Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/March
March 31
[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 discussion was delete cat, upmerge template
Propose delete category, upmerge template. 5 articles in the permcat, no sign of growing. Dawynn (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – SeveroTC 08:59, 3 April 2011 (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.
- 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 discussion was delete cat, upmerge template
I searched through the permcat. It has few articles, and many of them are start size or better. Delete category and upmerge parent. Dawynn (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – SeveroTC 08:59, 3 April 2011 (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.
- 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 discussion was delete cat, upmerge template
Permcat has subcategories with lots of faculty and alumni articles, but only a dozen or so articles about the universities. Propose delete category and upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – SeveroTC 08:59, 3 April 2011 (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.
- 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 discussion was rename
Propose renaming to Category:North America stubs. To match the following:
- Category:Asia stubs
- Category:Africa stubs
- Category:Europe stubs
- Category:Oceania stubs
- Category:South America stubs
Oh -- and the North America category is seriously undersorted. But there's not much point in filling it until we have a correct name.
Dawynn (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – wow, how did it happen that we never had this category? – SeveroTC 08:59, 3 April 2011 (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.
March 30
[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 discussion was Upmerge, with no prejudice against re-creation of category once it reached standard threshold
Propose deletion, with no prejudice against recreation, if category can find 60+ articles. Currently, permcat has about 10 articles. Template should be kept and upmerged to both Category:Serbian building and structure stubs and Category:European castle stubs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawynn (talk • contribs)
- Support – SeveroTC 07:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – Serbia have more then 500 castles, and this stub was created for new articles in List of fortifications in Serbia. Please, leave this category until process is over, as it is very useful to have separated stubs for Serbian castles, and scope is very big. --WhiteWriter speaks 15:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This category was created last August and has only accumulated 9 articles in that time which implies the article creation process is not so quick so a category is not yet needed. The template will remain (no one has proposed deleting it) and you can always grab a list of which and how many articles transclude the template with the WhatLinksHere feature. SeveroTC 08:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. There's nothing to stop a category being proposed when the stubs have been made, but for now it clearly has little use. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 10 April 2011 (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.
- 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 discussion was upmerge
Propose deletion, with no prejudice against recreation, if category can find 60+ articles. Currently, permcat has only 9 articles. Template should be kept and upmerged to both Category:Albanian building and structure stubs and Category:European airport stubs. Dawynn (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – SeveroTC 07:51, 1 April 2011 (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.
March 29
[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 discussion was Delete template, keep category as parent-only type
Propose deletion. All four subcategories are now up to size. Considering that, for the sake of football, these are still considered separate "countries", the grouping here seems inappropriate to the topic. Note that there is no combined permcat. Dawynn (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Grutness...wha? 22:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We might want to keep this one as a link in the chain from Category:British sport stubs. SeveroTC 07:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC) (Although either way delete {{UK-footyclub-stub}} - SeveroTC 10:44, 1 April 2011 (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.
{{Sealand-stub}}/{{micronation-stub}}
[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 discussion was Delete
Propose deletion because the Principality of Sealand is not a recognized entity. Dawynn (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. More to the point, this is badly formed, feeding straight into the permcat - and that permcat has only nine articles! I seriously doubt we'd need a separate Sealand stub ever - and certainly not yet. A {{micronation-stub}} might be useful at some stage, though... BTW, this template seems to be unused. Grutness...wha? 07:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately we now have an unproposed, malformed micronation-stub, created by moving sealand-stub! As I said, such a stub type may be needed at some stage, but it almost certainly isn't yet, so I've added it to this proposal. Category:Micronations and its subcats has at most 125 articles (probably far fewer since some articles are in more than one subcategory), but a random sampling suggests that less than a third of them are stubs (4 of 16 checked, which would suggest only some 30-35 stubs). Grutness...wha? 10:03, 2 April 2011 (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.
March 28
[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 discussion was delete, create new NK template
- Propose delete of Category:Korea university stubs and {{korea-university-stub}}.
