Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion/2006-Jun2008

Archives

• First Archive: Path to Creation
  A place for discussions that led to the creation of WP:SFD.

Adding {{sfd-t}} to redirects

It is possible that, at least for a while, many of the items coming up here for deletion will be redirects. Adding the {{sfd-t}} breaks the redirect if added either above or below the redirect line. This is ok for redirects that have been orphaned, but what about those that have not been? Should the deletion notice template be added to these? Courtland 12:29, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

I don't know what the official rule is, but when I've sent redirects to tfd in the past I've usually put the template on the redirect's talk page and also added a note to the talk page of the template it redirects to (so with baseball stub I'd put sfd-t on Template talk: Baseball stub and make a note about it on Template talk:Baseball-stub. Grutness...wha? 12:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a problem with simply adding templates to redirects, as has been done at {{biostub}}. Because the template text, including the category, is no longer included, whenever any of the articles are edited, the category is depopulated. Furthermore, if the articles are not edited afterwards, which could easily happen when there is a decision to keep, the category will remain depopulated. An alternative could be to include the target instead of redirecting there, an example being {{sfd-t}}{{bio-stub}}. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 07:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of redirects

OK, I'm fed up with complaints about redirects being deleted.

Let's just keep 'em all and hide them so that new people won't come along and use them but old people won't be "inconvenienced". That solution should satisfy most people, then some bold person comes along and makes {{About United States stub}} and we hide it away so that that person can still use it and he/she doesn't complain while not giving others the suggestion to use it versus {{US-stub}}. Then when the person who created the template tires of stub creation and tagging (which should take about a week in most cases) it will effectively never be used again.

This solution doesn't fit within the comfort zone of people who like beuracracy or neatness or nice clean edges, but it will work to satisfy the concerns of the persons this project serves ... which is not us the stub sorters.

With that said, I'd like to withdraw all the redirect deletion requests and get back to the business of making a difference, or trying to do so.

Courtland 13:02, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

If you withdraw those deletion proposals, I'll renominate them. We've got redirects that aren't being used, and we've had people complaining about too many "non-standard" names (check out Wikitalk:WSS). Sure, the project doesn't serve the stub sorters, the stub sorters serve the project. And the way they can do it best is by knowing what label to stick on a stub, and by making the stub names as facile for those who don't want to learn the entire list as is possible. And if, as the developers keep telling us, redirects are bad for the servers because things have to be called up twice, then the less redirects there are, the better. I like the suggestion of not listing redirect names, it is a good compromise - but I for one am not going to stop trying to get rid of any inherently bad template names just because they're now only redirects! And let's face it - the aim of sfd is to be be as much like tfd and cfd as possible. And that means there will be healthy debate with people saying "keep". It isn't a rubber-stamp to get rid of templates. Grutness...wha? 13:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The existence of "inherently bad template names" is the issue here, isn't it? I'm all for consistency because it is the way forward toward bot-assisted activities (which we neeeeed for this project). The problem we have, if indeed there is a problem really, is the clash between a desire for consistency and perception of utility and a clash between those who have set precedent and those for whom precedent doesn't mean much versus convenience.

I'll not withdraw the items I've placed as you've indicated you would re-post them. No need to get into an edit skirmish. If I were 100% convinced that they shouldn't be there, I'd have removed them without fishing for input.

As far as "hiding" redirects, I still think it might be a good approach to encouraging the use of "inherently good template names". Thoughts on this proposed action? Grutness has already indicated above it's not a bad idea ... looking for input from others as well

Courtland 17:35, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Hiding the non-standard redirects = good. For those who are using a particular template (which is a redirect) and feel the desperate need to continue doing so, can. For those who don't know about them, they will refer to the list. Hopefully that makes everyone happy (or at least not unhappy). --TheParanoidOne 18:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've made a suggestion for revisions to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types that incorporates the removal of redirects from the main listing while leaving a link to a listing of them; see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types#Proposed_revisions_to_page_format_-_aiming_for_cleaner_look_with_less_text. Courtland 17:03, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

