Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted/June 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

June 14th[edit]

{{Sikhi-stub}} / no category[edit]

No category, used on only 3 articles. A subdivision of {{sikhism-stub}}, which itself has only little over 50 articles. -- grm_wnr Esc 16:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{Paleoantropology-stub}} / no category[edit]

used on 1 article. No associated category. Misspelt.

Empty now Grutness...wha? 05:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- grm_wnr Esc 16:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as the article explaining the subject is barely a stub. No possibility of expansion. --Sn0wflake 22:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Too narrow, even if it were correctly typilated. Alai 02:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for now; I do see a possibility for future expansion, though. Lectonar 07:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. BlankVerse 09:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lectonar, but if it's brought back, it should be spelled properly. --Idont Havaname 19:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{Censorship-stub}} / Category:Censorship Stubs[edit]

10 articles, no category. Category added by Erebus555 however will need refreshing and can be deleted. (nomination by User:Rx StrangeLove)

  • Delete -- grm_wnr Esc 16:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, very narrow subject to have a category of its own. --Sn0wflake 22:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Smallish indeed, but to where would these be restubbed? Alai 02:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point, but there are only 3 stubs remaining in there; so I vote Delete Lectonar 07:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Only one real one, actually. The other two are the template itself, and some random user (well, IP address) page. --TheParanoidOne 08:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Censor, a stub category with only one page is pointless. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Kbdank71 14:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although there is currently only one stub here, I can see the potential for large numbers. Falcon 01:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Update: there are 10 stubs in here. Falcon 01:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I believe the problem with this category is less related to stub sorting and more related to the fact that most of these entries should be merged into parent articles. --Sn0wflake 09:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. BlankVerse 09:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Closing admin's notice: Before depopulation, the category contained the following articles: Self-censorship, Standards & Practices, Censorship in cyberspace, Censorship by organized religion. -- grm_wnr Esc 12:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 15th[edit]

The three listings below were retrieved from history, since their nomination was deemed premature on June 1. -- grm_wnr Esc 15:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{Baseball stub}} / is a redirect[edit]

Template misnamed: contains a white-space.

Delete only Template.
Template has not been orphaned
Currently redirects to {{Baseball-stub}}.
Courtland 13:06, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
Update: Has been changed to {{baseball-stub}} in all articles. All those bio-looking titles were actually mascots... oops. Most of the others were based on a user template for minor league team articles. I notified Vikreykja, he'll hopefully use {{baseball-stub}} in the future. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, there had been a number of biographies, which I had already restubbed. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-standard redirects. Looking at "What links here", about 50% of the ~40 articles currently using this template are {{baseballbio-stub}}s anyway.-- grm_wnr Esc 15:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete more trouble than it's worth. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but ... isn't this an example of a "malformed stub type" which is specifically excluded in the "What this page is not for" list above? Courtland 22:01, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • delete - good point about the listing of amlformed sytub types though... perhaps the scope of this page is slightly different to what it is listed as, and the "What...not for" list needs altering! Grutness...wha? 02:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: When I wrote that bit about "malformed stub types", I meant templates that were not correctly formatted, didn't have categories, etc - basically, the content needs fixing. Badly-named stub templates can be moved, but the resulting redirects are confusing (the probability that users seeing stub type get used to the naming guidelines are getting lower), and they make the list even longer. I think we should focus on deleting bad stub types for the beginning, as they are more important - but in the long run, such redirects should be weeded out, too. -- grm_wnr Esc 13:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Lectonar 06:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I created this because it felt natural. Using a dash is not natural. Most of the names the stub community comes up with make me think that place is full of C programmers. AFAIK, obfuscation is not a wikipedia feature. If you don't want to waste your time voting to delete harmless redirects, then don't name your stubs something people won't think of. Just as we have as many redirects as possible in the main namespace, I think we should make it as painless as possible in the stub pseudo-namespace. As for the future, if I have to look up whatever obscure template name it is I need because redirects are verboten, I'll just use the {{stub}} template and let the sorting committee deal with it. I haven't looked at the What Links Here, but if 50% of the articles are using it (and I didn't write them) then that should tell you something. Vik Reykja 07:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Obfuscation is not a wikipedia feature, but consistency is. Since the vast majority of stubs are sorted by - surprise surprise - stub sorters, it makes a huge amount of sense to have consistent naming for all stub categories, wherever possible. And you clearly misread what it said further up. 50% of baseball stubs are not using this particular template. About 40 use this particular redirect, out of a total of nearly 500. That's 8%. Grutness...wha? 11:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    It makes zero sense to disallow redirects. Vik Reykja 15:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Redirects put greater load on the servers. This doesn't matter much when it is simply pages being called up, but it does with templates, since they link to so many pages. As such, it does make sense to delete redirects, especially if they are badly named like this one. Grutness...wha? 01:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    the-server-load-excuse-is-really-getting-old-and-calling-it-badly-named-really-pisses-me-off. Vik Reykja 04:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    The server "excuse" may be an old one, but that doesn't make it any less true. Grutness...wha? 09:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    hmm-i-guess-that-is-why-we-have-donation-drives Vik Reykja 15:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's not our fault, as editors, that the Wikipedia is growing too fast for the servers to properly keep up. So what we can do is try to help keeping it a nominal levels as much as possible. I do understand what you are saying, but it simply isn't feasible at the moment to create myriads of template redirects. --Sn0wflake 20:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Vik, it is not natural to use either {{Baseball-stub}} or {{Baseball stub}} in my opinion, but satisfying my notion of what is natural would take some significant programming and revision to processes. What's natural is to use {{stub}} in the context of an existing article namespace category and have the result being a categorized stub pseudo-category. As an example, in the case of Akron_Aeros one would have a facile mechanism to select one or more categories (all selected by default) and place the article into stub pseudo-categories corresponding to each: Minor league baseball teams, Ohio sports, etc. Courtland 12:00, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per Grutness and Courtland. --Nabla 02:52, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
  • Delete Serves no purpose, and is a contra-naming convention fork, in effect. Alai 02:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. BlankVerse 09:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, goes against naming conventions for stubs. --Idont Havaname 19:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, in the name of consistency. Shem(talk) 18:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{Rugby union stub}} / is a redirect[edit]