- Propose creation of {{NorthKorea-university-stub}}. All articles currently tagged with the Korea tag may be moved to the new NorthKorea tag. Upmerge new template to both Category:Asia university stubs and Category:North Korea stubs.
Dawynn (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- support Grutness...wha? 22:20, 28 March 2011 (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.
- 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 discussion was delete
This is a conglomerate parent-only category trying to lump together two unrelated activities: diving and underwater diving. There is no related permcat for this conglomeration other than the higher parent Category:Water sports which has its own stub category Category:Water sports stubs. Propose deleting this category as an unnecessary layer. Dawynn (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- support. ISTR this was created before the two separate subtypes were made. Grutness...wha? 22:20, 28 March 2011 (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.
- 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 discussion was delete
Delete as unnecessary. This is a parent-only stub category where both subcategories have over 100 articles. There is no such combined permcat. At this point, this category is just an extra layer. Dawynn
- support. ISTR this was a holding pen while the subtypes were undersized. Grutness...wha? 22:20, 28 March 2011 (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.
- 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 discussion was delete
Delete as redundant. This is currently a parent-only stub category (that is, it does not have its own template). Both of the subcategories are fully filled with over 200 articles plus their own subcategories. Both of the categories are also found under the more general Category:Symbol stubs parent. At this point, this category is just an extra layer. Dawynn (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- support. ISTR this was also a holding pen while the subtypes were undersized. Grutness...wha? 22:20, 28 March 2011 (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.
March 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 discussion was rename
Seems very likely this will have enough stubs, but it needs renaming to match the permcat. (see discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2011/March#Category:Deaf_stubs) Grutness...wha? 23:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support to match permacat. Waacstats (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2011 (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.
March 23
[edit]Slovakian categories
[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 discussion was rename
(originally just a nomination for Category:Slovakian sport stubs)
This category should be renamed to Category:Slovak sport stubs, to reflect the common usage of adjective "Slovak" in other categories throughout WP. - Darwinek (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've added Category:Slovakian building and structure stubs to the nomination, since that would also need changing (to Category:Slovak building and structure stubs). Grutness...wha? 22:30, 23 March 2011 (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.
March 20
[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 discussion was rename
This stub type is clearly intended for stubs relating to the people's Republic, and should be named as such. Rename to Category:People's Republic of China rail stubs, as per standard stub naming. Grutness...wha? 22:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- PS - before anyone mentions it, there's serious undersorting in the Asia rail stub and China stub categories, so this should easily reach threshold. Grutness...wha? 22:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. And the undersorting problem for Category:Asia rail stubs is taken care of. China rail stubs is almost to 60, and carries a well-filled Category:People's Republic of China railway station stubs sub-category. Dawynn (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2011 (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.
- 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 discussion was delete
Oddly named, unused template that somehow tries to combine {{stub}} and {{expand-section}} while incorrectly implying that sections of articles can be stubs (they can't - stubs are short articles). Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused and unneeded. Waacstats (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2011 (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.
March 17
[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 discussion was upmerge
Small category, with little prospect of growing much. Suggest upmerging to the family. I'm currently trying to hack the family (Category:Noctuidae stubs) down so that it can allow for upmerging of these small subfamilies. Dawynn (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2011 (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.
- 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 discussion was upmerge
Undersized, {{latvia-edu-stub}} manages 14 and {{latvia-university-stub}} 7 after sorting. Propose to delete category and upmerge templates. SeveroTC 14:15, 17 March 2011 (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.
Rename of education by country stub categories
[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 discussion was rename/upmerge
The permcats generally are Education in Foo, so I propose we rename the following:
- Category:European education stubs >> Category:Europe education stubs
- Category:Latvian education stubs >> Category:Latvia education stubs (without prejudice of the above deletion nomination)
- Category:Japanese education stubs >> Category:Japan education stubs
The only other ones we have at the moment are Bangladesh, United Kingdom, Mexico, Taiwan and United States. Also see the proposal for a Poland education stubs category. SeveroTC 14:15, 17 March 2011 (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.
