Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/September/2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
September 2
[edit]- 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
Created a couple of months ago in what I suspect is a case of wires-getting-crossed (proposal was to created Vojvodina geography stubs and the same for, eh, a certain other alleged autonomous province of Serbia. (Which we should frankly go ahead with, since failing to bite the bullet on this leads to much greater silliness that doing so, such as double-stubbing with Kosovo- and Serbia-.) Never used. Alai 22:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, a "K-word"-geo-stub does exist, but only as a redirect to Euro-geo-stub, since the "It's in Serbia" and "It's not in Serbia" factions could at least agree on a continent (it seems to be about all the can agree on). mThe main concern is the lack of stubs, though we've bent the rules for the Palestinian teritories for similar reasons in the past. Perhaps creating an undersized Category:Kosovo geography stubs prootected as a subcat of the Serbian one, is the best we can hope for until the UN, Russia, NATO, the locals and whoever else agrees what happens with this place. As fo Vojvodina-stub, if it's never been used and was created accidentally, then a quiet deletion may be the best solution. Grutness...wha? 00:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the original discussion, and here's the recap, after which I created both the Voj & the Voj-geo stub types. Have at it. Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do realize the template exists, hence the comment about the prevalence of double-stubbing Kosovo- and Serbia-, which obviously arises because the current scheme is far from agreeable to everyone (i.e. needs to be "Serbianed up", in the eyes of some). I didn't think there was an issue about size; I'll double-check that (though I hesitate to start populating the upmerged template, for obvious reasons): there seems to be about 50 in the Serbia cat, plus a number using the template (though there's the overlap to take account of). I'll double-check that, and take it to /P if I can confirm 60. If we go ahead, I'd suggest that it be double-parented with Serbia and Europe, in an attempt to hedge both POVs. Protection of both template and category may well be sensible. Alai 02:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Vojvodina-geo-stub}} seems ok, but I am no fan of {{Vojvodina-stub}}. I don't think it is a good idea to have generic templates for non-sovereign areas. around but still. (That said, a template like {{Scotland-stub}} seems well-reasoned, although most people here on the mainland, consider Wales and Scotland to be "standard" provinces in the UK.) Valentinian T / C 21:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No opinion either way, but my wounded pride behooves me to say that both the previous discussions seemed to (at least cautiously) support the {{Vojvodina-stub}}. It was not created accidentally, nor was it a case of crossed wires. If I misunderstood, someone should have made it clear at the time. Harumph. Her Pegship (tis herself) 14:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I say "crossed wires" because it was created at around the same time as the -geo-stub, seemingly (I thought) on foot of a proposal for latter, only (together with Kosovo-geo-). If it was created on the basis of the earlier discussion, then I have to say that that discussion (repeatedly) raised the issue of size, but reached no conclusion on same whatsoever (and indeed no information at all on that was offered). Though it might argue for upmerger rather than deletion, which I wouldn't necessarily object to, if size was the only concern. Maybe we should ask the original proposal if he still feels the need for such an entity, given the lack of other action by way of creating it himself, or using it. Alai 01:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that {{Vojvodina-stub}} is an unnecessary extra. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with {{Kosovo-geo-stub}} (with the category being a subcat of Serbian one), but I think it would be underpopulated, glancing over the Category:Serbia geography stubs. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem even with {{Kosovo-stub}} but I guess that some people would. Duja► 14:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The main problem, Duja, is that rightly or wrongly a lot of editors do have problems with it - especially with relation to whether it should be a subtype of the Serbian category. There was a flurry of edit warring during the short time kosovo-geo-stub existed as a separate template rather than a redirect, and the main concern with a kosovo-stub would be the same. Personally I'd be happy to see them both as full templates, if their use could be "stabilised" in some way to prevent further edit warring. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Existence of Kosovo-geo-stub can be easily justified by the need to split the Serbia-geo-stub category, as well as on existence of Vojvodina-geo stub. As for Vojvodina-stub and Kosovo-stub, they would be fundamentally different in the field: since most of those stubs would fall into "bio" category, it is seldom a case that a person from Vojvodina would be fundamentally tied to Vojvodina only (and not to the rest of Serbia); in Kosovo case, both editors, and likely the subjects, of articles on Kosovo Albanian people would certainly refuse to have anything to do with Serbia. But I guess that my opinion would be a minority one.
