Jump to content

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/December/28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 28[edit]

Cue sports mess[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 use cuesport-stub / Cue sport stubs; snooker-stub, snooker-bio-stub / Snooker stubs


I tried to straighten this out a bit, but it still needs some work.

Part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports
everything feeds into this. rename to Cat:Cue sports stub
redirects to {{billiards-stub}}, not used on any articles, delete
redirect to {{billiards-stub}}, pick one to use
currently the "main" template, but should be deleted in favor of one of the above
Part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Snooker
create Cat:Snooker stubs
feed into create category above
malformed redirect to above, delete

~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 21:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I see in the stub categories and on two Wiki Project pages, I recommend:
There just aren't enough non-bio stubs to justify having stub types for the variants to have their own stubs, but there are enough for their bios to do so and apparently with little overlap. I'm assuming that the change from Billiards to Cue sports that has been proposed and has apparently reached consensus does take place with corresponding changes in Cat:Billiards and Cat:Billiards players, but since those haven't yet occurred, I'm leaving them alone for now. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) Erk - a mess, and one not helped by various definitions of the term "billiards" worldwide. I'd suggest
...and deletion of the rest. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far, I've only dealt with the Snooker items. I deleted the {{snookerbio-stub}} redirect, and the rest of the hierarchy now looks like this:
{{Snooker-stub}} / Cat:Snooker stubs (this cat's parent is currently Cat:Billiards, snooker and pool stubs until it gets renamed)
{{Snooker-bio-stub}} feeds into this category as well as into Cat:Sportspeople stubs

~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was apparently to move Billiards over to Cue sports, and although that has yet to actually happen, I'm assuming it will and I am updating the stub templates accordingly:

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.

{{Cluj-stub}} / Cat:Cluj-Napoca 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 rename to ClujCounty-geo-stub and upmerge


From WP:WSS/D. It's for a Romanian city. Used on 9 articles. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This stub and category is needed to develop the articles about Cluj-Napoca and will be used for a period, after that I will propose it for deletion. I need this in order to find exactly the articles that needs to be expanded.--Roamataa 21:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what user sub-pages are for. It makes far more sense to list articles on a sub-page than to create sepatrate templates and categories only to delete them later. Strong delete. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only to delete them later, but to organize better the development of certain articles. Anyway, I checked again and it seems there are more articles that have to be here. I added them and will add the remaining ones so that the category and stub will be used enough. Now used on 89 articles and more to coming. Keep.--Roamataa 08:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
changing to strong delete. As I said, this is not the best way to organise these for working on them. If you intend to make this and then delete it later, then this is a very bad way of doing it. Create a sub page of your user page where uypou can list any articles relating to Cluj-Napoca along with what needs doing on them. That way you can arrange them by topic, by state of completion, by how you intend to work on them etc etc etc. This is how such things are usually done by WikiProjects and by individuals working on large numbers of items. Stubs are more for use by unorganised groups of individuals all working on a tiopic - a different situation to the situation here. Grutness...wha? 09:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Cat:Cluj County stubs, since that's evidently what it's been (re)scoped as, or else delete. The latter is probably better, given the hodge-podge of misc. articles about the city, and what are largely nano-geo-stubs about the county. (An (upmerged) {{ClujCounty-geo-stub}} would be fine.) Alai 03:11, 5 January 2007 (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.

{{India-comedian-stub}} / no cat[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


From WP:WSS/D. Only used on 2 articles. Currently upmerged to Cat:Comedian stubs. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Double upmerge to Indian people and Comedians, perhaps? If it doesn't gain a population in the next couple of months, then revisiting deletion would be a reasonable option. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's already upmerged to Comedians, so that wouldn't change much. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 21:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: The 2 articles were better served with India-actor-stub rather than India-comedian. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:50, 4 January 2007 (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.

{{Modern English Bible translations-stub}} / no cat[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


From WP:WSS/D. Used on 1 article. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:22, 28 December 2006 (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.

{{Uruguay-celeb-stub}} / no cat[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


From WP:WSS/D. Associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Uruguay. Not used on any articles. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:18, 28 December 2006 (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.

{{Dharmic-Religion-stub}} / Cat:Dharmic Religion 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 rename to Dharmic-reli-stub / Dharmic religion stubs


