Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/March/14
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.