Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Stub proposals and deletions


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Keep both. Closing notes: The arguments below do have several points that have a general consensus.
 * 1) MFD isn't a good venue for this, VPP, Talk Pages, even an RFC would be more approriate
 * 2) These processes are useful
 * 3) The rules for these pages may have encountered instruction creep along the ways, those wishing to reform the area are welcome to join in and comment on the respected talk pages.
 * 4) The deletion process should not be (not finding that it is) limited to project members. Admin instructions updated
 * 5) Failing to be proposed shouldn't be the reason a stub is deleted. Updated deletion instructions
 * — xaosflux  Talk  02:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Stub proposals and deletions
I have only dealt with these two processes twice, and each time I did, I came to the same conclusion: stub proposals are the most bureaucratic aspect of Wikipedia, and stubs for deletion its close second. There is no where else on Wikipedia, where you have to put content up for approval (articles for creation is something else entirely as evident from the top banner and that it is used only by IPs). It is the most anti-wiki aspect of Wikipedia I have ever come across, and it is for this reason, that Wikipedia would be better without it. If deletion is not a possibility (for technical reasons), then by all means these should be listed as historical instead.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 21:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (MfD1)
 * (MfD1)
 * Sometimes bureaucracy (or in the case of stub sorting, janitors) is necessary in order to help organize. WPSS does not approve content, only ways in which to make it more accessible to editors. Keep. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 21:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I ran into this issue when I created Arctic-stub. I agree with that this appears to be an anti-wiki process. People should be able to feel free to be bold and create stuff. Deletion processes can always deal with it later, not the other way around. Cirt (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A pound of cure rather than an ounce of prevention, eh? Fair enough, and with unlimited manpower it is presumably reasonable. Would that we had that unlimited manpower - we don't. In the end, arctic-stub was sorted out (I helped populate it, in fact, and am still doing so), but it took far longer and was far more work to get it working the way it should than it would have been, had it been done right the first time - which it would have been if it had been proposed and checked out before it was created. Oh, and I take it you've read the part of WP:BOLD which refers to templates and categories? It's under WP:BOLD and explains why you should be far less bold with them...? Grutness...wha?  01:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we ask people to submit a proposal before creating any other type of template? No. Any other type of category? No. More bureaucracy will always help keep things more orderly, that doesn't mean its a good idea. Delete. Mr.Z-man 23:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep of the proposal page, Speedy keep of WP:SFD. Ryulong, it seems you don't remember what it was like before SFD was created? It was unworkable. Stub templates were proposed for deletion at TFD; stub categories were proposed for deletion at CFD. Often, the result was stub categories that couldn't be filled because the templates had been deleted, or templates which wouldn't assign stubs to categories because the categories had been deleted. To delete SFD would return us tho that unworkable situation and be a great detriment to wikipedia. As to the stub-sorting proposals page, there are extremely good reasons for this "anti-wiki" page, as you call it - which is no more "anti-wiki" than WP:Articles for creation or page protection - both of which are helping to keep things more orderly, and both of which are good ideas - as is proposal of stub types. As things stand, it is very difficult to keep track of the several thousand different types of stubs, which between them mark half a million articles. Stub sorting only works because there are rigorous guidelines for creating and naming stub types. Without this, it would be impossible for stub sorters to assign stubs to different stub types correctly, and therefore it would be impossible for editors to easily find these stubs to expand. It is not done to add bureaucracy; it is done to make Wikipedia work. Without it, we may as well go back to the old system of only having stubs all in one unsorted category called . In any case, it's only recommended to propose things - the majority of stub types made without proposal are kept and integrated into the system once discovered, cleaned up. It simply takes more time and effort (and therefore more energy that could be better spent on other things) fixing them up after the fact than it would getting them right in the first place (which is the whole reason for the proposal page). To repeat what I said on your user talk page, Ryulong (before you quickly deleted it): stub proposal is not a policy, but it is a strong recommendation, since it allows the people who work with stubs the most to know what types are likely to be created and to double-check there aren't any problems