Peach

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

Welcome to our website. It is generaly simplier version of wikipedia. You will find there selected articles. Enjoy!

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

Before proposing or creating a new type of stub, please read How to propose a new stub type.

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page

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.

WikiProject Stub sorting  v • d • e
Information
Project page	talk
- Stub types (sections)	talk
- Stub types (full list)	talk
- To do	talk
- Naming conventions	talk
- Stub redirects	talk
Wikipedia:Stub	talk
Discussion
Criteria (A)	talk
Proposals (A)	talk
Discoveries (A)	talk
Deletion (Log)	talk
Category

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).

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.

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}}

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.

What this page is not for

• Stub templates that were not approved by the WikiProject and/or created through the proposal process (unless other reasons apply) — list those on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries. From there, they may later be taken to this page
• Patently nonsensical or insulting stub types — they may be speedily deleted.
• Empty categories with no corresponding template — they may be speedily deleted (after 4 days, as per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD) criterion C1).
• Recently created stub types not used on any articles — they may be speedily deleted (after 4 days, as per WP:CSD criterion C1). This does not apply to types properly proposed and accepted which have not yet been populated.
• Malformed stub types to which no further deletion reasons apply — fix them or tell the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting.
• Stub categories that are too large — these are not deleted, even if they get subdivided.

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".

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.

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.

Listings

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.

March 6

{{England-footy-defender-1880s-stub}} / Category:English football defender, 1880s birth stubs

I would like to rename the above category to something like Category:English football, defender, 1880s birth stubs in order to not try and infer nationality when it may not be known, having already changed the explanatory text at the associated template (Template:England-footy-defender-1880s-stub) and the explanatory text at the top of the category page. If this is deemed acceptable I would then be looking to similarly rename the other English football bio categories, and then other countries. I would welcome any thoughts on an alternative rename. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Reposted here per request from Eldumpo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• This was discussed at WT:FOOTY#British football bio stub, with a general consensus that renaming the category would be the correct approach. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

March 5

{{anime-eplist-stub}} / Category:Anime episode list stubs

Seems excessively narrow, and is used on only two articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I've gone through and populated Category:Anime episode list stubs with the list stubs that were in Category:Anime and manga stubs. That makes 15 articles altogether. The stub's text should be reworded if it is to be kept. —Farix (t | c) 12:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete for the most part, there should never be such a think as an "episode list stub". If it truly is a stub, it shouldn't even exist and needs to just be redirect back to the main article until such time as an actual list is available. List of Project ARMS episodes for example should either be redirected or deleted. It pretty much has no content at all other than fansub titles. List of Soul Link episodes is badly formatted, but it isn't a stub. It has the entire episode list. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons given by Collectonian. There shouldn't be any episode list stubs, and any that exist should be merged/redirected back to the main article until there is enough information to split them off into a non-stub list. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Yes, I (partially) agree with that. It's a better idea to keep the episode list on the main page and then create another page after enough information is available. However, Doing so might require cleanup which means that all the summaries might need to be deleted to remove clutter. For example, 50% of a large episode list is completed but will take too much space off the main page. This is however rather problematic as the information is enough to move it from the main page to a new one but that new page may still be a stub. Please reconsider this or at the very least, provide a better solution. Rather offtopic: As for the previous mention of 'fansub titles', that page should not even exist with such little information being available. It has a poorly formatted table too. It needs to be merged with the main page. At least the Kanji titles and some summaries should be provided with before creating such episode lists. (This is a rather easy thing to do: any TV channel which airs said series and has a showtime list can be used as a reference)Salmankhanpisces (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Episode lists don't have to be complete to be separated from the main series article. List of Cross Game episodes is a good example of this as the series is still airing. The episode list shouldn't be separated until there is enough material for it to not be a stub (say 8-10 episodes or so). This is why there should never be an episode list stub. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment note that stub-class isn't determined solely by article length - an article could be two or three pages long, but if it isn't wikified at all and is otherwise poorly formatted, I would still assess it as a stub. Similarly, if a chapter list is nothing but a list of titles or a badly formatted, hard-coded table, it would be a stub-class list (I am assuming, for the sake of argument, that there are simply too many episodes to just merge the list back to the main article, otherwise it should be merged until properly formatted and expanded). --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 66.116.30.195 (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment What was the original intent of this? Right now it looks identical to {{anime-stub}} --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 14:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

January 5

Finnish provinces

Propose upmerging merging with {{Finland-geo-stub}}:

• Category:Eastern Finland geography stubs / {{EasternFinland-geo-stub}}
• Category:Southern Finland geography stubs / {{SouthernFinland-geo-stub}}
• Category:Oulu Province geography stubs / {{OuluProvince-geo-stub}}
• Category:Western Finland geography stubs / {{WesternFinland-geo-stub}}

The Provinces of Finland were abolished on January 1, 2010. If we want to re-split Category:Finland geography stubs, we can create subcategories for the largest regions later on, and it is easier to do this if we preserve the current stub templates as redirects. {{Lapland-geo-stub}} and {{Åland-geo-stub}} can stay, because Lapland and Åland are both regions and former provinces. --Silvonen (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I used the wrong term. I want to delete the categories and change the templates to redirects. --Silvonen (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose If they must be replaced flooding the main cat again after hard work to sort it using Finlanf-geo-stub is a return to square one. Eastern Finland and Western Finland etc, it doesn't really matter whether they are entirely formal, government officies still have a similar sort of division so for stub sorting dividing stubs by area of the country is fine even if loosely based given that there is no clear replacement. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not a return to square one if we preserve the templates as redirects and create new stub categories for the largest regions. In any case, the coats of arms of abolished provinces will soon start looking weird and outdated in the bottom of the stub articles. There is also a proposal on the WP:WSS/P page about creating a new category for the Uusimaa region or for Helsinki, but a mixture of abolished provinces and current regions would be somewhat confusing. --Silvonen (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. I think the structure of Wikipedia should reflect the real world, even if it means hard work. --Silvonen (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment For the record, here's a rough indication of the number of stubs in each region (intersection of "Category:Municipalities of X Region" and Category:Finland geography stubs). The real sizes of the regional stub categories would be slightly larger, as not all regional articles are under the municipal categories. As you can see, only Uusimaa and Finland Proper would currently qualify as stub categories.

