Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/February/10

< Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion‎ | Log‎ | 2011/February

February 10

edit

{{chechnya-sub}}

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 delete. -Mairi (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming this to {{chechnya-stub}}. Dawynn (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no need to discuss this, as the original name is obviously wrong, so I had done the move. Svick (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have now redirected every reference to the correct template. Please delete the bad template. Dawynn (talk) 12:19, 11 February 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.

More UK -> British moves

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 rename per nomination

Looks like the following should have been done with the October 8 moves. Propose the following renames.

Notice that all of these upmerge eventually to Category:British business biography stubs. Looks odd to have the parent category say "British" and all the subcategories say "United Kingdom". Dawynn (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they have that as a parent rather than upmerging to it, but point taken :) Grutness...wha? 00:14, 23 March 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.

Undersized 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 the Oregon newspapers one

The following categories all have less than 40 articles, and in each case, my attempt to add a {{popstub}} request has been rejected by other users, insisting that each category is as full as it will get. Propose upmerging each of these categories to the next higher level parent(s).

Dawynn (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - for the Africa stubs. Which parent do you propose upmerging to? African sportspeople or cycling, golf, handball, either way you lose something. These seem to be the right level of "granularity".
  • Neutral - on the aikido stub.
  • Oppose - on the Oregon newspaper, which should have a parent of Category:Western United States newspaper stubs, which then has the same problem as the Africa stubs, upmerge to Oregon stubs or Western United States newspaper stubs? Tewapack (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, this is precisely why we allow for multiple upmerges on templates. So, yes, the upmerges would look like this:
Dawynn (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not the Oregon newspaper stub should be deleted, but I take some exception to the the characterization of my removal of {{popcat}} as "rejection". This implies I ignored the directive. I only "insist" that the category is as full as it will get--as I mentioned in the edit summary--because that is the truth. As it stands, the category contains 38 entries. I used the tool and I think I added a couple of tags. I even just now looked for any I may have missed "by hand" and only discovered one deserving of a Prod instead. If the threshold of 40 is writ in stone, that's fair enough, but I somewhat cynically ask if it would simply be better for me to whip up a couple one-sentence stubs in order to save y'all the trouble of upmerging. Though I don't have a strong opinion about the category's deletion, I do think it's going to be much harder for interested editors to improve the articles if they are upmerged. Though I generally applaud the better organization of anything, which this effort appears to be, I think we have to take a step back and think of our readers and fellow editors. Is this upmerge going to do anything to help these article become "unstubbed?" or is it organization for organization's sake? Valfontis (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upmerging. Yes, multiple categories is the standard way to go in such cases, as has been pointed out. Valfontis, removing popcat once the category has been filled to its current maximum possible is not a rejection, but having that maximum possible below the 60-stub threshold is. 60 is not "extraordinarily high", because it is the same standard over all stub categories and has been found to be an optimum level for both stub sorters and stub editors. If there were different standards for different categories the job of keeping control of stub sorting would quickly become impossible. Yes, doubly upmerging will quite probably help these articles become unstubbed, since a lot of Oregonian editors who wouldn'tt naturally think of looking in a newspaper category might readily find the articles in a more general Oregon category, and similarly more editors working on newspaper articles would probably find the articles in a slightly broader regional category. See User:Grutness/Stub rationales, which explains the reasoning behind such upmergings. Grutness...wha? 22:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but apparently I didn't come across too clearly. The tag added here doesn't say anything about bringing the amount up to 60 and it's been years since I delved into the inner workings of stub sorting, so I didn't remember it was 60. So I still don't think I rejected anything, since there was nothing to reject. It's not like I said--"no way, I ain't gonna populate this category". I used the tool and populated it as much as it could be, and removed the tag, per the instructions. Maybe an additional instruction could be added to the template that "populate" means "60 or more". And I only meant that 60 is a high number for a category about a topic that involves a small state and a small topic area about that state. In other words, unless a concerted effort is made, there ain't no way the category could get up to 60--I'm not saying "it's not fair" or asking for a special exception or anything like that. Just acknowledging that it's unlikely the cat would get populated up to the current standard. It's not a value judgement. Do whatever it takes to make this system work for you, I have no problem with it, just the already stated concern with folks finding these things easily, which you have addressed. Thank you. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, that template doesn't say anything about the stub threshold because it's a general template used on all small categories, not just stub ones. The two other templates on the page both point to more specific stub-related information, though. And no, in the sense of a conscious rejection it wasn't, but an admission (in the form of the removal of the template) that it was as full as currently possible is an indication that the category would remain undersized and therefore was potentially a deletion candidate. As to the size limit, you'd be surprised - it's more than possible that the number of articles on Oregonian newspapers will increase over time to the poinbt where it is no longer an issue. Grutness...wha? 21:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not sure what's going on with you two, but "rejection" and "admission" seem like pretty strong words for what otherwise looks like a kinda mundane little discussion about tidying up. Am I missing something? Is there something to argue about here? -Pete (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Um... only that they're not "pretty strong words"? They're just standard words you use in a discussion on a process page like this. If you note the original proposal on this page it says: my attempt to add a {{popstub}} request has been rejected by other users, which is a fair comment given that the template was removed. It's not surprising at all that the word rejection is being used in discussion over it. Grutness...wha? 00:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No strong preference -- I've never really understood why stub tags are as granular as they are. However, as someone with a particular interest in this particular topic, it seems potentially useful to have all Oregon newspaper stubs categorized, for possible future collaboration projects. (I should note that one of the earliest and most successful WikiProject Oregon Collaborations of the Week resulted in a GA for the Eugene Register Guard article.) As long as a stub tag within the Oregon stub category remains, though, I'm not too worried about it. -Pete (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It strikes me that unless there is a specific WikiProject Oregon newspapers, then the category's not that necessary. If the articles are upmerged into the respective general US newspapers and Oregon stub categories, they would actually be more obvious and therefore more likely to be picjked for collaboration topics. It's worth noting that at the time of the CotW you mention, the article was just in those general stub categories (even the Oregon-newspaper-stub template didn't exist then, let alone a stand-alone category). Again, the stub rationale page I linked above is worth looking at. Grutness...wha? 21:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone has made a concerted effort to populate the Oregon newspaper category. With over 50 articles, I'm going to take this off of the deletion nomination. Dawynn (talk) 10:36, 9 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2011/February/10&oldid=1034572873"