Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/August/17

August 17

{{ESA-stub}}/Category:ESA stubs, also Category:NASA 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 no consensus, however, will rename ESA template per Alai's suggestion. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unproposed template and category for the European Space Agency - I point this out since the stub category suggests that it would be a subtype of Category:ESA, which doesn't exist), so at the very least the stub category would need renaming. Given that the parent category and all its subcategories has just a shade over 100 articles. Stubs on this sort of subject are usually better divided up according to what they are about, rather than which agency they are part of - the one case where they have been divided up in this way (NASA stubs) shows the problem -v this has been around for nearly two years and only has 28 stubs. I'd like to propose upmerging whatever articles in these two categories (well in the NASA one; the other one is empty) can be upmerged into Category:Spacecraft stubs and whatever other relevant categories exist, and creating a more widely-scoped Category:Space program stubs to deal with all the remaining articles that cannot be upmerged in that way relating to NASA, ESA, Shenzhou, Soviet, Russian, Indian, etc etc programs. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to this whole category area of wikipedia, but that seems like a good idea.U5K0 (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is a {{NASA-stub}}, so for balance, Oppose. Hektor (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's balance got to do with it? Please read WP:STUB. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all for now. Wide enough area, not being proposed is hardly a reason to delete, unless you want to cover Wikipedia in red tape, does it really matter what it is called? --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't nominate it for deletion because it was unproposed - though if it had been proposed then it wouldn't have had those problems which now make it a deletion candidate, since it wouldn't have been accepted for creation in its current form. Have you checked WP:STUB, WP:WSS/NG, and the other similar pages which explain why iit matters very much what these things are called? In particular, have you checked the area of WP:STUB which explains why there are specific size criteria for stub categories and what those criteria are? Grutness...wha? 00:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Widely used, so useful. We should create the Category:ESA, too. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to create Category:ESA; Category:European Space Agency has existed since 2004, and I have now tucked Category:ESA stubs into it. I suggest we re-sort as Grutness suggests and then see what's left. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge, on grounds of size. If kept, it should be renamed to match the permcat. Alai (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2008 (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.