Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion/Archive 2

message: It is possible that, at least for a while, many of the items coming up here for deletion will be redirects.  Adding the  breaks the redirect if added either above or below the redirect line.  This is ok for redirects that have been orphaned, but what about those that have not been?  Should the deletion notice template be added to these? Courtland 12:29, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
:I don't know what the official rule is, but when I've sent redirects to tfd in the past I've usually put the template on the redirect's talk page and also added a note to the talk page of the template it redirects to (so with baseball stub I'd put sfd-t on Template talk: Baseball stub and make a note about it on Template talk:Baseball-stub. Grutness...wha? 12:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a problem with simply adding templates to redirects, as has been done at . Because the template text, including the category, is no longer included, whenever any of the articles are edited, the category is depopulated. Furthermore, if the articles are not edited afterwards, which could easily happen when there is a decision to keep, the category will remain depopulated. An alternative could be to include the target instead of redirecting there, an example being . Susvolans (pigs can fly) 07:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding <nowiki>{{sfd-t}}</nowiki> to redirects 

message: is the first stub type to be deleted as per this page. Congratulations! See Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted/June 2005. -- grm_wnr Esc 12:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: May it be the first of many. :P --Sn0wflake 19:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: There needs to be a hearty "Mwuhahaha!" inserted in there somewhere ... --TheParanoidOne 21:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ...or at least a "Today , tomorrow the !!!" Grutness...wha? 01:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ? Wouldn't that mean... ?  -- grm_wnr Esc 07:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First blood 

message: Hi there! I find the green template put on CFD and TFD rather appropriate, but could you please make it a bit smaller vertically? Radiant_>|< 12:40, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
:I've tried to compact it a bit, by sorting the entries by type. It looks a little crowded to me, though. Anyone have any suggestion for improvement? --TheParanoidOne 14:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we could always reduce the font size a bit more... an alternative option is simply to reduce the number of stubs being voted on, but there are just so many that should be nominated... Grutness...wha? 00:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template? 

message: Is it worth adding  at the top of WP:SFD? No, not to have it deleted, just for display. That way we'll instantly be able to check whether what's on the template tallies with what's on the page. Grutness...wha? 09:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a reasonable plan. --TheParanoidOne 10:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SFD-Current on SFD page?

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

message: As you might know, I've been the main closer on this page since it's beginnings. Well, I've been out of town for a week now and couldn't close the discussions. Noone else did so either, so now I'm looking at a great big heap and actually, I don't have much time on my hands this week as well. I can close some of the easy ones (orphaned and ready to delete), but there's lots of discussions requiring restubbing and I can't really do that alone. SO: Please help orphaning stub types that have been cleared for deletion! Administrators, please close and archive a few discussion, or the backlog will swell to tremendous proportions before I can find the time to clear it. -- grm_wnr Esc 14:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to help, but I'm not entirely sure what to do. Some appear to be simple, eg. rename of Category:Computer Specialist Stubs. This has been done, so should this entire discussion just be moved to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted/July 2005? If that is all that is needed, I'll go ahead and do it. But how about others which are more complicated? --TheParanoidOne 20:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

message: and its associated category were nominated by me for deletion but they have now moved beyond the seven day period, with no votes. A single person's vote is not a consensus, so the status quo should be maintained, ie. leave the stub type as is.
There doesn't seem to be anything written in the SFD guidelines about resubmissions, though. Are they possible? How long until an item can be resubmitted? And so on. --TheParanoidOne 14:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just thinking aloud here... maybe a month (two months?) after the close of voting for "no consensus"... but no voters isn't really no consensus - I'd think that in cases where the nominator is the only vote, resumbission should be possible pretty near straight away as long as it is clearly stated that no-one voted the previous time. Grutness...wha? 19:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Hm. I think the closing admin's action (e.g. to delete) also counts as a vote, if the admin hasn't voted already. But two votes also do not a consensus make, I think... I'd say just relist it at the top with a note that it is a relisting, and if it attracts no votes again, I'd be inclined to see consensus for deletion. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but doesn't the vote of the nominator count at all? If there's not a single keep/merge etc. vote, obviously there are no objections to the deletion, especially if you count the closing admin's vote (although I'm not really sure you should do that, because I for one would expect impartiality from him). Btw, how would you define consensus anyway, with this community having over 350.000 registered users? Not having voted at all would constitute mutual consent, imho. And: not everyone partakes in every vote; speaking for myself, I try only to vote about issues where I possess at least a certain knowledge  Lectonar 10:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|VRC-Stub}}, concensus and resubmission 

message: It may not be according to the rules, but couldn't we make one bulk vote here (I know, I know, there's copy and paste). Also, there seems to be more here than meets the eye... as the discussion wasn't properly concluded anyway Lectonar 10:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no more Categories in the X-related change.  If a proposal to change from X-related to X is made, perhaps part of the proposal should be for a batch StD.  (SEWilco 18:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Which discussion?  (SEWilco 18:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  X-related country stubs 

