Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrator instructions

Before proposing or creating a new type of stub, please read How to propose a new stub type.

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

If this is your first encounter with stub sorting, we recommend that you read about the nature of stub sorters before diving into a discussion.

Shortcut: WP:SFD

Deletion discussions Deletion today AfD yesterday Articles (by category) Templates Files Categories (active) Stub types Redirects Miscellany Deletion review Deletion policy Process – Log – Tools Guide – Images – Admins

This page only deals with the deletion and renaming of stub types, which consist of a template and a category, and are intended to be used for sorting stubs. Stub templates that are missing categories and stub categories without associated templates are also appropriate here. All other templates or categories nominated for deletion or renaming have to be put on Templates for discussion or Categories for discussion, respectively.

Contents 1 About this page 1.1 Putting a stub type on Stub types for deletion (SfD), and what happens afterwards 1.1.1 Putting {{sfd-r}} or {{sfr-r}} on redirects 1.2 Possible reasons for the deletion of a stub type 1.3 What this page is not for 1.4 Typical opinion options 1.4.1 Renaming options 1.5 Note to non-administrators 2 Listings 2.1 July 3 2.1.1 {{tree-stub}} / Category:Tree stubs 2.2 June 30 2.2.1 {{Hockey-stub}} (redirect) 2.3 June 26 2.3.1 {{Stub/doc}} 2.4 June 25 2.4.1 {{Japan-food-stub}} and Cat:Japan food stubs 3 Old business 3.1 June 22 3.1.1 {{Lviv-oblast-geo-stub}} 3.2 June 16 3.2.1 various sports cats to rename 3.2.2 Cat:Tokelau stubs 3.3 June 14 3.3.1 Category:Soviet Union canoeist stubs -> Category:Soviet canoeist stubs 3.4 11 June 3.4.1 Category:Chicago transit authority stubs —> Category:Chicago Transit Authority stubs 3.5 June 9 3.5.1 {{ROC-party-stub}}, {{ROC-politician-stub}}, {{ROC-university-stub}}, {{ROC-bio-stub}}, {{ROC-geo-stub}}, and {{ROC-stub}} 3.5.2 {{Taiwan-hist-stub}} and {{ROC-hist-stub}} 3.5.3 Cat:Taiwan road stubs 3.6 June 6 3.6.1 {{Judaism-stub/doc}} 3.6.2 {{Islam-stub/doc}} 3.6.3 {{Gospel-music-stub/doc}} 3.6.4 {{Christianity-stub/doc}} 3.6.5 {{Geology-stub/doc}} 3.6.6 {{Soft-drink-stub/doc}} 3.6.7 {{Home and Building Maintenance-stub}} 3.6.8 {{Home-stub}} 3.6.9 {{Appliance stub}} 3.6.10 {{Florida-Hospital-stub}} / Cat:Florida Hospital stubs / {{Florida-Hospital-stub/doc}} 3.6.11 {{PRChina-stub/doc}} 3.7 May 30 3.7.1 Cat:Portuguese rugby union biography stubs 3.7.2 {{Mario-stub}} / Cat:Mario-related stubs 3.7.3 {{Cocktail-stub}} 3.8 May 28 3.8.1 {{bartending-stub}} 3.9 May 26 3.9.1 Cat:Water stubs 3.9.1.1 {{Water-stub}} 3.9.2 Cat:Video technology stubs 3.10 May 2 3.10.1 {{Pondicherry-geo-stub}} → {{Puducherry-geo-stub}} 3.11 March 18 3.11.1 Grisons -> Graubünden 3.11.2 {{Stub:Theology}} 3.11.3 {{TAMU-stub}} 4 To orphan 5 To delete 6 Listings to log

WikiProject Stub sorting  v • d • e
Information
Project page	talk
- Stub types (sections)	talk
- Stub types (full list)	talk
- To do	talk
- Naming guidelines	talk
- Stub redirects	talk
Wikipedia:Stub	talk
Discussion
Criteria (A)	talk
Proposals (A)	talk
Discoveries (A)	talk
Deletion (Log)	talk
Category

[edit] About this page

This page is for the proposal, discussion, and voting on deletion or renaming of stub categories, stub templates, and stub redirects. Centralizing the vote on these three closely related matters on one page reduces the need for repeating identical arguments on several different Wikipedia deletion pages (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion) and also reduces the workload on those pages.

This page is still named "Stub types for deletion" for two reasons. Firstly, many of the stub types brought here arrive here after rudimentary discussion has already taken place at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries. Secondly, renaming automatically implies some form of deletion. The renaming of a stub category leads to the replacement and deletion of the older category, and the renaming of a stub template usually (but not always) leads to the deletion of the previous template name, as stub template redirects are rarely used (for the reasons for this, see the stub naming guidelines).

[edit] Putting a stub type on Stub types for deletion (SfD), and what happens afterwards

• Mark the affected pages:
  • For deletion:
    • Put {{sfd-t}} on stub templates
    • Put {{sfd-c}} on stub categories
    • Put {{sfd-r}} on stub redirects, and include the redirect target after it (see below for details)
  • For renaming:
    • Put {{sfr-t|New-name}} (parameter optional) on stub templates
    • Put {{sfr-c|New name}} (parameter optional) on stub categories
    • Put {{sfr-r|New name}} (parameter optional) on stub redirects (Redirects should be nominated for renaming only as part of a mass renaming that includes templates that share the name element to be renamed that the redirect uses.)
• List the stub type below in a new subsection at the top of the section which has the current date. If that section does not yet exist, create it.
  • Mention all affected pages in the subheading, like this:
    ==== {{tl|banana stub}} / [[:Category:Banana stubs]] / {{tl|YellowCurvyFruit-stub}} (redirect) ====
  • Also mention how many articles currently use the template, and if it is listed anywhere else.
  • Of course, state your reason for nominating the stub type!
• It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors to the stub that you are nominating the stub. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the stub. Some standard pre-formed notices are {{sfdnotify1}}, {{sfdnotify2}}, or {{sfd-notice}}.
• After a voting period of seven days, action will be taken if there is consensus on the fate of the stub type. Please do not act before this period is over.
• Archived discussions are logged here, and are marked with {{sfd top}} and {{sfd bottom}}, indicating whether category and template were renamed, deleted, or no action taken.

[edit] Putting {{sfd-r}} or {{sfr-r}} on redirects

Given that the {{sfd-r}} and {{sfr-r}} templates break redirection, it is necessary to change a stub redirect when adding the template, as follows:

#Redirect [[Template:Example-stub]] should be changed to:

{{sfd-r}}{{Example-stub}}

[edit] Possible reasons for the deletion of a stub type

• It is not used in any article, and its category is empty.
• It overlaps with other stub types, or duplicates them outright.
• Its scope is too limited - As a rule of thumb, there should be at least 50 existing appropriate stub articles, 30 if there is a specific associated WikiProject.
• Its scope is too ambiguous or vague - in these cases, renaming may be more appropriate than outright deletion.
• The stub category or template is misnamed. In this case, make this clear when nominating and propose a new category or template name. Note that - in the case of a template but not a category - it may be more appropriate to make it into a redirect.
• They are malformed, misnamed, or deprecated redirects. See the stub naming guidelines for details on how stubs are named.

[edit] What this page is not for

• Stub templates that were not approved by the WikiProject and/or created through the proposal process (unless other reasons apply) — list those on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries. From there, they may later be taken to this page
• Patently nonsensical or insulting stub types — they may be speedily deleted.
• Empty categories with no corresponding template — they may be speedily deleted (after 4 days, as per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD) criterion C1).
• Recently created stub types not used on any articles — they may be speedily deleted (after 4 days, as per WP:CSD criterion C1). This does not apply to types properly proposed and accepted which have not yet been populated.
• Malformed stub types to which no further deletion reasons apply — fix them or tell the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting.
• Stub categories that are too large — these are not deleted, even if they get subdivided.

[edit] Typical opinion options

• Keep (do not delete or modify)
• Delete (delete template and category)
• Merge with xx-stub (delete category, keep template (either as redirect to, or feeding into the same category as, xx-stub))
• Merge with xx-stub without redirect (delete category and template, put xx-stub on all articles that use it)
• Upmerge (merge to parent stub type, typically by keeping the template but redirecting it to the parent stub category for potential re-splitting later)
• Change scope (reword the template, typically giving it either a larger or more precise scope. Usually also means renaming the category)

When expressing an opinion, 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".

