Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/April/19

Kiribati-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The result of the debate was withdrawn

While I've no objection to a Kiribati-stub - in fact, the Alai solution well suggests that every country should have its own stub - this isn't it. This is, in fact, a duplicate of Kiribati-geo-stub, and as such is both incorrectly named and redundant. Either this should be fixed up to be a true non-geo stub, or should go until such times as we have a proper Kiribati-stub ready to run. Grutness...wha?  01:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been fixed to be an upmerged template, so keep it as such. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm willing to withdraw this nom. This does fit in with the idea of having base-level templates for all countries, and now that it's clear it is a base-level one rather than a geo-stub, it would be silly to get rid of it. We should really sart doing something about making those base-level upmerged templates for as many countries as possible. Problem a lot of the time is, of course, with the exact definition of "country", but for internationally recognised sovereign states like Kiribati I don't think there are any problems. Grutness...wha?  07:05, 19 April 2007 (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.

UK-waterway-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 rename/rescope to UK-canal-stub; Wikiproject to use talk page template

Unproposed - this cuts right through the by-county hierarchy of the geo-stubs, and at the same time being very ambiguous in its scop. It currently has bio-stubs, geo-stubs, water-stubs, org-stubs and museum-stubs all under one umbrella, plus its definition (for canals and navigable rivers) is in itself ambiguous (navigable to what extent) and arbitrarily splits articles on rivers ionto two types. This is probably the reason why there is no equivalent parent category. Delete. Grutness...wha?  01:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * navigable has a legal meaning in the UK. For example the head of navigation on the River Arun is at Pallingham under flood conditions you could get rather further (under normal conditions you would struggle to get a boat to the head of navigation but no matter) but the river would not be considered navigable beyond that point.Geni 01:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I counted at least 22 likely candidates, on titles alone, on just the first page of Category:Water transport stubs (A-E). Populating an alternative UK-canal-stub (see below) would be no problem at all. EdJogg 09:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  L.J.Skinner wot 01:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. 1:1 relationship with WikiProject UK Waterways (whereby scope is covered; also Category:WikiProject UK Waterways); usage per Geni. Andy Mabbett 07:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment -- stub was created by Andy Mabbett. (EdJogg 09:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Rename Delete and create alternative: UK-canal-stub. The intention of this stub (I suspect) was to identify any stub articles that fall within the remit of WikiProject UK Waterways. Since this project covers both canals and navigable rivers, and pretty much anything related to navigable (see User:Geni above) waterways in the UK (geography, history, civil engineers, haulage companies, physical features, boat types, etc), the stub scope will cut across other stub boundaries.  However, it is not intended to replace these other stubs – many stub articles are identified as falling under more than one stub category. In particular, it has to cut through "by-county geo-stubs" since canals are, by nature, inter-county transport features!  The revised name more accurately covers the majority of stub articles affected.  Incidentally, there IS a category, a sub-cat of . --EdJogg 09:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment -- part of the problem with the disputed cat is that it was not passed through the official proposal process. I would suggest that the cat is needed, although an alternative name (see above) would be acceptable. If an appropriate course of action is for the project to wait while a new stub is officially approved, then so be it, but it will make life easier for all if UK-waterway-stub is not deleted until the new one is available for use.
 * EdJogg 09:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It couldn't really be renamed to UK-canal-stub as it covers more than just canals. Simply south 12:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, which is why I have changed my original view. As suggested above, UK-canal-stub is a viable stub candidate on its own merits, regardless of the project's involvement.  I think it could legitimately include locks, tunnels, aqueducts and other features on UK canals, as well as the canals themselves. There is further discussion about this at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Waterways
