Jump to content

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/December

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 1[edit]

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Norwegian television stubs / {{Norway-tv-stub}}[edit]

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

No growth since February; used on 10 items. Upmerge to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:European television stubs. (Previous discussion here.) Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


{{Exercise physiology-stub}}[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete

See previous discussion here; unused since February, not well formed, no cat, and not currently needed. Delete. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


Category:Serbian building and structure stubs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete cat, create upmerged serbia-struct-stub

Moved from WP:CFD

Category:Serbian building and structure stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Found this in orphanage, found some parents, but this doesn't seem to have come out of the stub folks' realm but was just created, has two articles which may indicate that it's new and not yet populated or that it's creation is unwarranted at this time. I know many people who participate in CFDs are stub sorters so I'll see what you think. Carlossuarez46 23:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative could obviously be to create {{serbia-struct-stub}} and have it feed into Category:European building and structure stubs. AecisBrievenbus 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

December 3[edit]

{{Harry-Potter-stub}}[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete

Unproposed - if it had been, the creator of it would have been told that there is already a stub type for Harry Potter, {{HarryPotter-stub}}, which conforms to stub naming (the nominated duplicate does not, since it isn't a subtype of Potter-stub). What's more, the nominated template has a non-GFDL image, which is against WP rules. Delete. Grutness...wha? 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

December 5[edit]

{{Video-game-gameplay-stub}} / Category:Video gameplay stubs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename

I created the template and category before reading the instructions. The template and category both need to be renamed to {{Videogame-gameplay-stub}} and Category:Video game gameplay stubs, respectively. SharkD (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

December 6[edit]

{{MortalKombat-stub}}[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete

Currently used on three articles, two of which are at AFD and look like they will be deleted. Too narrow in scope. Pagrashtak 19:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

December 7[edit]

{{Indianapolis Stub}}[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete

Unproposed, misnamed duplicate of longstanding {{Indianapolis-stub}}. Completely redundant and against stub naming standards. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. All I can say is that I'm a n00b. Sorry. <_< -JT 01:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is there a rule book for these types of things? How is someone supposed to know that there is a process to these types of things? -JT 01:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could try looking at Wikipedia:Stub, which has the full details, or Wikipedia:Stub categories, or in the top of any stub category - most of them carry the WP:WSS banner saying that proposal is recommended. Loads of WP cleanup pages have links to the big list of stub types - which has the info - as well (everything from Wikipedia:Maintenance to Wikipedia:How to edit a page to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention to Wikipedia:Your first article). Didn't realise you were a newbie, BTW, so apologies if I sounded grumpy. Grutness...wha? 05:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rock on. -JT 19:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

December 8[edit]

{{San Francisco-stub}}/redlink[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename template. Note that category may need renaming to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:San Francisco, California stubs, but that will need a separate nomination


This one's been around for three months and has gained about a dozen stubs in that time - and it's needed a rename since day one. Worse, many of the stubs seem to be bio-stubs, which shouldn't have a locational template other than for nationality. If it can be populated, it needs renaming to {{SanFrancisco-stub}}, along with a category. If not, there's no point in having it. Grutness...wha? 10:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be combined with the SFBay Area stub below. Benjiboi 21:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it shouldn't. A Frisco stub is useful to sorters who don't know and don't care what exactly constitutes the SFBA. An SFBA stub is only useful to specialists already familiar with the SFBA and as such should be considered only if ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:California stubs was getting too large to manage save by such a specialist oriented split. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:California stubs isn't getting too large at present, though it was in need of a thorough sorting which I have been doing. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I give up, you can wikilawyer circles around anything I say so do whatever you want. Sorry i bothered to offer any insight here. Benjiboi 23:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and make the category. I know it's marginal in size after I finished sorting ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:California stubs, but it should grow to a reasonable size soon enough once it has a standard name for people to find. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{San Francisco Bay Area-stub}} (upmerged)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. seems to no longer be in use, anyway