message: As things stand at the moment, I seem to be doing the bulk of the archiving on sfd. I don't mind, overly, although I'm a little uneasy about it since I'm heavily involved in a lot of the votes, and ISTR that on pages like vfd voters are encouraged not to be the people who do the archiving. I'm open to any advice on this one. Also, I deliberately haven't archived one or two votes that are not unanimous or seem less-clear cut. Again, any advive or help would be welcome. Grutness...wha? 05:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I probably could do this (although I do a fair amount of voting myself, and I don't always see eye-to-eye with everybody else), but I don't know the pertaining policy and procedure (doesn't one have to be an admin? how do we get it deleted, if the vote comes out as such etc.) + I'm not going to be around that much for the next 2 months. Another problem I see is that one can't avoid involvement with stub-sorting per se, and so is kind of always biased. And you do such a lot around the stub-things, I'm not quite sure if it isn't considered your pet by now :) Lectonar 10:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. Well, I certainly feel too possessive of the geo-stub section :). I do do a lot of stubby-stuff, so I was hoping to shift some of the archiving work a little so that I can get some real-world things done occasionally. Even an occasional bit of archiving by someone else would be a big help, either here or on the proposals and/or discoveries pages. As to the rules of it and whether it's necessary to be an admin to do it - you do need to be an admin to delete items, and decisions relating to consensus are at a page directly aimed at admins (Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators). But if the decision for a stub type is a clear keep, then there should be no problems for a non-admin archiving is. Similarly, if it's a clear delete and the template needs to be orphaned a non-admin can at least clear the template ready for deletion. It also begs a further question, but that's one for your user talk page... Grutness...wha? 11:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I seem to recall responding with similar questions from a similar request by grm_wnr a while back. I don't recall getting any definitive answers. Given what's just been said though, I think I'll go ahead and do something if it seems like its ready to be done. --TheParanoidOne 19:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made my first attempt at archiving the other day, with the Proposal page. Did I do anything horribly wrong? I'm assuming I didn't or somone would have swooped in and fixed it. :) --TheParanoidOne 10:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: and it's associated category have now passed the 7 day voting period. I would say the concensus is to delete both, so I started to clear it out when I saw that the template never had sfd-t applied to it. This is a first - deletion concensus on an item that was never actually nominated for deletion. Anyone using said template would not be aware of the deletion debate. Should it be removed along with its category, as decided? --TheParanoidOne 10:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The original nomination was simply for the category, and the vote for that was 3-0 for deletion. I added a nomination for deletion of the category, and there was no objection to that in subsequent votes. In other words, the template was nominated, just slightly after the category. Therefore, when I removed the stub type, I deleted both. I suppose that I should have waited an extra day, since the template was nominated the day after the category, and if I was remiss in not leaving it long enough, then I apologise. But since there was no objection after six days, it probably didn't make much difference. Grutness...wha? 07:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The length of the nomination was not really what I was getting at. It's the fact that the sfd-t tag was not added to the stub template which I saw as possibly causing problems. ie deletion of a template without any immediate notification that this idea is even being proposed. But anyway, it's done now. So I'll leave it at that. --TheParanoidOne 15:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

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

message: There's been a couple comments on votes that are past the 7-day point, and below the marker (on the debates about  and ). Assuming ones below the marker are "closed", in that no one should comment/vote on them, that probably ought to be more clearly marked somewhere... --Mairi 05:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see you're a bit miffed by zippedmartins votes; so am I :)); the problem seems to be that we ought to delete them faster...Lectonar 06:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That I am. The problem with deleting them faster is that there seems to be only a couple admins active here to delete them...--Mairi 06:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  And the ones active are active in the voting, too, and this should, IMHO, prevent them from closing the sfd's (I know thats not corresponding to wiki-reality)...perhaps I should take up on Grutness's suggestion.... Lectonar 07:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

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

message: Has anyone created a Bot for the replacement/renaming of templates? -Ravedave 03:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure there's one that's used every now and then. It's logical to use one for direct replaces - the problem comes when a template needs to be split between two or more existing ones. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I should to do more research. I vagely remeber seeing a bot that would present a page to you with the proposed changes and you just had to ok it if it was correct. Could probably write one that looks for the name of a state and suggests a template. Maybe I'll have to learn perl -Ravedave 05:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: That would be very useful. The Sydney stubs await! :) Grutness...wha? 10:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's now been a week and there haven't been any objections there... I'll be offline until Sunday evening, but once I'm back I'll start the bot working on the backlog we have (unless they're any objections to the bot by then). --Mairi 04:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot? 

message: I've just had to rollback User:SPUI for his unilateral that stub redirects shouldn't be handled on this page and removal of a large block of voting. I'm adding a note to the top of the page to make it clearer that stub redirects are discussed here (although everyone else seems to be well aware of how this page works now). Grutness...wha? 00:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On a somewhat related note, I noticed that putting , which reads , on stub redirects is actually highly misleading on the articles affected. I've created , which reads ,  for stub template redirects, which should be clearer, and adjusted the instructions accordingly. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SPUI and stub redirects

message: Is there any way of speedy renaming the categories with "-related" as part of their names? The changes were all debated thoroughly at WP:WSS/P and the (unanimous IIRC0 consensus was to remove the word from category names (at least as far as country-specific categories was concerned). It would save a lot of them coming through here in dribs and drabs if all of them were speediable. Grutness...wha? 02:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd likely be a good use of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, if we're feeling bold, as there was unanimous consensus in the earlier discussion (for country names). But since it's such a large undertaking, there's a chance that'd draw some criticism. But I'm not sure how else we could speedy them... --Mairi 07:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Can I suggest that it they be listed "collectively" on the project page (perhaps with a link to an off-page list of those affected), and that the speedy-ing be done "by acclaim"?  i.e., if three or four people call for expedition, and no-one objects.  If anyone requests separate discussion for a given case, split it out to a separate listing.  I wouldn't personally be upset by being bolder still, but equally it doesn't seem so urgent as to really demand that, either.  BTW, Mairi, kudos on the efforts of your robotic counterpart on these.  Alai 22:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like a plan. --Alynna 04:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

