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

State's name has officially changed to Odisha. Template and category should be renamed to {{Odisha-geo-stub}} and Cat:Odisha geography stubs to match. Propose keeping current template name as a redirect. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and keep direct per nomination. I'll move the main article (
  Orissa) to correspond with the name change. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Well, the main article has been move-protected for a few days now, which I disagree with, but in any case...I can't move the page. Regardless, I still believe the stubcat and template should be renamed. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's interesting... When I nominated this, the page was at Odisha. Going by the page history and equivalent CfD it looks as if the naming hasn't been officially finalised yet, so perhaps this should be postponed for now... I'll withdraw the nom (temporarily, at least). Grutness...wha? 23:33, 9 November 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 18:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Rename to Cat:Astronomical observatory stubs to match permcat. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nomination. Cat:Astronomical observatories is the associated permanent category, so the terminology here should match that anyway. In addition, a glance at Cat:Observatories indicates that there are several other types of observatories out there with their own categories: Cat:Bird observatories, Cat:Geophysical observatories, Cat:Meteorological observatories, etc. Since this stubcat merely deals with astronomical observatories, telescopes, and instruments, a rename is wholly appropriate. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:04, 9 November 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

Unproposed, badly named stub template with its own category despite severe size problems - it currently contains nine stubs (less that 1/6 of the threshold number), and those that it does contain are mostly, well, at best somewhat esoterically related to Canadian royalty, shall we say. I can see no reason why

This one may rely on the outcome of a current CFR, but we have a mismatch between West Midlands (county), West Midlands (region), and the stub category names. The current permcats are Cat:West Midlands (undergoing CFR) and Cat:West Midlands (region). I'd like to suggest the following renames:

• Cat:West Midlands geography stubs → Cat:West Midlands (county) geography stubs
• Cat:West Midlands building and structure stubs → Cat:West Midlands (county) building and structure stubs
• Cat:West Midlands county school stubs → Cat:West Midlands (county) school stubs
• Cat:West Midlands railway station stubs → Cat:West Midlands (region) railway station stubs
• Cat:West Midlands region building and structure stubs → Cat:West Midlands (region) building and structure stubs
• Cat:West Midlands region school stubs → Cat:West Midlands (region) school stubs

Grutness...wha? 00:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for consistency with pagenames. Triplestop x3 03:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and speedy as the parent categories are named that way. MRSC (talk) 17:51, 4 November 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

• Rename to Kyrgyzstani people stubs
• The parent category was recently moved from Category:Kyrgyz people to Category:Kyrgyzstani people, as were all its subcategories. "Kyrgyzstani" refers to nationality ("from Kyrgyzstan"); "Kyrgyz" to the ethnicity. Not all Kyrgyzstani people are of Kyrgyz ethnicity, and not all Kyrgyz people are of Kyrgyzstani nationality. In theory, this stub category could be appropriately named if it referred to people of the ethnicity, but it currently refers to people of the nationality. The template itself is {{Kyrgyzstan-bio-stub}}, which already relatively clearly refers to nationality, not ethnicity. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC) [and apologies for placing this on the wrong date Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)][reply]
  • [no probs - easy to fix, and I know you're more used to CFD, which works slightly differently] Grutness...wha?
• Rename per nom and per CFD discussion; FWIW, all but the smallest of handful of bio-stubs refer to nationality rather than ethnicity. Grutness...wha? 23:30, 23 October 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 Speedy delete

Delete. Faulty on many levels:

1. unproposed (if it had been, and on the rare chance that it had been approved, it would have been radically reworked)
2. despite its name, it's use seems to be as a Stub-Class assessment template, not a stub template -as such it should be a talk-page banner assessment template
3. hyper-ambiguous name -
   Pyjamas, Punjab, Police Judiciaire, and PJ Harvey, to name but five. Percy Jackson and the Olympians isn't even mentioned at PJ
   !
4. No indication that the stub category which is currently used for these articles is in need of a split.

Grutness...wha? 23:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry for the fuss :(. I'm inexperienced with templates in general, and although I tried to research them before creating, I will support the delete because:

1. It has been deleted before. (as told to me by Pmlinediter)
2. The constructive criticism/reasons for deletion raised above.

I guess the PJTF will have to stick with the more general {{Fantasy-stub}} for the time being. Airplaneman ^talk 23:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought it sounded familiar from somewhere - I'd forgotten it had been deleted before (under another name). I'd suggest using a banner talk page template - that way you can assess all the articles covered by the task force, not just stubs ({{
  WPNZ}} is a good example of this type of template). They're more complex to make, but with any luck it'll be easy to find someone with a bit more experience of templates who'd be able to make one for you Grutness...wha? 23:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'll certainly consider that. Thanks for your help! Airplaneman ^talk 00:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There already is one {{
  NovelsWikiProject}} that supports stubs for the Percy Jackson task force - so no need for anything more just use what is there. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I guess we can go ahead with the delete :(. Airplaneman ^talk 03:21, 6 November 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

Appears to have been created as a "wanted category" after being redlinked from a discussion at WP talk:WikiProject Green Day. No template, either, so it's not used in its current form - no sign that it's ever been used, in fact, other than for the talk page discussion, and given that there are only some 80 articles listed by WPGD as being within their scope, it's definitely a case where a talk-page banner would make far more sense (in any case, we don't generally split music stubs by individual artists). Delete Grutness...wha? 23:18, 15 October 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 08:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Pakistan is a Commonwealth country which generally uses UK English - as such the permcat parent for this is - correctly - at Cat:Organisations based in Pakistan. The stub cat should be spelt with an -s- to match. Grutness...wha? 23:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support for consistancies sake.Waacstats (talk) 19:36, 10 October 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 09:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Cat:Taranaki geography stubs → Cat:Taranaki Region geography stubs
• Cat:Hawke's Bay geography stubs → Cat:Hawke's Bay Region geography stubs

