Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion

For discussion about creation of stub types or the hierarchy of stub categories,
see Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals.

Please click this link to start a new topic.

Archives

Disclaimer

We see so many non-stub-sorters on this page who get their backs up about stub sorting and its guidelines...maybe some boilerplate is in order, viz:

This nomination is not motivated by any personal, moral, or content judgment on the part of the nominator. Please take comments at face value without any implied insult or slight intended, as stub sorters are of a get-it-done, stick-to-the-guidelines, show-me-how-this-is-useful nature. Thank you.

And maybe an image?

Only half kidding, Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only half kidding when I say it sounds like a great idea! :) Grutness...wha? 21:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroid stubs

A discussion about how to deal with asteroid stubs has been on-going here, continued from May 2008 ff. One user has created thousands of these, and there is consensus I think for putting the information into a table (with thousands of rows). The creator, (Captain panda), is understandably unhappy about deleting all his stubs, and having no insight into the Wiki administrative and policy issues, I wonder if someone here could help us? Thanks Wwheaton (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American election stubs

I tagged this for renaming to Category:United States election stubs but I don't understand the instruction for listing it for today's date. Can someone with expertise please complete the listing? Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - done. For future reference, if it's the first or only nomination for a specific day, you make a subpage like Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/August/6. Put hte date at the top with ===This header level===, then add a new section with ====this header level==== for the nomination, giving the name of the problem stub type and your proposal (deletion/renaming etc). > Then add the subpage under the "Listings" leading on the main SFD page by putting the subpage name in double curly brackets (as if it was a template). Grutness...wha? 22:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. There are good arguments for moving the page, such as the fact that not all discussions end with either keeping or deleting. However, there is also valid opposition. This is not the only page where discussion on stub types takes place (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries), and the page is also a part of Wikipedia:Deletion process (because it does include deletion), and renaming it would result in less consistency between the different deletion discussion pages. On balance, I don't see the necessary consensus for renaming the page at this point. It's a shame that so few people participated in the discussion, but it may be a sign that not very many people see the current name as a problem. Jafeluv (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion → Wikipedia:Stub types for discussion — Relisted for further input. Jafeluv (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should be renamed to Wikipedia:Stub types for discussion, as it includes both deletion and rename. See e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, setting a correct example. Let's have your opinions, please. Debresser (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been suggested before, and in some ways it's a reasonable idea. Problem is that a lot of stub types come here only after they've been discussed (at WP:WSS/D). As such, considering this the primary discussion page can be confusing. That's one reason why this page hasn't been renamed in the past. The other reason is more straightforward - "X for discussion" is the exception, not the rule. We have Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, Wikipedia:Files for deletion, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If anything, it's the categories page that is an odd one out. It and WP:Rfd are the only "discussion" pages on the Wikipedia:Deletion discussions tree... Grutness...wha? 23:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to your second point. Actually, this argument is really not an argument. This page and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion are indeed not only for deletion discussions, but for renaming and merging as well. You even have separate templates for "stubs for deletion" and "stubs for rename". This is not the case with the other pages you mentioned. Debresser (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first point I understand better, but still I find that more of a technicality than a real reason to oppose the rename. Debresser (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second point really also argues against CfD being different - except in rare cases, where a category is renamed the original name is deleted - similarly here. It is worth noting that more of the work done at SfD is like TfD than like CfD (we have more templates go through here than categories in general), so it makes more sense to keep this page the same as the templates equivalent. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. You have good arguments. Let's see if there are more people who want to comment, and try to come to a conclusion within the next 1-2 weeks. Debresser (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Stub types for Discussion" is preferable to "Stub types for Deletion" because it emphasises that the focus is on discussion and collaborating rather than deleting. True, a lot end up getting deleted, but there are a lot of other possible conclusions to a discussion as well. I would prefer all the "deletion" discussions were renamed in this way, actually. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've posted on the Village pump to get more input and reach a conclusion. Debresser (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add the same at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. Hopefully we can get some more opinions on this. Grutness...wha? 01:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've a question: Why are new stub type proposals split off to a second page? Does this one get too big, or something, because I think it would be useful to bring all specific discussion types onto one page, and indeed, rename it. This means we (rather, you) can centralize the effort of dealing with stub types. --Izno (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's enormous, and a significantly different process. I think it would confuse things immensely if they were combined, and would cause problems for WP:WSS whether the combined page wwere where WSS/P now is or where SFD now is. The proposals process is basically run under the auspices of WP:WSS simply because 90-95% of the proposals are done by WP:WSS members as part of the day-to-day business of stub sorting, and because it will be predominantly WSS that has to deal with any stub types created as a result of it; as such, it makes sense for it to be run as a WSS subpage. It is, however, very large even when split into its monthly subpages. WP:SFD is separate because it encourages people not directly involved in WP:WSS to have an important say in the decision making (lord knows we get enough calls as being "stub nazis' without trying to have the deletion process as part of WSS!) Grutness...wha? 23:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also would be hesitant to add new stub proposals to this page. But I believe there is enough justification for the word "discussion" as is. Debresser (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I think there's enough justification to consider it as a name, I don't think there's enough justification to actually change it from its current name. The current name is, as I pointed out, more in keeping with most of the other related process pages, especially Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, which it is closest to in terms of purpose. "Categories for discussion" makes sense as a name for that page, given that soft redirects are frequently used for any categories renamed - for the most part, that does not happen with stub templates, and it never normally happens with stub categories, since such categories are automatically fed by templates and any former names can simply be deleted with no problems. It would also likely create confusion given that the discover page is already the de facto "stub types for discussion" page. Stub types are generally only brought to this page from there if there is sufficient grounds to believe that they are likely to be deleted, or renamed in such a way that the deletion of the current name of either template or category (or both) is appropriate. If a stub template needs renaming but the current name is acceptable as a redirect, then it is simply moved without the need to go through this page. If a template is brought here, then either it is itself being proposed for deletion or any rename that results will likely see the deletion of the former name. The same is true with any category brought here. As such deletion is directly or indirectly the proposed outcome of almost every nomination brought here, even if the purpose of the nomination is to change the name of a specific stub type. For that reason, "Stub types for deletion" is an accurate and preferable name for this page. Grutness...wha? 08:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, that is only a technicality, which is by the way also valid for Wikipedia:Categories for disucssion. Debresser (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. As I pointed out, permanent categories, when renamed, often have soft redirects at their old names. Stub categories never do.As such, CFD does not always lead to either keep or delete - SFD does. