Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005

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

July 2nd[edit]

Delete redirect {{Canada-AB-geo-stub}}[edit]

This is a redirect to {{Alberta-geo-stub}}. As it has an arcane name, it is unlikely to be used by accident and I think it's best to remove the potential for it being used intentionally. This has been orphaned.
Courtland July 2, 2005 13:36 (UTC)

  • Weak keep - see below. Grutness...wha? 2 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)

Delete redirect {{Canada-BC-geo-stub}}[edit]

This is a redirect to {{BrColumbia-geo-stub}}. It's name is understandable, but it doesn't conform to the stub template title guidelines in having "Canada-BC-geo" rather than "CanadaBC-geo". Also, it is not consistent in form with {{Alberta-geo-stub}} (i.e. 'Canadian province'-geo-stub). This has been orphaned.
Courtland July 2, 2005 15:35 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. These two redirects, plus {{Canada-ON-geo-stub}} and {{Canada-QC-geo-stub}} were deliberately created as part of the canda geo-split last month. Given that thy are a further split of Canada-geo-stub into smaller sections, they do conform to title guidelines, although the smaller variable is the second, rather than the first part, much as it is in US-midwest-geo-stub and the like. Grutness...wha? 2 July 2005 19:58 (UTC) (modified, as noted below)
    • Then should the BrColumbia-geo and Alberta-geo stub templates be deleted? Or do you want to keep them all. Courtland July 3, 2005 18:51 (UTC)
  • The orginal idea was to keep both, with the Province-geo-stub as the main name and the others as redirects, in the same way that it was originally intended that there would be US state redirects like {{US-WA-geo-stub}}. I see though that those weren't made... personally, I prefer using the Province-geo-stub names, but the others were created because other stub sorters said they'd be useful. If they're not being used, though... hmmm. Make my vote a weak keep rather than a strong one. Grutness...wha? 4 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)
  • The more I think about it, the more I think that if these aren't being used, there's no real point in having them. I'm not actually going to vote against them, but I'm cancelling my vote of keep for the redirects. I'm quite happy just to have the Province-geo-stub names and leave it at that. Grutness...wha? 8 July 2005 08:20 (UTC)

Note on the two votes above: I relisted all four of the redirects for more comments, and I'm logging this as no consensus. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:18, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

July 6th[edit]

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

This links to New Zealand stubs, which is good, Last time I checked there was no alternative stub or redirect for New Zealand related stubs. *Kat* 06:16, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

There isn't. Sigh - this had to happen eventually... this is the first template I ever made - long before I knew the naming standards. I'd suggest making {{NZ-stub}} and redirecting kiwi-stub to it, until such time as the population of kiwi-stub drops (currently there are a couple of hundred of them). At least try to keep my kiwi icon :) Grutness...wha? 06:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Some not really stub-related discussion followed, which I'm not taking to this page. This redirect is still used on 100+ articles. I myself see little harm in keeping the redirect. -- grm_wnr Esc 6 July 2005 12:50 (UTC)

  • Keep. Quite logical, actually. It's not harming anything either. --Sn0wflake 6 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)
  • I know I'm biased, but I can't see any harm in keeping this, despite its non-standard name. Grutness...wha? 7 July 2005 04:49 (UTC)
  • Keep, but redirect. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

{{Cartoon-stub}} (and Category:Cartoon-related stubs) (redirect template, delete cat)[edit]

I've just been through this, looking at what was in there - what a mess! I emptied out 16 stubs, which now have {{animation-stub}} (6); {{anime-stub}} (3); {{Disney-stub}} (1); {{comics-stub}} (3); {{tvseries-stub}} (2); and {{ad-stub}} (1). It's now empty, and since it plays havoc with the hierarchy (it slices! It dices!), I suggest getting rid of it. Any objections? Comments? Grutness...wha? 08:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree to deleting it. Hiding 13:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The title and concept are common enough that it might be recreated at any time, several times. If you agree with that, then it might be wise to keep it around as a redirect (recalling the "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" saying), probably pointing at {{animation-stub}}. This allows the semantics of the template to be controlled by association. Courtland 01:30, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. As the above emptying showed, it links more to animation-stub than to any of the others. Grutness...wha? 02:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm kind of worried about equating cartoon with animation, but yes, I agree that that's probably the practical solution.Hiding 08:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is a bit of a kludge, but sadly there's no such thing as a disambiguation template! Grutness...wha? 08:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I missed that this one wasn't already redirected. Has now 23 articles again. I would prefer to delete it, but could also live with a merge/redirect to {{animation-stub}}, which would mean deleting the category only. -- grm_wnr Esc 6 July 2005 22:12 (UTC)