with them before they are made (it's far easier to make stub types right the first time than try to fix them afterwards!) Given the enormous number of stub types which exist on Wikipedia, it's also useful for stub types to be arranged as logically as possible so that the types and names of them are clear to those who regularly sort stubs. This includes things like naming stub templates unambiguously and according to a standard naming scheme, making sure that stub category names are as analogous as possible to existing permanent category names, and trying to ensure that stub types are not split in such a way that we end up with a small number of stubs that would require an "everything else" category (for example, geography stubs are split by region; splitting them initially by city and town would mean that stubs for smaller places would fall through the cracks). The only way to keep some form of control over this process is to ask for proposals prior to creation. This allows people the opportunity to vet the stub types for any possible problems that may emerge, and also suggest alternatives that might more effectively cover the same ground while being more in keeping with existing stub splits. It may seem overly-bureaucratic to do this, but the reasons should be clear - it is the only way to try to keep any control of the available stub types, and without that control, the job of stub-sorting becomes next to impossible. Grutness...wha?  00:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep for both as a degree of organization is required for the stub tag system to be useful for editors seeking to improve articles. The "plumbing" of the project might not be bold, sexy, or as freeform as some might hope but that's the nature of plumbing. Dravecky (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep of both. MFD is not really an appropriate venue for discussing process "reform" -- though it certainly beats wheel-warring over deletion, so one might see this as some sort of personal growth on the part of the nominator.  Or, perhaps more likely as additional fodder to a user-conduct RFC.  Grutness states the detailed rationale for the present processes well, I shan't reiterate that.  Though one might add that the "enforcement" of use of the "/Proposals" subpage is in practice non-existent, and indeed there's no mechanism whatsoever for doing so.  (Unless one counts the occasional peevish comment about the lack of same in the context of after-the-fact discussion of the merits or otherwise -- which I'm sure some people will.)  Given that, it's for all intends and purposes simply an internal project management resource:  rather than POINTy attempts to have it deleted or "shut down", one might wonder if a better-chosen locus for this debate might be whether it should be pointed to by stub categories, and the stub guidelines, as is presently the case.  (Which personally I believe it should, but that would at least be something it would be more reasonable to take a contrary view on.)  "Bureaucratic" and "anti-wiki" seems to in this context be code for "existing guidelines aren't to my personal taste, and have produced outcomes not to my liking" (as to be candid often seems to be the case).  The essence of Wikipedia is collaboration, which is not well-served by simply affirming people's alleged right to trundle off and do whatever springs into their minds, regardless of the prospects of it being to the net benefit of the project -- particular if there is not also a functioning process for cleaning up after them.  Alai (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out that this is only an issue with how SSP/P and SFD are treated. There's nothing wrong with stub sorting, but the bureaucracy relating to it has to go. Why does there need to be a separate deletion project page just for stubs? Does WP:TV have TVFD? Does WP:WPMU have MUSICFD? No.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 05:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've clearly explained that - read the first few sentences of what I wrote. SFD exists because the vast majority of stub types consist of a paired category and template. Before SFD existed, this required two separate deletion processes, one at CFD and one at SFD - the results of which were often conflicting. As such, the deletion process for stub types ground to a virtual halt. SFD did three things. It cleared up a lot of the work at CFD. It cleared up a lot of work at TFD. It enabled stub types to actually work without trying to deal with stub categories without templates and stub templates without categories. Even just to suggest that we should consider going back to that situation is ridiculous. To actually do it would be stupid in the extreme.
 * To answer your other question, no, WP:TV doesn't have TVFD. Neither does WP:WSS have SSD - anyone is welcome to take part in the debates at WP:SFD - it isn't part of WP:WSS, though it's perhaps understandable if people involved in stub sorting have some input into deletion debates regarding stub types. There is also, a fundamental difference in the wikiprojects you mention - WP:WSS is not a specific topic Wikiproject, it is a maintenance project, more like WikiProject Categories. Does that have its own deletion type? There's a WP:CFD, but it's not part of the WikiProject, it's a separate process page unconnected to the WikiProject but - understandably - with many of the same people taking part. Exactly like WP:SFD.