Uusimaa 220

Finland Proper 134

Northern Ostrobothnia 46

Pirkanmaa 40

Central Finland 31

Northern Savonia 25

North Karelia 22

Kymenlaakso 21

Satakunta 21

Southern Ostrobothnia 21

Southern Savonia 21

Ostrobothnia 18

Kainuu 14

Central Ostrobothnia 12

Päijänne Tavastia 12

Tavastia Proper 12

South Karelia 10

Eastern Uusimaa 9

The question is: Do we want the stub categories to be neatly sized or in sync with the real political geography of Finland? --Silvonen (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: By that count, only two regions would be at a size where they should have their own categories - the threshold for separate categories is 60 stubs. So the main category would probably become considerably larger. Perhaps the thing to do would be to keep the provincial categories for noww and split out regional categories when they become viable - once the nomber of stubs in the provincial categories has dropped then we can phase them out (a bit like what has been done with the subcontinental categories such as Central Asia). Grutness...wha? 01:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Provinces abolished on January 1st, they ceased to exist as divisions. Therefore, they should not exist in Wikipedia either. Remove all.--Pudeo' 17:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Various Irish geo-stub categories

Over the past couple of years, it seems like a lot of irish counties have surreptitiously gained their own geo-stub categories. None of them were proposed, several of them are ill-formed, and seven of them are below threshold. Of these, five are considerably below threshold - in two cases less than 20 stubs. These five categories should all be upmerged unless they can be got to the 60-stub level pretty quickly. Given that I've just stub-sorted all those simply marked with Ireland-geo-stub, which seems difficult, especially since some of the very small ones have been around for two years or more without getting close. Upmerging will not overly tax the main Ireland geo-stub category - it will only take it to 480 stubs. The remaining two (Wicklow, 45 stubs, and Clare, 46 stubs) are also low, but not as desperately so as these five. The five county categories I'm proposing deleting (with reupmerges of the templates) are:

• Cat:County Carlow geography stubs (17 stubs)
• Cat:County Cavan geography stubs (26 stubs)
• Cat:County Kilkenny geography stubs (28 stubs)
• Cat:County Kildare geography stubs (24 stubs)
• Cat:County Laois geography stubs (18 stubs)

Grutness...wha? 04:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

PS - I note also that N.I.'s Cat:County Armagh geography stubs has dropped to about 50, and it definitely used to have over 60 stubs... it could be that the nominated categories also used to be larger but are now no longer really viable as separate categories. Grutness...wha? 05:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Create and merge to Province-based sorting. ROI is too big, some counties are too small, I feel this is a happy medium that will still allow anyone familiar with the country to quickly reference as needed. Plus a number of Irish project pages already use this sorting--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 15:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

{{Irish maritime-stub}} (redirect)

While sorting the irish stubs, I found that {{Ireland-water-transport-stub}} has sprouted quite a number of redirects, several of which defied stub naming conventions. Most of those were speediable (unused, with no sign they'd ever been used), but this one is in use - mlargely for bio-stubs which shopuldn't be marked with this stub type anyway. The stubs should be re-marked with the correct stub (whether that is {{Ireland-water-transport-stub}} or another stub type) and them this redirect should be 'deleted'. Grutness...wha? 05:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please leave {{Irish maritime-stub}} alone. By all means remove the redirect if you wish. But please leave {{Irish maritime-stub}} alone. WP:IMAR needs a way to keep track of its stub articles. That way they might eventually get some attention. Without it they might not - or more probably an alternative mechanism will have to be identified. ClemMcGann (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh? {{Irish maritime-stub}} is the redirect! The stub template is at {{Ireland-water-transport-stub}}, as explained above. In any case, why is a WikiProject using a stub template to sort its articles? that isn't what they're for - why aren't you using a talk page assessment banner to sort all your articles? (see WP:STUB#Stub types, WikiProjects, and Assessment templates). Grutness...wha? 01:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

December 11

{{Latur-geo-stub}} / Cat:Latur Division geography stubs

{{Plan-9-stub}} / Cat:Plan 9 from Bell Labs stubs

{{Pedagogue-stub}} / Cat:Pedagogue stubs

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)

• Question Where's the discussion at WP:WSS/D? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Uh...apologies. Make that WP:WSS/P. :) Grutness...wha? 23:17, 14 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)

• Delete, create {{Educationist-stub}} and Cat:Educationist stubs, sort stubs in the Cat:Pedagogue stubs to the new stub type where appropriate, and sort stubs in Cat:Pedagogue stubs to {{Edu-bio-stub}} and Cat:Educator stubs where appropriate. Actually, it might be good if we renamed {{Edu-bio-stub}} to {{Educator-stub}} in light of the creation of {{Educationist-stub}}. Thoughts? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds good - the only problem with it is the possible size of the categories once finished. Will they pass the 60 stub threshold? If not, there may need to be some upmerging somewhere. Grutness...wha? 00:50, 16 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)

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.

To delete

Stub types in this section have been orphaned and can be deleted.

• None currently

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.