Jump to content

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/January/12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 12[edit]

{{Perth-road-stub}} / Category:Perth, Western Australia road 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 rename/rescope to WesternAustralia-road-stub and Western Australia road stubs


11 articles. Can't see this growing to 60. I also found {{Perth-stub}}/Category:Perth, Western Australia stubs today, but I decided to let it stay as it was decently populated w/ a WP. Also open to upmerging. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several points to make here:
  • Anyone who thinks this can't grow to 60 (or 100, for that matter) is advised to look at List of major roads in Perth, Western Australia. The Perth metropolitan area (which this covers, rather than just the downtown area) covers a land area not dissimilar to that of metropolitan Los Angeles, but with 1/10th the population (about 1.6 million). As such, roads have been critical in Perth's definition and growth, and are linked extensively in those Perth articles which are considered complete (according to Wikiproject Perth, only 40 out of 338 articles meet this criteria, but this is moving ahead slowly).
  • This stub was created barely a month ago (12 Dec 2006). For nearly the entire time since, the December-January holiday period has deprived us somewhat of editors, who will become more available as we go into February. Road stubs get created when people are working on suburb articles to fix redlinks, and much of the information about Perth roads is in book form in the State Library rather than online.
  • The SfD guidelines only highlight two categories which might be marginally relevant to the reasons for deletion:
    • "They are not used in any article, and their category is empty" - clearly not the case, as it has 11 articles.
    • "Their scope is too limited" - see above notes. Note that the 50 is only described as a "rule of thumb", and there is certainly no mention of 60.
  • Also, no logical destination to upmerge them to. --Orderinchaos78 22:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rescope/Rename to WesternAustralia-road-stub and Double upmerge to Category:Australian road stubs and Category:Western Australia stubs. Once iot reaches 60, then a separate category would be logical, but it makes sense to split out Australia's roads primarily by state, not city. Grutness...wha? 23:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone who thinks that what this could grow to should be the determining factor is advised to look at WP:STUB, which indeed makes "mention" of 60. Stub types are to deal with existing articles, not for "plans for future expansion", especially when these involve sidelining very small numbers while those are "on hold". Populate to 60 or double-upmerge, in each case with either the present scope or Grutness's suggested modification (in this second instance, renaming). Alai 00:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I still feel that this move is incredibly premature. It encourages the development of low-content stubs which, if someone like myself becomes busy with a dozen other things (or in fact already is), very little will happen with without encouragement. I would expect that the guideline wouldn't normally anticipate 60 stubs being created by one or two people within the first month of a stub and category's existence purely to stave off the threat of an SFD which, I might note, I only accidentally noticed because of a small announcement at the bottom of a page I was working on. I'm not sure any of the other road editors are even aware this debate is going on, especially as quite a few are still on holidays until the end of this month. Also, upmerging to Australia-road-stubs leaves us where we were before, not being able to even find our articles in the mass of Victorian and NSW ones that were created some time ago. Orderinchaos78 14:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did in fact notify WikiProject Perth, just so you know. I figured that was the best way to contact people who would be involved in this discussion. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 22:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - changed to Strong keep. SatuSuro 04:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC) SFD is innapropriate. If the proposer had been an Australian editor, I would have wondered what was on earth going on. In some stub work in the areas that I work on - - sometimes there are only one or two of us working on any of these locations over a period of time due to the holiday season - I consider this proposal as badly timed and lacking in understanding of the local context. Considering the complexity of any SFD (which I have not encountered prior to this) and the long term ramifications on a new WikiProject - Western Australia - I would ask anyone who is going to comment further to be cognisant of the issues that Orderinchaos78 and self have pointed out here. I am most concerned the proposer talks of finding and deciding to let stay - I would be a lot more comfortable if it was addressed by an experienced Australian editor - and then at least the overall precedents and implications for the whole Ausralian wikiproject would be taken into consideration - WP Australia and WP Australia Places would be far more appropriate avenues to tackle the issue - I certainly would give credence to a debate there than here... SatuSuro 15:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep These are being maintained by both Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia (WP:WP) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Perth.
    • They are not the fancy of a single editor.
    • They are new.
    • They are peer reviewed by wikipedians of high standing and long experience.