Rename of {{Natural phenol and polyphenol-stub}}
[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 discussion was rename/restore/re-sort per nomination
I don't have a suggestion here. But the template name needs some work. Dawynn (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose deleting {{Natural phenol and polyphenol-stub}} and Category:Natural phenols and polyphenolic compound stubs, as there is no joined permcat.
- Propose restoring {{polyphenol-stub}} (241 P), and creating Category:Polyphenol stubs for permcat Category:Polyphenols.
- Propose renaming {{natural phenol-stub}} to {{naturalphenol-stub}} (51 P). If 9 more articles can be found, propose creating Category:Natural phenol stubs for permact Category:Natural phenols. If not, upmerge to Category:Aromatic compound stubs.
- Dawynn (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since Natural phenols are a type of phenol, perhaps {{Natural-phenol-stub}} would make more sense? Other than that, I support your proposal. BTW, it seems we now have a considerable number or renamings and redirects to deal with - the creator of this templa5te didn't read the "DO NOT rename while discussion is in progress" rule above... :( Grutness...wha? 07:56, 29 March 2011 (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.
March 16
[edit]More premature categories
[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 discussion was delete, with no prejudice against re-creating later if/when needed
I propose deleting the following categories for now. In the future, provided there are enough articles to cover the standard threshhold (currently 60), these may be re-created:
1990 birth would mean these players are at about college level or below. A bit early for being encyclopedia-worthy.
- Category:American basketball biography, 1990s birth stubs (8 P)
- Category:American football wide receiver, 1990s birth stubs (9 P)
1980 birth would put a politician at about 30. Don't know about Japan, but many countries have age limits for government offices, with 30 being about the lowest.
Dawynn (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd still try to fill it. In many countries the age limit's far lower than 30. Here in New Zealand we've had MPs under 25 years old, and it may be the same in Japan. These categories all do seem a little premature, though. Grutness...wha? 22:02, 19 March 2011 (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.
- 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 discussion was keep
An anomodont stub template was created a few months ago, along with a therapsid stub template. Since anomodonts are a type of therapsid, I don't see any reason for them having their own stub type. In comparison to other therapsid groups, anomodonts aren't particularly diverse. Currently there are 99 articles that use the template. I propose that this template be deleted, and the articles that use this stub instead use {{Therapsid-stub}}. Smokeybjb (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - seems like a reasonable subcategory, and certainly has enough stubs to warrant a separate type. Once other therapsid groups have similar large numbers of stub, separate templates will no doubt be proposed for them, too. Grutness...wha? 21:53, 18 March 2011 (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.
March 15
[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 discussion was upmerge
Permcat has only 20 articles. Propose deleting category, upmerging template to both Category:Pennsylvania building and structure stubs and Category:Amusement park stubs. Dawynn (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2011 (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.
Underpopulated sports categories
[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 discussion was upmerge
Delete categories and upmerge templates:
- Category:Lithuanian football club stubs (30)
- Category:Latvian football club stubs (43)
- Category:Latvian sports venue stubs (16)
Following the ongoing by country sports sorting, the above three categories are underpopulated after sorting with no short-term potential to growth to category levels. The templates can be upmerged to the usual places. SeveroTC 11:54, 15 March 2011 (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.