Template misnamed: contains a white-space.

Delete only Template.
Template has been orphaned (22 May)
Currently redirects to {{RugbyUnion-stub}}.
Courtland 13:06, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
  • Delete non-standard redirects. -- grm_wnr Esc 15:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete more trouble than it's worth. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; orphaned and redundant.
  • delete Grutness...wha? 02:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Lectonar 06:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Sn0wflake 09:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep obviously, Wikipedia:Redundancy is good. Dunc| 16:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    "Obvious" in what way? --TheParanoidOne 19:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Because somebod is going to come along and write an article and put the old template stub in and get a redlink. Deleting it just creates problems. That's what redirects are for. Dunc| 12:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's not complicated to do a quick search on the stub types list to see what is the correct use, in case that does happen. --Sn0wflake 20:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Nabla 02:53, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
  • Delete, in the name of uniformity and consistency. Alai 02:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. BlankVerse 09:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Shem(talk) 18:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{Ice hockey stub}} / is a redirect[edit]

Template misnamed: contains a white-space.

Delete only Template.
Template has been orphaned (22 May)
Currently redirects to {{Icehockey-stub}}.
Courtland 13:06, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
  • Delete non-standard redirects. -- grm_wnr Esc 15:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete more trouble than it's worth. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete Grutness...wha? 02:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Lectonar 06:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Serving no purpose. Alai 02:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. BlankVerse 09:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Use Icehockey-stub instead. --Idont Havaname 19:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Shem(talk) 18:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{Node/stub}} / no category[edit]

Unused duplicate of {{stub}}. No associated category. (This listing was copied from WP:WSS/C#Proposed stub deletions) Grutness...wha? 00:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Doubly pointless. Alai 02:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Duplicate and unused. A question: does it make sense to have a template which is a sub-page of an inexistent template? --Nabla 02:06, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
    • While I don't think it makes sense either way, I'm not sure it actually is a sub-page; is the / interpretted that way in this namespace? I suspect not, if I'm reading the lack of parent-page annotation correctly. Alai 04:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • DeleteLectonar 07:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Kbdank71 14:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like a layout test. The "Node" in the title is most probably the name of its creator, User:Node ue. Looking at the history, he seems to have been informed of its impending deletion about five months ago (see User_talk:Node_ue#Template:Node/stub). -- grm_wnr Esc 15:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. BlankVerse 09:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Shem(talk) 18:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 16th[edit]

{{Biostub}} (redirect)[edit]

