Jump to content

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted/March 2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 3rd

[edit]

{{innerasteroid-stub}} / Category:Inner solar system asteroid stubs

[edit]

Very small category, only 20 articles. Merge with {{asteroid-stub}}. --GW_Simulations 22:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganize all minor planet stubs this way:
Everything else does not seem to be viable. (Or just merge as proposed as a preliminary step.) Conscious 06:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 4th

[edit]

Rescope of {{tea-stub}} and Tea stubs

[edit]

This has been languishing on the Discoveries page since the middle of August 2005. The category has 32 stubs. The suggestion on the Discoveries page is to rescope the category to Category:Tea and coffee stubs and have a separate {{coffee-stub}} feeding into it as well. I propose that the category be rescoped as described above. There seem to be enough stubs in Category:Coffee and Category:Drink stubs to bring this to at least 50 stubs. If this succeeds, I'll go ahead and create {{coffee-stub}}. --TheParanoidOne 23:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--Is it not good form to wait a week, or at least two or three days??Eagle (talk) (desk) 18:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes it is - but this was proposed at WP:WSS/P several months ago, so that counts. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I believe the teas and coffees stubs should remain separate from each other. These are two separate subjects and in my opinion appropriately require a stub template each. Captain scarlet 16:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the moment neither one has enough stubs for separate templates. Together they reach threshold for one stub type - so the only real options are for a combined and rescoped tea and coffee stub category or dumping them back in drink stubs. They can always be split into two stub types later if and when they both reach threshold (rescope, BTW). Grutness...wha? 18:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{aa-lang-stub}} → {{afro-asiatic-lang-stub}} {{AfroAsiatic-lang-stub}}

[edit]

The current name is not merely cryptic, but outright ambiguous, apparently leading to some missorted austro-Asiatic languages (a completely different language group). Rename as above, or at least to something that makes the distinction explicit. Alai 19:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- cushitic language needs to be diffetrentiated from cushite. It is just as impotant as Bantu and Nilotic which have their own stubs. There is also the reference to Biblical Cush which seems to imply a reference to these cushitic people. Their existence as cushitic People predates the caregorization of languages into groups such as Afroasiatic, and this should be acknowledged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titikaka (talk • contribs)

No-one's suggesting it be deleted - we just want the template renamed because it is ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 00:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, with the hyphen. Utilize redirects to avoid problems with case sensitivity. Most users will instinctively type an all-lowercase stub title, for what it's worth. — Mar. 12, '06 [16:22] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    • Rename without the hyphen, to keep consistent. most stubsorters will instinctively type the stub title with the caps, which is far more relevant. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 21:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Far more relevant because you said it? I don't appreciate your condescension. — Mar. 15, '06 [16:07] <freakofnurxture|talk>
        • Please assume good faith. BL's right - what she said is far more relevant, and isn't condescending, unlike claiming that she meant it was relevant only because she said it. Stub sorters are more likely to use the template without the hyphen and with capitals because that is the standard way that stub templates are named. And stub sorters used to the stub naming conventions are those who will be sorting most of the stubs with the template. Grutness...wha? 07:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't like the process through which stub-sorting is becoming more and more of an elitist pastime. CamelCase is not typical stub-naming nomenclature. Redirects would be preferable to arguing. I don't care what the correct title is, as long as I can find one that works without having to check the damn manual every time. — Mar. 17, '06 [08:30] <freakofnurxture|talk>
            • Are we AGFing yet? I don't see what's remotely "elitist" about stub-sorting, or about BL's claim (whether true or not). To posit some difference between what "users" in general might do, and what "stub-sorters" might do is surely just to suppose that some people do it more frequently than others, and that this may lead to some greater naming consistency on their part. Given that there's not yet an established pattern for the naming of language-family-stubs I see no harm in adding a redirect (one way or the other), though I don't think the approach of "the more redirects the merrier" is ultimately desirable. Alai 17:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 5th

[edit]

{{Guyana-bio-stub}} / Guyanese people stubs

[edit]

Both created in July 2005. Currently used on 13 stubs. Parent stub category Guyana stubs is only at 44 stubs, so they could easily be merged. --TheParanoidOne 23:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 6th

[edit]

{{Egypt-struct-stub}}/Category:Buildings and structures in Egypt stubs

[edit]

Incorrectly named category, unproposed, and with only 10 stubs. Category:Africa buildings and structures stubs was only broken out about six weeks ago, largely on the strength of the 20 or so Egyptian buildings - and it only has about 70 stubs - so one of those two categories will become chronically undersized. Simply an unnecessary split at present. Delete. Grutness...wha? 05:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 21:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Used on one article. Carries the "maintained by WSS" template -- anyone recall seeing this proposed? Also a recreation of a previous deletion, but to be fair, that was almost a year ago. Alai 04:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i never saw it proposed. delete as underused BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 21:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it gets deleted, and is then proposed at a later date when there is a bigger need, can we then keep it? - • The Giant Puffin • 15:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The category can be recreated when (and if) there are enough stubs to put into it. Conscious 17:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Used on a mighty one article, not so far as I know ever proposed. Alai 04:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless it grows 4000% in a week. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 21:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's very lenient: is there a wikiproject? :) Alai 21:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Mexico-painter-stub}} / Category:Mexican painter stubs

