Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was overwhelming consensus to keep, with a several people suggesting this was a bad faith nomination, WP:POINT, or otherwise out of process. R adiant _>|< 00:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

This was started because stub types were being listed on both TFD and CFD, as a stub type has both a template and a category. This is a rather admirable goal. However, somewhere along the way, a third type of page got included - redirects. Redirects like {{us-rail-stub}} to {{US-rail-stub}} and {{NYCS stub}} to {{NYCS-stub}}. Redirects that would be overwhelmingly if not speedily kept in their proper place, RFD. However, since SFD is an out-of-the-way page, which most non-stub sorters avoid, these useful redirects are typically deleted because they do not follow naming conventions. Thus I am listing this here with the intent on deleting SFD, and reincorporating it into TFD and CFD (possibly with a convention of always having the discussion on one or the other, to avoid fragmenting the discussions). If that does not happen, I hope we can at least come to consensus on handling redirects in the proper place. SPUI (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and re-incorporate into TFD and CFD. Handle redirects at RFD. --SPUI (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You cannot close down a WikiProcess by nominating the process page for deletion. Instead, discuss its direction on its talk page. Speedy keep. Radiant_>|< 01:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe I did discuss it on the talk page. The same thing happened as with the redirects on SFD - only SFD people use the talk page. --SPUI (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then do an RFC or a policy proposal. You cannot shut down a process by deleting it. Ed Poor tried that and it didn't work for him either. Radiant_>|< 01:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ed Poor actually deleted VFD. I am instead proposing a transition. --SPUI (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        This is "miscellany for deletion", not "miscellany for transition". WP:POINT, SPUI. You apparently have a dispute with the SFD people, and we have dispute resolution mechanisms for that. This isn't one of them. R adiant _>|< 01:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I have a dispute with the existence of SFD in its current form. Thus I believe it should be deleted. Is this not the place to list Wikipedia namespace pages for deletion? --SPUI (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Then familiarize yourself with the policy mentioned above. Falsely throwing around accusations of vandalism isn't helping your case any. R adiant _>|< 01:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Please familiarize yourself with WP:POINT. I am doing this not to make a point, but because I believe this page should be deleted. If done properly, there will also be no disruption. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Your move to disregard "sorted stub" templates is a violation of WP:POINT, however. I quote from User:SPUI/stub: Note to stub sorters: I would have tagged this as something other than a generic stub but have become disgusted with the deletion of redirects like {{us-rail-stub}} to {{US-rail-stub}}, which make it harder for me to get the "proper" name correct. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        What the fuck is it with abuse of WP:POINT? There is no disruption caused by my use of {{stub}}. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        and re-creating a ligitimately deleted item nine times is...? and you have the gall to accuse me of being a dick. find a mirror. BL kiss the lizard 05:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        It was not legitimately deleted, as the proper place for redirects is RFD. And I can see my own dick just fine without a mirror. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        You state that you want to use the stub templates and you thus imply that you are doing {{stub}} in protest. Check out WP:POINT. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I have checked out WP:POINT. Please tell me what is being disrupted by my use of {{stub}}. The edit count of stub sorters? --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        One advantage of having separate stubs is the ability to see what articles need to be improved in your topics you are familiar with. For example, I would never know that a highway article needed expansion if it was located in {{stub}}. If it was in {{California-State-Highway-stub}}, maybe. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        So we wait for a stub sorter to sort it. Again, what is being disrupted? --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Some person has to come back and clean up the mess. All while they could be bettering Wikipedia. This AFD is disrupting Wikipedia as well. I should be tagging U.S. Highways, a task I've let go for months. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Having an article tagged {{stub}} is not a "mess". It is a perfectly fine template. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep. this is a silly pointless nomination. just spui trying to undermine the organisation again. same as hes been trying to do with the stub sorting for the last few months. perhaps we should dump all 200000 stubs back into one big catagory again and let him sort them from now on.BL kiss the lizard 01:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I urge all who agree with me to simply use {{stub}}. I have made a comment at User:SPUI/stub which I subst afterwards to explain why I use {{stub}}. --SPUI (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- i wondered who was doing that. its hilarious. its the sort of thing my baby brother does when throwing a tantrum. "cant do it my way so im not playing anymore. wah!" BL kiss the lizard 05:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I'm tempted to just close this discussion up as WP:POINT. Watch WP:3RR.--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As I explained in response to Radiant, this is not a violation of WP:POINT. I truly believe this page should be deleted. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 3RR does not apply to vandalism. Just as people should not remove VFD tags from their vanity articles, the removal of the MFD tag from SFD is vandalism. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Should I go and MFD IFD then? I think that admins should just be able to speedy most of those. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you have an actual reason for doing so, why not? It seems to me that IFD serves a valid purpose, but images would have somewhere else to go - MFD. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - If a page is speedied, shouldn't you just be able to toss it? And if there's a problem, it can go to MFD. But that's not the point here. The point is that there is a Talk page for a reason. There is RFC. There's better ways to take care of this problem rather than MFD. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        The point is that the talk page is full of idiots. Of course this SFD is also full of idiots - not much better. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is as silly as the effort to delete the stub proposals page. What's next; a disgruntled inclusionist nominating Wikipedia:Speedy deletions for MFD? Caerwine Caerwhine 02:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep the strawmen off this page. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - So it's alright for you to call the people who visit a talk page idiots, but not for an analogy to be made? A comment, by the way, which shows the lack of good faith in this nomination... your complaint is not with SFD, it's simply a snitch with those people who are trying to organise stubs in a consistent and useful manner. Grutness...wha? 04:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it's simply an attempt to get rid of a broken system.Not assuming good faith to those who you believe are not assuming good faith in you defeats your claim to the high road. karmafist 04:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - so you're saying you called all those people idiots in good faith, then? it's very hard to assume good faith from someone who starts the abuse. Grutness...wha? 01:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This needs a Ed Poor style reform, ala VFD to AFD. SFD causes nothing ochlocracy on rare occasions and aristocracy for the rest of the time by WP:WSS. karmafist 02:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that VFD to AFD actually did anything; in this case however we would be changing the process. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think this is a silly nomination. It's reasonable to nominate a "policy" page that isn't a real policy, though it might end up being mistaken. That's what discussion is for. I think most people thought the stub-sorting wikiproject were working with existing deletion procedures; I admit to being a little surprised they had their own version of xfd going on. Anyway, this nomination might be wrong, but it isn't frivolous. Demi ^T/_C 02:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steps to use this area are listed in the directions for CFD and TFD, RFD does not direct users to here, but my only opinion on those is that they don't have much use, as they would only redirect to a category or template, wasting server resources. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This entire process needs throwing out and starting from scratch. It is the one place on Wikipedia where systemic bias is not a problem, but a mantra. Ambi 02:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Stubs are an unusual breed of markers, and having to increase workload to remove one (on TFD, and CFD, and possibly in RFD) seems like a waste of time to me. The template isn't any good without the category, and the category gets deprecated without the template. A redir is pointless once the places it redirs to are gone as well. Why increase the work of people trying to set one of these up for deletion, and the work of the people having to close out and monitor all of the differant deletion votes??? xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The templates that the redirects point to are not being deleted. These are redirects to existing stub templates. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regarding template redirects, I think they are a bad idea, but they may have a place, the situation I was referring to above was if a stub type was being removed, say because a previous type was no longer needed, then any other templates linking to it would become useless, and could be deleted as part of the TFD process. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 06:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is a ridiculous nomination, part of SPUI's continued vendetta against WP:SFD, which also includes the repeated re-creation of deleted stub templates and redirects (bike-stub had to be protected after he re-created it nine times). He is simply carrying WP:POINT beyond any logical extremes. The reason for the creation of SFD was simply that with stubs, templates, redirects and categories all work together rather than independently of each otherf. As such, the process handled by either two or three process pages which frequently produced conflicting results was moved to one central process page where the proposed deletion of stub types could be streamlined. In doing so, it removed many of the problems that were besetting the individual process pages. I doubt if any of them would be too keen to see stubs return to their pages. As to Ambi's comment about systemic bias being a mantra not a problem, by necessity the existence of stub templates must presuppose the existence of necessary articles for that stub template to apply to. Any systemic bias on SFD is merely a reflection of that on Wikipedia itself. To remove it, simply address the systemic bias in the articles, and stub templates will follow automatically. As for the deletion of redirects, as per comments elsewhere on this page, template redirects harm the servers, and the less they are used, the better. As such, having redirects for templates is in itself a very poor idea. What's more, attempts are made to keep naming consistent, for the ease of use of editors and stub-sorters. Creating redirects with names that run contrary to established guidelines or are ambiguous for other reasons (such as bike-stub, which by its name, suggests it is a template for the bikes themselves rather than the sport of cycling as a whole, and could also easily relate to motorbikes) is a bad idea. Grutness...wha? 04:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still not sure that template redirects do create extra server load. When you edit a page that uses a template redirect, only the template it redirects to is shown below the edit box. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. ^Blank ^Verse 05:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT whats the legality of SPUI deliberately editing my comments on this debate? [1]. BL kiss the lizard 05:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- just more proof that what you said about him needing a mirror was probably right. Grutness...wha? 05:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Feel free to restore what you originally said. (Don't revert though). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, that was a bug with the edit conflict screen not displaying. Please assume good faith. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added the comments back as best I could. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, it is. It also happened earlier, but I realized it that time. Dick. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - SPUI might be a pain in the arse when he wants to be (and he wants to be far too often), but he's honest. If he set out to delete your comments, he would have said so. Please try to assume good faith and try to avoid calling established contributors liars unless you have a bloody good reason (hint: this is not a bloody good reason). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - And you excuse his calling people dicks? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        This edit was being a dick. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        You aren't helping yourself. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Not at all, Rschen7754. However, calling someone a "dick" is less disruptive (which, let's face it, is the encyclopaedia's POV of the problem) than accusing them of outright lying. If you cannot be objective about SPUI's behaviour, please refrain from characterising it — it's out here in the open, and others are quite capable of taking appropriate action without you getting yourself in trouble. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Hi, sorry to intrude, but I don't see much distinction between "dick" and "liar" as pejoratives go. Both seem pretty obviously disruptive, and attempts to classify them for intensity of offensiveness rather strange. Of course, maybe my micropenis makes me sensitive. ;) Xoloz 01:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Point taken. I toned down one of my comments above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        As long as people want this kept open I see no reason why I can't tone my comments above down further. While things did look suspicious it probably wasn't a good idea to make any (implied) accusations and I apologize for that. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably the best example on the Wiki of the right tool being used for a specific job. The issue with redirects should be handled in some other way. Rx StrangeLove 05:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. --Carnildo 06:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Ridiculous, indeed. Conscious 13:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. —Locke Cole 16:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The work done with stub types having its own page makes it much better than it using the templates page. The stubs WikiProjects work around it, and it makes the process a lot easier to use. Hedley 19:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (preferably speedy) as bad-faith nomination to prove a point. Nominating an entire (properly started) deletion process for deletion because deletion votes on redirects sometimes lead to a consensual decision to delete, is absurd. If you have a problem with our votes, SPUI, take it out on us, but don't take it out on SFD. Stubs are templates with matching categories. Deleting SFD and splitting the stubs to TFD and CFD could mean that TFD decides to delete the template while CFD decides to keep the category. Stub templates and stub categories are so closely linked that there needs to be one central place to discuss them. And finally, saying that redirects that are deleted via SFD would have been "overwhelmingly if not speedily kept" in RFD is prophecizing of the worst kind. Aecis ^praatpaal 00:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, speedy keep MfD is not a forum through which to delete major encyclopedic projects. Take this to RFC, mediation, Arbcom, Jimbo, but not here. Inappropriate forum. Xoloz 01:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not an encyclopedic project; it is a method of making it harder to be a good encyclopedist, because apparently using {{stub}} is disruption. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Using {{stub}} is no disruption, nominating sfd for deletion to prove your point is. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 01:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Look at the huge nested thread above; I've been told that using {{stub}} is disruption. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please. — Dan | talk 03:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This page serves many purposes: it reduces the load of TFD and CFD, and directs the participants of WP:WSS who know the necessary policies about stub templates to appropriatly vote. CG 08:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I don't participate here, but I depend on the work done by the stub sorting team. To me this is a critical part of the process. If the associated RfDs need to be included here then do it. If the process needs an overhaul, then do it but don't kill if because it is not perfect. Vegaswikian 18:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This really is a policy issue, so it should have been at Requests for comments instead of MfD. ^Blank ^Verse 22:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. You see, attempting to shut down a deletion area is too complicated. You have to discuss on the talk page. You have to open an RfC or go to WP:VPP. You have to nominate the associated templates, categories, and subpages for deletion. If you just go ahead and nominate the page for deletion, then WP:POINT comes into the picture. Then again, perhaps a user RfC would do better? --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep already. This is not the right place to discuss this, and the discussion has already been moved to the village pump. - ulayiti (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SFD gives a lot control to select few people. It's not significant in the whole scheme of things, but it's way too centralized. Why is this? Because most of us are satisfied with the stub templates we have, or rather the ones we used to have, before they turned into red links at the bottom of the pages we tried to apply them to. As such, most of us have better things to do than decide on behalf of everybody else which stubs need to change. Delegating the deletion of stub redirects to SFD is a bridge too far. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 16:01, Dec. 26, 2005
Keep. I strongly agree that stub redirects should not fall under SfD's jurisdiction, but nominating SfD for deletion isn't the solution. If a process is flawed, we fix it; we don't throw out the baby with the bath water. —David Levy 16:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is an attempt to centralize the discussion (currently found on WP:VPP, WP:DRV, and here on WP:MFD) at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for deletion. Interested parties are cordially invited to drop by and provide their sage insight. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 17:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stub types for deletion should have been, and should always be, in the intention of deleting stub templates and its related categories. Stub redirects should be another matter and should be best left for WP:RFD. --AllyUnion (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gentgeen 17:40, 27 December 2005 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.