[edit] Renaming options

• Rename/Support
  • (for templates: move to new name, replace existing usages, delete redirect);
  • (for categories: recreate category page under new name, repopulate, delete old category).
• Rename, keep redirect/Move (for templates only: move, but don't replace usages of existing template)
• Oppose (no move of template, and/or deletion and recreation of category)

• DO NOT rename any stub type that has been nominated here while discussion is still in progress. Any necessary renaming will be done when the discussion is closed.

• If you wish to argue for the deletion of a template or category nominated for renaming, please re-tag with {{sfd-t}}/{{sfd-c}}, and note the date of doing so, so as to ensure proper consideration of this new nomination.

If a template is speedily renamed, similarly re-tag the resultant redirect if deletion of that is desired.

[edit] Note to non-administrators

If a category and/or stub deletion is agreed upon and you're helping to change the stubs on those pages: Once you've emptied the category, please note the category on this page under the "To Delete" section that the stub category section is empty ("orphaned") and "ready to be deleted" to the administrators.

[edit] Listings

[edit] July 3

[edit] {{tree-stub}} / Category:Tree stubs

I see these tags all over the place, and they just seem pointless clutter to me. What is the audience?: People who read and edit these articles are interested in plants, and might have an interest in a particular family or genus; but I don't believe there are m/any editors out there who have a specific interest in trees (woody plants with a single trunk expressing apical dominance) as opposed to shrubs, vines, lianes, etcetera. We now have an excellent stub hierarchy for plant articles, with or without this particular stub type. In particular, every tree stub already has a taxon-specific stub-type. This was, I think, a reasonable stub type when it was created back in 2005; but in my opinion the plant stub hierarchy is so nicely developed now, and this particular stub type so lacking in a target audience, that eliminating it would be an improvement.

• Delete. Hesperian 01:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Hesperian, general stub types are useful. In this case, there are at least four purposes that such a stub as this serves:

1. Often, a stub article will be written in such a way that a specific taxonomic type cannot be readily assigned;
2. Stub-sorting operates on a several-stage process. No general stub-sorter - and certainly no average article writer - can be expected to know all stub types, so stubs are assigned to a fairly general stub type before their stub classification is more finely honed by stub sorters who know about specific places. So we have general types such as {{geo-stub}}, {{US-stub}}, {{bio-stub}} and the like which serve largely as holding types until a more specific stub type is applied. The most generic of all is simply {{stub}};
3. Some stubs relate to trees in general, not to specific taxonomies. If we got rid of {{tree-stub}}, how would we deal with an item like heart rot or Massenerhebung effect?
4. Stub types form - ironically enough - a tree which reflects the permanent category tree, and for very much the same reason. As such, the category at least serves a very important navigational purpose.

Grutness...wha? 02:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I grant your points 1 and 3.

With respect to 2. and 4., tree-stub is not a general stub type in the sense of sitting at the base of a hierarchy of more specific stubs types into which tree stubs may be dispersed. There are only a few sub-types, and these are even more hideous than tree-stub—{{Fabaceae-tree-stub}}, for example; if this were in category space it would be immediately and unceremoniously dumped per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Trivial intersection. Certainly there is no audience for such an obscure topic. In practice what happens is the tree-stub category fills up and up and up. We add taxonomic stub types to these stubs, but the tree-stub tag itself cannot be dispersed because the sub-types don't exist. You may counter that the solution is to create the sub-types, but what would you create? More trivial intersections? There doesn't seem to be an coherent way to subdivide the topic.

So what we have is a stub type with no audience, and with no coherent method for breaking it into sub-types that would have an audience. And what bang do we get for our buck? The ability to tag taxon-vague articles with {{tree-stub}}, which could be achieved just as well by redirecting it to {{plant-stub}}; and a nice stub type for half a dozen "trees in general" articles. Hesperian 02:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I take your point about it being a strange mid-level stage in the hierarchy, but am concerned that it will swamp Cat:Plant stubs and take it past the splitting threshold. Perhaps we need to add it to the urgent "to do" list at WP:WSS/TD... Grutness...wha? 23:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June 30

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

A redirect to {{icehockey-stub}}. Unfortunately, for most of the woprdld, hockey means field hockey (even the IOC calls this form of the sport simply "hockey"), and as such this template redirect is very ambiguous (something we tend to avoid with stub template names wherever possible. The redirect is used on a large number of articles, so will probably need a bot to depopulate it... I've retemplated a number of field hockey stubs that were marked with it (a clear indication of why it shouldn't exist). Delete. Grutness...wha? 07:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

comment Is there a field hockey stub type? I don't see one over on the stub types list (maybe I'm blind). I would have thought to see a general hockey stub type, with subtypes of field/ice/etc, but looking at the obvious "coded" sport example - football - I notice that soccer, rugby, AFL, grid iron etc all have their own type directly nested under the sports type... so I am a little confused as to what to do. The article that brought this about is Floor hockey, which is not (in my opinion) an ice hockey stub, but certainly not a field hockey stub either. It is - as far as I can figure - just a hockey stub. But if it is the only hockey stub, there shouldn't be a template for it... Metao (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

{{fieldhockey-stub}} is used for (field) hockey. As for floor hockey, the article clearly says that it's a variant of ice hockey, and as such, icehockey-stub is the most sensible stub type for it. As you say, it makes little sense to have a general hockey-stub if only one or two stubs would use it rather than falling into one of the other two types. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - what would road/street hockey go under? Does it have its own? or would it then have to settle for Sports-stub? CaribDigita (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, street hockey isn't a stub. But yes, I imagine it would have to go under sports-stub... although, street hockey is also (technically) a variant of ice hockey... Metao (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think CaribDigita meant articles relating to Street Hockey rather than the article itself but yes it could be tagged {{Sport-stub}} or possibly {{ball-sports-stub}}.Waacstats (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this needs deleting, I had never heard of the term Field Hockey till I came to wikipedia, I always heard the two sports called hockey and Ice hockey. Waacstats (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that the same's true with me, despite both ice hockey and "field" hockey being popular locally. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

June 26

[edit] {{Stub/doc}}

Moved from WP:TFD, where discussion was reopened for some reason, despite the initial discussion taking place here at SFD.

This is more a procedural thing that anything else. A /doc file has been created for {{stub}} - similar files have been deleted from the template in the past, so this is the re-creation of a deleted page. It is worth debating whether such a file is useful or not.

Reasons in favour of having such a file

• It allows any editor to add an interwiki link, rather than having to request it at Template talk:Stub
• All other templates have /doc files (not strictly true, but the vast majority do)

Reasons against having such a file

• WP:STUB serves as a de facto /doc file and is already linked from the template
• Since all stub templates operate in identical ways, the same doc file would theoretically need to be linked to some 3000+ templates
• If it's not linked to all these templates, we may see a proliferation of stub /doc files which suggest different usage for each template (which would render stubbing largely unworkable)

Personally, I'm against having such a /doc file - the second and third points listed against having them outweigh the benefits of the points in favour of them, so would prefer to see this deleted. This is especially the case since - given that {{stub}} is removed ASAP from articles and replaced, there's really no need for the base template to still be protected (if protection were removed, anyone could add interwikis). If others see things otherwise, this would be a good opportunity to state their opinions. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  1. Firstly this is not a stub, it's a template, so it should probably be listed at WP:TfD. I'll see if I can maybe transclude it at both. Y Done
  2. All templates should contain instructions (or at least a link to instructions) on how to use them. Yes, "stub" does link to WP:STUB, but I don't think it is intuitive that you would click that to get information about how to use the template. You are more likely to think that it would tell you what a stub is. And typically a lot of these stubs link to Wikipedia:Perfect stub which directs to an anchor lower down in WP:Stub. It would make more sense to have a sentence like "For full details on how to use this, please see Wikipedia:Stub."
  3. I take the point that there does not need to be a separate documentation for each stub template. That would be overkill and may well cause confusion.
  4. The first advantage is the biggest for me. It is a complete waste of an administrator's time to attend to these trivial requests to add interwiki links, when there is a perfectly good method available which avoids it.
  5. To possibly solve the above two points, I have started work on Template:Stub documentation, which uses a centralised documentation for all stub templates as well as allowing interwiki links in a subpage. Any comments would be welcome. Obviously it is not finished yet. I've tried it out on a few templates where I came across interwiki requests and the method seems to work well. See {{Islam-stub}} as an example.