March 14
[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 discussion was upmerge until such time as there are sufficient stubs for a separate category
Procedural posting User:Dawynn posted the {{sfd-c}} template on the category page, giving the reason "Still severely undersized for a stub category" in the comments. Notification has not been posted here, so I am attempting to do so. I will notify the user and ask to come here for a more thorough explanation. There are currently 6 articles in the category.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this category is a sub-category of the widely-used Category:College football coach stubs. For ease of use, each has been broken down by decade. The "2010's" stub matches similar categories from the 1890's to the 2000's. The 2010's coaches subcategory is a natural extension and as the decade goes on will obviously continue to grow.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with no prejudice against re-creation at a later date. Paul, standard WSS practice is to only split new decade stub categories out once they have reached the required 60-stub threshold. Until that point, they remain upmerged. It may be a natural extension, and it may be that it will "obviously continue to grow", but at the moment it is too small. You could also say that a category for the 1880s or for the 1870s is a "natural extension" and that if Wikipedia continues to increase in size will continue to grow, but that is no reason why such a category would be needed now. Grutness...wha? 21:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was unaware of that standard practice. I believe that there is a valid reason to maintain exceptions in this case because of the workability and feasability of the category, expecially when grouped by decade. But if it is removed, what category would be best for those articles that now do not have such a category?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The template would continue to be used, but would place stubs in the more general Category:College football coach stubs until there are 60 of them. At that point a new category would be created. The purpose is simply to try to control the numberof small stub categories that are created, as they make both stub sorting and searching for stubs to edit a much more difficult task if they are allowed to proliferate (which is why exceptions aren't generally made, as they would set precedents). Grutness...wha? 21:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was unaware of that standard practice. I believe that there is a valid reason to maintain exceptions in this case because of the workability and feasability of the category, expecially when grouped by decade. But if it is removed, what category would be best for those articles that now do not have such a category?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Notification was given here. See March 11, under Premature current decade categories. Dawynn (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for clarifying procedure, I hadn't noticed the notification. I propose for this category we continue discussion here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that WSS practice is that a stub category needs at least 60 articles, but I don't understand why. I looked around, but I couldn't find any explanation for this, and it seems to run contrary to categorization practices elsewhere in Wikipedia. Even accepting that unusual standard, it seem highly likely that this sub-category will get there since all the other such sub-categories have well more than that. If you know that articles will eventually need to be put in this sub-category, isn't it easier to do it as they're created, rather than wait until you think there are enough? cmadler (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Grutness/Stub rationales should explain it. Grutness...wha? 21:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, I disagree in this case. I have read the rationales given in the essay on stub rationales and I just don't see them applying to these categories and these types of articles. Also, I see that the essay states that the optimum size is 60 to 800 stubs, but it does not explain why this is true or provide any indication to tests/failures/historical examples where a smaller count failed. While it likely works out generally in many cases, in this particular case I see strong grounds for exception to this practice.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been found that 60-800 stubs is the optimum range after a long history of trial and error by the stub sorting project over the course of at least six or seven years. The essay gives specific reasons why smaller and larger stub categories are avoided. Though it is an essay, it restates sizes widely used for stub categories across wikipedia which - though not decreed as policy - certainly have the status of strong guidelines. And respectfully, other than "I disagree", I see no specific arguments as to why this particular case should be an exception, especially given the long history of precedents suggesting that it should be upmerged. Grutness...wha? 08:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you haven't really given a reason to make the change other than "We've always done it that way." I could easily take your reasoning and change it to ours--because, at WP:CFB, we have found after a long history of trial and error that grouping head coaches by decade of start is best for stub sorting. We have found the number of stubs in the category is of little consequence and that grouping by decade gives the most usable reference platform for those doing research. And I see no reason to change it given the long history of classifications and many decades of coach stub articles already in existence, which is certainly a more specific application and test of this particular case than a more general application.