By strange coincidence, this one was created hours after I nominated the previous one. Seems to have been cut and pasted from California-stub, with all links still as with that template (including interwikis). Even worse than the previous, naming wise, and with a more ambivalent scope. If the one above this is plausible, this one certainly isn't. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This actually is more inclusive than San Francisco-alone stub although I understand the misunderstandings. The 9 counties of the SF/Bay Area are quite interlinked and starting projects for San Jose, Oakland, Marin and dozens of other cities/areas does seem premature. Also similar to New York City, SF is landlocked so people and events specific to the city also have strong ties to the communities across the bridge with folks often moving from one to another or working in one while living in another. Also disagree that bios shouldn't be included as people often are tied to a specific city, is that really a problem? Benjiboi 21:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on how tied people are to a locale. If a person's notability is limited to just that area then it may make sense, but except for politicians, few people are so limited, even if that is where they have always lived. To take a hypothetical example, Bill Gates would not warrant a {{Washington-stub}} if his article was a stub article. As for the comparison with NYC, we have an {{NYC-stub}}, but we don't have one that includes the area beyond the five boroughs. Stub sorting isn't intended to be a complete categorization scheme, just a way to get things into small enough yet easily comprehendable bits to enable casual sorters not tied to a particular project to bring articles to the attention of more knowledgeable editors. An SFBA stub, while it might work well for people focused on the SFBA as a whole, would fail at being useful for the stub sorters who have no idea what constitutes the SFBA and no easy way to determine it. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:California stubs isn't large enough to need an arbitrary split just yet. Its at 262 stubs right now and I'm in the middle of sorting them (to help see if the SF and LA stubs are worth keeping) and expect that it'll be down to a 1 page category when I'm through. Besides, talk page templates, such as {{SFBAProject}} are better suited for keeping track of articles of interest to Wikiprojects. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I give up, you can wikilawyer circles around anything I say so do whatever you want. Sorry i bothered to offer any insight here. Benjiboi 23:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of very good practical reasons for the way stub categories are arranged, as far as such things as size and split are concerned. It isn't "wikilawyering" - it's simply ensuring that the stub types have the maximum possible usefulness for the minimum possible number of stub types and minimum possible number of templates/categories per article. It's been fairly thoroughly established that the easiest size of category for editors to hunt through is between about 60 and 600 stubs. It's also not very useful to split a stub category into types that will have an "everything else" type (which is why US states are generally split by counties - and also generally split by all counties simultaneously). With other circumstances,w here there is a specific interest group working on articles, then Caerwine's suggestion of a WikiProject-specific talk page template is by far the most practical and useful mapproach - it can be used to assess all articles, not just stubs, that relate to a WikiProject. As far as bio-stubs are concerned, most people are not specifically tied to one city or ever one state - if they are notable, they are usually notable primarily for their occupation and nationality, and many people live in several different places within the course of their lifetime. It's the same with sports teams. We don't have stub templates for players for a particular sports team because chances are we'd have to tag some articles with six or seven different templates - it's far more sensible to stub them by a variable that will likely only have one template needed, like field position or decade of birth. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Los Angeles-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Los Angeles stubs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename template. Note that category may need renaming to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Los Angeles, California stubs, but that will need a separatee nomination


Also created today, equally badly named (it would be {{LosAngeles-stub}} if it were needed), and also created with links as California-stub. Worse, many of the stubs seem to be bio-stubs, which shouldn't have a locational template other than for nationality. Either rename and populate it properly, or delete. Grutness...wha? 23:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree to the naming thing, fair cop to that, and i must admit I was oblivious to the whole stub proposal scheme, fair cop to that to, but i have to say, that a Los Angeles stub was needed as the only one that was closely related to an LA stub was about LA geography or particular neighbourhoods. Not Really useful when its not related to the article. (♠Taifarious1♠) 00:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A LosAngeles-stub is probably a reasonable idea, though it shouldstay upmerged until we know it's reached the normal splitting threshold (there's certainly no sign yet of the 60 stubs that it would need for that, though for a city the size of LA, it shouldn't take much effort). Grutness...wha? 01:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone created a category for this stub as well. I've been going through ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:California stubs and doing a manual restubbing (including using this stub and San Francisco-stub. (Not bothering with the Bay Area stub as California stubs was not in sufficient need of pruning as to make such a potentially ambiguous stub necessary.) Looks like the two city stubs will be large enough to warrant keeping correctly named versions as upmerged stubs, but until someone goes trolling through the sub categories of California stubs, I can't see either stub being large enough to warrant a stub category of its own. Caerwine Caer’s whines 09:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and keep the category. I know it's marginal in size after I finished sorting ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:California stubs, but it should grow to a reasonable size soon enough once it has a standard name for people to find. We might wish to make the scope be the county rather than just the city. It's likely to get a number of false positives from the county anyway, and the increased scope isn't that much of a problem. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly favour scoping templates by county, since that's how the geos work. It would also faciliate upmerging and later splitting of the somewhat-nebulous Areas and Regions. Alai (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

