((Outerasteroid-stub)) / Cat:Outer solar system asteroid stubs

Classic case of a stub type created not for stub-sorting, but for categorisation -- this category is tiny, parent is smallish, permanent category doesn't even exist. Upmerge stubs, create and populate perm-cat. Maybe we need a stub-specific namespace or something... Alai 19:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one was proposed and approved, but it was only after the split that it was found to be so small. I'd vote a weak delete, but it may be worth revisiting the original propoisal and asking the creator of it what they think should be done. Grutness...wha? 00:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with similar categories such as Cat:Centaur and trans-Neptunian object stubs --GW_Simulations 20:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with ((asteroid-stub)). Probably should do the same with ((innerasteroid-stub)). — RJH 21:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'd say that's the best target category. I've also listed the other category you mentioned. --GW_Simulations 22:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Cat:Centaur and trans-Neptunian object stubs. that will make a catagory thats just about big enough and will keep the same sort of asteroids (beyond the main belt) in one place. saves mixing them in with inner solar system stuff. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: ((outerasteroid-stub)) redirected to ((CentaurTNO-stub)) and added to WP:WSS/R. Outer solar system asteroid stubs category deleted. --TheParanoidOne 21:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

((Gothic-novel-stub)) / Gothic novel stubs

Another item from the Novel stubs split. Used on 9 stubs. The corresponding main category (Gothic novels) contains only 16 articles. --TheParanoidOne 21:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete' how many of these things are there? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15. :| Alai 05:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Gnome (Bot) is being set up by me to find these for WP:NOVEL, please give me more time, 2-3 weeks!!!Eagle (talk) (desk) 15:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will it be finding articles for Gothic novel stubs, Gothic novels or both? --TheParanoidOne 17:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially both, I am in disscussion with User:Kevinalewis (has done a lot of work with WP:NOVEL). Just give WP:NOVEL and it's members time to fill it up. Note, I am not proposing to keep all of the stub tags {-{Spec-fict-novel-stub)). is an example. I am only trying to keep the types that my bot can reasonably find (vie regex). Please give me some time...thats all I'm asking for:-)Eagle (talk) (desk) 17:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bot just made its first edits in a sandbox, It will soon be ready!!!(hopefully)

Update on the bot, it is waiting for approval for its debug runs, just give me a bit more time (2- 2 and 1/2 weeks)Eagle (talk) (desk) 17:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Conservation in Chad

The category Category:Conservation in Chad has one subcategory - Category:National parks of Chad and only two actual articles - Bahr Salamat Faunal Reserve and Zakouma National Park. This is too obscure. KI 00:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

since neither of these is a stub category, I suggest you take it to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

((MLS-Stub)) / Cat:Major League Soccer stubs

Used on 11 articles, template is very poorly named (cryptic abbreviation, non-NC "-Stub"). Wouldn't a more sensible scope be US soccer in general? Alai 00:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US-footy-stub would make a lot more sense than this - rename/rescope Grutness...wha? 12:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Football stubs aren't split by region. There are footybio, footy-org and footyclub. Cat:Football (soccer) stubs is quite small (under 100) not that large (under 400). Just delete. Conscious 12:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ah, er, yeah. good point. make that a delete then... Grutness...wha? 13:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though to be fair, the footybios and footyclubs are then split into regions (and countries), so doing this isn't massively unreasonable (though one-dimensional-split purists will doubtless insist the two shouldn't ever "commute"). I also note we have a slight inconsistency in that the bios are split into "North American", while the clubs are "US". Hrm. Alai 17:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have no objection to splitting the footy-stub parent by region as well either now or later (hell, there are enough things split by both region and variety), but if we did it would be good to keep it consistent. So I suppose this should be deleted for now, and we can revisit it later as to splitting by region. I note that most of these stubs are for football competitions - would there be any use for a footy-competition-stub? Grutness...wha? 11:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. ((US-soccer-stub)) would be ideal. Merge with any other stub types relating to football (soccer) in the United States if the category population is too small. Oh, and, by the way, nobody in the U.S. has any idea what the fuck "footy" is supposed to mean, but again, that's what redirects are for. — Mar. 12, '06 [16:19] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
  • I must admit that "footy" isn't a brilliant name - they could all do with renaming, and - like it or not - soccer is the only term that would be known worldwide. Where I live, footy means Rugby union. Grutness...wha? 05:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A rename would be an excellent idea. I don't think anyone in Denmark / Scandinavia has the faintest idea about "footy" is supposed to mean (I read it as a misspelled abbreviation). "Soccer" is not ideal, but it's probably the only internationally recognized word. Valentinian ^(talk) 07:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

