Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion: Difference between revisions

WikiProject Stub sorting
Information
Project page	talk
- Stub types (sections)	talk
- Stub types (full list)	talk
- To do	talk
- Naming conventions	talk
- Redirects category	talk
Wikipedia:Stub	talk
Discussion
Proposals (A)	talk
- Current month
Discussion	talk
Criteria (A) (discontinued)	talk
Deletion (Log) (discontinued)	talk
Category v t e

This page only deals with the deletion 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 have to be put on WP:TFD or WP:CFD, respectively.

This page is for the proposal, discussion, and voting on deletion of stub categories, stub templates, and stub redirects. By having the vote on these three closely related matters centralised on one page, it reduced the need for repeating identical arguments on several different Wikipedia deletion pages (WP:CFD, WP:TFD, and WP:RFD) and also reduces the workload on those pages.

• 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
• 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 for deletion!
• 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 per the instructions at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log, and are located at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted and Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Not deleted. If the decision is to rename the category or template, the discussion is logged on the "deleted" page, since the stub's name, at least, has been deleted.

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

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

{{sfd-r}}{{foo-stub}}

• They are not used in any article, and their category is empty
• They overlap with other stub categories, or duplicate them outright
• Their scope is too limited - As a rule of thumb, there should be at least 50 appropriate stubs in existence
• 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

• 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 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 templates that were not approved by the WikiProject Stub sorting (again, unless other reasons apply) — list those on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries. From there, they may later be taken to this page
• Stub categories that are too large — these are not deleted, even if they get subdivided.

• Keep (do not delete or modify)
• Delete (delete template and category)
• Merge with xx-stub (Delete category, redirect template to 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 type)
• Change scope (reword the template, typically giving it a larger scope. Usually also means renaming the category)
• BJAODN (add to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, then delete)

When voting, please try to give a more substantial reason than simply "I like it/find it useful" or "I dislike it/don't find it useful"

Due to the automated counting of stubs within categories, it is vitally important that stub types are removed from the stub type list WP:WSS/ST when they are deleted! Don't leave red links on WP:WSS/ST!