December 11[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename & upmerge


{{CPI-politician-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Communist Party of India politician stubs[edit]

{{CPI(M)-politician-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Communist Party of India (Marxist) politician stubs[edit]

Unproposed, horribly named, narrowly scoped, and with parents that show no evidence that stub threshold is likely (even ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Indian communists has only 82 articles - to get 60 stubs for each of these two categories seems highly unlikely at present). Delete. If the templates are to be kept (upmerged) they will need better names - have a look at CPI. Grutness...wha? 02:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I usually don't work with stubs, and had completly missed/forgotten the proposal procedure. Sorry about that. I had simply copied the basis for Template:BJP-politician-stub, and changed to apply for the CPI and CPI(M). I would urge for a keep on both. Both have a potential to be fully used, especially due to the many stubs of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha members. I'll populate the two for clarity during the day. --Soman (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, renaming is needed for the templates - CPI could easily be, for example, the Communist Party of Ireland. BJP is so named because it is well-enough known worldwide not to be overly ambiguous. As far as the categories are concerned, what usually happens in these cases is if it can be shown that there are enough stubs during the counrse of the SFD debate, then they're kept. So... start tagging! (and don't worry whether you're tagging with templates that will need renaming - when renaming is done, it will likely be by bot :) Grutness...wha? 00:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep - I agree with a CPIM cat (they are a notable political force and there is probably enough population for the cat) but not the CPI stub (which means Consumer Price Index).Bakaman 22:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update, and an attempt to get more input: The second of these two has now reached threshold, and is acceptable on that basis - the first shows no sign of doing so (it's nowhere near - only 16 stubs). The template names are still contrary to stub naming conventions and need changing - but what to? If something can be done about the template name for the second one, then it looks keepable. A change of template name and upmerging of the first one seems possible, but the category is still unnecessary. Grutness...wha? 23:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with keeping second template. Suggest upmerge first template and rename (to CPIndia-politician-stub?) possibly renaming second as well (to CPIndia(Marxist)-politician-stub?)Waacstats (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would it be possible to some up with a template name that did not include a parenthetical note instead? Perhaps {{CPIndiaMarxist-politician-stub}}? - Dravecky (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

December 14[edit]

{{citrus-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Citrus stubs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was redirect template, delete cat

First, the category includes only 3 stubs, and is unlikely to ever contain a large number of stubs. Secondly, "citrus" is ambiguous in the stub name. There is a botanical genus named Citrus as well as a "citrus family" of plants. There is also a groups of fruits called "citrus" which includes more than the genus, but less than the family. I propose merging {{citrus-stub}} into {{Rutaceae-stub}}. The latter is the stub for the citrus family, including all citrus (both fruit and genus), and the name "Rutaceae" is unambiguous. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


{{Led-Zeppelin-song-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Led Zeppelin song stubs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete

Unproposed and misnamed, and - given the size of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Led Zeppelin songs - may well remain undersized even if used on all LZ song stubs. Seems to be associated with a new WikiProject which doesn't seem to have read through {{WikiProject}} while being made. For the record (pardon the accidental pun), song stubs are almost always subdivided by decade and genre, not by group. It's very likely that the Wikiproject would be better served with a talk page template, but if this is kept the template will need renaming (this isn't a subtype of {{Zeppelin-song-stub}} - are there any songs about Zeppelins?). Grutness...wha? 00:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are, direct from World War I, "Song of the Zeppelin". Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

December 16[edit]

{{Video-game-gameplay-stub}} (redirect)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was

delete, now that it's orphaned. Wizardman 18:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, this wasn't orphaned and deleted when the stub type was renamed (to {{Videogame-gameplay-stub}}) and logged earlier in the month. Delete. I hope this doesn't mean that there are a load of cases where the vote has explicity said "rename" (and implicity required the deletion of non-standard names, per the comments in this page's headers) where there has not been a deletion of the old name. If there are, there's going to have to be a LOT of searching through the SFD log to find what should have been deleted... Grutness...wha? 11:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before it is deleted, there are over 50 articles that are currently using this redirect stub that need to be edited first. Dbiel (Talk) 17:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note my original comment - they should have been orphaned and deleted. That automatically means they still need to be orphaned. Grutness...wha? 19:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