[edit]

Used on three articles, don't image current scope is very much larger. Alai 23:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Austria-painter-stub}} / Category:Austrian painter stubs

[edit]

Used on three articles; neither parent is exactly massive, giving distinct concerns as to scope. Alai 23:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Mex-tv-station-stub}} / Category:Mexico television station stubs

[edit]

Used on one article; there is some population in Category:Television stations in Mexico though, if anyone fancies a rummage. Am tempted to wonder if a more inclusive type such as Category:Mexican television stubs wouldn't be a better plan, though. Alai 05:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{mexico-tv-stub}} is in the Old Business section waiting to be deleted. Perhaps it could be rescoped to the category you suggest? --TheParanoidOne 22:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, though obviously renaming the category. Alai 02:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: Rescoped to {{Mexico-tv-stub}} and Category:Mexican television stubs. --TheParanoidOne 23:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

March 7th

[edit]

{{regional-literature-stub}} / Category:Regional Literature Stubs and {{marathi-regional-literature-stub}} / Category:Marathi Regional Literature stubs

[edit]

These are two of the worst formed templates and categories I have seen in a while, and also two of the dumbest ideas for stub types I have seen for a while. Let me count their problems:

  1. {{marathi-regional-literature-stub}} feeds into both categories; {{regional-literature-stub}} feeds into neither category.
  2. The categories are recursive, feeding into themselves
  3. The wording of both the templates and categories are badly mis-spelt
  4. The category names are miscapitalised
  5. All literature is regional to somewhere, unless it was written by someone moving very quickly
  6. Literature stubs aren't split up by place; they are split up by type of literature
  7. Between the two of them, these had one article
  8. That article not only had the marathi stub on it, it also had both stub categories added by hand (it was a play-stub, BTW, and is now marked as such)
  9. The stub categories added by hadnd were different ones: Category:Regional Literature stubs and Category:Marathi Regional Literature Stubs (which should also both be deleted)
  10. None of these was proposed; if they had been, they would have certainly been rejected - the first of them because it is an idiotic idea, the second because it is far too specific and cuts across categories (we don't even have an Indian literature stub, although an Indian novel stub and an Indian play stub are both possibilities).
  11. The categories' only parents are Category:Regional Literature nor a Category:Marathi Regional Literature
  12. Oh, and those two categories are both empty other than the stub categories and themselves (yes, they too are recursive), and what's more, both of them (according to what is written in them) are also only for stubs! If so, then make it six categories and two templates for deletion!

These two stubs should not only be deleted, they should be thoroughly eradicated - or perhaps listed somewhere of good examples of how not to go about making stub types! Grutness...wha? 12:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emptied midwest school stubs

[edit]

All now empty, in favour of Category:Midwestern United States school stubs. Speedy delete the categories after the requisite period of lying fallow. Keep associated templates, as fed into new category, for ease of future re-sorting. Alai 04:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Speedy delete as soon as they die the whole way.Eagle (talk) (desk) 04:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 8th

[edit]

{{Aero-year-stub}} / Category:1900s aircraft stubs / Category:1910s aircraft stubs / Category:1920s aircraft stubs

[edit]

I know, deja vu all over again, but hopefully we can achieve some clarity, and maybe even actual consensus this time. The dreaded parameterised stub type is now unused (at time of writing, at least), having been replaced by individual stub templates per category. The three undersized category have been emptied in favour of the proposed, and now created and populated, Category:Pre-1930 aircraft stubs (which isn't much over threshold itself). Speedy delete (after four days). Alai 22:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. --Valentinian (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert changes & Strong Keep - Sorry, I was looking at the wrong page Delete. --GW_Simulations 20:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as I know, the speedy deletion criterion for categories doesn't apply to the categories that have been voluntarily emptied in favour of some other category. It's for those that have never been used. That said, I support deletion of these four items and prefer Category:Pre-1930 aircraft stubs. Conscious 07:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not that specific, though it does say "deeper investigation is needed". Granted it's a different situation from the "persistently empty/tiny types". Alai 17:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cuba-painter-stub}} / Category:Cuban painter stubs

[edit]

Used on one particle. As the permanent category only has two -- one of them, yes, the same article -- this seems too narrow in scope. Alai 21:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 9th

[edit]

Category:Political scientists stubs

[edit]