((US-radio-station-stub)) / Cat:United States radio station stubs

Used on one article; there is some population in Cat:Radio stations in the United States though, if anyone fancies a rummage. Am tempted to wonder if a more inclusive type such as Cat:American radio stubs wouldn't be a better plan, though. Ronald20 22:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep as below. Alai 23:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Obvious bad faith nomination. "One article"???? Try hundreds of articles! --Valentinian ^(talk) 23:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per everyone else (and as with my vote in the ((US-tv-station-stub)) nomination). Just one article? Whatlinkshere shows a completely different story -- definitely more than one. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as per Valentinian.Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and BJAODN this nomination, and the one for US-tv-station-stub. --Kuroki Mio 2006 00:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

((US-tv-station-stub)) / Cat:United States television station stubs

Used on one article; there is some population in Cat:Television stations in the United States though, if anyone fancies a rummage. Am tempted to wonder if a more inclusive type such as Cat:American television stubs wouldn't be a better plan, though. Ronald20 22:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep, you are joking, right? --CFIF (talk to me) 22:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Factually incorrect, cut'n'paste job from my nomination of Mexican television stations (of which it was true), WP:POINT, and speedy keep as bad-faith nom. Alai 23:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Obvious bad faith nomination (like the above). --Valentinian ^(talk) 23:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per everyone else. Just one article? Whatlinkshere shows a completely different story -- definitely more than one. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as per Valentinian.Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Val42 00:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undersized Fighting game stubs

• Cat:Fighting game stubs
• ((Fighting-cvg-stub))

Newly created and unproposed...I did not find it on WP:WSS/P

Facts:

Created: March 9

Articles: 74

Proposed: No

Associated WikiProject: Computer and video games

Parent: Computer and video game stubs

Parent Need for chlidren: None---There are no articles in the parent...thus no real need for the split

Sorry for the copy and paste...But the facts are basically the same:-)

As I proposed this you know my vote---And my willingness to hear out arguments to keep...If they are good I will change my vote:-) weak Delete NEUTRAL I don't like the idea of deleting good work by a collaboration of editors. There is nothing wrong with the name, except for it being unproposed this is a potentially good stub category. I believe witht the wiki project we should make an exception to the article count...I will renominate in a month unless filled to 50 or more articles.Eagle (talk) (desk) 21:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for missing the wiki-project...If It can be filled to 30-40 articles, my vote will become a weak keep...More articles the stronger my keep is.Eagle (talk) (desk) 05:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP this is a brand new stub, created last week. It is underpopulated at the moment, but is associated with a known iwkiproject. --larsinio ^{\----(poke)––(prod)----/} 22:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• /delete. not proposed and dont see that it fits well with the heirarchy. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Should have been proposed, but the ((action-cvg-stub)) category is rather large and has a lot of fighting games in it. Thunderbrand 15:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't that be a supercategory, then, if it's designed to be a split of that type? It's <400 stubs, so not really especially large. Alai 20:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like 55 to me, not 74, which far from being enough for everyone, is below the creation threshold. But weak keep if it's helping keep a fairly large hierarchy in some semblance of good order. Alai 20:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

((Centre-Russia-geo-stub))

I propose to rename this template to ((Central-Russia-geo-stub)). The proposed name is more grammatically correct and avoids the British/American spelling issue. There are currently 162 stubs of this type.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see Ёzhiki's points, and I think that complies with the naming guidelines. The question is whether ((Northwest-Russia-stub)) and ((South-Russia-stub)) should also be renamed. Actually, it may be better for consistency to create ((Center-Russia-geo-stub)) (ah, it's already here) and keep nouns in all of these templates. Conscious 17:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentRename as per Alai....Uhhh....educate me...I plan to be here for a while and I don't get this at all. (someone show me the naming guidelnes please.:-) and whatever else I should know.

I've been here for ages, and I don't get it either. :) As far as I can see, "Central Russia" is a noun phrase, and is used in the WP article as the English name of the federal district, so that seems like a good rename to me. Northwest- vs. Northwestern-, etc, seems a finer judgement. Perhaps create redirects if people are liable to start using either/or. Eagle, see WP:WSS/NG for said guidelines. Alai 05:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AlaiEagle (talk) (desk) 20:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But please keep the existing names as redirects if it's renamed. Conscious 06:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. Alai 07:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central-Russia sounds better to me, too. No objection to renaming and keeping the old one as a redirect. Grutness...wha? 08:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreee - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 14:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