  So in summary, I'm saying that we can make some improvements here. I'm willing to help, and if you'd like to discuss it with me instead of bringing the page straight to XfD, then I think we can make some headway. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Replies:

1. all templates relevant to stub types are discussed here (/doc templates have been deleted here in the past), so this is the appropriate forum.
2. You may be right about what would be the best wording, and I'd support such a change - however, that wording would preclude the need for a /doc file, so it's not entirely relevant to whether this should stay or go.
3. (no response required)
4. Unprotecting the template would have the same effect, which I suggested above. In any case, since WP:WSS contains several admins, all of whom regularly patrol {{stub}} (mysefl included), it's not an enormous hassle.
5. I feel that Template:Stub documentation is likely to end up simply as a fork of WP:STUB - it'll certainly take effort to ensure that the two documents don't contradict each other. As such, I think it would end up being far more work than simply rewording the standard stub message.

I agree that some improvements could be made - and also note that I brought this straight to SfD as a procedural matter primarily (as I made clear to you on your talk page) - this has been deleted before, and as such should either be speedily deleted or brought here. I figured this was the lesser of two evils, and also would likely cause a more general discussion than just comments between us on your talk page. Grutness...wha? 02:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The problems have started already, BTW, I've had to nominate two /doc files today. I hope you are willing to help, because there's a can of worms been opened here... Grutness...wha? 02:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no "can of worms". I really think your fears are groundless. Many other projects use templates, and each template is properly documented without it becoming "unworkable" or contradictory to the main project documentation. Compare the Good article process which uses Template:GA nominee or the AfC project which uses Template:AFC submission. You have presented no evidence that putting some documentation on these templates would cause disruption. Honestly you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this, and I can only wonder why. I did accept that it would be unnecessary for each stub template to have separate documentation; that's why I suggested using something like the {{stub doc}} template which centralises the documentation, but still allows interwikis to be placed in a subpage. I intend to continue to place interwiki links in subpages whenever I come across such protected edit requests on templates, for the reason that I firmly believe that a user should not need to ask for administrator help for such a trivial task when there is a good alternative method which has been developed. If you notice from the previous version of Template:PRChina-stub, the /doc page contains only interwiki links and the edit link said "edit interwikis", so it in no way encourages people to add a separate documentation page as you fear. (I only used the name "doc" for consistency.) Please try to be more open to changes which can improve the process. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If there's no can of worms, how do you explain that in the six months prior to creating {{stub/doc}}, no new /doc files were made for stub templates, yet two quite a number have in the first three days since (did you make them all? I know you made some, but what about Florida-Hospital-stub/doc? Gospel-music-stub/doc? Given that there are over 3000 stub templated, stub/doc sets a precedent which is already showing unwelcome fruit. Many other projects use templates, and each template is properly documented without it becoming "unworkable" or contradictory to the main project documentation Show me one other wikiproject which uses over 3000 templates all of which are supposed to be used in an identical way. If you can, which I sincerely doubt, I will guarantee that it will not use/doc files but will use some more workable alternative - as is done with stub templates. You have presented no evidence that putting some documentation on these templates would cause disruption. I have provided evidence that it is already causing disruption, and plenty of good reasons why having it may cause far more disruption, and I have also already pointed out that this is why it is not done. I have further pointed out that /doc files have been discussed for stub templates in the past and rejected. Honestly you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this, and I can only wonder why - only because it's been suggested in the past (usually after someone has created a bunch of /doc files), and has always been rejected, along with causing a lot of work which WP:WSS had to mop up when its members could have been busy doing more productive work. This has been pointed out to you, but for some reason, you seem reluctant to believe it. As such, I wonder why you have a bee in your bonnet about these templates.

The same purpose as a /doc file is already well served by WP:STUB. As such, no /doc file is necessary. I also pointed out that, since {{stub doc}} would have identical information to part of that which is already at WP:STUB, where it needs to be retained, it would simply become a fork of that document. It would require extra work from all involved to make sure that the documents do not come to contradict each other; every time one was edited, the other would need to also be edited to make sure it still matched. This would be an untenable situation. I intend to continue to place interwiki links in subpages whenever I come across such protected edit requests on templates, for the reason that I firmly believe that a user should not need to ask for administrator help for such a trivial task when there is a good alternative method which has been developed. Any that you do will be nominated for deletion here, so please do not do so. I've already explained that it is a simple task to ask one of the admins involved in the stub-sorting project to do that task - indeed, we do it regularly and it takes virtually no time to do so. As to you putting a note on a /doc page saying that only interwiki links are to be put there, do you really think that anyone seeing a /doc file for one stub template is going to open it up in an edit window to check exactly why it had been made before makign their owwn one for a different stub template? If so, how do you explain the number of new stub /doc files which have more than that itn them, the Florida-Hospital one, for instance, which was made only a day or so after {{stub}} got a /doc file, and which contains far more than just interwiki links?

I'd ask you to please be more open to the fact that stub sorters on en:Wiki in general know a lot more about the way stub templates work and the problems involved in creating /doc files for them than you do, simply because they have faced this situation in the past. You may do stub sorting on the Romanian Wikipedia, but the problems here are far more acute than there due to the considerably larger number of articles and stubs - there are nearly three times as many geo-stubs alone here than the entire number of articles on the Romanian Wikipedia, for example, and there are nearly 100 times as many editors on en:Wiki than on Ro:Wiki. If the search function is anything to go by, ro:Wiki has only 8% of the number of stub templates that en:Wiki does. So while /doc files might work there, they face more severe problems here. We do the best we can and quickly discover when other alternative methods of doing things work or cause problems. the methods you seem so keen on have been assessed in the past and have always caused problems and been quickly rejected. Please don't assume that a problem isn't going to occur when (a) a similar problem happened last time several stub/doc files were made and (b) there's already a growing amount of evidence that the same thing is happening again. It hasn't improved things before - and indeed has always created far more work for WP:WSS; it will do exactly the same this rtime, so again I say that this - and {{stub doc}} - should most definitely be deleted, and the sooner the better. Grutness...wha? 13:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep -- every template deserves a good /doc, especially for protected templates. There's a simple link to the WP:STUB guideline for more complete documentation. But delete the similar {{stub doc}} redirect, and its {{stub documentation}} target. They serve no useful purpose.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Grutness; I disagree with the idea that every template "deserves" a good /doc (to me it seems like instruction creep), and that simple link to WP:STUB should be sufficient. Pegship (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Unnecessary. Garion96 (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - It seems perfectly reasonable that the template has a documentation sub-page. Thinking it was missing, I once almost tried to create one myself. It really would have saved me time if it had been there. -- User:Docu

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep it could even redirect to WP:STUB if you wanted, but all templates should have documentation, if it exists on a subpage, that's fine with me. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Given the veery great size & complexity of WP:STUB, a brief statement is necessary here. DGG (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Grutness. I think that this /doc page is a solution in search of a problem. The documentation page (WP:STUB) is linked from every stub template and, since all stub templates are used in the same manner, I see no need for separate /doc pages that state virtually the same thing for each stub template. Of course, this is the best-case scenario; a worse-case scenario would be that separate /doc pages contain inconsistent instructions and, ultimately, undermine stub sorting efforts. Avoid "fixing" what isn't broken. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 04:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:STUB is anything but to-the-point, a brief statement explaining what the template does is a mercy. Flowerparty^☀ 15:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. /doc templates are useful for protected templates; the simple statement can also be useful to newcomers. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 07:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note that the discussion above makes it clear that protection isn't really needed any more for this template, and that unprotection would remove most of the need for a /doc file (and the reason it was first created). It was back in the days before so many stubs were sorted into subtypes, but this template is now normally used on fewer than 50 stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June 25

[edit] {{Japan-food-stub}} and Cat:Japan food stubs

Would it be OK if I moved this stub template to {{Japan-cuisine-stub}} and have it record stubs to Cat:Japanese cuisine stubs? This would be to bring their naming structure into line with the other national cuisine related stub templates and categories. This is part of a housekeeping move for the WP:Food project in regards to our naming guidelines. --Jeremy (blah blah) 05:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable to me -it would also allow for a wider scope (covering drink and other cuisine-related topics). Support. Grutness...wha? 08:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'm fine with renaming as both stub templates (one as a redirect) already exist and the wording in the stub itself already reflects the coverage of both food and drink (it uses the word "cuisine"). I don't think the {{Japan-food-stub}} template should be deleted, but instead made into a redirect (basically switching how it is now). And for the record, Jeremy, I didn't create this stub. I only created a category for it to dump into due to how many articles were tagged with it. Accusing me of not proposing the stub before creating it is disingenuous since I didn't create it in the first place. Incidentally, it was actually proposed before creation, as seen here (both food and cuisine). ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I've been bold and moved the stub and corrected the category as I don't see any reason why anyone would object. It may take a few hours for the category to reflect the change since the server has to catch up with where the template is pointing now. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I posted the note on your talk page because the creator of the template is no longer active, but you were a major contributor. I informed you using the template provided on the SfD page. I believe you misunderstood the intent behind the template I used, it was only the boilerplate template that is on the SfD page. It was not an accusation of any misanthropy or incompetence; please read through to the end of it and you will see a disclaimer stating such: This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. I am sorry if it upset you. --Jeremy (blah blah) 18:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Generally, for long time users, it's best not to use templated messages. You can also edit templated messages once posted to reflect actuality (I've done that many times myself). No worries. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Old business

