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 and upmerge - the dist-stub types may need further debate later

From Discoveries: There are 46 templates which are of the form Ohio-countyname-NRHP-struct-stub and 8 of the form Ohio-countyname-NRHP-dist-stub for structures and districts respectively in Ohio. These should be renamed to countynameOH-NRHP-struct-stub to conform to the precedent set by the split of Ohio-school-stub, Florida-NRHP-struct-stub and vaious other splits of US states. Note when announced at discoveries I did not realise that some were for districts do we split these out in any other state. (PS I think I tagegd them all 54 with sfd-t.) Waacstats 14:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Districts of what sort? Which templates would those be? Alai 01:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The district ones worry me a little, too... certainly go ahead and rename the others to standard form, though. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The district ones appear to be for places on the NRHP list and designated as districts, but I'don't know much about the NRHP.Waacstats 12:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you give an example? Alai 19:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • ((Ohio-Ashtabula-NRHP-dist-stub)). Waacstats 20:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aaaaah. OK, that does seem a little wonky: it doesn't appear to be a B&S type, so it should be upmerged to Cat:Ohio Registered Historic Place stubs, or else perhaps to a Cat:Ohio Registered Historic Places geography stubs, if there's the numbers for it. Perhaps the templates should also be -geo- ones, though having them on a per-county basis looks like massive overkill, at this point. Alai 21:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• For that matter, the parent category should be renamed ((Ohio-NRHP-stub)) / Cat:Ohio Registered Historic Place stubs (it's currently ((Ohio-NRHP-struct-stub)) / Cat:Ohio Registered Historic Places building and structure stubs). Do we need to nominate that separately or can it be addressed here? Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, I get it now. It wouldn't need renaming, but we could certainly create ((Ohio-NRHP-stub)) and Cat:Ohio Registered Historic Place stubs to house the district/county/non-B&S types. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:00, 12 November 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

Novel stubs are divided by decade, and as far as I know the 1948s isn't a decade. There's certainly no need to split them up by year, and if there were, then a proposal for ((1948-novel-stub)) would have been the way to go, not this. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. On a semi-related note, why are all the "novel-stub" templates repeatedly made to look like a dog's dinner with pointless includeonly spam? Alai 13:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Couldn't say it any better. Icestorm815 03:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - no need as of yet to split novels by year! SkierRMH 02:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As SkierRMH said, there is no need to split novels by year. Neranei (talk) 04:00, 6 November 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 rename and upmerge

Odder than your average stub this one - not only was it unproposed, and linked directly to a permcat, Cat:Health in Manchester (with no stub cat, and with only nine articles in the permcat), but its name seems to suggest that there are health issues in Manchester which are different to those anywhere else. A GreaterManchester-hospital-stub, while unnecessary due to the waaay-sub-threshold size, would at least make some sort of sense - and even then would be a non-standard name, since Greater Manchester uses Manchester-x-stub for its naming standard. Even that, though, would be unnecessary. All nine of the aformentioned items include this template, BTW; they should be double-stubbed with UK-hospital-stub and Manchester-struct-stub, and this template should be deleted. FWIW, Cat:Health in Manchester also seems to exactly duplicate Cat:Hospitals in Manchester, so some WP:CFD work may be necessary as well. Grutness...wha? 02:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest rename to ((Manchester-hospital-stub)) and make good (rescope and double-upmerge), as a more parsimonious and laissez-faire way of accomplishing the same thing, with which I'd entirely concur. Alai 14:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to keep, but I'll be happy to rename per above. Rudget _{Contributions} 15:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. Per WP:CFD 2007 Nov 3 (including the creator's request), Category:Health in Manchester has been emptied and deleted. At present, the template does not categorise any articles on which it is transcluded. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:24, 9 November 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 rename and upmerge

Unproposed, and with an awful non-standard template name. My first thought was that it was a Ku Klux Klan stub - and the Three Kingdoms aren't even listed as a possible meaning at 3K. Cat:Chinese history stubs is far from needing to be split, and there's certainly no guarantee that this would reach threshold. Seems to be the work of a new WikIProject, who would almost certainly be better employed using a talk-page assessment banner. Unless the standard threshold stub level is reached, this should be upmerged as ((ThreeKingdoms-stub)) - even if threshold is reached the template should be renamed and the current name deleted. Grutness...wha? 01:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - I agree. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 01:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge and rename, per nom. Alai 19:07, 6 November 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

Procedural move from WP:TFD - no !vote. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sega-console-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) The template is redundant. Main template: Template:Sega-stub — Janadore 18:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not redundant as the template limits it self to a subset of Sega related articles. Doubtful if there are enough about the hardware to warrant a separate stub type, but I could see a ((Sega-hardware-stub)) as a two category template feeding into the existing Cat:Sega stubs and Cat:Video game hardware stubs that would eliminate some double stubbing. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but this is used on articles such as Sonic Gameworld, as its scoping text is "This article about a game released on a Sega console", so that doesn't seem to be an extent distinction. Perhaps we should do-over from the ground up. Alai 01:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there are quite a few cvg stub templates like this of dubious use out there - User:JohnnyMrNinja went on a bit of a creation spree about a month or so back, proposing and getting support for one or two then making a dozen or more. It might be worth having a look through his template contribs and seeing what else needs work (I'll leave it to someone who knows more about how the gaming stubs are organised, though). Grutness...wha? 23:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's hard to argue for the template's need when almost nothing links to it. Doczilla (talk) 02:30, 17 November 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