((UTexas-stub)) / Cat:University of Texas at Austin stubs

Someone knew enough about stubs to add this to the stub type list, but not enough to follow the instructions abou proposing stubs. Although this does have about 40 stubs, all of them are better classified elsewhere (every single one is a bio-stub of some type, to start with). No other university has its own stub type, let alone one campus of one. I see no reason why this should set a bad precedent by being the first. Granted, US-university-stub does need splitting, but this ain't the way. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I'll admit defeat on this one :) I'm still not entirely convinced, and my concern about it setting a precedent still rmains. I would, however, still like to see this one changed to cover all of the University of Texas as per Alai - having a stub type for an individual campus is still too narrow. Grutness...wha? 07:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I apologize for not being fully aware of the process for adding a stub, but that reflects only on me, and should not reflect badly on the stub and category. This template creation was discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin. The stub and the category are both useful to the project. There are more than 40 50 60 100 stubs already using this notice in its first day of use. Also, it is not true that every single stub is or will be a bio-stub. Finally, UT-Austin is not simply a campus of a university. It is the flagship institution of the UT system. It is one of the 5 biggest universities in the US by measure of both enrollment and endowment. It is the first university here to have its own wikiproject and wikiportal. The project should not be punished because other communities have not yet formed around other campuses. Johntex\^talk 00:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Johntex. jareha ^(comments) 00:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Johntex with the caveat that this does not count as precedent for later stubs. JoshuaZ 00:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Johntex — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 03:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I must confess to a moment of annoyance for the same reason Grutness mentions, that the stub type appeared on /ST without ever having been near /P, (rather suggesting as it does a "stub sorting cafeteria" approach), but Johntex's immediately apologetic reaction reassures me this really was a just a case of partial familiarity. (I do wish people would read the notices, though.) OTOH, I don't see any grounds on which I would have opposed this, had it been proposed. The already approved split by US region is the more general fix for oversized parent, indeed, but that doesn't preclude further splitting, especially where there's a bona fide wikiproject. I've no objection to creating the precedent that reasonably-sized and -scoped stub types used by a wikiproject should be created; obviously we should strongly resist doing so for the majority of institutions, which will have much narrower scopes and populations. Given the name of the template, I do wonder if rescoping (and renaming the category) to include all of the University of Texas would be preferable. Alai 03:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Grutness and Alai - now that I understand the process, I will definitely follow it carefully if the need ever arises in the future. Regarding the name and scope - I have no major objection to broadening it, excpet that the category name currently matches the category name of the WikiProject. I suggest we leave it as is for now and see how the WikiProject evolves. The WikiProject is already touching on multiple facilities that are administered by the University of Texas at Austin (such as McDonald_Observatory, which is at least 500 miles away from the main UT campus in Austin, Texas). The WikiProject is not yet currently covering the entire University of Texas System, though it may expand in that direction in the future. Johntex\^talk 17:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly SFD doesn't yet have the authoritah to rescope Wikiprojects, so that part was strictly a suggestion. :) Alai 14:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johntex, do you think there'd be oppsition to rescoping this stub type to cover the whole of UTexas? The Austin campus stubs will still be easy enough to find in there, and if the scope of the wikiproject is eventually expanded, the stubs will already be sorted for you. Any thoughts? Grutness...wha? 12:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

((bomber-stub)) / Bomber stubs

Two reasons for nomination. Firstly, there are not quite 50 articles, and secondly, it overlaps with the new(er) system of sorting aircraft stubs by date rather than type, so Merge with the various subcategories of Aircraft Stubs --GW_Simulations 20:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Exceptionally strong keep. It overlaps with the newer "system", because the latter is badly thought out, arbitrary, and was at the time of its (unproposed) introduction a cross-categorisation with this pre-existing type. It should never have been introduced for that reason, and rather "by aircaft type" stub types should have (and still should be) introduced instead. Notice that several of "the new system's" stub-types are < 50 articles, and always have been, so the first reason for nomination is equally curious. Bomber-stub was previously well over 60, and I have to wonder if there isn't ad hoc depopulation going on here, rather than expansion of the articles to non-stubs. Repopulate/resort, or if necessary rescope to "mil-aircraft-stub". Alai 22:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I told you before, it was proposed, only due to a contradiction between templates, this was made on what is supposedly the wrong page. --GW_Simulations 11:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The proposal page is indeed here: see WP:STUB for the non-supposedness of this. "We discussed this on some other page and decided to do something contradicting existing stub types and a current proposal" is a recipe for chaos, not useful co-ordinatation. Alai 13:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Template that was in effect at the time is misleading. Anyway, let's not argue over this, when it is not the subject of the discussion. --GW_Simulations 13:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I take your point about the ((verylarge)): King Stub himself has said so, after all. Anyway, I mention this not to re-upbraid you on "process" issue; I entirely accept it was done in good faith. Rather, my point is we certainly don't have a consensus that by-decade is the correct scheme, and arguably we have a pro forma consensus that by-type is (but as the two discussions happened in separate places, that would probably be overstating things). Alai 14:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]