Emptied in favour of Category:Political scientist stubs, as per the naming conventions, and earlier discussion on WP:WSS/P. Delete, as speedily as anyone cares to. Alai 18:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and just like that <click> it's gone! Grutness...wha? 02:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{RC-order-stub}} / Category:Catholic order stubs

[edit]

Used on two articles. I think this was proposed, but it seems to both be very narrow, and not to map directly onto the permanent category Category:Roman Catholic orders and societies. Sideways merge to Category:Catholic society stubs. Alai 02:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if it has been there for more than a month. 2 articles is not worth a category.Eagle (talk) (desk) 03:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It's co-existence with the aforementioned Catholic Orders & Societies category creates confusion and little else. Black-Velvet 08:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Macgun-stub}} / Category:Machine gun stubs

[edit]

Used on one article. Probably some undersorting of Category:Firearms stubs, but equally, it's not all that large. Alai 02:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

very badly named template, too. Where is the USB port on a gun, and can they run under both OSX and Classic? Grutness...wha? 05:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Boston, Massachusetts stub}} / Category:Boston, Massachusetts stubs

[edit]

Another hydra-stubbed wikiproject. Used on one article, merge with {{Massachusetts-stub}} / Category:Massachusetts stubs. Let's not bother keeping the template, as it's not well-named. Alai 02:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awful name for both, especially sincve most Boston categories don't have the state name IIRC. Delete (which is what a merge without keeping template or category would be, Alai :) Grutness...wha? 05:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smart guy, eh? :) Alai 05:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{France-journalist-stub}} / Category:French journalist stubs

[edit]

Another stub type WSS has been "maintaining", without knowing it existed. Used on one article. Alai 02:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't recall {{Journalist-stub}} being overly crowded - lose the category, the template can be redirected, though if there's only one stub, it may not be necessary. Grutness...wha? 05:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Singer-keyboardist-stub}} / Category:Singer-keyboardist stubs

[edit]

This was fairly small already, and I confess I've somewhat shrunk it further by splitting up some of the US specimens to go into US-singer and US-keyboardist, instead. Now just 7 of 'em. Created by "one of us", but was this ever proposed? (There's also {{singer-guitarist-stub}}, which also seems somewhat conceptually problematic, but is at least larger.) Alai 06:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 11th

[edit]

{{HK-actor-stub}} → {{Hong-Kong-actor-stub}} or {{HongKong-actor-stub}}

[edit]

For slightly less crypticism, ambiguity, and inconsistency with the other categories. (Was this ever proposed?) There's a (very) small prize for anyone who can guess who created this, without looking at the edit history... Alai 23:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've no real objection to using HK for Hong Kong - it's moderately unabiguous and well known - but if it is changed, I'd prefer {{HongKong-actor-stub}} to Hong-Kong-actor-stub - and the same with any others in the form Hong-Kong-xxx-stub - they're definitely the odd ones out as far as hyphens are concerned. As to who created it... hm... I'm sure the answer will come to me in an Instant... :) Grutness...wha? 00:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with the one-hyphen-less version, though there's several others that should then be changed to match. Now, why HongKong- but Ancient-Greece-, etc, though... Alai 02:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, "Ancient" is a modifier for Greece, Egypt, etc, so a hyphen makes sense - we could easily have a Greece-stub or an Egypt-stub. But "Hong Kong" is the name of the place - "Hong" doesn't modify "Kong" in the same way. Which is why all the other two word geo-stub placenames are hyphenless (like SouthAfrica-geo-stub and BritishColumbia-geo-stub). Grutness...wha? 22:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment rename What ever we do we should try to make the naming consistent...By the way Alai what is it you propose to do here??? Looks to me like a rename(not my vote, I have not voted yet, hence the comment)Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I like the debate here at least we are giving it fair discussion...can we do this for more of these???Eagle (talk) (desk) 04:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why a lot of them don't get much debate here is because they've already been debated when they were first discovered at WP:WSS/D. A fair number of the stubs that end up here have already been checked over to see whether they are a good idea or not - WP:WSS/D acts as a sort of triage for discovered up-proposed stub types. Grutness...wha? 22:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a rename. Alai 06:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Uk-bio-stub}}

[edit]

Transclusion-style redirect {{Uk-bio-stub}}, seemingly previously tagged, but not listed. Alai 20:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 12th

[edit]

{{PATH-stub}} / Category:Port Authority Trans-Hudson stubs(redlink)

[edit]

Unused, as it has been since creation two months ago, apparently. Lousy name, far too specialised, no apparent reason for creation (certainly never proposed), and could never hope to get near threshold - it has only 13 stations, plus one long-closed one. The whole of Category:Port Authority Trans-Hudsononly has 20 articles. Delete Grutness...wha? 23:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{business-school-stub}} / Category:Business school stubs

[edit]

