Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/2006/August/12

< Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

August 12th

edit

Category:British government biography stubs → Category:United Kingdom government biography 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


Per my usual mostly-doomed attempts at some sort of clarity of scope, and horizontal consistency in the UK- stub hierarchy. Given that the most closely related type to this is Category:United Kingdom government stubs, the "guessability" of the current name seems distinctly low. Alai 23:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to hear reference to "the UK government yesterday announced". There is no such thing as a United Kingdomian: UK refers to places and things and British refers to people, hence British government biography. Dev920 21:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then it isn't enforced very well with biographies. While the people stubs are labelled by nouns, the category names alternate between noun and adjective. United States Academics. British academics. French painters. And so on. But UK is a fairly alien concept to most Britons, so using British seems better. Either way, I don't really mind. Dev920 21:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Isn't enforced very well" is exactly right. They're a jumble at the moment because there are several schools of thought on whether to randomly affix a noun if it happens to be used in a parent category (in some other order...) -- whence Category:France geography stubs -- or to use the appropriate attributive, and on what is the appropriate attributive, in cases of ambiguity/scoping problems like American and British (note where those links actually go), or where the adjective is obscure, tortuous ("Kittsian-Nevisian"), or non-existent (New Zealand). The "alien concept" suggestion is not correct, however, unless UK geography teaching has become markedly worse in recent years, and seems an especially odd suggestion for a category fed by a template whose names starts "UK-". What's certainly true is that "most Britons" use UK/British/English in a scattergun fashion without much regard to precise scoping, or even remote accuracy, but one would like to think an encyclopaedia would aim for greater precision. (Then one remembers that this is wikipedia...) In the case of "American" vs "United States", and "British" and "United Kingdom", they were somewhat trending to the latter in both cases, but Caerwine has had some success of late in leading a comeback of the "we'll refer to ourselves however the heck we like" movement -- though in both cases without any overall consensus having clearly been established. (So it tends to work on the basis of, no consensus at creation time; one or other gets created; no consensus on any subsequent attempts to rename in either direction.) I remain unrepentantly in the "change them all to unambiguous, commonly-used attributives" school of thought, which seems to me the most consistent, the most in line with formal usage, the most encyclopaedic, and (not that this matters much) the most "guessable". Alai 16:42, 16 August 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.

{{Washington, D.C.-school-stub}}

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, delete redirect


I was just trawling through the old sfd logs and adding {{oldsfd}} to them when I stumbled across the one above. It was listed for deletion on 16th February but the SfD notice was never removed. Is it a keep, keep as redirect, rename or delete? (All 4 of the previous options were raised in the February discussion). The template is currently used on 8 articles. Road Wizard 18:38, 12 August 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.

Category:UK Model 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 upmerge


At a minimum this needs renaming to Category:British model stubs, but given its small size (32 stubs) it might be best to delete and return {{UK-model-stub}} to a double catted stub template. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge per nom, or else rename to Category:United Kingdom model stubs, in that order of preference. Given that the UK-bios seem to have recently been sorted to within an inch of their life, significant growth seems unlikely in the short-term. Alai 16:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename it if you want, but it was created for a reason, namely, because there are lots of UK model stubs! Just because the initial number of stubs seems small compared to behemoths like film stubs does not mean it should therefore be deleted; It's not like a stub category for 6 stubs was created, and the Wikiproject's insistence on 60 is only a guideline, not a cast iron rule. Dev920 19:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you give any actual reason for not following said guideline, though? You seem to be using a definition of "lots" that's at odds with that guideline, which does appear to agree with long-standing consensus, with no justification whatsoever. If we reduced the threshold to 30, we'd a) have lots and lots of additional, sub-optimally sized stub types, and b) still have people complaining about the "arbitrary" nature of the ("only a") guideline. Alai 20:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't say reduce the threshold to thirty. But the fact is, Britain is not suddenly going to run out of models - that category will fill up past your threshold, and it seems pointless to delete it. I can understand deleting something like UK-LGBT-scientist-dog-bio-stub, cos that'll never get many stubs, but UK model has at least 30 and will gain more. There just isn't any point deleting, so far as I can see, beyond excessive adherence to guidelines; SFD I doubt was ever intended for such a case: WP:IGNORE seems prudent.Dev920 22:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As with many applications of WP:IAR, this is fallacious in that it's arguing for ignoring rules for the sake of ignoring rules, as opposed to advancing any reason for why doing was (or would be; are you justifying your creation as such, your "vote" as same, or telling us we should be ignoring the result of this SFD, or all of the above?) actually good for the encyclopaedia. If 30 is "lots", then you could replicate a similar statement applied any category with 30 stubs: so logically you're either arguing for all such to be kept, or you've failed to make in any way clear that there's any grounds for special pleading here, if that's what you intend. The reasons for wishing a "critical mass" of articles in a stub type have been rehearsed often here; perhaps we need to refactor them into a mini essay to point people to. The point isn't whether the scope will "run out", it's whether the articles currently exist in sufficient quantity, and plainly in this case, they do not. Keeping the template ensures that no sorting effort is lost, and recreation is straightforward if and when the threshold is reached. If SFD (and indeed, WSS/P, which was hardly followed scrupulously in this case) aren't for consideration of deletion of categories that fail to meet the guidelines, what the heck is it for, do you imagine? Or better yet, actually read #Possible reasons for the deletion of a stub type. Have you any notion how many stub categories we'd end up with if they were all in 30-strong types? Or how many people think their undersized stub type is the exception that proves the rule? Alai 23:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know why you're getting so het up. But if you want a reason, here it is: there is little reason in deleting a category that will grow. SFD exists to delete stub categories that, by their nature, will never achieve the 60 stubs you want, that are pointless because ther existence does not aid those people seeking to expand a specific area in their expertise. Things like UK-LGBT-academic-stub for example, might have one or two stubs and nothing else and I can completely understand the reasoning behind the deleting it. But I DON'T see the point in deleting a category that not only has 30 stubs in it, but will happily be added to as more articles on UK models are created - it's not like we're about to run out of them any time soon.
      • So my argument to employ WP:IAR is not fallacious, and I am not some n00b who doesn't know what they're talking about - The mini essay on how to employ WP:IAR says to take into account the sprit of the rule, and I doubt the 60 stub guideline was ever intended to delete a category which will one day have over 60 stubs, as soon as someone gets around to writing, it was intended for nonsense categories, for categories created with nothing in them and for categories which had such a limited scope as to never never reach the critical 60. None of these intentions applies to UK model stubs. Hence my assertion that WP:IGNORE seems prudent; this is the circumstance the rule was developed for; creating UK model stubs reduces the size of British peopel stubs, and creates a category for interested writers to find, it seems to me that this improves Wikipedia far more than deleting the category because it doesn't exactly comply with your rules, hence WP:IAR.
      • I read #Possible reasons for the deletion of a stub type, which you were rude enough to assume I hadn't and UK model stubs hardly fit in:

* They are not used in any article, and their category is empty The category curently holds at least thirty stubs. * They overlap with other stub categories, or duplicate them outright This is not the case. * Their scope is too limited - As a rule of thumb, there should be at least 50 appropriate stubs in existence The scope is not limited. As mentioned previously, it seems pointless to delete a category which has the potential to grow much more, and which would only need to be created again in a few months time. * The stub category or template is misnamed. If I have created the stub with an inappropriate name, by all means, rename it but delete it? * They are malformed, misnamed, or deprecated redirects Again, not the case.

If I have not been clear about why this stub category should remain, or why WP:IAR applies in this case, I apologise, but please refrain from assuming I am some sort of ignorant newbie and thinking I don't read rules when I invoke them or policies when I debate them. Dev920 15:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I assume only that you've failed to apply them appropriately. (We semi-regularly get Wikipedians much more experienced than I am outraged that their stub type isn't being treated as Yet Another Special Case: newbieness is hardly required.) You've just quoted "at least 50 appropriate stubs in existence" clause from the "scope is too limited" reason for deletion: in what way is it unclear that that does apply in this case? (Why we say 50 here, and 60 on WP:STUB is, however, anyone's guess.) What extenuating circumstance have you cited that would apply to this 30-strong stub stub, and not to every other one? You cite only "the potential to grow much more", which is true in some theoretical sense about almost all of them. The size of the category doubling in "a few months" is however, highly unlikely. Alai 15:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which is true in some theoretical sense about almost all of them." Then there seems no point in deleting them either. Dev920 21:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added two extra stubs just today. Your 30 more stubs will be found - just give it time. So why delete?Dev920 17:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Why? Besides being undersized, it is badly named. Even if it were kept it would need renaming. UK is not used in category names whether stub or non-stub and Model should not be capitalized, Since it is undersized, may as well delete it now and recreate it with a proper name once it is of size. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it is badly named, rename it. I based the name on other stubs I'd seen, so mayeb I made another's mistake. But go to all the effort of deleting it when its scope is wide enough to take in 60 stubs, it's only a matter of time?
          • Upmerging this category requires one edit, and a deletion. Recreating it requires two edits. Renaming it requires two edits and a deletion (as categories can't be moved per se, they have to be deleted and recreated under a different name). There's not a lot of effort involved either way, and clearly not a lot of differential between the two (and certainly less than being expended in this discussion). The "delete and wait" option avoids driving a coach and horses through the size guidelines for no pressing reason. Ignoring or reducing the size threshold would mean more and more stub types to try and manage, the lower one goes, and less and less critical mass to serve the purpose of getting the darn things expanded. Alai 17:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • upmerge per nom. not enough stubs yet. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 19:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, final ditch effort: if you delete this category 34 models will be unleashed upon the newly driven down British people stubs (261 just now). Don't do it, please! Dev920 01:57, 17 August 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.
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 speedily rename


Category:DJs stubs → Category:DJ stubs

edit

Per normal category naming. Should be speediable. Grutness...wha? 05:04, 12 August 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.

{{Arty-stub}}, redirect

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


Strangely named and unproposed, I've moved this to {{artillery-stub}}, per a current proposal, leaving this as a redirect. Delete this, regardless of the outcome of that proposal. Alai 02:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you mean it wasn't for painters? :) Delete. Grutness...wha? 04:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I struggled to keep clear of jokes about {{arty-farty-stub}}, just in case SPUI came along and created it as a redirect. Alai 15:08, 12 August 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.

{{NZ-tv-prog-stub}} / Category:New Zealand television program 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


Even leaving aside the matter of the category's spelling (NZ uses "programme"), this was never proposed and will never get close to threshold. A quick scan through Category:Television program stubs reveals only about two or three more programmes which would take this template in addition to the three it currently has. This should be deleted or at the very least upmerged. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 12 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/2006/August/12&oldid=1047778064"