Wikipedia:Deletion of useless stub templates and stub categories/Vote

Voting
I am placing this policy to a vote. Voting ends on March 1, 2005 at 23:59 UTC. Please vote below. One vote per user is allowed; anonymous votes will be ignored. Comments regarding votes can be left below or on the vote Talk page. Discussion of the policy in general should be left on the parent article's Talk page.

Approve

 * 1)  AllyUnion (talk) 08:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) This is way too complicated. Stub template and category deletions have yet to be a major problem at either templates or categories for deletion. -Aranel (" Sarah  ") 22:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) The policy would grant too many rights to the WSS. If every project did the same, no one could edit anything here unless it was in-line with whatever project's criteria. --jag123 18:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Don't see what's wrong with VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) I don't think this is a major issue at the present time, certainly not one that merits such a complicated process. I don't see too much problem with VfD for sorting stub templates out at the moment. Rje 19:46, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) It's a big solution to a small problem.  ral315 22:52, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) WP:TFD isn't so overworked that it can't handle these.  -Sean Curtin 16:20, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Only because of the "Notification has been given to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting" clauses for TfD, CfD, etc; I oppose giving any sub-group of these items any special treatment on those pages, as this precedent could overwhelm them in red tape if others followed suit. Other than that, I support. Now that that wording has been changed, I no longer oppose. Seems a bit complex to me, which is why I'm only moving to neutral. Noel (talk)

Comments

 * 1) I would suggest an addition to the 10-day discussion requirement that during that 10 days a running tally of the contents of the stub-template category be kept so that if there's a sudden spike in additional stubs (such as one of the users deciding that indeed this isn't a stub category to lose) it will be obvious and communicated obviously.  I'm sure that we would all catch it as part of the ongoing discussion, but it would be nice to have that as a cap on the process if, as expected, a statement could be made like "deletion was initiated because the category was empty, and no activity in the category was detected during the 10-day discussion period".  Courtland 17:45, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with Jag123 in the comment on the discussion section of this article: deletion of "unapproved" stubs without voting isn't a good idea.  I think that someone who has gone to the trouble of making a new stub template & category and, as Jag123 suggests, isn't aware of the mechanics of Wikipedia maintenance shouldn't be penalized for ignorance; consider it a blessing if someone puts up a later approved stub and sorts things into it.  On the flip (curse) side, it does open the door to all manner of special interests and their special stubs ... but that would happen with or without this section of the policy and would be covered under the vandalism/inappropriate content policies (again as Jag123 suggested).  Courtland 18:20, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
 * 3) This is an unnecessary complication. There has yet to be a major problem with massive numbers of stub templates and categories being created and I see no clear reason to treat stub templates and categories any differently than other templates with associated categories. -Aranel (" Sarah  ") 22:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Please note: The policy is still a draft, and will be re-written again, if it fails to pass. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suggested changes

 * 10-day activity log (see Comment 1)
 * drop policy to delete unapproved stub templates & categories (see Comment 2)