First blood

{{sikhi-stub}} is the first stub type to be deleted as per this page. Congratulations! See Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted/June 2005. -- grm_wnr Esc 12:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

May it be the first of many. :P --Sn0wflake 19:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There needs to be a hearty "Mwuhahaha!" inserted in there somewhere ... --TheParanoidOne 21:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...or at least a "Today {{sikhi-stub}}, tomorrow the {{world-stub}}!!!" Grutness...wha? 01:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{world-stub}}? Wouldn't that mean... {{geo-stub}}?   -- grm_wnr Esc 07:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template?

Hi there! I find the green template put on CFD and TFD rather appropriate, but could you please make it a bit smaller vertically? Radiant_>|< 12:40, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to compact it a bit, by sorting the entries by type. It looks a little crowded to me, though. Anyone have any suggestion for improvement? --TheParanoidOne 14:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suppose we could always reduce the font size a bit more... an alternative option is simply to reduce the number of stubs being voted on, but there are just so many that should be nominated... Grutness...wha? 00:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Consensus

"After a voting period of seven days, action will be taken if there is consensus on the fate of the stub type". What exactly constitutes "consensus" here? We're about to have the first one with several votes per side pass the seven day barrier (nickelodeon-stub). I'm not certain what the rule is here - is it kept if there's less than a 2/3 vote for delete, with possible renomination later, or what? Grutness...wha? 00:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• IMO keep if there's less than a 2/3 vote for delete. No practical definition for consensus is given, nor yet established, for SfD. So I assume that a criterion of 2/3 similar to VfD should apply here.--Nabla 2005-06-28 16:42:34 (UTC)
  • note to readers: this is not a side-vote; it is a consideration of the present voting.
    This is the eternal question around all deletes and changes. Maybe we can do something a little more intense here owing to the relatively small volume of material? I'm thinking really scrutinize the votes and think on what the issues are ...

Issue: voters

• title of stub can lead to confusion: grutness
• potential for growth is low ~ overcategorization: lochaber, idont, nabla, blankverse, lifeisunfair
• potential for growth is high: snowflake, sherri
• potential for growth doesn't matter: falphin

Looking at things this way, there's a 5:2 split on the matter of growth potential. One might but a hold and say to snowflake and sherri that if they can indeed produce 50 articles that could be stubbed to this type then that would demonstrate sufficient potential for growth to keep.
Courtland June 28, 2005 21:33 (UTC)

Purging sfd-current

At what point should an entry be removed from the sfd-current template? With items that have been deleted it's obvious. But with items like the movie/film rename, it's not as clear cut. The decision has been made, but the item is still on the SFD page in some capacity. Remove when a decision has been made, or keep until it's worked its way through SFD completely? I would go for the former. --TheParanoidOne 28 June 2005 21:42 (UTC)

• I would suggest removing it after the decision has been made. We could add to the sfd-current template a brief note saying "completed decisions are listed at xxxxx" wherever we have a log file of completed decisions. Courtland June 28, 2005 23:33 (UTC)

orphaned stub categories

Does anyone here monitor Category:Orphaned categories? There are currently 30 or so stub categories listed from user:Beland's May 16 analysis. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) June 30, 2005 02:38 (UTC)

That would be Category:Orphaned_categories#Stubs and yes, it's indeed worth checking out. Good find! -- grm_wnr Esc 30 June 2005 19:31 (UTC)

Added to another policy page

I suddenly realised this page wasn't listed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy - I have remedied. Grutness...wha? 2 July 2005 12:22 (UTC)

I ran across Wikipedia:Current surveys and added it to the deletion section as well Rx StrangeLove 2 July 2005 17:18 (UTC)

Several rules worth repeating from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

The following rules at WP:CSD are well worth noting with regard to SFD:

• Redirects can be immediately deleted if they have no useful history and they refer to non-existent pages. (Before deleting such a redirect, it's a good idea to check to see if the redirect can be made useful by changing its target.)
• Empty categories (no articles or subcategories) whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories [may be speedily deleted].
• Empty categories (no articles or subcategories), 24 hours after the last page was removed from them[may be speedily deleted]

