Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/December/11

YCL-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 keep, rename

From WP:WSS/D. 8 articles. Delete both and retag articles with CP-stub. ~ Amalas rawr  =^_^=  18:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * delete per above nom. Grutness...wha?  23:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 01:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed to weak keep, see below. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * keep. The template is not widely used at the moment, but there are several more articles to which it could be used. Rather than deletion, its usage could be promoted. --Soman 07:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; badly named, much too small.  Alai 18:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, but should also get youth-org-stub Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. At this point used in 50 articles, with potential for wider use. Subcat to both 'CP' and 'youth org' stubcategories. I think there is a problem with to much of multiple stubs (many articles have 3-4 different stub templates, looking a bit crowded). This template fills a function. --Soman 09:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I make that 48, which is still small. But I'll stretch to a weak keep, provided the template is renamed to something semi-comprehensible (I'm open to offers).  Alai 02:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * CP-youth-org-stub if we're not going to try and rename the cryptic CP-stub and Euro-CP-stub. If we try top rename the other two then communist-youth-org-stub, communist-party-stub, and Euro-communist-party-stub would be sensible in my opinion. Caerwine Caer’s whines  04:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the existing less-than-obvious templates were partly why I forebore from making any specific suggestions. (CP's more "highly ambiguous", than "totally obscure", to my mind, though.)  I'd be OK with any of the above.  Alai 05:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be in favour of changing the lot as per Caerwine's suggestions. Have a quick look at CP! Grutness...wha?  10:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, weak keep since it has grown so much. Agree that the lot should be changed per Caerwine's suggestions. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:41, 18 December 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.

OU-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 upmerge/rename

From WP:WSS/D. 18 articles. At the very least needs a rename to...something. It is associated with WikiProject Oklahoma. They also have plans for a OKState-stub it seems. ~ Amalas rawr  =^_^=  18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Favor an upmerge to Oklahoma-university-stub which would include Oklahoma State and other tertiary institutions located in the Sooner State. Otherwise I favor deletion given the small size.  If kept the category should be renamed to  and the template could be renamed to UOklahoma-stub to parallel UTexas-stub. Caerwine Caer’s whines  21:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the best thing is to rename to UOklahoma-stub to parallel UTexas-stub. Johntex\talk 23:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Upmerge as per Caerwine. Same should be done with the Texas one, as has been mooted in the past. Everyone knows that OU is Oxford, anyway - even someone like me who went to Otago U. Grutness...wha?  23:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Or Odense U. :) Per Caerwine. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 01:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Everyone knows the Open University is the OU. Waacstats 23:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Upscope, per CW, without a separate OU-stub template. (Which I'd also oppose were it used in the way Grutness implies (not that I'm suggesting he's suggesting this).  Even as a Brit, it makes me think a) that could be almost anything, and b) even given the large hint that it's a university type, I'd probably think first of the Open University, especially given its logo, rather than Oxford (the OUP not withstanding).  So in short, massively ambiguous.)  Alai 18:02, 12 December 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.

Quebec-City-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 upmerge/rename

From WP:WSS/D. At the very least, rename to QuebecCity-stub /. A mite small at 22 articles, but has about 150, so maybe there are more floating around in there. ~ Amalas</b> rawr  <sup style="color:navy;">=^_^=  18:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - note that some 75% of the articles in here are actually Quebec-geo-stubs. If there's going to be a QuebecCity-stub (the correct name, as pointed out), it's be good to know whether that is what is wanted or whether a QuebecCity-geo-stub is actually what is required. Especially since several of the other items marked are bios, which we don't usually even divide by province, let alone city. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  23:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral for rename / Oppose for deletion  - I really don't mind if the stub template is Quebec-City-Stub or QuebecCity-Stub, but the a stub template is necessary for this section... it's not because we have a small number of articles in it that we should delete the template. Normally when an article is identified as a stub, it's not just put in a category, we also put a stub template, and if we can, a specific stub template. --<b style="color:#006633;">Deenoe</b> 11:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - is for stubs related to the province of Quebec. --<b style="color:#006633;">Deenoe</b> 12:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that, but since Quebec City is in the province of Quebec, if we were to upmerge it, that's where it would go. <b style="color:maroon;">~ Amalas</b>  rawr  <sup style="color:navy;">=^_^=  14:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename and upmerge (keeping template). Alai 18:02, 12 December 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.

Innumerable extremely small record label stubs
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #ebfefa; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 any cats not above 40, upmerge templates

