Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Not deleted/February 2006

• Rename template to {{DC-school-stub}} and keep the category. If they already exist and meet the naming conventions, let them stay. I've had time to think during my stub sorting sabbatical and frankly I've come to the conclusion that these sorts of arcane size rules are counterproductive to sorting. If all of the them were undersized I could see the point in not splitting at all, but once a category with a geographic limitation gets to the point of needing a split it is a lot simpler as far as sorting is concerned to go ahead and split out every subdivision at that level rather than just a few. Yes, it is more work for stub template and stub category makers, but the advantage in making the actual stub sorting simpler is definitely worth it in my opinion. We have a stub sorting project not a stub template project. Other than renaming the template needs to follow the convention set by {{DC-stub}}, leave things as they are. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this keep extend to the sub-cats with populations of zero and one articles? I think there's some logic to a lower threshold for the sake of a certain degree of symmetry, but a horribly undersized category is still horribly undersized, whatever the symmetry, with exactly the same downside as regards foot-traffic and likely expansion. As an aside, if the unfortunate, cryptic and ambiguous precedent of DC-stub established a 'convention', how to refer to the actual naming conventions? Or are we throwing those out too? (For road stubs, that already seems to be a 'yes'.) Alai 05:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't rename to {{DC-school-stub}}, {{WashingtonDC-school-stub}} is better. Conscious 06:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While {{DC-stub}} may not have been formally adopted as a convention in the sense of "What do we use for Washington, D.C. in stub names?" it certainly does not a space as the existing stub template does, which is against the formalized naming conventions. As for the lower limit, given a choice between using arbitrary geographical groupings to subdivide an overfull stub category, and ignoring those limits so as fully subdivide in an unambiguous manner that won't require stub sorters to refer to an arcane key to figure out what goes where, I favor the latter. Without an overfull category to subdivide, the current policy works well enough. Caerwine Caerwhine 08:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, that was indeed a vote to keep categories with no articles (which are already speedily deleteable, btw). Just so long as we're clear. Alai 15:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DC-stub is actually a bit of a mess (thanks to either the SPUI or Karmafist stub wars a couple of months back). We have WashingtonDC-geo-stub and DC-stub. However, I've just discovered that the geo-stub redirects to the non-geo-stub, which is a bit odd, to put it mildly. The whole thing needs work, but whichever of the two names is used (I'd favour WashingtonDC since just DC is pretty ambiguous - have a look at DC to see what I mean), it's going to be better than the current malformed template name. Grutness...wha? 09:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in case more impossible-to-delete school cruft is written. Create redirects from the easier titles mentioned above, for greater accessibility. — Feb. 17, '06 [18:53] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Are you arguing for keeping all 51 templates/categories? I'm worried that some of them will always stay very small. Conscious 13:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. It would be very helpful to make this distinction. If this were, say, the Arabic, Kurdish, or Turkish Wikipedia, this stub type would be found immediately useful. In our case, it may not be useful right away, but more specific stub types could become very convenient later, as we add more articles on Kurdish and Iraqi politicians. And in response to Valentinian's comment about Uyghur politicians, I would advise Wikipedians to populate vacant categories rather than delete them. Most are vacant because of systemic bias. Bhumiya/Talk 21:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the down side, there are only 3 and 7 of these respectively. If one wanted to be especially kind, it's pretty new, and was seemingly even smaller at time of last db dump, so perhaps still growing. But at the least, merge the people into the more general cat, if not delete 'em both. Alai 19:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• For the bio-stub, perhaps a rescope to cover the whole Caucasus? We've done that before with other categories relating to this region. I think there's a grossly undersized Georgian people stubs category out there somewhere too. Of course, we'll have to be careful with the category wording ("Caucasian people" may be a bit misleading!). The current template can be used as a "redirect with potential". As to Armenia-stub, just redirecting to Caucasus-stub and a removal of the current category would be a reasonable option. Grutness...wha? 22:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check now. I've added some to the bio stubs. Hakob 03:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've just been poked on this... I'm going to close this as a keep, if no-one objects: bio-stubs are now over threshold, and since the root category holds that one... (Or we could keep both templates and merge the categories, if anyone wants to be super-strict.) Alai 04:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to keeping the bio-stub now. Still not convinced by the size of the parent armenia-stub category, but it may grow. Keep it for now, and if it doesn't grow it can be reconsidered in a couple of months. Grutness...wha? 05:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As we're the only "voters", that about sorts that one out now. It does lead naturally to broader question of what sort of "subcategory threshold" we should have. Status quo seems to be that about 2 or 3 subcats is sufficient in and of itself... Alai 06:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Grutness. It does present a problem with the Caucasus-stub, which says "Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia", though. Hopefully, that situation will not last long. --Valentinian ^(talk) 01:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought we'd already deleted this, but I must be thinking of the -geo-. Used on one article. Alai 05:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless populated. Conscious 06:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep many US states have their own stub categories. Ardenn 17:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many US states stub categories have more than one article, too. Alai 18:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • and they were created becuase those states have wikiprojects. delete BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless it can reach a reasonable number of stubs in the next few days. If it can be got up to 35-40 stubs by the end of this AFD, then keeping it would be worthwhile. Less than a couple of dozen, though, and I doubt it's worthwhile. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started having a bit of a scratch around, see if this is worth keeping. It's up to fifteen stubs, and there are at least that many again still to mark. Unfortunately someone's been buggering around with Cat:Canada stubs (it'll need null-edits on everything to fix it up), so it's difficult to see exactly what's in there at the moment. Grutness...wha? 08:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless populated as per Concious and the figures mentioned by Grutness. --TheParanoidOne 06:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Up to 22 now, just to be annoyingly borderline. Alai 18:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Up to 46 now. --Valentinian ^(talk) 01:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very narrow category, only three articles. Also: a parameterised stub template -- ickies. And lastly, a completely different scheme for splitting the aircraft stubs was proposed, to some degree of approval; this scheme was not proposed at all, naturally. Alai 15:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Since at least two people have voted keep on the apparent understanding that this is (through design or incompetence) actually a vote to delete all this family of (never-proposed, created on the quiet...) stubs, let me be clear: delete the undersized category, and replace the parameterised stub template with a family of stub templates on the standard pattern. Alai 01:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete for all the reasons alai says. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 18:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete Very Strong Keep as the category is part of a structured sorting program for the previously disorganised aircraft stubs. If you delete one, I think you will have to delete the whole lot (They all use the same template). --GW_Simulations 21:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, I think that the proposal was simply to subcategorise them, and no specific categories were set intially, see - Category_talk:Aircraft_stubs for the full discussion of this system's creation. --GW_Simulations 21:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, please do see that page, where I raised these issues, and asked you to refer to the existing proposal, well over a month ago. People having their own "structured sorting programs" self-consciously independently of the appropriate page for discussing these things, then pleading "fait accompli", is not especially productive. Alai 00:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You were the only person who objected - there was an 80% majority in favour of changing them. --GW_Simulations 20:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete - including all the subcategories as they are at present, if they all use this stub. The prioposal was fairly detailed and would have got underway by now if it wasn't for this far less acceptable split. Furthermore, parameterised stubs are definitely a no-no. Grutness...wha? 22:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ingoolemo ^talk 00:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Before this subcategorization, the aircraft-stub was full, and deleting this means that we would have to put them back to it again. Can anyone actually provide other means of categorizing them then? -- WB 19:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • of course. this was all discussed over at the proposal page and would have gone ahead by now if it wasnt for this very bad split. there was a much more sensible way of splitting sorted out - and it wouldnt have used proper stub templates not a parametred one. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WB, one stub category is up for deletion, containing all of three stubs. That's going to overfill the parent how, exactly? Perhaps we don't need expanded speedy criteria so much as a resolve to give "appropriate weight" for "I like it/find it useful" votes which have no regard to the appropriate stub category guidelines. Alai 01:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps I was a bit unclear there. Since all the aircraft year stubs use this template, if the template is deleted, this would "uncategorize" every single article that was in the aircraft stub. This could be avoided if we take the right procedures though. -- WB 03:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If there was anything unclear about the intent of the original, I certainly can't see what's unclear about it as additionally specified. If I might quote myself: delete the undersized category, and replace the parameterised stub template. Alai 03:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I said I was unclear. I agree then. Vote changed. -- WB 04:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - if kept in its current form then the template should definitely be changed over to proper stub templates. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It definitely shouldn't be kept in any form, but the people, they're speaking, to semi-paraphrase Nixon. Farrago-recovery prodecures will probably have to be employed, by all appearances (unless we're bound by counter-guidelines democracy in that respect too). We'd need a family of names; to reprise my suggestion from Jan 7(!), {{aero-60s-stub}}, etc, would be feasible. (Or{{aero-1960s-stub}} if we want to be ultra-unambiguous.) Alai 03:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • the full name would be better, since we're back in the '00s again. Grutness...wha? 06:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep if it is possible to change the stub template (among with all other aero-####-stubs) so that these subcategories do not appear directly in the Category:Stub categories but only through the Category:Aircraft stubs --- the same should be done for all other "specific" stubs which are in an obvious way (by removing a part of their name) subcategories of another one. — MFH:Talk 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not possible to change Stub Category|article=1900s Aircraft... into

