Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/May/26


 * 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. -Mairi (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)'''

We seem to have picked up this rather baffling unproposed parent-only category, which has one child (water supply stubs) and is listed as being populable by a redirect to watersupply-stub. Its only parent was (which is never used as a parent for stub categories). It is totally useless, completely unnecessary, and should go. Grutness...wha?  01:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. There is not a general category for water stubs. I.e. stubs about rivers, irrigation, and so on. Where include the irrigation stubs?. I have problems to include irrigation districts in a stub category--Nopetro (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is not a general category for them because no-one has ever shown a need for one, and certainly no-one has ever proposed one. If you feel there's a need for an irrigation-stub, please propose one at WP:WSS/P. In any case, since irrigation is the supply of water to land, the existing Watersupply-stub, can be - and is  - used for stubs relating to irrigation. Even if there was need for a separate irrigation stub, that would be connected with a  (or would be upmerged to ), not with . Rivers always always, get geo-stub.  The current category was unproposed, and is ill-formed, and cannot serve its purpose as it is apparently to be fed by a redirect - something which is not done with stub templates. Grutness...wha?  00:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Scanning the contents, it looks as though the vast majority of these articles really belong elsewhere and the rest could be fit in elsewhere with little effort. Pegship (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For example in...?. --Nopetro (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete — I have been discussing one of these types of articles with Nopetro already. I am going to proactively offer to help mentor him a bit on stub sorting. Please remember, Grutness, that stub sorting is almost a mystical art to folks who either a) run afoul of a very adamant and strong group of stub sorters and learn (after the fact) that there are lots of obscure guidelines to be followed, or b) folks who try to do the right thing after reading everything and then still manage to run afoul once or twice until your gentle ways coax them back into the light. ;-) I'm not sure exactly which group I fell into, but I still remember dreading anytime I had to involve myself with stub type discussions (creating or deleting). I will be happy to share some of that knowledge with Nopetro, assuming he accepts my offer. &mdash; Will scrlt ( “Talk” ) 07:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the offer. I accept ;-) --Nopetro (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I do assume good faith from editors on creation of unproposed stub types, I do wish, however, that those who are interesting in creating stub templates or categories would either check out WP:STUB first. It may not have seemed the case with the template below, but changes to that which led to its nomination came after I have informed Nopetro of the problems with the category and that changes and creations should be proposed first. Though the instructions may seem byzantine, WP:WSS does want to help with genuine requests and suggestions for new stub types. There's a large body of workers who are willing to wrangle new suggestions into reasonable format (including working through any guideline problems). Any complexity in creation of viable stub types is in itself the main reason why proposal is so strongly recommended. Grutness...wha?  01:54, 31 May 2009 (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.

Water-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. -Mairi (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)'''

I've added the brand new Water-stub to this, created by the same user who created the category. It contains an unholy and egregious mismatch of geo-stubs, struct-stubs, ship-stubs, sailing-stubs, energy-stubs, company-stubs, climate-stubs, and things which have no relevance to water whatsoever - and it's been populated with a hodgepodge of over 600 of these unmatched stubs. The whole thing is one appalling mess, and the sooner it's got rid of, the better. Extremely strong delete, and add in a strong reprimand for the person who has created so much extra work for us all. Not at all happy. Grutness...wha?  07:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per G and my comment above. Pegship (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete — Far too broad a category to be useful for stub sorting. &mdash; Will scrlt ( “Talk” ) 07:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete but we have a bunch of articles that used to use the template for nautical terms, e.g. Bilge. These probably all need to be redirected to Water-transport-stub. -- Brianhe (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * if there are enough of them, then something like a nautical-term-stub may be worth proposing. Grutness...wha?  00:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Really, the stub type was not created by me. This must be clear. I can say who created it. Really, if it was created, better a general use than twisted use for the same concept. --Nopetro (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It was created many years ago to be a stub for water transport. It was moved to water-transport-stub, and the name water-stub was kept as a redirect, as so many articles still used it. That is how it was until May 25th, when you turned the redirect into a new template. So effectively yes, you did create this template. Grutness...wha?  02:09, 8 June 2009 (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 '''upmerge to. -Mairi (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)'''

Checking the above editor's earlier contribs, I also found this woefully undersized unproposed category. The template, Video-tech-stub, might have some use, but needs upmerging unless this gets to threshold, which currently seems unlikely. It's also worth noting there is no analogous permcat parent (the nearest is ), so this would probably have been better at film-tech-stub. Grutness...wha?  01:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. There is a similar category for Category:Audio technology stubs. Video is not film technology. Videoconferencing is not also film technology. It is video technology.--Nopetro (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I'm sure that never occurred to anyone here. Btw, the template is only used on 8 articles, so I suggest upmerging until it's big enough to leave home. Pegship (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * was proposed, has a stand-alone parent in (though it may need a renaming), and has enough stubs to be over the 60-stub threshold necessary for a separate category.  was not, has not, and does not - and as such should be deleted, with the template upmerged. Grutness...wha?  00:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Grutness, when you say that the template needs upmerging, do you mean to ? Are there perhaps enough articles in or enough stubs in  to merit creation of, which would be populated by Video-tech-stub and Film-tech-stub? –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 05:33, 19 June 2009 (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.