GVRD is, {{Vancouver-stub}} should be in place. Conscious 16:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The situation to me sounds exactly like that in Manchester, England. The city of Manchester is part of the metropolitan county of Greater Manchester. Manchester-geo-stub is used quite happily to apply to both. Vancouver-geo-stub and Vancouver-stub could also quite easily cope with both the city and the whole GVRD area without any problem - all it would need is the template and category wording to reflect the fact, in much the same way that the wording of some other templates reflects the varied things covered by the stub type. Grutness...wha? 22:45, 12 March 2006 (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.

To delete

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

March 6th

{{Ottawa-bio-stub}}/Cat:Ottawa people stubs

Exactly as above, only at least this just sneaks into double figures with 15 stubs. Deelete for the same reasons as above. see comments below. Grutness...wha? 05:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep perfectly valid template. Ardenn 05:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. never proposed and doesnt fit with the heirarchy for the reasons grutness says. we dont split people by city. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and does anyone have an idea how to get rid of {{Florida-bio-stub}}? Conscious 06:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After thought and the discussion on Vancouver above, perhaps a merge/delete with {{ottawa-stub}}, plus double-stubbing with canada-bio-stub or one of its subtypes would make sense. Seems there is an Ottawa WikiProject. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per G. Alai 23:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that merging is better. Conscious 16:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus is to merge, isn't it? Conscious 08:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think so. But now the template's unused, that seems a bit pointless. Maybe we need to define our terms. :) Alai 14:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As the above reads, merge = redirect template + delete category. Conscious 16:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh yeah. :) I was just puzzled that you'd gone to the trouble of replacing all the templates, in this instance, but I suppose that technically, that's neither here nor there as regards the SFD outcome, it's just "avoiding redirects". It does mean re-doing those if the bios are ever split back out, though... Alai 17:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I had a thought that I shouldn't had done it... But after that I decided that I was right, as the redirected template replacements are done by the bots (or were done, at least). And you know, it was not much work (that's why we're talking about merging in the first place :) Conscious 18:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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=47027263"