Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/February/14

Cossack-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

Looks like we have another potential Maoririder on our hands... User:Potatomaster27 has created a handful of...interesting... templates, of which this is one (the other two are below). A split by a specific people within a country goes against stub precedent, and there is no evidence that this would find anywhere near enough usage for a separate stub type. Red-linked category, and this is only used on a user page. Usefully (?) there is also a redlinked, non-existent WikiProject. The icon would probably be offensive to many true Cossacks, too. delete Grutness...wha?  01:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Update - looks like a category has now been created - with an sfd-c template ready attached! Grutness...wha?  03:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Cossacks are awesome and deserve their own special template. They could be used for...Soviet stuff. I also made a category for Cossack stubs as of 10 minutes ago or so. So keep it.Potatomaster27 02:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Using Cossack-stub for "Soviet stuff" and putting the USSR flag on it is similar, but a little milder, than using Israel-stub for Nazi things and using the WWII era german flag on it. I advise you to read Cossack, particularly the first paragraph of the section headed "Cossacks after the Russian Revolution", to see why it would be inappropriate. Also please note precedents on stub types for specific people within a country, which this stub type goes against. And as far as I know being awesome has never been part of the stub creation criteria. Grutness...wha?  03:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. just leave it alone, it's not hurting anyone
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piratebob13 (talk • contribs)
 * If it wasn't hurting anyone, I wouldn't have brought it here. Grutness...wha?  03:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. who is it alegedly hurting?
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piratebob13 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete Stub types that have too few articles hurt because they increase the number of stubtypes past the point where they can be managed. Stub Sense reports all of 45 stub articles in Category:Cossacks and its children, and we want at minimum 60 stubs for a regular stub type. Caerwine Caer’s whines  06:17, 14 February 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.

Klingon-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

And now we get into weightier territory. There are only 48 articles in, so the chances of 650 stubs is remote, to say the least - plus we've recently been in long talks with the Star Trek WikiProject about splitting the Star Trek stubs, and this wasn't the way decided. Another redlinked WikiProject on this one, but a blue-linked cat 9also nominated). Delete with a capital d. Grutness...wha?  01:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * jIHoH per nom. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I must admit, this one doesn't really have any uses. I also can't use the Klingon Insignia for the template because it's copyrighted. Potatomaster27 02:37, 14 February 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.

Potato-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

The mind boggles. Several articles, all with tsome 9often very tenuous) link to potatoes. The category is, to say the least, interesting, and there's no sign of the red-linked WikiProject Potato. The template has interwiki links to Catalan and Czech templates, which unfortunately are on German geography. As does Klingon-stub. Delete with a capital potato. Grutness...wha?  01:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep! What's wrong with a potato-stub! I've tagged at least 3 or 4 articles, such as "Potatoe". I also deleted the interwiki links to Catalan and Czech templates - those were an accident. Keep, keep, keep!!! Potatomaster27 02:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If we were to have a potato stub, it would be - like similar plant-stubs, for specific species of potato and for articles related to the propagation and use of potatoes. Not for articles like Potato (band). Grutness...wha?  03:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Mash unless 60+ stubs can be found. However, we do have a precedent of having stubs for plant families or orders and Stub Sense reports 105 stubs for the family Solanaceae which includes some false positives for potato and tomato dishes. Even after the false positives are struck it looks like it would have ~60 stubs, so a rescope and rename might be worth doing, though it would do very little to reduce the nearly overlarge plant stubs as the largest contribution would from a group of 17 articles from the appropriate Asterid-stub plus those stubbed with vegetable, fruit, and plant plus some others.  A safer bet for having over 60+ might be to go with the order Solanales which has 123 stubs, but has the disadvantage of having seen a good bit of change in membership with the 2003 revision of the APG.   Still, if some people are determined to have a narrower stub than Asterid-stub for the potatoes, one could do worse than either Solanales-stub or Solanaceae-stub Caerwine Caer’s whines  03:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I think a potato stub would be very appropriate and it's not like it would cause any trouble.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piratebob13 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. A potato stub can actually have a lot of uses with potato-related articles.  I think it would be a very good idea. Bobbinson 20:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Bobbinson's only previous edits have been to User pages, including one made (and reverted) to Potatomaster27's alternate account. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For those of us having trouble keeping P27's obvious socks separate from his admitted socks: which is his 'alternate account'?  Alai 02:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Potatomasterr is the account I meant. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Valentinian T / C 01:19, 21 February 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.