Several undeleted redirects[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep the ungulates one (no consensus, so may be re-proposed at some point). Delete the other four


I was right in my comments in the section above, sadly. Someone has been closing and logging "rename" debates here without orphaning and deleting the old template names. Just looking back through the logs to the beginning of September, I've discovered the following:

As I see it, we have two options:

  1. Accept these sorts of names as redirects and abandon the whole idea of having uniform names, resigning ourselves to picking through a morass of occasionally whimsical and often ambiguous names in the faint hope that we will discover stub templates that actually have the meanings we think they have (like to guess what Afro-stub or 3K-stub refer to without looking them up?)
  2. Orphan and delete these, as should have happened when the templates were renamed.

Personally, I favour the latter course of action. We also need to look through earlier logs, to see how long this has been going on :( Grutness...wha? 11:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest keeping the NorthernMarianaIslands-radio-station-stub and even-toed-ungulate-stub redirects, since those are really in the "have to stop and think about it" category as to which is the "good" and which is the "bad" version. And if you haven't memorised the NGs, it's in the realm of "wild guess". leaf-nosed-bat-stub I'd put in the same bracket, in fact. In general I'd suggest that if the redirect is sufficiently "bad" that deletion is required, this be mentioned explicitly in the discussion, since "rename by default means delete" is probably not quite the gold standard in transparency. If you might not like the closer's interpretation of the sense of the discussion, remove the room for same. 3K- and Afro- I'm going to speedy, though, on the basis that they objectively truly suck, lots. Korean- is probably somewhere in between. On the issue iof whether's there's lots, I could generate an exhaustive list from the toolserver db. Since the number of "good" redirects runs into the hundreds if not the thousands, sifting through the complete list is likely not to be a trivial task. Alai (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably simple enough to report them when we find them, rather than doing a massive time-consuming search. As to the interpretation of the discussion, it's worth noting that usually if the redirects are to be kept that's noted when the discussions are closed. Deletion of the redirects still seems to be the default option. You're right that it's probably worth specifying explicitly though. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like {{Even-toed-ungulate-stub}} has been retagged, this time with a discussion of the redirect, notwithstanding the result in September (rename to eventoedungulate-stub, keeping redirect - which it appears was implemented). There doesn't appear to be any new discussion however, unless this is it. So what's up? This tag is applied to a large number of stubs and shouldn't be deleted.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do see the problem with the deletion debate, three different votes and the closer picked one and didn't state a reason or sign the close, that's bad; but that's not the issue I'm concerned with directly.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, the reason why the redirect was tagged is that it's standard practice in stub naming to use hyphens to indicate a subtype - that is, Korean-cuisine-stub was moved to Korea-cuisine-stub (taking the usual noun form) as an acceptable subtype of cuisine-stub. Even-toed-ungulate-stub, by that naming convention, would be a subtype of toed-ungulate-stub. Eventoed-ungulate-stub makes sense (since there is the possibility of an ungulate-stub, even though that stub type doesn't currently exist) whereas the version with the extra hyphen doesn't. It's also usual practice to delete redirects which do not conform to the naming standards, as they lead to extra confusion among non-regular stub-sorters as to whether there is a standard naming pattern, making it harder for them to tell whether there is an existing stub type (if there appears to be a pattern, it makes it far easier to predict what an existing stub template will be named). For that reason, it was until recently standard practice for a rename debate here to implicitly mean "rename and delete the redirect formed from the renaming". It is only in the last month or two (largely since this debate) that the deletion of the redirect has been made more explicit in votes, since some people closing debates were unaware that redirects should have been deleted (hence this debate in the first place). That also might explain the patently bizarre closing of the first debate on even-toed-ungulate-stub. There was no mention of keeping the redirect, and the implication was therefore that it should have been deleted, but whoever closed the debate decided to unilaterally declare that it should be kept. Grutness...wha? 23:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

December 19[edit]

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Feline stubs → ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Felidae stubs, {{feline-stub}} → {{felidae-stub}}[edit]