Keep it for now. It seems that the category continues to be used. Although you maybe right that many of the stubs can be moved to other areas, there are enough of stub articles that would be difficult to place and this also becomes a decent dump location for those who do not know what to do with their stubs. Aznph8playa 10:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I can't see any in there that would be difficult to place - all of them are well served by other - less ambiguous - stub templates. And the fact that they belong in several different categories is a good indication that deletion is probably better than redirection, although redirection is still a better option than keeping it. Grutness...wha? 12:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

July 9th[edit]

{{seminary-stub}} / Category:Seminary stubs[edit]

Created just on two months ago, and in that time it's been used on one article. I doubt there would be many more it could be used on, and it's adequately covered by school-stub and/or reli-stub anyway. There isn't even a category for seminary, so why would we need a stub category for it? Grutness...wha? 9 July 2005 10:31 (UTC)

  • Delete - I'm really enjoying this, as an inclusionist I don't get to use the D word often! :-) PhilHibbs | talk 12:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • keep. If you look at Seminary, you will see a very incomplete list of seminaries, many of which could be classified as stubs. I've added the stub template to a small number, but the need is there. If the problem is that there isn't a seminary category, its easy enough to make one (and there is a category for RC seminaries. Gentgeen 18:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, or rename to something like 'theological seminaries'. The trouble with categories is being able to find them in the first place, and then to use them correctly. I can think of additional entries for the category. An artfully phrased argument on google would probably turn up quite a number, many of which probably have wiki articles. A clear distinction needs to be made between theo. sems. and bible colleges.--FourthAve 20:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Heh, it looks like someone went through the trouble and filled it up nicely. It looks much better now. Maybe we should nominate other stub types for deletion and see if we get the same effect :) --Joy [shallot] 21:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • A reasonnable keep, now. Circeus 21:17, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep 54 articles, nice work.inigmatus 21:53, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • OK good save. Definitely worth keeping now. Grutness...wha? 05:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

July 11th[edit]

{{Australia-depot-stub}} / Category:Australian rail stubs / redirect at {{AU-depot-stub}}[edit]

This one is a problem in three parts. I don't intend for a deletion of the category and main template, although I do feel the redirect ({{AU-depot-stub}}) should go. The problem, sadly, is more subtle than that. {{XX-depot-stub}} is for railway stations. yet for some reason {{Australia-depot-stub}} is being used for railways in general - tracks, companies, disasters, you name it. I would propose {{Australia-depot-stub}} and Category:Australia train station stubs, and if there are enough stubs left that don't count, having that as a child of {{Australia-rail-stub}} and Category: Australia rail stubs. Grutness...wha? 08:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Rename to {{Australia-rail-stub}}. The whole -depot-stub naming convention is a wretched abomination, and it is by no means clear to me that a specific stub category for stations is useful. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 07:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Resolved: renamed/redirected to {{Australia-rail-stub}} --ScottDavis 06:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

July 12th[edit]

{{soft-eng-stub}}/ Category:Software engineering stubs[edit]

