Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion/2006-Jun2008

This project page was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

List our permanently deprecated stubs?

Perhaps what is in order is creating and maintaining a list of stub templates or categories which, under conditions of "normal full sorting" at the time, should be completely unused or empty, and have a script that generates a list of articles currently using these stub types. Essentially, we would expand the scope of the treatment we give to {{stub}} and Category:Stubs to these officially deprecated stub types. Is that workable? --CComMack (tc) 06:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly support that; and as I mooted elsewhere, modifying the template message itself to subtly (or not so subtly) suggest that the stub it's been applied to should be re-sorted. Alai 06:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair to me, too. Especially if it will ease this argument - I'd far prefer to save my WP scrapping with people who aren't part of the stub "family", as it were :) Grutness...wha? 05:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fantastic.... if it works! Goldenrowley 19:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Log file renaming

Starting tomorrow, i.e. at the start of new month, and unless anyone has objection, I'm going to tweak the names of the log per-day files, to make them more consistent with other *fD pages, and to make transcluding into the archives more natural. Since the current choice of names is under the "own stupid fault" category, I assume this won't be too controversial. I won't bother re-doing the August ones, so unless anyone else is super-keen to do that, there will be some "irregularity" in the format of the current listings for a week, but nothing too perplexing I wouldn't think. Alai 01:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing this by the instructions on the archiving page, I've already made up a page for october using the "archive page creation " link at the bottom of the archive page for "October" deletes. Sorry, will revert 2 edits and let you finish tweaking the names of the archives. Goldenrowley 21:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you were doing, but suffice it to say I'm glad you stopped. :) But yes, the link should have been updated to follow the new path, my bad. (But the whole point of the new system is not having to cut and paste entries to archive them.) Alai 05:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was following instructions on the delete proposal page that sent me to the archive page and had me starting October archives. If archiving has become easier, and no longer requires help with cut and paste I heartily approve, but the user instructions will need to be updated. Goldenrowley 18:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Informing the creators is being ignored

This was crossposted and has little to do with the specific workings of this page. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Informing the creators is being ignored. The comments have already been moved. Please do not spam such complaints across multiple pages. Rossami (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Admin Instructions Proposed

I got sort of confused following this page's instructions on my stub work deletions. I thought after deleting "craft" stub I was supposed to per instructions on this page request a "speedy delete" because it was an "empty category". Therefor after getting some specific advice from Alai on my page, I propose below a new bullet point on this instruction page as follows:

What to do after your proposal passes (for non-Admins): You can proceed to act on your proposal by emptying the category. ~~However,~~ Once you've emptied the category, don't mark it 'speedy delete' following empty category rules. Instead put a note on this page, under "empty categories" section, that the stub section is empty and "reADY to be deleted." This tells stub administrators (if they haven't already noticed) that they should delete your emptied template. As an administrator has time they will delete the categories. Goldenrowley 21:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't tell people what they've not to do: it'll just give them ideas. :) But yes, there might usefully be a note to the effect of what people-in-general can usefully do after closure, but before completion of same. (For the B&S stubs that was an epic tale, I'm here to tell you.) We shouldn't give the impression that there's something-in-particular the nominator should be doing, though. Alai 05:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Revision of 10/13/06: Thanks, I am quite willing to take suggestions. So I revised already:
  - What to do after your proposal passes (for non-Admins): You can proceed to act on your proposal by emptying the category. ~~However,~~ Once you've emptied the category, ~~don't mark it 'speedy delete' following empty category rules. Instead~~ If you have time, you can also put a note on this page, under "empty categories" section, that the stub section is empty and "ready to be deleted." This tells stub administrators (if they haven't already noticed) that they should delete your emptied template. As an administrator has time they will delete the categories. Goldenrowley 19:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not just: Once you've emptied the category, please also note on this page under the "empty categories" section that the stub section is empty and "ready to be deleted." ? Grutness...wha? 22:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be fine with me. Goldenrowley 23:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article/article discussion is way too long

This is WAAAY too long. I doubt most people will get through a tenth of this page. I suggest condensing it. (If there is already a section on this, consider this backing it up as I did not see it, as I skipped most of this) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxman280 (talk • contribs)

The only reason it's "waaay too long" is one very long discussion, which will hopefully be removed from the page in the next few days. It's usually far shorter than this. Also, I'd ask you to compare it with other deletion process pages like Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, which are several times as long. Grutness...wha? 23:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time on this page and I am unsure how it is to be used. It is very cluttered. Chapium 20:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SFD notification template?