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

The result of the debate was creating {{felidae-stub}} as a redirect, category change rejected since the CfD for the permanent category was closed as no consensus


Please discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cats#Move proposal for name uniformity. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Um, no. Please discuss it here. Or at the very least, bring a consensus of what the Cat WikiProject wants done here. Stub renaming is done here, so it makes little sense to conduct the discussion elsewhere. Grutness...wha? 07:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's important that the discussion takes place at only one location. Previously, I requested {{cat-stub}} and its category to be renamed {{felidae-stub}}, and instead it became {{feline-stub}}; and when I requested that Felidae be moved to felines - that request failed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's important that the discussion takes place at the most appropriate location. You should start at CFR, since the only reason the stub cat is where it is, is due to the permcat name. Alai (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

December 20[edit]

Cue sports stubs (2 of them)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was moved as per proposal, redirects kept at least for now


This may seem funny, since I was the main proponent of the opposite idea way back when, but I propose renaming/moving {{Cue-sports-stub}} and {{Cue-sports-bio-stub}} to {{Cuesports-stub}} and {{Cuesports-bio-stub}}, respectively, because Alai, Grutness, and others have (without really trying, and with no effort in that direction at all even after a year; i.e. no canvassing of any kind has been at play) convinced me that this "RunTogether" format, while kind of idiosyncratic, is simply what we prefer for stub template names. I would rather be consistent with everyone on this than be a pain the backside. So I hereby rescind everything I've ever said on the matter. The only potential consequences of this change that I am aware of is a big, boring AWB session, and even that is optional, really, since the non-spaced versions exist as redirs to the spaced ones, so nothing would change but an inversion of that redirection relationship. And apologies to whoever it was that I reverted on this matter about a month ago. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concur, and certainly recommend keeping the redirect, since if it's questionable for marginal for those of us that have pondered these things at length, how much more so for "passing trade". (Though it could be done by fully-automated bot if need be, I should disclose.) Alai (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Yiddish-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Yiddish stubs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus - but very likely to be renominated unless populated


