Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/December/8

December 8

{{FSU-metro-stub}} / Category:FSU Metro stubs

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 template(s) by country and/or city, upmerge

I was going to put this on WSS/D, but then found it had already been discussed with the consensus to send it here in early September. Seeing no further discussion in the September logs, here it is. The category currently contains 26 articles. Propose upmerge to {{Metro-stub}}/Category:Rapid transit stubs. Slambo (Speak) 21:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose What's wrong with the category, we have stub categories that are empty and fill in and out due to how fast people edit them. I see nothing wrong with that. The only point is that instead of creating stubs, we usually leave the artilce red-linked and put it in complete, but if you want that category to grow exponentially I can create at least a hundred FSU metro stubs. --Kuban Cossack 23:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and upmerge. May be needed later, but if so, it should have a far better name and a better scope. FSU does not have a metro system. Neither does the FSU, or FSU. In any case, except in very rare circumstances, we use current national boundaries, so a stub type covering 15 countries which no longer form a cohesive unit and split across two continents is not the most sensible split, especially since I doubt that any of these metro systems have individual lines crossing current national borders. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Grutness. Poor scoped, poorly named, small. Alai 01:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The scope is very far from normal, agree, but could this be because of a WikiProject / taskforce or similar? Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 01:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Comments. Although FSU is an abstract term, one needs not to realise that it does refer to the ex-Soviet countries...Now I personally find this category very helpful, because I do happen to operate in the seven ex-Soviet countries that have a rapid-transit system. If anybody doubts that statement, my full list of Metro contributions. As for poor management, then on the contrary, in my opinion its better not to create stubs, but instead to write complete articles from start. However, one of my key associates in the effort User:DDima, at times uses the stub function... However whenever he does so, I know exactly when such an article would come up by viewing that category. ... I think the only fair compromise that I propose here is that after we complete the 500+ articles on Metro stations, then I myself will put this stub category and template for deletion...However, at present, our rate is not excatly fast, as one thing is to create a hundred stubs another is to write 500 articles, roughly to the standard equivalent of Vyrlitsa. --Kuban Cossack 02:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the current contents of 25 articles, almost all from the Moscow metro, and all of them from only three countries, I think your suggested "compromise" of "wait another 500 articles" is indistinguisable from your original unqualified opposition. I instead suggest that this be replaced with a {{Russia-metro-stub}}, a {{Ukraine-metro-stub}} and a {{Belarus-metro-stub}}, all upmerged to Category:Rapid transit stubs, or the proposed (I believe) Category:European rapid transit stubs. If it's really necessary to "split up Europe", we should try to stick to standard modern definitions, like the UN subregions. Alai 04:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are other and better ways besides stubs to keep track of small numbers of articles that need improvement. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I really do not see any problem with it... It is helpful and the topic is of wide range. If consensus is to delete them, perhaps we can only delete the category and still keep the stub temp, so the articles will go into the Metro stubs category... Or if some do not like the name, we can rename it to smthing like Eastern European Metro stub... —dmytro/s-ko/ 19:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course per user:DDima. --Irpen 20:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. FSU abbreviation stands for different terms, as Grutness pointed out (above). I should either be country-specific, like {{Ukraine-metro-stub}}, {{Russia-metro-stub}}, as Alai suggested (above), or even city specific. Or just {{Metro-stub}}. At the end, it's just a stub. --KPbIC 21:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By city is theoretically sensible as upmerged templates, but we're a looooong way off anything aside from {{Moscow-metro-stub}} being separately viable (and we're some way off that). Might as well go for the more specific template at least in that case, though. Alai 02:14, 15 December 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.