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

Keep Bearing in mind that we really do prefer stub cats to have at least 50 articles (although exceptions are regularly made - it is only a Guideline, not an Official policy), I would be minded to change my vote on the Kurdish politicians stub to Delete if we decide to keep this parent category, which undoubtedly can make the 50-60 article threshold. The key objective here is to improve and expand Wikipedia's coverage of this subject area, and that is certainly well-served by having its own dedicated stub cat.--Mais oui! 15:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "exceptions" tend to be either for wikiprojects, which there's a clause for in the guidance, or not so much a calculated exception, as a "stymied consensus to delete", which can and does occur in the silliest of cases. But I don't disagree with your gist, I just don't especially want to end up with two seriously undersized types (for the price of one). I'd be inclined to reverse your contingency and say delete this one, unless the child is deleted, but I'll continue mulling for the time being. Alai 18:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all these attempts to delete all things Kurdish is both tiresome and troubling. Carlossuarez46 18:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos, people are debating whether or not to delete a stub which does not fit anywhere. Not the *material* on Kurdistan or Kurdish people. Please stop making unsubstantiated allegations. No vote at the moment Valentinian ^(talk) 18:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is no reason for deletionDiyako Talk + 18:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleted. Being kurdish is not an adequate reason for biographies to appear on wikipedia. All bio stubs are sorted by either nationality or by occupation. Being kurdish is neither a nationality nor occupation. Hence speedy delete was more than approporate as the category does not fit anywhere unless we consider kurdish a nationality and kurdistan a country which would be pov not shared by international treaties. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• It definitely needs a better name. How about {{London-Underground-stub}} ? Valentinian ^(talk) 22:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename i would pick Valentinian's suggesion but either work!Eagle (talk) (desk) 23:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds like a good idea to rename it. "Tube" is widely enough known, though either name would work. Depends how formal we want to be :) Grutness...wha? 00:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• LUL stands for London Underground Limited. -Splash^talk 02:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who couldn't guess that one. A rename is still a good idea. 11:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Keep Useful stub. --Mais oui! 23:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all other politician stubs have been split by country, not by ethnicity. Valentinian ^(talk) 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be treating the word "country" as being synonymous with "state". They are not synonyms. A country is a geographical entity, which Kurdistan certainly is. --Mais oui! 06:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, all other politicians stubs have been split by nationality, not ethnicity. See for yourself. That's why there's no "Híndu-politician-stub" (or "Sikh-politician-stub") but instead an "India-politician-stub". And if the India category is one day going to be split, it'll be along geographical lines, not ethnic lines. No country in the world recognizes Kurdistan as independent, so it is not a "country". The Kurds are a distinct people but that's another story. Valentinian ^(talk) 11:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There's category:African American politicians. Is this a nationality too? Aucaman^Talk 12:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That term is not a nationality, they are citizens of the United States. There's no problem with the Category:Kurdish politicians since categories have no size restriction and are allowed to cut across other categories. This is not allowed with stub categories. I can see 5 problems with this stub category (see below). For the record, nobody is suggesting removing the *articles* only the stub template. Valentinian ^(talk) 13:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. splits should be by nationality. if we soplit out kurds seperately it looks like wikipedia has decided that kurdistan is acountry (which isnt very NPOV!). also the size problems with the catagory make it a poor one to have - iraq politician stubs isnt overpopulated and neither are the other ones that have kurds. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be treating the words "nation" and "country" as being synonymous with "state". They are not synonyms. A nation is a cultural entity, which Kurds certainly are. I would argue that there is tons of POV in all these Kurd debates, and not just from one side, so I am afraid that any one position claiming to be more NPOV than the other is likely to be met by incredulity. --Mais oui! 06:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're completely correct about the "tons of POV" on either side in general, but that does not make this question simply subordinate to that debate. It's clearly determinable purely in terms of stub-sorting practice (and if we had a sensible speedy deletion policy, it already would have been). Alai 13:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on size, rename if mysteriously kept. Mais oui, please see the guidance on this page about size of stub types, and on voting rationale. Alai 00:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very well aware of the criteria, but thanks for re-highlighting the relevant page. I have already provided a rationale: "useful". --Mais oui! 06:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or to quote same: When voting, please try to give a more substantial reason than simply "I like it/find it useful" or "I dislike it/don't find it useful". Your utility argument (even if not ruled out ahead of time) doesn't address the type being undersized, badly named, and its "unusual" scope. (My primary concern is not the last one, though methinks this may not be true of the large number of people turning up here.) Alai 13:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance should be changed. The category system doesn't have an excessive and arbitary limit like that. Bhoeble 07:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the stub system does, because it has a completely different purpose. That is why stub types like this one should be deleted. Grutness...wha? 07:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If the purpose is categorisation, please create a (normal) category. Alai 13:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. There's no problem with an standard Category:Kurdish people or Category:Kurdish politicians Valentinian ^(talk) 13:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it is good to see sensable people. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 02:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am curious why there are so many votes on stubs for deletion and categories for deletion on anything related to kurds. There has been a recent mass creation of imposible to navigate categories. Many sub-categoies related to kurds have less than 10 articles. It is very disturbing that some of the keep votes come from people who do not even know english such as User:Muhamed. I do not like people voting keep without even understanding the arguments presented.
  • If you are placing the KAR flag on his bio page that is not only factualy inacurate but also HIGHLY disturbing. That is like placing the Soviet flag on the stub bio page of a russian american. I am sure it would upset me if I were a russian immigrant who chose a political career in the US if I were to be placed in the same category as the people I ran away from.
  • A category:African American politicians would clearly be about africans in the united states, while Kurd-politician-stub is clearly about kurds in general. Nature of a nations politics is determined by how people known as politicians work things out. The nature of politics change right after the border and so does politicians involved with the politics. The politicians in Iraq have no influence on the politics of Germany. The Iraqi politicians have no authority in Germany and hence have no reason to appear in the same category.
  • Also Kurdish is an ethnicity which is strictly a cultural concept. We do not have Category:Trekkie Politician Stub

