 | This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared. | Administrator instructions If this is your first encounter with stub sorting, we recommend that you read about the nature of stub sorters before diving into a discussion. This page only deals with the deletion and renaming of stub types, which consist of a template and a category, and are intended to be used for sorting stubs. Stub templates that are missing categories and stub categories without associated templates are also appropriate here. All other templates or categories nominated for deletion or renaming have to be put on Templates for discussion or Categories for discussion, respectively.
[edit] About this page This page is for the proposal, discussion, and voting on deletion or renaming of stub categories, stub templates, and stub redirects. Centralizing the vote on these three closely related matters on one page reduces the need for repeating identical arguments on several different Wikipedia deletion pages (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion) and also reduces the workload on those pages. This page is still named "Stub types for deletion" for two reasons. Firstly, many of the stub types brought here arrive here after rudimentary discussion has already taken place at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries. Secondly, renaming automatically implies some form of deletion. The renaming of a stub category leads to the replacement and deletion of the older category, and the renaming of a stub template usually (but not always) leads to the deletion of the previous template name, as stub template redirects are rarely used (for the reasons for this, see the stub naming conventions). [edit] Putting a stub type on Stub types for deletion (SfD), and what happens afterwards - Mark the affected pages:
- For deletion:
- Put {{sfd-t}} on stub templates
- Put {{sfd-c}} on stub categories
- Put {{sfd-r}} on stub redirects, and include the redirect target after it (see below for details)
- For renaming:
- Put {{sfr-t|New-name}} (parameter optional) on stub templates
- Put {{sfr-c|New name}} (parameter optional) on stub categories
- Put {{sfr-r|New name}} (parameter optional) on stub redirects (Redirects should be nominated for renaming only as part of a mass renaming that includes templates that share the name element to be renamed that the redirect uses.)
- List the stub type below in a new subsection at the top of the section which has the current date. If that section does not yet exist, create it.
- Mention all affected pages in the subheading, like this:
==== {{tl|banana stub}} / [[:Category:Banana stubs]] / {{tl|YellowCurvyFruit-stub}} (redirect) ==== - Also mention how many articles currently use the template, and if it is listed anywhere else.
- Of course, state your reason for nominating the stub type!
- It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors to the stub that you are nominating the stub. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the stub. Some standard pre-formed notices are {{sfdnotify1}}, {{sfdnotify2}}, or {{sfd-notice}}.
- After a voting period of seven days, action will be taken if there is consensus on the fate of the stub type. Please do not act before this period is over.
- Archived discussions are logged here, and are marked with {{sfd top}} and {{sfd bottom}}, indicating whether category and template were renamed, deleted, or no action taken.
[edit] Putting {{sfd-r}} or {{sfr-r}} on redirects Given that the {{sfd-r}} and {{sfr-r}} templates break redirection, it is necessary to change a stub redirect when adding the template, as follows: #Redirect [[Template:Example-stub]] should be changed to:
{{sfd-r}}{{Example-stub}}
[edit] Possible reasons for the deletion of a stub type - It is not used in any article, and its category is empty.
- It overlaps with other stub types, or duplicates them outright.
- Its scope is too limited - As a rule of thumb, there should be at least 50 existing appropriate stub articles, 30 if there is a specific associated WikiProject.
- Its scope is too ambiguous or vague - in these cases, renaming may be more appropriate than outright deletion.
- The stub category or template is misnamed. In this case, make this clear when nominating and propose a new category or template name. Note that - in the case of a template but not a category - it may be more appropriate to make it into a redirect.
- They are malformed, misnamed, or deprecated redirects. See the stub naming guidelines for details on how stubs are named.