Do we have a template or anything to notify stub template/category creators when something goes up for deletion? I've been trying to be more consistent with my notification, and it would seem that a quick talk page template would be useful. Perhaps something that would look like this (which is what I've been using):

==SFD notification==
This message is to notify you that a stub template and/or category that you created (<template link> and/or <cat link>) is up for deletion at [[WP:SFD]]. Please join [[<link directly to the discussion>|the discussion]]. Thanks. ~~~~

~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 22:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've templatified the notice I use for unproposed templates that end up here as {{sfd-notice}}. A similar notice for ones that have been proposed would also be useful, though the majority of nominations that come here are ones that haen't been through the WSS discussion (those that have have usually had any problems ironed out before they get created). Grutness...wha? 01:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stub templates getting a second look

Category:Stub templates has been sent back to CFD; Deletion Review felt that it was worth seeing if consensus has changed since the very minimal discussion back in March. Please feel free to provide any input on the new deletion discussion, as this touches on an aspect of the Stub Sorting project. -- nae'blis 19:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SFD old business

Aka "admin huddle" =) There are a couple cases out on SFD right now that having been sitting there awhile. They're kinda tricky and I don't want to do anything "unilaterally" (to use the dreaded u-word). If any admins, or really anyone, would like to voice their opinions, it would be much appreciated. I would prefer the discussion to take place on the SFD case itself so that it will be archived together. Thanks for your help! ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've probably said more than enough on those as it is, but if we're completely stuck, and feel that there's a "not enough eyes" issue, there's always WP:DRV, especially for the "Mainland China" types, as in that case, similarly-scoped permcats have repeatedly bitten the big one at WP:CFD, and otherwise. Alai 18:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and definitely the Ancient Rome ones too. October 13th! That's just way too long for that to be out there. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are those controversial or unclear? I asked for a "hold-on" while they were being "re-proposed", but that's been and gone long since, and only applied to some of them, anyway. (That the decision was pretty barmy (in effect, unsort, ignore entirely, resort later when it's a much larger job) needn't detain us (though is certainly going to detain me from the 'unsorting' part).) Alai 18:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really controversial or unclear, but I didn't really pay much attention to those, so I'm not sure what went on. If nothing really came of it, I'm fine with a "no consensus" and simply archiving them, or maybe transferring them to /D where they can be dealt with at some later date. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could always do what they do at AfD - reintroduce them at the top if there's no consensus, for a bit more discussion. I like the idea of returning them to a section of WSS/D, though, where they can be perhaps given a second SfD later if it still seems like a good idea. Grutness...wha? 23:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The former is a reasonable option if there's been relatively little input, yes; for the trench warfare of some of the unrecognised territories, it's probably the last thing we'd need (in which case the latter would be better). BTW, it might be clearer in the "Mainland China" case if your "vote" was a little more explicit either way, G. Alai 04:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - point taken. I hope I've managed to clarify it a little! Grutness...wha? 10:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what's happening with this SFD?

Alai has put the SFD template on Category:Estonian record label stubs, but as far as I can tell, hasn't listed it on SFD. The template was added three days ago. Has the SFD been fast-tracked/completed quickly, or did the user (who tagged it with AWB, strangely) just neglect to list it? Esteffect 14:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed right here among many other record label stubs. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You hopefully won't think it so strange when you see the length of the list... Alai 15:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get here to do some editing?

At the top of this page is the following paragraph:

This page only deals with the deletion 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 have to be put on WP:TFD or WP:CFD, respectively.

I want to edit WP:TFD and WP:CFD to spell out their full names so that other new users will not be as stymied by these abbreviatsions as I have been. However, there's no (edit), and when I choose "edit this page", I don't get this paragraph. I'm guessing that it's in a template somewhere. Please direct me to such a template. Thanks. RSLitman 00:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/About Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 00:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN

Look what I just speedied :o) Grutness...wha? 06:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A shame, I found an article that could have used it, Anterior nares, whilst sorting the anatomy stubs. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Grutness: WTF? :) Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Batch nominations at CFD

Several times recently there have been group nominations of similarly named categories at CFD, including a stub category. I've argued a couple of times that the stub cat should be handled separately, but it doesn't really make much sense to do so, so I've added a slight change to the wording at the top of CFD. It also affects things here, so if I've been too bold, feel free to revert or alter what I've done.

Previously, the instructions at the top of CFD said:

Categories relating to stub articles should not be nominated here, but should be taken to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion.

I've added an extra line:

If a group nomination of several similarly-named categories includes a stub category, it may be discussed here, but a note should be placed at Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion indicating that discussion on it is taking place.