[edit] June 22

[edit] {{Lviv-oblast-geo-stub}}

Discovered this listed in Category:Stubs. Nothing links to it (yet).
— Ω (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Now one article links to it and more articles will also link to it. I remove the deletion template from the stub template. Kubek15^{T CS} 11:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete: It does not appear to be correctly formed, and new stub types are supposed to be approved by WP:WSS before being introduced. In fact it is so mal-formed that it seems impossible to clear it out of Category:Stubs, so I have stuck "nowiki" tags around it until someone can mend it and resolve that problem. PamD (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Poorly made stub that doesn't work for what it's trying to do, and what it's trying to do goes against the normal split of stubs. This is a prime example of why proposing stub types is so strongly encouraged. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete and start again, UKraine is going to need splitting soon but I would expect Lvivoblast-geo-stub. Waacstats (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June 16

[edit] various sports cats to rename

following recent new creations the following categories could do with renaming due to a chnge in the years.

• Cat:Australian rules biography, pre-1950 birth stubs to Cat:Australian rules biography, pre-1940 birth stubs
• Cat:Defensive lineman, pre-1940 birth stubs to Cat:Defensive lineman, pre-1920 birth stubs
• Cat:Linebacker, pre 1940 birth stubs to Cat:Linebacker, pre-1930 birth stubs
• Cat:Offensive lineman, pre-1930 birth stubs to Cat:Offensive lineman, pre-1900 birth stubs
• Cat:Running back, pre-1940 birth stubs to Cat:Running back, pre-1910 birth stubs

Waacstats (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. This sort of change really should be speediable. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

SPeedily renamed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Tokelau stubs

Accidentally de-upmerged from Cat:Oceania stubs. There are a grand total of 26 stubs relating to Tokelau-far below the threshold for a separate category. Reupmerge. Grutness...wha? 02:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn- see below. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

doesn't look like it will get over 60 just yet so support re upmerging. Waacstats (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Woap hang on a bit. We should find 44 stubs! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can, that's fine (and it's only 34) - and if it gets to 60, I'd definitely support it being kept - but remember I sweep through the permcats and continent-specific cats looking for extra stubs for the tiny geo/generic national types every now and again, and it took a lot of work to get this one up to 25 stubs. Tokelau is tiny. Grutness...wha? 02:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep - it's now at 70 stubs. :-) --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK -I'm impressed! Want to try your hand at any of the others on User:Grutness/Geo-stub tallying? :) Grutness...wha? 01:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June 14

[edit] Category:Soviet Union canoeist stubs -> Category:Soviet canoeist stubs

I would like have approval for category change after originally placing this was placed originally in the WP:CFD. This is done in maintaining consistency with other professions from people who lived in the former Soviet Union. Chris (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

support. Sounds reasonable -all the others are at "Adjective canoeist stubs": (except the Czech one, which possibly should also be but which might cause problems with "Czech" also sometimes referring to the old Czechoslovakia). Grutness...wha? 00:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. "Soviet" is the standard adjective in other (non-stub) categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Which causes sometimes funny, sometimes bitter, collisions when people notable for anti-soviet activities (or simply treated as such by the govt) fall under the "Soviet" blanket (Ludmila Belousova etc.). Alternative? replacing historical citizenship with some invented bogus (Mikhail Baryshnikov). "Adjective" convention saves screen space, good, but it also may be regarded as a statement of political affiliation. NVO (talk) 11:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • That is unfortunate for the people involved, but I don't think this is a problem category names should attempt to resolve. A citizen of the United States (such as Timothy McVeigh, for example) might be virulently anti-American, but it doesn't change the fact that his nationality is American. People generally don't get to "pick" their nationality, so it's inevitable that there will be instances where people of certain nationalities oppose the country that they are a national of. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• As the person who created the category I support this, my mistake originally. Waacstats (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 11 June

[edit] Category:Chicago transit authority stubs —> Category:Chicago Transit Authority stubs

Well, I'm just seeking approval for this category change. I've already moved this one after a request was made at WP:CFD but was then told that I should have come here, which is correct, the category is included in Template:Chicago-metro-stub. If you decided this shouldn't have been moved, then I will move everything back, but otherwise I will leave it as it is, thanks Spitfire^Tally-ho! 05:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. Assuming that the permcat is at - or has been moved to - Cat:Chicago Transit Authority, I can't see any reason why this shouldn't be moved to match it. Grutness...wha? 10:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Support move to match parent. Waacstats (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June 9

[edit] {{ROC-party-stub}}, {{ROC-politician-stub}}, {{ROC-university-stub}}, {{ROC-bio-stub}}, {{ROC-geo-stub}}, and {{ROC-stub}}

Suggested to list here from WP:WSS/D. Redirect the above templates (ALL unproposed) to Taiwan stub counterparts. impactF= 23:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete would be a first preference - ROC is not used in stub naming (we've had this argument on other stub names before). If not, then redirect would be a second option. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. But, User:Nihonjoe pointed out at WP:WSS/D that people would quote "likely [to] keep creating them otherwise" and most of the ROC templates were created by User:Montemonte. Should they be change into redirects like User:Nihonjoe suggested?? - impactF= 01:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I strongly doubt it, and there are good reasons for not having them. This is the first time these templates have been made, and the Taiwan equivalents have been in use for years. Given how long the Taiwan ones have been in use without redirects having been made, i doubt they'd be likely to be remade again in a hyurry. In any case, as I pointed out, we deliberately don't use "ROC". We don't for several reasons: 1) With the exception of U and US, we don't use abbreviations at all (though there are still early template redirects for New Zealand and Hong ong, since they were originally at NZ- and HK- prior to the formalising of stub naming (in both cases, these redirects are deprecated and will hopefully eventually be removed); 2) Though the Republic of China is the primary usage of ROC, it does also refer to other things, so can be ambiguous; 3) "Republic of China", though used to refer to the country also now informally as Taiwan, can be confusing since the term also refers to Mainland China between 1912 and 1949, so the exact usage of any stubs called "ROC-X-stub" can be ambiguous; 4) The term "Republic of China is still controversial in some quartters, and there is nothing more difficult to deal with on Wiipedia than edit-warring on stub templates. Any changes can affect not only dozens of articles, but also both templates and categories-as such, one edit acts as a multiple edit across a slab of articlespace, templatespace, and categoryspagce. If you think that the term is straightforward and non-controversial, I advise you to have a loo at the history of comments on Template talk:Taiwan-stub and elsewhere;5) As with similar circumstances in other countries, it leaves the door open to dozens of other potential redirect names, which defeats the purpose of standardised naming. Given that we have PRChina-X-stub as the standard for the people's republic, ROChina-X-stub should in theory be standard for Taiwan, no? Or would it be RoChina-? or RoC-? Or TaiwanRoC-? or TaiwanROC-? (BTW, none of these has ever been made, either, though they are all equally viable, which further suggests the ROC- types wouldn't be remade in the foreseeable future). Similar situations have been discussed in the past with regard to the lies of US-stub (UnitedStates-stub, America-stub, USA-stub, Us-stub, Usa-stub, UnitedStatesofAmerica-stub, UnitedStatesofAmeriica-stub, Unitedstates-stub, ...). Where possible just using one name without redirects is preferable for all stub templates for this reason, unless the redirect is the sort which could form a liely later split into a separate stub type. Grutness...wha? 02:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Further note: Some of these problems of ambiguity seem to already be arising -several of the articles using ROC-stub don't refer to the current (Taiwanese) Republic of China at all, but refer to the history of China pre-1947 (in which case, they should be using China-hist-stub. Grutness...wha? 02:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
        • That is a lot...Took me a while to read the paragraph :). I got your many points, we should delete them to standardize the stub names. So, we should just put all those "ROC-X-stubs that don't refer to the current (Taiwanese) Republic of China at all" to China-X-stubs then. Like {{ROC-politician-stub}} stubs can be put into {{China-politician-stub}}...etc. - impactF= 06:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I told you there were a lot of reasons (and I am pretty verbose :) As to the ROC ones that aren't taiwan-specific...mmmm...not sure. That would certainly be the current system, and it's the main reason we had plain "China-' types for things like history, since so much of Chinese history is of a time before the currently existing split into PRC and ROC. I'd say that pre-1947 articles should get prrbably get a standard China- type, but I'd certainly be willing to consider alternatives. Grutness...wha? 06:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
            • I think that's a great solution, putting non-taiwan ROC stubs into China-X-stubs. I found a note that someone (I think it was you, Grut, put in PRChina stub category: For articles relating to China in general - including any relating to China before 1949, use {{China-stub}}. Wasn't that an excellent suggestion? Also, I was wondering, why is Taiwan stubs put under PRChina stub cat but not China stub cat?? - impactF= 18:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
              • Note: Should I put {{sfd-t}} in all ROC-x-stubs? - impactF= 19:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
                • Might be a good idea. As to "why is Taiwan stubs put under PRChina stub cat but not China stub cat", I'm not sure exactly where you mean, but the Taiwan- types definitely shouldn't be subtypes of the PRChina- ones. Grutness...wha? 23:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
                  • I meant should Cat:Taiwan stubs be under Cat:People's Republic of China stubs? P.S. I put the {{sfd-t}} in all ROC-x-stubs. - impactF= 02:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
                    • No, that shouldn't have been in there (and isn't now!) Grutness...wha? 03:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't care how it is going to be named. And after reading Grutness' arguments it appears that ROChina-stub or RoChina-stub is more logical. The problem with these stub articles is that they are not directly or immediately related to Taiwan, but they are more likely to be taken care of by Taiwan-based Wikipedians or Wikipedians interested in Taiwan matters. For example, mainland Chinese politicians and generals who followed the Kuomintang to Taiwan and retired and died there, or a newspaper that was founded on mainland China and relocated to the island of Kinmen with the Kuomintang. Montemonte (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep all or keep Template:ROC-stub There is still chances of expanding the articles. I don't object to redirect or anything but I think they will still be used in the future. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course there's still a chance of expanding the articles. All that's been proposed is the deletion of these templates, which are for exactly the same thing as others which have been in use for years. "Taiwan" is universally used for stubs on Wikipedia, so all that will happen is that ROC-stub will be replaced by the long-standing, correctly-named Taiwan-stub. Same with the other types listed-they'll be replaced with the existing stub templates. Grutness...wha? 19:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Montemonte (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] {{Taiwan-hist-stub}} and {{ROC-hist-stub}}