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about that. But that is not what I meant. I meant that the fact that rename = deletion of old name + creation of new name is not areason to keep calling this page "Stub types for deletion" because 1. it still is a rename in all but technicality 2. creation of new stubs is not included in the word "deletion". Debresser (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have given an excellent argument as to why WP:Categories for discussion is misnamed, but none that holds water asd to why WP:Stub types for deletion is misnamed. Let me summarise - WP:SFD is a Wikipedia:Deletion process page. It is not a Wikipedia:Discussion process page - there is no such thing. It is linked from Wikipedia:Deletion process, as are all similar pages, the overwhelming majority of which are called deletion process pages-Templates for deletion, Articles for deletion, Miscellany for deletion, Files for deletion, and Stub types for deletion. It also follows the guidelines and policies laid down and otherwise noted at WP:Introduction to deletion process, WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, WP:Deletion debates, and WP:Guide to deletion. Categories are virtually alone in their uunorthodox naming (the only similarly named page is redirects for discussion) - as such, it is CFD that seems to require renaming, and the arguments yoiu have given above indicate exactly why that is the case - not why SFD should follow suit by going against the largely standard naming. If you wish to change SFD, then consider changing WP:DELPRO first. If there is no move to do that, then there is no logical reason why this page should be changed. Grutness...wha? 15:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, when you stop and look at all the similar pages logically, you';ll see that there isn't any clear reason for one name or the other in many of the pages. At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, the most normal outcome is either keep or delete. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, merge and redirect are two frequent outcomes. But given that five of the seven deletion process pages are at "X for deletion", surely that is the standard and the other two are the exceptions. Grutness...wha? 22:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the points made here simply highlight the fact that the current deletion process is broken. deletion discussions should always be discussions, but there are simply too many concurrent discussions going on at once for that to be really effective. As a consequence, the "main" deletion discussions are seen by many to be arbitrary, and there is quite an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the whole thing (see: Wikipedia:Areas for Reform). Personally, I just don't give much weight to consistency arguments. I give them some weight, but only where there's noting better to use as a decision maker. I guess that the question here is, what do you want the page to be? Do those of you working this process want this page to only be about deletions?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm of the same mind as Martin on this, in that I think that using the name "Discussion" instead of "Deletion" is a better choice all around. The reasons not to move the page are decent, but I guess that I just don't find them compelling. The structural differences between Stubs for (deletion/discussion) and stub creation will be understandable to those of you who participate regularly in this process, but most coming to the deletion process likely won't be interested enough in that to possibly be confused by it. Besides, if it does turn into a real problem, you guys could always just switch it back. Regardless, its just better to use "Discussion" instead simply because it subtly changes expectations in those who come here.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then change all the others and the umbrella page which deals with all such processes. It's part of the deletion process system and named accordingly - it should stay at this name unless a similar change is made to all the pages listed at WP:Deletion process. Grutness...wha? 15:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm game for that! However, this is a fairly typical reply to RM's from people who just don't want to do the rename. It actually is an Wikipedia:Other stuff exists argument, which is fine but... it just doesn't really address the issue(s). You said yourself that moves/name changes are often a result of stub deletion discussions, so right away it's misnamed. I could make similar arguments about all of the other "X for deletion" pages as well of course, but since this discussion is about this page I won't.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 16:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, it's a typical reply of someone who can't see the point in changing them all, when only two are out of line with all the others. It's not so much an WP:Other stuff exists argument as a WP:Naming conventions argument, though - we have naming standards for all other types of pages, why don't we have them for the deletion (not discussion) pages, too? And given that this is one of sevenj pages that should be similarly named, it's silly not to mention the remaining pages in this discussion. All but two of them are named by one standard - a standard also used by umbrella pages dealing with all of them - so moving this page away from that standard is odd at the very least and against normal Wikipedia practices at most. Grutness...wha? 22:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a huge practical benefit to renaming it. –xeno^talk 15:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I see only 1 editor opposing (vehemently), neither do I see massive suport for a rename here. Perhaps let's close the discussion as "Keep, in view of no consensus for rename". Somebody do the honors, please? Debresser (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly vehemently at all - just my usual verbose self coupled with some common sense. You ought to see me when I'm vehement about something :). I make it two editors who don't see that renaming is worthwhile versus three who do, BTW, and given there are over 150 stubsorters and tons of other VP regulars who would have known about the debate, it seems that it's largely a case of fuss (and potential work in renaming things) over nothing. Grutness...wha? 23:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should give it the 7 day run, and then one of us at WP:RM will come along and archive it.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's had a 19 day run so far... this was proposed in mid-August. Grutness...wha? 10:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, yea... between you and debresser. Anyway, I don't actually have strong feelings on this. The RM process is there to provide some outside exposure to a naming issue is all. If those of you who are more involved in this process feel like closing it, then I don't think anyone would really complain.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - makes sense. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's give it a bit more time, as we don't really have a consensus either way on this at the moment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, only one editor insists on keeping things the way they are. It is just that nobody else cares enough to express his or her opinion. Sic transit gloria mundis. Debresser (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this has gone on for a while already, but I've relisted the debate for another week in hopes of attracting further comments. It's just not a very good idea to rename an internal process based on the support of three people (out of five total). Looks like WT:WSS has already been notified of the discussion; I hope some more people will show up so that this can be decided. Jafeluv (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close and make an RfC for it, since here doesn't seem to be enough participation. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the TFD folks seem to have decided to change: Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion#Rename as Templates for Discussion. :)
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 15:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Renaming of multiple categories, including one or more stub categories