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

message: Mairibot is now working on renaming :Category:Football (soccer) player stubs to :Category:Football (soccer) biography stubs (via null edits). Once that's done, I'll deal with UK-depot-stub (I wanted to start with a null-edit one), and then work thru the remaining renames. Some of them will still take a while, because of the required time between edits. --Mairi 04:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done with the football player stub renames. Changed plans and am now working on the smaller Eng-club-stub. Then i'll probably go thru from the oldest to newest (maybe with a bias towards doing ones that just require touching). --Mairi 04:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot work 

message: There is some discussion regarding the subst'ing of templates, and a bot is under development that will automate the task. I would like to ask your opinion on subst'ing stub templates. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Subst. Radiant_>|< 15:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very bad idea. Though I can understand it working well for most types of templates, It would cause quite some problems for ones which are frequently changed (like stub templates). Stub templates should never be subst'ed IMHO. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

message: They work abit oddly now, and it affects orphaning them for deletion. Before, if you had Template:A that redirected to Template:B, uses of A would show up in Special:Whatlinkshere/A and on the page it's used on as a use of A. Now it only shows up on  Special:Whatlinkshere/B. To make it more confusing, old uses (pages that haven't been edited since the change - I'm not sure when it happened, but within the past month), still follow the old method. The new method makes it alot harder to tell if a redirect has been orphaned when it's a frequently-used template that's redirected to - especially trying to change them by hand; it's doable, although an additional step, by bot. --Mairi 17:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then do what I do. When it's time to delete the template, simply take off the sfd notice and turn it back into a standard redirect. It should then show all the articles that use it. Grutness...wha? 01:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that it doesn't necessarily show articles that use the redirect. For example, I marked User:Mairibot/Completed tasks with  (which redirects to ). However, it doesn't show up on Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Incomplete but only on Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Sectstub. --Mairi 04:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template redirects 

message: I have a quick question regarding the renaming of stub templates.
When something is renamed, the old name is turned into a redirect to the new name. If a template has been renamed via SFD, should the redirect remain, or should it be deleted as well?
The reason I ask is that if it is the former, anyone can carry out template renames and log them. Whereas if it is the latter it would require an admin to carry out the deletion step. 
There is of course the third option - a per-stub type decision. 
I can't find anything about this on the SFD page. Any thoughts? --TheParanoidOne 06:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Often of course, the category's to be renamed (well, "renamed") at the same time, in which case it'd be necessary to have an admin do it, or at least, undesirable to leave the job half-done.  But not always, so it's a good question.  I'd say it depends just how "useful" (or v.v., just how badly-named) the old template is.  Certainly people are able to specify, as per AFD and RFM, that they want the redirect deleted (or not), but I suppose the issue here is, should we have an established default, where the "vote" isn't decisive on this point, or more likely, doesn't mention it at all?  One could argue it either way;  redirects are somewhat useful, but in the case of stub-types, not to readers (or linkers, or general editors), only to stub sorters (hard-core or occasional).  In cases of erratic spacing, caps, hyphenation, etc, they may be worse than useless, by obscuring the alleged conventions for what stub-tags "always" look like, thereby leading to more confusion that it copes with.  But even if the default was otherwise, I wouldn't object to doing that case by case.  Alai 18:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think the redirect should usually be deleted - but not always. If the redirect that left doesn't fit in with the naming guidelines for stub templates (eg moving Hp-stub to HarryPotter-stub), then keeping it would be a mistake. If, however, it's from a viable alternative name (e.g., the redirect car-stub for auto-stub), then there's nothing wrong with keeping it. Grutness...wha? 01:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming stub types 

message: Recent cases on this page have made me inclined to think that we need to be a bit more formal about what's "speediable", and what's not.  The "speedying by acclaim" is all well and good, but if stub creators show up to protest the fate of their badly-named or entirely needless stub type, as is often the case, in practice it runs the duration (or longer!).  I think we should agree some likely candidates for speedying, and have them "approved" for listing in the main listing of speedy deletion criteria.  For starters, what about:
*Any stub template not ending in "-stub";
*Any stub category not ending in " stubs";
*Any template or category using a variant spelling, capitalisation, or other style of reference from the corresponding article on the main topic, and/or parent permanent category, where applicable in each case.
We can expand as necessary in conjunction with tightening up the stub type naming conventions, ideally with the latter somewhat ahead of the former, being incorporated as and when simple, established, and uncontroversial.  Alai 18:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on speedies... 

