Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/2006/August/17

-article-album-stub

 * 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 speedy delete


 * Delete as nom. Duplicate of Album-stub, bad name with leading hyphen, no articles use it, original creator is blocked, or I would have asked them first. &mdash; MrDolomite | Talk 01:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may quote myself from the deletion log, "duplicate, badly named, no category, created by blocked user, and unused: speedying as some or all of the above". Alai 02:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.

Please delete Category:Artillery-stubs

 * 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 speedy delete

Ihave created both Category:Artillery-stub and Category:Artillery_stub. Please remove the former. Kaushal mehta 08:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. And the latter, which should be ?  Alai 15:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.

US-football-bio-stub

 * 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 move back

Please speedy this one. Somebody decided to move US-footy-bio-stub because they didn't like the name, causing confusion and a double redirect at US-soccer-bio-stub. I agree that it's a lame name, but this was just careless. --fuzzy510 03:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've moved it back, but I'm not going to speedy the redirect. Feel free to tag if you'd like it gone, otherwise we can sit back and wait to see who complains first...  Alai 04:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * delete. Weve been deliberately avoiding the word football since its ambiguous. Footy isnt perfect, but is (almost) always clearly a term for soccer (the rugby-mad country where I live is possibly the only place it's ambiguous). Grutness...wha?  05:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that nothing's actually tagged for deletion at present... Doesn't footy also refer to Australian rules?  Alai 06:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * yep, just hope that australia-footy-bio-stub is never created since it refers to three other codes more than it does soccer. - Nomadic1 08:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * D'oh. I'd not be opposed to renaming the whole hierarchy to football-stub (or to soccer-stub, which has been tried already, and failed), but this needs a systematic solution, not a piecemeal one.  Alai 17:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.

musical-theat-stub / Category:Musical theatre stubs / musical-play-stub / Category:Musical stubs (redirect)

 * 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 no consensus

See Proposals for more details. Almost everything in musical-theat-stub is about a specific musical; therefore, it should have the more specific scope. It would be a child of theat-stub and play-stub. Currently it has 88 articles but there are many more unsorted and sorted in different categories. Crystallina 03:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Rename, rescope and resort.  Alai 04:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Isn't the name too general?  It would imply it also encompasses . --Bruce1ee 06:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it probably is:  includes both, but somewhat nonsensically, there's no top-level category for musical plays.  Perhaps .  Alai 06:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I struggled a bit for a name for this - "musical play stubs" sounded rather cumbersome and not intuitive. Theatrical musical stubs seems like it'll work. Crystallina 13:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

comment. While I see the benefit of a musical-play stub I would not support the deletion of musical-theat stub. I have used this stub for people who are mainly associated with musical theatre, e.g. composers and librettists, in addition to a more general composer or writer stub. Unfortunately, in my opinion, this use of musical-theat stub is often removed in the name of stub sorting, just leaving the more general ones thus potentially restricting the visibility to those who may be able to expand the article. Rather than deleting musical-theatre perhaps its general use should be widened. PaulJones 18:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns here. For the bio articles, theat-bio-stub may eventually warrant a split for musical-theat-bio-stub, which would cover the composers, librettists, etc. My main objective in taking this here was to better organize the theatre stubs, which are very scattered at the moment. Crystallina 18:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Crys. For the time being these should be double-stubbed with theat-bio-stub and something-or-other in the music-bio-stub hierarchy, and split once there's an adequate sufficency.  No reason not to create this as an upmerged template immediately.  Alai 02:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, The article is called Musical theatre, there is a Musical theatre category, and there is a Musical Theatre WikiProject. The stub and category even say that they are about musical theatre in general, not just specific plays.  --Usgnus 22:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.

Broadway-stub / Category:Broadway stubs

 * 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

See Proposals for more details. This stub category, honestly, is just gumming up the works. Its scope is not sufficiently different than any of the other existing or proposed splits, it barely reaches threshold, and only invites a lot of double-stubbing. It's been proposed for deletion before and is still around, but I don't think it's necessary and think other axes for sorting would be better in the long run. Crystallina 03:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong degum. Alai 04:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. ISTR suggesting this should be SFD'd when it was first discovered. Grutness...wha?  05:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Usgnus 03:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.