Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/May

< Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion | Log

May 1

edit
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


{{taxonomy-stub}} / Category:Taxonomy stubs

edit

Delete. Also inactive since March 2007, unproposed, and contains 9 items.

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 delete


Category:Exonumia stubs

edit

Has been loitering on the discoveries page since March 2007. I have upmerged the template to Category:Money stubs and recommend that we delete this category; despite the exonumia WikiProject, this category has only ever held 22 items max, and that was last July. Now it's down to 17. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 delete


{{24Stub}}

edit

Unproposed stub template which is apparently for the television series 24, despite feeding into the Dr Who stub category. Very poorly named (and unsuitable by naming conventions), and also questionable it would see much use - there are only some 70 articles in total in the various categories relating to 24 (television series). I'd favour deletion, but at the very least it needs a rename to {{24-tv-stub}} or similar, given that 24 can refer to a large number of different things, and some more sensible parentage as far as categories are concerned. Grutness...wha? 02:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll admit it was poorly made, it was something I whipped up in a few minutes. I'd be happy to fix it up and move the title. Would that resolve your concerns Most Wikiprojects have a stub template, if this is fixed up, I ask, why can't this have one too? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 02:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Does that resolve your concerns? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 02:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not really. The size is still a major consideration, both in terms of the potential for this category and in terms of the category which this would (if it had one listed) be the subcategory of. If anything, you've compounded the problem slightly since we now have both a template and a redirect to discuss, instead of just a template.You now have a stub template leading to a category which should have a Stub-Class template, which seems to highlight the problem nicely. Are you perhaps from a WikiProject looking to highlight the few stub articles relating to that project? If so, then a Stub-Class WikiProject-specific talk page banner template is the more practical solution, and is the one usually used by WikiProjects with small numbers of articles. By using that, you can assess all your articles, not just stub templates (see {{WPBeatles}} as an example of such a template). Stub templates serve a different purpose and are primarily for use outside wikiprojects. Grutness...wha? 02:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I see the thing here. We already have an assessment banner. In that case, I see where you're coming from, there's no need to double do something, therefore:
Delete: Even though I'm the creator, I see no point in doubling up with an assessment banner and a stub banner, I'm OK for an admin to delete this, as long as they fix up the red links. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 02:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

May 2

edit

{{Satire-novel-stub}} and {{Dystopian-novel-stub}}

edit
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


Created unproposed within a few minutes of each other by the same editor - who clearly couldn't decide between using an adjectival or noun form of the names (if "dystopian-", why not "satirical-"? If "satire-", why not "dystopia-"?). No real indication that either is needed, especially since a large proportion of the dystopian novels would probably be subsumed by sf-novel-stub. Compounding things is the fact that these templates lead directly into permcats rather than stubcats. Either delete or - if there is enough call for them - at least rename one of them so that they are uniform and point them both to more sensible categories. Grutness...wha? 02:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