message: While I appreciate the courtesy of this template, I think that everybody who wants to follow SFD has caught on to it by now, so I guess it may not be necessary any more to use the template to list all SFD discussions at CFD and TFD. Not sure if that'd save a lot of time actually but I thought I'd point it out. Radiant_>|< 15:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was only ever intended as a temporary measure... but we probably need to put something on the CFD/TFD etc talk pages before removing it). It would speed up the nomination process and reduce instruction creep, too, which can only be a good thing. Grutness...wha? 01:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|sfd-current}} 

message: I'd like to propose a potential group of speediable categories. technically, they're almost certain to be already speediable under the category rules, but spelling things out may help clarify things. This doesn't come up very often, but there's one on today's nominations which fulfils these criteria: Any category which is 
*empty of stubs, 
*not linked to a template,
*not used as a parent category, and
*over 24 hours old is speediable
These are usually either malformed or deprecated, and in stub-specific cases wouldn't get any articles unless someone added a template to them, so, by being over 24 hours old, they are guaranteed to have been empty for that time (unless a template has just been deleted or redirected, in which case, it's highly unlikely that a new one is about to be added). As such they would almost certainly come within the "24 hours and it's gone" rule for categories. Grutness...wha? 07:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Speediable categories

message: I've just come across a weird one, possibly a problem with sfd-t, although I suspect it's probably with . Have a look at the bottom of the double-stubbed Grand Cayman. Seems OK, but the template that's up for deletion isn't Caribbean-geo-stub, it's Cayman-stub. so why is the sfd message above the geo-stub? My guess is that cayman-stub has somehow been coded to appear last on the article, but my knowledge of html isn't enough to know whether this is the real reason. Anyone have any ideas? Grutness...wha? 08:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: was missing table and tr end-tags, and adding them fixed the problem. Not sure why that'd cause the templates to appear in the reverse order, but it's not too suprising invalid html would do strange things. --Mairi 08:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly connected with the shutdown of the automatic fixer-upper that caused sigfile troubles earlier in the week? Whatever, thanks for fixing it. Grutness...wha? 09:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange problem - with sfd-t?

message: Since karmafist logged the discussion without actually doing anything to the template (not even removing ), I decided it was about time to get something done. The only thing there seemed to be consensus for (and that guidelines unambiguously call for) is ending in -stub, and having hyphens. So I renamed all the templates to end in -stub, and have hyphens. All except 2 are of the form Foo-State-Highway-stub, which being closest to the old names seemed the most sensible in absense of consenus. The exceptions are  (the original category and template used State Route, so that got kept) and  (which matches the capitalization of the existing stub category and main category). All of them have redirects of the form Foo-state-highway-stub (and Foo-State-Highway-stub for Arizona and Washington); Arizona also has . The old names were kept as redirects, but the more anomalous ( and ) could probably go. If you want redirects from anything else, go create them.
My suggestion, for anyone who cares deeply about such things, would be to check the main category and stub category and see if they match as far as capitalization and use of highway/route. If they don't, nominate one or the other for renaming; as there's little point in having them be different. Individual nominations, or groups where you want the same exact thing to happen, would be far simpler.
It's a mess, but hopefully this brings abit more order to it. --Mairi 21:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, most of these categories don't have any parents listed, so if anyone feels like cleaning them up... --Mairi 21:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm asking for  to be moved back to . The uncapitalized category predates the WikiProject, and I'm asking for that to be fixed too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Oops... that's what I meant. I corrected it above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It was most certainly intended as a temporary measure, with the idea that something needed to be done, and it's atleast better than what there was before. It's still far from desirable, since, for example, 35 of the 40 subcategories in :Category:State highways are lowercase, while 1 of the stub categories is. --Mairi 01:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assorted state highway stubs mess 

message: Arguments are frequent on WP:SFD as to delete or not delete certain template redirects. I think establishing a guideline for redirect deletion would be helpful, such as:
:Any redirect to a stub template that does not comply with the naming guidelines AND does not provide any signifcant convenience for the editors should be deleted, as it puts additional stress on servers and is difficult to maintain by WP:WSS.
or:
:All redirects to stub templates should be kept, as they are a help to editors.
Or some middle way. This could be used to simplify the deletion process. Conscious 08:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the first way sounds better but add "unless there are special circonstances" after the "deleted". just in case weve forgotten something. BL kiss the lizard 08:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect deletion guidelines 

message: I think that this stub category should not be deleted. The "book" section already is overpopulated, and it makes more sense to keep it so that people more interested in expanding articles about novels than articles about non-fiction books can navigate more easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophysduckling (talk • contribs) 
:You need to add your input the relevant section of the project page. Not the talk page. --TheParanoidOne 06:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: anyway were only talking about renaming it not deleting it. BL kiss the lizard 06:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Fiction Bookstub

message: Given the occassional confusion, I've created two new templates for renames:  and  (I can't see redirects being renamed too often). The syntax is  and . The parameters are optional (for when there isn't a specific name in mind), and there's no ugly wikicode visible when the parameter is left out. I've left the text on  and  as "deletion or renaming" for now, until people are aware of the new templates. --Mairi 23:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. I was thinking of doing this myself sometime - glad to see you beat me to it! :) Grutness...wha? 09:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been bold and added them to the directions at the top of the page. --Mairi 07:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates for renames 

message: This is just one big giant ... mess, for lack of a better word. This has so many problems with it. Too many items proposed in one go. Some have splintered off into their own SFD nominations (some dealt with, others not). Some have been renamed but others haven't. Claims to be the last, only to be followed by some more later on. Some have the sfd-c template on them, others don't. The sheer volume of entries and the splintering also makes it difficult to gauge what the concensus is for a particular entry. I have pushed through the changes for a few but I don't think I can reasonably do any more.
So I propose that we abandon this quagmire by logging the entire discussion under the Deleted section and noting down exactly what items were renamed. Possibly a note in the Not Deleted section as well, noting what wasn't changed (if anything) and pointing to the discussion on the Deleted page. Any items that still require changing can be renominated as appropriate.
I also propose that we never do anything like this again. Ever. (Please!)
Thoughts? --TheParanoidOne 23:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The last of the -related's" from November 24th 