Both pending the outcome of related CFR nominations. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow CFR decision. Waacstats (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: CFR was closed as a rename to Foo Region, so the current proposal would agree with that. Grutness...wha? 23:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: per CfR outcomes for consistency. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:47, 15 October 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

Unproposed, with redlinked category,. If it had been proposed, it would undoubtedly have been firmly rejected asa n idea - we have deleted similar stubs based on Tatarstan in the past, for the same reason that stubs are not made for other similar regions. Not generally helpful as a stub type (and decidedly unhelpful as a precedent). Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand why do you want to delete this stub. There are many Tatar writers and they need stub. --

YildizTat (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

In simple terms, Bio-stubs are divided by currently recognised country and current national boundaries except in very rare circumstances. Tatarstan is currently part of Russia - as such, {{Russia-writer-stub}} should be used. It's exactly the same reason why we don't, for instance, have {{Thrace-writer-stub}}, {{Kurdistan-writer-stub}}, {{Texas-writer-stub}}, {{Kashmir-writer-stub}}, {{Bavaria-writer-stub}}, or {{Chechnya-writer-stub}} - to give just a handful of examples. Even if we were to have such a stub, it would be at Tatarstan-writer-stub, not Tatar-writer-stub. In Tatarstan's case, it's further confused by the ambiguity of whether it refers to people from Tatarstan or people of Tatar descent. If it's the latter, we again - except in very, very rare circumstances - don't divide bio-stubs by ancestry. See also the similar debates forther down this page for Cat:Bosniak people stubs and {{Livonia-bio-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but Russian is understanding as nationality too. And many tatar writers lives and lived not only in Russia, so template Russian writers is not acceptable for them. Tatars are second nation in Russia with rich culture and literature, and you say, that we can't have our own template??? Russia is very big country with many different cultures and only one template for all of nations is a big mastake! I repeat, that Tatars live in all world, not only in Russia. --

YildizTat (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The difference is that Russia is not part of a country - it is a currently internationally recognised country. For the same reason writers in each of the other entities I mentioned above use the currently internationally accepted countries that they are within - a Kurdish writer living in Iraq would be marked with an Iraq-writer-stub, for instance. Grutness...wha? 23:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Grutness, splitting by subnational entity is not a great idea, and I think all the ones we have were unproposed, this one is as awkward as any other, is some one who is from Tatarstan but writes Russian literiture a Tatar writer, if so why is someone from US a Tatar writer if not why not he lives there. Waacstats (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But can't there be one stub for all Tatar writers, which can unite all of them?--94.180.162.57 (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stub types aren't intended to be used to unite people by ethnic origin - permanent categories already do that, as would a talk-page assessment template if there were a relevant WikiProject. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Cat:Tatar writer stubs - created since the template was nominated for deletion - is now also included in this nomination. Further note that even if every one of the 29 articles in Cat:Tatar writers were a stub (which is not the case - only some eleven are of stub size), it would fall short of the required threshold for a separate category by a considerable distance. Indeed, some of the articles which had been added to the stub category were not stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't new that. If it's so necessary, delete it.--

• Delete, following geography is the only really clear way to divide these stubs, so we need to be consistent. Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 21 October 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 15:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Unproposed, and with a distinctly ambiguous name. The stbcat is not attached anywhere to the stub category tree. Used on 17 articles, all but one of which are actually bio-stubs (the remaining one should probably have listdev rather than a stub template). The associated permcat has fewer than 50 articles in total (including its subcat), so there's no chance of this having 60 current stubs. Upmerge would be an option if (a) the template had been named correctly and (b) it was actually used for things which should be using it rather than bio-stubs. As it is, it seems less than useful even as a redirect. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Send to SFD and delete. Waacstats (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops already on SFD - therefore Delete. Waacstats (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Most of the articles in this stubcat should be re-tagged as bio-stubs; the ambiguous name also leads me to support deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:53, 9 November 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

Unproposed stub type for a tennis tournament. Currently used on two articles, and the associated permcat only has fifteen articles in total - even if all of them were stubs (which they aren't) it would only get 25% of the way to being viable as a separate stub category. Probably not even that useful as an upmerged template - Cat:Tennis competition stubs is fairly large, but splitting it by decade or era would probably make more sense. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

send to SFD and delete, will look at some other way to split tennis comp stubs. Waacstats (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops already on SFD - therefore Delete. Waacstats (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need more coffee? :) As to other ways of splitting, a GrandSlam-tennis-stub to cover the four majors might help things out, though i still think a by-decade split might help more. That is a discussion for WSS/P, though. Grutness...wha? 23:15, 6 October 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 11:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a misguided attempt to create a "not-quite-a-stub template". Unused - as are its redirects at {{Hamburg-geo-small}} and {{Hamburg--small}} (!). Unneeded - either something is a stub or it isn't, and if it isn't it uses {{expand}}. I really, really doubt anyone would think it was a good idea to create a parallel system to the stub system to sort articles which aren't quite stubs. If there's enough interest in grading all hamburg articles, a talk page assessmrent template is a much more sensible option. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not used, redundant to article sorting by class via Hamburg task force on talk page. Sebastian scha. (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Sebastian. Waacstats (talk) 21:44, 6 October 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.