Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/November/13
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
November 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 rename
Created by someone who is not clear on its scope ("stub categories which have a whole cohesive range of smaller categories") nor its usefulness; see discussion here. I suggest we either delete it, or re-scope and rename it as Category:Top-level stub categories as suggested by others. Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as first choice - it does seem like it would have some use, as long as its purpose is "what it says on the can". Would be quite open to an outright deletion, though. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. This category takes the current Category:Stub categories which contains over 6,000 entries and refines that down to 46 items. To me, it seems to be of such obvious usefulness and benefit, that i'm a bit surprised it is being proposed for deletion. This is not a "stub type." it is a category. i would like this matter to be addressed in a broad discussion with the Wikipedia community. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So far, the only person to whom its use seems clear is you. What exactly are the criteria for including a category in Category:Stub parent categories? Here's some speculation on my part:
- Possibility #1: To include top-level stub categories, i.e. those which are not parented? I'm looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/List of stubs and seeing the top-level categories, which don't align to your selections for this category, so that's not the current scope of it.
- Possibility #2: To include stub categories which serve only as parents with no corresponding stub template? (See here for a list of examples.) Those don't align with your selections either.
- Corollary: If your intention was to create a separate category for stub cats that are parents only (with no template), you have not explained this either as your rationale or in the scope of the category. In the permcat realm, Category:Parent categories features a template that makes it clear that "Due to the scope of this category, it should contain only subcategories and a limited number of directly-related pages." This template may appear on stub categories, thus adding it to Category:Parent categories, but that is not apparently the scope of Category:Stub parent categories.
Also, the heading on this page does say that stub categories without templates should be discussed here, so the lack of a dedicated template is not cause for change of venue. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean all significant parent categories which encompass a single topic, without any subsidiary divisions based on criteria such as time, geographical location, etc etc. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Top-level stub categories, ie those stub categories which are not children of any other stub category, so that looking at this whole group gives an ancestor for every recognised stub category. This is not immediately visible from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/List of stubs: Category:Music stubs is not a child of any other category, but appears in that listing as a subsection of "Culture". But the category as it exists, with a subjective listing of "significant" parent categories, is not useful. PamD (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose rename. I feel that providing a convenient place to find such high-level groupings easily in one convenient place will be somewhat beneficial to readers and users. Clearly, almost all topics there constitute a significant topic area in their own right. the general scope of this category can emerge from a broad consensus-driven group effort, and the broad consensus on what categories a number of people would like to see here, and what they might find convenient. it does not have to be set in stone in this manner right at the outset. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How will renaming it to something more accurate hinder that? In any case, where are all these people who find it useful? So far you appear to be the only person supporting this being kept in its current form. Those who regularly use stub types so far seem to think that it would not be useful under the current name but might be if effectively rescoped. Grutness...wha? 20:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- dude your continual references to me personally are not considered to be proper Wikpedia etiquette. please stop doing them. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All I have done is ask questions in response to statements you have made. I don't see how you could consider that these questions are "continual references to you personally". I would suggest that - rather than suggesting that my comments in some way encroaches on wikiquette - you actually attempt to answer the points I have raised. Grutness...wha? 05:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
where are all these people who find it useful? So far you appear to be the only person supporting this being kept in its current form.
- that is not a phrasing which is ever used, ever, in a discussion of wikipedia policy. if a person is a minority of one, their views are still given some validity. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is used, where such wording is appropriate, such as here. The point here is that you do indeed seem to be a minority of one, but yet keep suggesting that there are more people who find it useful - in your own words, it is useful "to users of Wikipedia and readers". Yet none of these users and readers have indicated that it is of any use to them in its current form. Proof by assertion is not a valid argument, and neither is WP:ILIKEIT, which seems to be the other main argument being put forward. If it is as useful; as you maintain, there should be many !votes here to keep the category in its current form. So far, you have created a category in a form that everyone who seems to have an opinion on other than you finds to be at the very least incorrectly titled.
- All I have done is ask questions in response to statements you have made. I don't see how you could consider that these questions are "continual references to you personally". I would suggest that - rather than suggesting that my comments in some way encroaches on wikiquette - you actually attempt to answer the points I have raised. Grutness...wha? 05:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- dude your continual references to me personally are not considered to be proper Wikpedia etiquette. please stop doing them. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When discussion took place as to its usefulness, you decided that it needed to be taken to WP:AN, of all paces (hardly the most appropriate forum). When an uninvolved admin checked out the discussions/he concluded that you weren't being helpful and key questions were remaining unaddressed as to the category's usefulness. In response, rather than answering the concerns raised, you stated that the category "spoke for itself" - something it clearly does not do - and hinted that there had been an assumption of bad faith by those of us who had taken part in the discussion process. If there had been any assumption of bad faith at all, it was not by those wishing to find out what the use of the category was and - once having done so - wished to see it renamed to reflect its purpose. In this deletion process discussion, your first comments were to suggest that this was the wrong forum (it is not, as the page's instructions make clear) and that this matter needed a broad discussion within the wikipedia community - well, this page should give that - it's perfectly wide open for anyone who wishes to discuss it, yet you are still the only person speaking up in support of it at its current name.