message: From Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 14 there was a consensus to rename a number of Tanakh related categories, including
* :Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh-related stubs --> :Category:Tanakh stubs
Does anyone here think it's necessary to run this through sfd as well, or should someone just do the rename? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably should, but only because whether to rename the stub template to  at the same time and whether to keep the old template as a redirect if a change is made probably ought to be discussed at the same time, as less work and fewer edits are involved in changing both the stub template and teh stub category at the same time than if we were to change first one and the other.  If there were no chance of a template change, I'd say this would be one of the things that on any reasonable list of things to be done speedily with stubs, tho we don't have such a list as of yet. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: definately. those should never have gone thru cfd in the first place. it says so in step 1 of the instructions for cfd.as such the discussions at cfd probably arent valid ones. then again i doubt anyone would mind in this case since HeBible is a messy name.  BL kiss the lizard 22:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This one already came up on SFD in the non-geographical section of "The last of the -related's" and the suggestion was :Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh-related stubs → :Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh stubs. I mistakenly took the  tag on the category as an  tag and created the latter category. Currently, roughly half of the 300+ stubs have been moved over to the new category. --TheParanoidOne 23:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  rename from WP:CFD 

message: Please note that SPUI has taken his WP:POINT crusade against this page to the village pump. Radiant_>|< 03:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete this page?

message: Greetings.
I have revived the discussion regarding the issue of where stub redirects should properly be addressed on the RFD talk page.  My comments there are, in the main, a repost of my comments on WP:VPP, with some minor refactoring.
Executive summary: At the time SFD subsumed the task of dealing with stub redirects, RFD was inactive and not under regular admin scrutiny.  Thus, nobody was reading the RFD talk page, which is why nobody objected to SFD taking over the task of dealing with stub redirects.
RFD is now once again under regular admin scrutiny.  Thus, the issue of where stub redirects should be handled should be revisited.
My comments on the RFD talk page provide greater detail.  Interested parties are cordially invited to swing by and provide their insight.
All the best.
Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviving the RFD/SFD discussion regarding stub redirects. 

message: Per WP:DRV#Various stub template redirects, I have restored some stub redirects deleted by this process. Please see my comment at DRV for my reasoning. -Splashtalk 23:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of some redirects 

message: Ashibaka changed the template on the SFD page from deletiontools to deletiondebates. From Template talk:Deletiontools:
:It was reverted on RFD, but none of the other pages seemed to care really (or they like the new one better). Ashibaka tock 02:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|deletiontools}} vs {{tl|deletiondebates}} 

message: a word of warning.  was deleted without being orphaned! ive just gone through and changed everything to . please make sure templates arent in use before removing them! BL kiss the lizard 23:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure on the casing for that? There doesn't appear to be any deleted edits for it. I know that for , I got my bot to make the changes and then I manually went through the What Links Here list. The fact that some weren't done is a little ... worrying. --TheParanoidOne 06:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm. Perhaps my bungling of the template rename caused the system to become confused. :shrug: --TheParanoidOne 06:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well,  also wasn't completely orphaned before it was deleted. Conscious 07:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear. Something is clearly not right, then. --TheParanoidOne 06:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: it was  (sorry) - i manually changed over about 40 stubs that still had this after it was deleted. BL kiss the lizard 09:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I've found a solution. Carrying out null edits on the category forces the articles to update their information about what templates they use. Whatlinkshere should then be populated with the correct items. (I hope). --TheParanoidOne 14:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Western Sahara stub

message: is no longer used (it even says on it that it's deprecated), so I'm taking it to tfd. Hopefully there are no objections to that...? Grutness...wha? 06:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:sfd-current

message: Developer Jamesday has requested that images only be used for content, not decoration. The reason for this is that images cause a major server load problem; the actual size of the image is not really relevant. Hence, please remove images from stub templates, and use formatted or colored text instead. Radiant_>|< 11:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you specify this? Could you give some examples of what is ok and what is not? Most country-related stub templates contain the flag of the country. Are they a burden on the servers? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub images 

message: I see most other deletion process pages now have a handy-dandy table showing the three 9or four) steps to listing something for deletion. Should we do the same thing here, or is it complicated because of our double template/category process? Grutness...wha? 01:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The three-step plan

message: This preamble states that (truly) empty categories can be speedied after 24 hours.  This a) isn't very useful, as typically an "empty" stub category has at least a stub-template, and b) isn't consistent with WP:CSD C1, which specifies empty for four days.  I suggest we modify this in both respects:  they're speediable if they contain no articles for four days.  Alai 22:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To my way of thinking the reason why the preamble says "Empty categories with no corresponding template" is that they generally represent mistakes or malformed newbie attempts at creating a stub type. If there is a proper stub type with both category and template, simply being empty should not be a speedy reason -- it might be that articels had recenly been sorted out of it, adn more were likely to be sorted in in a short time. Let such types go through the regualr deletion process. For the "empty with no template, I do agree that the time should match on this page and on WP:CSD and I think 4 days is better than one. DES (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree somewhat about the out-sorting possibility, though as stub categories are supposed to have 60 articles+ in them (or at least, corresponding wikiprojects), it's not especially likely to happen for a "stub type in good standing".  I think C1 already covers this, though:  If the category isn't relatively new, it possibly contained articles earlier, and deeper investigation is needed.  So I'd favour a reading (or better yet, a rewriting) of that clause to cover (article-space) categories containing only templates and other project-space transclusions, which are in effect incidental to the category per se.  (As opposed to categories of templates, or of project-space pages.)  Alai 23:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banging on about speedies yet again... 