 * EdJogg 12:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nomination Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 20:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * you wish to claim that navigable does not have a legal meaning in the UK?Geni 18:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: either this or the suggested UK-canal-stub are viable, as a split from water-stub. Although this was not proposed via the "official" means, that should not be a bar to it being kept and made useful.  A retrospective proposal ought to be made at WP:WSS/P as soon as possible.  --RFBailey 23:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I note there is a, which is split to some extent by geography, just not in the case of the UK. However, it's an awkward scope for a stub type in any case, since splitting up the rivers in this way will only make sense for this particular aspect of their significance, which is not the only or necessarily the primary one.  I know there's a Wikiproject, but "bespoke scope for whatever a project fancies" is better employed for the talk-page "Stub-Class article" categories than for article-space cats.  So I'd favour a rename and rescope to UK-canal-stub, as suggested above, and revisiting what (if anything) to do with the rivers on the WSS/Proposals page.  Alai 23:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment from nominator The main objection to this stub type was not its lack of proposal - it was the fact that it cuts across the stub hierarchy. Rivers and canals are not split from other geo-stubs - geo-stubs are split promarily by subnational region. I would oppose UK-canal-stub for exactly the same reason - an alternative name would be as unacceptable as the current one. A 1:1 relationship between a stub type and a wikiproject has never been a valid reason for keeping a stub type if that stub type does not meet the standards of stub sorting, which is designed to be used across the whole of Wikiupedia, not just within individual WikiProjects. A far more appropriate means for the Waterways project to mark its articles is with a talk-page wikiproject-specific grading template, which would allow it to mark all articles connected with the project, not just stubs. Grutness...wha?  23:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Interesting...things are become clearer. Consider the following...
 * As rivers are natural features, it makes a great deal of sense them being treated in the geo-stub arena.
 * Canals are, by definition, man-made. There are already several railway-related stub categories, which are not (directly) geo-stubs as far as I am aware. Looking at it from a transport POV, you could say that canals have more in common with railways than rivers.  I can see no reason why canals cannot have a stub category in the same way that railways and roads can.
 * My proposal (which I really ought to move over to the Proposals page!) is for a stub to allow sorting of canal-related articles. It was not intended to be a project stub category. (Although there is obviously no reason why a project could not make use of it, where appropriate.)
 * The 'UK' part of the name was included as I had evolved it from the stubname being discussed. I would be quite happy to have canal-stub, if the chosen name was an issue, although I suspect that the vast majority of articles within will be UK-based.
 * Does this get us anywhere?
 * EdJogg 00:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that the geo-stubs at present cover both physical geography, and human geography in a fairly broad sense (including essentially anything with a fixed location, which more extensive than a "building or structure"). Alai 01:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmmm. Good points all, and to be honest, canals are borderline as far as geo-stubs are concerned (railways are not geo-stubs, but airports are, so you could argue precedent either way). As such, canals could probably be separated from geo-stubs without too much fuss. Rivers, though - as you say - are a different matter. I still think that from the point of view of the waterways project - since it deals with both canals and rivers - you would get far more use out of a talk-page template, but as far as stubbing is concerned, a series of canal stub types (UK-, US-, Euro-) does make some sense. Grutness...wha?  00:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * PS - as for them being mainly in the UK, you'd be surprised. Most of the canal stubs I've tagged have been in the US. Grutness...wha?  04:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes but the project is rather UK based.Geni 18:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Then this UK-related stub shouldn't overly bother you. Andy Mabbett 18:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is that a UK-canal-stub would seem to imply a parent canal-stub, which would probably be easily populable, and a US-canal-stub might also be splittable. Those would need proposing at WP:WSS/P, however, and they're obviously of less direct concern to your project. Grutness...wha?  00:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem you then hit is that the line between canals and rivers in the UK can be somewhat blurred.Geni 09:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If possible, split. Simply south 11:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep Navigable Rivers are different from non-navigable rivers. People interested in improving one type until it is no longer a stub may not be interested in improving the other. There are sufficient articles which fit the proposed stub to make it useful in focussing the attention of editors with this area of interest. Martin Cordon 21:16, 23 April 2007 (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.

Objectivism-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 delete

Unproposed, and very small in scope. The whole of and its subcategories runs to barely more than 120 articles, many of which, if stubs, would be better served by other stub types (the bio and book types, in partticular). Chances of this reaching a viable threshold are slim, to say the least. Grutness...wha?  01:05, 19 April 2007 (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.