This one is a thorny one. By the name of the template, it looks like a misguided attempt to be a Stub-Class assessment template for use by a WikiProject. But the template itself is quite clearly a malformed stub template - unproposed, poorly worded, self-referential, and with no category. Also redundant, since we already have ((sciuridae-stub)) which is specifically for squirrels and other sciuridae. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, stop biting. Arghhh - someone trying to make Wikipedia better without spending 6 hours reading policy and guidelines, stomp on them with red tape and fucked up regulations! Strong keep, a million times over. Good faith edits aimed at improving our project. It's not hurting anyone. -Pumpmeup 08:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)^{Thoughtless comments by editor removed at 04:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

I haven't "stomped all over" anything with "fucked up regulations" - simply pointed out the reasons why this template doesn't work, and why it doesn't fit in with other simila templates. Similarly, just because an edit is in good faith, which I've no doubt it was, doesn't mean it is going to help your project or Wikipedia as a whole (which it won't). As for not hurting anyone, since it duplicates a long standing and well-used template, it's going to cause confusion as to which template is corrct top use - making it less likely that any of the articles will be tagged and catalogued correctly, and therefore making it less likely that any of the articles will be edited by people who know about squirrels. So yes, it will hurt both your WikProject and Wikipedia. Now, would you care to explain why this should be kept, or at least address some of the reasons I've given why it shouldn't be, rather than just attacking the nominator and complaining about the fact that it's been nominated? Is it meant to be an assessment-style Stub-Class template or a standard stub template? Why does it not have a category? Why does it contain self-reference? Why was it not proposed? What is the difference between it and sciuridae-stub (other than the fact that the latter is correctly formatted and actually does the job it is intended to do)? Grutness...wha? 00:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologize for my blatant incivility displayed above. To put it in nicer words: try to improve rather than remove. You seem to know your stuff when it comes to stub templates, so why don't you spend a moment fixing it? I'm not knowledgeable about templates as such but it's definitely salvageable with but a moments editing. -Pumpmeup 04:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted, BTW, and apologies from me, too, if you thought I was treading on your toes with this. Unfortunately, the best way to fix it is to delete it in this case, since it duplicates a stub which does the same job - ((sciuridae-stub)). Sciuridae-stub is already is correctly formatted, and as its category shows, it's well used (it's on some 200 stub articles about squirrels). We really don't need both. As far as linking it with your wikiproject, the standard practice is to put a link in the category - that allows anyone looking for squirrel stubs to know there's a wikiproject on them running. It might also be worth your looking at assessment-style talk-page templates, which would allow you to categorise and sort all articles relating to your Wikiproject, not just stubs. BTW, please note that there are distinct caveats as far as templates are concerned with WP:BOLD, which primarily applies to articles. Grutness...wha? 05:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I know the bold policy, it's just more linkage. We've got one for the talk page, ((squirrels)). I might decide to expand it to rating/priority formats if I get time and the project gets members, but for now more basic framework is needed. The [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Squirrels|Squirrels WikiProject is of course in it's infancy (not helped by the fact it only has the original creator and myself with nil knowledge of our fuzzy friends - not at least here in NZ - as members). Thanks for the advice, I knew you'd be able to clear that up. In case reviewer doesn't get it I'm for deletion now. -Pumpmeup 09:06, 12 November 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 upmerge

Of the many stubs in the sub-cats of the Cat:Navarre, nearly all are tagged with ((Navarre-geo-stub)). This one is used on one article (Parliament of Navarre) with little potential for further use. Delete. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have similar stubs for other Spanish autonomous communities, so upmerge the template into Cat:Spain stubs until there are enough non-geo stubs. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per Caerwine. Doczilla (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge; you talked me into it. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:28, 17 November 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 withdrawn

No growth since its discovery in February; links to 15 articles. I suggest we upmerge the template and delete the category for now. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please tell me this wouldn't get upmerged to Cat:computer stubs? I realize it's no longer #2 or #3 on the "oversized" list... but that's only because others have outgrown it. Alai (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe to Cat:Engineering stubs? It could be inundated if anyone took the time to sort (I'm not volunteering -- I just finished hand-sorting lamiales stubs). Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:17, 21 November 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

Meager population, no growth since February, and only 22 items under Cat:Education in Colorado and its sub-cats are stub-sized. Almost all are tagged with ((Colorado-school-stub)). Delete. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:56, 14 November 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

Unproposed, and destined to remain substantially undersized. Cat:Banjo-Kazooie has only seven articles - so the chances of 60 of them being stubs are nil. Template name is also non-standard (we have no Kazooie stubs for this to be a subtype of). Possibility of a rescope to cover all Rareware games, but other than that, delete is the most likely option. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Bordering on the nonsensically narrow, and having removed it from the one non-stub it was applied to, currently unused. Speedy delete. Alai 02:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete essentially unused. Doczilla (talk) 02:02, 17 November 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

Created in an interesting, but obviously well-meant, cart/horse reversal. Not needed (only 36 articles qualify) and covered by Cat:Comedy television series stubs. Delete. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Unnecessary, and - as you say - weirdly created. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:09, 21 November 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

Moved from requests for speedy renaming. Single use w/template. SkierRMH (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• At the very least the category name needs changing to Cat:StarCraft stubs, but unless it is in heavy use soon, it seems fairly pointless. The creator of it did comment on my user talk page that he'd foud some stubs for it, but it still doesn't seem to be in much use. Upmerging the template and deleting the category may still be the best option. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—looks too narrow to me. Pagrashtak 16:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete → I agree with Pagra, no use for it, too specific. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:30, 6 December 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.