I'm going to give my first stab at nominating an article up for deletion. This one has already been up(put up by conscious) and has only 9 scattered articles. I just want to start a disscussion here about the merits of this. For now my vote will be Delete.(hope I am doing this right)Eagle (talk) (desk) 05:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks very deleteable to me. It's chronically undersized, the parent -- or what should be the parent, i.e. Category:University stubs, which is explicitly scoped to include all tertiaries -- isn't currently in urgent need of splitting, and the existing splits are largely by geography. Alai 06:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This pair was originally nominated in January but was kept due to lack of consensus. The keepers made the following comments:
    "Keep. Can be of use, as there's likely many more business schools which will start as stubs"
    "Keep Very useful, can be easily used to populate several articles, that haven't been stub-catted yet."
In the two months since that nomination, the category has grown from six to eight stubs, so clearly it hasn't been as useful (or as easy to populate) as the above keepers thought. Therefore my thoughts on this are the same as they were last time: "Delete as per nom. Proliferation of tiny stub categories is not fun." --TheParanoidOne 11:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Delete'. For the most part, it makes more sense to split tertiary institutions by their location rather than their field of study - law schools and seminaries are the only two others I know of that are split by field, and both of those make some sense as special cases. Otherwise, though, it's far more likely, I'd think, that someone would know more about tertiary institutes in a particular country than by whether they're business schools, polytechnics,art schools, teachers' colleges or whatever. It's also thoroughly underutilised - eight stubs isn't an indication of usefulness either for stub sorting or for editors. Grutness...wha? 23:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 13th

[edit]

Category:Vancouver stubs/GVRD stubs

[edit]

Discussed below, but now empty (not my doing this time, guv!). Not a great name, either. Delete, or "four-day-speedy" as empty if we're doing those. Alai 03:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately {{gvrd-stub}} now uses the main category, so the situation isn't quite solved. I'd say rename this to Category:Greater Vancouver Regional District stubs to match Category:Greater Vancouver Regional District. Mairi 03:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that; and I see it's now fixed! Either way, the old category should walk the plank... Alai 05:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now that it's at a sensible name, might as well just delete this category... Mairi 05:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 14th

[edit]

rename of {{LUL-stub}}

[edit]

weve had LUL-stub for a while but the name is weird. its for the London Underground (no idea what the last L is for - lines?). {{London-tube-stub}} would be a much better name. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 15th

[edit]

{{Kurd-politician-stub}} / Category:Kurdish politician stubs

[edit]

