Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/January/27

SFU-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 and upmerge

Never proposed, cryptic name, no indication this will reach threshold, category has no stub parents... oh, and the main category for the Star Fleet Universe only has 37 articles. Nothing here that double stubbing with cvg and StarTrek stubs wouldn't fix. Delete. Grutness...wha?  06:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename template, as this would be ideally be worth separating from the "Paramount 'Trek universe", but upmerge if not populated. (It's not related to a CVG, though, and the contents are more fictional-world- than board-game-.)  And very strong remove fair use image from template.  In fact, I shall do that right now...  Alai 07:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad on the game type, you're right of course. Perhaps it's worth asking someone at the ST WProject about what the best course of action would be? Grutness...wha?  09:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm the one who made the stub, being the first time that I had ever tried to do something like that (similar to my first template creations this week).  I created this one because in many ways the SFU has diverged greatly from the mainline Star Trek that many who are only familiar with it's 'Parent' would be confused by the contents.  As a result, I decided that when I saw a couple of articles with the Star Trek stub, I thought it would be best to seperate them out slightly.  If I violated stub creation guidelines, I do appologize for not reading more into that.  If it is determained that this stub is not of any further use, is there any way to create a 'sub-stub' of the main Star Trek stub to differentiate it, just as Category:Star Fleet Universe is a sub of Category:Star Trek? --Donovan Ravenhull 12:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. The main problems with this stub type are the name (we don't use ambiguous abbreviations, and SFU could mean one of many things (m y first thought was "Six feet under"). The other is the size (60 stubs is the usual minimum for a new stub type). Is this likely to grow to that sort of size? Grutness...wha?  20:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably not. For me, the question is do I think these should go under Star Trek stubs or generic ones... --Donovan Ravenhull 20:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's feasible to keep a separate template, as I suggested above, but the current name is much too cryptic, and the category is too small. StarFleetUniverse-stub feeding into  seems do-able, though.  Alai 01:26, 28 January 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.

Several SLT stub types

 * 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

So what, you ask, is an SLT when it's at home? It's a Sri Lankan Tamil. There is no need from a size point of view for a split in the SriLanka-X-stub types, and even if there was, splitting by a single people within a country who are involved in an independence struggle fails stub guidelines on very many ways. And even if it didn't, we'd use proper template names, not these...things. And even then, we'd need to know that there were plenty of stubs which these could use. And even then - even if all those unmet conditions were met - we would umperge them into approriate stub categories, not - as in one case - into a permcat (a permcat with only some 45 articles, what's more). Delete. Grutness...wha?  06:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * SLT hist stub
 * SLT literate stub (yes, that's right - literate)
 * SLT political bio stub
 * It's perhaps possible that there are 1.5 stubs between these three... entities.  I don't know if there's a salvageable scope in there someplace, but best to just delete and do over from the ground up.  Alai 07:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Watch your tongue Alai :) Somebody has opened an AMA case against Grutness because of the above post, see: Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/January 2007/Yugayuga. This time, I'll take extra care formulating my own evaluation: Q1: Are these templates named according to the naming standard and are they scoped like similar templates? A1: None of them live up to the naming standard, and the "literate" template is a non-standard scope. Q2: Are the template names impossible to misunderstand? A2: No. I was guessing at Saint Louis Timberwolves or something similar (yes, my knowledge about U.S. football is very limited). Q3: Is the in need of splitting? A3: No, since it only holds less than 90 articles, the standard threshold for a new template is 60; a number which should also be retained for the original template. 90 is smaller than 60+60 so it fails there as well. We do have an additional 124 cricket players, but we have no count for how well-represented the Tamil community is there either. Q4: Are any of these templates likely to be controversial? A4: Yes, due to the politicial situation on that island. Q5: Do we normally create stub templates based on ethnicity? A5: No, due to the concern mentioned under Q4. My conclusion: Delete all. And just for the record, I have nothing for or against either Tamils, Singhalese people or any other persons living in or near the Indian subcontinent. Valentinian T / C 08:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Tangential comment - yes, Yugayuga (the stub types' creator) took out an AMA case against me because of this. Due to his comments, I have taken out a RfC against him for accusing me of racism. If either of you feel like commenting about it, it would be welcomed... Grutness...wha?  00:09, 31 January 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.