[edit] What this page is not for [edit] Typical opinion options - Keep (do not delete or modify)
- Delete (delete template and category)
- Merge with xx-stub (delete category, keep template (either as redirect to, or feeding into the same category as, xx-stub))
- Merge with xx-stub without redirect (delete category and template, put xx-stub on all articles that use it)
- Upmerge (merge to parent stub type, typically by keeping the template but redirecting it to the parent stub category for potential re-splitting later)
- Change scope (reword the template, typically giving it either a larger or more precise scope. Usually also means renaming the category)
When expressing an opinion, please try to give a more substantial reason than simply "I like it/find it useful" or "I dislike it/don't find it useful". [edit] Renaming options - Rename/Support
- (for templates: move to new name, replace existing usages, delete redirect);
- (for categories: recreate category page under new name, repopulate, delete old category).
- Rename, keep redirect/Move (for templates only: move, but don't replace usages of existing template)
- Oppose (no move of template, and/or deletion and recreation of category)
- DO NOT rename any stub type that has been nominated here while discussion is still in progress. Any necessary renaming will be done when the discussion is closed.
- If you wish to argue for the deletion of a template or category nominated for renaming, please re-tag with {{sfd-t}}/{{sfd-c}}, and note the date of doing so, so as to ensure proper consideration of this new nomination.
If a template is speedily renamed, similarly re-tag the resultant redirect if deletion of that is desired. [edit] Note to non-administrators If a category and/or stub deletion is agreed upon and you're helping to change the stubs on those pages: Once you've emptied the category, please note the category on this page under the "To Delete" section that the stub category section is empty ("orphaned") and "ready to be deleted" to the administrators. [edit] Listings [edit] December 19 Cat:Bacon stubs and {{Bacon-stub}} were recently created out of process - the category's not really currently viable, with only about 25 stubs, but the template looks pretty reasonable. Rescoped to the wider {{Pork stubs}}, it would have about 66 stubs according to cattersect, and Cat:Meat stubs could probably do with a bit of subdivision. It may also be that a separate bacon category will eventually be useful. After discussion at WSS/D, I'd like to propose: Grutness...wha? 04:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC) -
- As part of the discussion at WP:WSSD, I suggested upmerging bacon-stubs to pork-stubs. Grutness has formalized the suggestion in a way that I think makes sense, and I support this plan. (Just to make sure my postion is clear, I think we should keep the bacon-stub and create also a pork-stub template and have them both point to Category:Pork stubs for now, with an option of Category:Bacon stubs later if there are enough to populate it.) LadyofShalott 05:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Rename category, keep template I am in full agreement with LadyofShalott and Grutness on this issue. There's no need for a separate bacon stubcat, at least not right now. Having the bacon template sort stubs to Cat:Pork stubs would be the best solution. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support LadyofShallot.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 22:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] December 16 [edit] Politician party names Propose renaming: As a follow up to CfR discussion. I propose renaming these stub categories to match their parent perm-cats. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC) - Rename to match the permanent categories. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Rename the first three per nom, (possibly speedily, since it's the result of an equivalent CfR). For the last one, note that it is already subject to an ongoing debate on this page, and is likely to be deleted (with the template upmerged). Grutness...wha? 23:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] December 14 Stub category that seems oddly named (language instead of nationality), not big enough, and it is used directly on articles and not with a template. I wouldn't be objecting to a template named {{Cambodia-singer-stub}} which feeds into Cat:Asian singer stubs and Cat:Cambodian people stubs, which can be split into its own category later if it ever becomes big enough, but even then it should be located at Cat:Cambodian singer stubs.Borgarde (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC) - Delete, and create an upmerged Cambodia-singer-stub template per nom. Splitting singers by language is a very bad precedent (lots of singers sing in more than one language, and all other occupation categories are by nationality), and creating a manually-sorted stub category is also a no-no. Grutness...wha? 23:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete the stub category and create a {{Cambodia-singer-stub}} that feeds into the stub categories mentioned by the nominator – per all of the above, and because there simply aren't enough stubs in this category to justify its separation from the parent stub categories. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Old business Everything from here on down is old business; the current 7-day review period has ended. Everything from this point on should be dealt with and removed from the workflow. Move this marker up as time passes. [edit] December 11 Underpopulated (23 articles). Latur Division, by all appearances, does not exist. There's a city and district named Latur, however. If kept,the category will need renaming. No obvious candidate for renaming, as we variously have Latur City, Latur District, Cat:Latur and Cat:Latur district. (This was tagged for SFD back in August, but the listing got messed up.) -Mairi (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC) - Keep the template (which clearly says Latur district) but reupmerge. The template wasn't proposed, but seems to be OK - and the documentation for it appears to indicate that it was upmerged - but the category shows no clear evidence that there were enough stubs for it, and as such is not that desirable. I've notified the creators of the template and category, BTW. Grutness...wha? 23:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's also worth noting that of those 23 articles, quite a number are not geo-stubs, so shouldn't have been in there anyway (councils and boards, a railway station, etc.) Probably only about 18 of them should have been marked with the stub template. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Upmerge per Grutness. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Been around for years, still has only 12 articles. Unlikely to get much bigger, as the main cat has well less than 60 articles. Delete. -Mairi (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC) - Delete per nom. Grutness...wha? 23:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Very little potential for expansion here. In all honesty, I'm surprised this stub type has lasted so long. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Listing per comments on the category talk page and at WP:WSS/D. Changing the name to either {{Educator-stub}} / Cat:Educator stubs or {{Educationist-stub}} / Cat:Educationist stubs sounds approipriate, though as to which is better (or whether both are needed), I leave to those better acquainted with the field. Grutness...wha? 23:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC) - Hm - I now see that {{Edu-bio-stub}} / Cat:Educator stubs already exists. Perhaps changing this one to the Educationist one, with re-sorting wherever necessary? Grutness...wha? 23:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Ah, there we go. This is a really bizarre case. I agree that "pedagogue" is the wrong word to apply to educationists, but I'm not sure if there are enough educationist stubs in existence to create Cat:Educationist stubs. Let me take a head-count of educator stubs and educationist stubs in Cat:Pedagogue stubs. There are 72 stubs in that stubcat, so this might take a while. I'll be back in a bit. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 Y Done and it looks fairly even. The problem I'm running into repeatedly is the tendency of educationists to be educators by profession. I suspect double-tagging will be the best choice in many of these cases. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC) -
-
- It's quite possible they will; as I said above, I foresee a good deal of double-tagging. If upmerging becomes necessary, I guess we could create something along the lines of Cat:Education-related biographical stubs with one of the stubcats as a subcategory. (But I'd rather not.) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Me neither. We gotr rid of all the "-related" stub category names a couple of years ago, and I wouldn't like to see them come back. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Okay, so we're in agreement there. Personally I think that when it comes to upmerging, we should cross that bridge when we come to it – if we come to it. For now, I think creating the new template and category and re-sorting is the best way forward. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] December 1 Empty category, apparently unproposed and unlinked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom; unproposed, unlinked, and not used on a single article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)- Keep template but sort stubs to it and if necessary upmerge. Was proposed - but as part of a blanket nomination (see here. Grutness...wha? 23:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I looked at Cat:DKP members, the associated permanent category (up for renaming at CfD), and there are very few articles in it. I have yet to find a DKP politician article that isn't in that category already. Some articles in the category could be considered stubs, but ultimately the nominated stubcat would be rather underpopulated even if we were to sort stubs to it. Most likely, the end result would be an upmerge anyway. All things considered, I think deletion is the better option here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- So that would suggest we the template but upmerge it, and delete the category, right? Grutness...wha? 00:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe. Would the template be feeding into Cat:DKP members, Cat:German politician stubs, or both? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just the German stub category. Stub templates should never feed permcats. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay. In that case, I guess we can keep the template, but upmerge the category. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] To orphan Stub types in this section have been deemed deletable and have to be removed from all articles using them, so that they can be deleted. [edit] To delete Stub types in this section have been orphaned and can be deleted. [edit] Listings to log Stub types with completed discussions which have not yet been logged; remove from this page entirely when logged. Anyone can do this, not just an admin; please see the directions at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log. |