Back to Kosovo-geo-stub question, if created, the category should likely be protected to prevent edit warring; but the protection would be limited to one page.
In addition, I'm considering (still far from realization) making a bot that would populate quite a number of stubs from List of settlements in Serbia based on census results. I will certainly let you know when/if it's ready, but that would make ~2000 stubs. And there you'll have a clasification problem. Duja► 07:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Existence of Kosovo-geo-stub can be easily justified by the need to split the Serbia-geo-stub category, as well as on existence of Vojvodina-geo stub. As for Vojvodina-stub and Kosovo-stub, they would be fundamentally different in the field: since most of those stubs would fall into "bio" category, it is seldom a case that a person from Vojvodina would be fundamentally tied to Vojvodina only (and not to the rest of Serbia); in Kosovo case, both editors, and likely the subjects, of articles on Kosovo Albanian people would certainly refuse to have anything to do with Serbia. But I guess that my opinion would be a minority one.
- The main problem, Duja, is that rightly or wrongly a lot of editors do have problems with it - especially with relation to whether it should be a subtype of the Serbian category. There was a flurry of edit warring during the short time kosovo-geo-stub existed as a separate template rather than a redirect, and the main concern with a kosovo-stub would be the same. Personally I'd be happy to see them both as full templates, if their use could be "stabilised" in some way to prevent further edit warring. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note I am closing this on the basis that it is undersized. That is the main thing that I took into consideration. Just so you know. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:41, 25 September 2007 (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 catfish cat, keep both templates, with siluriformes redirecting to catfish
I created the latter, to follow the existing permcat Category:Siluriformes, not noticing the existing Category:Catfish stubs. I've redirected the template, to follow the article (catfish), but for consistency the cat (as it were) should probably follow the taxonomic name. (Otherwise, I'll delete the latter.) Alai 04:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I think catfish stub is a valid name for siluriform fish articles just like Category:Shark stubs is for shark articles (not Selachimorpha stubs). Unlike cypriniformes or characiformes, the common name of this order is widely recognized. I'm pretty sure there are many editors contributing to various catfish articles who can't even remember the latin name. As the article is titled "catfish" not "Siluriformes", the stub should be "catfish stub" not "Siluriformes stub". (PS. the Latin name vs. common name has been and is still a debate in WP:FISH and many other wikiprojects. We spent weeks discussing about this and finally came up with a policy of mixed use of the names, case by case basis. I think there's no reason not to apply the well-thought WP:FISH policy to stubs as well.)--Melanochromis 11:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But "mixed" is exactly what I'm suggesting: template at {{catfish-stub}} (with a redirect from {{Siluriformes-stub}}), to match catfish; category at Category:Siluriformes stubs, to match Category:Siluriformes. Note that there's no Category:Catfish, unlike the sharks, where both the article and category are at shark / Category:Sharks. Alai 18:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. If there are problems with it being siluriformes when the article is at catfish, perhaps the permcat should be moved from Category:Siluriformes, but that is beyond the scope of SFD. Keeping the stubcat names as similar as possible to the permcat names is preferable, and therefore moving this cat(fish)egory makes sense. Having both template names available is a good idea. (Note - if the permcat name is proposed for renaming, this sfd nomination should wait until the outcome of that is known.) Grutness...wha? 00:22, 3 September 2007 (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.
Category:Bishops of Durham stubs, upmerger or renaming
[edit]- 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 to "Church of England bishop stubs"
Small, and dodgily named. I suggest, for preference, upmerging to Category:Church of England bishop stubs (which I've just mooted on the proposals page), or failing which, renaming to Category:Bishop of Durham stubs. Alai 01:20, 2 September 2007 (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.