Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/October/13
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
October 13
[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
Unproposed, and cuts through the stub hierarchy. There's also some apparent confusion about parentage - for some reason, the category has Category:American politician stubs as a parent, and (as far as I know) no American politicians are media (they may be mediums, but that's another matter). Longstanding procedure is to split primarily by type of medium and only then by nation and subnational region. That's why we have state-specific newspaper-stub types, but no media-stub type even at national level. Both the articles which use this stub should be using the long-established {{Mississippi-newspaper-stub}}, not this new media-stub (which should be deleted). Grutness...wha? 01:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I fixed that issue with the politicians cat. Further, it's redundant to have them broken down by radio stub, newspaper stub, television stub, magazine stub.. when they are all media and should be under one stub. As seemingly the only one resurrecting WikiProject Mississippi, I created the stub inline with trying to categorize and file things related to Mississippi. Granted I'm not experienced in the broad duties and creations of a wikiproject but it only makes sense to have media under Media Stubs rathern than seperated. Further, is "proposal first" a law around here? And I'm being serious when I ask that.. I wasn't aware editors had to get permission to create things on WP before creating them. Thanks. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentAs it says on {{Wikiproject}} and at WP:STUB, as well as at many other stub-related pages, it is very strongly recommended. It's not actually policy, but strong recommendations are not there purely for window-dressing - there are distinct and logical reasons why they're put in place. After all, the main people using any stub templates will be WP:WSS, and stub templates have to be consistent for ease of use by people unconnected with any specific projects as well. It's not like it's a WikiProject talk-page assessment template (which would be specific to your wikiproject). So there's sense in not having one state's articles do things one way while everywhere else has them done another. As to redundancy, quite the opposite - it is a media stub which is redundant to the system currently in use, which has worked very well with no problems for a long time. Grutness...wha? 02:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not especially excited about this, but there is the precedent of Category:Florida media stubs. However, if it's also going to be tiny, I'm not sure I see much point. I certainly don't think that more precise types are "redundant", or that lumping "only makes sense" -- that assumes these will be getting edited entirely by location, and not at all by people working on regional radio stations, etc, which is exactly the reverse of that behind the organisation of those stub types. I'd much rather see upmerged- (or double-upmerged) templates for each particular medium/state combination; if there's the numbers for a media cat, it can feed there, rather than into the state-stub. Alai 04:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you Grutness and Alai. I don't have a problem with it being deleted if others can be created. There's already a Mississippi-radio-stations-stub and a Mississippi-newspapers-stub but there is no Mississippi-television-stations-stub or Mississippi-magazines-stub and I don't know how to go about creating them and implementing them into the Grading and Importance system that I just copied from WikiProject New York into WikiProject Mississippi. I can't even get the bot working to automatically do the log and statistics. I fix things as I stumble across the education and learning of them. Further, there are other entities that are media such as parent companies. A good example would be, nationally, Gannett to my local newspaper The Clarion-Ledger. Another good example is, locally, Roberts Media Company which owns several television and radio stations here in my area. Roberts Media Company couldn't use a Radio or TV stub alone and should have a general "media" stub. So unless there's other suggestions and someone willing to lend a helping hand to someone to get the ratings and importance system in line at Wikiproject Mississippi, I'm doing the best I can with it and feel that a media stub is the best for all things media in Mississippi. Thank you. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 21:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There would certainly be scope for a {{Mississippi-tv-station-stub}} - this is a partially-implemented by-state split as things stand (though it would probably be better upmerged with other state types into a {[cl|Southern United States television station stubs}} - the completion of such a by-state split would require about 30 state-tv-station-stub types, so it's definitely better handled through a proper proposal at WP:WSS/P. {{Mississippi-magazine-stub}} would be a more difficult one, though, since it's more natural to split magazines by subject matter than by specific location (we don't even have a {{US-magazine-stub}}, though splitting at a national level at least does make some sense). BTW, any company which operates both television and radio stations can easily be simply double-stubbed with both templates. As to the "grading and importance system", I'm not sure I understand. Such things aren't usually handled by stub templates, but by wikiproject-specific talk-page banners (e.g., {{WPBeatles}}). It's certainly not the purpose of stub templates to perform that task. Grutness...wha? 22:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not especially excited about this, but there is the precedent of Category:Florida media stubs. However, if it's also going to be tiny, I'm not sure I see much point. I certainly don't think that more precise types are "redundant", or that lumping "only makes sense" -- that assumes these will be getting edited entirely by location, and not at all by people working on regional radio stations, etc, which is exactly the reverse of that behind the organisation of those stub types. I'd much rather see upmerged- (or double-upmerged) templates for each particular medium/state combination; if there's the numbers for a media cat, it can feed there, rather than into the state-stub. Alai 04:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentAs it says on {{Wikiproject}} and at WP:STUB, as well as at many other stub-related pages, it is very strongly recommended. It's not actually policy, but strong recommendations are not there purely for window-dressing - there are distinct and logical reasons why they're put in place. After all, the main people using any stub templates will be WP:WSS, and stub templates have to be consistent for ease of use by people unconnected with any specific projects as well. It's not like it's a WikiProject talk-page assessment template (which would be specific to your wikiproject). So there's sense in not having one state's articles do things one way while everywhere else has them done another. As to redundancy, quite the opposite - it is a media stub which is redundant to the system currently in use, which has worked very well with no problems for a long time. Grutness...wha? 02:29, 13 October 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.