Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/December

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Nomination withdrawn. Nominator has registered a "keep" comment later in the thread, and there have been no comments in favor of deletion. RL0919 (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should not have existed, article should use Template:Squash-bio-stub instead. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 08:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem? This is how stub sorting works, see

Borgarde (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

*Moved from TFD to SFD as the more appropriate venue, duplicating comments originally made at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 22. By moving this discussion, I am not taking a position for or against the deletion of this stub type. --RL0919 (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I see no problem with this template. It's upmerged to two parents as there are not yet sufficient stubs for a separate category, but it makes perfect sense to use this template rather than the more general one. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, but it covers not more than 10 articles. If one created India-squash-bio-stub, he should create England-squash-bio-stub & Pakistan-squash-bio-stub as well, as the two covers greater number of squash stub articles. I don't know what's the rule here, but if the stub template does make sense, its fine with me Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 02:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template was created when sorting

Borgarde (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. Well defined, now only I understand why the stub should've existed at the first place. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 10:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{

• Rename I agree with Grutness's reasoning. I also favor adding a "deprecated" tag on the current page rather than deleting – it seems logical. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename Cat:Ardabil geography stubs to match permcat, no consensus for Cat:Mazandaran geography stubs at this time. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming of two geo-stub categories to match key articles and other Iranian provincial stub cats:

• Cat:Mazandaran geography stubs → Cat:Māzandarān Province geography stubs
• Cat:Ardabil geography stubs → Cat:Ardabil Province geography stubs

Note that the equivalent permcats do not necessarily agree with these, but the premcats for iranian provinces are not uniform, and may soon require work at CFR. Grutness...wha? 00:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Cat:Ardabil geography stubs to match the permcat but keep Cat:Mazandaran geography stubs because it already matches the permcat, Cat:Mazandaran. I don't see any reason to change that one so it differs from the permcat. Of course, if the permcat is renamed at CfD, I will revise my vote here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rescope to Cat:Pork stubs, upmerge {{bacon-stub}}. -Mairi (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:Bacon stubs and {{Bacon-stub}} were recently created out of process - the category's not really currently viable, with only about 25 stubs, but the template looks pretty reasonable. Rescoped to the wider {{Pork stubs}}, it would have about 66 stubs according to cattersect, and Cat:Meat stubs could probably do with a bit of subdivision. It may also be that a separate bacon category will eventually be useful. After discussion at WSS/D, I'd like to propose:

• Renaming/rescoping Cat:Bacon stubs to Cat:Pork stubs
• Creating a new {{Pork-stub}}
• Keeping {{Bacon-stub}} as an upmerged template to the new category.

Grutness...wha? 04:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As part of the discussion at WP:WSSD, I suggested upmerging bacon-stubs to pork-stubs. Grutness has formalized the suggestion in a way that I think makes sense, and I support this plan. (Just to make sure my postion is clear, I think we should keep the bacon-stub and create also a pork-stub template and have them both point to Category:Pork stubs for now, with an option of Category:Bacon stubs later if there are enough to populate it.) LadyofShalott 05:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename category, keep template I am in full agreement with LadyofShalott and Grutness on this issue. There's no need for a separate bacon stubcat, at least not right now. Having the bacon template sort stubs to Cat:Pork stubs would be the best solution. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support LadyofShallot.--
  Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 22:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support: I am in support of this, but I'd like to point out that not everything in Category:Bacon stubs would be appropriate for Category:Pork stubs (for example, Vegetarian bacon and Beggin' Strips, and any future article referring to non-pork bacon or bacon related items, such as Turkey Bacon or Bacon Bandages). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. --Mairi (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:Bavarian Christian Social Union politician stubs to Category:Christian Social Union of Bavaria politician stubs
• Category:German Christian Democratic Union politician stubs to Category:Christian Democratic Union (Germany) politician stubs
• Category:Irish Labour Party politician stubs to Category:Labour Party (Ireland) politician stubs
• Category:German Communist Party politician stubs to Category:Communist Party of Germany politician stubs

As a follow up to CfR discussion. I propose renaming these stub categories to match their parent perm-cats. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match the permanent categories. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename the first three per nom, (possibly speedily, since it's the result of an equivalent CfR). For the last one, note that it is already subject to an ongoing debate on this page, and is likely to be deleted (with the template upmerged). Grutness...wha? 23:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.
  talk) 16:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was 'Delete'. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stub category that seems oddly named (language instead of nationality), not big enough, and it is used directly on articles and not with a template. I wouldn't be objecting to a template named {{

Delete, and create an upmerged Cambodia-singer-stub template per nom. Splitting singers by language is a very bad precedent (lots of singers sing in more than one language, and all other occupation categories are by nationality), and creating a manually-sorted stub category is also a no-no. Grutness...wha? 23:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the stub category and create a {{Cambodia-singer-stub}} that feeds into the stub categories mentioned by the nominator – per all of the above, and because there simply aren't enough stubs in this category to justify its separation from the parent stub categories. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this discussion has gone on for nearly 10 days with no objection I have created the upmerged template and the category is simple waiting to be deleted.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Underpopulated (23 articles).