It's quite likely that several of the items that are coming through sfd can be speedily deleted under these rules. Grutness...wha? 2 July 2005 12:31 (UTC)

• off stub topic comment that last item seems to provide an opportunity for widespread abuse by activist administrators .. that that's a comment on the Speedy Deletion guidelines as a whole and hasn't anything to do specifically with stub categories. Courtland July 2, 2005 15:11 (UTC)

SFD-Current on SFD page?

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is it worth adding {{sfd-current}} at the top of WP:SFD? No, not to have it deleted, just for display. That way we'll instantly be able to check whether what's on the template tallies with what's on the page. Grutness...wha? 09:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a reasonable plan. --TheParanoidOne 10:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've added it. I've also moved the "how to use this page" instructions nearer to the top, because a lot of people seem to be ignoring them :( Grutness...wha? 12:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

"US"/"American"/"United States"

Latest comment: 19 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion

(Copied across from "Criteria" talk page, where I first posted it): There are numerous stub categories relating to the United States, and there seems to be no common pattern of naming. Do we need one, and if so, what should it be? I mistakenly told one person that they should use US to name a particular category because it was our standard naming, but I see now I was completely wrong. Personally, I'd prefer not to use "American", as it is ambiguous, and stick with "United States" throughout, but I'm hoping to hear arguments on all sides of this one. If we stick to one standard it will mean a lot of categories coming through here for renaming (templates, I'm glad to say, all use US). Grutness...wha? 14:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• I strongly agree with not using the term 'American' (e.g. the continent) when referring to the United States (e.g. the country). Radiant_>|< 09:58, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• I also agree with using United States instead of US or American. --Kbdank71 13:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
• Strongly agree with all above comments. "American" is ambiguous at best. "United States" seems to be the best alternative. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
• I disagree with all of the arguements above but agree with the result. American is the term to describe U.S. citizens obviously. On other categories it has been already changed and I suggest the same here. The only exception is culture which on all the article still follows, Danish culture, German culture etc so should the American. The use of U.S. is pointless as it is just an abbreviation. The same is true for the United Arab Emirates. Falphin 15:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
• I am very strongly of the opinion that either US or North American should be used. It is a self-absorbed, absurd and derisory idea to attribute a classification that refers to all inhabitants of a continent to something or somebody from a single country, as if the other countries were not worthy of mention. That's why we have {{Germany-stub}} and not {{Europe-stub}} for articles pertaining Germany, for example. --Sn0wflake 20:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
• NOT "American". Categories should use "United States" or "United States of America". I don't mind if templates use US, USA or UnitedStates. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
• If one is to avoid the use of American in stub categories, we'll need to go to always using nouns and never adjectives. The correct adjective for things related to the United States is American and no other, so if one is going to go on a pendantic quest against American, consistency of from requires eliminating all use of "British", "Canadian", "French", et cetera. I don't mind if in the name of pendantry we go after all use of adjective place names, but if we single out "American", I shall be most irritated. Caerwine 19:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
  • What adjective do United States Americans use to refer to something of the continent(s) of America? The issue here is not whether "American" is the right adjective for "things of the United States of America", but whether it is unambiguous. It is not, and neither are Georgian or Chinese. Australian is ambiguous about whether it refers to a country or a continent, but for almost all purposes it is an irrelevent distinction, which is not the case here. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
    • Speaking purely for myself, I don't use an adjective for the two continents, any more than I would use an adjective when describing something that pertains to Eurasia and Africa considered as a unit. I'd use either "of the Americas" or "of the New World" if I needed an adjective form or possibly use "New World" as adjectival noun. Caerwine 02:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
  • But I can say European, Asian and know that Eurasian is the union of both sets, and Southeast Asian is a subset of Asian. However for you, North American is a superset of American, and South American is either disjoint with it (Argentina, Brazil etc), or a subset (Alabama, Louisiana etc). We only get confused by things like the highest mountain in Australia (correct answers are Mount Kosciusko and Mawson Peak, with a nod to Mt McClintock). --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
• I've already had to abandon the proposal of one very useful category because an "American... category" existed (the category was to be for Politician stubs for the whole of the Americas - there aren't enough for separate Mexican, Central American, South American, and Caribbean categories). Using "American" to refer to only the United States is really annoying - especially when the term "United States" is frequently used adjectivally. Grutness...wha? 23:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
• I'd rather have just nouns used, instead of adjectives. Not only is there the problem with "American" and others as mentioned, there's the problem as to whether some terms refer to people from an ethnic group or a country. The current mix of adjective and noun forms seems to be rather haphazard. --Mairi 00:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Help needed

