Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/October/13
October 13
[edit]Ancient Rome
[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
Ok, I take it all back, massive apologies to all, I entirely boo-booed, please delete all the below, put the pages back into Category:Ancient Rome stubs, and we'll start from a clean slate - or rather, I'll stay clear of stub categories for a while as I may now have stub-o-phobia! In lieu of those, I've instituted a list of the topics that suggested themselves to me at User:Neddyseagoon/Topics within Ancient Rome stubs, which keeps them all in the 'Ancient Rome stubs' category rather than my sub-categories, but makes it a bit easier to pick one's own interests out from the main list in the category - hope this will be a solution that is to everyone's satisfaction. User|Neddyseagoon 22:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient-Rome-stub and its category are not severely oversized,fuck yet User:Neddyseagoon seems to have taken it upon himself to split it into a large number of completely unnecessary subcategories, all of which need severe work and preferably removal. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, may I just put my side of it, as nobody else seems to be rushing to my defence, nor paying attention to the discussion of this on my talk page. Yes, I see I should have proposed them, my mistake, it's the first time I've done this kind of thing, but must you be so harsh? I know it's not severely oversized, but it is large enough (I think, as do many of the relevant taskforce) that it is posing very slow to empty, and it is impossible for a user to identify specific types of Roman stub article (eg towns, provinces, religion) that they have an interest in and could helpfully do work on. I was just trying to make that possible, modelling on Template:Ancient-Rome-bio-stub and Template:AncientRome-battle-stub - can you suggest a better way? And as for them being empty, it's because I've only just starting filling them, which is proving slow and rather belies it not being a large category! - trust me, they'll fill up! But I'll pause for now. "Take it upon myself"?! Honestly, I'm trying my best, we all make mistakes. User|Neddyseagoon 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A compromise way could easily be nutted out at WP:WSS/P, I'm sure, but in their current form these are pretty bad and need action. Certainly splitting off buildings, towns, and geographical locations is a very poor way of doing it. As for "severely oversized", a stub category should have 60 or so items in it for it to be viable, and oversized is usually taken as being 600+ stubs - in which case finding a way to reduce it one section at a time is the way to go - not splitting off seven or eight sections at once.
As to being harsh, when you split off the new categories, you added in the instructions for what to do to propose new categories - instructions which you ignored in doing so. If you had been ignorant of the procedures, then it would have been more understandable -but the instructions were there and you tacitly acknowledged that by copying them across. Under those circumstances, this isn't harsh at all. Grutness...wha? 22:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I was ignorant - I somehow missed the instructions in the section I was copying (I was trying to work quickly), and only spotted when you pointed them out. User|Neddyseagoon 12:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll now explain what I was trying (albeit in a very imperfect manner) to do , under each sub-head. And whenever you say 'underpopulated', bear in mind that they were all at the embryonic stage and would have been much fuller had I got further through reclassifying the Ancient Rome stubs into them.User|Neddyseagoon 18:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay - I apologise if it seemed I was being harsh. As far as the "undersized" is concerned, coside that the main category was hardly in need of splitting into more than perhaps one or two sub-types, so populating ten up to a viable level is not likely. Grutness...wha? 05:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of (two of) the more egregious attempts at stub types I've seen in my time working at WP:WSS. Where to start?
- never proposed
- severely undersized (neither category has even 25 stubs, let alone 60)
- cuts directly through the stub hierarchy which is arranged by present-day location
- vague (no explanation as to whether current towns based on former Roman towns are to be included)
- one type, town stubs, is of a type specifically listed as being typed that should never be created
- the other type has a misnamed category
These need to be deleted, quickly and thoroughly. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So many of the province pages (and even more of the Roman town ones) are short, I just felt they could be better expanded by grouping the stubs together somehow. A 'Roman town in x country' might be better, to avoid clashes with the 'by present country' rule.
- With this small a number of items 9and yes, I know, you were only part way through populating them) it would make more sense to list them as a subpage of your WikiProject's pages as a "to do" list. Grutness...wha? 05:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it, there's this problem. There was an attempt to at least partially fix this unproposed stub type, which was reverted. It would have only been a temporary fix anyway. The template is an arch-stub, that is, an architectural feature or style stub, yet the category says that it is for buildings. In fact, it's for buildings and structures, and should be so named if kept, and the template should be Ancient-Rome-struct-stub. BUT again, buildings and structures are categorised by present day location, not by whichever civilisation built them, and as such this should be deleted.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a combination of country-struct-stub and Ancient-Rome-stub for these items, in the same way as is done with other buildings and structures built by other civilisations. Grutness...wha? 23:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never proposed, severely undersized, and duplicates Category:Ancient Roman mythology stubs. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Five stubs only, never proposed, and everything in it is better dealt with in other stub categories. Hideously big icon, too. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Severely undersized, never proposed, and fallaciously named. None of these are Roman ethnic groups. They are ethnic groups that lived at the time of the Ancient Roman civilisation and were described by them. Only the Latini and the Romans themselves could really be considered "Roman ethnic groups". Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's what the template says - 'of the Roman Empire' - I never claimed they were Roman groups. Better named, this could be a useful sub category of both the 'ethnic groups' and 'Rome' stubs.
- Trouble is, here, that ethnic groups are categorised by location, so here you have African, European, and Middle Eastern ethnic groups together in one category. Grutness...wha? 05:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Severely undersized, never proposed, you know the routine by now. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, never proposed, severely undersized. Seems to erroneously suggest that all literature in Latin is from Ancient Rome (tell that to the Catholics). Delete Grutness...wha? 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, not if it was also in Category:Latin literature which includes both types.
- Category:Latin literature is not a stub category, to start with. Also, literature is stubbed by type, not by language - you'd have religious texts, poetry, plays, and prose all mixed together. Having subcategories of these for classical literature in general might be a reasonable compromise if there are enough of them (e.g., Classical poetry stub for Greek and Roman poetry). That would be another possibility for proposal... Grutness...wha? 05:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Missed one - as above, undersized (six stubs), unproposed... everything here could go into the hardly-bulging ancient Rome battle or military stub categories - this one is completely unnecessary. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll put them there.
- Speed Delete. If we need to divide ancient Rome and its oversized, you can propose some ideas for 7 days on stub Proposals where "helpful people" will turn up to check the proposals work in the overall direction being rolled out. An old saying applies: "Working fast is a recipe for disastor". Working fast is mentioned twice on these stubs. Goldenrowley 21:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all (no opinion as to speedy or not). I don't think the Roman material is oversized, and if it is, splits need to be discussed better. And btw, Errare humanum est. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:45, 16 October 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.