Created on 3 March. Used on 14 articles. Misformed Incorrectly named and will not reach 60 in any forseable future (given the number of stubs for Iran, Iraq, and Turkey.) Delete --Valentinian (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful stub. --Mais oui! 23:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all other politician stubs have been split by country, not by ethnicity. Valentinian (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be treating the word "country" as being synonymous with "state". They are not synonyms. A country is a geographical entity, which Kurdistan certainly is. --Mais oui! 06:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, all other politicians stubs have been split by nationality, not ethnicity. See for yourself. That's why there's no "Híndu-politician-stub" (or "Sikh-politician-stub") but instead an "India-politician-stub". And if the India category is one day going to be split, it'll be along geographical lines, not ethnic lines. No country in the world recognizes Kurdistan as independent, so it is not a "country". The Kurds are a distinct people but that's another story. Valentinian (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That term is not a nationality, they are citizens of the United States. There's no problem with the Category:Kurdish politicians since categories have no size restriction and are allowed to cut across other categories. This is not allowed with stub categories. I can see 5 problems with this stub category (see below). For the record, nobody is suggesting removing the *articles* only the stub template. Valentinian (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. splits should be by nationality. if we soplit out kurds separately it looks like wikipedia has decided that kurdistan is acountry (which isnt very NPOV!). also the size problems with the category make it a poor one to have - Iraq politician stubs isnt overpopulated and neither are the other ones that have kurds. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be treating the words "nation" and "country" as being synonymous with "state". They are not synonyms. A nation is a cultural entity, which Kurds certainly are. I would argue that there is tons of POV in all these Kurd debates, and not just from one side, so I am afraid that any one position claiming to be more NPOV than the other is likely to be met by incredulity. --Mais oui! 06:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're completely correct about the "tons of POV" on either side in general, but that does not make this question simply subordinate to that debate. It's clearly determinable purely in terms of stub-sorting practice (and if we had a sensible speedy deletion policy, it already would have been). Alai 13:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on size, rename if mysteriously kept. Mais oui, please see the guidance on this page about size of stub types, and on voting rationale. Alai 00:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am very well aware of the criteria, but thanks for re-highlighting the relevant page. I have already provided a rationale: "useful". --Mais oui! 06:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or to quote same: When voting, please try to give a more substantial reason than simply "I like it/find it useful" or "I dislike it/don't find it useful". Your utility argument (even if not ruled out ahead of time) doesn't address the type being undersized, badly named, and its "unusual" scope. (My primary concern is not the last one, though methinks this may not be true of the large number of people turning up here.) Alai 13:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The guidance should be changed. The category system doesn't have an excessive and arbitary limit like that. Bhoeble 07:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the stub system does, because it has a completely different purpose. That is why stub types like this one should be deleted. Grutness...wha? 07:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If the purpose is categorisation, please create a (normal) category. Alai 13:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By all means. There's no problem with an standard Category:Kurdish people or Category:Kurdish politicians Valentinian (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Carlos, nobody is deleting any material. People *are* debating if a stub *template* that doesn't fit anywhere should be deleted or not. Please do not make unsubstantiated allegations. Valentinian (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDELETE As per discussion below, guidelines rule on this one.:This seems to have alot of politics mixed in this...Can someone take a step back(I'm not qualified) and look at this from a purely "Is this an acceptable stub"? What I am reading here is that the category is underused...If it were used it would not even be here...(I would suggest to those who want to keep this to go ahead and show us what will go in here) Also to restate a comment from above all politician stubs are sorted by country...(nationality). If this were to be kept, a possible action could be to put it under iraqi-kurdish-politician-stub...or something like that...?Eagle (talk) (desk)
I will vote keep if I can get a reasonable explenation for why this stub category is valid...WITH OUT allusions to a vedetta towards kurdish people...,To be honest It won't take much...as long as someone can promise it can be populated without affecting the poupulation of other stub categories...(Are there untagged stubs that fit in here...).Eagle (talk) (desk) 20:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I am agiast deleting anything without good reason...here I am not sure as to the reason for a delete...politics aside.Eagle (talk) (desk) 20:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good reasons... Politics have nothing to do with deleting this at all. It's all to do with the way the stubs are sorted. 1) To maintain a sensible structure to the different types of stubs, it's important not to have categories that overlap with each other more than possible. A kurdistan-politician-stub would include politicians currently in four different categories relating to the four countries that Kurdistan ovelaps with. 2) To maintain stub categories that are of an optimum size for editors, stub categories are kept to sizes of between about 60 and 600 stubs. that way individual editors don't get either swamped with thousands of articles while looking for their specialty area or stymied because there are too few stubs for them to really get theoir teeth into. even taking all the stubs relating to Kiurdish politicians out of those four categories there are fewer than 60 stub articles, and none of the four categories have anywhere near 600 stubs. 