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

As you might know, I've been the main closer on this page since it's beginnings. Well, I've been out of town for a week now and couldn't close the discussions. Noone else did so either, so now I'm looking at a great big heap and actually, I don't have much time on my hands this week as well. I can close some of the easy ones (orphaned and ready to delete), but there's lots of discussions requiring restubbing and I can't really do that alone. SO: Please help orphaning stub types that have been cleared for deletion! Administrators, please close and archive a few discussion, or the backlog will swell to tremendous proportions before I can find the time to clear it. -- grm_wnr Esc 14:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I want to help, but I'm not entirely sure what to do. Some appear to be simple, eg. rename of Category:Computer Specialist Stubs. This has been done, so should this entire discussion just be moved to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted/July 2005? If that is all that is needed, I'll go ahead and do it. But how about others which are more complicated? --TheParanoidOne 20:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Ditto. I've been closing discussions on CfD for months now, but I don't want to screw anything up with the templates here. I took care of a few easy ones, hopefully that will help. --Kbdank71 20:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Template:Stub-base

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm not sure where to put this, so I'll just add it to the Talk page. Currently WP:TFD has Template:Stub-base nominated for deletion. Since it's really just an incomplete version of Template:Metastub, and since one person has suggested that it redirect to Metastub, the template probably should be handled by WP:STD instead of WP:TFD. BlankVerse ∅ 11:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

{{VRC-Stub}}, concensus and resubmission

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

{{VRC-Stub}} and its associated category were nominated by me for deletion but they have now moved beyond the seven day period, with no votes. A single person's vote is not a consensus, so the status quo should be maintained, ie. leave the stub type as is.

There doesn't seem to be anything written in the SFD guidelines about resubmissions, though. Are they possible? How long until an item can be resubmitted? And so on. --TheParanoidOne 14:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Just thinking aloud here... maybe a month (two months?) after the close of voting for "no consensus"... but no voters isn't really no consensus - I'd think that in cases where the nominator is the only vote, resumbission should be possible pretty near straight away as long as it is clearly stated that no-one voted the previous time. Grutness...wha? 19:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hm. I think the closing admin's action (e.g. to delete) also counts as a vote, if the admin hasn't voted already. But two votes also do not a consensus make, I think... I'd say just relist it at the top with a note that it is a relisting, and if it attracts no votes again, I'd be inclined to see consensus for deletion. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but doesn't the vote of the nominator count at all? If there's not a single keep/merge etc. vote, obviously there are no objections to the deletion, especially if you count the closing admin's vote (although I'm not really sure you should do that, because I for one would expect impartiality from him). Btw, how would you define consensus anyway, with this community having over 350.000 registered users? Not having voted at all would constitute mutual consent, imho. And: not everyone partakes in every vote; speaking for myself, I try only to vote about issues where I possess at least a certain knowledge Lectonar 10:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

X-related country stubs

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

It may not be according to the rules, but couldn't we make one bulk vote here (I know, I know, there's copy and paste). Also, there seems to be more here than meets the eye... as the discussion wasn't properly concluded anyway Lectonar 10:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

There are no more Categories in the X-related change. If a proposal to change from X-related to X is made, perhaps part of the proposal should be for a batch StD. (SEWilco 18:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC))Reply