Delete both of them (both unproposed)?? However {{Taiwan-hist-stub}} can be used in the future... impactF= 23:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete the ROC one, keep the Taiwan one in upmerged form - but remove the permcat from the template, which shouldn't be there. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. ROC-hist-stub change to redirect, see the above comment. - impactF= 01:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • See response above for numerous reasons not to. Grutness...wha? 02:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Agree Check above response for my suggestion. -impactF= 06:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep All or keep just the Taiwan one. There is still much to expand in Taiwan's history. I see no reason to delete both of them. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep both. Montemonte (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Taiwan road stubs

Unproposed, the stub count is at 45, not enough for a stub category. impactF= 23:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• First choice would be "try to find 15 more". If that can't be done, then upmerge pre nom. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I found two more and I added the stub temps. 47 is still not enough though. I didn't find any more TW road stubs. - impactF= 01:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: This wasn't tagged with {{sfd-c}}, so it might be worth waiting a few more days. Grutness...wha? 02:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

June 6

There seems to be some confusion here. The following six nominations by User:Grutness were for the documentation subpage of the stub template, not the template itself. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] {{Judaism-stub/doc}}

Speedy keep. No rationale given for deletion. Used on many articles. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Apologies for the misunderstanding. I was reading top down. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 02:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• The rationale is giiven below this group nomination - which is for six doc files. No-one is suggesting deletion of the stub templates themselves. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] {{Islam-stub/doc}}

Speedy keep. No rationale given for deletion. Used on many articles. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Apologies for the misunderstanding. I was reading top down. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 02:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• The rationale is giiven below this group nomination - which is for six doc files. No-one is suggesting deletion of the stub templates themselves. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] {{Gospel-music-stub/doc}}

Speedy keep. No rationale given for deletion. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Apologies for the misunderstanding. I was reading top down. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 02:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• The rationale is giiven below this group nomination - which is for six doc files. No-one is suggesting deletion of the stub templates themselves. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] {{Christianity-stub/doc}}

Speedy keep. No rationale given for deletion. Used on many articles. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Apologies for the misunderstanding. I was reading top down. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 02:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• The rationale is giiven below this group nomination - which is for six doc files. No-one is suggesting deletion of the stub templates themselves. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] {{Geology-stub/doc}}

Speedy keep. "Keep" because it is a highly used and useful general stub for those articles that don't fit into a more specific geology stub category. "Speedy" because no one bothered to give a rationale for deletion. Awickert (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• The rationale is giiven below this group nomination - which is for six doc files. No-one is suggesting deletion of the stub templates themselves. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, delete sounds good. Sorry about the confusion; as I noted on my talk page the WikiProject's article alerts said that the stub itself was being deleted. Sorry to bother ya, Awickert (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

S'alright-easy mistake to make. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] {{Soft-drink-stub/doc}}

Looks like the deluge has begun... Delete all - none of them are needed, and all of them are already covered by the link to WP:STUB. Stub templates do not have /doc files, per long-standing precedent. Grutness...wha? 13:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - a customized notice about where to use the stub as it relates to the subject is perfectly valid reason for the inclusion of a documents page. This appears to a personal preference of the nominator, as there is no policy-based reason for its deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs)
  • Not a personal preference at all - rather a continuation of the long-standing non-use of /doc pages with stub templates. /doc pages have been discussed and rejected several times in the past by WP:WSS as they are of no use beyond that offered by WP:STUB and would require enormous amounts of extra work for the project to keep them all saying the same thing as each other 9which they would need to do, since stub templates are all used in exactly the same way - the way explained at WP:STUB). Grutness...wha? 02:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Grutness. There seems to be a precedent not to use docs for stub types. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep all, per my rationale at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/June/2. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • ...rationale which I've already pointed out goes against standard practice, adds an extra level of unnecessary work, and would cause considerable problems for WP:WSS. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all - no need, no use, and in most cases no content. There is enough documentation at WP:STUB. PamD (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all per Grutness. While it may make sense to have documentation for stub templates, such documentation should be located at one centralized location: either WP:STUB or Template:Stub/doc. There is no reason to have virtually-identical but separate /doc pages for every stub template, thereby increasing the workload for stub sorters and increasing the likelihood of errors and inconsistencies. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep all, possibly convert to soft redirects to WP:STUB . All templates should have documentation, and some of these pages also have categorization and interlang information. 76.66.203.200 (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] {{Home and Building Maintenance-stub}}

Bering unproposed is the least of the problems for this new stub template, which doesn't actually do anything and has a pretty awful non-compliant name. Created by a new editor in good faith, but hardly needed even if it was named properly and did what it was supposed to. Grutness...wha? 02:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

delete as unused. Waacstats (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] {{Home-stub}}

Coincidentally, another editor created this today, unproposed. It works, but the subject is so vague and already well covered by numerous stub types, so it's not needed. Redlinks to a badly named category, too. Grutness...wha? 02:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete as unused. Waacstats (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] {{Appliance stub}}

As above - vague (home appliance? Fire appliance? Something to do with applying things?), with a convention-defying name. If there is a need for a stub for household appliances (something which hasn't been shown), then this is not the template for it. Delete, with no prejudice against a proper proposal for a better-named stub later, if needed. Grutness...wha? 02:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete as unused. Waacstats (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] {{Florida-Hospital-stub}} / Cat:Florida Hospital stubs / {{Florida-Hospital-stub/doc}}

As I feared, the /doc problem has started (see the sfd for {{stub/doc}}, below). unproposed template and category. If they'd been proposed, someone would surely have pointed out that "Hospital" is not a proper noun, so has a lower case "h". They'd also have pointed out that 60 stubs are required for a separate category, and that stub templates don't hav /doc files. I do wish that when people created new categories, complete with {{WPSS-cat}} at the top, that they'd actually read the template they're copying across - it would save a lot of effort. Rename and upmerge the template, delete both the category and /doc file. Grutness...wha? 02:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Rename template, delete cat and /doc per G. Waacstats (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Rename, upmerge template; delete the category (recreate if/when it reaches 60 articles) and the /doc page per my rationale in the PRChina-stub/doc discussion below. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] {{PRChina-stub/doc}}

