Wikipedia:stub Types For Deletion Log 2007 July 16

July 16

{{ Warcraft-stub}} / Category:Warcraft stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep Warcraft template, delete Warcraft cat; create BlizzardEntertainment-stub & VivendiGames-stub templates; feed all templates into "Vivendi Games stubs"

RENAME to ~~{{ Blizzard-Entertainment-stub}}~~ {{ BlizzardEntertainment-stub}} (and/or ~~{{ Vivendi-Games-stub}}~~ {{ VivendiGames-stub}}) and Category:Vivendi Games stubs. Similar to proposals below. Warcraft is a property of Blizzard Entertainment, which is owned by Vivendi Games. The category only contains 37 pages. Renaming would broaden the category to include the Starcraft and Diablo franchises from Blizzard, as well as Sierra games, and other Vivendi Games products. JohnnyMrNinja 22:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Support, but not at that name. Probably better to keep the template and category names similar and - with the usual stub naming rules that would mean {{ VivendiGames-stub}}. Broadening a category of this nature souds like a good move. Grutness... wha? 01:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Support as above. Miremare 17:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
- Abstain Changed for the reasons I've gone into in the Rare proposal. Miremare 17:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
support the following: keep both {{ Warcraft-stub}} and {{ Blizzard-stub}}, but just change the category to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Blizzard Entertainment stubs. We don't need a Vivendi stub category at all. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Is there a reason we don't need a Vivendi stub category? Here are some potential Vivendi stubs (I haven't not mentioning Blizzard stubs)-

~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{ ElderScrolls-stub}} / Category:The Elder Scrolls stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename

RENAME to ~~{{ Bethesda-Softworks-stub}}~~ {{ BethesdaSoftworks-stub}} and Category:Bethesda Softworks stubs. Similar to proposals below. Elder Scrolls is a property of Bethesda Softworks, and this rename would broaden the category to include all Bethesda articles (including the upcoming Fallout 3). JohnnyMrNinja 22:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Support, but not at that name. As above, the only concern is normal stub naming, which would be {{ BethesdaSoftworks-stub}} and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Bethesda Softworks stubs. Grutness... wha? 01:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Support as above. Miremare 17:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{ Doom-stub}} / Category:Doom stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was closing, rename

RENAME to ~~{{ Id-Software-stub}}~~ {{ IdSoftware-stub}}and Category:Id Software stubs. Similar to proposals below. Doom is a property of id Software. This will broaden the category to include all id games and properties, like Quake, Wolfenstein, etc. JohnnyMrNinja 22:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Support, but not at that name. As above, this time {{ IdSoftware-stub}} and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Id Software stubs. Grutness... wha? 01:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Support as above. Miremare 17:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{ Rareware-stub}} / Category:Rareware stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep, do not rename