May 3

edit

{{Omaha-stub}}/Category:Omaha stubs

edit
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 category


Unproposed. There is a WikiProject for Omaha, but they appear not to have read {{Wikiproject}} as regards stub types. No indication of the likely size of this category (and thus no indication that it will reach threshold), and also misnamed category (the parent is at Category:Omaha, Nebraska, not Category:Omaha). again, chances are that a talk-page banner template would suit the WikiProject better than a stub type anyway. Delete, or at the very least upmerge or rename. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They have read the guidelines, and this stub type falls in line. As for the stub being unproposed, according to your guidelines this page is not for "Stub templates that were not approved by the WikiProject Stub sorting." The category was created today; it now has more than 50 articles in it, meeting that criteria; as for the naming convention I was following Chicago, Denver, London, Toronto, Vancouver, and Munich. There are several hundred Omaha articles and a talk-page banner will not suffice. • Freechild'sup? 04:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of those stubs you name, Category:London stubs has Category:London as a parent, so is not really relevant, similarly Category:Munich stubs (Category:Munich), Category:Vancouver stubs (Category:Vancouver, and Category:Toronto stubs (Category:Toronto. You are right that botht he Chicago and Denver categorries also need changing, due to recent changes in the names of the respective permanent categories - and in the case of the Denver category there are other problems relating to size. I would certainly support any suggestion of bringing that category here. In any case, an argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a particularly good one. As to the guidelines for this page, you have only quoted part of the guideline you mention, which in full reads "Stub templates that were not approved by the WikiProject Stub sorting (again, unless other reasons apply)". Other reasons apply, as I explained above. I am curious though - why would a talk-page banner template not work for your wikiproject when it works much better than a stub template for others (including ones with many hundreds of articles)? Grutness...wha? 06:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have already found at least one conversation on this page where you confronted another editor on the issue of city-specific stub sorting. Your logic between there and here fails to convince me that this issue is one of redundancy. Rather, its about how usable we're making WP. Simply relying on the talk page banner does not serve to compel the casual user to work on an article; rather, banners rely on folks who are ready to explore the site. The stub template compels users to go to work right then and there, and is therefore a powerful device that can encourage usability. Isn't that what WP is about? • Freechild'sup? 15:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which other city-stub would that be? Assuming that there is a blanket similarity between all city-specific stub types is incorrect, as circumstances vary from case to case. And yes, encouraging usability is a major aim of Wikipedia, which is why stub types already exist which would do just that - and all of the stubs you list as being Omaha stubs are already easily covered by other stub types which will do that. And all this still doesn't address the point that the category is incorrectly named. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scanning this page the other day I found a conversation b/w you and another editor in which you shared the same logic you presented in your proposal; in that you use the word, "again," alluding to previous instances in which you've made this argument. The variation I would ask you to consider is this: There are literally hundreds - if not a thousand - articles on WP related to Omaha. I will tag them extensively with a template simply named {{Omaha-stub}}; I will likely not remember the un-easy-to-remember format of {{OmahaNE-stub}} or w/e its renamed; I am sure there are others who agree the same, which probably led to the creation of {{Chicago-stub}}, {{Denver-stub}}, as I already mentioned; however, it probably also influenced {{Austin-stub}}, {{Atlanta-stub}}, {{Houston-stub}}, {{Jacksonville-stub}}, {{Indianapolis-stub}}, {{LosAngeles-stub}}, {{NYC-stub}} and {{NewOrleans-stub}}, as well. While I am very well familiar with policy about this type of comparison, I can't help but think a pattern of systemic bias is being projected in your commentary during this discussion; perhaps other perspectives are required to find a suitable resolution. • Freechild'sup? 14:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what I have written again, since you seem to have failed up until now. The category needs its name changed to Category:Omaha, Nebraska stubs. The template name is fine, if it is to be kept. I have made no suggestion whatsoever of changing the name of the template. This is exactly the reason why Category:Austin stubs was moved to Category:Austin, Texas stubs and why Category:Houston stubs was moved to Category:Houston, Texas stubs. {{NYC-stub}} is so named as an exception since newYorkk is used for New York state, and its category name (Category:New York City stubs) is, like the others I mentioned above, in line with its permcat parent (Category:New York City). The others also need changing to match the parent categories, but it is far simpler to catch new categories before anyone starts filling them, or - in the best case scenario, to advise on the correct name when the stub type is proposed (as would have happened if this type had been proposed). There is a very strong bias that is less systemic than systematic - the bias is to make the stub category names match the permanent category names as closely as possible - no more than that, and no less. Any bias in the naming of the stub categories is thus a result of the naming conventions for permanent categories, so I suggest you vent your anger there, not here. And wafting an "I found a converrsation which I won't now point out where you used one word which I may or may not be using in context" is even more flimsy that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Chances are my reference to "again" simply meant "yet again someone has created a stub type without seeing whether it meets standard stub criteria (scope, naming, size, format, hierarchy considerations, or any of a dozen other possible faiults)". Grutness...wha? 02:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please remain civil Grutness; questioning my reading comprehension and suggesting I am "angry" does not build consensus or the project - we're on the same team here. Now that you have differentiated your position by declaring that you're simply talking about the cat name I can see where you are heading. However, you did name the discussion after the template, and in your opening salvo you did suggest the template be replaced by the talk-page banner. I am largely indifferent about the category name; however, I do stand by my concerns regarding the usability of the template, if you are still wanting to nix/change it. To clarify, please rename the cat if that is what you're seeking; if you still want to modify the template let's have a civil conversation about it. • Freechild'sup? 04:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will remain civil if you do - and would have done so if you hadn't unwarrantedly started accusing me of systemic bias (hardly a civil action on your part) - an accusation based on a clear misperception of what I was proposing. The reason why the template was listed as well is that it is standard practice on this page to list both, especially when it is unclear whether a stub template is the best solution to the problem. Given that the template is being used primarily in association with an Omaha WikiProject, it would make sense if a talk page banner were used instead. I am still unclear why your wikiproject would prefer a stub template when most prefer a talk page banner, but it is your prerogative to decide which is best for your purposes. Given that that was a possibility, you may note that my original proposal was either to delete it or to rename the category, rather than an out-and-out call for deletiuon. The category is the main cause of concern, however, and would need to be changed even if the decision is to keep the template. Grutness...wha? 22:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me - still - that the pattern established by the evidence I've submitted previously does expose systemic bias towards smaller cities that, according to the arguments you have presented throughout this conversation, should not use the stub template the way it is used in {{Omaha-stub}}. However, rather than continue this conversation to inanity, I would be gratified if you could simply follow the thoughts of the following editors and close this conversation. • Freechild'sup? 22:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would close it, but given that I was the nominator, it's better to leave it to someone else. As to me following the thoghts of the following editors, you might like to note that both of them have commented that their !vote is per my original suggestion, so me following them would be a little recursive. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 7-day discussion period will close on May 10; it seems prudent to give it the full 7 before closing. Her Pegship (tis herself) 13:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