message: See Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_deletion#Whatlinkshere_appears_fixed. Grutness...wha? 09:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Whatlinkshere fixed?

message: One of the categories on Alai's recent list of small uncleared stubs was . Not only was the category name strange, but the seven stubs in there were unrelated to each other. It was only when i edited the articles that I saw the strange - and potentially very troubling - reason. A standard stub template - a parametered stub template - had been substed on all of the articles. The wording of the template therefore became whatever anyone wanted, and all the stubs were dutifully put into the same category. Not only did this make the category as random as , but it gave a very good indication of why parametered stub templates are a bad idea - there were some very odd choices for stub type names (have a look at , and , and maybe !). Trouble is - where is the original of this template that has been diligently copied into articles six tinmes, by six different editors? Grutness...wha? 12:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was pretty puzzled by those too:  now I'm even more so.  One of the editors that placed those seems to have been recently active, I've asked if s/he can shed any light.  Certainly there's no template with a name that obviously corresponds.  Don't get me started on parameterised stub templates...  Alai 01:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah-hah!  I think I understand what's happening here.  Some people have been copying the example of how to create a new stub type, and putting it into articles.  It's phrased in terms of "articles related to A", in "category B".  If they cut and paste, and forget to fill in B...  Obviously these things have to be fixed in any event, regardless of whether they fill in the category correctly:  the incorrect category has the happy effect of making them easier to find!  I don't think they're using subst at all.  (And I say this after an increasing puzzled session looking for them.  For one thing, if it had a B stubs category link hard coded into it, it would show up on "what links here".  I can't search the full text, but nothing in the template space, with "stub" in the title, of 262 bytes or so of length (as it'd have to be if it were coded as suggested) look at all suspicious;  they all have 'sensible' categories associated with them).  Alai 02:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: aah. That makes sense - though it's a pretty silly mistake. We'll have to keep an eye on  in future! Grutness...wha? 05:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: weirdness (and potential big problem?) from Alai's list

message: I think we quite clearly need a) a more crisply worded stub creation size threshold, and b) a speedy deletion criterion to back it up.  Otherwise, we're just endlessly wasting our time trying to delete these unilateral undersized splits that the splitters turn up to vote to keep, regardless of our current "rule of thumb", on the basis that their category deserves special pleading.  Or simply that they don't give a hoot about sorting to usefully sized stub categories in the first place, and in some cases, have anything much to do with the actual project.  If this continues to its illogical conclusion, we'll end up with 400,000 stub articles in about 100,000 different categories.  (Aside from the US-bio-stubs, which will remain in the thousands, indefinitely...)
Specifically:  I suggest that if a stub category is under ten articles for a month or more, and contains no sub-categories, it be considered speediable.  Alai 07:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it would certainly be useful, but how would we go about implementing it? There are enough complaints about "stub autonomy" as it is - trying to implement a speedy deletion policy will probably just put more people's backs up. Any suggestions as to how to implement this without annoying people? Grutness...wha? 23:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certainly not suggesting we implement it unilaterally.  If there's a degree of agreement here, we can then list a straw poll under current surveys if we want to "policy-ise" our existing size rule-of-thumb, or some approximation thereto;  and/or propose it at the WP:CSD page as a new criterion there.  If it gets the proberbial category five shitstorm of opposition, then fair enough, it's a non-starter.  If there's a consensus for it, I doubt it'll be especially controversial in practice:  I'm sure we're getting lots of "I'm voting keep because my chums and I created it, and there's no reason not to" opposition to what should be no-brainer deletions, that with a clearer policy would just be, well, equally non-brainer, but actual deletions.  Alai 05:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely support this, especially if there's a general consensus. Conscious 05:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: sounds like a great idea and ten stubs for a month sounds a good threshold, tho how we can be sure its been that level for that long...? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What we need is a bot that could be run at regular intervals to list all stub categories with < 10 articles for > 1 month. --Bruce1ee 08:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be pretty easy to do from the db dump;  those seem to happen every week or so, so they'd provide fairly respectable samplings.  (Or if a bot were to be used, it need only run on a candidate list that could be constructed in that manner.)  Alai 18:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need a speedy criterion on size. 

message: So now that we're listing new dates at the top...  How are we listing nomination subsections within a date?  Most recent to the top of the current section, or the bottom?  We don't seem to be being 100% consistent about this at present.  Alai 17:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been adding new entries at the top, seeing as that's what the instructions say. Also, the overall ordering of this page hasn't changed. --TheParanoidOne 21:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: oh - ive peen putting them at the bottom of individual days :) most days are short enough that it wouldnt make much difference, but perhaps the top is the best place. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 21:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha. We all fail at consistency :) --TheParanoidOne 22:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: oops - me too. I've been putting them at the bottom. The top is probably better for consistency, though. Grutness...wha? 22:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point of order 

message: I have logged ,  and their associated categories under Not Deleted based on the requests by Eagle 101 to populate them using Gnome (Bot). I think it would be prudent to review these again in about a month. --TheParanoidOne 21:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's fair enough for the gothics, but is the "philosophical novel" a concept we want to entertain, at any population?  Even Eagle seemed a little vague as to how he was going to regex for "philosophicalness".  (Besides "(Kundera|Pirsig)", I suppose.)  I suppose the permie is an unfortunate precedent...  So I'm putting it on CFD.  Alai 22:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novel stubs not deleted 

message: Congratulations to SFD - it has officially come of age! Today, it got its first "bad faith" nominations by someone from outside WP:WSS... Grutness...wha? 01:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SFD comes of age

message: I'd like to suggest an addition to the speediable criteria - any stub type that has been proposed and rejected at WP:WSS/P, but gets created anyway. Grutness...wha? 18:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another possible speedy criterion?

