Google
 
   
Login
Username:

Password:


Lost Password?

Register now!
Search

Advanced Search
Main Menu
top books
Polls
What do you think about php-deluxe.net?
Excellent!
Cool
Hmm..not bad
What the hell is this?
encyclopedia
Design pattern...
Information industry
XNap
GObject
Pseudocode
Compile farm
Nizkor Project
recommendation
compare webbrowser
Freenet DSL
Who's Online
5 user(s) are online (4 user(s) are browsing encyclopedia)

Members: 0
Guests: 5

more...
browser tip
Unix Befehle
manual of unix befehle
recommendation!
Sponsored
partner

Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted/June 2005

==June 14th==

=== / no category ===

No category, used on only 3 articles. A subdivision of , which itself has only little over 50 articles. --  16:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --  16:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete duplicate. Also Delete redirect. 17:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • *Delete both as per Suslovans. 00:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete both, or in the alternative, redirect both to sikhism. 02:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete as per 07:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. 09:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    === / no category ===

    used on 1 article. No associated category. Misspelt. :Empty now 05:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --  16:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • *Delete, as the article explaining the subject is barely a stub. No possibility of expansion. -- 22:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete Too narrow, even if it were correctly typilated. 02:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete for now; I do see a possibility for future expansion, though. 07:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. 09:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete per Lectonar, but if it s brought back, it should be spelled properly. -- 19:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    === / ===

    10 articles, no category. Category added by )

  • Delete --  16:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, very narrow subject to have a category of its own. -- 22:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Smallish indeed, but to where would these be restubbed 02:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point, but there are only 3 stubs remaining in there; so I vote Delete 07:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Only one real one, actually. The other two are the template itself, and some random user (well, IP address) page. -- 08:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Censor, a stub category with only one page is pointless. 11:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • *Delete. -- 14:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Although there is currently only one stub here, I can see the potential for large numbers. 01:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) **Update: there are 10 stubs in here. 01:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ***I believe the problem with this category is less related to stub sorting and more related to the fact that most of these entries should be merged into parent articles. -- 09:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. 09:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Closing admin s notice: Before depopulation, the category contained the following articles: 12:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    == June 15th ==

    The three listings below were retrieved from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion&oldid=14535431 history], since their nomination was deemed premature on June 1. --  15:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    === / is a redirect ===

    Template misnamed: contains a white-space. :Delete only Template. :Template has not been orphaned :Currently redirects to . :: 13:06, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC) :Update: Has been changed to in all articles. All those bio-looking titles were actually mascots... oops. Most of the others were based on a 20:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Actually, there had been a number of biographies, which I had already restubbed. 11:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non-standard redirects. Looking at What links here , about 50% of the ~40 articles currently using this template are s anyway.--  15:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete more trouble than it s worth. 16:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but ... isn t this an example of a malformed stub type which is specifically excluded in the What this page is not for list above 22:01, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • delete - good point about the listing of amlformed sytub types though... perhaps the scope of this page is slightly different to what it is listed as, and the What...not for list needs altering! 02:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • **Comment: When I wrote that bit about malformed stub types , I meant templates that were not correctly formatted, didn t have categories, etc - basically, the content needs fixing. Badly- named stub templates can be moved, but the resulting redirects are confusing (the probability that users seeing stub type get used to the naming guidelines are getting lower), and they make 13:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete 06:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Strong Keep. I created this because it felt natural. Using a dash is not natural. Most of the names the stub community comes up with make me think that place is full of 07:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *:Obfuscation is not a wikipedia feature, but consistency is. Since the vast majority of stubs are sorted by - surprise surprise - stub sorters, it makes a huge amount of sense to have consistent naming for all stub categories, wherever possible. And you clearly misread what it said further up. 50% of baseball stubs are not using this particular template. About 40 use this particular redirect, out of a total of nearly 500. That s 8%. 11:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *::It makes zero sense to disallow redirects. 15:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *:::Redirects put greater load on the servers. This doesn t matter much when it is simply pages being called up, but it does with templates, since they link to so many pages. As such, it does make sense to delete redirects, especially if they are badly named like this one. 01:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *::::the-server-load-excuse-is-really-getting-old-and-calling-it-badly-named-really-pisses-me-off. 04:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *:::The server excuse may be an old one, but that doesn t make it any less true. 09:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *::::hmm-i-guess-that-is-why-we-have-donation-drives 15:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::It s not our fault, as editors, that the Wikipedia is growing too fast for the servers to properly keep up. So what we can do is try to help keeping it a nominal levels as much as possible. I do understand what you are saying, but it simply isn t feasible at the moment to create myriads of template redirects. -- 20:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) *:Vik, it is not natural to use either or in my opinion, but satisfying my notion of what is natural would take some significant programming and revision to processes. What s natural is to use in the context of an existing article namespace category and have the result being a categorized stub pseudo-category. As an example, in the case of 12:00, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC) *Delete, as per Grutness and Courtland. -- 02:52, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC) *Delete Serves no purpose, and is a contra-naming convention fork, in effect. 02:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. 09:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete, goes against naming conventions for stubs. -- 19:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete, in the name of consistency. 18:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    === / is a redirect ===