And another /doc file. This is going to be a case of trying to get a lid back on a can of worms, I'm afraid. Grutness...wha? 02:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, see below for rationale. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The rationale you mention doesn't hold water - it is disruptive to stub sorting, runs contrary to normal stubbing practice, and has been rejected on several occasions in the past. It might make sense to someone who uses templates in general that a /doc file is desirable, but for those of us who use and patrol stub templates on a regular basis, it adds a considerable amount of effort and work for no gain whatsoever. Grutness...wha? 13:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete – Since all stubs are used in the same manner, it does not make sense to have separate documentation pages for every stub template. The existence of so many /doc pages would only complicate the efforts of stub sorters and lead to inconsistencies. The goal of appending usage instructions to stub templates would be better achieved by linking to or transcluding a single, centralized page: either WP:STUB or Template:Stub/doc. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per the 6 /doc group nomination. Possibly soft redirect to WP:STUB 76.66.203.200 (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. Montemonte (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

  Merge to what, and redirect to where? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] May 30

[edit] Cat:Portuguese rugby union biography stubs

[edit] {{Mario-stub}} / Cat:Mario-related stubs

[edit] {{Cocktail-stub}}

[edit] May 28

[edit] {{bartending-stub}}

I got a note from a member of WPMIX asking me to restore this template, which had been deleted ages ago for lack of use and nonproposedness. See also a brief entry on the Discoveries page. The project does have a talk page template, so I'm not sure why this would be needed. Pegship (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Support keeping the stub template, it differentiates between the other stubs Template:mixed-drink-stub and Template:cocktail-stub, as it is a "job" or occupation-related stub. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

True, but it's only used on 3 articles. To justify a stub category, it would need to be used on 30+ (since there's a project). I suggest we upmerge it again, this time to Cat:Occupation stubs. Pegship (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What does upmerging do again? --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It keeps the template, but sorts it (and articles using it) to a larger, more general stub category or categories (in this case, Cat:Occupation stubs) until it gets large enough to support its own category - which in this case would mean 30 stubs using it. You can still see what uses it by way of its "what links here" link, but wouldn't create a tiny extra category to patrol. I'd support upmerged template, BTW Grutness...wha? 23:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that seems reasonable to support upmerged template. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep it is not an occupational stub but a stub representing the whole field of bartending; The {{cocktail-stub}} (which is depreciated) and {{mixed-drinks-stub}} are solely for actual cocktails and mixed drinks. The {{bartending-stub}} is for articles about the profession and the equipment used in it. Yes there are currently only three stubs using it, however I have a bot request to tag all Cat:bartending articles with the {{wpmix |bar=yes}} banner. Once that has done, I intend to request another bot run an auto-assessment on the articles and tag the stubs with the stub. If you had simply asked me my intentions I could have explained this to you. --Jeremy (blah blah) 01:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Your intentions seemed clear enough, and I did leave you a message on your talk page. Now, how is this template about the occupation of bartending not an occupational stub?? Pegship (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC) P.S. No one is suggesting (currently) that we eliminate this type, just to follow approved guidelines in implementing it.

• Ahhh. In that case, it's likely that a delete may be a better choice than an upmerge. You seem to be wanting to use this as a WP-specific assessment template, which isn't what stub templates are for (see here). I'm not sure why you think {{cocktail-stub}} should have been deprecated - it's still in use by stub-sorters, who are the people responsible for stub templates, and is in use on around 100 articles. Nor is it clear why it has a {{cocktail-stub/doc}}, since stub templates specifically do not have /doc files. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is the policy about stub templates not having /doc pages? I couldn't find it at WP:STUB and I wouldn't think a /doc page would be controversial, if one existed, nor contrary to the Stub Sorting project. --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

All stub templates use WP:STUB as a default /doc file - that's why none of the thousands of other stub documents have /doc pages. Basically, they'd all be identical, since stub templates are all used in an identical way, which would mean having one /doc file linked from about 3000 templates. Any links to WikiProjects are always kept well away from the template, and should only be in the stub category. Grutness...wha? 13:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, no. I mean to tag the bartending stubs as such. In this case there are several overlapping categories associated with this stub, Cat:Stub-Class Mixed Drinks articles, Cat:Mixed drink stubs and Cat:bartending stubs. The bartending stubs are so the Bartending WikiProject can separate bartending articles from the broader mixed drink stub-class articles and mark said articles that require expansion. It is not to identify bartending articles as per the WP 1.0 Assesments. Beyond that, and contrary to Pegship's assertion, the Bartending WikiProject does not have its own banner, it shares one with the Mixed Drinks WikiProject and the banner does not assess bartending articles separately - hence the needing of a separate bartending stub banner. Also, don't you usually find those articles that are classed as stubs also have stub templates on them as well? There is a symbiotic relationship between the two.

I also agree with Fun, where is it written that there should not be a doc subpage on stub templates? The doc sub page is an excellent place to explain what standards we use to deploy the particular stub template as to avoid overlap between disparate projects. With drink related Projects, we have five related WikiProjects and Task forces, WP:Wine, WP:Beer, WP:Spirits, WP:Bartending and WP:Pubs, and the various alcohol related stub are useful in defining borders and overlapping territories.

As for the depreciating of the {{cocktail-stub}}, when the Cocktails WikiProject was renamed as the Mixed Drinks WikiProject all associated templates, categories and classifications were supposed to be switched over to the new naming structure. This is just one of the things that was missed (I am still finding things that are left over or weren't moved), and on articles it was deployed it should have been switched over to the {{mixed-drinks-stub}} template.

Finally, I have identified at least 25 bartending stubs and tagged them as such. According to the WP:Stub page the 30 articles denoted as stubs is not concrete when the stubs are the main stub category used by a WikiProject - this number can be waived. to quote: A good number means about 60 articles or more, or 30 or more if it is the primary stub type of a WikiProject, though this figure may vary from case to case. --Jeremy (blah blah) 02:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Good points, Jerem43. Change my vote to keep, to let the WP:MIX project do what it needs to do. --Funandtrvl (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not all of them are good points; many of them are quite the opposite - many of them indicate a clear misunderstanding of stub types, as I feared, and others indicate other misunderstandings of the way stub types are handled. "There are several overlapping categories associated with this stub, Cat:Stub-Class Mixed Drinks articles, Cat:Mixed drink stubs and Cat:bartending stubs" - those are two stub categories and an assessment category - completely different things which cannot be mixed. It's like saying you'll make a cocktail with drambuie, schnapps, and a bicycle. The same misunderstanding crops up in the sentence: "The bartending stubs are so the Bartending WikiProject can separate bartending articles from the broader mixed drink stub-class articles". This is wrong on two counts: First, stubs aren't for a specific wikiproject to do anything; second, Stub-Class articles are not stubs - often in fact, a Stub-Class article won't be marked as a stub, and things marked as stubs may be Start-Class. The two are not identical and serve different purposes. Then there's reference to a "stub banner", which again indicates a misunderstanding of what stub templates are for. They are not for specific WikiProjects - they cover Wikipedia as a whole. Where a specific WikiProject needs to mark the articles associated with it, it's far more useful to all concerned to use a banner template - that is, one which goes at the top of the talk page and can be used to assess all articles. The best way for WP:MIX to "do what it needs to do" is to have its own assessment template so that it can cover all the articles within its project, not just the stubs. As I pointed out before, this is explained at Wikipedia:Stub#Stub_types.2C_WikiProjects.2C_and_Assessment_templates. All having a stub template will do is mean that stub-sorters have an extra template to deal with, and WP:MIX will fail to list any of its articles which are beyond stub length.

"The doc sub page is an excellent place to explain what standards we use to deploy the particular stub template as to avoid overlap between disparate projects." Again, the same misunderstanding. Stub templates are not deployed by and for specific wikiprojects, they are used across Wikipedia as a whole and all are used in exactly the same way. That is why the WP:STUB page serves as a de facto /doc file for them all. If you want to have a template which can be used to delineate between specific tasks within a WikiProject, you need a WikiProject banner assessment template as I have said above.

As for the deprecating of cocktail-stub, as I said, it is still in used by the people who use stub templates,m and no proposal has ever been made to stop using it (which would require either its redirection or deletion. Such a proposal for redirection or proposal should have happened here at WP:SFD or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals.

Finally, you are right that the 60 stub and 30 stub levels are not set in stone. often, it will be the case that 60 stubs is seen as too many, and this target may be dropped or raised accordingly. Similarly, the 30 target may be raised if it seems that a stub type is too similar to another similar type. 30, though, is already a very low level for a viable stub category, especially since it is likely that a WikiProject would likely be looking to expand any stubs it has (in which case the number is likely to drop). Less than 300 really is far too low for a category to be reasonable - it's far simpler to list the names of any stubs of a page in that instance, or to use "what links here', or - beest yet - to mark the talk pages of those articles with an assessment template.