• Keep the template (which clearly says Latur district) but reupmerge. The template wasn't proposed, but seems to be OK - and the documentation for it appears to indicate that it was upmerged - but the category shows no clear evidence that there were enough stubs for it, and as such is not that desirable. I've notified the creators of the template and category, BTW. Grutness...wha? 23:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also worth noting that of those 23 articles, quite a number are not geo-stubs, so shouldn't have been in there anyway (councils and boards, a railway station, etc.) Probably only about 18 of them should have been marked with the stub template. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per Grutness. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Been around for years, still has only 12 articles. Unlikely to get much bigger, as the main cat has well less than 60 articles. Delete. -Mairi (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Grutness...wha? 23:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very little potential for expansion here. In all honesty, I'm surprised this stub type has lasted so long. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to {{Educationist-stub}} / Cat:Educationist stubs and resort articles as needed. Renaming of {{Edu-bio-stub}} was mentioned but never formally proposed, so I leave that to be handled separately. --RL0919 (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listing per comments on the category talk page and at

Hm - I now see that {{Edu-bio-stub}} / Cat:Educator stubs already exists. Perhaps changing this one to the Educationist one, with re-sorting wherever necessary? Grutness...wha? 23:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Where's the discussion at
  WP:WSS/D? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Uh...apologies. Make that
    WP:WSS/P. :) Grutness...wha? 23:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Ah, there we go. This is a really bizarre case. I agree that "pedagogue" is the wrong word to apply to educationists, but I'm not sure if there are enough educationist stubs in existence to create Cat:Educationist stubs. Let me take a head-count of educator stubs and educationist stubs in Cat:Pedagogue stubs. There are 72 stubs in that stubcat, so this might take a while. I'll be back in a bit. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and it looks fairly even. The problem I'm running into repeatedly is the tendency of educationists to be educators by profession. I suspect double-tagging will be the best choice in many of these cases. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, create {{Educationist-stub}} and Cat:Educationist stubs, sort stubs in the Cat:Pedagogue stubs to the new stub type where appropriate, and sort stubs in Cat:Pedagogue stubs to {{Edu-bio-stub}} and Cat:Educator stubs where appropriate. Actually, it might be good if we renamed {{Edu-bio-stub}} to {{Educator-stub}} in light of the creation of {{Educationist-stub}}. Thoughts? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good - the only problem with it is the possible size of the categories once finished. Will they pass the 60 stub threshold? If not, there may need to be some upmerging somewhere. Grutness...wha? 00:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's quite possible they will; as I said above, I foresee a good deal of double-tagging. If upmerging becomes necessary, I guess we could create something along the lines of Cat:Education-related biographical stubs with one of the stubcats as a subcategory. (But I'd rather not.) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Me neither. We gotr rid of all the "-related" stub category names a couple of years ago, and I wouldn't like to see them come back. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, so we're in agreement there. Personally I think that when it comes to upmerging, we should cross that bridge when we come to it – if we come to it. For now, I think creating the new template and category and re-sorting is the best way forward. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

keep stub, upmerge category. Wizardman 23:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, apparently unproposed and unlinked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; unproposed, unlinked, and not used on a single article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep template but sort stubs to it and if necessary upmerge. Was proposed - but as part of a blanket nomination (see
  here. Grutness...wha? 23:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Okay, I looked at Cat:DKP members, the associated permanent category (up for renaming at CfD), and there are very few articles in it. I have yet to find a DKP politician article that isn't in that category already. Some articles in the category could be considered stubs, but ultimately the nominated stubcat would be rather underpopulated even if we were to sort stubs to it. Most likely, the end result would be an upmerge anyway. All things considered, I think deletion is the better option here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So that would suggest we the template but upmerge it, and delete the category, right? Grutness...wha? 00:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Would the template be feeding into Cat:DKP members, Cat:German politician stubs, or both? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just the German stub category. Stub templates should never feed permcats. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. In that case, I guess we can keep the template, but upmerge the category. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.