Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/June/30

Various Canadian poeple and politicians

 * 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 1,2,3,5; rename template 3,4; keep cat 4

Sadly, it seems to have been a busy day for user:Dl2000, who has created six new unproposed stubs, several of which need work at the very least:
 * 1) PrinceEdwardIsland-bio-stub /
 * 2) PrinceEdwardIsland-bio-stub /
 * 3) NewfoundlandandLabrador-bio-stub /
 * 4) NewfoundlandandLabrador-politician-stub /
 * 5) Saskatchewan-bio-stub /
 * 6) Saskatchewan-politician-stub /

There are numerous things wrong with these combinations. Firstly, no-one comes from anywhere stubs - there is no such place as "Saskatchewan stubs", for instance. Which is the reason why we use the combination "X people stubs". Thus, we instantly have three categories needing renaming. Similarly, it is standard practice for Newfoundland and Labrador stub templates to simply be Newfoundland-x-stub, often with a redirect from Labrador-x-stub. So that's two more renamings needed. Then we get to problems of size and scope. Subnational bio-stubs are, as long-standing stub-sorters are keenly aware, a major prolem due to the perambulatory nature of people. And none of those three stub types is used at all. Size is the next problem, and though it appears that the Saskatchewan and N/L politician stub types are fine as far as this is concerned, there are only 16 listed stubs for PEI politicians, though doubtless there may be more.

So, to summarise: On inspection, no. 6 appears to be ok.
 * Either rename categories 1, 3, and 5, or upmerge the respective templates
 * Rename templates 2 and 4
 * Either populate category 2 or upmerge.

A lot of work could have been saved here simply by proposing the stub types... Grutness...wha?  01:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * D'oh, my bad. OK, the work on my end was strictly with politician stubs, not any general bios (fortunately). Besides not "proposing", the big mistake was made was trying to be consistent with Quebec-politician-stub which goes up to a Quebec-bio-stub, which on further inspection had a "no consensus" for deletion so remains an anomaly.
 * Anyway - regarding the proposals here:
 * support speedy rename/upmerge of the bio categories/templates 1, 3, 5 as nominated;
 * Regarding templates 2 and 4, the naming of the PEI and N/L stub templates was based on the naming approach taken with the existing BritishColumbia-politician-stub, NovaScotia-politician-stub, NewBrunswick-politician-stub. However, won't oppose renaming if it simplifies things, especially if a consensus/policy was previously (or will be) demonstrated as exceptions from the previous template namings.
 * Re: category 2 - WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Canadian politicians indicates dozens, perhaps hundreds, of Canadian politicians yet to have articles, including many PEI politicians, and can be expected to populate - keep this.
 * A few corrections to the nominator's items - 1) stub template #2 above should be corrected to PrinceEdwardIsland-politician-stub, not bio; 2) currently 31 under Category:Prince Edward Island politician stubs and as mentioned this will likely be growing. Dl2000 02:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's largely resolved that, I'd only add the quibble that redlinks don't sort well: the current population is pretty small, and in the normal course of events I might suggest upmerger.  OTOH, the Canada-level politicians have been oversized on a number of occasions, so I feel no huge rush to do this just yet.  Perhaps revisit in a few weeks to see if is indeed growing.  On #4, perhaps keep redirects so the Labradorwegians don't feel too left out.  Alai 18:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Labradonians, perhaps? It would make sense to have it like the geo-stubs and plain stubs - Newfoundland-X-stub with a redirect at Labrador-X-stub. As for the PEI politicians, I thought they'd probably reach target, but it made sense to list everything together in one go. Grutness...wha?  01:15, 3 July 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.

Coheed and Cambria-stub / / Coheed and Cambria stub (redirect)

 * 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

This one is, at least, a bit more straightforward. never proposed, oddly worded category, badly named template and redirect, and the whole of contains only 2/3 of the number of articles that would be needed as stubs for this to be viable. Given that categories for individual bands are generally frowned upon (the parent should by rights go to cfd), a stub category is not generally desirable. And yet again we come back to the precedent - this would be the second musical act to have its own stub type, with the Beatles being the other (and that only for songs). Might I suggest that if band-specific stub types are going to become standard (which I sincerely hope they are not) a few other acts deserve a stub type a little more than Coheed and Cambria? Grutness...wha?  01:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies, as I did not realise that band-stubs were generally unrequired. As I created this WikiProject, I derived most of the styles from the Mortal Kombat WikiProject, including the idea for a Project-specific stub. If this stub does not meet your requirements, then by all means delete it - sorry for any hassle. ≈  The Haunted Angel 
 * Delete: A rather unnecessary stub. Rehevkor 01:07, 6 July 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.