Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/May/18


 * 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, keeping upmerged template

The Chechen template has been upmerged to and made more neutral. I'm still far from sure that it is a good idea keeping the template, but in any case, the category should go. Delete. Valentinian T / C 21:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this - and I agree that the template should probably be considered at some point. Similarly, I noticed an upmerged Somaliland-stub yesterday which might need reassessing. Grutness...wha?  23:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with the Somaliland issue. Based on the experience from both Transnistria-stub and Somaliland-stub, people don't use these templates as supplements to the templates representing the internationally recognized owners of the territory, the "official" template is simply replaced. I don't see how this conforms with NPOV. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for wannabe nations. Regarding the template at hand, I'm already finding it less than perfect that politicians from Chechnya now get sorted into both and  (the -bio is due to the new template). Valentinian T / C 07:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As you have already mentioned, all references to the Chechen separatist movement have been removed; it is now completely neutral and can no longer be accused of being 'wannabe nation-propaganda'. It no longer deals with politics, but rather with Chechnya as a geographical entity. In the earlier discussion about this category and template it was pointed out why the Texas-bio-stub has a right to exist, and now that the template has been completely 'neutralized', I'd say the same goes for the Chechnya-bio template. ForrestSjap 15:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that the template's not up for deletion (despite some mutterings, above). Per my reasoning at /P, i.e. that there's not enough material for a cat, but the template is OK if "neutralised", delete cat (and keep template, as upmerged).  Alai 19:54, 22 May 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.


 * 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

This one is not excessively large by itself but it can be a holder for a Pakistani cricket bio category. The name should have been to conform with the similar material. Rename. Valentinian T / C 21:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Grutness...wha?  23:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 17:27, 20 May 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.

GPS-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

From WP:WSS/D. This one was used on one tiny stub article of unclear notability. Delete unless we can find something useful to do with it. Valentinian T / C 20:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless there's a chance of finding 60 stubs on global positioning, which seems a ittle unlikely. Grutness...wha?  23:21, 18 May 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.

Pr-US-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 delete

An oddly named redirect to US-bio-stub. Apparently the idea was that the creator intended it to be used on articles for people of presumed U.S. nationality. Not needed and not used. Delete Valentinian T / C 20:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this oddity. Grutness...wha?  23:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, weird... -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 17:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * _ _ Comment. If not used, surely bcz someone determined the nationality (perhaps responding to my placing it) anywhere it was used. I don't recall where, but i wouldn't have created it, w/o the stimulus of a stub such as the nominator correctly inferred it was intended for. (The effect is like that of as of 2005: viewing the Rdr's What-lks-here is a means, for anyone who wants to work on checking nationalities of bios of figures making careers in US but who may or may not have been born there or naturalized, to find articles needing it.) As to NPH, indeed such usage would make much more sense if it occurred more often, i.e. if the practice of using redirects to "real" stub cats, on doubtfully sorted stubs, were discussed at an appropriate place.
 * _ _ Just FMI, should such stubs be tagged w/ US-bio-stub or the dreaded bio-stub, if my approach is deprecated? (I would fear that many editors would assume anyone placing US-bio-stub knew the person was a citizen but didn't want to take time to add more than the stub-tag -- perhaps using an automated tool -- and that they would thus erroneously add the word "American" to the lead sent. --Jerzy•t 00:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the "not invented here" crack in relation to? I think the problem is rather, "not a good idea".  US-bio-stub is pretty dreaded too, often needing re-sorted itself;  are we supposed to have "presumed" version of every sub-type of US-bio-, to say nothing of for every other nationality?  If someone shows all signs of being an American, we shouldn't need verification of their U.S. citizenship just to tag them;  if it's entirely unclear, sorted them by occupation only (ideally you'd be sorting them by occupation and nationality in the normal course, for the above-noted reasons).  (Delete, btw.)  Alai 20:02, 22 May 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.