  --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per BL. Conscious 04:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mais oui!.Heja Helweda 06:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mais oui! Using tha anti- arguments, the Kurds are running an autonomous province in Iraq, so under the so-called country guidelines, it would still be applicable. --Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 06:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the intended scope is politicians from the Iraqi autonomous region, rather than ethnic Kurds in general, doesn't you think this could be made rather clearer? (Especially as exactly the opposite impression has been given.) Alai 13:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And having just gone through the current population, and looking at the category page: a third of them wouldn't be politicians from Iran, and it would be subcategorised in the "Iraq" hierarchy, not something almost invariably double-stubbed with a country. Alai 13:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A {{IraqiKurdistan-politician-stub}} would have stayed within the normal system (as a child of {{Iraq-politician-stub}}. The only problem with such a stub category would be to find the required 60 stubs (without emptying the category for Iraq). The problem here is that this category is way too small, oddly named, and composed of pieces from both the Iraqi and Iranian categories (see the edit history for the individual stubs.) Valentinian ^(talk) 14:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mais oui!. Compare category:African American politicians Bhoeble 07:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the above three "votes": "Keep per <person giving no voting rationale>", is giving no voting rationale. Alai 13:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Bhoeble, Heja and Scaife, please realise that what you are arguing for is perfectly true for Category:Kurdish politicians, but completely irrelevant as regards Category:Kurdish politician stubs. Note, for example, that there is no Category:African American politician stubs - all politician stub categories are arranged solely by nationality - "nationality" here being internationally recognised independent entities (and thus able to be dealt with on wikipedia without risk of POV-warring). Note too that - with the exception of individual American states (and there are literally thousands of US politician stubs), no country has separate stub categories for politician based on subnational regions. Grutness...wha? 07:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Grutness...wha?, It's not a good reason. The category stub has its own meaning, and is used for articles which still nead to be expanded. Also if still there is not a Category:African American politician stubs does not mean that the Kurdish one should not exist. Both are necessary.Diyako Talk + 08:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The stubs maybe usefull, the category is not. As Gruntness explains aside from the United States which has a recognised federal body made out of 50 states each with their own internal politics, no other political entitiy recognised by international treaties have such a structure and the only reason US got its exception is because of the thousands of living and dead politicians over crowding their respective category, Category:American politicians. Furthere more to Gruntness argument. Kurds are not even a part of a federal structure like the United States outside of Iraq.
    • May I ask why is it usefull? How does it help people navigate local politicians when they are led to foreign politicians?