This is covered by other stubs and is near empty. Doesnt fit the Stub project name guidelines either. 00:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Fixing nomination. This was on the wrong day, only nominated the template and not the category, and wasn't on sfd-current. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This seems to have a community of interest behind it, although it would be useful if they had proposed it through WP:WSS. Could grow, although it's not up to criterion yet. The stub name may need changing, though. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This is a stub about Software engineering. It's a seperate, distinct branch of Computer science. so, it needs differenciation. I don't see why we need to rename it, anyway. Project2501a 01:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Comment: uh, i'm fixing the category right now. should have 45 articles added to it in uh, 50 minutes. i'm on dial up. Project2501a 01:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The current name isn't in line with stub template naming, as being too ambiguous (see WP:WSS/NG). "Eng" could mean engineering, engraving, England, engine, engagement, or any of dozens of other things. In fact it's already used to mean England on another stub type (again, one that probably needs renaming). Grutness...wha? 02:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
The "soft-" gives all the disambiguating context necessary. — 00:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a significant, if young, field and deserves segregation from computer science generally. Kelly Martin 02:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Significance of the field is important for normal categorisation, but is irrelevant as far as stub categorisation is concerned. Far more importance is the relevance of the split in terms of number of items within the category, as the only real purpose of the stub categories is to help editors. The main questions to ask are: will a split reduce an overburdened category? (not really - most of the computer fields are standard stub sorting limits); Are there enough stubs (i.e., 60-100) for a split? (currently no, but getting close, and it is likely to soon); Is the field covered by other stubs? (yes, but only approximately). This is the whole reason why stub categories and templates are proposed and debated before creation. Grutness...wha? 04:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. — flamingspinach | (talk) 02:46:50, 2005-07-12 (UTC)
  • (Weak) keep, precedent has been set with {{Canberra suburb stub}}, which was kept even though its parent was smaller, and its field was much narrower. Rename might be useful, though I see relatively little ambiguity here (and we've got worse). Software engraving is not really an option I might consider ;). -- grm_wnr Esc 07:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • and I would have liked to see an engraved software, not the usual engraved hardware, such as stones...and keep, btw, but would a rename, perhaps to {{software-eng-stub}}solve the slight dissens? Lectonar 08:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • It's more the "eng" I'm worried about - we use "soft" elsewhere for software, but - as I said before - we use "eng" elsewhere for England. But if people are happy with it I'm willing to go with the flow. Grutness...wha? 09:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is definitely a distinct research area within Computer Science (so we could expect more articles on it). I don't mind renaming, though. --IByte 22:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: important research area and ambiguity is unlikely to be a problem, since editors won't be looking for the {{soft-english}} template.... -Splash 02:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep --R.Koot 23:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

July 18th[edit]

{{Broadway-stub}}/Category:Broadway stubs[edit]