message: I've compiled another list of stub types with <40 articles (and no subtypes) at User:Alai/Small stubs3.  Please update (by striking through, etc) as you take 'em here, or to discoveries, or deem them already dealt with.  These are from the 16th March db dump, minus four recent deletions.  Alai 21:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any particular reason why you are creating seperate pages, rather than just updating the original? --TheParanoidOne 23:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose largely as the original(s) are at least somewhat "marked up" with notations as to which have gone to SFD, etc.  If people would prefer a non-moving target, I could always "archive" these to another location instead.  Alai 23:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undersized Stub Type Watch -- update 

message: is up for renaming to  as part of a block nomination on georgia categories at WP:CFD#Georgia state schools categories. Given that it's a block nomination it's probably best handled there, but I thought I'd better notify anyone here who doesn't watch CFD. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub cat up for renaming at CFD

message: I've been going through Special:Unused categories and Special:Wanted categories (which explains the recent flurry of stub types appearing at SFD). I notice a few category redirects: , , and . Is it OK to delete these now? The moves involved in the first two at least was quite some time ago... Grutness...wha? 06:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category redirects

message: Title says it all, really: Wikipedia:Deletion review#Template:Kosovo-geo-stub. Grutness...wha? 08:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kosovo-geo-stub at deletion review

message: I have made a proposal to change the logging scheme of WP:SFD. Conscious 08:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logging 

message: I notice that redirecting stub categories appears to be frowned upon here, but renaming categories and deleting the old ones leads to a large number of broken links throughout Wikipedia. As an alternative, can people please check the "What links here" before deleting the old category, and where appropriate modifying the links? Thanks. Road Wizard 23:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I check for breaking links to templates, but I must admit, not generally in the case of categories.  Are there large number of links to categories from the main namespace (as opposed from actual categorisation)?  Or are you thinking more of links from wikiprojects, etc?  (BTW, what-link-here also still works after category deletion, so it's not too late to make amends...  Though admittedly I won't be able to for several days.)  Alai 01:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't realised that "what links here" still works for deleted pages, that is very useful to know, thanks. I was primarily thinking of links from wikiprojects and discussions. If a category has been deleted or moved because it wasn't proposed through the normal process, there is a good chance that the editors who are using it won't know to check with the stubs project when they find the category they have been working with turns into a red link. The category on the stub template gets changed during the process, but if the category name differs too greatly from the previous one, the editors won't recognise it. If people are checking the "What links here" as a matter of course when renaming stub categories, perhaps this should simply be a reminder to be a little more careful when doing so. Thanks. Road Wizard 06:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've always (I hope) used WhatLinksHere for both templates and categories. You'd be surprised the number of places that categories are linked to. Mainly it's various infoboxes and lists but there are certainly others. --TheParanoidOne 05:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for telling us. It seems like a lot of us check the templates but forget the categories. Valentinian (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Not so far as I know there's not.  Off the top of my head, I'd suggest either, being bold and creating one, or applying  in cases where the consensus of the discussion indicated that was appropriate.  Alai 17:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the WPSS one will do fine - it will advise editors to at least read up on the subject before taking corrective action. Is there somewhere other than here that I should propose the addition of the template to talk pages when moving categories? Road Wizard 18:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "What links here" 

message: Having seen some comments about previously discussed items being reposted, I have decided to go ahead and draft a couple of templates similar to . Currently they can be found on my sanbox page. Like the oldafdfull template they would be used on the talk page to link to the closed discussion and summarise the result. I have created 2 templates, one for keeping and one for renaming, because the archives for each are stored separately. I would appreciate comments on whether you think this is a good idea, and if so any suggestions for improvements. Thanks. Road Wizard 22:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me.  Depending on what we ending up doing with the discussion-logging, the "votepage" parameter should probably be changed;  ideally, it'd be combinated with the "date" parameter, to avoid having to specify essentially the same thing twice.  Alai 23:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you or any other editors think you can improve them, please go ahead. I am still learning the intricacies of template creation and seeing the modifications that others make would be a useful learning experience. Thanks. Road Wizard 23:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old SfD templates

message: SFD has a severe backlog of cases that are ready to close, but need an admin to delete any stubs and templates. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HELP!!!! 

message: We should probably include some explicit voting options for renames:  in particular, we don't seem to currently document the claimed default that (template) "rename" means "... and delete redirect".  Also, I've just noticed that we say:
*Merge with xx-stub (Delete category, redirect template to xx-stub)
Personally I generally use (up)merge when I intend to suggest keeping separate templates, in the same category (i.e., these are conceptually distinct, we just have them in the same category for convenience) rather than a redirect (different typography or terminology for exactly the same thing).  Am I off-base in my jargon?  Alai 01:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on the first one (i.e., deleting the redirect) - but less so on the second one. For me "upmerge" simply means move the stubs into the parent category - whether the template's kept, redirected, or lost is a separate thing. Grutness...wha? 02:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's different from both my interpretation, and the current text, then!  I sense a need for Yet More Jargon...  Keep and recat template, perhaps?  Alai 02:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting options niggles. 