{{England-footy-international-stub}} / Category:English football international biography stubs

edit
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, and convolutedly-worded, even were it not the case that we don't split football stubs on whether players have played internationally (we split by year of birth and position played). Splitting by two axes is complicated enough - splitting by a third is thoroughly unnecessary. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am gradually creating articles for all the England players on List of England international footballers (alphabetical). My aim is that the biographies should be as full as I can make them using as many sources as I can find, both in books and on the web. The fact that a player was red-linked on the list indicated articles that were still required. Recently, however, other users have been creating stub articles for players on the list. Consequently, I can no longer use the list as a quick reference to articles still required, so I created the stub type and added it to newly created stubs to give me a point of reference. You can compare the standard of article by looking at (say) Walter Alsford and Claude Ashton. If this causes a problem to you, then delete it; in which case I will create a list in my user space of articles requiring expansion.
As for the name of the stub, I don't see that it's particularly convoluted - as the slogan goes, "It does what it says on the can." Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Creation of new articles doesn't mitigate against the fact that stubs on footballers are sorted primarily by nationality and then by age and position, not by whether a player played internationally or not. There is already a very full and thorough stub system for English footballers, and there is no need for this new stub type. Grutness...wha? 06:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The stub system may be "full and thorough" but is it useful? What are the stub templates actually for? I assumed that they were to aid editors to look for articles which they can review and expand, not an end in themselves. As an editor who likes to create/expand articles, if I were looking for an area for expansion, I would not look in Category:English football defender, 1960s birth stubs. The only connection between articles in this stub category are the decade of birth and approximate playing position. The stub category I created would group together all stub articles for English footballers who played for their country. To me that is useful and IMO there is a need for it. If it enhances the WP project and does not cause a problem, why are you so keen to get rid of it? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the stub templates are for just that purpose. And surely it is much more likely that editors willd have far more of an idea of football from a particular era in general than simply either know those players who have or have not appeared internationally. I know, for example, that my own expertise in football-related articles would be for players who played in the 1960s to 1980s, irrespective of whether they ever won national honours. Surely it is natural that the first things that an editor would know about a player is when and in what position they played. The stub system is organised the way it is for two purposes: firstly, to make it easy to find articles about a particular subject readily (which the current stubs on football do), and secondly to form a system that is not so complex that it is impossible to keep readily organised. For that purpose, splitting off stubs is done on specific axes, and the fewer axes the better. In general, splits are only done on one or at most two comprehensive axes (that is, subdivisions in which it is possible to place all articles), though in the case of football stubs and one or two others which have high numbers of stubs a third axis was necessary. Through discussion with editors working on football articles, it became clear that the most natural axes to split on were nationality, position and era. Your new stub introduces a fourth axis, and one which is an incomplete axis - the only possible way of completing this axis would be to have a "English footballers who never competed internationally stubs" category. Three axes is complex enough for editors to be ablee to find articles to work on readily, and is already very complex for stub sorting to be effective. A fourth axis is too much, and is unnecessary. As it says in the guidelines at WP:STUB: Would your new stub type overlap with other stub types? (Stub types form a hierarchy and as such are usually split in specific ways). Grutness...wha? 00:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

