Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/December/11

December 11

{{Latur-geo-stub}} / Category:Latur Division geography 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 Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Underpopulated (23 articles). Latur Division, by all appearances, does not exist. There's a city and district named Latur, however. If kept,the category will need renaming. No obvious candidate for renaming, as we variously have Latur City, Latur District, Category:Latur and Category:Latur district. (This was tagged for SFD back in August, but the listing got messed up.) -Mairi (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the template (which clearly says Latur district) but reupmerge. The template wasn't proposed, but seems to be OK - and the documentation for it appears to indicate that it was upmerged - but the category shows no clear evidence that there were enough stubs for it, and as such is not that desirable. I've notified the creators of the template and category, BTW. Grutness...wha? 23:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also worth noting that of those 23 articles, quite a number are not geo-stubs, so shouldn't have been in there anyway (councils and boards, a railway station, etc.) Probably only about 18 of them should have been marked with the stub template. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Grutness. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2009 (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.

{{Plan-9-stub}} / Category:Plan 9 from Bell Labs 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 Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Been around for years, still has only 12 articles. Unlikely to get much bigger, as the main cat has well less than 60 articles. Delete. -Mairi (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Grutness...wha? 23:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little potential for expansion here. In all honesty, I'm surprised this stub type has lasted so long. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2009 (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.

{{Pedagogue-stub}} / Category:Pedagogue 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 {{Educationist-stub}} / Category:Educationist stubs and resort articles as needed. Renaming of {{Edu-bio-stub}} was mentioned but never formally proposed, so I leave that to be handled separately. --RL0919 (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listing per comments on the category talk page and at WP:WSS/D. Changing the name to either {{Educator-stub}} / Category:Educator stubs or {{Educationist-stub}} / Category:Educationist stubs sounds approipriate, though as to which is better (or whether both are needed), I leave to those better acquainted with the field. Grutness...wha? 23:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm - I now see that {{Edu-bio-stub}} / Category:Educator stubs already exists. Perhaps changing this one to the Educationist one, with re-sorting wherever necessary? Grutness...wha? 23:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Where's the discussion at WP:WSS/D? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh...apologies. Make that WP:WSS/P. :) Grutness...wha? 23:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there we go. This is a really bizarre case. I agree that "pedagogue" is the wrong word to apply to educationists, but I'm not sure if there are enough educationist stubs in existence to create Category:Educationist stubs. Let me take a head-count of educator stubs and educationist stubs in Category:Pedagogue stubs. There are 72 stubs in that stubcat, so this might take a while. I'll be back in a bit. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done and it looks fairly even. The problem I'm running into repeatedly is the tendency of educationists to be educators by profession. I suspect double-tagging will be the best choice in many of these cases. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, create {{Educationist-stub}} and Category:Educationist stubs, sort stubs in the Category:Pedagogue stubs to the new stub type where appropriate, and sort stubs in Category:Pedagogue stubs to {{Edu-bio-stub}} and Category:Educator stubs where appropriate. Actually, it might be good if we renamed {{Edu-bio-stub}} to {{Educator-stub}} in light of the creation of {{Educationist-stub}}. Thoughts? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good - the only problem with it is the possible size of the categories once finished. Will they pass the 60 stub threshold? If not, there may need to be some upmerging somewhere. Grutness...wha? 00:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite possible they will; as I said above, I foresee a good deal of double-tagging. If upmerging becomes necessary, I guess we could create something along the lines of Category:Education-related biographical stubs with one of the stubcats as a subcategory. (But I'd rather not.) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. We gotr rid of all the "-related" stub category names a couple of years ago, and I wouldn't like to see them come back. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so we're in agreement there. Personally I think that when it comes to upmerging, we should cross that bridge when we come to it – if we come to it. For now, I think creating the new template and category and re-sorting is the best way forward. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2009 (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.