  • template misnamed ("stub" not preceded by a hyphen)
  • template redirects to {{Bio-stub}}
  • template has not been orphaned (unknown number of associated articles)
    used on 79 articles. Grutness...wha?
  • apparently no associated category to delete

Courtland 12:39, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

  • Delete, for all the reasons mentioned above. With bio-stub being as big as it is, the less detritus around it, the better. --TheParanoidOne 12:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, we simply cannot afford to create a meaningless fork of bio-stub. --Sn0wflake 01:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Redirects are harmless. Vik Reykja 16:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete redirects are more work for both sorters and servers. Grutness...wha? 19:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per Grutness. --Nabla 02:49, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
  • How many articles does this concern? If it's small, or can be take care of via bot, etc, then go ahead and delete. Alai 02:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    See note above. Grutness...wha?
  • Delete. BlankVerse 09:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Shem(talk) 18:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I went through the list and subcategorized most of it. Only eleven remain, and those can be dumped into bio-stub, I guess. --Joy [shallot] 13:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 17th[edit]

{{Grisons-geo-stub}} (redirect)[edit]

Currently redirecting to {{Switzerland-geo-stub}} and orphaned, this was originally a geo-stub for one canton of Switzerland (Grisons). I don't think that Switzerland's ready for splitting yet... Grutness...wha? 10:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Redirects are harmless. Vik Reykja 16:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Sn0wflake 21:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Nabla 02:45, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
  • Delete Not useful to have this around as an orphan. Alai 02:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete BlankVerse 09:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Shem(talk) 18:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 17th[edit]

Rename Category:Movie stubs to Category:Film stubs[edit]

The template is already named "film". "Movie" is an Americanism. -- Samuel Wantman 20:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The first three votes were moved from WP:CFD. -- Samuel Wantman 20:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - this wasn't listed on Template:sfd-current - I have fixed. Grutness...wha? 23:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This category is 19 pages long. While I support in principle, I doubt editing nearly 4000 stubs is worth it. So subsort first, then propose renaming again. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can't this be done with a bot? Is there any need for subsorting? -- Samuel Wantman 19:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The renaming could be done by a bot. There will come a point when this category needs subsorting though (hey, good neologism!), since ideally stub categories should only be 2 or 3 pages long. Grutness...wha? 01:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why? You can see any letter using the TOC. Previous to Category TOC's size was a problem. Why is it still a problem? How and why would it be subsorted? What is the need? -- Samuel Wantman 06:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

apologies for the accidental deletion of this comment! Grutness...wha?

  • Keep as is until the size becomes manageable. Courtland 05:06, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
  • Rename; I am happy to make available my bot for making the move, if desired. James F. (talk) 20:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename. Note to bot operators: once the template is changed, the category can be populated with null edits. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename for both consistency and the avoidance of "Americanism." Shem(talk) 18:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 20th[edit]

{{Nickelodeon-stub}}[edit]

  • The template and category have been in existence since March 2005 and there remains <10 articles stubbed to this type.
  • It is unlikely that there will ever be 100 or more articles for this category, which concerns a single cable mini-network.
  • Content can likely be re-stubbed to {{Tv-stub}} (if taken as a program category, which is currently in debate) or {{US-bcast-stub}} (for affiliates and channels).