May 5

edit

Category:United Kingdom artist stubs, Category:United Kingdom photographer stubs, Category:United Kingdom architect stubs

edit
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 too close to call; no consensus & revisit as a naming convention issue when possible


Change "United Kingdom" to "British", to match the parent categories: Category:British artists, Category:British photographers, and Category:British architects. --kingboyk (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Support Caerwine Caer’s whines 16:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Saga City (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, per usual discussions on these things. Over and above arguments for why the permcats really shouldn't use as ambiguous a term as British (and likewise, American), anyway, in the case of stub cats it's especially undesirable. Firstly, they're fed from "UK-" templates, which mapping onto a "British" category could be seen as a "surprising result". Secondly, we also map "<blahs> <proposition> the United Kingdom" categories to "United Kingdom <blah> stubs", so having some horizontal consistency between stub categories, rather than flipping between one attributive use and another, is strongly preferable. Alai (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For once, I'm with Alai on this subject. We do map "X of/in the UK" to "UK X stubs" in general, and there are the continual problems as to whether people from Northern Ireland can technically be regarded as "British". Grutness...wha? 01:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you want the stub categories to continue violating the naming guidelines that apply to permanent biography categories? I'm sorry but the idea that a sub-entity of Wikipedia should not follow guidelines established for all of Wikipedia strikes me as extremely WP:OWN-ish. I know you think that the naming guideline that applies to the permanent categories is wrong, but the solution to that is not to use a totally antithetical guideline that applies to stub categories, but to seek to change the guideline for the permanent categories. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mmm. I hadn't noticed that the permcats use "British" - and given that, moving the stubcats to the same would name sense, for the reasons I gave. For some reason I took Alai's comments to mean the were styled "X of the United Kingdom", though come to think of it that would make little sense with these categories. You're right that I think the permcats shouldn't use "British" or "American", but given that they do these should follow suit. Grutness...wha? 08:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation The underlying problem with all such designations is that the assumpton that an individual's ethnicity and their place of birth are necessarily the same. Was the first Duke of Wellington Irish? Is Prince Philip Greek? Is Ted Dexter Indian? Saga City (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're British and should be in this category. Really, your comment should be part of a wider debate about country vs "race": my nomination is merely to enforce the existing standards (the status quo if you will) in a handful of misnamed categories from thousands. --kingboyk (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hence my support, registered above. Saga City (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "UK" and "British" are both used in the world; therefore keep both. Let's avoid binning identities for convenience.Oneblackline (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, so we have 3 support, 2 oppose thus far. 19 of the stub categories under Category:British people stubs use "United Kingdom" and 12 use "British". All the permcats for people from the country in question use "British". So either we (a) go with United Kingdom because that's how we do it in stub-land, or (b) change course and follow the "British" permcats. Can we close this soon? thanks...Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not quite all the permcats in the whole hierarchy (though possibly all that have stub child cats): some of them use a "<preposition> of the United Kingdom" form, as do the majority of the non-people cats. So the "stub land" issue is (in part) whether we want to have a mixture of "United Kingdom X stubs" and "British Y stubs" purely due to some similarity to their respective permcats. However, I don't propose to get too far into re-debating the original issue in the form of debating how to close it, and since I clearly have a dog in this fight, I certainly won't be closing it myself. Over to you, or possibly to Grutness now he's back to "neutral", or whomsoever eventually swings by thanks to the backlog notice. Alai (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