That way, we get to find out about it, but it doesn't disrupt the CFD process.

(BTW, this was prompted by a current proposal to rename the Category:Manga and anime categories to Category:Anime and manga equivalents). Grutness...wha? 23:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should add a line indicating that the actual change should be left to people familiar with the stub sorting project so we don't end up with red links to the category on the stub list. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WSS/NG overhaul proposal (and first re-draft!)

(This is just a courtesy copy of the note originally posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting, since more sorters may actually be reading over here than over there.)

The story: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming guidelines#Redrafting, stage 1
The first draft re-draft: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming guidelines/Redraft1
What changed and why: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming guidelines/Redraft1#First draft log

Took me about 7-8 hours, but I think it sings. Did not change a single substantive thing about it either, as far as how it works, what is recommends, what procedures are, etc., etc. It's just a massive cleanup. Please see first wikilink ("The story") for proposal on how to proceed, in stages, designed to prevent the process from descending into argument and editwarring. Goal: Have WSS/NG become a formal Wikipedia Proposal and then Guideline. At a guess this is stage 1 of 4. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Yes, this has something to do with being tired of arguing with Alai and Grutness in SfD and WSS/P, whatever the outcome of the argument, and instead wanting to work on something positive and cooperative in WSS, which is why I joined in the first place. :-) Toodles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redrafting, stage 2

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming guidelines/Redraft2 I have listed a bunch of unlikely-to-be-controversial improvements for the NG document. Most of these were already clearly identified in Redraft1 as HTML comments, while a few come from Redraft 1 discussion. The HTML comments just mentioned are still (as of this writing) present in Redraft2, to indicate likely insertion points. Depending on when you read this, some of them may have alread been replaced with new text, or removed because controversial. I would propose that any item on the list that anyone feels is controversial in any way should be struck out and saved for Redraft Phase 3, the dealing with controversial stuff. Several of them may require a consensus discussion to determine what exactly they should say/advise. Let's do it! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub types for discussion

Given that we do a fair amount of renaming here, might it not be time to consider moving SFD to Stub types for discussion along the lines of CFD, RFD, and WP:UCFD? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caerwine (talk • contribs) 22:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Though I can see some sense in that, it may lead to some confusion - in many (most?) cases, stub types are discussed at WP:WSS/D prior to coming here. Having a discussion page leading to another discussion page sounds like the process is even more byzantine than it actually is. Also, not all the XFD pages have changed over - WP:AFD is still deletion, as are WP:IFD, WP:TFD and WP:MFD. Also, even when we're dealing with renaming, there is often an automatic deletion involved in the process. If we were to rename the page, I'd prefer something like "Stub types for renaming or deletion". Grutness...wha? 00:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good rationale for merging WP:WSS/D and WP:WSS/P with WP:SFD. There's already a problem in that most of /D is "send to WP:SFD", meanwhile discussions happening at /P and SfD often go past each other and sometimes even conflict, and even more often are simply out of synch and result in re-debate or in unneccesary delays to resolve at SfD something already decided at /P, and so on. Putting it all in one place would probably streamline things a whole lot. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Discovery page serves partly as a holding bin for stubs that weren't proposed, but except for the fact that they are undersized at the moment could be useful. Thus it gives the person(s) who created the stub a chance to populate the stub type so that it can be placed on the main stub list, especially if they are informed as they ought to be when the stub is listed there. It basically serves as a stub version of prod, except that deletion still has to be referred to SFD to be done. Proposals is mostly about creation and SFD for deletion/renaming. I could perhaps moving discussions about how to split existing overlarge stubs over to SFD, but there are proposals that involve more than merely splitting up existing stub types into smaller ones. Say for example via a template such as {{sfs-t}}:

‹The stub type this article is placed in by the stub template below has been proposed for splitting into smaller stub types. See stub types for deletion to help reach a consensus on what to do.›

File:Foo Fighter.png

This foo article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Some of what we do could also be streamlined (both the creation and deletion side) if we had some more criteria for what would be speediable. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that they serve different purposes, but so does CfD, and it works just fine. The point was that all of these could be combined into a Stubs for Discussion page (which would have the further benefit of not making people dig around in WikiProject space for things that are rapidly taking on the character of "official" XfD processes. The discoveries page could be a discoveries section, the proposals page could be a proposals section, and the current SfD deletion/rename page would likewise be a deletion/rename section. One-stop-shop. Anyway, I'm not INSISTING on this, just bringing it up as idea for exploration. The process we currently have is, I think, certainly hard to figure out and rather inefficient. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily object to merging /D and /P (forgiveness and permission, as it were); they're both "just" project pages, after all (though use of the latter is upheld by a guideline). But SFD is a "process" page governed by the deletion policy, and to merge the project pages with that would be to imply "policy status" to the proposal and discovery processes, or else to dilute the status of the deletion process. Or at least, to cause confusion between the two. Alai 02:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

