Stub types for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005 |
==July 2nd==
===Delete redirect ===
This is a redirect to . As it has an arcane name, it is unlikely to be used by accident and I think it s best to remove the potential for it being used intentionally. This has been orphaned. July 2, 2005 13:36 (UTC)
*Weak keep - see below. 2 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)
===Delete redirect ===
This is a redirect to . It s name is understandable, but it doesn t conform to the stub template title guidelines in having Canada-BC-geo rather than CanadaBC-geo . Also, it is not consistent in form with (i.e. Canadian province -geo-stub). This has been orphaned. July 2, 2005 15:35 (UTC) *Weak keep. These two redirects, plus and were deliberately created as part of the canda geo-split last month. Given that thy are a further split of Canada-geo-stub into smaller sections, they do conform to title guidelines, although the smaller variable is the second, rather than the first part, much as it is in US-midwest-geo-stub and the like. 2 July 2005 19:58 (UTC) (modified, as noted below) **Then should the BrColumbia-geo and Alberta-geo stub templates be deleted Or do you want to keep them all. July 3, 2005 18:51 (UTC) *The orginal idea was to keep both, with the Province-geo-stub as the main name and the others as redirects, in the same way that it was originally intended that there would be US state redirects like . I see though that those weren t made... personally, I prefer using the Province-geo-stub names, but the others were created because other stub sorters said they d be useful. If they re not being used, though... hmmm. Make my vote a weak keep rather than a strong one. 4 July 2005 01:22 (UTC) *The more I think about it, the more I think that if these aren t being used, there s no real point in having them. I m not actually going to vote against them, but I m cancelling my vote of keep for the redirects. I m quite happy just to have the Province-geo-stub names and leave it at that. 8 July 2005 08:20 (UTC)
Note on the two votes above: I relisted all four of the redirects for more comments, and I m logging this as no consensus. -- 20:18, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
==July 6th==
=== (redirect)===
This links to New Zealand stubs, which is good, but... kiwi -stub Last time I checked there was no alternative stub or redirect for New Zealand related stubs. 06:16, May 21, 2005 (UTC) :There isn t. Sigh - this had to happen eventually... this is the first template I ever made - long before I knew the naming standards. I d suggest making and redirecting kiwi-stub to it, until such time as the population of kiwi-stub drops (currently there are a couple of hundred of them). At least try to keep my kiwi icon :) 06:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC) Comment: Some not really stub-related discussion followed, which I m not taking to this page. This redirect is still used on 100+ articles. I myself see little harm in keeping the redirect. -- 6 July 2005 12:50 (UTC) *Keep. Quite logical, actually. It s not harming anything either. -- 6 July 2005 16:55 (UTC) *I know I m biased, but I can t see any harm in keeping this, despite its non-standard name. 7 July 2005 04:49 (UTC) *Keep, but redirect. - 06:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
=== (and ) (redirect template, delete cat)===
I ve just been through this, looking at what was in there - what a mess! I emptied out 16 stubs, which now have (6); (3); (1); (3); (2); and (1). It s now empty, and since it plays havoc with the hierarchy (it slices! It dices!), I suggest getting rid of it. Any objections Comments 08:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree to deleting it. 13:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The title and concept are common enough that it might be recreated at any time, several times. If you agree with that, then it might be wise to keep it around as a redirect (recalling the keep your friends close and your enemies closer saying), probably pointing at . This allows the semantics of the template to be controlled by association. 01:30, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC) :Not a bad idea. As the above emptying showed, it links more to animation-stub than to any of the others. 02:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I m kind of worried about equating cartoon with animation, but yes, I agree that that s probably the practical solution. 08:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::It is a bit of a kludge, but sadly there s no such thing as a disambiguation template! 08:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) Comment: I missed that this one wasn t already redirected. Has now 23 articles again. I would prefer to delete it, but could also live with a merge/redirect to , which would mean deleting the category only. -- 6 July 2005 22:12 (UTC) *Redirect . -- 7 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)
Keep it for now. It seems that the category continues to be used. Although you maybe right that many of the stubs can be moved to other areas, there are enough of stub articles that would be difficult to place and this also becomes a decent dump location for those who do not know what to do with their stubs. 10:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC) *I can t see any in there that would be difficult to place - all of them are well served by other - less ambiguous - stub templates. And the fact that they belong in several different categories is a good indication that deletion is probably better than redirection, although redirection is still a better option than keeping it. 12:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
==July 9th==
=== / ===
Created just on two months ago, and in that time it s been used on one article. I doubt there would be many more it could be used on, and it s adequately covered by school-stub and/or reli-stub anyway. There isn t even a category for seminary, so why would we need a stub category for it 9 July 2005 10:31 (UTC) *Delete - I m really enjoying this, as an 12:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC) *keep. If you look at 18:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC) *keep, or rename to something like theological seminaries . The trouble with categories is being able to find them in the first place, and then to use them correctly. I can think of additional entries for the category. An artfully phrased argument on google would probably turn up quite a number, many of which probably have wiki articles. A clear distinction needs to be made between theo. sems. and bible colleges.-- 20:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
==July 11th==
=== / / redirect at ===
This one is a problem in three parts. I don t intend for a deletion of the category and main template, although I do feel the redirect () should go. The problem, sadly, is more subtle than that. is for railway stations. yet for some reason is being used for railways in general - tracks, companies, disasters, you name it. I would propose and 08:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Resolved: renamed/redirected to -- 06:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
==July 12th==
===/ ===
This is covered by other stubs and is near empty. Doesnt fit the Stub project name guidelines either. 00:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC) : Fixing nomination. This was on the wrong day, only nominated the template and not the category, and wasn t on sfd-current. 01:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC) *Weak keep. This seems to have a community of interest behind it, although it would be useful if they had proposed it through WP:WSS. Could grow, although it s not up to criterion yet. The stub name may need changing, though. 01:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC) *Strong keep. This is a stub about 01:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC) :Comment: uh, i m fixing the category right now. should have 45 articles added to it in uh, 50 minutes. i m on dial up. 01:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC) ::Comment: The current name isn t in line with stub template naming, as being too ambiguous (see 02:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC) ::: The soft- gives all the disambiguating context necessary. — 00:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep. This is a significant, if young, field and deserves segregation from computer science generally. 02:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC) **Comment: Significance of the field is important for normal categorisation, but is irrelevant as far as stub categorisation is concerned. Far more importance is the relevance of the split in terms of number of items within the category, as the only real purpose of the stub categories is to help editors. The main questions to ask are: will a split reduce an overburdened category (not really - most of the computer fields are standard stub sorting limits); Are there enough stubs (i.e., 60-100) for a split (currently no, but getting close, and it is likely to soon); Is the field covered by other stubs (yes, but only approximately). This is the whole reason why stub categories and templates are proposed and debated before creation. 04:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep. — 02:46:50, 2005-07-12 (UTC) *(Weak) keep, precedent has been set with , which was kept even though its parent was smaller, and its field was much narrower. Rename might be useful, though I see relatively little ambiguity here (and we ve got worse). Software engraving is not really an option I might consider ;). -- 07:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
== July 18th ==
===/ ===
Created a month ago, since used on one article - only discovered today when it was put on the stub list (i.e., not cleared via WP:WSS/C. Category doesn t have all the usual parents, but otherwise well formed. But an unnecessary split of Theatre stubs - which isn t heavily populated (|
|