Wikipedia talk:Deletion of useless stub templates and stub categories

Voting is underway on this policy here: Wikipedia:Deletion of useless stub templates and stub categories/Vote

Why this page was created

I felt this is necessary, as there are certain stubs that project members at the WikiProject Stub sorting feel are useless and have not passed TFD or CFD. Due to the nature of stubs, they can not be immediately deleted, especially when they have no use at all. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Two things:

1. Trouble is, the rules on the project page actually make the process more long-winded. You mention here stubs that haven't passed tfd or cfd, yet you say here they need to have not passed tfd - a direct contradiction. Or is the project page meant to read "once any of the following guidelines have been met"?

   I wrote it in a hurry. I meant "once any of the following guidelines have been met". TFD and CFD rules still apply, but we can optionally skip that process. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2. How do we list stubs as useless? Do we mention their uselessness on Talk:Stub sorting, or here, or put them on tfd? Or do we just revert them to stub or rename them as felt appropriate? It's all a little confusing... Grutness|^hello? 06:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

   This is not the final draft. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Clarification

Okay, so I'm bad at writing this. Let me write what I really meant:

1. If the stub template was listed at templates for deletion:
   • Notification must given to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting during the voting process
   • The consensus on templates for deletion was delete
     • May only be deleted after:
     • Once all uses of the stub template has been changed back to {{stub}} (or an appropriate related subject-related stub)
       • Optionally: The appropriate stub category can be deleted if and only if no other stub template is using that category.

1. Else if the stub category has been placed on categories for deletion
   • Notification must given to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting during the voting process
   • The consensus on categories for deletion was delete
     • May only be deleted after:
     • The related stub template that uses the stub category is either deleted or is changed to use a different existing stub category.
       • If the related stub template is going to be deleted, all uses of the stub template must change back to {{stub}} (or an appropriate related subject-related stub)

1. Else if Project members at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting feel that the stub is useless and needs to be removed after it has been completely discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting

1. Else if a stub template and/or stub category has been deemed as vandalism at the discretion of an administrator

1. Else if the stub has not been approved at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting for its creation

Updated

Okay, I updated the page. I hope that is much clear now. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unapproved stubs

I have a problem with the immediate deletion of unapproved stubs. I can see that it is a useful thing to keep the project in the loop and organized, but I don't see the problem with listing it for vote (according to the proposed policy) prior to deletion. Perhaps the user isn't aware of the existence of the stub sorting project and having their stuff unilaterally deleted might give a pretty bad impression, to say the least. There are existing policies to cover vandalism and what not, so I don't really see the need to have this section. --jag123 10:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Same here. Virtually none of the regional geo-stubs I made were "approved", as I did not realise at the time how much more organised and regimented stub-sorting was compared to other projects on Wikipedia. Should they now be deleted according to this rule? (What's more, having them approved would have taken considerable time - it is very likely that if they had had to go through a review process I would have got bored of the whole idea and gone off to work in another part of Wikipedia!). Grutness|^hello? 23:44, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think creating stubs that are planned anyway (a much more compelte set of area geo stubs were planned in the new hierarchy) should be a problem. --Circeus 22:07, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'd still prefer it if an unapproved stub were debated by WP:WSS prior to deletion, with the exception of those obviously created for vandalism or other spurious purposes. Grutness|^hello?

A couple of suggestions about the proposal, and a comment

Discrepancy in proposal

I note that the "Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting removal process", rules 1 and 2 talk of a 10-day process, but rules 2 and 3 also refer to a two-week period. Personally I feel that the shorter period is already on the long side (a week would be fine in my view), but whichever way it needs to be tidied up. Grutness|^hello? 06:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems to me that one week is more than enough to reach a consensus. Two weeks could be needed in controversial cases, but I believe those are rare. --Sn0wflake 16:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Extend the definition of "vandalism"...

... to include frivolously created stubs (such as {{banana-stub}}, {{template stub}} etc). Grutness|^hello? 06:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The best point about this proposal

IMO the best thing about this proposal is it lets it stand alone from tfd and cfd. At the moment the process of stub deletion is a lengthy one. Deletions are proposed on WP:WSS, and if agreed to there are then sent for further debate at tfd, with the categories going to cfd. As it is, when something is sent to cfd the usual comment is "delete if the template gets deleted by tfd" - in other words, it's merely a rubber-stamp. It is also possible (inevitable?) that there will be occasions when WP:WSS don't want a stub, but deletion is not agreed to by tfd. The corrent proposals streamlime the deletion process, something which is greatly needed. Grutness|^hello? 06:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Order of steps

Can we clarify that determining consensus precedes emptying the category? As written the proposal describes deleting the cateogry/template once the category is empty. It should have discussion and consensus determining before that. RJFJR 13:57, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

WHY is it proposed

I think the introduction needs to explain why precisely is this proposal (threat stub deletion separately from the TFD and CFD processes) made, and that we do not actually want to "take control" of this process, but rather point out that those who work out the hierarchy and rules for stub creation are more likely to have an idea of the uselessness or not of a stub (remember the american state stubs?). Circeus 16:39, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

remember them? Two of them were re-created yesterday! Grutness|^hello? 23:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should also make it clear in the introduction that all deletions per this policy will have been discussed at length by the WSS, and another vote on TFD and CFD would be redundant. But maybe we shouldn't discuss these deletions on WSS/Criteria as we do now, but start a WP:SMFD (stub messages for deletion) to make the process more transparent and inline with the other deletion-related pages. -- grm_wnr Esc 04:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if the WP pages for Stub sorting need a bit of an overhaul anyway - it's forked a bit and grown into a bit of a tangle. But I suspect (shudder) that we'd need a special new page to discuss whether an overhaul is needed! Grutness|^hello? 00:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why not start a new project page, to be used as a hub for all projects related to stub sorting? Once it is properly established, discussions could be held regarding new policies and a careful analysis of all stub types could be made. We could then propose the creation of new categories and the deletion of old obsolete categories. I mean... it's been three days since you first posted the list of obsolete stubs and it seems nothing has happened. If we had a effective system at our disposal, the members of the project could work together at quickly emptying categories and in one day or two we'd have a much cleaner stub list. What is needed anyway for a policy to be approved? --Sn0wflake 01:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support a complete overhaul of all stub-related pages (Not just WP:WSS). The whole topic is mighty confusing, redundant and sometimes even contradictory. -- grm_wnr Esc 10:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support Overhaul too. Circeus 12:10, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't want to turn this into a vote ;) This doesn't really belong here, I'm afraid. I started a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#Overhaul_of_stub_page_structure. -- grm_wnr Esc 15:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)