    --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Very useful stubs.Diyako Talk + 07:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Grutness. --Gorbeh10:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The flag is now used by Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government. It is fair to use it for Iraqi Kurdistan. It would be rather misleading to use it for Kurdish regions in Turkey, Syria etc. --Hening Kelly10:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as above --Kash 11:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The fact that Kurds don't have a country is not relevant to this discussion. Compare category:African American politicians Aucaman^Talk 12:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it is, see the post by Grutness. We have categories for this purpose, and nobody is suggesting deleting the Category:Kurdish politicians only the Category:Kurdish politician stubs (which will *not* delete the articles, only the template). The stub categories work differently than ordinary categories, and this one is cutting though existing categories messing up the system. 2) We have more stub articles about Governors of Córdoba (in Argentina) than about Kurdish politicians, and that's counting both Turkey, Iran, and Iraq, so it is not needed. It is *way* below the level for new stubs, which require 60-65 stub articles. 3) The stub is misnamed; in any case it should have been named "Kurdistan-politician-stub" to be consistent with anything else. 4) The stub was not proposed on WP:WSS although is has been added to a category run by WP:WSS. 5) The flag is official in Iraq, but not in Iran and Turkey, and this makes it POV there. Is the next one going to be an {{Uyghur-politician-stub}} with less than five articles? Valentinian ^(talk) 13:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Muhamed 13:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Let's spend our efforts on expanding it rather than discussing its deletion. Bertilvidet 12:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's spend our efforts in defining it in such a way that it's a) correctly named, b) populable, and c) not a red rag to pointless and unnecessary bunfights. Alai 13:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless we can clearly distinguish between Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government and other Kurdish regions in the middle east. Source of confusion. --Mitso Bel17:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Valentinian and Hening Keller. --Sina Kardar17:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all these attempts to delete all things Kurdish is both tiresome and troubling. Carlossuarez46 18:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos, nobody is deleting any material. People *are* debating if a stub *template* that doesn't fit anywhere should be deleted or not. Please do not make unsubstantiated allegations. Valentinian ^(talk) 19:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete per Grutness. --ManiF 05:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unfortunately {{gvrd-stub}} now uses the main category, so the situation isn't quite solved. I'd say rename this to Category:Greater Vancouver Regional District stubs to match Category:Greater Vancouver Regional District. Mairi 03:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that; and I see it's now fixed! Either way, the old category should walk the plank... Alai 05:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now that it's at a sensible name, might as well just delete this category... Mairi 05:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I also put the template up too...If that is right...Eagle (talk) (desk) 05:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've ammended the heading to include the category. Other than that it looks like you did things right...Mairi 05:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My opinion on this one hasn't changed. Conscious 06:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks very deleteable to me. It's chronically undersized, the parent -- or what should be the parent, i.e. Category:University stubs, which is explicitly scoped to include all tertiaries -- isn't currently in urgent need of splitting, and the existing splits are largely by geography. Alai 06:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This pair was originally nominated in January but was kept due to lack of concensus. The keepers made the following comments:

  "Keep. Can be of use, as there's likely many more business schools which will start as stubs"

  "Keep Very useful, can be easily used to populate several articles, that haven't been stub-catted yet."

In the two months since that nomination, the category has grown from six to eight stubs, so clearly it hasn't been as useful (or as easy to populate) as the above keepers thought. Therefore my thoughts on this are the same as they were last time: "Delete as per nom. Proliferation of tiny stub categories is not fun." --TheParanoidOne 11:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Valentinian ^(talk) 17:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Delete'. For the most part, it makes more sense to split tertiary institutions by their location rather than their field of study - law schools and seminaries are the only two others I know of that are split by field, and both of those make some sense as special cases. Otherwise, though, it's far more likely, I'd think, that someone would know more about tertiary institutes in a particular country than by whether they're business schools, polytechnics,art schools, teachers' colleges or whatever. It's also thoroughly underutilised - eight stubs isn't an indication of usefulness either for stub sorting or for editors. Grutness...wha? 23:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've no real objection to using HK for Hong Kong - it's moderately unabiguous and well known - but if it is changed, I'd prefer {{HongKong-actor-stub}} to Hong-Kong-actor-stub - and the same with any others in the form Hong-Kong-xxx-stub - they're definitely the odd ones out as far as hyphens are concerned. As to who created it... hm... I'm sure the answer will come to me in an Instant... :) Grutness...wha? 00:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with the one-hyphen-less version, though there's several others that should then be changed to match. Now, why HongKong- but Ancient-Greece-, etc, though... Alai 02:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, "Ancient" is a modifier for Greece, Egypt, etc, so a hyphen makes sense - we could easily have a Greece-stub or an Egypt-stub. But "Hong Kong" is the name of the place - "Hong" doesn't modify "Kong" in the same way. Which is why all the other two word geo-stub placenames are hyphenless (like SouthAfrica-geo-stub and BritishColumbia-geo-stub). Grutness...wha? 22:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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