Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/June/25

Albania-basketball-bio-stub / Category:Albanian basketball biography stubs

 * 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

Created without being proposed at WP:WSS/P, consists of 2 stubs, which are the only two stubs in. Suggest upmerging template to .--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as long as it is also upmerged to . Waacstats (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge with above category. -- Meldshal42  (talk)  21:20, 29 June 2008 (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 Cape Cod 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

One user has created several unproposed stubs for Cape Cod - all of them faulty by the naming guidelines and - since Cape Cod is neither a state or a county - contrary to the usual stub hierarchy.
 * Cape Cod-geo-stub (redlinked and unused)
 * Cape Cod stub (redlinked and unused)
 * Cape Cod-school-stub ( redlinked ; used on 6 articles)
 * Cape Cod-road-stub / (used on 9 articles)

All bar one are redlinked, and most would in any case, fail threshold even if this was a sensible split (which it isn't). There is a new WikiProject Cape Cod, the creators of which clearly didn't read Wikiproject or WP:STUB - a single talk-page banner template would be far more useful to them than a multitude of low-use stub templates. Delete all. Grutness...wha?  02:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I will create them tomorrow. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all cats/Redir all templates, these can easily be merged into the state and county stub types. I don't have any objection to the templates remaining as redirects to the appropriate state or county stub template.  The categories themselves have not been marked up.  I took care of the school stub. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do have strong objections to this. All of them are misnamed (none of them pass muster according to the naming conventions for stubs. And since geography stubs are arranged by county, we already have a problem unless it is automatically agreed by all editors who are likely to use these templates that Cape Cod = Barnstable County. In any case, as I said, it makes far more sense to use a talk-page banner for a specific WikiProject - it's a more flexible system and can be used by that WikiProject to categorise and analyse all the articles relating to a project, not just the stubs. It is for that reason that most WikiProjects use that as their primary article analysis tool rather than relying on a stub template. There's certainly no need to go breaking the standard categorisations used for stubs across the entirety of Wikipedia just to allow one geographical entity which is not a top- or second-level administrative unit a separate stub type. Oh, and to both Jack and Ktr101, PLEASE - Don't "fix up" or "make new" parts of stub types while they're in discussion - it simply messes up the discussion process. Any new stub categories made of this type will simply need to have an additional listing here, delaying the whole process and creating more work if the outcome is deletion or redirection. Redirecting a stub type halfway through discussion may well mean extra work as well if the outcome of this discussion is to keep the stub types as is. And in both cases, a !vote of "leave them as is" becomes incredibly confusing if the status of the items has changed during the course of discussion! Grutness...wha?  03:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * UPDATE We now, thanks to the "help" of the editors above, havbe two more items to discuss here - namely and . Though  appears to have reached threshold, a quick scan through a sample of the stubs found that quite a few of the articles marked weren't actually stub articles. It alsostill crosses the hierarchy in a very poor way and sets a horrible precedent as regards other stub types - something which we have done our best to avoid.  is only about 1/10 of the way to threshold. As such, my !vote is still deletion in both cases. Grutness...wha?  03:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The categories (main and school) were not marked for deletion, which I believe violates the general deletion guidelines. In general XfD discussions, it is expected that editors continue to improve the page, and that these improvements can change the result.  Creating new category (pages) does create work, but fixing the categories and templates on existing pages does not. JackSchmidt (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, it's extremely difficult to mark a page that doesn't exist for deletion! As I pointed out in my initial nomination, those category pages did not exist. I tagged them as soon as I saw that they had been created, which was at the time I added the update above. And you're right that in AfD discussions, it is expected that editors continue to improve the articles. The same is often true with TfD. In both cases, if the outcome is for deletion, the amount of work required by the people closing the process is identical, even if the article has been expanded from a stub to a 30+k article. It is not the case with SfD, since often the "improvements" does almost always end up creating considerably more work for anyone involved in closing the process (take it from someone who often closes such discussions - it increases the work involved by a considerable amount). Grutness...wha?  01:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need for separate Cape Cod categories for the reasons stated in the opening sentence. Also, some of the shields used to identify these categories are strange. For example, without having the actual shield show up in this text (my using single parentheses instead of the double brackets is intentional on my part), (Image:US 6.svg) is being used for Cape Cod Highways. This is a bad use of the shield as there is much more to US 6 than just the eastern end of the highway, over 3000 miles more! Another example, the shield showing a picture of Cape Cod is very dark, the green picture of the land mass seems to disappear into the background. Ed (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all These are unneeded. The state stub types are sufficient. For tagging Cape Cod specific articles, a project talk page banner is much better as mentioned above. --Polaron | Talk 23:06, 8 July 2008 (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.