Please, read Wikipedia:Stub#Stub_types.2C_WikiProjects.2C_and_Assessment_templates. It explains the difference between stub articles and Stub-Class articles and between stub templates used across Wikipedia and Assessment banner templates for use by specific WikiProjects. Hopefully you will realise that the latter of the two is more likely to be of use to you. Grutness...wha? 13:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As the person who probably created the {{bartending-stub}} template clear back in early 2007 (and if I didn't actually create it, I apologize to whomever did, but I created so many mixed-drink and bartending related templates back then that's it's hard to remember which was which), I'd like to chime in on this discussion.

First, Grutness is certainly correct. "Stub templates" have next to nothing to do with a category assessment rating of "stubb class" articles. As I understood it (it's been a while since I delved into stub sorting), the stub identifier in an article is added to articles that meet certain requirements of length (primarily) and to a lesser extent, apparent degree of completeness of the article. The second only really applies if there is just so little to be said about a topic that an article is unlikely to ever be more than a stub, yet somehow manages to be notable and verifiable (and such are rare). Thus, length is the most common criteria. Article assessment is more subjective (though there are guidelines, and WikiProjects seem to have more latitude in developing those than they do in stub sorting guidelines). Am I correct so far, Grutness?

Assuming I am correct (or roughly so), then it becomes apparent why Grutness feels that a documentation page is unnecessary for a template that is based almost solely upon article length, uses a single meta template to generate output, and should appears in a standard location in every applicable article. Documentation in that case is pretty superfluous.

The point that the WP:BAR, WP:MIX, and WP:F&B members are trying to make concerning documentation is that there are situations where {{bartending-stub}} should be used in an article, and in others {{mixed-drink-stub}} should be used, or even {{alcohol-stub}} might be a better choice. There are several similar categories, and the doc page was being used to help direct people to the appropriate sorting template. I still see value in such documentation. If the template doc page is not the most appropriate place, then were is the appropriate place? It needs to be somewhere that a person who picks a category out of thin air (i.e., sees a somewhat relevant template and thinks "aha! I could use that" would be likely to see it, so they can quickly zero in on the most appropriate stub template to use in the situation. I can't think of a better place than the doc page, but I'm surely open to suggestions of a better place.

Now to the template itself... STRONG Keep because this is the only template that the Wikibooks Bartending WikiProject has to identify such articles here on Wikipedia. Most Wikipedians don't know (and some don't even care) that there is a fairly large and encompassing Wikibooks Bartending Guide over there. It has information that could be (and in some cases should be once sourced) moved here and could help fill in stubs here. There is also a lot of stubby information here that could be (or should be, especially if it falls into "WP:NOT a cookbook" territory). Without a dedicated bartending stub sorting, that would make locating such article extremely difficult. The guide is about bartending, not about cocktails and mixed drinks per se (though there is a large drink recipe collection--mostly dumped there via transwiki from en.wiki). The fact that there are so few articles tagged with {{bartending-stub}} is both a testament to the success of the tag in helping to reduce the large number of articles that were once tagged with that template, and also a testament to the lack of effort in locating new articles that need it. Jeremy's bot requests will certainly help us to locate new ones to get us going again.

Please do not delete this tag and sorting category. It is used, it works, and it is both unique and different from mixed drinks, alcohol, and absolutely unrelated to the occupations lists. If consensus feels that deleting such a useful template for multiple WikiProjects (WP:BAR, WP:MIX, WP:BEER, WP:WINE, WP:ALCOHOL, and WP:F&B) and two projects (en.wiki and en.books) is somehow in the best interest of both the encyclopedia and the users (who would suffer from stubs that can't be found by editors who would otherwise work to fix them), then of course feel free to delete it. I'd say that upmerging to {{mixed-drink-stub}} would be a better choice than occupations, though, since it was spun off of there in the first place. I still think that an article on bar tongs, garnishes, and legal responsibilities of bartenders in various countries belongs more in bartending than in mixed drinks, they definitely belong more in mixed drinks than they do in with dog walkers, firemen, and other occupations.

I should also point out that the stub and category did go through the appropriate vetting process (not that I remember the process' name any longer) and it was agreed that such a division in content was appropriate at that time. I am pretty sure that Grutness was involved in those conversations, and might even have !voted in favor of it. Then again, it could be brain fog from over 2 years passing between creation and use.

It would also have been nice to have been notified about this sooner, since I was one of the original (if not the original) creator of the template. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 06:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I should also apologize to Jeremy, because I thought I had gone through and deleted all the old WP:COCKTAILS-related templates. I thought that {{cocktail-stub}} was supposed to have been replaced by {{mixed-drink-stub}}, and that it was going to eventually be deleted. A cocktail is a sub-type of a mixed drink, but a mixed drink is not necessarily a cocktail. Thus, mixed-drink is the slightly broader term and was the preferred choice for stub sorting name. It also better aligned with the WikiProject name (well, the newly renamed back in 2007 name) that was going to take primary responsibility for improving those articles. Just as WikiProject Bartending would take primary responsibility for improving bartending-stubs. Removing the bartending-stub essentially eliminates that category for the WikiProject, which is most unhelpful. Anyway, if someone wants to delete an unneeded category and tempalte, it should be cocktail-stub, not bartending-stub. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 06:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What about upmerging the {{bartending-stub}} template to both Cat:Mixed drink stubs and Cat:Occupation stubs? Pegship (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I would not consider that an upmerge. I would consider moving mixed-drink-stub into bartending to be an upmerge. Merging bartending-stub into mixed-drink-stub would be a downmerge, since mixed drinks are an important part of bartending, but bartending is really so much more than mixed-drinks. Here is something I added to your talk page that everyone should probably read:

[Bartending] is neither about a generic occupation, nor about a particular mixed drink, but about the entire genre and (dare I say?) bartending "mystique". Can you imagine any Old West saloon without it's barkeep? Let alone, can you imagine any Old West town without a saloon? Closer to home, can you imagine any typical Friday or Saturday night in a city without its dozens of bars, taverns, pubs, and nightclubs? And what is inside all of those? Bartenders, barbacks, cocktail waitresses, back-of-house runners, hostesses, cooks, bouncers, disc jockeys, security guards, valets, beer, wine, spirits, non-alcoholic mixed drinks, cocktails, garnishes, glassware, bartending tools and equipments, point of sale systems, drink mixers, ice, and so much more. ALL of those fall within the bartending genre. To be accurate, all of the stubs related to what I just said could be rolled into bartending-stub, since it is the general topic that all the others are subsets of. It is an occupation, a location, a facility, a drink, a social phenomenon, and sometimes stain on society, but, for many, a fun one. [This template] is used both here and by Wikibooks editors for the Bartending Guide there (which has a fluid, back and forth relationship with Wikipedia articles). The stub sorting template is highly useful to help us spot stubs here that might be better as part of the Guide, and also to see where we have information that can be excerpted back into Wikipedia (assuming we can located appropriate third-party sources). The bartending-stub is not exactly your usual stub sorting category/template, because of that close interaction between Wikibooks and Wikipedia. The choice of deleting that template will have adverse consequences both here and there. Please consider that, and the fact that there are around 25 articles in the category now.

Slightly rearranged to fit into this page's discussion Moving bartender-stubs into occupations would render the tag almost completely useless to the interested WikiProjects. Maybe some other WikiProject might become interested then, but I doubt it. If the purpose of these tags and categories is to identify stubs so that they can be expanded or merged, then they should be easily accessible to the people most likely to fix them. That would be the members of WP:BAR and WP:BARB. I know this is not a WikiProject template per se, but it is useful for several WikiProjects, and that greatly improves the chances that the articles will also be improved. That is better for the encyclopedia and its readers. I don't see how up/down merging would similarly help. I only see it making things more difficult.

I also understand now that this template may have been previously deleted and then recreated without adequate (if any) discussion. Since at least one of the key people involved in using this template (me) wasn't involved in the discussion, I am looking at this as an original deletion discussion without prejudice to any prior deletions or recreations. Since I was around for the original creation discussions, I remember that it was seen (after a little initial bit of a hard sell) as a useful category distinct from mixed-drink-stub (proposed at the same time as a replacement for cocktail-stub). Had I known about an earlier deletion discussion, I would have voiced these concerns then. Since all of the interested parties appear to be participating this time around, please let's look at this as a regular deletion discussion without an prejudices for procedures that might have been violated in between the original creation and now. Thanks! —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 09:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(after e.c.) I've replied to a lot of what Willscrlt has said at his talk page, but in a nutshell he's more or less right about the difference between stubs and Stub-Class, though there is more to it than that. Basically stubs are for editors across the entirety of Wikipedia; if a specific WikiProject wants to mark its articles, then assessment templates is a better means of doing so. Judgement by stub-sorters is not entirely to do with length, but is by necessity more arbitrary than the experts at a specific project would be able to be. Given that all stub templates are used in the same way, /doc pages are unnecessary - everything is at WP:STUB, and on those rare occasions where more needs to be said it is listed in the header of the relevant stub category, or (if it relates to editing the template's text) as a commented-out note in the template itself.