Please express your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions#Renaming of multiple categories, including one or more stub categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed in closing old debates

Hi all - there's getting to be quite a backlog here, and help is needed to close some debates. I've closed as many as I can comfortably - those which I haven't taken part in, and any I have taken part in that had unanimous outcomes. I'm loath to close any where my comments were different to one or more other commenters, even where there seems a clear consensus. Some of those needing to be closed seem fairly straightforward (UFO-stub, for instance), but it would be better if someone else who knows how this page works did the closing. Any volunteers? Grutness...wha? 23:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XfD logs

See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#XfD logs. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have all XfD be substituted and link to the actual page of discussion

Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions#Have all XfD be substituted and link to the actual page of discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editsemiprotected

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please add the semiprotection icon template to this page since it doesn't currently appear. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

A stub template has been given a {{sfr-t}}. Q1: why does {{sfr-t}} mention deletion (twice), when deletion is not intended? Q2: why is there no link to the relevant renaming discussion? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A1: {{sfr-t}} and it's equivalent for categories, {{sfr-c}} both "cover all the bases". If it only said renaming "renaming", yet the discussion here deemed that it should actually be deleted, then the discussion would need to be closed, a new sfd template would need to be added to it, and then a new discussion would need to be opened. That's simply not practical. Q2: no direct link is provided because of the way discussions are transcribed on the page. I suppose it could be done, but given that individual debates are more often than not part of double nominations, and are always written into small daily transcluded subpages, it would be messy. Mind you, Some variation of the system used for cfd might well be possible and might not be too bad an idea. Grutness...wha? 18:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q3: exactly where is the relevant renaming discussion? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the template's "What links here" (link in the toolbox on the left of the page) and choose Wikipedia namespace - it'll guide you to here. Grutness...wha? 01:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States history book stubs