3) Since it takes a lot of work to deal with problems that arise when templates are edited - and also since these edits can cause problems to the load on Wikipedia's servers - it is vital that templates are not so controversial as to lead to potential edit wars. A stub template for a subject like Kurdistan is pure edit-war bait, as can be seen by the accusations ofpolitical bias flying around in the discussions on this page. Taking those three points one at a time, Kurdistan-poilitician-stub 1) causes problems for stub sorting; 2) causes problems for editors; and 3) potentially causes problems for Wikipedia's servers. Three good reasons to delete it. Grutness...wha? 05:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(carraige tab)....Ok now I'd like to see some good, reasons to keep...With out accusations of a crusade or any thinge else...Keep politics out please. P.S> Gruntness if you must please play Devil's Advocate for me.Eagle (talk) (desk) 20:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly why is it 60 articles...Can you direct me to the discussion on this...50 sounds like a nicer number (its the one I use for new stub categories...For old ones I use 35-40 Provided they have been around a while or have a related projectEagle (talk) (desk) 20:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the size issue; it is an established practice. Grutness uses 65 before he proposes new -geo-stubs, I use 60-62 before I propose a -politician-stub (or any other stub). I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure most other contributors stick to the number 60. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and this range is simply an established convention. As I see it, it is basically a tradeoff between having a manageable system versus having an all-encompassing system. I'm a European and interested in politics, so I'd naturally like all European nations to (one day) have their own -politician-stub with lots of articles. But what's the point in creating a template for the Isle of Man, if it would only have two or three articles with virtually no potential to grow (sorry to any Manx people reading this). Liechtenstein would make a bit more sense - but not much; its number is only 22. Another issue is the necessity of achieving some sort of consistency between stubs of similar (sub-)categories, in order to make the system simple to use for "ordinary" editors (forgive the expression). If an editor has to guess if a Danish stub begins with "Danmark", "dansk", "dansker(e)", "DK", "Dk", "Dane(s)", "Danish", or "Denmark" or whether it's been formed differently from the stubs relating to Sweden or Belgium, it becomes both tedious and a waste of time trying to use it. The editor would be forced to play "what's its name?" This is a very good reason why new stubs should be proposed and debated before they're created. It's the only way to avoid the worst errors that'll just take lots of time correcting later. Want to hear something funny, btw? All those people who defended this stub so strongly during the last few days have so far done absolutely nothing to populate it, so it still sits with 14 (fourteen) stubs, most of which used to belong to the Iran- or Iraq- categories. I have 49 sovereign countries on my list with a higher number of -politician-stubs without their own template. We actually have more stub articles relating to local politicians from a single Argentine province, than for the entire Kurdistan region. It is also rather problematic that so many contributors to this particular discussion have never participated in discussions on this page *before*, since I don't think it means that WP:WSS has suddently got 15 new active members. It would be a really good idea to create an update to procedure following this case. Valentinian (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep A frivolous politically motivated nomination. Kurdish politicians (who, as explained in the category, promote the political interests of Kurds) exist in real life, and hence deserve to have their category, stub, whatever if convenient for their classification. Mukadderat 03:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • why does anyone think there is anything to do with politics in the nomination? the nom is entirely due to the way stubs are used and nothing whatsoever to do with politics. if it had been a similarly vague category on anything it would have been brought here. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please try to assume good faith. As the nominator regularly brings undersized or poorly named stub categories to SFD, when he brings this undersized and badly-named stub type here, it ought not to be especially difficult to make such a presumption. Alai 04:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mukadderat, you made the stub in the first place, and as said before; The problem is that it is 1) named inconsitently with all other similar stubs 2) it has no clear scope, there's no international agreement about the borders of Kurdistan 3) it has a flag that offends Turks and Iranians 4) it violates existing consensus and 5) you totally ignored the message about proposing new stubs here first. I'm not the one with a problem here. A small piece of advice for you: stop making personal attacks. They impress nobody. Valentinian (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with Valentinian. Please notice that there is an official Kurdish local government in Iraq. Iraqi Kurdish politicians have nothing to do with Iranian Kurdistan. They have policies and interests that differ from Iranian Kurdish activists's policies. What does it meen to put Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and former Iranian government spokesman Abdollah Ramezanzadeh or Iranian Kurdish parliament members in ONE political category ?!!! As Valentinian mentioned, the flag is now officially used by Iraqi government, we can not use it for Iran, Turkey and Syria. -- Sina Kardar11:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Those who proposed this Stub are unfamiliar with political structure of Iran. Political parties in Iran are not based on ethnicity. Kurdish cabinet members (former Oil minister and spokesman) and MPs are members of non-Kurdish political parties (e.g. IIPF). A significant fraction of Iranian Kurds believe in Shia faith which make them quite different form Iraqi Kurds who are mainly Sunni. To make it more clear, we can not put Prime minister of Turkey and President of Azerbaijan Republic in one political category based on their common ancestors !!. --Koulten12:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Legitimate grouping. The first point made by the above user is speculation and very likely not true. Anyway, it is not convincing. Hawkestone 16:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with the statements of Valentinian Angelbo 15:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: To quote the top of the page: "Their scope is too limited - As a rule of thumb, there should be at least 50 appropriate stubs in existence." There aren't even 50 articles in the parent category. TimBentley (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Without even dealing with the ethnicity/state/nation/country/culture/whatever issue, it seems very unlikely that this will ever become large enough for there to be 50 stubs. If at some point in the future there are 50 stubs of the appropriate sort, I would be in favor of reconsidering. JoshuaZ 07:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At present way too small, and the name of the template doesn't follow standard format of <name of political division>-politician-stub. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete politicians are only grouped by ethnicity in terms of categories, not stubs. stub types are grouped by location/natioanlity. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 14:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 16th