Unproposed stub for a single language - no sign that it is in any way likely to reach threshold for splitting. In any case, language stubs are divided by language families, not individual languages. We don't even, on the English-language Wikipedia, have a stub type for English, so I seriously doubt the usefulness of this one, especially since there are only some 350 Indo-European language stubs in total. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because (a) WP:NOT#PAPER so why can't stubs be divided by languages? There should be a "stub type" for English, or for any language for that matter. Is there an official Wikipedia policy that restricts the creation of such stub templates? (b) Category:Yiddish has been greatly expanded and many articles in it are stubs, so what else to call them? (c) Yiddish is a unique thousand year old plus language with a long history directly connected to the Ashkenazi Jews who have used it as their lingua franca. (d) Yiddish is essentially in its own class (beyond any one specific) language family as such because it is not just an "Indo-European" language, as it is a unique hybrid language based on about 60% High German, 30% Hebrew (with the Aramaic in it too) -- using its Hebrew lettering and writing system -- making it strongly connected to the Semitic languages and, based on the region and location of it's speakers contains many local words, which in Eastern Europe absorbed words from the Slavic languages and the Hungarian language, and in the USA it has elements from English that has produced Yinglish (yes, I kid thee not), all of which means that Yiddish is a language in a league of its own, and this stub should be retained. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I swear one of these days I'm going to make a template that explains the reasons for this - so many people just don't seem to get it. No, Wikipedia is not paper, and as such, it's perfectly acceptable for categories for use by readers to be of any size. however, stub categories are not for use by readers, they are for use by editors, who have different requirements. one of those requirements is that they can browse categories of a size that is neither too big to easily hunt down articles nor soi small as to necessitate looking through dozens of categories. Categories of between 60 and 800 stubs are an optimum size for this. Anything bigger, and the task becomes too daunting. Anything smaller, and there is serious risk of an editor needing to look in a number of categories while working on a similar subject, and also a danger of a category being repeatedly deleted and re-created as it is emptied and new stubs are created. At present, the Indo-European language stub category has some 350 stubs - right at the "sweet spot" of stub category size. The creator of this stub category (you), listed it as a child category to only Indo-European languages, and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Yiddish is listed as a child category of High German; the article Yiddish confirms that this is the correct place for it. Many languages have strong links to several language groups - have a loom at the links between English and Germanic, Norse, and Romance laguages, as well as the influence that everything from Greek to Hindi has had on it. So to cut things short (a) there aren't enough stubs for separate categories by language; (b) since Yiddish is Indo-European, there is nothing wrong in the least with adding an Indo-European language stub template to those articles; (c) is largely irrelevant. Latin was used as a lingua franca for thousands of years by far more people, and English is also used very widely as a lingua franca, but neither of them have or need separate stub types; (d) given that Yiddish is listed in its own article as being a form of High German, albeit with strong outside influences, and is still regarded linguistically as Indo-European, there is no need for a separate stub type for it. More importantly, though, (e) there ain't enough stubs for it to be viable, and the parent category is nowhere near needing to be split. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Grutness: First I must admit I was not aware of the criteria you have enumerated above, and I sincerely appreciate your efforts in doing so now. I actually do think that you should try to post these guidelines somewhere so that other editors who are not that intensely involved with language stubs can know these guidelines. Second, my involvement is as an editor so stubs are an important way for me to get at articles that need to be worked on, and at the same time I assumed it would be easier to create a template for and list Yiddish-related stubs in one place. I guess we will have to wait till there are a lot more of them. Finally, my aim was to be helpful and not cause you or anyone any aggravation (I didn't even know there were such strong feelings about lowly stubs) so feel assured that this was a good faith creation. I will let my views above stand as a point of principle and for the reasons I have outlined above notwithstanding your fair arguments to the contrary. Thanks for all you work on behalf of the Wikipedia community. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No offence taken or intended, and thanks for the kind words. As to these criteria being posted, they already are - see Wikipedia:Stub#Creating stub types. The full rationale for why these criteria exist isn't given there, for reasons of space, but those I gave above are the explanation. Grutness...wha? 22:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at the very least upmerge, per nom, and the stub guidelines on size. (Yes, "only" guidelines...) Alai (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge where plausible, otherwise delete per everything said so far. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Grutness. Well said, mate! JERRY talk contribs 02:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - NOT#PAPER applies. No reason to delete (please note, I found this because I just added a this Yiddish stub to an article). The Evil Spartan 18:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - most of the Yiddish articles can use professional help from editors interested in this field i view the stub cats as a bundle of articles in a certain field that calls the pros to invest more time and help from them. Yiddish today is an important field, although as a native Yiddish speaker myself i may be biased here i would really like to get all the Yiddish stubs in one centralized organised category project so whenever i have more time or whenever a Yiddish user comes in we can go ahead and work on our stubs thanks.--יודל (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Jiddisch (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep.--Shmaltz (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can see some mileage in an identifiable corpus of stub articles about Yiddish, which the few editors with experience in this area can devote their attention to. Finding them amongst over 300 Indo-european stubs is a hopeless needle-in-a haystack exercise. --Redaktor (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if it helps with the housekeeping, it is best to keep it. Lobojo (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

December 22[edit]

{{US-judge-stub2}}[edit]

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

The result of the debate was

delete. Nothing to merge. Wizardman 18:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unproposed, and a pretty blatant duplicate of {{US-judge-stub}}. We clearly don't need both. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

December 23[edit]

{{1910s-song-stub}}[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep


Orphaned. Nothing links to it. -- ALLSTARecho 10:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{1860s-baseball-pitcher-stub}}[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete

Orphaned. Nothing links to it. -- ALLSTARecho 10:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


{{China-radio-station-stub}}, {{Taiwan-radio-station-stub}}, and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Chinese radio station stubs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename China-X to PRChina-X, upmerge the templates


I just finished sorting the somewhat large ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Radio station stubs and in the process created ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Asian radio station stubs which has enough stubs to justify a category. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Chinese radio station stubs is significantly undersized and {{Taiwan-radio-station-stub}} is too small to justify keeping it as an upmerged template feeding into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Asian radio station stubs, so delete both of those. {{China-radio-station-stub}} is borderline in size, so I could live with either deleting or keeping it as an upmerged template.