{{Queen-song-stub}} / Category:Queen (band) song stubs

edit
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


Scope is too limited; only 26 articles in the category. indopug (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This one does have a WikiProject, but even so, it's borderline. Either weak delete or upmerge, though if it can be increased past 30, then its worth keeping. Grutness...wha? 02:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it definitely won't be increased past the number it is now. The articles can only expand (there are plenty of sources), thereby removing them from this category. Since Queen has broken up for a while, not too many new (notable) song articles can be created too. indopug (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Queen's recently joined forces with Paul Rodgers and they're going to publish a new album in August.
So? That'll result in about 3 more articles, and its highly likely that with high coverage it'll receive, the articles will quickly become full-fledged articles from stubs. indopug (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it until it's empty. It exists, it has a supporting WikiProject, what is to be gained by deleting it? --kingboyk (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has a supporting WikiProject that has these articles already listed via a talk-page banner, so its loss would be largely irrelevant to them. As to "what's to be gained by deleting it": 1) less work for stub sorters (one less category to monitor); 2) less work for editors (one less category to hunt through while looking for articles to expand); 3) the removal of a potential precedent for undersized stub categories. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what happened to "enforc[ing] the existing standards", then? Or would that be just the ineffable standards of wonky outcomes at CFD, rather than actual guidelines? Alai (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand what you're talking about. Existing standards are observed, they're not written down by some policy wonk. --kingboyk (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Existing standards include the standard of having 30 existing stubs if there is a WikiProject, 60 if there isn't. That standard isn't met (indeed the category has dropped further to just 25 stubs). Grutness...wha? 06:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Two of these 25 aren't even song articles; one is Template:Queen-song-stub and the other is Wikipedia:WikiProject Queen, so there are really only 23 articles here. Further, all of the se atrticles have complete infoboxes, cover art and around two paragraphs of information; so even if they technically can be called stubs, they are high quality stubs. indopug (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If we define 'existing standards' as 'that which we happen to observe', clearly kingboyk is on firm grounds here. Otherwise, not so much. Alai (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

{{New Mexico-geo-stub}}

edit
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


Spacey redirect, but with several transclusions. Alai (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

almost all of them now cleared Grutness...wha? 01:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd have waited for the decision to delete to do that. Alai (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

May 6

edit

{{Hindustub}} (redirect)

edit
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 and incorrectly named and formatted redirect (incorrectly formatted because the creator tried to redirect it to a redirect). Delete. Grutness...wha? 03:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

May 7

edit

Category:Shan geography stubs → Category:Shan State geography stubs

edit
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 follow the permcat, Category:Shan State, and to avoid any possible confusion with Shan people, and the national aspirations thereof. Alai (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

support move per nom. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

May 9

edit

US city categories

edit
Renames
edit
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 cats

As recently pointed out here in another discussion, we have numerous US city-specific stub categories that do not match their permcat parents, many of which have recently been renamed at CFD. Category:Chicago stubs, for instance, should have its state named to match Category:Chicago, Illinois. As such, i'd like to propose the following renames:

Grutness...wha? 02:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.


Jacksonville
edit
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 Wizardman 22:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We also have a completely unused {{jacksonville-stub}}/Category:Jacksonville, Florida stubs. Since its empty, it should probably be deleted. There is a WikiProject jacksonville, but they look like they've started using a banner template instead. Grutness...wha? 02:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

May 11

edit
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

{{Chapter book stub}} and {{Child-chapter-book-stub}}

edit

Unproposed, no categories, one of them poorly formatted and poorly named, inter-redundant (since all chapter books are for children, these refer to the same thing). Topping it all off, there's no permcat Category:Chapter books and the article Chapter book is itself a stub. And, of course, these are already well covered by {{Child-book-stub}}. Delete both. Grutness...wha? 02:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 rename


{{India-sports-stub}}/Category:India sports stubs

edit

The odd one out - all other templates of its type are at "Foo-sport-stub" and all other categories (rightly or wrongly?) are at "Fooian sports stubs" - so, a rename:

Grutness...wha? 00:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the by country by sport categories are at "Fooian sport stubs", not "Fooian sports stubs". I'm neutral on the sport v. sports issue, but if consistency is to be established for the sport by country template with minimum changes then the changes that need to be made are:
However, if we're going to wring some consistency in these, I'd prefer we set the category pattern to "Foo sport stubs", if only to avoid a needless argument between "American/British sport stubs" and "United States/Kingdom sport stubs" as the corresponding permanent categories are of the form "Sport in Foo". Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't spotted the Japanese one... yes, I agree that changing them all to Category:Foo sport stubs would be better for permcat consistency, such that it is - which might mean this needs relisting with a revamped proposal? Note that this also affects a proposal for a similar Korean stub type at WP:WSS/P (which is what made me notice the Indian one in the first place). Grutness...wha? 01:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the expansion and relisting. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename categories to use "sport" form; move templates, keeping redirects. Alai (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

May 13

edit

Category:Pakistani road stubs

edit

Went to rename this per April 13, but found it has (a) no template and (b) only 6 articles. The permcat only has 20. Either delete or create template {{Pakistan-road-stub}} and upmerge. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{East Germany-stub}}/Category:East Germany stubs

edit
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 and misnamed, and suffering from the obvious problem that we categorise stubs by current country rather than former entity except in cases where the historical entity is of global significance. I suppose we could debate all day a to whether East Germany falls into that category, but it certainly pales in comparison to the few other former nations that have got stub types. If kept, the template would need renaming to EastGermany-stub per the naming conventions and the (very dodgy-looking) coding of the template would need to be fixed, and unless there are 60 stubs it will need upmerging - so we'd pretty near have to start from scratch anyway. Delete. Grutness...wha? 04:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having noted the points you raise (and I can't really object to any of them), I wanted to point out, the stub/category are meant to be sub-stub/categories of the parent, rather than a category in its own right. Are there are not any similar categories/stubs, particularly for a sub-theme of the original?? I can see potential for this category to grow, especially as many themes remain to be covered. (Berk2 (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    I'm not quite sure what you mean by "sub"-stub/categories, unless you mean subcategories of Germany stubs. If so, yes, such subcategories exist, but usually for set types (such as German people, German geography, German buildings and the like). There is a German history category that is a subtype of Germany stubs, but the only specific period of German history that has its own subtype is Nazi Germany, which had (as I pointed out) a more wide-reaching scope and importance than East Germany. In general we don't split out former nations simply because it gets too messy, and central/western Europe (including East Germany) can get particularly complex- consider a 100 year-old organisation in Montenegro, for instance. It would need to be marked according to its Austro-Hungarian, Yugoslav, Serbian and Montenegrin status. For the most part, an East German stub would cause a few problems considering it would be used on things subdivided already by type of subject (East German buildings are already marked with Germany-struct-stub, for instance). BTW, it's usually not a good idea to move a template during an SFD discussion (the template is now at {{EastGermany-stub}}) - it just increases the work when a decision is made. Grutness...wha? 05:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

{{Barbarian stub}} / Category:Barbarian stubs

edit
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. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unproposed, and suffers from major problems. The very term "Barbarian" is POV, having been used throughout history for many different groups of people. The category title does not indicate whether this is for people or other articles relating to (a/some) Barbarians, and it is an orphan category. the logical permcat for it, Category:Barbarians, contains an assortment of people of different races, and is itself subject of a CfD which seems to be going against it. The very article Barbarian indicates the problems with this classification (it's a bit like having a "heathen-stub"). The template, meanwhile, is misnamed according to the naming conventions. Delete it to put it out of its (and our) misery. Grutness...wha? 04:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I made a lot of mistakes, and I think starting over is wise. I will try a different plan without using the term "Barbarian", and I think we should delete everything to do with WikiProject Barbarians. I want nothing to do with it.--Pecopteris (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speeedy Delete stub, cat and portal. Name and text on portal page is POV and considered offensive by a significant number of people. I've seen no support for creating or keeping any of these things. If Pectoperis agrees, as the creator and only editor of all of the above, I'll delete it. Or someone else can. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

May 15

edit

{{Super-Junior-stub}} (redlinked)

edit
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. Wizardman 22:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Before you ask, it's a Korean boy band - one with an unused, unproposed, redlinked, misnamed stub template. The main category, Category:Super Junior, contains 40 articles in total, and no doubt would be better served by a navigation template that a category. It certainly won't reach threshold for a stub cateory, and a stub template is hardly necessary either. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