Courtland 05:00, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

  • The fact that Nickelodeon means nothing (other than an old name for cinema) outside the US doesn't help. This is overcategoriesation IMO - delete. Grutness...wha? 05:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well to be fair Nickelodeon has channels in about 30 countries so it would be known outside of the US however it is unlikely that it will grow by much so... delete. -- Lochaber 14:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Apologies - I didn't realise that, although I have since seen that it is available here in NZ as a Sky channel. Still far too specialised, though. Grutness...wha? 14:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Overcategorized. --Idont Havaname 19:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for the reasons cited. —Lifeisunfair 20:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, quite popular cable channel in many countries and produces many cartoon shows. Quite a bit of room for expansion. --Sn0wflake 20:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per above. Just check the "Chuckie Finster" page, and note how many red links there are. Shem(talk) 18:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Three is a lot?--Nabla 00:50, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete. Overcategorizing. --Nabla 00:50, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless Sn0wflake and/or Shem can show at least 50 stubs for the category (with no fancruft substubs). BlankVerse 08:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I can give it a go, but it would generate a lot of needless trouble (re-sorting) if this category is to be deleted. --Sn0wflake 20:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I did not say "'add the {{Nickelodeon-stub}} to articles". All I wanted was a list of at least 50 potential Nickelodeon stubs. BlankVerse 09:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Keep, and there is no need for 50 entries many categories have no more than 5 or 10. Falphin 23:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • General categories, yes. Stub categories, no. Stub categories should be of a size useful to editors, which makes for different maxima and minima to standard categories. The perfect stub category would be between about 60 and 400 items. That's why there are guidelines as to minimum stub category sizes before new stub types are created. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • After consideration, Delete for reasons by Grutness and others. Falphin 30 June 2005 22:09 (UTC)
  • Convert to List and... OK, I nominated this for deletion and I feel your pain, those of you who are interested and attached to this topic. Here's a compromise solution, which requires only a little bending of our WikiProject guidelines. What if we take the stubs that are part of this category and list them on a new page List of stub articles about the Nickelodeon TV network and place the list article into the Category:United States television programme stubs and also list as a see also on Nickelodeon (TV channel); the articles currently stubbed to {{Nickelodeon-stub}} would be relabeled with {{US-tv-stub}}. This might be a general solution for many potentially small stub-types where there is an interest-group list which is placed in an appropriate larger category and referenced on one or more article pages. This would allow us to delete {{Nickelodeon-stub}} as something that is a bit too small for what was designed as a coarse-grained process while not losing the information that goes with stubbing to this deprecated stub type. Thoughts? Courtland June 30, 2005 22:27 (UTC)
A good idea for us (the WSS), but possibly a poor idea for the community in general. We members from the WSS are commited enough to this task to actually unlist the articles once they are expanded and to bother with seeing wether there is a list for said stub. Now consider... well... other Wikipedians. It's not realistic to assume most of them would care. We would would either end up with a constantly lagging list or with a lot of extra work to do. But I find your idea very valid, nevertheless. This should probably be ported to Wikpedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting, so that it can be properly discussed. --Sn0wflake 1 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)

Closing admin's notice: Prior to orphaning, the category contained the following articles: Airbender, Chuckie Finster, First Crush, French Narrator, Going Great, Hey Dude, Irk (Invader Zim location), Nickelodeon SLAM!, Romeo!, Space Cases. -- grm_wnr Esc 1 July 2005 08:12 (UTC)

{{Sports-tv-stub}}[edit]

  • Template created in late May by an anonymous user signing with a red link.
  • There are two articles in the category that can be appropriately re-stubbed.
  • There might be enough articles for a {{Sports-bcast-stub}} but that would complicate matters by introducing a non-geographical axis to the country-oriented broadcasting stub category family.

Courtland 05:04, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

  • There was talk of subdividing TV series by genre at one point (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria/Archive6#TV_Series_stubs_subdivision, but not TV stations. It was never enacted, and the proposed format of the names was different to this, too. For stations, which this seems to be, it cuts through the current hierarchy, as Courtland says, so I'd be in favour of deleting it. I suspect editors are more likely to search by where they see TV than by proggramme/station type anyway. Grutness...wha? 05:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Looks like a case of malformed stub type.--Nabla 00:54, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Closing admin's note: Category:Sports television stubs was also deleted as a part of this stub type. Prior to orphaning, the category contained The NFL on NBC and CBS Sports. - grm_wnr Esc 30 June 2005 18:04 (UTC)

June 21st[edit]

{{Knot-stub (mathematics)}}[edit]

moved from WP:WSS/C, where it was proposed for deletion on May 26

used on 3 articles. Duplicates {{Knot-stub}}, and feeds into the same category.

Now emptied and turned into a redirect. But still too horribly named to survive, IMHO. Grutness...wha?

Many of the (very small number of) knots covered by knot-stub are mathematical rather than the rope type, and there are so few overall that the two can sit together with no real problem. Double stubbing with {{knot-stub}} and {{maths-stub}} is an option, if necessary, too. Grutness...wha? 14:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, both subjects can make use of the same category. --Sn0wflake 01:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, far too specific. Duble stub if appropriate. -- grm_wnr Esc 11:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Knot-stub is adequate. Shem(talk) 18:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not enough knots. BlankVerse 08:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to {{Knot-stub}}. Courtland 02:00, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

June 22nd[edit]

{{genital-integrity-stub}}[edit]