From WP:WSS/D. Only used on 4 articles. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this category is a necessary aid to prevent unnecessary duplication of articles. There are a number of religious traditions that are referred to as Dharmic religions. There are concepts which are shared by all of these religious traditions. When a stub is created and placed in say stubs related to Hinduism, it may remain unnoticed by Buddhists. As a result, a similar article may be created under a different name. The cost of duplicate articles in terms of effort is much greater than the cost of maintaining a category of stub types in my opinon. Although the category only has four articles in it at the moment, I don't see that as a convincing argument for deletion. --BostonMA talk 20:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, only 4 articles IS a convincing argument. According to WP:STUB, Ideally, a newly-created stub type will have between 100 and 300 articles. In general, any new stub category should have a minimum of 60 articles. 4 is very much smaller than 60. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, a newly created stub type will have between 100 and 300 articles. So this is clearly not an "ideal" stub category. However, in my mind, the question is whether it is useful, and whether its usefulness outweighs the costs. As I have already explained, the cost of creating duplicate articles is rather high. I see the cost of having a well defined category as rather low. Could you make an argument about why it should have 100 to 300 articles, rather than simply citing a guideline? Thanks. --BostonMA talk 20:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not one argument, no - two. 1) From the point of view of maintenance - Even with this guideline, the number opf stub categories is immense and difficult to maintain. To drop the threshold would mean to greatly increase the number of categories deemed viable, with the associated increase in maintenance. WSS is a small wikiproject - it only has some 400 members, and it is virtually a full-time job keeping track of the 4000 stub types that currently exist. if the threshold was dropped to say 30, the number of categories would increase severalfold, probably to the region of 10,000 stub types. 2) from the point of view of editors - The reason this threshold is used is to provide an optimum size for categories for the benefit of editors. A stub category works differently to a standard permanent category - they are not designed for readers to be able to locate one article; they are designed for editors to be able to find a range of articles on a similar subject which they may be able to work on. It is exceptionally rare that an editor would be able to contribute to all the artiocles on a subject - it is much more likely they would only be able to extend a small proportion of them. Similarly, it is a rare editor whose expertise lies on one minute aspect of a topic. For that reason, making the stub categories small and limited in scope increases work for editors. One editor can easily search through 100 articles to find the 15 or so they may be able to work on - it is far more effort to look for the same number of articles if they are distributed amond half a dozen stub categories. The optimum sizes used are just that - an optimum for editors, requiring a compromise between sifting through an overly-large category and picking among several tiny ones. Long hard experience on Wikipedia has shown that 100-300 articles is this optimum range. Grutness...wha? 08:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or upmerge unless we have a lot of untagged material for this one. If it can be brought to 30-40 articles, then I might be swayed. The size criteria exist in order to avoid having to maintain a ton of templates that are hardly used at all. Since this project maintains many hundreds of stub templates used on around 400,000 articles, the number of templates has to be controlled in one way or another, so this is one generally used method. In case the opinion should be for keeping the template, please note that the name does not conform to the naming standard. If kept, the name should be fixed. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or upmerge. The argument about avoiding duplication sounds like a better argument for a permcat than for a stubcat. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article count of this category could easily be brought 30-40 by appropriately recategorizing a number of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism etc. stubs. However, because of the newness of this category, it is likely that many editors who might be looking at Hinduism, Buddhism or Jainim stubs might not yet be aware of this stub category. I am therefore reluctant make an extensive recategorization without first gaining some explicit editor support. I will make an effort to find out who may be interested. --BostonMA talk 00:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a related permcat Category:Dharmic religions. --BostonMA talk 01:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This stub type is a good idea. I have seen many articles with two or three stub templates - Hinduism, Budhhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Ayyavazhi, etc. It is more elegant and efficient to have a single category. A new stub type cannot be expected to have 300 articles, but many stubs in other categories need to be recategorized. This shouldn't be a problem at all. deeptrivia (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another note: Adherents of many officially Hindu sects do not like to identify themselves as Hindus. For example, members of Arya Samaj say they are Arya, not Hindu, members of Brahmo Samaj do not like to identify their beliefs as a part of Hinduism. There are also debates whether some systems like Kabir Panth qualify as separate religions or are a part of Hinduism. Putting Hinduism stub on such articles might not be NPOV, but no one will have any problem with the Dharmic religion template. deeptrivia (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note There are now 38 pages in this cat. --BostonMA talk 03:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems basically sensible, if the existing types are placed as sub-cats, to follow the permcat structure, and if the template is renamed to {{Dharmic-reli-stub}} (a redirect from {{Dharmic-religion-stub}} would seem sensible). On that basis, keep. Alai 03:00, 5 January 2007 (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.

{{Napoleonic Fiction-stub}} / Cat:WikiProject Napoleonic Fiction 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


Not currently used on any articles, and yes, that is the real category name. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gah. Delete tonight, Josephine. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 29 December 2006 (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.

{{Tanzania-politics-stub}} / Cat:Tanzania politics 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 speedy delete


Used on one article. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to this deletion. I created the category, but someone else suggested a better categorization and implemented accordingly. Therefore, this template should be deleted. Malangali 21:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then it can be speedied, since the creator of it supports deletion. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 29 December 2006 (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 {{mtgstub}}[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 rename to MTG-game-stub


Associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering. Needs to be renamed. MTG redirects to Modern Times Group, so that option is out. Maybe a {{MagicTG-stub}}? ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is a subtype of {{card-game-stub}}, how about {{MTG-game-stub}}? Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, it certainly needs renaming... MTG-game-stub is probably unambiguous enough. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MTG-game-stub is fine by me. Shadowin 05:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we have a winner. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 10:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to comment, I've redirected MTG to a disambig page, rather than give it priority to Modern Times Group. No objections to the proposed rename. -- Norvy (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{MTG-game-stub}} seems good, {{MagicTG-stub}} doesn't seem like it would be intuitive for editors trying to use it. Jay32183 03:31, 3 January 2007 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2006/December/28&oldid=1143740168"