 * And before you consider suggesting it, there are frequent cases where what would be preferred by WP:WSS doesn't take place, due to the discussions at WP:SFD. Of the 17 nominations currently at SFD, it seems likely that two that were not approved of by WSS will be kept and three that were approved of by WSS will be deleted - that's almost a third of the current nominations that will go contrary to WP:WSS. When you also take into consideration that many unproposed stub types are integrated into the system by WP:WSS after being listed as "discoveries" (SFD is merely a last resort for ones which seem unlikely to be of any use), your unwarranted bad-faith assumption that SFD is some sort of "WSS rubber stamp" - already implied during your recent attack at SFD, is not only patently false but insulting to any editor who takes part in SFD. Grutness...wha?  05:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I just made this because I don't see the use of there being a need for a deletion process for stubs, and the various aspects of the stub type sorting project have way too much bureaucracy around them. And stop referring to my comments at that particular discussion as an attack. You keep bringing that up, and it is a bad faith assumption. Also, it is terribly difficult to eschew any sort of information from your posts because they have been excessively verbose. Your first comment added 3000 characters to this page. I don't think anyone is going to want to read all of that.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone who wants to know the reasons for the page exissting is necessarily going to want to know the full details. If I'd simply said "keep it - it works better than any alternative", you wouldn't be satisfied because I hadn't said why it works better. I have done - twice now - and if you haven't the wit to read those reasons, then it is not my fault. As to referring to your attack as an attack, I only do that because it Clearly was one. It is not me who has gone into this with bad faith - quite the opposite: I re-opened a correctly closed WP:SFD process as a favour to you in perfectly good faith so that you may have a say on why a particular stub type was useful. if I had acted in bad faith, I would have taken the whole thing to WP:AN for your unilateral re-creation of a template and category which had been deleted through correct process. The nature of your response to this gesture was not to argue why the specific stub type should not have been deleted, but was rather to attack not only SFD but stub-sorting in general in an inappropriate forum, by claiming incorrectly that the only people who take part in that page are stub sorters and that thus you were unlikely to get the result you wanted as the process - to use your own words, was "entirely skewed". If saying "I am extremely dissatisfied with the nitpicking attitude of stub sorters" is not an attack on stub sorters but rather a valid aattempt to explain why this particular stub type was useful, then I apologise unreservedly - however, to the untrained eye it looks like an egregious bad-faith attack. Grutness...wha?  00:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In the interest of strict accuracy, Ryulong didn't recreate the stub type: he undeleted it.  If we're going to judge processes by outcomes with which one disagrees, perhaps I should go MRD WP:RFA...  (As well as AFDing most of the KamenRiderCruft that sparked this little episode of wikidrama off.)  Alai (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Retaliatory AFDs are much more better material for RFAR than an undeletion of items from SFD.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 01:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither of them is good Wiki conduct - which is why Alai didn't make a retaliatory AFD (just said that he could have if he had used similar tactics). The question of why you unilaterally went against process in the first place remains unanswered, however. It's hardly the expected action of a responsible admin. Grutness...wha?  01:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty clear here who is indulging in "retaliatory" *FDs, and who would be an appropriate subject of an RFC (to return to what I actually said). The idea that listing this sort of non-notable, unreferenced fictional-trivia-farming (of characters from single films that don't appear to have articles on their native-language WP, for example) would be a plausible subject of an RFAR is quite literally laughable.  