Category:United States history book stubs was nominated on 28 February for speedy renaming to Category:History book about the United States stubs. Since it is a stub category, it is ineligible for speedy renaming, and the listing has been removed. I am posting this notice here so that a discussion about the category, if it is thought to be necessary, can be initiated. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth discussing, though the new name is pretty cumbersome. I'll add it to the nomination page. Grutness...wha? 22:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion re: Re-listing

A suggestion for WP:SFD. We don't normally re-list nominations - they just hang around at the bottom of the page until someone gets fed up with them and closes them. I'd like to propose the following:

If discussion is continuing, an item should be kept at the bottom of the page if no clear outcome or best course of action has emerged on the stub type under discussion
If there has been no new comment on an item for a month and there is still no clear outcome or best course of action, it should be re-listed, per the normal methods on CFD and other process pages, in order to gain more comments.

Most of the time, clarity of action - if not always consensus - is reached. In other cases, such as the current US-history-book-stub discussion, they can hand around unresolved for a long time. Hopefully this will keep the ball rolling on a couple of items every now and again. (Crossposted at WT:WSS) Grutness...wha? 22:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, since there were no objections, i've gone ahead and relisted the sticking nom, using two new templates - {{sfd relist top}} and {{sfd relist bottom}}. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using essays for basic guidelines

Sadly predictable, but unproductive. Process pages should not refer to user essays for basic reading material on how to use them. If this material has consensus (which it probably has) then it should either be imported here or moved to a sub-page. "Reducing clutter" is not an excuse to send readers into userspace for essential guidance on process. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The essay was moved into the Wikipedia namespace - this simply points to a redirect. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So there are still several problems:

The content is marked as an essay. If the consensus is that it's appropriate guideline material it should be de-essayed.
It's located under the Wikiproject. SFD is a full-blown process and should not be dependent on material from a Wikiproject to understand. The correct place for explanatory material would be under this article.
The page itself still points to the user redirect.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True
It is not an explanation for this process page per se, as is clearly explained in the text. It is an explanation regarding the stub-classifying process. As such it is appropriate to be under WP:WSS, and also appropriate to link to this page, given this pages inseperable link with stub-classifying.
Remember WP:SOFIXIT?

Grutness...wha? 23:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Premature Iran categories

Hi guys. As creator of these categories (this, this and this), I agree that they are still premature, but I have plan to complete these categories in a Month. I just made those for in first step to sorting Iranian writing articles that spread through the Wikipedia. Unfortunately most of Iranians I see in Wikipedia are sensitive in political articles but no one help me in literature parts. Now, what would I do after this nomination for deletion? Is it possible to stop deletion?P. Pajouhesh (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do is to simply state why you think they shouldn't be deleted in the nomination. If they are deleted, there's nothing to stop you proposing similar stub types at WP:WSS/P - which is the standard procedure. Note however that stub categories are never filled without templates, so the current stub categories have serious problems with them. I'd suggest you have a good read of WP:STUB before making any proposals. Grutness...wha? 01:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use AWB to gradually reduce the use of moved stub tags?

I came up with an idea of how to gradually reduce the use of stub tags we rename but keep the redirect: Add these redirects to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects. What this means is, that any time someone uses AutoWikiBrowser(called AWB for short) to edit a stub with one of these tags, AWB will sugest that, in addition to anything else the user may be doing, that (s)he replace the old tag with the new tag. Note that users aren't supposed to use AWB just to fix these redirects; we're talking here about something which would happen in addition to some other edit. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of this recently when I set up a {{Euro- to {{Europe- find and replace in AWB so I support. How about the redirects from stub templates without diacritics (eg {{Galati-geo-stub}} → {{Galaţi-geo-stub}})? Severo^TC 05:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And all the NZ- ones to NewZealand-, and -hist- to -history- for that matter. There's certainly quite a few places this could be used. Grutness...wha? 06:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NZ- ones are covered by Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/September#A group of redirect reversals; although I wouldn't automaticly rename any templates there under this discussion without a new discussion, I would definitely include any redirect to the NewZealand- form which already exists to be included - especially that there's no clear list of all the NZ- tags it applied to at the time. And I've found a number of -history- tags in discussions.

About the diacritics - I'm not sure.