Proposed on WP:WSS/C, a week after its actual creation; see comments there. No category, no corresonding general category, and very (very, very) few articles ever likely to be in this. Alai 16:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Overcategorising. --Nabla 00:58, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Alai and Nabla. BTW, this template did not have sfd-t on it, and it wasn't listed on sfd-current - I have fixed. Grutness...wha? 02:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, delete. Shem(talk) 02:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; subject apparently taken seriously. *rolls eyes* --Sn0wflake 02:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Circumcise this stub template. BlankVerse 08:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but I see clouds up the horizon; we're going to have problems after deleting this one Lectonar 29 June 2005 13:06 (UTC)

Category:Caucasus geography stubs[edit]

This was always a tricky category, with many people unsure of what places it referred to. It was intended for geo-stubs from Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia. Armenia and Azerbaijan both have their own categories now, and there are a very small number of Georgia geo-stubs (which have ben moved into the general Europe geography stubs category). Since it's deprecated and no longer of any real use, I propose deletion. Grutness...wha? 06:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, more specific categories available. -- grm_wnr Esc 11:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, delete. Shem(talk) 18:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all confusing stubs templates, including this one. BlankVerse 08:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 23rd[edit]

{{US-camp-stub}}[edit]

Only one article currently links to it. It seems likely this template might be used to extend the morass from Wikipedia:Schools. Moving here because on TFD I was told it belongs here. The corresponding category article has not been created, so I don't want to create it just to put {{sfd-c}} on it. --Tabor 23:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • US camps are currently listed under US-geo-stub, which is being split up by state (more logical than by type of place). The (uncreated) category for this one was badly capitalised, too. Delete. (BTW, Tabor, you forgot to add this to {{sfd-current}}!) Grutness...wha? 00:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • /me kicks the m:Instruction_creep --Tabor 22:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • It's just to let cfd, tfd, and the main stub project page informed of what we're doing. It was either that or adding a separate note on each of those pages. It is a bit of extra hassle, but it was the easiest way we could think of. Grutness...wha? 06:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{JP-stub}} (redirect)[edit]

Originally a duplicate of {{Japan-stub}}, created by an anon in early April, turned into a redirect in early May, and possibly never used, andcertainly not since it has been a redirect. I say possibly never, because the anon who created it has not worked on any articles about Japan. Unneccessary, poorly named, and if it's never used, why is it here? Grutness...wha? 12:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{station-stub}} → {{broadcasting-stub}} / Category:Station stubs[edit]

This template, latterly a redirect, was causing trouble with other meanings of the word. It is now orphaned. It had not pointed at the category for some time. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 07:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete every ambiguously named stub template, including this one. BlankVerse 08:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete template station-stub and category station stubs. I was wondering who was re-stubbing items labeled with station-stub yesterday ... thanks, Suslovans. Courtland 14:50, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

June 24th[edit]

{{bridge-stub}} (category not created)[edit]

Added to the stub list today, this one cuts across the hierarchy and is unnecessary. Bridges are already sorted by location in struct-stub, and are one type of structure that are more likely to be hunted for by editors according to location. Grutness...wha? 22:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, organization by location makes more sense. --Sn0wflake 19:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Struct-stub by location is a better system. Wikiacc (talk) 19:27, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. and I thought someone'd had the forethought to make a stub for dentalware ;) Courtland June 29, 2005 03:07 (UTC)

{{stub2}} and {{stub3}}[edit]

Variants on the sectstub theme with no associated category. First suggested for deletion on WP:WSS/C in May. Orphans, and currently redirects. Grutness...wha? 10:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Eradicate. Confusingly named and I personally don't think that sections should get any stub notice. BlankVerse 28 June 2005 16:41 (UTC)

June 25th[edit]

{{Substub}} (redirect)[edit]

Recreation of previously deleted material. The two articles that were linked to this template have been sorted. --Allen3 talk 18:55, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete? This violates the Wikipedia rule regarding re-creation of deleted material. --Sn0wflake 19:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why won't it die? --TheParanoidOne 19:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied, under rule 4. Grutness...wha? 23:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 28th[edit]

{{Business-stub}} (category not created)[edit]

Duplication of {{corp-stub}} and a badly-formed template, to boot. Not sure whether it qualifies for speedy deleting? Russ Blau (talk) June 28, 2005 20:11 (UTC)

Delete. Don't think it would qualify as a speedy, though. Grutness...wha? 29 June 2005 00:30 (UTC)

Delete - duplicate of other stubs--AYArktos 29 June 2005 02:00 (UTC)