    • If they don't work out we will remove them. We like things tidy. No contest. Fred at WP:WA. Fred 15:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rescope and double upmerge per Grutness. Stub types/categories are intended to split existing stubs into categories of 100-300 articles, not allow for growth. The guideline doesn't "anticipate 60 stubs being created by one or two people within the first month of a stub and category's existence purely to stave off the threat of an SFD", because it specifically says not to make the stub until there are already at least 60 relevant stubs. I don't see any implications for the whole Australian wikiproject, this is just a normal stub issue. It may indeed be useful to split stub categories up by state regardless of size, but this would have massive implications for the stub system as a whole, unless we are making Australia a special case. JPD (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep there are way more than 11 roads in perth!!! I see its gone up to 15 38 while we've all been sitting here talking about it. the WP Western Australia people are a good if small lot and work hard at this stuff and it's stupid wasting their time having to change this to that then that back to this when they hit some arbitrary magic number that two guidelines cannot even agree on (that one says 60 this one says 50...) I mean it's fine to say "change it" but I bet the people voting "rescope" and stuff in this SFD won't be the ones actually going into 60 individual articles and changing them themselves once it hits 60 (which it will) I think this is one of those cases where legalistic ideas have overtaken common sense. I mean is wikipedia seriously going to run out of hard disk space if one little stub sticks around? and yeah this "finding" and "deciding to let stay" i thought the whole point was the community decides not one user who spends a lot of time looking for other people's stuff to delete... also people saying "it has to be state" don't know an awful lot about western australia. you won't find a lot of named roads outside of perth, put it that way... those there are would get pretty upset about getting bundled in with perth (like the bunbury people) as it would disrupt THEIR work. DanielT5 17:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it's not about how many roads there are in Perth or even how many roads there are that deserve an article, it's about how many Perth road stubs there are. It's very strange to object to some "deciding" to start a community discussion to delete it, when someone has obviously "decided" to create the stub, even thought WP:STUB suggest several times that new stub types should be agreed to by the community. Noone has said "it has to be state", but someone who knows a lot about how the stubs sorting system works, and a reasonable amount about Australia, has suggesting that it would make the most sense. I don't see how Bunbury roads being in a WA stub category rather than left in the Australian category would disrupt the work of anyone interested in Bunbury. JPD (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It is a logical stub category, there's quite a bit of material now, and that's only going to grow with the Perth editors becoming very organised. Rebecca 23:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and rescope. —Moondyne 04:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rescope/upmerge per Grutness. The only reasons for having a Perth-road-stub are (1) because there are a lot of people out there who are likely to be interested in tracking and improving stubs about Perth roads, but have no interest in tracking and improving stubs on more general topics such as Western Australian roads or Perth in general; or (2) there are so many stubs on the more general topics that it is difficult for editors to locate stubs of interest. I don't see either of those conditions being met here, now or in the next year or so. Hesperian 04:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rescope to include all Western Australian roads. Gnangarra 05:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with this proposition. Wikiproject Western Australia is capable of distinguishing its own area of interest (separate from Perth's) if necessary through project pages, so the distinction is not necessary. Orderinchaos78 02:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I agree with gnangarra that we should rescope to include all WA roads. If you give this a chance, the category will grow eventually--M W Johnson 00:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This seems to be a head-on crash between the very enthusiastic Perth and WA editors, and the stub sorters who need order to do their job. I'm not sure if this stub was created "in process" or not, but I'm confident the Perth people know what they're doing. I'd suggest/support widening to WA scope, but choose not to vote such on this proposal. I'd also remind M Johnson that the objective is to shrink stub categories, not grow them. --Scott Davis Talk 01:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weird, the comment I made here earlier seems to have simply disappeared. Anyhoo, I was trying to say something to the effect of: hopefully no more than a minor fender-bender. It's also in WSS's interests to see the Australian roads sub-divided as and when that's feasible, it's just a matter of on how broad a basis, and how soon. The current scope is for one thing less than thunderingly obvious: I did a double-take at Fremantle roads being tagged as "Perth", not being entirely up to speed on my Western Australian local government entities. (Is there even a separate article for that entity?) "Western Australian road stubs" would be much more obvious, as well as at least slightly broader in terms of numbers of stubs. Alai 01:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironically this SFD has probably provided the largest momentum we've seen in road articles in some time - I was quite shocked to see how few of the really important arterials had nothing whatsoever. Being careful to create only stubs which actually can grow (i.e. are verifiable, notable, reliable sources can be found, contribute to the history and development of Perth, etc) we're already up to 50 with several to-do lists of more to create - it will most likely be over 60 by the time admin action on this SFD is considered. I'm firmly in agreement with ScottDavis that we shouldn't be trying to grow stub categories - however in the short-medium term present there is a need for one here. One would hope that at some point in the next 12 months this category will be empty once again as we'd have got all of the articles to minimum Start class and possibly in some cases Featured or GA status. Orderinchaos78 16:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment, If the outcome of this SFD is to keep this with its current scope, the template will still need renaming, since Perth is a dab page, and for many people the Australian city will not be the first place though of (PerthAU-road-stub would be consistent with other similar cases in the past) Grutness...wha? 12:50, 19 January 2007 (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.