message: While my bot's now "street legal" and can run with a looser throttle, it'd still save a bit of renaming effort and server load if people populating a stub type on SFD cited as being both badly-named and undersized, if they were a tad bold and fixed the former, before addressing the latter; or at the least, created a redirect at the "correct" name.  (I'm assuming the renaming is uncontroversial, and that existing usages won't be replaced until the discussion is closed.)  Alai 18:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Badly-named and undersized... 

message: There was discussion here on going over to a transclusion-based method of listing and logging on this page (and on /P, which has been carried out without incident).  Dicussion seems to have trailed off:  unless there's further input, I'm including to call qui tacet consentire videtur on this, and implement the change starting from the beginning of next month.  Alai 23:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still think it would be better to do WSS/D first, which is a real mess and quite unmanageable for slow servers - but this one will probably need doing at some stage anyway. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Aren't transclusions at the day level a bit too finely grained for this page? August 1st only has one entry on it! Overkill, I think. WP:WSS/P is done by month which I think is more than adequate for SFD. Also, single days makes it a pain to keep anything watchlisted. --TheParanoidOne 05:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely agree with TheParanoidOne.  I was wondering why I wasn't seeing any changes to the SFD page.  By day is definite overkill!  By month is good enough. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: me too - daily transclusion on sfd isnt needed and makes it harder to keep track of whats beiong posted here with watchlists. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 04:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By month is completely infeasible:  the page is supposed to work on a time-frame of a week, and quickly gets to silly-sized if people aren't keeping up with the backlog, which is "frequently".  Conscious did suggest per-week, which could be just-about-workable but is very course-grained for archival purposes, and "what's the current week number?" is much less intuitively obvious than working with dates.  The whole point is, to do archival in a less painful manner than at present:  monthly transclusion would be worse than useless for that purpose.  Volunteers to do archival using the "old" system, i.e. cutting and pasting between two different pages, in two different orders, in two different header formats, front and centre -- I'm personally mighty sick of it, and judging by the rate at which it gets done, I'm not the only one.  (My latest bout of logging was spurred on mainly by the thought of never having to do so again, after the next batch's done.)  Alternatively some bright spark could set up automagic archiving of discussions marked as "closed".  I do agree about the watchlisting issue;  that's more than a little vexing.  I've been trying to work out if there's a reasonable way to handle this via a "related changes" hack.  Alai 06:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: By day is also completely infeasible, as seems to have been seen in the last week while I've been away. The original proposal you linked to talks at length about how by day is a bad idea - you seem to be the only one who supported it, Alai. I'd be quite happy with by week, which is what I thought you were suggesting with this proposal (since that was what the gist of the previous discussion seemed to suggest might be a reasonable compromise), but not by day, which is counterproductive (more work, less ability for watchlists to catch new entries, empty days, etc). If it was a choice between daily and no transclusion at all, I'd favour no transclusion at all. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recognise that characterisation of the previous discussion (which was admittedly marked by much digression about transclusion of other pages, and missing the point about archival); and let's distinguish between "infeasible" and "produces carping after the fact".  Daily transclusions are how just about every other *FD work, and do facilitate archival (or would, had we even gotten to a week yet), which is to what I was speaking to the "feasibility" of.  For me that's both pretty strong proof-of-concept, and an indication of a "standard model" we should have a better reason to continue to resist adopting than historical inertia.  "By week" would be fine in terms of typical volume of traffic, but means we:  have to wait an entire week (for the first noms in a "batch") before doing any archiving at all;  are further held up from doing so (again, for any and all) if there's even a single "problem" instance in that period (or else in either case, resort to c'n'p archiving, thereby completely defeating the purpose of transclusion);  have to know what week-of-the-year we're working in at any given moment (which seems less than likely to go smoothly, given the less than 100% reliability of people even working to the correct month and date).  I certainly don't want to immediately switch over to that without due consideration of the implications, on the basis of a couple of days reaction to daily pages (that itself getting as it did very little to-the-point input in advance, so I've inclined to suspect that we'd just get a fresh batch after such a further change).  I'd like hear some specific counter-proposal that isn't implicitly based on the assumption of going back to frequently-backlogged c'n'p archiving, which "works" at all only on the basis that someone will eventually get sufficiently annoyed at or embarrassed by the backlog, as to start slogging through it bit by bit, performing the most inane editing tasks imaginable -- not just cutting and pasting (which is inefficient, low-tech and annoying enough), but manual editing of headers, and reversing the order of entries, which is pretty idiotic stuff to be having to do.  Or if it is based on that assumption, does it explicitly, and explains how much of it they propose to do themselves.  Alai 06:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implementing transclusion here 

message: I note that there's nothing about SFD on Wikipedia:Deletion process. Does anyone feel like adding something please? Grutness...wha? 01:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:Deletion process

message: Note that there's several stub cats tagged as part of this CFD.  I've pointed out they're out of scope there, and striken them out (but left them tagged).  I think it makes little sense to run the two in parallel:  let's wait and see what they do there, and then run them through SFR accordingly.  Or at least wait and see which way the wind is blowing...  Alai 02:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military bios on CFD