  • pre-Vote comment Not all businesses are corporations, but all corporations are businesses; I'm wondering if the more accurate would be to keep Business-stub and redirect corp-stub to it with plans to bot-restub. Courtland June 29, 2005 03:04 (UTC)
    • Good point. And the name corp-stub isn't the most obvious. Perhaps it would be better to swap it around this way. Changing my vote accordingly. Grutness...wha? 29 June 2005 06:04 (UTC).
      • Mmmm. moving to abstain. Perhaps I'll just butt out of this one for mnow. Grutness...wha? 30 June 2005 05:54 (UTC)
    • But the {{corp-stub}} now reads 'This article about corporation or company...', and that's quite clear. On the other hand, {{business-stub}} would attract articles about company leaders, economic concepts etc. Given that {{corp-stub}} is already in many many articles, I don't think that's what we need. Conscious 29 June 2005 06:32 (UTC)
    • Isn't it the other way around? Delete, {{subst:tl:corp-stub}} is in need of splitting, not in need to become unclearly defined.--Nabla 2005-07-01 22:56:03 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are already {{econ-stub}} and {{corp-stub}}. Conscious 29 June 2005 06:32 (UTC)
  • Delete... and we have business-bio-stub to boot Lectonar 29 June 2005 13:07 (UTC)
  • Keep, fter consideration from Ceyockey and Grutness I believe business stub is the better choice not corp-stub. Falphin 30 June 2005 19:43 (UTC)

Closing admin's note: I interpreted that vote as 5:1 for deletion. Prior to orphaning, the template was used only on Slaters. -- grm_wnr Esc 6 July 2005 16:03 (UTC)


June 30th[edit]

{{Category-stub}} (no category)[edit]

A poor version of {{popcat}} written by someone who didn't know the latter existed. orphaned, and it never linked to a category. Not 100% sure it belongs on here rather than tfd, but I'll see what everyone here thinks. Grutness...wha? 30 June 2005 11:35 (UTC)

  • Delete, senseless duplicate. --Sn0wflake 1 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)
  • Delete. {{popcat}} is enough, and I don't think categories can really be considered stubs anyway. — The Storm Surfer 1 July 2005 04:36 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unnecessary stub category, duplicate of an existent tool. The name and wording say it belongs here. Nabla 2005-07-01 23:04:55 (UTC)

{{Stateinsigniastub}} / Category:State insignia stubs[edit]

Poorly named template, to start with. Contains five stubs and, although it could potentially increase to 50x however many items each state has as insignia, every item in there would be better served by a different type of stub category. Many of the most obvious state insignia are covered by flag-stub, and the current motley assembly includes two plants, a gemstone (geology), a reptile, and a building). Grutness...wha? 30 June 2005 01:59 (UTC)

  • Delete, limited geographic scope. --Sn0wflake 2 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the above. Limited geographic scope plus ceiling on maximum number of potential stub articles. This ceiling also falls below the threshold of a stub category (assuming of course that a state doesn't have multiple insignia). --TheParanoidOne 6 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)
    • Most of them do - state flower, bird, song, arms, flag... but even then this is not likely to be heavily populated. Grutness...wha? 7 July 2005 04:59 (UTC)

Closing admin's notice: All 5 articles in this category were put into Category:State insignia of Maryland. -- grm_wnr Esc 7 July 2005 08:48 (UTC)

{{Extended MEP-stub}} and Extended MEP stubs[edit]

Originally mentioned in the Newly Discovered section of WP:WSS/C. Currently used by 258 articles.

Badly named. Replicates the functionality of an existing stub ({{MEP-stub}}). Stub template with far too much text on it. Category states that it is for articles that are slightly more than stubs but not yet full articles. What does that even mean? --TheParanoidOne 30 June 2005 20:09 (UTC)