DragonQuest-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 no consensus

Not necessary. Feeds into, which has fewer than 40 stubs, let alone being close to needing to be split. And the template is, erm, not standard, to say the least. Delete. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  01:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete this though, it's retarded and too specific. I take no credit for this btw. Potatomaster27 02:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it did - I said you created three - this is the fourth one on today's list. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  03:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, I'm just saying. Potatomaster27 04:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete on the usual grounds, with extra strength for "userbox design", and not even being about the real DragonQuest. Alai 12:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For your information, this stub is about the Dragon Quest video game series, not the DragonQuest RPG. Dragon Quest is the #1 selling video game series in Japan, and it has many loyal North American fans.  --Rika95 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Or to put it another way, the template is ambiguously named as well as being non-standard, unproposed and below threshold. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  05:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I do not understand what 'non-standard' and 'below threshold' mean. I am totally new to creating or fixing content on Wikipedia.  Someone else created the stub.  I don't understand what's going on, but I hope to continue communicating with the group of Dragon Quest fanatics on Wikipedia so we can improve the Dragon Quest pages in whatever way we can.--Rika95 06:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For your information, that did not in fact inform me any further at all, as I would have thought would have been fairly clear from the nature of my comment. But at least the template has been cleaned up a little (I've further removed the background colour and fixed the sort key problem), which does something to temper my ire.  But this still seems at best pointless, and at worst potentially confusing.  'Non-standard' means, "not formatted in compliance with WP:STUB".  'Below threshold' means, "doesn't have 60 articles, as indicated on WP:STUB".  Likewise, 'unproposed' means...  well, you get the general idea.  Alai 12:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If it does not have 60 articles it is because it has not been given any attention in all this time.  We intend to change that, if only we are allowed.  If the problem is that it is confusing to DragonQuest RPG people, we could always specify this is for the series of video games.  Please propose something to make things better, do not just delete what you do not like. Icecypher 14:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if we get rid of it then we will also need to get rid of FinalFantasy-stub and put them under as well. If we are willing to do that as well then I'll agree to deletion. If not then I think simply fixing the stub to match the standard is more appropriate. SMimas 02:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point - with only 15 stubs, it's hardly optimal. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  05:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep on SMimas' grounds. The Dragon Quest stubs really haven't been given any attention by those who monitor and place Square Enix stubs, a specific stub like this is warranted by demand, the precedent that the Final Fantasy stubs set, and as such, required for retention. Keep. Siyavash 02:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on the precedent set by Final Fantasy as well as the fact that if the Dragon Quest articles are currently being expanded it will be needed soon anyways.CalNom 18:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep DQ articles are in the process of being created, so this stub will be necessary in the near future.marcoxnoto 23.00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on the precedent set by Final Fantasy as well as the fact that if the Dragon Quest articles are currently being expanded it will be needed soon anyways. Dragon Quest is just as important a series as Final Fantasy.  This game is a cultural sensation in Japan much bigger than Halo or Final Fantasy is in the states.  Deleting it is paramount to denying Japanese culture. 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I wonder why there are multiple Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest stubs that pertain to individual games or characters? Why not have one universal Final Fantasy stub and one universal Dragon Quest stub? Those might serve to remove redundant stubs. If there would be just one Square Enix stub, then it should be okay to remove all other Square Enix stubs. I suppose there is concern about the existence of excessive stubs. Though, it can be tricky when elements of a franchise expand beyond the ownership of Square Enix, such as the Dragon Quest manga and anime. (I heard that these weren't owned by Enix, but I could be mistaken.)--Rika95 21:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we can rename it to Dragon_Quest_stub, though, because the other DQ's people are right. DragonQuest, without the space, is for the paper role playing game.  It is understandable why it could get confusing. Icecypher 15:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename I definitely agree that it should be renamed to Dragon_Quest_stub. Doing so would eliminate any confusion between the Dragon Quest RPG video game and the Dragonquest table top RPG.--Rika95 22:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Icecypher, Rika, you're straying considerably from the point. The name is about the only thing about this template which si right! It is in accordance with stub naming guidelines, which Dragon_Quest_stub would not be. The problem with the template is the number of articles which use it. Where are the 60 articles that are needed for a stub type? If the parent doesn't even have 60 stubs in it, then there's certainly no reason why there should be a child type.
 * To the unnamed commenter above them, and also to CalNom and Siyavash, please note that FinalFantasy-stub is now proposed for deletion for exactly the same reasonj, so using it as a precedent is a little strange, to say the least. Furthermore, if the articles are currently being expanded as claimed, there will be, if anything, less need for a stub template as these articles expand beyond stub level. And also, if this is "warranted by demand", then why is it only used on 15 stubs?
 * Marcoxnoto - when more stubs have been created, then I've no objection to a re-propsal for this stub type. Unitl then, it is not needed and - by precedent - should be deleted. Stub types are not made or kept on the basis that there may be future stubs.
 * Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  05:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But this isn't a "stub type", it's an "upmerged stub template". Usual practice for well-scoped but somewhat undersized stub types is upmerger.  What precedents are there for deletion of already upmerged templates, on size alone?  (Extreme narrowness or non-use aside.)  This looks to me like setting a precedent, tha following it (as I commented on the FF nom).  Alai 03:19, 20 February 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.