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The reasons given in the essay give pretty precise reasons why stub splits have been done the way they are currently done, and why they do not support anything other than upmerging this category. They may boil down to "we've always done it this way" in your view, but that's an inaccurate summation - it's far more accurate to say they boil down to "we've tried other ways, and they create more work for everyone - previous work has shown that this is the optimum for both stub sorters and article editors". I'd also suggest that if you're commenting as part of a specific WikiProject, which you seem to be by your reference to CFB, then why are you not using your talk-page banner assessment template to do your splitting by decade? Or any other way you want? Stub templates are not designed to be the domain of a specific subject-oriented WikiProject, they are a general maintenance tool. If you want your articles, stub or otherwise, sorted in a particular way for the purposes of CFB editors, use the specific WP:CFB tool which can do that job any way you want. It's far more sensible to do that than to create a precedent which can be used to create any number of other premature stub categories which then have to be patrolled by WP:WSS and which are an impediment to the work of general editors. Grutness...wha? 22:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you haven't really given a reason to make the change other than "We've always done it that way." I could easily take your reasoning and change it to ours--because, at WP:CFB, we have found after a long history of trial and error that grouping head coaches by decade of start is best for stub sorting. We have found the number of stubs in the category is of little consequence and that grouping by decade gives the most usable reference platform for those doing research. And I see no reason to change it given the long history of classifications and many decades of coach stub articles already in existence, which is certainly a more specific application and test of this particular case than a more general application.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been found that 60-800 stubs is the optimum range after a long history of trial and error by the stub sorting project over the course of at least six or seven years. The essay gives specific reasons why smaller and larger stub categories are avoided. Though it is an essay, it restates sizes widely used for stub categories across wikipedia which - though not decreed as policy - certainly have the status of strong guidelines. And respectfully, other than "I disagree", I see no specific arguments as to why this particular case should be an exception, especially given the long history of precedents suggesting that it should be upmerged. Grutness...wha? 08:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, I disagree in this case. I have read the rationales given in the essay on stub rationales and I just don't see them applying to these categories and these types of articles. Also, I see that the essay states that the optimum size is 60 to 800 stubs, but it does not explain why this is true or provide any indication to tests/failures/historical examples where a smaller count failed. While it likely works out generally in many cases, in this particular case I see strong grounds for exception to this practice.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Grutness/Stub rationales should explain it. Grutness...wha? 21:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment Spent a little bit of time digging through and found another group of stub articles that needed the classification. These are for coaches from Div I FBS (I-A) that were easy to locate because of many lists in the news. It's fair to say that many other first year-coaches for 2010 and 2011 will be named in other divisions of the NCAA and NAIA. I would say that if 60 is the "magical limit" then we are already there, the articles just either haven't been written yet or have been written but the appropriate template has not been placed on the article.
- I'm not sure about some of the ones you added. The first two I looked at were Joker Phillips and Steve Addazio. Although both became head coaches in the 2010s, Phillips was first appointed as a college football coach in the 1990s (I'm assuming GA doesn't count) and Addazio in the 1980s, and I think they should be classified into those decades. Also, although both are currently assessed as stubs, I question whether either actually is -- I'd probably call them both start-class. cmadler (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I re-assessed one from "start" to "stub" because it was clearly a stub. Of those that were unassessed, I classified as stub if they (to me) appeared to be so. The others were assessed as stubs already by other editors and I didn't really look to challenge or change that (although you're probably right). I took the start date as a head coach as I could find in the article, which is likely incomplete and could be corrected. That was my method, feel free to re-assess any as you see fit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop counting your chickens before they hatch.
- An article is not a stub article until it actually exists. (counter to: "...we are already there, the articles just haven't been written yet")
- A start-class (or higher class) article is not a stub-class article. So, even if there are 60 articles about coaches that began their coaching career in 2010 or 2011, it doesn't mean that they are all still stubs.