    Template misnamed: contains a white-space. :Delete only Template. :Template has been orphaned (22 May) :Currently redirects to . :: 13:06, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

  • Delete non-standard redirects. --  15:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete more trouble than it s worth. 16:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; orphaned and redundant.
  • delete 02:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • *Delete 06:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. -- 09:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep obviously, 16:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *: Obvious in what way -- 19:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Because somebod is going to come along and write an article and put the old template stub in and get a redlink. Deleting it just creates problems. That s what redirects are for. 12:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • :It s not complicated to do a quick search on the stub types list to see what is the correct use, in case that does happen. -- 20:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. -- 02:53, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC) *Delete, in the name of uniformity and consistency. 02:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. 09:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. 18:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    === / is a redirect ===

    Template misnamed: contains a white-space. :Delete only Template. :Template has been orphaned (22 May) :Currently redirects to . :: 13:06, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

  • Delete non-standard redirects. --  15:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete more trouble than it s worth. 16:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete 02:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • *Delete 06:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Serving no purpose. 02:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. 09:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Use Icehockey-stub instead. -- 19:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. 18:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    === / no category ===

    Unused duplicate of . No associated category. (This listing was copied from 00:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Doubly pointless. 02:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Duplicate and unused. A question: does it make sense to have a template which is a sub-page of an inexistent template -- 02:06, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC) **While I don t think it makes sense either way, I m not sure it actually is a sub-page; is the / interpretted that way in this namespace I suspect not, if I m reading the lack of parent-page annotation correctly. 04:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete 07:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. -- 14:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Looks like a layout test. The Node in the title is most probably the name of its creator, 15:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • *Delete. 09:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. 18:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    == June 16th ==

    === (redirect)===

  • template misnamed ( stub not preceded by a hyphen)
  • template redirects to
  • template has not been orphaned (unknown number of associated articles)
    • *:used on 79 articles.
  • apparently no associated category to delete
    • 12:39, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

  • Delete, for all the reasons mentioned above. With bio-stub being as big as it is, the less detritus around it, the better. -- 12:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • *Delete, we simply cannot afford to create a meaningless fork of bio-stub. -- 01:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Redirects are harmless. 16:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete redirects are more work for both sorters and servers. 19:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. As per Grutness. -- 02:49, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC) *How many articles does this concern If it s small, or can be take care of via bot, etc, then go ahead and delete. 02:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) *:See note above. *Delete. 09:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. 18:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I went through the list and subcategorized most of it. Only eleven remain, and those can be dumped into bio-stub, I guess. -- 13:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • ==June 17th==

    === (redirect)===

    Currently redirecting to and orphaned, this was originally a geo-stub for one canton of Switzerland (Grisons). I don t think that Switzerland s ready for splitting yet... 10:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Redirects are harmless. 16:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. -- 21:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. -- 02:45, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC) *Delete Not useful to have this around as an orphan. 02:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete 09:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. 18:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    == June 17th ==

    === Rename ===

    The template is already named film . Movie is an Americanism. -- 20:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • People are also voting at
  • Rename -- 09:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Good idea but please discuss on 12:04, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename -- 15:21, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • ::The first three votes were moved from 20:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Comment - this wasn t listed on 23:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *This category is 19 pages long. While I support in principle, I doubt editing nearly 4000 stubs is worth it. So subsort first, then propose renaming again. --  19:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: Can t this be done with a bot Is there any need for subsorting -- 19:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) :The renaming could be done by a bot. There will come a point when this category needs subsorting though (hey, good neologism!), since ideally stub categories should only be 2 or 3 pages long. 01:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Why You can see any letter using the TOC. Previous to Category TOC s size was a problem. Why is it still a problem How and why would it be subsorted What is the need -- 06:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) apologies for the accidental deletion of this comment!
  • Keep as is until the size becomes manageable. 05:06, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
  • Rename; I am happy to make available my bot for making the move, if desired. 20:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename. Note to bot operators: once the template is changed, the category can be populated with null edits. 11:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • *Rename for both consistency and the avoidance of Americanism. 18:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    ==June 20th==

    === ===

  • The template and category have been in existence since March 2005 and there remains
    		•