May 16

edit

{{Runningback-1990s-stub}}

edit
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

G1, non-admin closure by Lenticel (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name seems perfectly reasonable for running-backs born during the 1990s. Unfortunately, this unproposed stub is for running-backs who played during the 1990s, which is not how gridiron stubs are split, for the good reason of massive overlap with careers and decades. Unnecessary stub type, unintuitive name, and counter to standard stub hierarchy. Delete (and the sooner the better, to reduce confusion with those born in the decade). Grutness...wha? 04:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as patent idiocy. Alai (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It won't be long till we need one for 1990s births. Might even get a few articles this year for some college freshmen at the Division I schools. Might have been better to be proactive and made it an upmerged template for running backs born in the 1990s. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to you (or anyone else) doing so. Think of this as cleansing the edit history, so we can have a clean start. Alai (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

May 17

edit

{{Taiwan-university-stub}} / Category:Taiwanese university stubs

edit
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

Per Dec 2007 Discoveries, has never held more than 35 articles. Upmerge. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

{{un-stub}}

edit
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 Per Dec 2007 Discoveries,a misformed redirect to {{UN-stub}}. Delete. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.


{{nano-stub}} / Category:Nanotechnology stubs

edit
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 and upmerge - don't keep current template name as a redirect

From last year's Discoveries; per Grutness I suggest we rename {{nano-tech-stub}} and upmerge, as it has a small population. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/Upmerge per nom (and my original suggestion). Grutness...wha? 21:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

May 18

edit
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


{{Moldova-wine-stub}} / Category:Moldova wine stubs

edit

Unproposed, oddly coded, and not likely to come within yelling distance of threshold (let's face it, there are only some 120 Moldova stubs not already divided into accepted subtypes). The category only has stubcat parents listed - probably because there is no such category as Category:Moldovan wine (let alone Category:Moldova wine). We don't split wine stubs up by country (there aren't even French or Spanish wine stubs, despite those two countries each having ten times the area under grape that Moldova has) - we split them up by subject nwithin the wine production process - Wine regions, wine types, wine production processes... And none of those are in further need of splitting (the largest of the categories has only about 300 stubs). If we were to split it further, dividing the regions by continent (Europe-wine-region-stub, etc) would probably be the most logical starting point - not starting with what is only a moderate-sized country by wine-production standards. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1)Unproposed: yes, this was a fault;
2)Oddly coded: the code is entierly the {{wine-stub}} code, with the changed image. I dont understant , what is oddly.
3) I don't know why the {{French-wine-stub}} wasn't created. I am monitoring the category I like. I would welcome if the other countries (and continents)wine stubs appears. --serhio talk 10:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4)Now, I can't make a Proposal for this stub, cause is maked for deletion already :( --serhio talk 11:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Cat:Moldovan wine, and the Moldovan wine article is in this category. --serhio talk 10:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the category for certain, and almost certainly the template. I could see possibly doing a by country split to avoid double stubbing, but the stub articles for which a country level split would be appropriate should already have a more specific stub template: {{wine-bio-stub}}, {{wine-region-stub}}, or {{winery-stub}}. However, the wine stubs appear to be most international, as I haven't come across a single one that is double stubbed. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think each wine country have some specific things in wine culture production, industry. This why I think is a reasonable think to divide the wine countries and their wine production. --serhio talk 11:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • From the point of view of an active participant in WP:WINE the answer is delete, since the five categories of wine stubs we have seem to be enough. Adding a special stub category for the circa 16th largest wine producing country in the world seems to call for the creation of at least 15 other stub categories we've never felt the need for. (Or perhaps 50-100 if we were to break the other existing stub categories into smaller pieces). However, to my great astonishment, there also exists a project, or at least project page, called Wikipedia:WikiProject MoldovanWines with one participant, namely User:Serhio. If this project (the project page of which is a ripoff from WP:WINE) is serious they would of course need their own stub category. But from my point of view, that's an if. Tomas e (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I do think we should cut WPJs a lot of slack when it comes to having a stub type (more or less) identical with their scope, I wouldn't entirely agree with the proposition that all projects (or even all "serious" projects) should automatically have such a thing. For one thing, since we don't want to be in the invidious position of having to determine said "seriousness". Alai (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm with Alai on this - there's no fundamental reason why a WikiProject automatically should get its own stub type. In the first place, WikiProjects derive greater benefit for the most part from talk-page banner assessment templates, and in the second place stub templates are designed primarily for use across all Wikipedia editors, not just those within specific WikiProjects. As I mentioned in my initial nomination, I can see the potential for dividing wine-region-stub up further by country or continent (US-wine-region-stub, France-wine-region-stub, and general Europe-wine-region-stub and Oceania-wine-region-stub templates would be fairly useful, in all probability), but to deal with all articles relaing to wine ina relatively small wine-prodicung country a talk-page banner would probably make far more sense. Grutness...wha? 01:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this stub. Is no more needed, the Project:MoldovanWines will be closed. --serhio talk 07:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

