Jump to content

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/January/5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 5

[edit]

{{Squash-stub}} / Category:Squash stubs, {{Squash-bio-stub}} / Category:Squash biography stubs

[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 upmerge squash, keep squash-bio


Seems like a reasonable idea to have templates for this sport, though the categories may well be premature - there's no sign that these are likely to reach threshold at the moment - even given the presence of a WikiProject - so they may need to be upmerged. There is, however, a major problem. Squash is a dab page, so the template should not be called {{Squash-stub}}. Suggest renaming the templates (and not keeping the current names as redirects) to {{Squash-sport-stub}} and {{Squash-sport-bio-stub}} and - unless the required number of stubs can be found quickly, upmerging both. If kept, the parenting of the categories will need massive improvement, too. BTW, {{Squash-stub}} also uses that horrible Asbox thing, so will need recoded properly. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, The sport seems to be the primary topic, so i've mvoed the article there. No need to rename the templates, but there still may be a need to upmerge them. Grutness...wha? 01:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though the -stub mey not yet get any where near threshold. 91.110.88.4 (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? That boils down to "Keep despite meeting the criteria for deletion"! Grutness...wha? 00:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Make that a strong keep of the bio cat as it has over 60 articles. Waacstats (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Arteyu (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK - that one's fine, then - it's just Category:Squash stubs that's a concern now. Grutness...wha? 05:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to say keep but I've been through the category and I can't find anymore articles that would be suitable for a stub tag so Upmerge till we get close to 30 (wikiproject and child cat) which given that it is a new wikiproject might not be that long. Waacstats (talk) 10:28, 12 January 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.

{{Orienteering-org-stub}} / Category:Orienteering organization stubs

[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 - superseded by new proposed types


Unproposed, and of very limited use. The piping on the template is bewildering and the category needs better parents, but the main problems are the lack of suitable parents. Category:Sports organization stubs is not oversized}}, we don't even have an Category:Orienteering stubs, and there is no such category as Category:Orienteering organizations (with either spelling). The nearest appropriate permcat parent is Category:Orienteering clubs, and even if everything in that category was a stub it still wouldn't meet threshold. Just not needed or practical. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Create, and shift this to, Orienteering-stub, if that is supportable; otherwise delete. Radagast (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not fully aware of policy when creating it and did not know that a formal proposal had to be initiated I agree with moving it to Orienteering-stub as suggested above .安東尼 TALK 圣诞快乐 18:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A stub template for WikiProject Orienteering might be useful, but this template is a very narrow subset. I think its purpose would be better served using the CategoryIntersect tool.[1] (For the record, I do not approve of creating Wikipedia articles for every orienteering club, especially not stub articles; that is too close to using Wikipedia as a directory.) --Una Smith (talk) 18:16, 5 January 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.

{{Dalit-stub}} (no category)

