Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2012/May/31

< Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion‎ | Log‎ | 2012/May

May 31 edit

Premature Algeria geography 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. 50 to 60 is the generally-accepted minimum for a stub category. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Not that I really like flooding the parent category even more, but creating premature categories is not the answer. Propose upmerging:

Dawynn (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2012 (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 Iranian county 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 all except Cat:Sarbisheh County geography stubs, which has now 272 pages. 50 to 60 is the generally-accepted minimum for a stub category. (NAC) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 11:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Propose upmerging the following:

No prejudice against recreating categories once templates filled. Dawynn (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2012 (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.

People by categorization, pre-1XX0 birth 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 Relist discussion to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_22#People_by_categorization.2C_pre-1XX0_birth_stubs. (NAC) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 13:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I propose upmerging the following categories:

Rationalles:

  1. The question of which decades have enough stubs for their own categories is, in my opinion, too fluid to keep renaming these categories all the time.
  2. Frequently, these categories end up being too small and being upmerged anyway; I see no reason to keep a few of these arouind.
  3. Decades in the middle, or even recent decades, may end up requiring upmerging; I see no reason why being "old enough" is a justification for havin g a category.
  4. Some times there are cases where the year of birth is definitely earlier than the specified year, but is unknown; such people would end up in the parent category, not here.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to comment on the other sports, but the Australian rules stub cat is very nicely balanced, with 125 articles in the pre-1880 cat, which matches the size of most of the other pre-1970s cats, so your point 2 doesn't apply. There are no "middle decades" missed, so point 3 is moot too. The advantage of NOT upmerging is that the Category:Australian rules biography stubs is left with only people that we DON'T know the DOB of. It's a very useful distinction (I've just noticed a bunch of umpires in the parent stub cat, checked a recent season guide book, and their DOBs are all there). The-Pope (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in the Australian rules category, 104 have the 1870s tag, which leaves 18 stubs for the pre-1870 - an excelent example of point 2. And Dave Boyd, an active player in 1870, would need to be in a pre-1870 category, if we had one, as he was an active player in 1870 - an example for #3. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Dave Boyd played in the 1940's and 1950's, so was probably born in the 1920's. But your point stands in that AFL stubs are lacking a tag which directly adds to the pre-18X0 category. The reason I like having the category is first to keep unknown birth year separate, and secondly because it does refer to the era of the sport's development (1859-1880 or so). --Qetuth (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that having by all articles with known birth dates in by decade or pre-decade stub cats, and only unknown birthdates in the parent stub cat is useful, and unlike AFDs, it's useful should count here. If you want to extend it by one decade to pre-1870s that's about the limit of most known football history. We are unlikely to bring the numbers down dramatically in the near future, as we still have over 6000 known notable players left to create. The-Pope (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked around other categories to see why this isn't more widespread, I noticed that most other decade of birth stub categories have a parent category on century to be upmerged into, keeping them seperate fom unsorted/unknown. It doesn't help for the American ones, but the other three could perhaps benefit from this? (Example: Cat:American journalist, 20th century birth stubs and Cat:American journalist, 19th century birth stubs). --Qetuth (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2012 (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/2012/May/31&oldid=1036907380"