I'm currently in the process of creatinga list at User:Od Mishehu/SfD moved templates, I started at August 06 and am going forward - already reached October 07. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfd top

I've added

{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#ifeq:{{{sig|}}}|no||– ~~<noinclude></noinclude>~~}}

to Template:Sfd top to ensure that closes are signed. This allows for more transparency, as admins frequently neglect to sign their closes. I've used the code from Template:DRV top to make this change. Cunard (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished business

The discussion at Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2011/August/18#Rail_-.3E_Rail_transport closed as "delete" but it seems no action was taken on the templates. The templates are not listed in the "to orphan" section of the main STFD page. Is there a bot that is supposed to take care of those things? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK there is no bot that does this, and I admit i'm not completely knowledgeable to deal with all the closes I make, and usually the cleanup is left on AN. But on this case the result was actually rename, and it looks like that done...or am I being blind? -- DQ (t) (e) 14:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The existing uses were never updated to the new names, and the old stub template names were never deleted. So the outcome that is in place is "Rename, keep redirect/Move" rather than "Rename". — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, thanks for clearing that up. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes we allow these things to happen naturally (using AWB:template redirect replacement for example), not expecting the "preservers of obsolete redirects" brigade (of one) will be reverting anyone that does so. <meh> Rich Farmbrough, 14:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The questions are (1) Was the intention to rename all the existing uses and (2) is there a bot to do it. Apparently there is no bot. If the goal was to rename all the existing uses, I can do it quite easily, which will (finally) resolve that old discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since DQ, who closed the original discussion, seem to indicate the goal really was to rename the templates, I added these to the "to orphan" list on the main page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help, please

I would appreciate some help in getting Category:Sub-Antarctic island geography stubs renamed to Category:Subantarctic island geography stubs. I am finding the instructions on how to do this somewhat confusing – no doubt due to my own mental inadequacies. The renaming is to bring the spelling into line with the parent category, following a speedy renaming there, and should not be controversial. Thanks for any assistance. Maias (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - and we should find a standard way of doing this through the category speedy renaming method.... Severo^TC 13:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Severo; much appreciated. Maias (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stub category visibility

It has been suggested that stub categories should be hidden. Please comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 6#Category:Stub categories. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need this deletion discussion category?

This proposal has been implemented for some time. Just closing the discussion. -- Selket ^Talk 22:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit: Just adding a few more details about what had been done (already prior to the close) to implement the decision. It's important to note that this was a procedural closure since there was a pretty clear consensus by the end and the proposed solution was already implemented.

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion was marked as historical

A note was added to Categories for Discussion to indicate that stubs get nominated there.

A note was added to Templates for Discussion to indicate that one should discuss stub templates along with the corresponding category at CFD.

As of mid May, all then open SfD discussions were migrated to CfD.

-- Selket ^Talk 05:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do we really need a separate discussion for stub types? Can't these be part of Miscellaneous pages for deletion? It certainly wouldn't overwhelm there. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. SFD has always had ginormous backlogs due to its very low traffic. An XFD page should not have a six-month backlog. Twinkle doesn't even have an option for SFD nominations. I think the backlog and low traffic may owe in part to stub types so rarely needing deletion or change in comparison to any other space — SFD is the only XFD I know of where there are massive gaps in the daily logs due to so few new nominations arising (for instance, no new SFD nominations were made between March 17 and April 10). Therefore, I don't think it would do any harm to merge SFD with MFD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is MFD the best place? See my comment below, if we want to keep it all together in one process I think CFD is better. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - MfD uses the single page per nom system, which would be utterly ridiculous for this (and honestly is utterly ridiculous for MfD in my opinion.) Ask again after MfD has switched to the daily log system of most of the other XfDs (including stubs for deletion, by the by). - jc37 22:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Single page per nom"? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AfD and MfD use the single page method. to nominate something to create a whole page for that single discussion. I believe all other xfds use a daily log page method. where all discussions for that day are on the same page. See CfD and TfD for other examples.

I can understand the usage at AfD due to the high volume of pages nominated daily... But MfD? And definitely not for SfD. - jc37 22:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC

Single-page noms don't seem like they'd trip up stub types being nominated. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I also agree having a separate venue for Stubs is unnecessary especially given the slow rate of return. I think its better to merge it with MFD. I also agree with the comments above that MFD should be migrated to the log system. Does anyone know what it would take to initiate that process change? Kumioko (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there was consensus for it, I could probably do it myself. Mostly just time consuming. that said, if MfD has any bots (archiving or otherwise) we'd need to inform the bot owners. - jc37 22:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, I recommend that if this RFC gets approved we do it at that time. Twinkle also would be affected but none of those things are show stoppers IMO. Kumioko (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - MfD should move to the subpage system. This was already voted on and passed (as was CfD), but nobody wanted to put the effort into the code. So, merge MfD into the SfD structure, and everybody wins. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I think it might make more sense to nominate the template at templates for discussion. This page would remain simply to tell people to nominate there. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I certainly had problems getting my head around SFD - mixing them in elsewhere would just be asking for inconsistancy. Agathoclea (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you were having a problem with SFD, would moving it to somewhere else not make it easier? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No as the knowledgepool is here. Also there should be rarely a situation where urgency of deletion is required. Agathoclea (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started here as asking a simple question, and never expected an Request for Comment to come from it. Yet, my simple question (why stub types for deletion) has remained unanswered. The "knowledge base" argument seems kinda bogus to me - look at redirects for discussion and see how many users don't understand policy there, yet the final decisions always match policy because of the commenters who are knowledgable, who teach other users. Moving this to templates or misc for deletion would give you that opportunity to teach other users. Right now, we have a walled garden that few understand and that nearly no one visits, guaranteeing that the knowledge base will never expand, and possibly will die out as editors retire or lose interest. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I think that if we merge it, it should probably be to CFD, which is more similar to it - it handles pages which exist for categorization purposes; many of the pages it handles are categories; it's the place to go for renames as well as deletions; many times discussions here are the result of CFD closures for renames. There may be something to be said about having the stub tags discussed at TFD, but then that would make renames be double-work. (Deletions wouldn't be per former CSD C3, now part of G8). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking templates, since a new user who isn't familiar is gonna nominate the template, not the category. Once the template is gone, category is gone as speedy delete (same as deleting talk pages). If consensus is to rename, that's a speedy category rename. Either way, there are two steps, the category and the template, so I see either option as equal effort. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that many (maybe even most) of the SFD nominations are about the categories, and not the templates, due to underpopulated categories. We keepthe templates around, so that if/when there are enough stubs for the category, it can be recreated with little human time and effort. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place. Lugnuts (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me how "SFD always has a ginormous backlog, and is currently backlogged by SIX MONTHS" is not a problem. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 19:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the truth is it is kinda broken, has been that way for a while now and we are trying to fix that. The fact is far more interest and attention is paid to TFD and MFD and SFD's would be perfectly appropriate in either (though I lean toward TFD myself) rather than a completely separate venue for very little activity. Kumioko (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, tell me how a SIX MONTH backlog in an XFD is not "broken". It's obvious that few people pay attention to SFD, hence the massive backlog. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page doesn't have a five month backlog because the participation is low. The backlog is there because admins don't close these discussions. I don't know why they don't do it, but I think merging this will carry the backlog to an other venue. For example two admins support the proposal, thus they know about the backlog. And what have they done? Nothing. I don't see, why this should change, if these discussions take place at an another place. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 19:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do Templates for discussion, Categories for discussion and Miscellany for Deletion all have it common? Admins who promptly close discussions. If we move these discussions to any of these three places, the backlogs will disappear and not come back. It's not what's being deleted, it's a poor venue that's causing the problem. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The perennially low rate of participation at SFD and its backlogs make it an excellent candidate for merging. This wouldn't be the first time that we got rid of an entire deletion venue by merging — see Wikipedia:User categories for discussion (history). Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A XfD page with low traffic does not yield a true community consensus. MfD is not overcrowded, and could easily handle the traffic. We should avoid having small niches of processes , because they get over-specialized attention. This will encourage broader attention, and yield better decisions. As for what it should be merged with, I wouldn't oppose further merges for XfdD processes also. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Inquiry - Is there any reason no one has informed WT:MFD about this move? Just seems odd to exclude the users that frequent that forum. Achowat (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't yet have any consensus that MfD would get this. Templates and Categories for discussion have also been suggested.
When you go to MFD, one of the first things you see is {{Centralized discussion}}, which has for a few days carried a link to this discussion (that's how I found it, coming from AFD) in a rather prominent fashion. Nyttend (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to a higher traffic page, for both more attention and more variety of opinion. For a system (per above page per nom discussion) I'd prioritise ease of watching for changes in general (like on stub proposals) rather than following individual discussions (as AfD), as the majority of discussions should be fairly short and uncontroversial. I'd also like to point out that Discoveries is just as broken, often going a month without a post and generating on average less than one response per topic. I think it should also be merged, into Proposals/Xfd based on quality of discovered template/cat. --Qetuth (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sending category deletion discussions to MfD. why aren't they already at CfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— There's not much point in maintaining such a low usage XfD, and for those who argue that it would overwhelm MfD, the extremely low frequency of SfD nominations would have little to no impact on the much more active MfD.—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 17:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't think I've ever posted at Stub types for deletion, but have worked MfD for a bit. MfD handles a variety of things, kind of a catch-all, and the outcomes vary and often are other than delete, so MfD can handle the different outcomes of SfD. The low volume of requests at Stub types for deletion can be handled at MfD as well. As for the other targets (TfD, CfD), I think SfD was created probably because CfD didn't want to deal with the SfD minutiae being interspersed with their sometimes very long, complex discussions and the templte stub types seems to naturally go with the category stub types. SfD would fit fine within MfD and its about time we started consolidating some of the process. If CfD want category stub types back and don't mind taking on template stub types (which are not categories), then SfD's tasks should be transferred into CfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I was asked to provide input on this discussion based on my having been active at the time stubs-for-deletion was initially created; I've not been active in the stub-community for a long time. My opinion today is that changes to operational methods which allow the stub-community to move away from the need (perceived or actual) for Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/The nature of stub sorters is for the good. Merger of stubs-for-deletion into one of the canonical x-for-discussion fora is one step in that direction. One of the concerns with doing such a merge which has not been raised yet follows from the 'nature of stub sorters' essay, that being the _you just don't understand the importance of stubbing_ and similar _you don't get it_ arguments. Stub template-category pairs are a different beast from other template-category pairs, yet all such pairs are considered at Templates-for-Discussion except for userbox templates — my presumption about userbox deletion being at misc-for-deletion is that people can get pretty touchy when a userbox is nominated, particularly if the topic is around religion, politics, sex or similarly personal things. In my opinion, I think that joining the Infoboxes and the Navboxes and the article improvement-related templates (which stub templates are) would be a reasonable and positive move. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to CFD The current venue is not attracting sufficient participation or activity, which rules out any benefit in treating stub types separately. Things must get done at some point and six-month backlogs are not acceptable. Wider participation will improve the process and is most easily achieved with a venue move. SFB 09:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where to merge, where to merge