Stub Category|article=Aircraft... ?

• • I don't follow the rationale for this. Are you suggesting that WSS in effect "wash our hands" of them, and leave them as is, on some sort of quasi-autonomous basis? As I understand this, what you're suggesting would a) be possible, b) be a function of the category pages, not the (single, malformed) stub template, and c) be a bad idea. Alai 20:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to regular stub-sorting scheme, i.e. make a template for each decade. It wouldn't be more typing, but it would fix the categories. Conscious 07:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep First of all, there are hundreds of articles in the aero-stub section, there are less in the 1900 section, which you have grouped it in. Now if there is only a small number of articles in one decade section, that's simply because said articles haven't been created. But once they are, there is a perfectly organized section. We had a talk section up for at least a week, and those who posted put their opinions forward and all those present agreed. I do not see how this way of organizing the stubs is ineffective? So why delete it? It works, and is logical, is there a problem with that? Change1211 06:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than the fact that the splitting is meaninglessly arbitrary, leads to inherently undersized stub categories (just how many pre-1910 aircraft types are there left to write articles for?), contrary to the guidelines for stub creation, which are based on current numbers of articles, are counterproductive, illogical, use a badly formed template and that I told you this on that page on the time, your reasoning seems impeccable. Alai 06:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you would rather have a huge list of pages then? If it's a problem, I shall search all of my aviation books and post a fair number of pages which would remove your "not enough articles" post. Once again, it is a good way of sorting them, and I believe that you are wrong. Change1211 06:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'd like to have a category within the WSS rules of thumb for how long they should be, which the keepistas in this discussion seem to be paying no notice to whatsoever. And likewise, to the appropriately-located discussion as to how these should be split. It's not a binary choice between one monolithic, infeasibly long category on the one hand, and ones this ridiculously small on the other. There are sensible middle courses. Feel free to make the category "viable": 3 articles down, 57 to go. At that point, the category makes sense, not solely on the basis of vague expections of future articles. And once again: it isn't. Please read all the foregoing. Alai 07:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So why are you asking it to be deleted then? And not just ask for a reorg instead? Change1211 07:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Seeing how the seven day period is over, and the count is 5 - keep, 3 - delete. So the keep have it. Thanks all.

• • Just what we need, anonymous Keepers of Process. (Who then edit the template in such a way as to remove all the stubs concerned from any stub category.) This remains listed here because a) actually, "no consensus" has it; b) there's a related proposal, on the appropriate page, and c) the template still needs to be fixed, which I'm in still in the process of doing. (And optionally, d), because there's discussion as to whether we should ever keep stub types this small, as a matter of policy.) Alai 23:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Only three articles, my shiney metal butt!--Kross^Talk 03:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. Categories are created based upon the number of current articles. If this rule has somehow been abolished, I've got 20 new -politician categories to create. (just kidding.) --Valentinian ^(talk) 17:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion two months ago (in what turned into quite a farrago, devoid of either consensus or clarity) this remains excessively small (six articles). Delete. Alai 15:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Eventually more Arizona State Route articles will need this stub. --Analogdemon (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Setting aside the lack of (appropriate) reasons for this being a keep at all, why on earth would this be a "speedy"? Alai 18:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete not useful at the moment. can always be remade later if there are enough articles. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 18:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Every state should have a highway stub. And besides, parent Category:United States road stubs has over 200 stubs at last check. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other words, nowhere near the splitting threshold (800), just as this type an order of magnitude away from the creation threshold? Alai 00:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually around 350, I forgot how many. But eventually we will be creating a WikiProject for Arizona... I would do it right now but I have other things to do, and I can't start 50 WikiProjects at once... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I say, nowhere near, 350 being distinctly less than 800. Oh goodie, another token US road wikiproject: whereupon it'll be merely a factor of five too small. See my earlier proposal for splitting the US-road-stubs by region, which was not really considered, pending resolution of these problem stub types. As evidently it's not going to be properly resolved this time either, I suggest we press ahead with that, regardless. Alai 01:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That proposal is not effective for resolving the US-road-stub mess because... well firtst off we get into debates such as "Is Idaho part of Northwest or Rockies"? And that sort of thing. And the individual state highway systems have not much to do with each other. And it makes it hard to set up state hwy WikiProjects in the future. By the way this stub cat has 10 stubs. But yes we intend to set up as many state highway WikiProjects as we can, so this stub will not be abandoned. We have 8 states covered currently. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Idaho's clearly in the west - four regions were used very effectively for geo-stubs with no problems whatsoever. And it should make no difference whatsoever to the setting up of WikiProjects later. You don't create a stub type because you're going to eventually make a WikiProject. You start with the wikiproject and then work out whether a stub type would be useful - exactly as most other WikiProjects have done. Grutness...wha? 05:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well what about states like Texas? Midwest or South? And this is not geography here. Arizona State Route 34 and New Mexico State Highway 76 have little to do with each other- in fact they might as well just stay in the US road stub category. And you have to go through proper channels to set up such a system anyway. And you don't create a stub type solely for the WikiProject but you don't make it inconvenient for the creation of a WikiProject either. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • texas is south not west. have a look at the articles Southern United States, Midwestern United States, Northeastern United States and Western United States. they tell you whats where. read the paragraphs that talk about the official census bureau designations. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But some people will tell you that Texas is south. They have the Southern accent right? And they were part of the Confederacy. See what the problem is? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's take Rschen's comments one at a time:

        Well what about states like Texas? Midwest or South? - already covered by BL. Texas is south, according to the US census bureau, which is what is used for such designations in many Wikipedia articles. It's also what has been used for stub types.