[edit]

Category:Kurdish people stubs

[edit]

No template -- and no articles, either, although it does have a certain subcategory. I have mixed feelings about this one; it'd in theory be more populable than the -politicians-, especially if that were merged here, and clearly there's a group of editors with an interest in "Kurdistan in general", rather than specifically Iraqi Kurdistan, say, which is a key part of the stub type rationale (people most likely to expand related articles). OTOH, at zero articles it has some growing to do, and a determined campaign not to rescope the child category is going to make this yet harder to make viable. It also itself has no stub parent (I'm assuming it exists purely to act as a parent itself), and is bordering on the "unparentable". I'm listing this partly as it was incorrectly tagged as a speedy, which was then removed. No vote at present. Alai 14:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bearing in mind that we really do prefer stub cats to have at least 50 articles (although exceptions are regularly made - it is only a Guideline, not an Official policy), I would be minded to change my vote on the Kurdish politicians stub to Delete if we decide to keep this parent category, which undoubtedly can make the 50-60 article threshold. The key objective here is to improve and expand Wikipedia's coverage of this subject area, and that is certainly well-served by having its own dedicated stub cat.--Mais oui! 15:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "exceptions" tend to be either for wikiprojects, which there's a clause for in the guidance, or not so much a calculated exception, as a "stymied consensus to delete", which can and does occur in the silliest of cases. But I don't disagree with your gist, I just don't especially want to end up with two seriously undersized types (for the price of one). I'd be inclined to reverse your contingency and say delete this one, unless the child is deleted, but I'll continue mulling for the time being. Alai 18:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Carlos, people are debating whether or not to delete a stub which does not fit anywhere. Not the *material* on Kurdistan or Kurdish people. Please stop making unsubstantiated allegations. No vote at the moment Valentinian (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no reason for deletionDiyako Talk 18:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted. Being kurdish is not an adequate reason for biographies to appear on wikipedia. All bio stubs are sorted by either nationality or by occupation. Being kurdish is neither a nationality nor occupation. Hence speedy delete was more than approporate as the category does not fit anywhere unless we consider kurdish a nationality and kurdistan a country which would be pov not shared by international treaties. --Cool CatTalk|@ 11:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cool Caat All bio stubs are sorted by either nationality or by occupation. Nationality does not equal recognised statehood. Bertilvidet 12:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fascinating. Kurds are an ethnic minority not a nationality stating otherwise is pov. African Americans are not a nationality, what makes kurds a nationality? See People stubs by nationality and realise all other nationalities are sorted by internationally recognised states. Even Taiwan falls under china or both koreas under one stub category. Why are kurds to be treated any differently than rest of the world? --Cool CatTalk|@ 12:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nation is not the same as state. Few of the world's states are actually nation-states. Bertilvidet 13:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Quoting from Nation under "Nation, country and state" section: However, when these terms are used to describe the statehood aspirations of a people who do not currently live in the internationally recognised independent state they would like to inhabit, these terms can be controversial and open to misunderstanding. Since stub categories are ment to be non-controversial you cannot use "kurdish" as a nationality. Can we please treat kurds just like the rest of the world? --Cool CatTalk|@ 14:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • With your definition of "nation" We need to merge Iraqi bio stub and Kuwait bio stubs and unite them under Arab-bio stubs. That would be very misleading as Kuwaitis and Iraqis hardly like each other let alone have a common nationality. Nationality does not equal ethnicity. Kurdish is an ethnicity not a nationality. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/create Useful category. Golfcam 17:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/create per Golfcam. AucamanTalk 21:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • its deleted and should stay deleted. goes against the idea of splitting by accepted nationality (ie accepted internationally as an independant country) which is what is used for stubs. theres no problem with a Category:Kurdish people but its going to cause hierarchy problems with stubs. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{cellphone-stub}} / Category:Wireless stubs

[edit]

Moved from TFD. Original nomination by User:Lomn. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete as redundant with wireless-stub. Cellphone-stub also uses the wireless-stub category and is included in only one article."

  • The merging was my doing, after last time: we've seen this customer before. Arguably it may be useful as a redirect/redundant template, but I have no strong feelings either way. Alai 02:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 18th

[edit]

Undersized Profanity stubs

[edit]

Newly created and unproposed...I did not find it on WP:WSS/P

Facts:
Created: March 2nd
Articles: 1
Proposed: No
Associated WikiProject: None

As I proposed this you know my vote---And my willingness to hear out arguments to keep...If they are good I will change my vote:-) DELETE Eagle (talk) (desk) 21:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually unused and no clear scope. It this related to drawings of Muhammad, burnings of churches, or bad language? :) Delete Valentinian (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. vague and wierd. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undersized Southern United School stubs (currently merged)

[edit]

Emptied and upmerged to (the actually proposed) Category:Southern United States school stubs. All of these were <20 articles. Alai 02:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is this necessary and where did you get this definition of the "Southern United States?" This is honestly the first time I have ever heard of Delaware mentioned as a southern state. Keep and repopulate the existing cats. youngamerican (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I see where you are coming from, but getting rid of these stub cats will create a big lump of stubs that will be hard for editors to sort out. For example, I would be most likely to want to work on schools in West Virginia, but it would be hard to sort them out from such a vast geographical area. Since these state level cats will have to be recreated as more school articles emerge, it makes more sense to keep them around, repopulated, and save the trouble of future resorting. I would, however, support such a merging of stub cats in the future when most schools have had articles ceated, then are expanded past the stub stage. youngamerican (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's IMO more likely that further stubs will be created, faster than these ones are expanded, so further (re-)splitting is more likely than (further) merging. As I said, these were all < 20 articles in size: just how small types are you arguing we should keep? Even the merged category is only about "half a page". So long as people use the state-specific templates, which you'll notice I'm not nominating for deletion, re-splitting effort is minimal, and anyone who really wants to find the articles on one state, only, can use the aforementioned "whatlinkshere" special page. In the interests of reducing the "say what?" factor, however, I shall withdraw the nomination of the Delaware category; if it says this small we can revisit it in due course. (Which will also make the merged category less than 100 articles, incidentally.) Alai 05:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete or merge as per young americain (his comment). My rationale is that the idea is to make it conveinte for those people to work on the articles. Personally I would hate to have to look though a large number of schools just to find one in the state I want.Eagle (talk) (desk) 20:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to change my vote to merge(not my vote, it's in bold above) provided that we are merging into smaller sub-divisions.(3-4 instead of just one) As long as we keep the categories that meet the size criteria (provided that any do!!)Eagle (talk) (desk) 20:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed as per Alai and BL Lacertae...There rationale is clearer now, than before when I posted the keep vote. (If nothing else we got some disscussion going.Eagle (talk) (desk) 04:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This split is into four regions, the ones defined by the USCB, plus the states that are already anything like a threshold in separate categories. On what basis do you propose to re-subdivide a category currently populated by 90-odd articles into "3-4 sub-divisions" that isn't a) entirely ad hoc, and b) isn't radically undersized by the usual criteria? Alai 01:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment we used these four regions for geo-stubs perfectly well without any problems or complaints. dont see that using them for schools would cause any more problems than that. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 20th