Created a month ago, since used on one article - only discovered today when it was put on the stub list (i.e., not cleared via WP:WSS/C. Category doesn't have all the usual parents, but otherwise well formed. But an unnecessary split of Theatre stubs - which isn't heavily populated (<500 at last tally), and not a good way of splitting it (if it were to be split, then musicals/ballet/drama would be a more obvious first split). Not useful. Grutness...wha? 01:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Changing my vote from delete to neutral. I'm not entirely convinced, but there is a WikiProject, which does change matters. Grutness...wha? 06:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I created the stub as part of a WikiProject that I started, WikiProject Broadway. I haven't been working with the project in a little while, but I've been intending to go back and get the stub used on more articles. There are a fair amount of articles (and articles that need writing) on Broadway Theatres, Broadway shows, and other topics (actors, notable Broadway directors and designers), that I've been planning to work on, and was hoping to use the stub for. I apologise for not submitting the stub for consideration to WP:WSS/C, I hadn't been by that page previously, and didn't realize that was expected. If Grutness would consider rescinding the STfD, I would be delighted to do so, however I do not want to submit the stub concurrently with an open deletion vote.Thanks for your time and consideration. EvilPhoenix talk 02:59, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I would agree that musicals/ballet/drama/opera is a better way of dividing the stubs. --BaronLarf 05:28, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Well, the project I'm currently working on is to make entries for all current Broadway shows, and the theatres that they run in, which in themselves have a pretty interesting history. When I split out the project from WikiProject Theatre, I was thinking more about a geographical distribution than a topical one. New York City is the most important city for Theatre in the United States, and is what I'm trying to focus on with this project. Broadway encompasses musicals and drama (but not ballet or opera, imo), which is why I wanted the more inclusive tag: It can be used for theatre building articles, director/designer articles, articles about shows themselves, etc, whereas directors, theatre buildings, and designers are harder to categorize into musicals, drama, opera, or ballet, as they can easily be relevant to several or all of those categories. EvilPhoenix talk 06:27, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that very few noteworthy plays, actors, or directors play only on Broadway - which is why they'd be better served by other stubs ({{actor-stub}}, for instance). Theatres themselves, of course, are happily covered by {{NYC-stub}} and/or by {{US-struct-stub}}. It makes far more sense to split things up by the categories currently in use than introducing a new one that cuts across them. Grutness...wha? 06:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Alright, as I understand it, the hierarchy which is proposed as more appropriate is as follows:
  • Theatre
    • Musicals
    • Ballet
    • Drama
    • Opera.
Allow me to compare that with the current hierarchy, as it exists within the Theatre categories(this is not the full hierarchy, just those relevant to my point):
  • Theatre
    • Cabaret
    • Drama
    • Dramatists and Playwrights
    • Plays
    • Theatre by Nationality
      • British Theatre
      • Canadian Theatre
      • U.S. Theatre
        • New York Theatre
          • Broadway Theatre
          • Off and Off/Off Broadway Theatre
    • Theatres
So, as you can see, the hierarchy in place does split off Drama and Plays, but it does not currently include Ballet (perhaps it should), but Ballet falls more under Dance and Music, as does Opera, which is also not included (perhaps it should be). However, what I would like to point out, is the categorization of Broadway Theatre, parented to New York, U.S, and Geographic descriptions of theatre. The suggestion has been made to split off the projects differently, as per above, while I would argue that if you look at the existing hierarchy of Categories, Broadway Theatre falls under a different area, and therefore different split. Personally, I feel that WikiProjects and Categories ought to have some connection in their hierarchies. However, there does not currently exist a WikiProject Plays, or WikiProject Musicals, or WikiProject Drama, though I feel that they could easily exist, it's not something I have personally been interested in pursuing. As they currently do not exist in the WikiProject hierarchy, I linked WikiProject Broadway up almost directly to WikiProject Theatre. That is why I feel the breakup as currently exists is appropriate.
Further, I have a few thoughts on the proposed seperation. First, I don't think that the word Drama is an appropriate description to go with Musicals, Ballet, and Opera. Drama is a style of performance piece, whereas the others are types of performances. I believe that rather than Drama, "Plays" would be the more appropriate choice, as there are both plays and musicals that are dramatic, and plays and musicals that are comedic. Drama is not really an appropriate description for a theatrical style...I most often see it used at the high school level, such as the "Drama team", which I think is an unfortunate misnomer.
I think that ultimately, Theatre, like many areas of human activity, is complicated, and multi-layered, and there is no one easy seperation into a nice clean hierarchy. Various elements of theatre will always be interconnected and interwoven, and Broadway is no exception. I created this tag, and Project area, to serve a specific area of theatre, with a specific locality, but a far reaching and interconnected influence. I believe there is a notable and significant amount of topics encompassed by the project, and I would like to be able to have this tag available to more easily locate articles across a wide range of topics that have relevance to Broadway and this Project.
I would ask you to consider that I feel that Broadway Theatre is a notable and significant area of information, and therefore it is both a notable and significant WikiProject, and that the stub-tag for the project is notable and significant, and therefore should be kept. EvilPhoenix talk 17:28, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment; and don't understand that wrong, for the existence of a stub-category, it isn't a question whether your project and/or Broadway theatre per se is significant, but only if the stub-template in question is something which helps others in splitting up the stubs in necessary sub-categories; with one stub tagged as {{Broadway-stub}} around, I don't see the need for one. This doesn't imply that the Broadway or the associated wikiproject isn't notable and significant, but sorry, I stand by my opinion below, a stub isn't necessarily needed. If the {{theatre-stub}} was filled with thousands of stubs, of which around 50-60 pertained to the one here in question, it would be another matter Lectonar 06:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as it is associated with a project. Weak because of the unecessary (for the moment) split and the cutting across categories. Also because the project currently has two members and might not be particularly active. --TheParanoidOne 05:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I hope my above comment addresses your first concern, and I'm hoping that more editors will join as the project gains wider advertising. I'm sure there are other editors interested in the topic who may have not yet found their way into the Project page. I'm still in the process of trying to find all of the articles that fit into the project, before I start creating articles that are missing. EvilPhoenix talk 06:27, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • weak Delete; I still see the cutting across categories as a major problem; IMHO, stubs are more of an editing tool, so I think that people coming around to have a look will probably be looking for other stub-types in general, as people outside the USA wouldn't necessarily know that a particular show started on Broadway, e.g. Lectonar 06:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC) also see my comment above Lectonar 14:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment the WikiProject associated with the template has one member, and seems to be inactive since its creation. I left a message on its talk page back in late June with no response. Cheers. --BaronLarf 13:02, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I'm sorry you have chosen to leave the Project, but it is not inactive. I do believe Broadway theatre is a significant, notable topic, and I believe the Project is viable. I'm sorry you have decided to leave, I would have valued your contributions and assistance with getting the project better advertised. I'm sorry your Talk page comment was not promptly responded to. Best regards, EvilPhoenix talk 17:28, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Calton | Talk 02:10, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A broadway musical is well-known as a type of musical theatre. Antares33712 22:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

rename of {{standard-stub}}/Category:Standards stubs[edit]

