Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/September/26
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
September 26
[edit]- 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 redirect to soil-sci-stub
Unproposed, no category, unlikely to get close to threshold, and adequately covered by other stub types. Either delete or upmerge. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not quite clear how this differs from {{Soil-sci-stub}} in scope. Can the two be merged, in one direction or the other? Turning this into a redirect to the other would seem reasonable to me (and would also serve to get rid of the WPJ self-ref/spam). Alai 01:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not everything Soil is Soil Science and in fact the wikiproject for soil is trying to broaden the field to include other related aspects and dimensions. I didn't know that there was such a thing as stub police, I just try to edit and add value to topics in Wikipedia in which I have professional familiarity. I am now chastened and "in the know". Thanks, Drillerguy 15:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a reverse merge is in order, if all the current soil-sci-stubs would be accommodated happily enough by soil-stub? Grutness...wha? 23:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Widen to include what, exactly? There's no Category:Soil, and this isn't currently used anywhere, we're somewhat lacking either a formal or informal definition. (I'd be strongly opposed to scoping by 'whatever the soil WPJ says after the fact'.) Alai 00:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a reverse merge is in order, if all the current soil-sci-stubs would be accommodated happily enough by soil-stub? Grutness...wha? 23:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not everything Soil is Soil Science and in fact the wikiproject for soil is trying to broaden the field to include other related aspects and dimensions. I didn't know that there was such a thing as stub police, I just try to edit and add value to topics in Wikipedia in which I have professional familiarity. I am now chastened and "in the know". Thanks, Drillerguy 15:20, 28 September 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.
{{Montevideo-stub}} / redlink
[edit]- 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 delete
Unproposed, redlinked category. Seems to actually be being used for Montevideo-geo-stubs, so if kept some form of naming is in order. However, given that there are only some 70 Uruguay geo-stubs in total (and only about 160 general Uruguay-stubs), it seems unnecessary and inappropriate. There is also a degree of ambiguity as to whether this is for Montevideo city or montevideo Department. The latter would be far more in line with standard stub-splitting practice, but given that the current number of geo-stubs would see an average of four stubs per department, it would be a highly impractical split. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The template is made for all Montevideo-related stubs. I'm just not finished labelling them. --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 01:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that's much clearer, thanks. Delete. Alai 02:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a slight inclination to say "rename and upmerge", since in theory we'll be (re)creating that and (re)sorting to it (with "geo" and "departmental" scope) in due course. OTOH, given the current small size, and the fact that a split is a factor of five away, it's much of a muchness. Alai 02:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are currently 35 five stubs in the category. --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 02:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is still too few, even given the (highly undesirable) smooshing together of geos and non-geos. This'd mean all the geos would then have to be double-stubbed, to maintain any sort of tagging consistency. Alai 02:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 44 articles and I still have dozens of red links to fill in. Can I at least have some time to do that before you decide to delete the template? --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 03:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion discussions are generally left to run for a week, so don't worry too much on that particular score. But if it's the wrong axis to split on (as I argue above it is), then the size issue is secondary. Alai 03:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 44 articles and I still have dozens of red links to fill in. Can I at least have some time to do that before you decide to delete the template? --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 03:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is still too few, even given the (highly undesirable) smooshing together of geos and non-geos. This'd mean all the geos would then have to be double-stubbed, to maintain any sort of tagging consistency. Alai 02:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't doubt the creator's good intentions, but splits by city is not the best way to procede. Valentinian T / C 18:41, 17 October 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.