Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/January/4

WWII-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 keep

From WP:WSS/D. 41 articles. There's a better discussion on /D that I don't need to repeat here. ~ Amalas rawr  =^_^=  18:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete too specific. -- Selmo  (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have to say keep, with the CW-style "judiciously-used" caveat. There seems to be well over 60 articles already tagged as WW2-stubs (not currently oversized, but a repeat customer at /T on earlier occasions), so separating out the biographies from the other-types-of-thing seems a straightforward and logical step.  Used over-liberally, there would be potential for yet-more-multi-stubbing, it's true, but as far as the already-multi-stubbed articles are concerned, this would be an unqualified improvement.  Alai 20:36, 11 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.

creationism-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

From WP:WSS/D. A bit small at 24 articles, but there is a Portal:Creationism. ~ Amalas rawr  =^_^=  18:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep (and an even weaker list). Alai 01:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * VERY weak keep. With any luck the category will eventually evolve into something larger. Grutness...wha?  07:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "evolve into something" nice one :) Koweja 15:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The portal does an adequate job. PatriotBible 03:44, 8 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.

Texas-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 keep

From WP:WSS/D. We don't usually like to split people by state because they move around too much. However, this does have slightly over 60 articles. ~ Amalas rawr  =^_^=  18:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Judiciously used, per state bio stubs are useful. I generally add a state stub type if a person has a notability that is specific to that state.  Also Texas, with its period of independence has extra reasons for a stub of its own, not to mention those who were notable in Texas when it was part of Mexico or Spain. Caerwine Caer’s whines  04:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. CW's argument seems broadly valid, though the 'judicious use' falls in the "there's the rub" category.  Alai 01:21, 7 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.

cocktails

 * 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 variously delete and clean up per nomination

From WP:WSS/D. All associated with WikiProject Cocktails
 * cocktail-stub - Used on 50+ articles, keep and CLEANUP
 * - the category currently being used, does not conform to NG, delete
 * I'm not sure how WP:NG applies here. Or does NG mean something else? Linking to the various terms, while a pain, is very helpful for people trying to learn the policies and guidelines that apply. Thanks. --Willscrlt 23:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, NG = Naming Guidelines, which can be found at WP:WSS/NG. Sorry about that.  I usually try to link everything.  ~ Amalas</b>  rawr  <sup style="color:navy;">=^_^=  03:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * - what SHOULD be used, keep and CLEANUP


 * cocktail-micro - used on 20-ish articles that are "micro-stubs", this is completely non-standard, delete restub with cocktail-stub
 * - as above, delete


 * cocktail-expand - (should probably be at MFD, but I'm trying to keep this discussion together), used on 20-ish articles that are "larger than stubs", non-standard, delete
 * - as above, delete