[edit]

{{UK-bank-stub}} / UK finance company stubs

[edit]

Currently contains 7 stubs. Parent stub category Finance company stubs contains <700 stubs so is not overly full. Corresponding main category Financial services companies of the United Kingdom and all its child categories contain a sum of only 172 stubs (some possibly duplicated) so there's not much to populate from. --TheParanoidOne 06:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...If and only if I don't here anyone saying that they can populate it. (my vote will change very quick if that happens.)Eagle (talk) (desk) 05:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 22nd

[edit]

{{Orbiter-sim-stub}} / Category:Orbiter (sim) stubs

[edit]

User:0.39 did a lot of work on Orbiter (sim) related articles, and the articles and most categories were deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orbiter stuff. However, the stub template and category were not deleted. Naturally, the category is empty and the stub is unused. TimBentley 03:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE---it is empty and unused.Eagle (talk) (desk) 03:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently must have been empty since January, so I'll indeed speedy this, unless there's loud objection. Alai 06:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No objections here Delete (speedy if possible) Valentinian (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{people-stub}}

[edit]

When recreating {{people stub}}, with more than whiff of WP:POINT, SPUI created this too. (As a nod to the stub naming guidelines, or on the basis of "the more the merrier"?) Delete, as per arguments made at length on WP:DRV, and many times previously here. (In summary, irregularly named redirects obfuscating the pattern of template names.) Alai 06:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (no need to repeat the same arguments again) Valentinian (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete---Sorry folks but you have me lost...agian. (I'm trying) what exactly is wrong with this??? "irregularly named redirects obfuscateing the pattern of template names."....huh. To me that looks just fine...What is the matter??? I'm sorry, but I am at sea here...Eagle (talk) (desk) 07:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC) changed from comment[reply]
Biography stub templates all have "bio-" in their names. Do we have some with "people-" redirects, and some not, creating an expectation of a parallel naming pattern, that we don't fulfil? Or, do we then have to do that with all of them? And how many other variations SPUI can manage to come up with, for hundreds of templates? Alai 16:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete obviously BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alai. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 23rd

[edit]

{{tv-preair-stub}}

[edit]

This stub seems to be put up for deletion a long time ago. The logs show that the consensus was Keep, however no pages (0000) use it anymore, and it seems superseded by the proposed {{Future_tvshow}}, which is heavily used. Therefore i renew the Sfd. - The DJ 01:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 25th

[edit]

{{Football Stub}}

[edit]

No corresponsing category, and ambiguous name (football). I removed it from Charles Foweraker, the only page that was using it when I found it. As it is redundant to {{footy-stub}}, and inappropriate as a redirect due to the ambiguity, delete. Kusma (討論) 14:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Aramco-stub}} / Category:Saudi Aramco stubs

[edit]

Far too narrow, will never reach 60 stubs; parent is highly modestly sized. Delete, as per existing consensus on discoveries. Alai 07:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Valentinian (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Never likely to rech threshold or even close to it. Grutness...wha? 10:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 26th

[edit]

{{Whedchar-stub}} / Buffyverse Character stubs

[edit]

These have been around since 2005. Currently used on only 9 stubs. Parent category Buffyverse stubs is only at 10 stubs itself, so I don't see the urgent need for a split. I suggest merging to Buffyverse stubs. According the discovery page, there is a Buffyverse project, but neither of these link to it. --TheParanoidOne 21:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Drinking-culture-stub}} / Drinking (culture) stubs

[edit]

Created on 14th March and used on only two stubs. Parent category "Drinking (culture)" is a redlink, with no entries. Category has {{WPSS-cat}} on it despite the fact that it has never appeared on any WSS page. I don't foresee this reaching a viable threshold. --TheParanoidOne 21:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Epithet-stub}} / Epithet stubs

[edit]

Used on only one stub. Template created at the end of February but category only created a few weeks later. I don't see any potential for reaching a viable threshold. --TheParanoidOne 21:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 29th

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

{{Cable-TV}}

[edit]

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

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

March 31st

[edit]

{{Sonora-stub}} / Sonora stubs

[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/March_2006&oldid=1164078979"