Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/October/15

Synchro-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

Unproposed, unlikely to gain close to threshold number of stubs, and one of the most ambiguously named stub templates I've seen in a long while. My first thought was "synchronisation", then I considered that "synchronised swimming" would be the most likely candidate. But no, this is for synchroniused skating - something for which the (unlisted) permcat has only six articles. Given that its stub parent doesn't number 100 articles, the chances of this reaching the splittable threshold any time soon are remote, to say the least. This at the very least needs to be renamed to something less ambiguous (e.g., synchro-skating-stub) and upmerged, but the necessity for its existence is pretty questionable, to say the least, so deletion is also an option. Grutness...wha?  23:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename it if you want. But give it a little time, please, before you say there are only a couple articles in it. It's barely been an hour! Awartha 23:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's true, but if the parent stub category doesn't have enough stubs for splitting, and if the parent permanent category only has a handful of stubs, it doesn't bode well. The usual rule of thumb on this page, though, is that deletion debates take several days, and if there's a definite sign of growth towards threshold level in that time, deletion is a less likely outcome (threshold level, BTW, is 60 existing stub articles - unless there's a specific WikiProject Synchronised skating, in which case it's 30). Grutness...wha?  00:15, 16 October 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.

Military-memorials-and-cemeteries-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 to mil-memorial-stub

Unproposed creation, but at 43 stubs within 24 hours it seems reasonable (though if it doesn't reach threshold, the possibility of an upmerger arises. It's in desperate need of a rename, though: either Mil-cemetery-stub or Mil-memorial-stub (or both!) would be more NG-standard. My preference would be for the latter, since cemeteries are de facto memorials anyway. Grutness...wha?  22:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not proposed because the entire stub-proposal system is too bureaucratic; it was impossible to follow a year ago when the Wikiproject behind this stub began; since then it has crept even further into the realms of process wonkery and I won't have anything to do with it. As for the name, I'm happy to shorten "Military" to "Mil" if that satisfies some need to put all the blocks in a neat row, but the Wikiproject is the Military memorials and cemeteries task force who work on the internal Category:Military memorials and cemeteries task force articles and maintain the external Category:Military memorials and cemeteries and its subcategories, which start at Category:Australian military memorials and cemeteries and go through to Category:World War II memorials and cemeteries. So whilst this petty bureaucracy will have its blocks lined up, a renamed stub will be at variance with every other single thing it is related to. And no, cemeteries and memorials are obviously not the same thing, de facto or de jure. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 07:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you find the system too difficult to follow - loads of other WP editors seem to manage easily, so it can't be that difficult. You seem to have failed to notice that I have not suggested renaming the category or nominated it for such, since, as you say, it is in line with other similar categories. Considering you seem upset at the thought that I might be suggesting a category name not in line with similar category names, perhaps you could be a little more understanding of my pointing out that the template name is not in line with other template names. If you want to keep your "blocks in a neat row", to consider it petty bureaucracy for us to want the same seems mildly hypocritical, to say the least. BTW, having two separate templates, one for cemeteries and one for memorials, both feeding into the current category - as I suggested - would allow for the possibility of later subdivision of them if it becomes necessary. Also BTW, I'd be very interested if you could point out one cemetery which wasn't also a memorial. Grutness...wha?  23:14, 16 October 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.

Korean-cuisine-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

Unproposed creation, but at 40 stubs within 24 hours it seems reasonable (though if it doesn't reach threshold, the possibility of an upmerger arises. It does need a rename, though, to the NG-standard Korea-cuisine-stub. Grutness...wha?  22:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I didin't know such the rule existing because there happens no trouble in Korean wiki in which I've been also contributing whenever somebody makes a stub template. Before making a stub, now I get that a proposal with a plausible reason and rationale is mandatorily required. But I don't think the name is that bad and needed to be renamed or deleted. Because all most all of Korean cuisine articles are in stub status as do other articles regarding Korea. I want to sort the cuisine articles among the chaos. I simply named it after the Category:Korean cuisine. But it is a bit off the convention like the below examples. Well, I'm one of this community, so must obey the rule with which it's made and kept. I'll follow whatever this discussion would make a conclusion.


 * Indian food stubs
 * Mexican cuisine stubs
 * Spanish cuisine stubs
 * Turkish cuisine stubs

--Appletrees 12:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The four examples you give show exactly why I proposed the renaming. The names of all the templates - as with all other nation-specific templates - are in the noun form: Turkey-cuisine-stub, not Turkish-cuisine-stub, Spain not Spanish, Mexico not Mexican, and India not Indian. So Korea-cuisine-stub is the preferred naming. Its standard stub template naming, as it gets aroudn those fiddly cases where the adjectival nationality name can't be easily guessed. Grutness...wha?  23:05, 16 October 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.

Reggae-single-stub / (No category)

 * 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

Delete This stub doesn't have a category, and is hardly used. Last SfD - Rocket000 14:05, 15 October 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.