China post mortem

I've moved and depopulated the transclusions of {{China-geo-stub}} and {{China-struct-stub}} in favour of {{PRC-geo-stub}} and {{PRC-struct-stub}}, and full-protected the latter, given the nature of their recent history. I'm having second thoughts about outright deletion of the redirects, though, since they're heavily referenced in many, many talk pages, and there might be some consternation at the "sudden" disappearance of "China". I'd suggest either leaving it as a redirect (as at present), or replacing it with a "deprecated, please re-sort" message. Alai 03:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely not delete it for the reasons you mentioned. I would suggest using a "deprecated, please re-sort" message to keep people from using "China" in the future. If we just keep it as a redirect, no one is going to stop using those templates. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Would this be a non-catted template, or one with a cat, like the notorious {{football-stub}}/Category:Football stubs? Alai 16:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We might want to have a cat so that we can easily check every so often for people who are using the China template. Speaking of the football cat, that page is a mess. *runs off to fix it up* ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

upmerge?

What does that mean?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.120.221 (talk • contribs)

It means that a stub template is created, but its corresponding category is not; the articles tagged with the template are sorted into a different category/ies, usually the parent(s) of wherever the stub cat would be. Eventually, when there are enough articles with that stub tag (60+ usually), the stub category may be created. HTH, Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Combine with parent category." Circeus 19:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An example: {{Germany-school-stub}} currently feeds into Category:European school stubs, since there are too few stubs about schools in Germany for a separate category. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kurdish , assyrian stubs

Could somebody give the result please, the time has flown. --Bohater 12:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming during discussion

Hi all - I've added a sentence in the page instructions asking editors not to rename templates or categories while they are being discussed - it usually does nothing but cause added headaches, more work, and more confused discussions. If i've been too bold, feel free to revert/amend as necessary. Grutness...wha? 01:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A marketplace for Internet content

Having reviewed some of the polling on renaming/deletion of stubs, I am now of the opinion that, as the Wikipedia has had an impact on the Internet and more traditional encyclopedic works as sources of information in the global marketplace for content, there is a developing market for non-Wikipedia online references linking to groups of Wikipedia articles that appeal to those individuals who see organization of thought that we may have overlooked or agreed by concensus to eliminate. I suspect that I will be flamed for posting this as not suitable for mention here, but I believe mention relates to (1) the frustration of editors who passionately believe in what they are doing in Wikipedia editing, especically in the organization of knowledge (stubs or otherwise) that the Wikipedia represents and (2) the number of those frustrated editors who have a choice in taking more blood pressure medication as a result of organization-by-open-committee or permanently walking away in disgust. I am not yet that disgusted, but I can see that, as some Wikipedia editors feel justified in their triumphs over others' organizational ideas here, there will be more of us who choose to index Wikipedia articles in our own cataloging reference works on web sites not under the control, influence or other regulation of that which is Wikipedia. I wish upon them the same profitable good fortune that I would wish upon myself in that endeavor. Hotfeba 17:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can index WP using your own site. You can even fork the entire encyclopedia if you desire. That's the beauty of free content. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This I have known, but I was always under the impression that the mere mention was sufficient for blacklisting and vandalism as punishment for Wiki-treason. Hotfeba 00:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that as long as you are willing to give back to the community, nobody could complain how you spend your own time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtless I'm missing some context here, but I'm not sure I see how this particularly relates to SFD. Note that the deletion of a stub type doesn't necessarily even preclude other means of on-wiki "indexing" of that material. As stub types are for the use of editors, off-wiki would seem distinctly odd. On the broader point of the periodic frustrations of attempting to organise material in one way, while other people row in assorted other directions: tell me about it. That's rather the point of having guidelines for such things, though. Alai 03:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New (good) kludge for stub deletion-protection