May 21

edit

{{Battletech-stub}} / Category:BattleTech stubs

edit
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 and undersized; no project or portal. Has been lingering on Discoveries since March 2007, so I propose we delete.

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.

{{UK-explorer-stub}} (no cat)

edit
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 populated; create category

Linked only to WPSS discussions; Category:Explorer stubs has 318 articles, so not really due for splitting yet. Category:British explorers and its sub-cats have 312 articles, but only 16 of those qualify as stubs. I suggest we delete or upmerge this one. Previous discussion is here, but it mostly centered around the UK-vs-British naming thing. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge We have other country-explorer-stub templates, so I see no problem with an upmerged template that has 16 candidates already identified as suitable for tagging with. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per CW. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upto 56 propose we create a category (especially if anyone can find the missing 4) otherwise upmerge. Waacstats (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy enough with that - 56 is pretty damn close. Grutness...wha? 00:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but then we're back to the original snag -- what to call the category. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of it is easier to ask forgiveness than dither endlessly, I went ahead and turned the red link of a category into a blue link. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.


{{Lingayat-stub}} / Category:Lingayatism stubs

edit
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

Undersized and unproposed; another one from March 2007 Discoveries. Upmerge to Category:Hinduism stubs.Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

{{Business-school-stub}} (upmerged)

edit
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

Don't know how useful this one is; previous discussion is here. I would rather delete, but if we keep it it should be renamed. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

May 22

edit
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


Several US university stubs

edit

Seems like one editor has decided to create several new unproposed stub types, both for individual US universities (something which has frequeently been rejected as an idea) and for two individual states (better, but in both cases badly misnamed). None of the four types has categories (all have redlinks):

Both of the above need deletion.

Given that we already have a correctly named {{Pennsylvania-university-stub}}, the first one of these can simply be deleted. In the second case, the creation of a correctly named {{NewYork-university-stub}} and the deletion of the entirely non-NG attempt at a name would make sense. Grutness...wha? 02:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

May 30

edit

Category:Polish university stubs

edit
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. Any proposed renaming of other categories should be handled separately

Lightly populated but potentially useful. The template is OK but I suggest we rename the cat to Category:Poland university stubs to conform to other sub-cats in the Euro-u-stub category.Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.


{{NEURO-stub}}

edit
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, possibly consider splitting out a neurology-stub later Seems like a duplicate of {{Neuroscience-stub}}, set up erroneously as an attempt to create a WikiProject Stub-Class template if the category assignment is anything to go by (something which is handled via talk page banner templates). As such, it is both redundant and poorly named as a stub template and malformed as a Stub-Class template. In either case, it needs deletion. Grutness...wha? 02:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete - I created it originally as a method of stub-sorting for WikiProject Neurology (which incidently is not a duplicate of Neuroscience) however, with the creation of a banner with sorting parser functions, it's now no longer needed. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 15:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I worded that poorly, apologies. i did not mean to imply that neurology and neuroscience were the same things (my former neuropsych lecturers would not have been impressed!), rather that, for the purposes of stub sorting, they cover so much of the same territory that it is unnecessary to have both as separate templates. Grutness...wha? 03:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you, we might end up having to split those sooner or later, so perhaps we might move this to {{neurology-stub}} (or else create such fresh), upmerged to the same category. Alai (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2008/May&oldid=216311307"