I still think that WP:BAR would be better off in the long run with an assessment template, so that it can mark all the articles relating to that project, and assess them in a way that that project deems best. A stub template will never give you that, since it will largely be used by stub-sorters who have no more than a general knowledge of the subject. However, if for some reason you'd prefer to keep the stub template instead, I will grudgingly accept that it could be kept, though as an upmerged form if it has fewer than 30 stubs (the articles using it can still be accessed via the template's "what links here" link, even if there is no specific category for them - and in any case, if you have 25 stubs, it shouldn't take much work to track down another five). I'd certainly support it being kept until such time as an assessment template can be made, if that is your option.

As to the vetting process, it appears from the archives as though the mixed-drinks-stub and cocktail-stub did go through such a process (with confused results which will hopefully be remedied shortly) -and I was a participant in one of those processes - but I can find no record of anything like that happening with bartending-stub. Grutness...wha? 09:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: Those involved in this discussion may also like to comment on the discussion I've just mentioned, which is at Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2009/May/30#.7B.7BCocktail-stub.7D.7D, above. Grutness...wha?'

Will said what I was trying to say but I did not properly word it... --Jeremy (blah blah) 09:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

While the general idea of a stub template and category for bartending may have merit, I am a little concerned about the desired use for this template as essentially a tracking tool for various WikiProjects. There is long-standing consensus that WikiProjects can do almost whatever they must in order to properly track articles under their purview as long as they do not do this in the mainspace. Wikipedia WikiProjects should track categories via talk page banners and the Wikibooks Bartending WikiProject could also conceivably keep track of bartending stubs via a talk page template.

In other words, while I understand the value of tracking bartending stubs for WikiProjects on Wikipedia and sister projects, I have not seen a clear explanation of why a stub template, and not a talk page template, is needed to do that. So, with that in mind, I am neutral on the stub template itself but support deletion of the project-specific documentation page. If there is to be a stub template for bartending topics, it should be used in the same manner as all other stub templates. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] May 26

[edit] Cat:Water stubs

We seem to have picked up this rather baffling unproposed parent-only category, which has one child (water supply stubs) and is listed as being populable by a redirect to {{watersupply-stub}}. Its only parent was Cat:stubs (which is never used as a parent for stub categories). It is totally useless, completely unnecessary, and should go. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep. There is not a general category for water stubs. I.e. stubs about rivers, irrigation, and so on. Where include the irrigation stubs?. I have problems to include irrigation districts in a stub category--Nopetro (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There is not a general category for them because no-one has ever shown a need for one, and certainly no-one has ever proposed one. If you feel there's a need for an irrigation-stub, please propose one at WP:WSS/P. In any case, since irrigation is the supply of water to land, the existing {{Watersupply-stub}}, can be - and is - used for stubs relating to irrigation. Even if there was need for a separate irrigation stub, that would be connected with a Cat:Irrigation stubs (or would be upmerged to Cat:Water supply stubs), not with Cat:Water stub. Rivers always always, get geo-stub. The current category was unproposed, and is ill-formed, and cannot serve its purpose as it is apparently to be fed by a redirect - something which is not done with stub templates. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Scanning the contents, it looks as though the vast majority of these articles really belong elsewhere (Cat:Dam stubs, Cat:Individual ship or boat stubs, Cat:Water supply stubs) and the rest could be fit in elsewhere with little effort. Pegship (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

For example in...?. --Nopetro (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete — I have been discussing one of these types of articles with Nopetro already. I am going to proactively offer to help mentor him a bit on stub sorting. Please remember, Grutness, that stub sorting is almost a mystical art to folks who either a) run afoul of a very adamant and strong group of stub sorters and learn (after the fact) that there are lots of obscure guidelines to be followed, or b) folks who try to do the right thing after reading everything and then still manage to run afoul once or twice until your gentle ways coax them back into the light. ;-) I'm not sure exactly which group I fell into, but I still remember dreading anytime I had to involve myself with stub type discussions (creating or deleting). I will be happy to share some of that knowledge with Nopetro, assuming he accepts my offer. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 07:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the offer. I accept ;-) --Nopetro (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I do assume good faith from editors on creation of unproposed stub types, I do wish, however, that those who are interesting in creating stub templates or categories would either check out WP:STUB first. It may not have seemed the case with the template below, but changes to that which led to its nomination came after I have informed Nopetro of the problems with the category and that changes and creations should be proposed first. Though the instructions may seem byzantine, WP:WSS does want to help with genuine requests and suggestions for new stub types. There's a large body of workers who are willing to wrangle new suggestions into reasonable format (including working through any guideline problems). Any complexity in creation of viable stub types is in itself the main reason why proposal is so strongly recommended. Grutness...wha? 01:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] {{Water-stub}}

I've added the brand new {{Water-stub}} to this, created by the same user who created the category. It contains an unholy and egregious mismatch of geo-stubs, struct-stubs, ship-stubs, sailing-stubs, energy-stubs, company-stubs, climate-stubs, and things which have no relevance to water whatsoever - and it's been populated with a hodgepodge of over 600 of these unmatched stubs. The whole thing is one appalling mess, and the sooner it's got rid of, the better. Extremely strong delete, and add in a strong reprimand for the person who has created so much extra work for us all. Not at all happy. Grutness...wha? 07:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete per G and my comment above. Pegship (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete — Far too broad a category to be useful for stub sorting. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 07:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete but we have a bunch of articles that used to use the template for nautical terms, e.g. Bilge. These probably all need to be redirected to {{Water-transport-stub}}. -- Brianhe (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

if there are enough of them, then something like a {{nautical-term-stub}} may be worth proposing. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Really, the stub type was not created by me. This must be clear. I can say who created it. Really, if it was created, better a general use than twisted use for the same concept. --Nopetro (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It was created many years ago to be a stub for water transport. It was moved to water-transport-stub, and the name water-stub was kept as a redirect, as so many articles still used it. That is how it was until May 25th, when you turned the redirect into a new template. So effectively yes, you did create this template. Grutness...wha? 02:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Video technology stubs

Checking the above editor's earlier contribs, I also found this woefully undersized unproposed category. The template, {{Video-tech-stub}}, might have some use, but needs upmerging unless this gets to threshold, which currently seems unlikely. It's also worth noting there is no analogous permcat parent (the nearest is Cat:Film and video technology), so this would probably have been better at {{film-tech-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 01:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep. There is a similar category for Category:Audio technology stubs. Video is not film technology. Videoconferencing is not also film technology. It is video technology.--Nopetro (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I'm sure that never occurred to anyone here.</sarcasm> Btw, the template is only used on 8 articles, so I suggest upmerging until it's big enough to leave home. Pegship (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Cat:Audio technology stubs was proposed, has a stand-alone parent in Cat:Sound technology (though it may need a renaming), and has enough stubs to be over the 60-stub threshold necessary for a separate category. Cat:Video technology stubs was not, has not, and does not - and as such should be deleted, with the template upmerged. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Grutness, when you say that the template needs upmerging, do you mean to Cat:Technology stubs? Are there perhaps enough articles in Cat:Technology stubs or enough stubs in Cat:Film and video technology to merit creation of Cat:Film and video technology stubs, which would be populated by {{Video-tech-stub}} and {{Film-tech-stub}}? –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] May 2

[edit] {{Pondicherry-geo-stub}} → {{Puducherry-geo-stub}}

[edit] March 18

[edit] Grisons -> Graubünden

[edit] {{Stub:Theology}}

[edit] {{TAMU-stub}}

Feeds into a non stub category. We don't normally split by universities and when we do we don't usually split bios by which university the person went to. Waacstats (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment:We have similar discussion on deletion of a university related template over here. Oldag07 (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete - the stub templates shouldn't be that specific. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 23:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep and upmerge into Category:Texas university stubs as per Template:TexasTech-stub. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] To orphan

Stub types in this section have been deemed deletable and have to be removed from all articles using them, so that they can be deleted.

[edit] To delete

Stub types in this section have been orphaned and can be deleted.

[edit] Listings to log

Stub types with completed discussions which have not yet been logged; remove from this page entirely when logged. Anyone can do this, not just an admin; please see the directions at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log.