[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'--Aervanath (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Unproposed, and definitely seems to be an inappropriate way to split stubs. If the Dalits were an ethnic group, it would be questionable but borderline, but this is a split for an Indian caste. The first paragraph of the article Dalit tells you instantly why it would be very problematical to have this as a stub: a self-designated name for "a mixed population of numerous caste groups [who] speak various languages [and who are] impossible to differentiate [...] on the basis of phenotypes or genetics alone" We don't have separate stub types for individual social groups in general, especially not self-designated ones - it would run directly across the stub hierarchy and make for multi-stubbing for the sake of multi-stubbing. Most of the things that this stub could possibly be used on have far more appropriate stub types available. What's more, the template itself is a problem, with no stub category of any kind (it links to a permcat) and with an inappropriate link in its text. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep:First of all, sorry, I was unaware that formal proposal has to presented and accepted before a stub type gets created. I have learned that now and would follow the same in future. multi-stubbing for the sake of multi-stubbing was definitely not my intention, but to help improve the coverage of Dalit articles. Dalits are not ethnic groups in India but a huge section of society that is not properly sorted on WP. Indian caste is such a huge grouping that it would be impossible to properly sort articles under them. Also, it is not at all difficult to differentiate if an organization or individual is a dalit or not. It is not at all ambiguous - but quite clear. This would not create confusion, but instead clear up the idea for any reader. I have also corrected the category problem mentioned by you by creating a sub-category Category:Dalit community stubs. This would put the articles under Category:Dalit > Category:Dalit community > Category:Dalit community stubs. The Dalit category page currently does not have any sub-category of stub articles. Hope this helps and let me know if anything else needs to be corrected. --GPPande 07:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; though an important topic, not suitable for a stub type, mainly because stub types follow clearly definable geographic or cultural guidelines, rather than caste or social status; you are right in saying that Dalits are part of many cultures and regions. If this area of WP needs organization, I suggest you use the permanent categories for now. Also, may I observe that though the definition of what/who is Dalit may be clear to you and many others, there are enough people whose opinions differ on the topic to make this a difficult type to assign and sort. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You said - it is an important topic and stub types follow clearly definable cultural guidelines which both qualify to "keep" this stub-type. There are so many bio & organization stub articles on Wikipedia which are not categorized as Dalit-stubs because there simply isn't any category. You did not explain why to delete? You said definition of Dalit is clear to me and many others - but enough people otherwise. It is very rare to find 100% consensus on any matter in Wikipedia. You suggested me to use existing categories but did not explain why the stub-type should be deleted? The concern regarding category has also been addressed. --GPPande 07:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was saying that I agree that the topic is important, but since that isn't a criterion for stub type creation, it is "not suitable for a stub type, mainly because stub types follow clearly definable geographic or cultural guidelines, rather than caste or social status". Sorry for any misunderstanding. Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um yes she did. Dalit makes it clear that this is not a clearly definable geographic or cultural group in stub terms. She also pointed out that the definition is hazy enough that definitions would differ between different individuals - making this a very difficult stub type to work with. Peg also said: "Dalits are part of many different cultures and regions", which is true. As such, this stub type would be difficult to maintain and would run contrary to the way stub types are normally split. Those two reasons in themselves are enough reasons why this stub type shouldn't exist. Grutness...wha? 23:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per the criterion -
  1. Is there a stub type for this topic already? (Check Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types.) Answer:No
  2. Will the new type be well-defined? (Stub categories are a tool used by editors to expand articles. Good topic definition makes stubs easier to sort accurately.)Answer:Yes, Category dalit is well defined. Use similar logic for sorting stub articles of Dalit.
  3. Does the new stub type cover ground not covered by other type? Answer: Yes
  4. Will there be a significant number of existing stubs in this category? (Ideally, a newly-created stub type has 100-300 articles. In general, any new stub category should have a minimum of 60 articles. This threshold is modified in the case of the main stub category used by a WikiProject.) Answer: Yes, if we categories articles we should surely exceed 100. Someone needs to spend time and add category to various pages.
  5. Would your new stub type overlap with other stub types? (Stub types form a hierarchy and as such are usually split in specific ways. Compare other stub splits at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types.) Answer: This stub type clearly fits into the hierarchy and does not have any overlap.
  6. If you are breaking a subtype out of an existing type, will the new creation reduce the size of the parent by a significant amount? (This is not an absolute necessity, but is often a catalyst for the creation of stub categories. Stub categories containing over 800 articles are typically considered to be "over-sized", and in need of such sub-types.) Answer: Not applicable as no existing subtype category has been split.
I hope I clarified all concerns with regards to rules. --GPPande 08:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it does clarify that you still don't see some of the problems:
2. Will the new type be well-defined? Definitely not. The article Dalit makes it clear that there is no simple definition of Dalit and that Dalit people are self-defined. I could call myself a Dalit. So could you. Someone who is considered Dalit by you might not regard themselves as such.
3. Does the new stub type cover ground not covered by other type? No. All the articles which could be covered by this stub type are already covered by other stubs.
4. Will there be a significant number of existing stubs in this category?: No way of telling at present, but it seems highly unlikely. Category:Dalit and all its subcategories only contain 127 articles (including redirects). A random sampling of these indicates that only 30-40% are stubs. that would give far fewer than the 60 required stubs for a stub type.
5. Would your new stub type overlap with other stub types? (Stub types form a hierarchy and as such are usually split in specific ways. Compare other stub splits at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types.) Very clearly and very strongly. Dalit-stub would, by the looks of it, cover a large number of nation-specific bio-stub, poli-stub, party-stub, history-stub, and reli-stub types.
6. If you are breaking a subtype out of an existing type, will the new creation reduce the size of the parent by a significant amount? These are not part of an existing stub category, as stub types are not split according to social hierarchical type - examination of the stub types indicated in point 5 should show this clearly. Splitting on such an axis runs contrary to normal stub-splitting practice.
If you think you have satisfied these guidelines, it is highly recommended that you propose the new stub type at stub type proposals page. This allows for debate on matters relating to the stub type that may not have occurred to the proposer, and also allows for objections if the split does not satisfy stub guidelines. If there are no objections within five days, you may create the new stub type. No such proposal and debate took place. if it had done, there would undoubtedly have been strong opposition to it for the reasons given above.
Hopefully, this clarifies why, according to WP:STUB, this stub type shouldn't exist. Grutness...wha? 10:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that my good faith efforts are not justified. You guys are the gurus in area so I would not further discuss this. Just wanted to say sorry for the trouble it may have caused and withdraw. I would take prior permission before creating stub types in future. --GPPande 19:00, 13 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2009/January/5&oldid=1140386723"