        And this is not geography here. - it's the topographical location of roads within a country. Sounds pretty much like geography to me.

        Arizona State Route 34 and New Mexico State Highway 76 have little to do with each other- in fact they might as well just stay in the US road stub category. Indeed they could, except that you and others have been arguing for separate categories. As to roads in Arizona and New Mexico having little to do with each other, they have one extremely important thing to do with each other - they are both in the western United States - as any editor dealing with articles about Arizona or New Mexico would know.

        And you have to go through proper channels to set up such a system anyway. Yes, well that's an easy enough thing to do - and avoids having this sort of discussion on sfd later, since things would be done right the first time.

        And you don't create a stub type solely for the WikiProject but you don't make it inconvenient for the creation of a WikiProject either. We don't make it inconvenient for new WikiProjects. In fact, WSS is listed on the standard "How to start a WikiProject" template as a place you might find useful once a WikiProject is set up. Set up the WikiProject, then see WSS about the possibility of having a stub template. It's very rare that WSS turns down stub templates for Wikiprojects once they're a going concern - in fact we help, by creating well-formed and named stub types and even populating the categories. Grutness...wha? 05:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        • Well it seems like you really don't want this stub to exist... well whenever the state highway WP is started it probably will spring back into existence. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)
      • If there were enough stubs, I'd have no problem with it whatsoever. There clearly aren't currently, though, and there's been no indication that the number of articles is rising at the moment. If and when it gets there, it'll get my support. Grutness...wha? 08:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • • As soon as an appropriate number of stubs spring into existence, that's fully expected, not a problem, and isn't affected by this decision (or lack thereof...) here. In the meantime, it's better for these stubs for them to be in a category with a reasonable critical mass. Alai 07:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have better things to do than defend this stub, considering that it is relatively unimportant in the scheme of things. There are bigger concerns I have, such as New York below, and resurrecting Oregon. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too small. Conscious 11:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Needed and useful.Gateman1997 08:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We either have stubs for each state route project or we don't. If the threshold for having a stub cannot be met even if we create a stub article for every route in each state, then let's scrap the stub-per-state concept and just use a generic state-route-stub. However, it is important to have a separate project for each state since most editors are going to contribute to articles on their states mostly, and different states have different naming systems etc. so having just a us-routes-project or 4 regional-routes-projects would cause too much arguing and discussion instead of contributions to content. So keep the Arizona-route-stub if it meets the requirments, otherwise use a default state-route-stub in these articles for now until a state project meets the threshold required (if ever), then create a route-stub for the state. Meanwhile, use the state-project-stub once the state project has been started. --Censorwolf 14:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to this once the chaos at CA is over. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another unproposed genre-based split; 8 articles, extremely vague criterion for inclusion. Alai 06:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - admittedly the creator - I did ask for some help in the proposal page for work to be done to help sort this "Novels" and "Fiction" area of the categories and stubs. With non forthcoming, I made a start myself, possibly not the best, but there it is. This is part of the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Novels work on categorization. Also part fo an attempt to whittle down the excessive number of {{book-stub}} and {{novel-stub}} articles. You might notice there are some more articles arriving as this is very much work in progress. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 09:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete.no you didn't. as i pointed out on the proposals page, what you proposed was spliting the main novel categories. you made no suggestions relating to stubs at all. thats why i suggested that your proposal should have been at WP:CFD rather than at WP:WSS. if youd made a proposal about stubs we would have discussed it more. as it is this is much too vague. what is a pholosophical novel anyway? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No split of stub categories was ever proposed, and at under 600 stubs there's no real need to split the parent. The proposal to split the main category, placed on WP:WSS/P and questioned there, suggests a considerable number of categories which - if the stub category was split into them, would give an average category size of only about 20 - well under threshold. Suggest that this and any other split of Cat:Novel stubs currently in process be halted and proposed for debate - properly this time. Grutness...wha? 23:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP User:Gnome (Bot) is being set up to find articles that belong here. WP:NOVEL is still a work in progress. Please give me 2-3 weeks, as the bot still needs to be approved ect. according to WP:BOT.Eagle (talk) (desk) 15:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is now waiting for approval for its debug period, just give me some time!!(and give WP:NOVEL time to finish what it started)Eagle (talk) (desk) 17:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]