This one's being proposed as the result of a discussion at WP:WSS/C over whether a separate {{unit-stub}} is needed(probably not, it's covered by standard-stub). The ambiguously named standard-stub has needed a rename for a while. Not only does it not refer to stubs that are standard (i.e., ordinary), nor to flags, but what it actually seems to be used for is standard forms of measurement - SI units, testing procedures and the like. As such, I'd like to suggest changing it to {{measurement-stub}} and Category: Measurement stubs, which, at the very least, is a bit more understandable. Grutness...wha? 08:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

renaming to {{measurement-stub}} is fine with me. Oleg Alexandrov 01:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as is unless you want to remove the various ISO and similar standards? Circeus 21:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • A compromise - measurement-stub as a redirect, and the category changed to "Standards and Measurements stubs"? It does seem that there are two different but connected things in this category, but I doubt it's big enough to split in two yet. Grutness...wha? 04:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Sounds right to me. Circeus 12:58, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Compromise sounds good. Have I overlooked another type of cruft? Do we have standardscruft lurking where noone looks? -Splash 17:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

July 19th[edit]

Category:Rocket and spacecraft stubs[edit]

This used to be the category for {{rocket-stub}}. But now we have {{spacecraft-stub}}. All the articles still in the category after I winnowed out spacecraft and other articles have been moved to Category:Rocket stubs. So Category:Rocket and spacecraft stubs is now empty and can go bye-bye. My only worry is the interwiki with Russian; I can't read Russian to try to figure out whether I should interwiki one of the new categories with the Russian one. A2Kafir 16:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

"Stub articles on rocket technology and space apparatus" is what the Russian says. Since this has now been split, it could either simply be deleted, or used as a parent category for both the new ones. Either way is fine by me. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; why bother to have it around? changed to neutral (I don't mind) Lectonar 06:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep after what Grutness said. I'll just use it as a parent category for the rocket stub and spacecraft stub categories. I think it's important to preserve the Russian interwiki, especially with space articles, since Russian is a dominant language in space exploration. A2Kafir 12:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

July 26th[edit]

Rename of {{MDpolitician-stub}}[edit]

This stub has over 100 articles in it so I guess it's a decent child of {{US-politician-stub}}. But the name isn't intuitive. I see "MD" and immediately think "doctor". I propose a rename to {{Maryland-politician-stub}}. --TheParanoidOne 05:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment: MD is Maryland's AP and postal abbreviation, but if it's that much of a problem then I suppose a renaming wouldn't hurt anyone. --tomf688<TALK> 15:48, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Another comment: How many medical doctor politicians are there out there? ;) --tomf688<TALK> 20:50, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
A surprising number, actually. I can think of at least three current New Zealand MPs (out of 120 MPs), so if that tiny sample's anything to go by, 2.5% of politicians. And MD is also Moldova's ISO code. Which is why we don't use that sort of code for stubs when they can be avoided - too much ambiguity! Grutness...wha? 01:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
"but if it's that much of a problem". That may indeed be a problem. I only knew that MD was Maryland because of the stub text. I'm sure there are many people like me who know (almost) nothing about US postal codes (or what an "AP" is). So are you now leaning towards a rename as your comment suggests? --TheParanoidOne 05:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, and it's the car-plate code for Magdeburg :); Rename as per TheParanoidOne's suggestion Lectonar 06:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
or what an "AP" is - The Associated Press. --tomf688<TALK> 14:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
I work part time for a different "AP" - Allied Press. (my s.o. is also an A.P., but that's another matter, although, by coincidence, her g-grandfather is redlinked on the page I've just linked!) Grutness...wha? 14:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Rename. Altho I live in Maryland, so it's not ambiguous for me, I can see that it would be confusing. Also, wouldn't {{MD-politician-stub}} be the correct form if it were to keep the appreviation? --Mairi 20:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
It would, if it were kept. Grutness...wha? 01:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)