Delete {{Taiwan-radio-station-stub}} and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Chinese radio station stubs
Delete or upmerge {{China-radio-station-stub}}

I summarized my views above for easy reference. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong no such thing as too small for an upmerged template; keep both as such. Delete undersized category. Alai (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the china one - we use Taiwan- and ChinaPR- for stub template names, not China-. Keep the Taiwan one but upmernge it. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a fair point, though IIRC it's PRC- and/or PRChina-; and that would argue for a rename, rescope and upmerge, strictly speaking. (Takes less work to do that to type it, almost...) Alai (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You, you're right, it's PRChina (usually with a redirect at PRC), though I'd argue (though it's steering towards abstruse stub philosophy) that it's more a case of "delete China-x-stub and create PRChina-x-stub" than "rename China-x-stub", since there is at least one China-x-stub which was at one time used for both China and Taiwan (China-geo-stub - which is why it now has a note on it saying "please don't use this any more") - which is clearly not the intended use for this one. The general effect is the same, though, so we'll split the diff and I'll say rename it. Especially since I've just coined the word "upmernge" :) Grutness...wha? 21:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree it's also (arguably) a change in scope, but I did allude to that aspect too... I don't have any strong feelings about moving, vs. deletion and recreation under the new name -- though I think we did keep China- redirects in various other cases. Alai (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

December 28[edit]

{{Modernistic-composition-stub}}[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete


Unproposed stub type. Also misnamed (there is no {{Composition-stub}} for it to be a subtype of. Doubly misnamed, in fact, since the parent category is not ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Modernistic compositions, but is rather ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Modernistic pieces. That category has only seven articles, so threshold is also nowhere near being reachable at present. What's more this stub template feeds directly into a permcat rather than a stub cat. All that without even mentioning that "modernistic" is a less widely used adjective than "modernist", anyway (cf. Modernist poetry, for instance). Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No articles use this template. It was created for discussion pending a decision on how WP:CONTEMPM should approach article assessment. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

December 31[edit]

{{Mesogastropoda-stub}}[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete and reclassify these stubs once more up-to-datee information becomesavailable lateer in the year. Also, cleean sticking keeyboard


Merge with Sorbeoconcha-stub without redirect - I came across a comment on a "Mesogastropoda" stub article about it being a classification that is no longer used. I don't know about gastropods so I don't know which of these hundreds of articles would be appropriate to merge, but the user indiciated that most (all?) should be able to be reclassified with this different stub type. So I propose we delete the stub for this deprecated classification, and reclassifying the articles that already use it TheBilly (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would request that this change is not done right now, but is least postponed until the next major update/reworking of the gastropod taxonomy is published, which will be sometime in 2008. Right now these Polbot generated stubs need a lot of work on their taxoboxes and elsewhere, and keeping the stubs all together in one category (however outdated it is) makes them easier to find and go through. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • [Insert usual Polbot-related rant here.] If someone can give me a list of which articles are to be reclassified on a taxon-by-taxon basis, I should be able to start depopulating this, and indeed fixing the taxobox at the same time. If that's not possible, then as Intertzoo says, this will for practical purposes have to be postponed until the population is reworked by other means... Alai (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Yukon v. Yukon Territory[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Yukon-, deleting redirects

We currently have an inconsistency in the naming used here with templates, {{Yukon-airport-stub}}, {{Yukon-geo-stub}}, {{Yukon-politician-stub}}, {{YukonTerritory-radio-station-stub}}, {{YukonTerritory-road-stub}}, and {{YukonTerritory-stub}} (with redirect {{Yukon-stub}}) used for the templates, and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Yukon Territory stubs, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Yukon Territory geography stubs, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Yukon politician stubs used for the categories. The primary article and category are Yukon and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Yukon respectively, so I suggest that we rename the stub templates and categories to just Yukon and not keep any YukonTerritory redirects. I have labeled all of the above stub templates and categories for sfr, so as to generate the widest possible discussion in case for some reason we decided to standardize on including Territory. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the change to Yukon, per the article and permcat. No opinion as to keeping/deleting the redirects, though if the place no longer uses the name, they do seem redundant. Grutness...wha? 23:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move/redirect everything to Yukon-xxx. Official named changed from Yukon Territory to Yukon. Please also cleanup the sfr labels on the temlates. --Qyd (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


{{Yukon-politician-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Yukon politician stubs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

While marking the templates and cats for the above I discovered that this category is seriously undersized with only 30 stubs, so we may wish to delete the category and upmerge the template to its two parents. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2007/December&oldid=199218226"