{{Stockholm-stub}} / Category:Stockholm 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 speedy delete


From WP:WSS/D. Currently not used on any articles. Creator agreed to use Sweden-xxx-stub templates. Possibly speediable. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:53, 12 January 2007 (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.

{{NOLA-stub}} / Category:New Orleans 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 rename template, keep cat


From WP:WSS/D. Template definitely needs a rename to {{NewOrleans-stub}}. Currently only 10 articles, but there is a WP:NO, so I suggest upmerge to Category:Louisiana stubs. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:36, 12 January 2007 (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:Argentine film 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 keep


From WP:WSS/D. 43 articles. Upmerge. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually 125+ articles Pretty soon there will be about 300 stubs. Please give it time .Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been a month since creation and if only 45 articles have been tagged since then, I don't see how there will be 300 soon. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged some films that were not stubbed categorize dcorrectly and addeed a few more as I am doing. I now count 62 films.

Glad to see it is not only the the population of elephants that has tripled. WP:SNOW? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 18:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably closeable without recourse to SNOW, since the current population negates the cited reason for nomination. Unless Amalas wants especially wants to let it run, or to add a rider... Alai 18:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This can be closed. Thanks Ernst Stavro Blofeld, for all the hard work. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:33, 16 January 2007 (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:Siberian mythology 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


From WP:WSS/D. 24 articles. Upmerge. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:06, 12 January 2007 (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:Mycologist 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 to fungus stubs and botanist stubs


From WP:WSS/D. 11 articles. Upmerge. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This category is genuinely needed by WikiProject Fungi to point out the articles on mycologists that are in need of expansion. Upmerging this stub back into "botanist stub" is at cross-purposes with this. Peter G Werner 17:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about upmerging it into Category:Fungus stubs to keep it within WP:Fungi's scope? (I'm thinking along the lines of it being similar to a fungus-bio-stub or something like that) ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be preferable to losing it in "botanist stubs". If you have to upmerge it, put it there. Peter G Werner 19:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Until it has enough stubs to warrant a stub category of its own, using What links here on {{mycologist-stub}} should be adequate for the Fungi fun guys. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make that a double upmerge with {{Mycologist-stub}} feeding into both [[cl|Botanist stubs}} and Category:Fungus stubs until it has enough styubs to warrant a category of its own. Caerwine Caer’s whines 09:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What is fungus-bio-stub but renamed mycologist? How many mycologist stubs do we need to make it worthwhile? (I will gt to work on a few more...) Cas Liber 20:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting that we rename this fungus-bio-stub or anything like that. I was trying to imply that it would be similar to other things like {{econ-stub}} - {{economist-stub}}, where the logical <subject>-bio-stub is replaced by a more specific <subject>ist-stub. I mean, you could use {{econ-bio-stub}} (which is a redirect to economist), but economist is a much better word. I hope that made sense.
Usually 60 stubs is the general guideline (listed in the proposal procedure). ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 21:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong feeling of deju vu about this discussion. If not populated to ~60 articles, upmerge to both of the above-mentioned types. Alai 00:03, 13 January 2007 (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:Romania battle 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


From WP:WSS/D. 21 articles. Upmerge. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:06, 12 January 2007 (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.

{{Multisport-stub}} / Category:Multisport 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


From WP:WSS/D. 21 articles. Unclear scope (at least just by looking at the template and cat names). ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If not populated, upmerge. If populated and kept... it seems as if we have Category:Multi-sport competitions (as distinct from Category:Multi-sport events, of course...), as well as multisport and Category:Multisport stubs: either the former or the latter two need to be renamed. Or all three, which might be the only way to make this the least bit clear. Alai 00:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a keen sportsman I'll give you my input on this (is 5am over here, and I've just arrived back from a bike ride that I left at 3pm for the PREVIOUS DAY!). It would be very very silly to merge Category:Multi-sport competitions and Category:Multi-sport events. They are two totally different categories, as for renaming them. No, that also isn't needed. They both have been given suitable names (with the except of a point regarding Category:Multi-sport competitions which I'll get to in a second), and there should be no possibility of confusion because they have both got a careful explanation of what they are on their respective pages. Even including links across to the other category should anybody be accidentally looking at the wrong one.Category:Multi-sport competitions should be renamed to Category:Multi-sport, because as it is now it's scope is narrowly confined to competitions and couldn't be including a much broader range of articles (such as athletes, equipment, magazines, organizations, etc...). Finally I fail to see what is unclear about the scope of Category:Multisport stubs, it covers and has pages that are exactly what a person would expect based on the name and the description in the template. Mathmo Talk 16:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merger of "competitions" and "events" isn't at issue here, since those are permcats, not stub categories. (Mind you, "no possibility of confusion" and "careful explanation" are both contrary to my experience.) Likewise, if you want to rename in the way that you suggets, please take that to WP:CFD. However, if you do, please don't be quite so blithe in interchanging the hypenated and non-hyphenated versions, especially if it's otherwise being used to help distinguish from the Category:Multi-sport events. Alai 17:48, 16 January 2007 (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/2007/January/12&oldid=1146636846"