And many, many more... my morale levels aren't sufficient to tag them all just at the moment. The most annoying thing is that this makes my properly proposed completely pointless:  all the stubs have been diverted off into 3-article categories, created without so much as a mention. Upmerge all, either to existing parents or new by-region categories. Alai 06:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC) None of these were over 30 at time of tagging; most are less than ten;  many have a single article in each. As per my earlier estimates, the Australians and Germans are likely to be at least close to viable if fully sorted-to, as might a couple of others. I also note that I've made some renames from hyphens (Puerto-Rico- to PuertoRico-, etc, but I feel no burning need to get rid of the redirects, given that this aspect of the NGs still seems to be "bedding down", so they're arguably useful. Alai 00:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Lugnuts 20:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Upmerge all per nom - and delete any templates which aren't actually being used, if any. Is this all the work of one creator? If so, someone might need to have a word... Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  08:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I've been doing some work on categorizing all the stubs from the main record-label-stub category. Previously there was only stub categories for UK, US and Canada.  I really don't see any harm in having one for each country.  I've only been adding in the countries as I find new stubs, IE - I've not been creating one for every single country in the world.  Furthermore the  didn't exist until 4am this morning!  Some of them have also had quite a few entries in them already (France and Germany spring to mind).  Lugnuts 12:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of the stub size guidelines? (Or indeed the new stub type proposal page?)  The Euro- type didn't exist until then because I actually waited for input on the proposals page before creating it (discovering these in the process), as opposed to steaming ahead and creating these willy-nilly.  It's conceivable that Germany or France might be viable (and last time I looked Sweden and the Netherlands were in the same ballpark), but a) not demonstrated, and b) hardly a justification for the rest of the category-creation spree (or indeed a "strong keep" thereof.  Alai 15:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Moan, moan, moan. I still stand by my original comments.  If anything I think it'll help to get these articles expanded by people who edit Wikipedia from those countries, instead of them being lost in the pit that is just record-label-stubs. Lugnuts 20:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of the stub size guidelines? You mean this bit then: The need for stub categories arose when the main Category:Stubs became so full that it got quite hard to find articles on a specific topic. Lugnuts 20:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the part Alai was referring to was Ideally, a newly-created stub type will have between 100 and 300 articles. In general, any new stub category should have a minimum of 60 articles. This threshold is modified for the stub category for use by a WikiProject. (If a Wikiproject is associated with more than one stub type, normal size considerations apply.) but I may be mistaken. Currently these 3 categories have 5 articles between them, which is a far cry from 60 each. <b style="color:maroon;">~ Amalas</b> rawr  <sup style="color:navy;">=^_^=  21:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be the bit I had in mind, yes, thank you Amalas. (I guess if one is going to selectively apply WP:STUB, similar thinking might as well apply to WP:CIVIL, but both seem rather regretable to me.)  The need for a split is why I proposed and created the Euro- type, which actually follows all of the guidelines -- including  size, need, and the "actually proposed" part -- not just applying one bullet point in a way that contradicts the remainder.  Alai 18:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you just sound like an old woman! For Christ's sake, I was trying to improve it!  I would understand if it was deliberate vandalism.  I'm as passionate about this as the next guy, hence my input.  I don't understand though why we need to have a discussion about stubs being created, but not for categories.  This is where someone now points out that the latter is discussed before creation...  Happy editing! Lugnuts 19:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me be more direct: knock off the gratuitous incivility, please.  Were your arguments intended to be purely rhetorical, if this is the way you react to counter-points to same?  Or are we supposed to accept unchallenged your assertions about how great an idea these types are?  It doesn't have to be "deliberate vandalism" to be "an extremely bad idea", which latter instance is pretty much precisely what we have deletion processes for (as opposed to just shooting non-guideline-compliant material on sight, much as that might actually spare us some grief in some instances).  We 'need' to have (or at least would hope for) prior discussion for these in a general effort to co-ordinate stub-sorting effort; and as against the perm-cats, as for one thing, they have different purposes, and hence, there's different criteria for them to exist -- in particular in this case, size.  (Of which you were evidently either unaware, or were choosing to ignore;  given the nature of your comment, it's still not clear which.)  And for another, because of people who create them on a completely inappropriate basis.  (Unfortunately, those tend to be the people who just merrily ignore the proposals page, so it's questionable if that plan ever actually gets us anywhere.)  Alai 20:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * gratuitous incivility - Oh dear. Maybe you should step out into the real world for 2 minutes.  This is about as "gratuitous" as a church bring-and-buy sale!  I've put my point across well and in good nature humour too. Or are we supposed to accept unchallenged your assertions about how great an idea these types are? - Yep, that's the one.Lugnuts 20:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For now, a preemptive deletion of any category with less than 30 articles, with a further review in a month or so. Since the templates have apparently been created on an as needed basis, keep them, and adjust the categories as needed. Caerwine <small style="font-family:sans-serif;color:darkred">Caer’s whines  21:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As you might point out yourself on such occasions, there's a reason the templates don't appear in the nomination... Alai 20:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Upmerge/delete all that don't accumulate a significant number (more than 30 seems okay, I suppose, I was thinking of 50-60 myself). I understand your concerns about people from those countries finding the articles; categorizing them into main categories would achieve this same goal. Crystallina 00:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's the remaining categories, which I've just tagged. (Fellow process-fiends might want to let these sub-nominations run for the extra couple of days.)
 * over 30 as of 17:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * over 60 as of 17:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * over 30 as of 17:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * over 60 as of 17:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * over 30 as of 17:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * over 30 as of 17:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * over 30 as of 17:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * over 30 as of 17:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * over 30 as of 17:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * over 30 as of 17:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * over 30 as of 17:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ones to def. keep (all at the 30 count or higher):
 * The number you're looking for is 60. Alai 02:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Lugnuts 12:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Upmerge/delete any that aren't near 40ish articles. Mairi 20:26, 16 December 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.