Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/December/20
December 20 edit
Cue sports stubs (2 of them) 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 moved as per proposal, redirects kept at least for now
This may seem funny, since I was the main proponent of the opposite idea way back when, but I propose renaming/moving {{Cue-sports-stub}} and {{Cue-sports-bio-stub}} to {{Cuesports-stub}} and {{Cuesports-bio-stub}}, respectively, because Alai, Grutness, and others have (without really trying, and with no effort in that direction at all even after a year; i.e. no canvassing of any kind has been at play) convinced me that this "RunTogether" format, while kind of idiosyncratic, is simply what we prefer for stub template names. I would rather be consistent with everyone on this than be a pain the backside. So I hereby rescind everything I've ever said on the matter. The only potential consequences of this change that I am aware of is a big, boring AWB session, and even that is optional, really, since the non-spaced versions exist as redirs to the spaced ones, so nothing would change but an inversion of that redirection relationship. And apologies to whoever it was that I reverted on this matter about a month ago. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur, and certainly recommend keeping the redirect, since if it's questionable for marginal for those of us that have pondered these things at length, how much more so for "passing trade". (Though it could be done by fully-automated bot if need be, I should disclose.) Alai (talk) 04:17, 22 December 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.
{{Yiddish-stub}} / Cat:Yiddish 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 no consensus - but very likely to be renominated unless populated
Unproposed stub for a single language - no sign that it is in any way likely to reach threshold for splitting. In any case, language stubs are divided by language families, not individual languages. We don't even, on the English-language Wikipedia, have a stub type for English, so I seriously doubt the usefulness of this one, especially since there are only some 350 Indo-European language stubs in total. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because (a) WP:NOT#PAPER so why can't stubs be divided by languages? There should be a "stub type" for English, or for any language for that matter. Is there an official Wikipedia policy that restricts the creation of such stub templates? (b) Category:Yiddish has been greatly expanded and many articles in it are stubs, so what else to call them? (c) Yiddish is a unique thousand year old plus language with a long history directly connected to the Ashkenazi Jews who have used it as their lingua franca. (d) Yiddish is essentially in its own class (beyond any one specific) language family as such because it is not just an "Indo-European" language, as it is a unique hybrid language based on about 60% High German, 30% Hebrew (with the Aramaic in it too) -- using its Hebrew lettering and writing system -- making it strongly connected to the Semitic languages and, based on the region and location of it's speakers contains many local words, which in Eastern Europe absorbed words from the Slavic languages and the Hungarian language, and in the USA it has elements from English that has produced Yinglish (yes, I kid thee not), all of which means that Yiddish is a language in a league of its own, and this stub should be retained. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I swear one of these days I'm going to make a template that explains the reasons for this - so many people just don't seem to get it. No, Wikipedia is not paper, and as such, it's perfectly acceptable for categories for use by readers to be of any size. however, stub categories are not for use by readers, they are for use by editors, who have different requirements. one of those requirements is that they can browse categories of a size that is neither too big to easily hunt down articles nor soi small as to necessitate looking through dozens of categories. Categories of between 60 and 800 stubs are an optimum size for this. Anything bigger, and the task becomes too daunting. Anything smaller, and there is serious risk of an editor needing to look in a number of categories while working on a similar subject, and also a danger of a category being repeatedly deleted and re-created as it is emptied and new stubs are created. At present, the Indo-European language stub category has some 350 stubs - right at the "sweet spot" of stub category size. The creator of this stub category (you), listed it as a child category to only Indo-European languages, and Cat:Yiddish is listed as a child category of High German; the article Yiddish confirms that this is the correct place for it. Many languages have strong links to several language groups - have a loom at the links between English and Germanic, Norse, and Romance laguages, as well as the influence that everything from Greek to Hindi has had on it. So to cut things short (a) there aren't enough stubs for separate categories by language; (b) since Yiddish is Indo-European, there is nothing wrong in the least with adding an Indo-European language stub template to those articles; (c) is largely irrelevant. Latin was used as a lingua franca for thousands of years by far more people, and English is also used very widely as a lingua franca, but neither of them have or need separate stub types; (d) given that Yiddish is listed in its own article as being a form of High German, albeit with strong outside influences, and is still regarded linguistically as Indo-European, there is no need for a separate stub type for it. More importantly, though, (e) there ain't enough stubs for it to be viable, and the parent category is nowhere near needing to be split. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Grutness: First I must admit I was not aware of the criteria you have enumerated above, and I sincerely appreciate your efforts in doing so now. I actually do think that you should try to post these guidelines somewhere so that other editors who are not that intensely involved with language stubs can know these guidelines. Second, my involvement is as an editor so stubs are an important way for me to get at articles that need to be worked on, and at the same time I assumed it would be easier to create a template for and list Yiddish-related stubs in one place. I guess we will have to wait till there are a lot more of them. Finally, my aim was to be helpful and not cause you or anyone any aggravation (I didn't even know there were such strong feelings about lowly stubs) so feel assured that this was a good faith creation. I will let my views above stand as a point of principle and for the reasons I have outlined above notwithstanding your fair arguments to the contrary. Thanks for all you work on behalf of the Wikipedia community. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No offence taken or intended, and thanks for the kind words. As to these criteria being posted, they already are - see Wikipedia:Stub#Creating stub types. The full rationale for why these criteria exist isn't given there, for reasons of space, but those I gave above are the explanation. Grutness...wha? 22:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I swear one of these days I'm going to make a template that explains the reasons for this - so many people just don't seem to get it. No, Wikipedia is not paper, and as such, it's perfectly acceptable for categories for use by readers to be of any size. however, stub categories are not for use by readers, they are for use by editors, who have different requirements. one of those requirements is that they can browse categories of a size that is neither too big to easily hunt down articles nor soi small as to necessitate looking through dozens of categories. Categories of between 60 and 800 stubs are an optimum size for this. Anything bigger, and the task becomes too daunting. Anything smaller, and there is serious risk of an editor needing to look in a number of categories while working on a similar subject, and also a danger of a category being repeatedly deleted and re-created as it is emptied and new stubs are created. At present, the Indo-European language stub category has some 350 stubs - right at the "sweet spot" of stub category size. The creator of this stub category (you), listed it as a child category to only Indo-European languages, and Cat:Yiddish is listed as a child category of High German; the article Yiddish confirms that this is the correct place for it. Many languages have strong links to several language groups - have a loom at the links between English and Germanic, Norse, and Romance laguages, as well as the influence that everything from Greek to Hindi has had on it. So to cut things short (a) there aren't enough stubs for separate categories by language; (b) since Yiddish is Indo-European, there is nothing wrong in the least with adding an Indo-European language stub template to those articles; (c) is largely irrelevant. Latin was used as a lingua franca for thousands of years by far more people, and English is also used very widely as a lingua franca, but neither of them have or need separate stub types; (d) given that Yiddish is listed in its own article as being a form of High German, albeit with strong outside influences, and is still regarded linguistically as Indo-European, there is no need for a separate stub type for it. More importantly, though, (e) there ain't enough stubs for it to be viable, and the parent category is nowhere near needing to be split. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or at the very least upmerge, per nom, and the stub guidelines on size. (Yes, "only" guidelines...) Alai (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge where plausible, otherwise delete per everything said so far. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Grutness. Well said, mate! JERRY talk contribs 02:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - NOT#PAPER applies. No reason to delete (please note, I found this because I just added a this Yiddish stub to an article). The Evil Spartan 18:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - most of the Yiddish articles can use professional help from editors interested in this field i view the stub cats as a bundle of articles in a certain field that calls the pros to invest more time and help from them. Yiddish today is an important field, although as a native Yiddish speaker myself i may be biased here i would really like to get all the Yiddish stubs in one centralized organised category project so whenever i have more time or whenever a Yiddish user comes in we can go ahead and work on our stubs thanks.--יודל (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Jiddisch (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep.--Shmaltz (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I can see some mileage in an identifiable corpus of stub articles about Yiddish, which the few editors with experience in this area can devote their attention to. Finding them amongst over 300 Indo-european stubs is a hopeless needle-in-a haystack exercise. --Redaktor (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if it helps with the housekeeping, it is best to keep it. Lobojo (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2008 (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.