Jump to content

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/November/22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 22

[edit]

{{Canadian-scientist-stub}} to {{Canada-scientist-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


Bringing it in line with naming conventions. (Brought me quite a surprise when trying to sort...) Crystallina 02:28, 23 November 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.
[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 all, create Munich-stub


Relevant discussions:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Munich has been notified. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - These are related to WikiProject Munich and are very relevent to Wikipedia's resources on Munich. I honestly don't care if anyone outside the project uses them. These templates do help WikiProject Munich. Kingjeff 16:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete of the people types: footballers and politicians "born in Munich" are not suitable scopes, being entirely unrelated to their primary notability. (As Grutness would say, "people move around too much".) People notable primarily in Munich politics, specifically, would be OK as a scope, but is almost certainly too narrow. If WPJM wants to keep track of everyone born in München, then that's lovely for them, but keep it to talk-page templates, please (as I already told the creator, to no avail). Delete or upmerge anything else that's undersized. Create a top-level {{Munich-stub}} / Category:Munich stubs, which is the logical place to start. Alai 16:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The relevent policy here is Ignore all rules policy. Wikipedia:WikiProject says, A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia. If any project was expected to follow every single little rule, then how would any project expect to succeed? The point is the stub templates and categories may be unconventional according to Wikipedia policy and guideline, but it serves the purpose of Wikipedia's goal of creating creating a free encyclopedia. Kingjeff 17:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is exactly why many people think IAR is a silly "policy", since its effect is to negate all the others, given any person's view on what's "required" to serve WP's quality. (Of course in practice, some people are more effectively able to ignore the rules than others, another thing that's problematic about it.) I happen to think the stub guidelines make perfect sense in this case, and that a single person (let's be quite clear about this) creating multiple stub templates with tiny and inappropriate scopes is in fact counterproductive to said goal, for all the reasons normally rehearsed on such occasions. (Proliferation of numbers of stub types to maintain; tag and category clutter on each article; loss of "critical mass" in each stub type, potentially making them less likely to be expanded by people randomly happening across them.) Alai 17:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a "silly" policy at all. The purpose of that policy is to avoid hindering Wikipedia's progress. It helps avoid members like yourself to game the system. Kingjeff 19:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see my earlier suggestion to review WP:CIVIL was to little effect. (Or perhaps you're covering that with IAR, too.) You might want to consider WP:AGF, too. In what way am I "gaming the system"? I'm advocating following the stub guidelines because I think they are sensible, and because your stub types are not, for the reasons I've outlined. If you think I'm doing so because of some prior anti-Munich, anti-Wikiproject, or anti-yourself agenda, you're quite mistaken. IAR is indeed a silly "policy", since it's a) self-contradictory, and b) allows users like you to supposedly justify whatever actions pop into their heads, absent of any actual evidence that they're necessary to "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". Alai 21:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IAR is a perfectly senible policy - as long as the person ignoring the rules has read exactly what that page and the pnes linking from it have to say. You can Ignore all rules if you like, as long as you Wikipedia:Use common sense andaren't being a dick. Ignoring all rules for the benefit of Wikipedia is actually a good thing. But cases like this, where rules are being ignored and the result is disruption, fall foul of those other pages. Grutness...wha? 04:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But if one is already IARing, one can logically speaking "ignore" those rules too (even if they were of any objective use in the first place, which frankly they're not, but that's another day's work). Actually ignoring all rules for the objective benefit of Wikipedia would be a good thing, but having a "rule" to ignore all rules is entirely nonsensical, and only workable if either, there's general agreement as to what's "to the benefit of Wikipedia" in a particular instance (and IAR has been repeatedly reworded to indicate that's not the "official" interpretation, and currently makes no mention of consensus at all); or if there's an implicit pecking order as to who gets to determine the beneficence of a particular action (experience tells me this is the way it works in practice, and insofar as there's any real thought behind it at all, the way it's intended to work, especially given the route by which it became a "rule"). Alai 11:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the people types as per Alai. Delete the -geo since the scope is clearly too narrow. Keep the U-Bahn template (not listed here, but just to get the full picture). Delete or upmerge the rest. Support a generic {{Munich-stub}} (no skin off my nose if people prefer the name {{München-stub}} for that matter.) Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Let me make some points on why to keep these templates.
  1. These templates were well thought of. I could have had more then twice as many for WikiProject Munich.
  2. Hopefully, by the time WikiProject is finished, there will be no Munich-related stubs. So, hopefully, these stub templates are temporary.
  3. I didn't create them for everyone outside WikiProject Munich. Like I said in my previous point, I hope there will eventually be no Munich-related stubs. The whole point of this project is to cover the creation and editing of articles related to the City of Munich, its buroughs, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on. With good editing, like I said before, eventually will be no Munich-related stubs. So these templates will be no good after the project is done.
  4. In a WikiProject like this, topics can be broad. Users in Wikipedia have different interests and will be interested in different areas about Munich. Kingjeff 23:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "I didn't create them for everyone outside WikiProject Munich." By creating stub templates you are involving WikiProject Stub sorting. If you want to organize the articles that relate to Munich purely for the benefit of WikiProject Munich, there are other and indeed better ways of doing so that using stub notices. By creating stubs you are asking others outside your project to help that project. It just simply is not feasible for those involved in stub sorting to deal with tens of thousands of micro stub types, so that is why the guidelines call for minimum sizes. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete of the footy-bio and bio stubs, delete of the politician stub, and an upmerge of the others into a new {{Munich-stub}}. Let me counter some points brought up above:
  1. These templates were badly thought up and never proposed - no wikiproject of the size of this one needs more than one stub template - far larger wikiprojects all manage with three or fewer, and a new project like this one is making far more work for itself and everyone else by creating such a plethora of stub types. Long experience shows that too small a stub category will discourage rather than encourage editors, and that is exactly what is being done here.
  2. Stub templates are never temporary - Wikipedia is growing exponentially, and I don't recall any stub template ever being retired unless it has been superseded by two or more subtypes.
  3. No stub templates are WP:OWNed by any wikiproject. once they are created they are open for use by everyone, so keeping them in line with other stub templates helps the entire project.
  4. In a WikiProject like this, topics can be broad. As such, it makes no sense to pigeo-hole a small number of stubs into such narrowly defined stub types when an overall Munich-stub is a more logical measure.

Grutness...wha? 04:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete listed stub templates and categories and create {{Munich-stub}}. As I might be away when that happens would someone remember to make Category:Munich U-Bahn stubs a subcategory of whichever Munich category will be created. Agathoclea 15:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kingjeff, if the only point of this template would be aiding the WikiProject Munich, I'd suggest adding parameters, which allow you to sort articles as you want to, to the project banner.--Carabinieri 00:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of these stub types and create {{Munich-stub}} in their place. The only one that comes close to have enough stubs to survive on its own is the footy-bio, and that's only because it includes a number of people that under the usual stub sorting rules would not be assigned Germany-footy-bio-stub, let alone Munich-footy-bio-stub under the usual rules of deciding where to place biography stubs geographically. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:18, 24 November 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.

{{joinery-stub}} → {{woodworking-stub}}; Category:Joinery stubs → Category:Woodworking 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 move/rename


To follow the permcat. Move template, keeping redirect, and rename category. Alai 03:21, 22 November 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/Log/2006/November/22&oldid=1138682951"