The end result (ideally) should be: cocktail-stub feeding into. <b style="color:maroon;">~ Amalas</b> rawr  <sup style="color:navy;">=^_^=  16:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Approve all per Amalas, except relist cocktail-expand and at MFD.  —CComMack (t–c) 17:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * cocktail-expand and are now listed at MFD here and here. <b style="color:maroon;">~ Amalas</b>  rawr  <sup style="color:navy;">=^_^=  17:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. My bad.  They're now at TFD and CFD: Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 5 and Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 5.  <b style="color:maroon;">~ Amalas</b>  rawr  <sup style="color:navy;">=^_^=  05:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * AMEND (see modified proposal under Alai's comments) DENY ALL - Hopefully we can fix specific problems rather than delete all these resources outright.
 * Each of the items listed part of a massive cleanup project the WikiProject Cocktails is undertaking. It started in December and the cleanup project ends February 28th. At the very least, please do not delete these prior to that date. It has been soooo much effort to help categorize and tag all the articles, this would set us back terribly and just be devastating to the efforts of a small, but growing number of people who are helping to improve these broad section of articles. We have been making real headway, and these helpful tags and the related categories have been at the heart of organizing our work. If we did something wrong (and I'm sure we did since it's up for discussion here), please give us a chance to fix it.
 * The micro-stub is something that is fairly unique to the cocktails pages. Within cocktails, there is a very common problem of articles that are nothing but a recipe for making a mixed drink. We are fully aware of WP:NOT, but before deleting the information outright, we need to either transwiki the information to WikiBooks or integrate that information into List of cocktails or one of the other related lists.
 * Prior to the micro-stub categorizing, these recipe-articles were being deleted--several per week--by people who did not understand the goals of the WikiProject Cocktails cleanup project. It severely disrupted the work flow and results of our efforts. Since creating and using that, we have had an increase in awareness, an increase in participation, and we have been able to get a lot accomplished. The "micro-stub" may be non-standard, but it's an extremely beneficial tool for categorization and cleanup for a somewhat unique problem our Project faces. Of all the proposed deletions, the micro-stub is the one I most strenuously object to at least through February, because it is so important to our ongoing work. We are working on transitioning to proper assessment of articles, so we only need about a week to make that change.
 * I am not asking for an indefinite stay of execution on these things... just hold off on implementing any actions until we get a chance to fix things. These are intensive works in progress, not random templates and categories that were created on a whim. Each one was well thought out, and attempting to do so within the "proper" ways of doing things here. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has more guidelines and policies than the average well-meaning Wikipedian can possibly hope to learn in a short amount of time. But that does not give us an excuse, but I do ask that you give us the time to fix things without a horrendous disruption to our efforts. Thank you for your consideration. --Willscrlt 22:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have provided background information and some possible fixes on Amalas' talk page directly related to this that might be an acceptable alternative to deletion and the disruption that would cause for our WikiProject's efforts. Please consider the possible fixes we have suggested as an alternative to deleting these resources -- at least until March 1st. Thank you. --Willscrlt 23:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/amend as per original nom. Vehemently, strenuously and absolutely delete cocktail-micro as a substub-style abomination. This could bbe handled far more effectively through WikiProject-specific talk page templates - it certainly doesn't need several grades of stub template. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I swear Grutness, I'd think you were discussing a spider or something, not a variation on a stub category. (Said with a twinkle in my winking eye.) I get your point, though. --Willscrlt 10:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you knew the trouble we had with substub ((i.e., "this is even smaller than a stub") in the early days of WP:WSS, you'd know why! Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  22:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete/amend per nom. If the wikiproject would like help in listifying or talk-templatising these as an alternative, I'd be happy to do so.  It's hardly reasonable to wait two months before dealing with these, though.  Alai 01:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I may take you up on that offer, Alai. I have made pretty good progress on implementing proper assessment procedures for articles using some resources people have suggested to me. The biggest thing I need is help figuring out the Parser functions to make the Project talk-page header work properly. Right now I am setting up the infrastructure to handle the change around, but in a day or two, the template will be the thing I have to get working right. I have a first draft in my sandbox. It is based on the The Beatles WikiProject's template.
 * Two months will not be necessary. If people could see their way clear to grant up to a one week stay of action, that would be most appreciated. I did copy down all the article names, but it will be much easier to update if they remain linked. If not, I can live with that, too. All finished with the changes. It was suggested that I list the affected articles in the Project to-do list, which was a great and very workable suggestion. I have removed the cocktail-micro template from all articles. (Now is that cheering I hear Grutness? ;-) The Category:Cocktails (stubs) category is ready to be deleted. I would still like to see the following change made... --Willscrlt 13:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Could we amend the name change to "Mixed drink stubs", because that is a much better name. Cocktails are specifically drinks that are made primarily with distilled spirits (brandy, gin, rum, tequila, vodka, whiskey, and a few others), but excludes beer, wine, and non-alcoholic mixed drinks. Having now read the stub creation guidelines, especially the number of items that should be contained within a stub category (minimum of 60), it would not make any sense to create other stub categories for the various other types of mixed drinks. The change is also in line with the name change for the WikiProject itself that is coming under consideration (WikiProject Mixed Drinks instead of WikiProject Cocktails) for the same reasons. I mean, if we are going to go through all this bureaucracy, we might as well have something that benefits the WikiProject at the same time, right? So here is how I would like to see this all turn out:
 * be moved to and all articles updated to use that new designation.
 * cocktail-stub (which is no longer part of this discussion) will be updated to mixeddrink-stub or something similar to reflect that change.
 * be kept until 08:00 UTC January 13, 2006 (midnight my time) (or sooner if I get done sooner), when it will be deleted and any remaining "micro stubs" (I hear Grutness screaming in pain at that name) will be merged into the new category. Assuming I do finish this before the deadline, should I request a speedy delete at that point, or just wait for it to be killed off at the designated time by someone who remembers this conversation?
 * (which I think also was moved elsewhere for discussion) will be replaced by proper assessment methods of identifying inferior articles. Again, I request the category be kept until 08:00 UTC January 13, 2006 (midnight my time) (or sooner if I get done sooner), when it will be deleted and any remaining "extends" will be merged into the new category. The related template will be replaced with the stub template, if anything is still using it (which there shouldn't be at that point). Assuming I do finish this before the deadline, should I request a speedy delete at that point, or just wait for it to be killed off at the designated time by someone who remembers this conversation?
 * This is all essentially what Amalas originally proposed, but implemented in a way that helps the WikiProject rather than harms it AND brings everything into compliance within one week. It sounds pretty fair to me. I hope you all agree. And thank you everyone (except maybe Grutness ;) for being so civil and generally very helpful in this very stressful situation. Fortunately I'm a long time community player (elsewhere), and I am not a quitter. I did freak out, but I'm okay now, and I am working toward a positive and cooperative solution towards this whole mess. All I'm asking for is the chance to make things right. And the offers of help are appreciated. :-) Thanks again. --Willscrlt 10:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hrmph :) Hopefully the advice is useful. I think the flexibility of the talk page templates will - in the long run - be a lot more useful to you than the stub-like templates ever could havee been. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  22:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all. Willscrlt is leading this project singlehandedly it seems and he's organizing things the way he needs to. The cleanup will end at the end of February, I think you should give the project until then till you delete themm Nardman1 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nardman1, but this has been an important push in the right direction for improvement
 * 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.