Any admins out there who have to occassionally protect deleted stub templates of categories nows have a little tweak they can add to {{Deletedpage}}. Deletedpage works by looking at the namespace and directing the reader to whatever XfD archives are appropriate. Unfortunately, up until now, that means that stub template and stub category protected deletions have pointed viewers to TfD or CfD rather than SfD. Now though, by typing

the correct (SfD) archive will be linked. See Template:TRNC-stub for an example. (Thanks to User:Jitse Niesen for adding the parameter). Grutness...wha? 01:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nifty. Should we add a reference to /P (to cater for the admittedly unlikely event that people decide to gain consensus for their notions for stub types, rather than just recreating them regardless)? Alai 02:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. Do you really think it would do much good? :/ Probably not - we complain about Wikiprojects cluttering "our" templates with links - it's would be pretty much the same in reverse. Grutness...wha? 01:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it? The argument against the WPJ links basically boils down to cluttering up articles with them, with the self-referential and potential "ownership" implications of that, so there's no directly symmetrical concerns with a template that's only transcluded into the template space. My concern is that absent any "please re-propose" instruction, people may form the impression that they have no other recourse than deletion review, which seems a bit over-engineered. Alai 00:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment. Feel free to suggest it at Template talk:Deletedpage. It might be a good idea after all. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion process

Hi all - I suddenly realised there was nothing about SfD at Wikipedia:Deletion process, so I added a section. Please check it out to make sure I haven't missed anything or misrepresented things at all. Grutness...wha? 01:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the deletion process page, the non-admin closure section says "Editors in good standing who have not been made administrators may close deletion discussions, with the following provisions..." one of which is that if you don't have power to delete something you can't close the discussion (see also WP:NADC). If this is true, we need some more admins to keep up with closures on this page, as so many of us loyal WPSSers are non-admins. (And Grutness can't be everywhere at once...) Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I try :) And, well, the answer to this is, of course, obvious - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pegship :) Grutness...wha? 09:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journals stubs

Could a stub expert please contribute to the stub issues at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals#Other stuff? Thanks. Carcharoth 00:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs for merger

Where should stubs for merger be proposed?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you mean actual stubs here, and not stub types, right? Just tag 'em with {{merge}} (or {{mergeto}}/{{mergefrom}}), like any other article. (If you do mean types, then list them here, since a merger necessarily involves at the least the deletion of one of the categories.) Alai 23:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

I just followed the instruction posted in WP:AN. Anyways, I was going to report that the discussion of the {{Philippine Movie Stub}} / Category:Philippine Movie Stub seems to be resolved but not yet closed for over a month now. However, seeing that there is a case that is still open which was made on November 2007, I think some admin must really sort out the page.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with a handful of the more obvious ones. Trouble is, many of the ones listed at the bottom of the page have no consensus - it may be worth thinking about relisting some of them to try to get more comments. Others, like the Philippines one, need orphaning of the old template, which is probably better handled by bot. I'll have a word with Alai - he handles the bot most often used here. Grutness...wha? 06:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus required

Hi all - consensus is required on a few items at SFD which have been open for quite some time. At present either they have very few comments, or they become a rambling discussion with no clear decision being made. If any of you could make some comments on the following, it would be very welcome:

Dec 11, 2007 - two Indian politician stub types
Jan 10 - Ohio sub-region stub categories
Feb 5 - Glass-stub

Grutness...wha? 07:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 500 of these which need to be upmerged somewhere. Can someone please suggest where, and whether this is bot-doable? thanks...Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably better to ask advice from whatever relevant WikiProject there is on the subject, given the nature of the umperger decision. I doubt it can be done by bot. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of these articles have taxoboxes, so re-sorting by bot isn't by any means infeasible. We just need to get the nod on which taxa are still "good", and which obsolete, or so heavily rescoped as to not be a good basis for doing this. Hopefully a further prod of the gastropod WPJ will do the trick: they've had plenty of time to ponder this. Alai (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is already mentioned as a notice at the top of everyone's watchlist, but the new {{Cmbox}} is likely to affect the way {{sfd-c}} and related templates look, so it's well worth taking a look. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ride-stub

I found Template:ride-stub that was marked sfr, but I can't find any entry for it... did it get overlooked somewhere? Aaronw (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See [20] It should have been fixed up, but apparently hasn't. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try here: Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/March#Rename/rescope of .7B.7BRide-stub.7D.7D. I just noticed this myself. We need to get that sfr notice off the template, one way or another. Powers ^T 16:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the spot, people. Looked to be entirely straightforward, so I assume just a random oversight. (The law of hubris decrees that at this point, someone point out how I've screwed this up, and royally...) Alai (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transcludable XfD discussions

I have proposed a new way of handling XfDs - please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Transcludable XfD discussions. JohnnyMrNinja 00:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]