Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/February/8

Unneeded North American hotel company templates

 * 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 discussion was delete/move per unopposed amendment to proposal

Requesting delete for the following templates, each of which is already empty: Keeping the US category, as well as the North American (4 P) and Mexican (1 P) templates. Dawynn 13:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bahamas-hotel-company-stub
 * Greenland-hotel-company-stub
 * ElSalvador-hotel-company-stub


 * Object. Seems that these are empty because you've been mass-editing article to orphan them, recating them as structures instead of companies. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 19:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I've only be doing this in cases where the article is about a structure, not a company. I can't help it that we have no stub hotel company articles for these countries.  And I don't see a reason to pad out the stub categories simply with empty templates.  I have kept continental categories for each continent.  Dawynn (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why the focus on 'structure'? Hotels are about accommodation, hospitality, service, and most are ordinary structures. There are millions of hotels in the world, and may thousands should warrant articles. You're moving the granularity in entirely the wrong direction: "continental"? Give me a break. Greenland may be a stretch, but warmer places will warrant categorization at the level of cities and towns, not countries. Ditto for the belows. Jack Merridew 21:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I was doing some other stub-sorting work when I came across this problem.  All the templates were labeled *-hotel-company-stub, yet the verbiage all talked about individual hotels.  For instance, the Bahamas template stated "This article about a hotel or resort in the Bahamas is a stub."  So, regardless of who may have created these templates and categories to begin with, there was no focus.  It was labeled as company, but the templates and categories talked about the individual hotels, and were classified under building and structure categories.
 * 2) Stub sorting has never, ever been about how many articles there *should* be.  Ideally, our project shouldn't exist at all.  It would be better if every article written for Wikipedia was long enough to justify at least a "start" class rating.  We try our best to classify the stub articles that exist into categories of reasonable size.  We may classify articles by city, if enough articles exist to justify the classfication.  Otherwise, we move up to larger regions, whether states, countries, or, yes, continents.
 * I chose, when I saw the mess that was this hotel-company-stub scheme to differentiate between company and structures. It was approved by our current admins.  But once I moved the individual hotel articles into structure categories, there were very few company articles left.  Believe it or not, I could not even find enough US company articles to truly justify a category.  Yes, there are several US hotel company articles, but many of these no longer qualify as stubs.  As you indicate, there are plenty of hotels out there.  Many countries may see "hotel (structure) stubs" categories.  We may even be able to justify city categories for London and New York.  But companies?  There just aren't many. Dawynn (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See the new proposal under Africa for -hotel-stub. Applying this proposal to North America would look something like this.
 * Move to ; NorthAm-hotel-struct-stub to NorthAm-hotel-stub.
 * Move Canada-hotel-struct-stub to Canada-hotel-stub
 * Move Mexico-hotel-company-stub to Mexico-hotel-stub. Review NorthAm-hotel-struct-stub for other articles to tag for Mexico.
 * Other country templates could be considered, since we have enough for a category (plus a separate category for USA)
 * Redirect NorthAm-hotel-company-stub to NorthAm-hotel-stub.
 * Delete the following templates.
 * Bahamas-hotel-company-stub
 * ElSalvador-hotel-company-stub
 * Greenland-hotel-company-stub
 * Is this proposal more acceptable? Dawynn (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2011 (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.

Unneeded Oceanian hotel company templates

 * 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 discussion was delete/move per unopposed amendment to proposal

Requesting delete for the following templates, each of which already has no articles: Keeping the Oceania template for now, with its sole article. Dawynn (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Australia-hotel-company-stub
 * NZ-hotel-company-stub
 * NewZealand-hotel-company-stub
 * PapuaNewGuinea-hotel-company-stub


 * Object, as above; these were inappropriately orphaned and recategorized. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 19:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: As above, there is nothing inappropriate. Companies have been classified as companies, and structures as structures.  Dawynn (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See the new proposal under Africa for -hotel-stub. Applying this proposal to Oceania would look something like this.
 * Move Oceania-hotel-struct-stub to Oceania-hotel-stub. (30 P)
 * Delete Australia-hotel-company-stub. (0 P)
 * Delete NZ-hotel-company-stub. (Already redirected to NewZealand-hotel-company-stub)
 * Delete NewZealand-hotel-company-stub. (0 P)
 * Delete Oceania-hotel-company-stub. Retag its sole article as Oceania-hotel-stub.
 * Delete PapuaNewGuinea-hotel-company-stub. (0 P)
 * No point in breaking down by individual countries when there are only 31 articles. Is this proposal more acceptable? Dawynn (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2011 (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.