Which discussion? (SEWilco 18:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC))Reply

Archiving

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

As things stand at the moment, I seem to be doing the bulk of the archiving on sfd. I don't mind, overly, although I'm a little uneasy about it since I'm heavily involved in a lot of the votes, and ISTR that on pages like vfd voters are encouraged not to be the people who do the archiving. I'm open to any advice on this one. Also, I deliberately haven't archived one or two votes that are not unanimous or seem less-clear cut. Again, any advive or help would be welcome. Grutness...wha? 05:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I probably could do this (although I do a fair amount of voting myself, and I don't always see eye-to-eye with everybody else), but I don't know the pertaining policy and procedure (doesn't one have to be an admin? how do we get it deleted, if the vote comes out as such etc.) + I'm not going to be around that much for the next 2 months. Another problem I see is that one can't avoid involvement with stub-sorting per se, and so is kind of always biased. And you do such a lot around the stub-things, I'm not quite sure if it isn't considered your pet by now :) Lectonar 10:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Heh. Well, I certainly feel too possessive of the geo-stub section :). I do do a lot of stubby-stuff, so I was hoping to shift some of the archiving work a little so that I can get some real-world things done occasionally. Even an occasional bit of archiving by someone else would be a big help, either here or on the proposals and/or discoveries pages. As to the rules of it and whether it's necessary to be an admin to do it - you do need to be an admin to delete items, and decisions relating to consensus are at a page directly aimed at admins (Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators). But if the decision for a stub type is a clear keep, then there should be no problems for a non-admin archiving is. Similarly, if it's a clear delete and the template needs to be orphaned a non-admin can at least clear the template ready for deletion. It also begs a further question, but that's one for your user talk page... Grutness...wha? 11:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I seem to recall responding with similar questions from a similar request by grm_wnr a while back. I don't recall getting any definitive answers. Given what's just been said though, I think I'll go ahead and do something if it seems like its ready to be done. --TheParanoidOne 19:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I made my first attempt at archiving the other day, with the Proposal page. Did I do anything horribly wrong? I'm assuming I didn't or somone would have swooped in and fixed it. :) --TheParanoidOne 10:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

fire-alarm-stub

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

{{fire-alarm-stub}} and it's associated category have now passed the 7 day voting period. I would say the concensus is to delete both, so I started to clear it out when I saw that the template never had sfd-t applied to it. This is a first - deletion concensus on an item that was never actually nominated for deletion. Anyone using said template would not be aware of the deletion debate. Should it be removed along with its category, as decided? --TheParanoidOne 10:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

The original nomination was simply for the category, and the vote for that was 3-0 for deletion. I added a nomination for deletion of the category, and there was no objection to that in subsequent votes. In other words, the template was nominated, just slightly after the category. Therefore, when I removed the stub type, I deleted both. I suppose that I should have waited an extra day, since the template was nominated the day after the category, and if I was remiss in not leaving it long enough, then I apologise. But since there was no objection after six days, it probably didn't make much difference. Grutness...wha? 07:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

The length of the nomination was not really what I was getting at. It's the fact that the sfd-t tag was not added to the stub template which I saw as possibly causing problems. ie deletion of a template without any immediate notification that this idea is even being proposed. But anyway, it's done now. So I'll leave it at that. --TheParanoidOne 15:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Oop! I never even noticed that I'd forgotten that when I deleted it. Mea culpa. Well, if anyone complains, send them to me - all my fault. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Closing debates

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

There's been a couple comments on votes that are past the 7-day point, and below the marker (on the debates about {{Video game music composer-stub}} and {{Japcorp-stub}}). Assuming ones below the marker are "closed", in that no one should comment/vote on them, that probably ought to be more clearly marked somewhere... --Mairi 05:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see you're a bit miffed by zippedmartins votes; so am I :)); the problem seems to be that we ought to delete them faster...Lectonar 06:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

That I am. The problem with deleting them faster is that there seems to be only a couple admins active here to delete them...--Mairi 06:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

And the ones active are active in the voting, too, and this should, IMHO, prevent them from closing the sfd's (I know thats not corresponding to wiki-reality)...perhaps I should take up on Grutness's suggestion.... Lectonar 07:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

is there perhaps some way we can add template "clips" round them, like on cfd and afd, putting boxes round the closed votes? Grutness...wha? 10:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Bot?

Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Has anyone created a Bot for the replacement/renaming of templates? -Ravedave 03:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm pretty sure there's one that's used every now and then. It's logical to use one for direct replaces - the problem comes when a template needs to be split between two or more existing ones. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I should to do more research. I vagely remeber seeing a bot that would present a page to you with the proposed changes and you just had to ok it if it was correct. Could probably write one that looks for the name of a state and suggests a template. Maybe I'll have to learn perl -Ravedave 05:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've put a request on Wikipedia talk:Bots#Mairibot for permission to run a bot (using pywikipedia) to take care of the renames here. And it seems like most our renames (atleast for large categories) are direct replaces, so it ought to help alot. It'd also make it more practical to tackle removing -related from the country categories. --Mairi 05:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

That would be very useful. The Sydney stubs await! :) Grutness...wha? 10:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's now been a week and there haven't been any objections there... I'll be offline until Sunday evening, but once I'm back I'll start the bot working on the backlog we have (unless they're any objections to the bot by then). --Mairi 04:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

SPUI and stub redirects

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've just had to rollback User:SPUI for his unilateral that stub redirects shouldn't be handled on this page and removal of a large block of voting. I'm adding a note to the top of the page to make it clearer that stub redirects are discussed here (although everyone else seems to be well aware of how this page works now). Grutness...wha? 00:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

On a somewhat related note, I noticed that putting {{sfd-t}}, which reads

‹ The stub template below has been proposed for deletion. Please share your thoughts at this template's entry on the Categories for discussion page.

Please do not edit or blank the template, or remove it from articles where it is used, while the discussion is in progress. ›, on stub redirects is actually highly misleading on the articles affected. I've created {{sfd-r}}, which reads , for stub template redirects, which should be clearer, and adjusted the instructions accordingly. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Speedying "related" categories?

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Is there any way of speedy renaming the categories with "-related" as part of their names? The changes were all debated thoroughly at WP:WSS/P and the (unanimous IIRC0 consensus was to remove the word from category names (at least as far as country-specific categories was concerned). It would save a lot of them coming through here in dribs and drabs if all of them were speediable. Grutness...wha? 02:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

It'd likely be a good use of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, if we're feeling bold, as there was unanimous consensus in the earlier discussion (for country names). But since it's such a large undertaking, there's a chance that'd draw some criticism. But I'm not sure how else we could speedy them... --Mairi 07:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Can I suggest that it they be listed "collectively" on the project page (perhaps with a link to an off-page list of those affected), and that the speedy-ing be done "by acclaim"? i.e., if three or four people call for expedition, and no-one objects. If anyone requests separate discussion for a given case, split it out to a separate listing. I wouldn't personally be upset by being bolder still, but equally it doesn't seem so urgent as to really demand that, either. BTW, Mairi, kudos on the efforts of your robotic counterpart on these. Alai 22:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a plan. --Alynna 04:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. I'd say to wait until my bot get's its botflag (which ought to happen whenever a steward gets around to checking the permissions page on meta...), as then it can work even faster. By then we should have the backlog cleared out too. --Mairi 07:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Bot work

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Mairibot is now working on renaming Category:Football (soccer) player stubs to Category:Football (soccer) biography stubs (via null edits). Once that's done, I'll deal with UK-depot-stub (I wanted to start with a null-edit one), and then work thru the remaining renames. Some of them will still take a while, because of the required time between edits. --Mairi 04:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Done with the football player stub renames. Changed plans and am now working on the smaller Eng-club-stub. Then i'll probably go thru from the oldest to newest (maybe with a bias towards doing ones that just require touching). --Mairi 04:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Substology

