Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/January/24
January 24 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
Buckethead does not merit special pleading, {{2000s-rock-album-stub}}, {{2000s-metal-album-stub}} seem to be the most appropriate types. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guitarists/Buckethead task force informed ----
{{Buckethead-stub}} / Cat:Buckethead stubs edit
With one notable exception (The Beatles), we do not split music stubs by individual artists. The category has been thoroughly populated by a messy mix of articles, many of which have only a vague tangential connection to Buckethead (of the handful I checked, there were two for albums where he appeared as a guest guitarist on some tracks, for instance). This thoroughly cuts across the stub hierarchy, mixing albums, individual tracks, bands, and ghu knows what else. Another good example of a case where a talk-page WikiProject template is a good idea but a stub type is a bad idea. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Vague tangential connection" is plain wrong. The only one of more than 60 entries falling under this would be Mold (Praxis album). All other are albums, songs or bands directly connected to the guitarist. With up to 30 new albums each year (see Buckethead#2007–present: Continued solo and band work) and ever changing live and studio projects (see Buckethead#Buckethead's bands) I fear this list will grow faster than we can generate content.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 00:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Avant-garde a clue may indeed be right. Have you checked out the section of WP:STUB which explains why you'd almost certainly find a talk-page template a better solution than cutting across stub hierarchies? If not, please do so - it will explain why, as i said above, this is a bad idea for a stub type. As to vaguely tangential connection being wrong, check out an article like Arc of the Testimony. Buckethead plays guitar on just three tracks. If we have a stub type for Buckethead on that article, then we should definitely have ones for Bill Laswell, Nicky Skopelitis, Tony Williams, Pharoah Sanders, Byard Lancaster and Arcana, and also possibly for the equally-involved Graham Haynes - not to mention the standard stub splits by genre and year. Do you really think that would be a sensible idea? Grutness...wha? 00:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, there is no WikiProject or Taskforce for Laswell or any of the other guys and WP:STUB tells me that each article can have up to three or four stub-tags. So what does harm you about some articles having a second one? "Wehret den Anfänge(r)n"? The Arcana one is the second least connected after Mold, though BH is considered a full member of the band for their second release. Man, I just wanted to ease our work a bit and not harm anybody, so please leave your sarcastic appointments at home. BTW: There are talkpage templates already on all of them, just have a look.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 01:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What "sarcastic appointments"? I reacted to your insult - that was all. You've implied with your last comment - twice now - that I haven't a clue. I simply pointed out that if you're going to go round insulting people like that you should get a clue yourself, and actually read up on the relevant guidelines. And what does having a wikiproject or a task force have to do with having a stub tag? Stub templates aren't in any way connected to the existence or otherwise of wikiprojects - they operate across the entirety of Wikipedia. If there's a template for Buckethead on the article I pointed out, then there should be ones for all the others, since they had more to do with the topic of the article than Buckethead did. It's nothing to do with whether one of them has a wikiproject and the others don't. And if there is already a talk-page template on the articles, then you certainly don't need to have a stub template on the article page as well. I don't see how having an extra template is going to ease your work either - it'll simply be adding one more thing to do to the articles. Grutness...wha? 20:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you're a Beatles fan you should know the George Harrison quote [1] - man, it's my signature... Sarcastic? Have a look on your original post and then maybe one on this attack. As you seem to be the resident troll around here, I'd just say: "Live and Let Die".--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 20:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What "sarcastic appointments"? I reacted to your insult - that was all. You've implied with your last comment - twice now - that I haven't a clue. I simply pointed out that if you're going to go round insulting people like that you should get a clue yourself, and actually read up on the relevant guidelines. And what does having a wikiproject or a task force have to do with having a stub tag? Stub templates aren't in any way connected to the existence or otherwise of wikiprojects - they operate across the entirety of Wikipedia. If there's a template for Buckethead on the article I pointed out, then there should be ones for all the others, since they had more to do with the topic of the article than Buckethead did. It's nothing to do with whether one of them has a wikiproject and the others don't. And if there is already a talk-page template on the articles, then you certainly don't need to have a stub template on the article page as well. I don't see how having an extra template is going to ease your work either - it'll simply be adding one more thing to do to the articles. Grutness...wha? 20:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, there is no WikiProject or Taskforce for Laswell or any of the other guys and WP:STUB tells me that each article can have up to three or four stub-tags. So what does harm you about some articles having a second one? "Wehret den Anfänge(r)n"? The Arcana one is the second least connected after Mold, though BH is considered a full member of the band for their second release. Man, I just wanted to ease our work a bit and not harm anybody, so please leave your sarcastic appointments at home. BTW: There are talkpage templates already on all of them, just have a look.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 01:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Avant-garde a clue may indeed be right. Have you checked out the section of WP:STUB which explains why you'd almost certainly find a talk-page template a better solution than cutting across stub hierarchies? If not, please do so - it will explain why, as i said above, this is a bad idea for a stub type. As to vaguely tangential connection being wrong, check out an article like Arc of the Testimony. Buckethead plays guitar on just three tracks. If we have a stub type for Buckethead on that article, then we should definitely have ones for Bill Laswell, Nicky Skopelitis, Tony Williams, Pharoah Sanders, Byard Lancaster and Arcana, and also possibly for the equally-involved Graham Haynes - not to mention the standard stub splits by genre and year. Do you really think that would be a sensible idea? Grutness...wha? 00:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dang, I thought this was a stub type about my husband. Delete as we really only have stub types for really, really significant, international, historically huge groups like The Beatles, and the one thing you both agree on is that a talk page template exists, which I think is sufficient. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP After several days of reconsidering I still don't see any harm at all. The category has more than 60 entries at the moment what clearly is enough to fulfill WP:STUB. Recent assessment has brought up more than 100 articles: Category:Stub-Class Buckethead articles, still growing.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 23:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You keep bringing up the word "harm", which is not an issue here; the issue is usefulness to anyone besides the Buckethead Project. Although the category contains 66 items now, there are accurate stub types available for all of those. Since a talk page banner exists (and will corral all the Buckethead articles for the project), I still don't see why a stub type is necessary, however harmless. Pegship (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, harm, what else? If it only harms Grutness' ego and reminds you of your husband - well, I don't see any problem at all.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 07:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is harm in cases like this (none of it to my ego, thank you) - and even if there wasn't WP:NOHARM is hardly a good reason to keep something. The harm is to the ability of stub sorters to actually be able to sort stubs, and to the workload of your WikiProject. There are already a huge number of stub categories, and they are all, as much as is humanly possible, arranged and split according to specific axes. This category not only doesn't follow those splits, it runds directly through a considerable number of them. It creates a precedent which, if followed by other similar stub types, would cause a huge amount of extra effort to a group of Wikipedians already under severe stress as far as their workload is concerned. Stub categories are designed to be used across the entirety of Wikipedia independently of WikiProjects - where a single project requires a way of sorting its articles, stub templates are not the primary means of doing this - assessment templates are. As you clearly indicate, there is already a Stub-Class assessment category for Buckethead articles. As such, all you're doing by having a stub template is doubling up your workload and increasing the workload on stub sorters. It doesn't help either Wikipedia in general or your Wikiproject - in fact it makes the job harder for both. The stub template is redundant to the assessment template, is useless in terms of covering ground already covered in other ways, and increases both your and our workload. As such, keeping it is far less beneficial to all concerned than deleting it. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I installed that whole assessment department after you nominated the stub. Cost me last Saturday to do this, including the retagging of 250 pages. If you call that benefical, go on. You may call Bono or Sir Bob Geldof for a cup of tea, too. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 06:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see. If it takes any work to set up it can't be of any benefit to Wikipedia. I should have realised. In the long-run, this will save you and us a vast amount of work, but because of a Saturday's worth of martyrdom it is a waste of effort. I should have realised. Grutness...wha? 23:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I installed that whole assessment department after you nominated the stub. Cost me last Saturday to do this, including the retagging of 250 pages. If you call that benefical, go on. You may call Bono or Sir Bob Geldof for a cup of tea, too. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 06:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is harm in cases like this (none of it to my ego, thank you) - and even if there wasn't WP:NOHARM is hardly a good reason to keep something. The harm is to the ability of stub sorters to actually be able to sort stubs, and to the workload of your WikiProject. There are already a huge number of stub categories, and they are all, as much as is humanly possible, arranged and split according to specific axes. This category not only doesn't follow those splits, it runds directly through a considerable number of them. It creates a precedent which, if followed by other similar stub types, would cause a huge amount of extra effort to a group of Wikipedians already under severe stress as far as their workload is concerned. Stub categories are designed to be used across the entirety of Wikipedia independently of WikiProjects - where a single project requires a way of sorting its articles, stub templates are not the primary means of doing this - assessment templates are. As you clearly indicate, there is already a Stub-Class assessment category for Buckethead articles. As such, all you're doing by having a stub template is doubling up your workload and increasing the workload on stub sorters. It doesn't help either Wikipedia in general or your Wikiproject - in fact it makes the job harder for both. The stub template is redundant to the assessment template, is useless in terms of covering ground already covered in other ways, and increases both your and our workload. As such, keeping it is far less beneficial to all concerned than deleting it. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, harm, what else? If it only harms Grutness' ego and reminds you of your husband - well, I don't see any problem at all.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 07:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You keep bringing up the word "harm", which is not an issue here; the issue is usefulness to anyone besides the Buckethead Project. Although the category contains 66 items now, there are accurate stub types available for all of those. Since a talk page banner exists (and will corral all the Buckethead articles for the project), I still don't see why a stub type is necessary, however harmless. Pegship (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
{{Paleo-reptiliomorph-stub}} / Cat:Reptiliomorph 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 until definition becomes more solid
Hard on the heels of a recent unproposed split of paleontology stubs comes another one, also with considerable problems. The template name is one such - given that the only reptiliomorphs are prehistoric, there is no need whatsoever for the "Paleo" prefix. The category is unparented, stub or permcat, which would be simple to fix if this is kept, but given the size of the permanent category Cat:Reptiliomorphs, upmerging might be a more prudent option if the template is kept - there's no way on current article numbers that this will reach the necessary threshold for a stub category. A more serious problem, though, is the fact that the definition of reptiliomorph seems to be in a state of flux. The article indicates that there have been several definitions of the term over the years, and implies that two different ones are still in use. Given that there are already discussions underway about reducing the size of the parenmt Cat:Paleontology stubs - discussions which do not include a split-out of reptiliomorphs, deletion may be the best option. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.