Unneeded South American hotel company templates

 * 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 discussion was delete/move per unopposed amendment to proposal

Requesting delete for the following templates, each of which already has no articles: Keeping the South American template for now, with its sole article. Dawynn (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Peru-hotel-company-stub
 * Uruguay-hotel-company-stub


 * Object, as above; these were inappropriately orphaned and recategorized. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 19:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: As above, there is nothing inappropriate. Companies have been classified as companies, and structures as structures. Dawynn (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See the new proposal under Africa for -hotel-stub. Applying this proposal to South America would look something like this.
 * Move SouthAm-hotel-struct-stub to new template SouthAm-hotel-stub (23 P)
 * Delete SouthAm-hotel-company-stub. Retag its one article as SouthAm-hotel-stub
 * Delete Peru-hotel-company-stub (0 P)
 * Delete Uruguay-hotel-company-stub (0 P)
 * As for Africa, with only 24 articles, since we can't even support a category, there's no need for separate country templates. Is this proposal more acceptable? Dawynn (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2011 (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.

Unneeded US hotel company templates

 * 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 discussion was delete/move per unopposed amendment to proposal

Requesting delete for the following templates, each of which already has no articles: Keeping the US category for now, but with a popstub tag. I was surprised how few stub articles I could find for the US. Granted, I was being fairly conservative as to what I was considering a "stub". Dawynn (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Connecticut-hotel-company-stub
 * Delaware-hotel-company-stub
 * Maine-hotel-company-stub
 * Maryland-hotel-company-stub
 * Massachusetts-hotel-company-stub
 * Michigan-hotel-company-stub
 * NewHampshire-hotel-company-stub
 * Pennsylvania-hotel-company-stub
 * RhodeIsland-hotel-company-stub
 * Vermont-hotel-company-stub


 * Object, as above; these were inappropriately orphaned and recategorized. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 19:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: As above, there is nothing inappropriate. Companies have been classified as companies, and structures as structures. Dawynn (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See the new proposal under Africa for -hotel-stub. Applying this proposal to the US would look something like this.
 * Move to ; US-hotel-struct-stub to US-hotel-stub
 * Delete.
 * The following templates should all be deleted. The articles themselves should be reviewed.  Most of them can be put under US-hotel-stub, although, if they create hotels in other countries, the article should be tagged with hotel-stub instead.
 * US-hotel-company-stub. This one could be redirected to US-hotel-stub.  (41 P)
 * California-hotel-company-stub (2 P)
 * Connecticut-hotel-company-stub (empty)
 * Delaware-hotel-company-stub (empty)
 * Hawaii-hotel-company-stub (2 P)
 * Maine-hotel-company-stub (empty)
 * Maryland-hotel-company-stub (empty)
 * Massachusetts-hotel-company-stub (empty)
 * Michigan-hotel-company-stub (empty)
 * NewHampshire-hotel-company-stub (empty)
 * NewYork-hotel-company-stub (3 P)
 * Pennsylvania-hotel-company-stub (empty)
 * RhodeIsland-hotel-company-stub (empty)
 * Vermont-hotel-company-stub (empty)
 * I had previously requested foo-hotel-struct-stub templates for all the states. These should be changed to foo-hotel-stub.  Effort could be put into tagging articles with the states templates.
 * Is this proposal more acceptable? Dawynn (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2011 (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.

Unneeded European hotel company templates

 * 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 discussion was delete/move per unopposed amendment to proposal

Requesting delete for the following templates, each of which already has no articles: Keeping the European category, as they are nearing enough articles to justify the category. (58 articles, but 11 are templates) Dawynn (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Albania-hotel-company-stub
 * Slovenia-hotel-company-stub
 * Wales-hotel-company-stub


 * Object, as above; these were inappropriately orphaned and recategorized. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 19:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: As above, there is nothing inappropriate. Companies have been classified as companies, and structures as structures. Dawynn (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See the new proposal under Africa for -hotel-stub. Applying this proposal to Europe would look something like this.
 * Redirect to ; Europe-hotel-struct-stub to Europe-hotel-stub
 * Review everything tagged with these templates. My guess is that the majority of these companies build hotels in several countries in Europe.  So, most of these should be retagged with the continental tag Europe-hotel-stub.  If they build hotels in other continents, then they should be tagged hotel-stub.  The rare company that actually builds in a single European country should be tagged with the template specific to that country.  All of these templates themselves should be deleted:
 * Europe-hotel-company-stub (Review each article for appropriateness as defined above, but could be redirected to Europe-hotel-stub
 * Albania-hotel-company-stub
 * England-hotel-company-stub
 * France-hotel-company-stub
 * Germany-hotel-company-stub
 * Italy-hotel-company-stub
 * Norway-hotel-company-stub
 * Slovenia-hotel-company-stub
 * Spain-hotel-company-stub
 * UK-hotel-company-stub
 * Wales-hotel-company-stub
 * For each template under, redirect from foo-hotel-struct-stub to foo-hotel-stub.
 * Is this more acceptable? Dawynn (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2011 (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.