The issue isn't one of whether it's deletable (or at a minimum, mergeable back into its similarly-crufty parent article); but rather, given that there's so much of it at large on WP, precisely where to start; and given the futility of the task in the round, whether to even bother starting.  Not unlike the problem of dealing with this sort of low-grade misuse of the admin tools, really.  Alai (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it doesn't always suit the occasion. If someone just put "Keep" or "Delete" without explaining their reasons, they'd be attacked for not being thorough enough. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 15:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The scale and scope of the stub sorting project require a small degree of organization to function properly.  It was through a significant amount of trial and error, not to mention gnashing of teeth, that WP:WSS/P and WP:SFD were created.  WP:SFD solves the problem of stub templates and stub categories being paired objects that need to be addressed in a coordinated effort.  WP:WSS/P in turn solves more problems than it creates by allowing for coordination of efforts.  --Allen3 talk 08:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: WP:WSS needs there to be a well-arranged hierarchy of stubs, rather than random creations, and the deletion process avoids losing one half of the matched pair of template-and-category. PamD (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not think that MFD is the best place to discuss such serious changes to deletion process in Wikipedia. WP:VPP or WP:VPR are better forums for this proposal. Ruslik (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep. I would like very much to see both of these go away, especially since the "two separate deletion processes" problem doesn't actually exist. However, there's general consensus that this is not the place to discuss shutting down active processes. As such, it's better to discuss this elsewhere. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It certainly existed at the time of SFD's creation. If we were to merge SFD "back" into TFD, I can envision it causing quite a bit of cognitive dissonance on an on-going basis while people unwind the thought process that starts with "I want to delete a stub category".  (That's there's already outright misuse of some of the CSD criteria that have spilled over into stub templates and categories, also makes me less than keen on extending the pattern.)  Whether /P rises to the level of a "process" is, as I've commented above, also somewhat questionable.  Alai (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that, at the time of SfD's creation, there was no such broad speedy category as G8 (or its predecessors). However, such a speedy deletion criterion does exist now, and as far as I can see, already superceds the SfD process. For the record, Alai, you say that '"enforcement" of use of the "/Proposals" subpage is in practice non-existent', but this doesn't seem to be true to me - just look at SfD, and count how many deletion nominations start with "unproposed" as a reason (apparently important) for deletion. That's enforcement. Nonetheless, as I say above, MfD shouldn't be used for this sort of debate, etc., etc. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Supersedes in the sense that in principle you could now TFD the template, and CSD the category on the basis of being emptied thereby/dependence on same. How, however, is that an actual improvement?  And what about stub category renamings?  Or indeed, simultaneous consideration of name and scope of both template and category.  Wouldn't we be back in the essentially the original, frankly muddled, situation of sometimes using one venue, sometimes another, and sometimes both?  With the ever-flaky CSD route accounting for only a portion thereof.
 * On the proposals "enforcement": and how many SFD nominations have you seen where 'unproposed' in the only "reason" so cited?  And I can assure you that many unproposed "discoveries" are essentially simply waved through after the fact (or fixed up, etc, without being sent to SFD).  I think that puts the alleged "importance" in perspective:  it's a note that the type is not already "pre-approved", and/or mild subliminal venting.  On the same basis, if a stub type is proposed, and explicitly rejected, that would also generally attract some comment on a subsequent SFD nomination, without being itself taken as a rationale for admin action, or .  If the /P subpage weren't pointed to by the stub guidelines, or by the stub category boilerplate, would such nominations still be "enforcement"?  (Or at least, would it be "enforcement" of anything other than the (rest of the) stub guidelines?)