RENAME to {{ Microsoft-videogame-stub}} and Category:Microsoft video game stubs. Similar to Maxis proposal below. Rare (Rareware was the old name) is a Microsoft property, and there are only 22 pages in the category.This renaming would mean it could include Xbox articles, and other Microsoft-property games. JohnnyMrNinja 22:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Support - and the names look fine this time :). Grutness... wha? 01:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose Microsoft has only owned Rare for a couple of years and apart from owning the company that owns them, has nothing to do with the vast majority of the games themselves. If, for example, any of Rare's better known Nintendo games (some of which are still partly owned by Nintendo) were stubs they would look a little odd being tagged as Microsoft games. Similarly, speaking as one of the maintainers of the Ultimate Play The Game article, the Ultimate games (hopefully not going to be stubs for too much longer!) have nothing to do with Microsoft. I would support a renaming to "Rare stubs" (or perhaps "Rare video game stubs" would be better) and keeping as it otherwise is. Miremare 17:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
- Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#Possible_reasons_for_the_deletion_of_a_stub_type "Their scope is too limited - As a rule of thumb, there should be at least 50 appropriate stubs in existence" - my thinking on this one is that it a small category and it is unlikely to get bigger (keep in mind these aren't for normal articles, just stubs). At the very least, I don't think there should be a stub category specifically for Rare games, so instead of proposing deletion, I proposed renaming. JohnnyMrNinja 18:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  - In that case deletion would probably be preferable to putting the contents in an inappropriate category, especially as there are only 22 Rare stubs anyway (only 2 of which are relevant to Microsoft). They could be added to parent Category:Video game company stubs instead, with the two Microsoft-related ones ( Perfect Dark series and Jetpac Refuelled) in the new category. Miremare 19:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
    - Rareware is 100% owned by Microsoft now, including Ultimate Play The Game (unless I'm mistaken). So that means anything Rare related is inherently Microsoft related, just like Infocom / Activision, Eidos / SCi, Maxis / EA, and like 30 companies with Take Two. So if Rare owned the rights to Anticipation (video game) and Taboo: The Sixth Sense, Microsoft owns those rights now, even if they are under a "Rare" label, which is why the Microsoft video game stubs category would fit. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
      - You're right, Rare is 100% owned by Microsoft. The rights to the games though (including the Ultimate ones) are owned by Rare themselves, not the parent company. But more importantly, the likes of Knight Lore were written and published 20 years before Microsoft had any involvement with Rare. Microsoft do not have a shred of a claim to have had anything to do with these titles (apart from currently owning the company that owns the rights to them) and retroactively reassigning the "credit" to them is, at best, misleading, and likely to be quite baffling to many people. In fact Nintendo have a far greater claim to many of Rare's games (Rare made some practically "to order" for them, as well as using Nintendo IP like Donkey Kong), whereas Microsoft have specifically said they let Rare do pretty much as they please. If someone went to the aforementioned Knight Lore article, saw {{Microsoft video game stub}} and thought "what the hell?" and removed it, I would not be at all surprised. In fact, I'll be surprised if things like that don't happen as a result of this. I'm not particularly bothered about Rare having its own stub category, I would quite happily see them in Category:Video game stubs, but I strongly oppose them being in an inappropriate and misleading category. I don't know much about the other companies whose stub categories you've proposed to change, but the more I think about Rare's, the more I think that these other propositions are probably not a good idea for the same reasons, and for that reason I have withdrawn my support for two of those. Miremare 17:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
        I guess I never thought this was particularly objectionable when I proposed it. Ok, take a look at {{ Taito-videogame-stub}}. Taito is 100% owned by Square Enix, but the games are not released under the Square Enix brand. So I made a Taito stub that links to the Square Enix category, so readers see don't see Square Enix and get confused, but editors still know to find it at the Square Enix category. Keep in mind that stub categories are primarily for editors. Most readers probably aren't interested in finding all the least informative articles on a particular topic. Also, stub categories should only be a temporary location. So, would it be more acceptable to have a Rare stub template that leads to a Microsoft Games category? This way readers aren't confused, and the stubs will be in a much more "keepable" (and still factually accurate) category. ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{
        talk} 19:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
        I appreciate that you're trying to compromise, but despite your claim of accuracy (which I would dispute, as although Microsoft owns Rare, Rare still owns its games, not Microsoft - except for some that are still partly or wholly owned by Nintendo), I feel that a Microsoft category is entirely irrelevant when most of these games (especially the stubs - they released endless games on the NES, most of which don't have articles yet) are primarily associated, if not inextricably associated, with Nintendo. I just don't see what is acheived by lumping them all in with unassociated games in what should be a category to group entries with something in common. I'm not particularly attached to the Rare stubs cat, but would sooner it remain than they get moved to a category that is irrelevant to them, whether it's temporary and just for editors or not. Sorry to be a pain, but that's just how I feel. :) Miremare 20:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
        I've never done that many *'s before. I am particularly confused by "Microsoft owns Rare, Rare still owns its games, not Microsoft". If Microsoft owns Rare, then doesn't it own what Rare owns? "Rare" may operate independently, but they are still property. Effectively this is a group of properties that are grouped together and called "Rare". I mean, if you buy a jewelry box at a flea market, you own the box, but also everything that was in it, even if you choose to keep it in the box. The box doesn't own anything. When Rare sold itself to Microsoft, it stopped being the owner and just became the box. ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{
        talk} 20:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
        Well, fortunately Microsoft haven't done what EA did to Westwood Studios, Bullfrog, etc. and stripped its purchase of all worthwhile property then discarded the carcass. Rare still owns its games - it's practically still an independent developer, just with a new owner. When Tim and Chris Stamper owned the company, THEY owned the company, but the COMPANY owned the games. Rare just has a different owner now. And yes, we're going to run out of room here. :P Miremare 21:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose - Rare did work before being purchased by Microsoft. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{ Maxis-stub}} / Category:Maxis stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to ElectronicArts-stub

RENAME to ~~{{ EA-videogame-stub}}~~ {{ ElectronicArts-stub}} and Category:Electronic Arts stubs. Maxis is a part of EA, and there are only 2 pages in the category. EA is a huge company, with many properties. Besides, it doesn't really make sense to have a category for a property of a company, unless the company has a category that is over-full. JohnnyMrNinja 21:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Support again, though perhaps it needs the full {{ ElectronicArts-videogame-stub}}. Grutness... wha? 01:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
- I don't want to make the name too long, because if it's easy to remember and type (like {{ SNK-stub}}), it's more likely someone will add it when they happen across a page. JohnnyMrNinja 06:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Support as above. Miremare 17:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
- Abstain Changed for the reasons I've gone into in the Rare proposal. Miremare 17:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{ London-general-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:London general stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename

Please rename to {{ London-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:London stubs; well-intended edit goof. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Support per standard naming. Grutness... wha? 01:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Support. Military personnel isn't sorted by city but by country ;) Valentinian ^{T /
C} 10:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Support needs s. Miremare 17:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.