Unneeded African hotel company templates

 * 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 discussion was delete/move per unopposed amendment to proposal

Requesting delete for the following templates, each of which already has no articles: Which leaves just two templates for African hotel companies (the general Africa template, and Uganda), with 1 article each Dawynn (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Egypt-hotel-company-stub
 * EquatorialGuinea-hotel-company-stub
 * Kenya-hotel-company-stub
 * Libya-hotel-company-stub
 * Morocco-hotel-company-stub
 * Nigeria-hotel-company-stub
 * SouthAfrica-hotel-company-stub
 * Tunisia-hotel-company-stub


 * Object, as above; these were inappropriately orphaned and recategorized. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 19:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: As above, there is nothing inappropriate. Companies have been classified as companies, and structures as structures. Dawynn (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Object to all Redirect them to xxxx-hotel-struct-stub then and restub sort them by country.... How many hotels does Australian have for instance?? 80.3.26.54 (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm. I don't think that answers the problem either.  When all the -hotel- tags were -hotel-company- tags, we had all the individual hotels tagged as -company-.  I don't really want to encourage a move the other way -- tagging hotel companies as structures.  There are true hotel company stub articles (see African Sun Limited).  In fact, I might not have even raised an issue, if the tags had simply stated -hotel-stub, because I could see both companies and individual hotels tagged as -hotel-stub, although how one would categorize such things is a bit tricky.  But the original tags were -hotel-company-stub tags.  OK, I worked with that, making sure that all the -hotel-company-stub tags were on -hotel-company- articles.  (I will finish that work today).  The question was what to call the individual hotel articles.  -hotel-struct-stub made sense to me, but has evidently raised issues in other people's minds.  And now that we have both, what is the best thing to do with the admittedly mostly empty -hotel-company-stub landscape. Dawynn (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not move them all to hotel-stub then? It would seemingly avoid confusion over what is a company or a structure. Because all hotels are companies, even individual country hotels, its just that some are run by international hotel firms. I would prefer Hotel stubs covering both companies and structures were in one stub category too. 80.3.26.54 (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) The permcats are not lined up this way.  category:Hotels by country carries a distinct set of articles separate from those found in category:Hospitality companies and category:Hotel and leisure companies.
 * 2) It would be even harder to break by country or other divisions if we threw everything into one big pot.  How many European hotel companies honestly have hotels in only a single country?  How many US hotel companies have hotels in only a single state?  We can break the individual hotels according to country / state because they are in a specific location.  We can break the companies according to where the home base is, but that's more awkward, and honestly, often undocumented.
 * Effectively, we would run into the same problem, just under different terminology. The individual hotels, whether we call them structures or not, are sortable according to location.  The hotel companies are not, and would need to be in the upper level categories anyway (most by continent, or possibly for the US, just at the national level, some only at the global level).  You'd still have the same separation issues, no matter what you call them.


 * Would the following proposal be more acceptable (considering only Africa)?
 * Move category to ; template hotel-struct-stub to hotel-stub
 * Redirect to ; template hotel-company-stub to hotel-stub
 * Redirect Africa-hotel-struct-stub (38 P) to new template Africa-hotel-stub which will be an upmerge to
 * Remove the following:
 * Algeria-hotel-company-stub (empty)
 * Egypt-hotel-company-stub (empty)
 * EquatorialGuinea-hotel-company-stub (empty)
 * Kenya-hotel-company-stub (empty)
 * Libya-hotel-company-stub (empty)
 * Morocco-hotel-company-stub (empty)
 * Nigeria-hotel-company-stub (empty)
 * SouthAfrica-hotel-company-stub (empty)
 * Tunisia-hotel-company-stub (empty)
 * Africa-hotel-company-stub (2 P) (retag these articles to Africa-hotel-stub)
 * Uganda-hotel-company-stub (1 P) (retag this article to Africa-hotel-stub)
 * I don't see a need to break this down into individual countries until we can muster enough articles to make a whole category. Current article count: 41. I can look at the other continents later.  Feel free to comment as to whether this is the direction we want to go. Dawynn (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So now we have two proposals (by me), with no final resolution from anyone else as to which is preferred. Considering only the problem of trying to differentiate in the future between structures and companies (and whether an individual hotel is a structure, a company, or both), I think it would be easier going forward to just take "company" and "structure" and all implications of company and structure out of the templates, categories, and verbiage.  Barring any further objections, after another 7 days, I will move everything in that direction.  This is basically the final proposal that I had put in each of these discussions.  Consider this then the warning of a deadline for this discussion. Dawynn (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2011 (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.
 * So now we have two proposals (by me), with no final resolution from anyone else as to which is preferred. Considering only the problem of trying to differentiate in the future between structures and companies (and whether an individual hotel is a structure, a company, or both), I think it would be easier going forward to just take "company" and "structure" and all implications of company and structure out of the templates, categories, and verbiage.  Barring any further objections, after another 7 days, I will move everything in that direction.  This is basically the final proposal that I had put in each of these discussions.  Consider this then the warning of a deadline for this discussion. Dawynn (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2011 (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.

Mario-game-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 discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Propose Delete. Unused. Malformed. Never requested. Dawynn (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unused, and Nintendo-stub would be better. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2011 (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 discussion was move to match permcat

Permcat is now at, so this should probably be moved to to match. Grutness...wha?  04:14, 8 February 2011 (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.