- Since you have a WikiProject, your goal should not be filling up stub categories. Your goal should be moving all written articles covered by your WP to good or featured status. WPSS will accept all the help that it can get, but if you want to contribute, please follow our project guidelines. Dawynn (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- whatever I'm really tired of this whole issue. Do whatever you want. I don't see how twice taking action without consensus on a contested issue is in Wikipedia's best interest, but I'm tired of reverting your actions until the discussion is closed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, didn't remember having cleared the category before. But, reading through the history, there has still been no valid rebuttal to the request for removal, or to Grutness' well-stated arguments. ("We might have enough, someday" does not count as a valid argument, as has already been stated) And the main issue of a highly under-sized stub category has still not been resolved. (Its still weighing in at just 15 articles) Dawynn (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Paul, there seems to be some misunderstanding of how process pages such as this work. The aim is not always to find consensus,. but rather to show the best way forward. That requires argument to be met by sufficient counterargument. All the arguments are weighed up to find the most appropriate outcome.As Dawynn says (and thank you for the "well-stated" part, D), most of the 'keep' arguments boil down to "we like it and it will eventually be useful", rather than countering my comments that it is not useful now, as is required by stub-sorting guidelines for a category to be created. The weight of the arguments still favour deletion. However, see my comments immediately below... Grutness...wha? 22:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, didn't remember having cleared the category before. But, reading through the history, there has still been no valid rebuttal to the request for removal, or to Grutness' well-stated arguments. ("We might have enough, someday" does not count as a valid argument, as has already been stated) And the main issue of a highly under-sized stub category has still not been resolved. (Its still weighing in at just 15 articles) Dawynn (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about some of the ones you added. The first two I looked at were Joker Phillips and Steve Addazio. Although both became head coaches in the 2010s, Phillips was first appointed as a college football coach in the 1990s (I'm assuming GA doesn't count) and Addazio in the 1980s, and I think they should be classified into those decades. Also, although both are currently assessed as stubs, I question whether either actually is -- I'd probably call them both start-class. cmadler (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has now been hanging around here for several weeks past its supposed cut-off and it is clogging up the bottom of the SFD page - twice it has been closed and reopened. I would suggest the following:
- If the category can be brought close to the 60-stub threshold (say 50 stubs) by this time next week, either by finding existing stubs or creating new ones, then it will have shown its current usefulness and should stay.
- If it cannot be brought up to that size in a week, it clearly is not yet useful enough for a separate category and should be deleted, with the stubs and template upmerged.
- If the latter is the case, then it can and should be speedily created once the number of stubs using the template has reached the 60-stub threshold. Grutness...wha? 22:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This allows everyone time to try to get it to a viable size, and makes it clear that any deletion is only temporary until it is of a useful size (which ios pretty much standard WSS practice anyway). Are there any objections to this approach? Grutness...wha? 22:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - proposal for one final week of pardon before resolving issue as Grutness has outlined. Dawynn (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2011 (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.
March 11
[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 discussion was upmerge
Propose upmerging. The permcat has less than a dozen articles. Dawynn (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2011 (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.
Premature current decade categories
[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 discussion was upmerge until they are viable as separate categories
Proposing that these upmerge until they have a chance to fill a category:
- Category:2010s post-rock album stubs (2 P)
- Category:2010s science fiction novel stubs (9 P)
- Category:2010s British film stubs (24 P)
- Category:2010s comedy film stubs (22 P)
- Category:2010s compilation album stubs (36 P)
- Category:2010s country song stubs (7 P)
- Category:2010s drama film stubs (37 P)
- Category:2010s heavy metal album stubs (37 P)
- Category:2010s horror film stubs (16 P)
- Category:2010s indie pop album stubs (4 P)
- Category:2010s Japanese single stubs (16 P)
Category:College football coaches first appointed in the 2010s stubs (6 P)(See March 14)
Dawynn (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, with no prejudice against later re-creation once they reach threshold. Grutness...wha? 21:22, 15 March 2011 (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.