- Yes, your views are valid as one person's views, and I have never suggested otherwise. The views of myself and others are also equally valid, and given that it appears that those taking part in this debate seem- with one exception - to consider this at the very least needing a rescope, these views must be taken into consideration. This is not in any way bad wikiquette - it is simply a statement of the state of the debate. I would like to ask you to keep to wikiquette yourself, and to assume good faith on those taking part in this debate, whose aims are simply to make the current ambiguously-scoped category something that is useful and appropriately named if possible, or else to get rid of it. Grutness...wha? 22:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, i do not find the approach you display in this discussion to be overall in keeping with the more appropriate, customary or best ways for resolving these issues. I really hope the rest of the discussion here conforms with appropriate Wikipedia procedures. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, your views are valid as one person's views, and I have never suggested otherwise. The views of myself and others are also equally valid, and given that it appears that those taking part in this debate seem- with one exception - to consider this at the very least needing a rescope, these views must be taken into consideration. This is not in any way bad wikiquette - it is simply a statement of the state of the debate. I would like to ask you to keep to wikiquette yourself, and to assume good faith on those taking part in this debate, whose aims are simply to make the current ambiguously-scoped category something that is useful and appropriately named if possible, or else to get rid of it. Grutness...wha? 22:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- by the way, for the record, here is the text of the request which i made at WP:AN. thanks.
Hi. I need some help. I started a new category related to stubs which we sorely need. now someone has instituted a request for deletion. various editors admit the need for this category, but they seem to want to delete it over minute differences. Can some admins please help and provide an opinion? I appreciate it.
the category is: category: stub parent categories. It is being proposed for deletion at: Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2008/November/13. there is also a major discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#parent_categories]. please feel free to provide some input. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry that you don't find reasoned, level debate to be the best way of resolving these issues. Unfortunately, that is the way that these issues are resolved on Wikipedia. You've been here a while - you should know that. And there was no need to repeat here what you said at WP:AN - as has been pointed out to you by two of the administrators who regularly patrol that page (myself and Alai), it was an inappropriate use for that forum. Now, please will you try to conform to the usual Wikipedia standards of debate as expected in these pages, rather than continuing with this seeming assumption that those who disagree with this category are somehow in violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? So far, you have argued via proof by assertion and by WP:ILIKEIT, and have continued from there to argue ad hominem. None of these arguments are helping the category, and none of them belong in the sort of debate which these pages require. Please argue to the points raised, rather than countering them with unrelated suggestions as to the motives or methods of the asker. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks for your reply. i have posted a reply to Pegship below, (starting with "Ok, I do appreciate...") which might respond equally well to your legitimate concerns. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominated for deletion or renaming, actually. It's not so much everyone else being picky and minute as it is you being vague and obtuse. Your opinion, lone though it may be, would carry more weight and be more convincing if you could be more specific as to the purpose of this category. And you're welcome. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- hi. ok. thanks for your feedback. actually, i'm not really concerned about how weighty or convincing my opinion is, as long as I've had the chance to be heard. so i appreciate the chance to be heard on this. thanks (again). --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- by the way, I'm ignoring your desciption of me being vague and obtuse. sorry, but some here seem to exhibit some of the rudest behaviors I've seen at such forums. i have not made a single personal comment about anyone personally. that seems to occur habitually here. apparently some here have no idea of the ways that contentious issues are settled here at Wikipedia.
- Sorry. I guess I meant to say that your statements are vague and obtuse. I'm sure your language in person is delightfully understandable. (And no, I'm not being sarcastic, just earnest). Meanwhile, would you mind addressing the unclear scope of the category? Thanks. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- by the way, I'm ignoring your desciption of me being vague and obtuse. sorry, but some here seem to exhibit some of the rudest behaviors I've seen at such forums. i have not made a single personal comment about anyone personally. that seems to occur habitually here. apparently some here have no idea of the ways that contentious issues are settled here at Wikipedia.
- hi. ok. thanks for your feedback. actually, i'm not really concerned about how weighty or convincing my opinion is, as long as I've had the chance to be heard. so i appreciate the chance to be heard on this. thanks (again). --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominated for deletion or renaming, actually. It's not so much everyone else being picky and minute as it is you being vague and obtuse. Your opinion, lone though it may be, would carry more weight and be more convincing if you could be more specific as to the purpose of this category. And you're welcome. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks for your reply. i have posted a reply to Pegship below, (starting with "Ok, I do appreciate...") which might respond equally well to your legitimate concerns. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. I do appreciate your very helpful answer, in that case. Truthfully, I don't have much more specific ideas on this category than what I've already stated. I will gladly yield to whatever consensus is reached here through this discussion. i greatly appreciate your extremely helpful and constructive desire to seek out my views, and to make sure that all of my views are heard. that's very helpful of you. thanks again. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- again, the fact I'm saying these words should not drive you to post further denigrating posts. don't let things get to you so much. also, learn to distinguish between someone who is making entirely legitimate comments about how they feel affected by the tone of the process, and people who make needless comments about the personality, trustworthiness or quality of other people.--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Top-level stub categories per above. Current name and scoping statement are hopelessly open-ended, but a well-defined umbrella would actually be quite useful, especially as in past discussions there's been a complete lack of enthusiasm for top-high level "containers" that would group these. I'm somewhat boggled that this has been listed on WP:AN, which strikes me as a wildly inappropriate venue. Alai (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong rename - I think such a category is useful, but it's name should reflect it's content better. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per above. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong rename as above. Forms a very handy structural resource for compulsive stub cat organizers like myself; nailing down its purpose and parameters gels it as a valuable tool. • Lainagier • talk • 01:27, 10 January 2009 (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.