  • Delete. Yes, wash this right outta my hair and restub all to the MEP-stub template. Courtland June 30, 2005 22:47 (UTC)
  • Comment It actually serves a slightly different purpose. MEP-extended seems to be for current MEPs, with biographical information available from EU websites. Having said that, there's no reason that MEP- and MEP-extended couldn't be merged, with the link in the blurb at the top of the category rather than in the template. Grutness...wha? 1 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are 700-odd MEPs, most of them with stubbish articles, so it makes sense to me to have a stub category for them, but I've never seen the point of this "extended" one. Either it's a stub or it isn't. — Trilobite (Talk) 1 July 2005 10:44 (UTC)
  • Keep. The MEPs in the category which is provided by {{MEP-stub}} should be differnt from the category of the stub which is provided by this stub because the Articles which are in the category of {{MEP-stub}} can rather quickly be replaced by more extensive articles and are quite minimalistic. The Articles which are using this newer MEP-stub however mostly need manual review and tuning of Mediawiki-Links. Would all these articles be changed to MEP-stub, it would become harder to quickly find and go thru all those minimalist MEP stubs and complete the information to what is publically available. On the other hand, if somebody visits all the articles which use this newer MEP-stub, he/she can better review the article, improve the wikilinks in it and then delete the use of the stub. --81.243.231.209 2 July 2005 12:06 (UTC)
    • A suggestion: Why not reword the standard template to something like
This MEP article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding. Many MEP 
stubs can be easily expanded using the personal web site of the MEP. Check 
here to see whether this article can be expanded in this way.

Then make a list of those that can, complete with links to their websites - which would be less time consuming than clicking on the link currently on the template. It would make for just one template, one category, and a differentiation between articles that can and cannot be quickly expanded. Even though WP generally doesn't like having lists which are primarily links, having a list of those MEPs with websites may be a list worth keeping. Grutness...wha? 3 July 2005 10:03 (UTC)

Category:Mariah Carey Related Articles Stubs (no template)[edit]

The articles in this are all bio-stubs. Several probably belong on vfd, and none of them are more than peripherally connected with Ms. Carey. They've all been put in this category manually (there's no template). The category is thoroughly mis-capitalised, clunky, and... do I need to go on? Horrible, horrible, horrible. Grutness...wha? 30 June 2005 11:35 (UTC)

  • Hi, I made the category, and I would like to protest its deletion. The articles were created as they were red links on other needed entries, and this cateogory was created as a way of collecting the articles. I don't intend for this category to be a permanent fixture, but for other people to see these stubs and help expand upon on them. I feel if you delete this category, those articles would get lost into obscurity, and it's already helped some of the stubs in the category get expanded on. OmegaWikipedia 30 June 2005 20:50 (UTC)
    • As stated below, the articles would be easier to find if properly categorized and stubbed, not in a generic "Mariah Carey" related "syub" category. Especially since most of these persons and articles are only marginally related to Carey. --FuriousFreddy 8 July 2005 04:36 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Delete. While I find this to be an interesting effort, it generates some problems. Essentially, if we allow this stub category to exist, soon we will have to allow BritneySpears-stub, GreenDay-stub, and other stub categories for artists on MTV, ad infinitum. So it might not be of the best interest of the community that this stub category s kept. --Sn0wflake 30 June 2005 22:03 (UTC)
    • There's also the problem that - as I said before - these people are all better served by other stub categories, and mostly they only have peripheral connections to Carey. Is a session musician who has worked with 20 different artists to get twenty stub categories related to each of those artists? No. They get one musician stub, where people editing articles on musicians can find them. And that's not to mention all the other problems with the category itself. Grutness...wha? 1 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)
    • As I said before, yes, these people do not have the greatest connections to Mariah, and this stub was only created to help create awareness for these articles. If you can expand upon them, please do so, but in the meantime, I believe it would help to give these articles they were created to fight red links some sort of basis to stand out to be expanded on. 1 July 2005 02:00 (UTC)
      • That's what the existing stub categories are for. If you yourself want to have them all in a neat collection of your own, that's what your user page is for. I see you'vew already copied the list there, so this stub category needs to go. --FuriousFreddy 8 July 2005 04:36 (UTC)
      • If they don't have a big connection to Mariah Carey, and are better covered by existing stub categories, then they should be categorised there. Grutness...wha? 1 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)
  • Delete but be sure these stubs get properly categorized first. — The Storm Surfer 1 July 2005 04:43 (UTC)
  • Delete. Recat as {{musician-stub}}. Nabla 2005-07-01 23:00:25 (UTC)
  • Delete; creator misunderstands both stubs and categories. A2Kafir 2 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)
  • Delete While a general category for Mariah Carey related articles may be appropriate, there is not indication that there is any need for a stub category on the topic. --Allen3 talk July 2, 2005 22:52 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. For the reasons stated above. All of this Mariah Carey over-drive is making me hate the woman. --FuriousFreddy 8 July 2005 04:36 (UTC)