Sailor-Moon-stub-section and Sailor-Moon-stub-List
<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 listed at WP:TFD

From WP:WSS/D. I'm not 100% positive this should be here (as opposed to WP:MFD), but these Sailor Moon-specific templates are acting like sectstub and listdev. -stub-section is used on 4 articles and feeds into. -stub-List is used on 3 articles. Delete this nonsense and use sectstub and listdev instead. <b style="color:maroon;">~ Amalas</b> rawr  <sup style="color:navy;">=^_^=  16:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Those are Stubs templetes for the use of articles under WikiProject: Sailor Moon. They are for our use, Also They are still under constrution. We are well aware that they do not feed the articles into the proper Catigorys. I am informing the other Project and asking them to cast their votes. Lego3400: The Sage of Time 16:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I could go either way. They're very cute, but I know very little about the stub-sorting project and how complicated it is, so I'd rather not make more work for those who do. --Masamage 17:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Relist at TFD or MFD. Not our problem, except the interaction with the stub category, which can be taken care of through normal editing and does not need a deletion debate.  —CComMack (t–c) 17:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * These are now listed at WP:TFD here and here. <b style="color:maroon;">~ Amalas</b>  rawr  <sup style="color:navy;">=^_^=  18:10, 4 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.

Pay-tv-stub (no category)
<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

Never proposed, badly formatted (no category, to start with), only one stub (a programme stub)... and this is not how we split tv stubs! Delete Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  06:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Even if we did split this way, ambiguous as to whether cable/sat channels or PPV events were meant. Caerwine <small style="font-family:sans-serif;color:darkred">Caer’s whines 19:44, 9 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.

Domotics-stub /
<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

Never proposed, only one stub, and - judging by what's written under domotics - that stub doesn't actually relate to domotics in any way. Not likely to reach 60 any time soon (i.e., not in the next couple of years). Delete. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  06:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Maintain the stub category. You can see what links to it, using: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Domotics-stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac (talk • contribs)
 * Erm, yes... that's exactly what I did, which is why I noted that Clothes valet isn't anything to do with Domotics (the link between something which is akin to a heated towel rail and home automation is tenuous, to say the least). Neither, for that matter, is Equip´baie (a trade fair for general home fittings), one of the three extra stubs which have been added to the category since I nominated this stub type for deletion. Given that has - along with its subcategory - only 32 articles (several of which are not stubs, and several of which probably don't actually belong there, since they have little to do with domotics), the chances of this haveing 60 currently existing stubs is remarkably slim. As such, i stand by my original comment that this should be deleted. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  12:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Alai 01:50, 5 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.