March 10
[edit]Cross-country skiing 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 discussion was rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Finnish cross country skiing biography stubs to Category:Finnish cross-country skiing biography stubs
- Category:Norwegian cross country skiing biography stubs to Category:Norwegian cross-country skiing biography stubs
- Category:Russian cross country skiing biography stubs to Category:Russian cross-country skiing biography stubs
To hyphenate "cross country", per Category:Cross-country skiing biography stubs. For future reference, I would like to solicit opinions on whether stub categories should be speedily renamed in cases, such as this one, where they clearly meet one or more of the speedy criteria. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support renames. As far as speedying goes, in simple cases like this, it's almost certainly fine, as long as equivalent changes are also made to the canonical stub list. The main bugbear might be that there are some cases which would be speediable for permcats which might not be as clear-cut for stub cats. (e.g., the differing uses of demonyms with stub cats compared to permcats, in an attempt to walk a reasonable line between grammatical and non-cumbersome names - such as the US history books case you recently brought here). Things like hyphenation seem perfectly acceptable for speedying, though. Grutness...wha? 03:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems reasonable. Minor changes affecting spelling or punctuation (C2.A) can be processed through speedy renaming, with corresponding updates made to the stub list, and changes to words or their ordering (C2.B and C2.C) should be brought here for closer consideration. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2011 (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.
Underpopulated scientist categories
[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 discussion was upmerge
- Category:Turkish scientist stubs. Currently only 1 article, supplied by {{Turkey-botanist-stub}}. {{Turkey-scientist-stub}} would only add 19 artciles. Propose upmerging the botanist template and deleting category.
- Category:Soviet scientist stubs. Currently only one article, supplied by {{USSR-botanist-stub}}. There is no {{USSR-scientist-stub}}. Propose upmerging template and deleting category.
Dawynn (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2011 (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.
- 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 discussion was upmerge
I tried to populate this guy, but only found 29 stub articles. I believe the category was premature. Proposing deleting the category, double-upmerging the template to Category:African writer stubs and Category:Algerian people stubs. Dawynn (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to nominate a few other Algeria-related categories that were created prematurely:
- Propose upmerging all of these. Dawynn (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2011 (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.
Redirected categories
[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 discussion was delete all
Also from the stub type sizes list. I question the helpfulness of redirect categories. I propose deleting all of the existing redirect categories:
- Cultural_Property_of_Great_Importance_stubs
- Batswana_people_stubs
- Hemiphractinae_stubs
- Upper_Corsica_geography_stubs
- Algeria_sportspeople_stubs
- Germany_church_stubs
- Basse-Normandie_geography_stubs
- Bourgogne_geography_stubs
- Canton_of_Berne_geography_stubs
- Haute-Normandie_geography_stubs
- Punjab_(Pakistan)_geography_stubs
- Transportation_stubs
Dawynn (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no point in soft redirects for stub categories, since they're always populated by templates. These can happily be deleted. Grutness...wha? 21:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, there's really little or no use for redirects to template-populated maintenance categories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2011 (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.
- 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 discussion was delete, use the Yugoslav one instead
Found with the March 9 Stub type sizes list. The template listed here actually loads to Category:Yugoslav film stubs instead. Dawynn (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this can be done speedy IMO (as I created it). Now superceded following the rename of the Yugo' cats. Lugnuts (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2011 (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.
March 9
[edit]{{US-football-stub}}
[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 discussion was delete
Misleadingly-named redirect to {{Americanfootball-stub}}. This isn't for football in the United States (in fact, the two of the three articles it was used on were about sports stadia in Germany). No indication that it's been added to an article in over three years, and it's reason for creation isn't exactly clear given the edit summary at its time of creation... Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 9 March 2011 (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.
Category:United States history book 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 discussion was Relisted, 11 April 2011
- Moved from talk page as a procedural nom
Category:United States history book stubs was nominated on 28 February for speedy renaming to Category:History book about the United States stubs. Since it is a stub category, it is ineligible for speedy renaming, and the listing has been removed. I am posting this notice here so that a discussion about the category, if it is thought to be necessary, can be initiated. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably worth discussing, though the new name is pretty cumbersome, and unless a better name can be found I'd be leaning towards keeping it as is. Though I can see the point of differentiating between books from and about the US, I can't help but wonder whether there's a better name (stub category names don't always exactly reflect permcat names). Anyone have any better possible names? Grutness...wha? 22:59, 9 March 2011 (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.