 * Anyhoo, we at least agree this is the wrong venue, so I shall endeavour to not blether on too much until such time as a more appropriate one is arrived at. Alai (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:STUB is "anti-wiki" in the sense that it does not tolerate wanton applications of WP:IAR. However, as Grutness (and others) keep saying, WP:STUB is for *editors*, not readers, as such demands a different level of co-operativity from those people who interact with it.  Causing this project to not become so rigid will almost certainly lead to applications of the 'those who forget history are condemned to repeat it'.  Aaronw (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the first one. The proposal sections seem to be overbureaucratization in areas that most editors that acctually understand what stubs are needed wouldn't be aware of. Strong Keep on SFD though, change to weak keep if the former isn't deleted, due to unproposed being a popular reason. Wizardman  16:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please point out one SFD nomination - just one, go on, check the archive and come back with one - where "unproposed" was the only reason given and the result was deletion. It never happens, or if it does I can't recall ever having seen it. "Unproposed" is usually only given in the nominations to indicate that - if deleted - it will not need to be removed from the canonical stub list. Grutness...wha?  20:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's usually not the 'only' note, but if you look through Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/June, there are several where unproposed is the first thing noticed, and one of the main points you're getting at. You're usually the one that points out that it was unproposed, in fact. Wizardman  01:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's never the only note. I appear to nominate a lot because I'm the mug who goes through Special/Newpages every day checking for new stub types. Yes, I note its unproposed, for exactly the reason I said, so that whoever closes the debate knows instantly whether it needs to be removed from the stub list. It's never, ever the main reason I propose something for deletion - more often than not, I take unproposed stub types to the WSS "Discoveries" page, where they are usually kept. You might also like to notice that I also specifically noted when astub type was proposed, for exactly the same reason (here's an example from the June log you looked at) - or do you perhaps think that "proposed" is equally a deletion criterion? You still haven't shown one SFD deletion where it is the only reason gived for deletion. I repeat - simply saying "unproposed" as a reason at WP:SFD would get a stub type speedily kept. If you go through the month you mention, you'll see the following: I proposed 14 stub types for deletion. Of those, I noted 10 as unproposed and 2 as proposed - the final two were transferred from the discovery page and one of those was noted as such. Of those marked unproposed, one was in the wrong namespace, seven had inappropriate or ambiguous names (including one potentially sexually inappropriate name), five could only ever have minimal use (in one case, a maximum of one article), one ran contrary to normal stub-splitting/sorting practise, one was primarily for use by a WikiProject that no longer existed, and two were essentially duplicates of existing templates. Several of them were also unused and had been for some time. Many of these stub types had two or more of these concerns. In one case I actually suggested that an unproposed template be kept but upmerged due to likely lack of regular use - something I'd hardly do if simply being unproposed was enough to warrant deletion. In no case was "unproposed" so much as a minor reason for proposed deletion, let alone the only reason. Grutness...wha?  01:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Both are too bureaucratic. I've ran into issues with this "group", which seems to only be a handful of editors who push their agendas to rule the "stub" articles.  It's a flawed process that we would be better without.  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  02:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Personal issues don't seem relevant to a project with a few simple steps trying to make sure the basic plumbing of the project are maintained. - Dravecky (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - these pages are currently part of the Wikipedia processes. MfD is not the place to discuss the validity of the process. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I think it should be deleted because I feel it is pretty much redundant; I think it should be changed to two seperate articles.--O&#39;delanca (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redundant to what? And how can you change a WikiProject page and a deletion process page to two articles? Grutness...wha?  21:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: I don't think MFD is the appropriate place to discuss something as significant as deleting these pages; it belongs more somewhere like WP:VPP. But since it's here, they shouldn't be deleted; they're somewhat bureaucratic, yes, but a key part of Wikipedia process. Calling for reform would be a reasonable approach, but calling for deletion really isn't. Terraxos (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure that this calls for a deletion, though I don't care either way as I've never dealt with this. Anyway, I agree, take this to WP:VPP or something instead. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep What is this about? It's no more bureaucratic than any other part of Wikipedia: you want to participate, you join.  As long as we have a large number of stub articles, we need to have lots of different stub types, and as long as we have lots of different stub types, we need somewhere to coördinate them.  Nyttend (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - WikiProject Council/Proposals is where a user can put content up to gauge support for potential WikiProjects before putting a lot of effort into creating a detailed project page. If WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals is where you have to put content up for approval and that is objectional, it could be revised to be where a user can put content up to gauge support for that content before putting a lot of effort into creating that content. -- Suntag  ☼  07:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Um... that's exactly what it is now. Surely "gauging support/opposition" and "gaining/not gaining approval" are synonymous here? The only real difference is that the stub sorting proposal page is also used to suggest re-scopes, improvements, and possible errors in the original proposal (e.g., ambiguous naming, existing similar stub types, and cases where there may be conflicts which the proposer hasn't noticed). Grutness...wha?  21:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.