Considering that we (mostly) have a consensus to merge this to another deletion discussion venue, and that it seems that no one can even explain why this one even exists, I think we should move forward to determine where to have stub deletion discussions. I've heard three suggested:

Templates for discussion, as the stub template is the most visible part of a stub-type.
Categories for discussion, as it is often the category that drives the discussion, especially if the proposal is to rename, and at times the template for future resurrection while the category gets deleted.
Miscellany for deletion, as these discussions don't neatly fit into any other category.

Comments? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC) BTW, I notified the talk pages of those discussion pages D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that CFD is probably the best - the templates exist largely for the purpose of categorization; the categories are discussed more frequently than the templates; and TFD never handles renames, while CFD does. I think that since we're tralking about categories and templates, that MFD is probably not the place for it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd pick CfD, as per Od Mishehus reasoning. --Qetuth (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CFD per above — stub templates tie into the category system. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CfD seems like the best fit. Stub types exist primarily for categorization. The need for a particular stub category (or lack thereof) determines whether it continues to exist (and if so, whether it's renamed), decisions routinely made at CfD. TfD is the worst fit, as the templates are largely peripheral. —David Levy 07:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with CFD. Not only because it fits better, but because the 'Learning Curve' for transistioning from talking about, say, Templates or User Drafts is going to be higher than Categories. Achowat (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If going anywhere I'd agree that CfD would be the best place. Agathoclea (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TFD. Be aware that the existence of {{catfd}} and {{catfd2}} make it simple to create hybrid template/category discussions at TFD. Additionally, once a stub template is deleted, the category can be deleted under CSD G8. Hence, TFD would be the most appropriate venue for stub type discussions. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be aware that the existence of {{catfd}} and {{catfd2}} make it simple to create hybrid template/category discussions at TFD.
Irrespective of which forum is used, appropriate tagging (combining mentions of the category and template) won't be an issue.
Additionally, once a stub template is deleted, the category can be deleted under CSD G8.
Either way, both the category and the template can be deleted in a single go. But it was stated above that it's customary to "keep the templates around, so that if/when there are enough stubs for the category, it can be recreated with little human time and effort". —David Levy 03:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TfD. The template-category association is one created for convenience, not necessity. It does provide one type of co-location between stub and its proper category, but inclusion of the template in the proper category would, in fact, accomplish much the same, but without some of the conveniences of categories, such as ability to handle large # of articles better than 'what links here'. It is the application of the template leading to a) the tagging with separable navigation (be that via category or what-links-here) and b) the text footer indicating 'this is a stub ... y'all expand it please' are the core of stub-sorting and stub-notice benefits. The Category is a usability addition and not core. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The templates reflect the categories' existence, not the reverse. (We don't create a "Foo stub" template unless it's decided that "Foo stubs" is an appropriate grouping.) The decision of whether to keep or eliminate a stub type typically comes down to whether the categorization is regarded as helpful, so it makes sense for the discussions to be held in the forum most relevant to this. —David Levy 03:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point is settled (going to CfD), which is OK with me, but I did want to follow-up with a comment. The point of stubbing is tagging articles to raise awareness among specific editor communities; the point of stubbing is not categorization - categorization is a means to an end, and not the only means to the intended end. I understand where you are coming from, David, in re current operations, but I'm trying to look at this from an effect point-of-view rather than an operational one. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CfD I had suggest MfD, but I agree thaty CfD seems the most closely allied place DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Templates, for the simple reason that the template is the most visible part of a stub-type, and that's what most editors unfamiliar with the process will do anyway. Altho, I might go for a hybrid, where a category-only proposal goes to categories and all others to templates. I don't have a strong opinion on this aspect and I'm perfectly willing to go along with whichever option is chosen. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TfD if the template needs discussion (I will note that TfD does in fact handle template moves and renames, contrary to Od Mishehu's comment, though not often), CfD if the category needs discussion, and probably TfD where both are intended to be discussed. In other words, Donde's comment. --Izno (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Generalized support - I think it should be merged into either CfD, MfD or TfD, but as to which one, I don't give a damn. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CfD. The stub template is nothing more than a beautified wrapper of the categorization. T. Canens (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CfD as first choice for the majority of cases where the discussion is really about categorisation, and implementation of the nominations requires the expertise found at CfD. TfD for where the discussion concerns a template without implecation to any category. AfD should the discussion suggest deleting any actual stub article, and in this case, templates and category issues should be held over until after the AfD discussion is closed. MfD is not really suitable because MfD is rarely for anything that appears in mainspace. Use MfD only if none of the others are applicable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely support I've always wanted to merge almost all the various XfDs into far less than what we have now. I really don't care where it's merged to, just merge it somewhere. Gigs (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convined that SFD should be merged. If it is, however, then I think it should be merged to CFD. A stub type consists of a category–template pair, but usually the category is the template's sole raison d'être. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to CFD Stub types are a category structure first and foremost. The templates are just a superficial way of implementing them, therefore they should be judged more in line with requirements of categories. SFB 09:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to CFD. As other editors have noted, the categories are the main issue here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation

Sounds like a pretty strong agreement on Categories for Discussion as the new place for this. This leads to several places that need revision, noted below. I've been thinking about how to do this, and it seems like it will be surprisingly simple to make the merge happen. Of course, maybe I forgot a whole lot of complicated stuff. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

I say that the Wikipedia page that goes with this talk page should be retained to explain when and why stub types get deleted and merged. Discussions and nomination instructions would be removed from the page (except to ask users to nominate at CfD) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be merged with CfD instructions and marked historical. Gigs (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion

We need to add a note that stub types are nominated for deletion here. We should instruct nominators to specify whether they wish to delete only the category, or both the category and the template. I also suggest creating a new template, something like {{subst:stub discuss}} which would add a note to the nomination that the discussion should be guided by Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for discussion

We will need to add a note that stub types go to CfD. There is already a similar note about userboxes there. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current discussions at stub types for deletion

I suggest that all current un-closed discussions get relisted at CfD ASAP. Long time stub-folks should get over there to help guide the CfD crowd to the particulars. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else

Did I forget anything? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where should stub redirects be handled? We could either take these to RfD, or have these, too, be at CfD. If we choose CFD, a note should be left somewhere in the RFD instructions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, template redirects go to redirects for discussion, so I think those should go there. Redirects for discussion are for all redirects regardless of namespace. Good find, BTW, hadn't thought of it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So is that what you want, Donde? Close all the SFDs that are currently open and relocate them to CFD, then put a {{historical}} or something on SFD? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite what I was thinking - I was thinking about removing the discussions and nomination instructions but keeping everything else on the page - so this page would still explain when and why to delete. But I'm fine with marking it historical, no objection to that. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you still want the currently open SFDs moved, right? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Nothing is happening with them here. At CfD, people will see it and comment on it, and they will get closed in 7 days like they should. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CFD is currently backlogged up to May 4, so I wouldn't get too optimistic about that :) Jafeluv (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CFD sometimes gets backlog, but it's rarely more than 1 month. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note about procedural closes

When doing a procedural close on these discussions after moving to CfD, please provide a link to the new CfD discussion when you do so. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Implementation of the SFD migration to CFD - potential problem?

Following the closure to new business of SFD, four stub templates were nominated for deletion at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 15. The discussions have been closed on the grounds that CFD does not handle templates. The closer has opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Implementing the merger of SFD to CFD and requested input on various matters, including whether stub templates should go to TFD. All input welcome. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring removed section

Two sections were removed by an anonymous editor with the summary "Fixied typo" which they certainly were not. If we want to clear this page, should put the content into an archive page as done for older content. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]