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

There is some discussion regarding the subst'ing of templates, and a bot is under development that will automate the task. I would like to ask your opinion on subst'ing stub templates. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Subst. Radiant_>|< 15:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Very bad idea. Though I can understand it working well for most types of templates, It would cause quite some problems for ones which are frequently changed (like stub templates). Stub templates should never be subst'ed IMHO. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Subst'ing any kind of template that changes more than rarely, and especially stub templates, seems like a Bad Idea... Also, I think it makes it more difficult for editors to move or remove various tags when there's a long paragraph rather than a short few words that are clearly in a template. --Alynna 02:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

• No worries, people, stub templates are not going to be subst'ed any time soon. That's why we asked your opinion before actually doing anything :) Radiant_>|< 00:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Template redirects

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

They work abit oddly now, and it affects orphaning them for deletion. Before, if you had Template:A that redirected to Template:B, uses of A would show up in Special:Whatlinkshere/A and on the page it's used on as a use of A. Now it only shows up on Special:Whatlinkshere/B. To make it more confusing, old uses (pages that haven't been edited since the change - I'm not sure when it happened, but within the past month), still follow the old method. The new method makes it alot harder to tell if a redirect has been orphaned when it's a frequently-used template that's redirected to - especially trying to change them by hand; it's doable, although an additional step, by bot. --Mairi 17:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Then do what I do. When it's time to delete the template, simply take off the sfd notice and turn it back into a standard redirect. It should then show all the articles that use it. Grutness...wha? 01:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that it doesn't necessarily show articles that use the redirect. For example, I marked User:Mairibot/Completed tasks with {{Incomplete}} (which redirects to {{sectstub}}). However, it doesn't show up on Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Incomplete but only on Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Sectstub. --Mairi 04:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Renaming stub types

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have a quick question regarding the renaming of stub templates.

When something is renamed, the old name is turned into a redirect to the new name. If a template has been renamed via SFD, should the redirect remain, or should it be deleted as well?

The reason I ask is that if it is the former, anyone can carry out template renames and log them. Whereas if it is the latter it would require an admin to carry out the deletion step.

There is of course the third option - a per-stub type decision.

I can't find anything about this on the SFD page. Any thoughts? --TheParanoidOne 06:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Often of course, the category's to be renamed (well, "renamed") at the same time, in which case it'd be necessary to have an admin do it, or at least, undesirable to leave the job half-done. But not always, so it's a good question. I'd say it depends just how "useful" (or v.v., just how badly-named) the old template is. Certainly people are able to specify, as per AFD and RFM, that they want the redirect deleted (or not), but I suppose the issue here is, should we have an established default, where the "vote" isn't decisive on this point, or more likely, doesn't mention it at all? One could argue it either way; redirects are somewhat useful, but in the case of stub-types, not to readers (or linkers, or general editors), only to stub sorters (hard-core or occasional). In cases of erratic spacing, caps, hyphenation, etc, they may be worse than useless, by obscuring the alleged conventions for what stub-tags "always" look like, thereby leading to more confusion that it copes with. But even if the default was otherwise, I wouldn't object to doing that case by case. Alai 18:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

More on speedies...

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Recent cases on this page have made me inclined to think that we need to be a bit more formal about what's "speediable", and what's not. The "speedying by acclaim" is all well and good, but if stub creators show up to protest the fate of their badly-named or entirely needless stub type, as is often the case, in practice it runs the duration (or longer!). I think we should agree some likely candidates for speedying, and have them "approved" for listing in the main listing of speedy deletion criteria. For starters, what about:

• Any stub template not ending in "-stub";
• Any stub category not ending in " stubs";
• Any template or category using a variant spelling, capitalisation, or other style of reference from the corresponding article on the main topic, and/or parent permanent category, where applicable in each case.

We can expand as necessary in conjunction with tightening up the stub type naming conventions, ideally with the latter somewhat ahead of the former, being incorporated as and when simple, established, and uncontroversial. Alai 18:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply