Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/January/16
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
January 16
[edit]{{Japan-single-stub}} (no cat)
[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
Never proposed, used on about a dozen articles. Not how singles are split, though - they're split by decade primarily, and if a secondary split was needed, then style would be far more logical than country of origin. A rescope to J-pop singles is possible, other than that, deletion is probably the best option. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure by-decade is primary for any especially deep reason; we have both by-decade and by-genre at the top level for the albums, frex. I'd tend to agree about Japan vs. J-Pop, though we already have a Category:Japanese album stubs, for which the same could be said. If not populated, though, somewhat moot: delete or upmerge. Alai 15:02, 17 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.
- 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 no action, possible reconsideration to amend scope
Only 16 articles here, and unlikely to be many more. I suggest that these are upmerged into {{Armor-stub}}, proposed last week and just created. Crystallina 17:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Having an "armor" stub is ridiculous. The purpose of having stub types is attracting editors with interest and knowledge. There is no such thing as a general armor expert. The purpose of a stub tag is not the same as a category; not organizing information but attracting knowledgeable contributors. Therefore, stub types should correspond to bodies of knowledge typically encapsulated by individuals. As I stated in the stub's discovery entry, what might be useful is a "medieval military equipment" stub. Lumping all of these articles into such a general category completely defeats the purpose of having a label more specific than "stub". --Eyrian 01:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still 16 is very small, you'd get more stubs by doing: "Medieval defenses" Goldenrowley 05:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The category would expand considerably if I added a few that Crystallina got to first (I thought it ill-advised with the deletion up for question), past the 30 mark given for a stub type that could easily be associated with the Military History wikiproject. --Eyrian 06:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure there is somebody, somewhere, who would call himself an 'armor expert', or at least be knowledgeable enough about armor in general to make use of such a category. We already have a {{weapon-stub}}; surely a dearth of 'weapons experts' doesn't mean such a useful and logical split off military stubs shouldn't exist. Regardless of this, however, the medieval-armor-stub was never proposed, or if it was it isn't in the December archives. I've been through the armor categories, as you've noticed, and I just haven't found enough specifically medieval armor articles to merit this split. I know you've probably put a lot of effort into this, but for now, the medieval armor category should suffice. Crystallina 07:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What, then, is the purpose of sorted stubs? Can't experts just dig around their preferred categories for stubs? Indeed, the stub (which predates armour-stub by about three weeks) was never proposed. I created it before I knew the policy. The discovery discussion reached a point that I saw as tacit approval, and I didn't see any point in proposing it after creation. Weapon stubs are split into multiple categories, as well. It is paramount to note that, with the additions pending an affirmative result of this discussion, the number of stubs in the category would rise above the 30 specified as necessary for a stub category associated with a WikiProject (I've mentioned this to the Medieval history task force of WP:MILHIST). --Eyrian 07:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The purpose is to make it easier to locate stubs - thousands of stubs in one category makes digging rather difficult. It's much easier when stub categories are kept down to a reasonable size. Looking through categories is time-consuming even for smaller categories, and for larger categories - for an extreme example, Category:American film actors - there's no point trying. I'm not sure what your objection to having a parent armor-stub category is. I proposed it a week ago without any problems. My concern, however, is that there just aren't enough articles - even after the additions - to merit this specific of a split. Crystallina 07:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? There is a stated minimum of 30. There are certainly at least 8 articles ready for inclusion which, when added to the 22 already in the category, that should be sufficient. I have no objection to an armour stub category, but when there exists a large body of work and experts on a particular area that is easily distinct from a parent category, particularly when that area of knowledge is (tragically) largely populated by stubs, it seems to me that a stub should exist. --Eyrian 07:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The purpose is to make it easier to locate stubs - thousands of stubs in one category makes digging rather difficult. It's much easier when stub categories are kept down to a reasonable size. Looking through categories is time-consuming even for smaller categories, and for larger categories - for an extreme example, Category:American film actors - there's no point trying. I'm not sure what your objection to having a parent armor-stub category is. I proposed it a week ago without any problems. My concern, however, is that there just aren't enough articles - even after the additions - to merit this specific of a split. Crystallina 07:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What, then, is the purpose of sorted stubs? Can't experts just dig around their preferred categories for stubs? Indeed, the stub (which predates armour-stub by about three weeks) was never proposed. I created it before I knew the policy. The discovery discussion reached a point that I saw as tacit approval, and I didn't see any point in proposing it after creation. Weapon stubs are split into multiple categories, as well. It is paramount to note that, with the additions pending an affirmative result of this discussion, the number of stubs in the category would rise above the 30 specified as necessary for a stub category associated with a WikiProject (I've mentioned this to the Medieval history task force of WP:MILHIST). --Eyrian 07:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure there is somebody, somewhere, who would call himself an 'armor expert', or at least be knowledgeable enough about armor in general to make use of such a category. We already have a {{weapon-stub}}; surely a dearth of 'weapons experts' doesn't mean such a useful and logical split off military stubs shouldn't exist. Regardless of this, however, the medieval-armor-stub was never proposed, or if it was it isn't in the December archives. I've been through the armor categories, as you've noticed, and I just haven't found enough specifically medieval armor articles to merit this split. I know you've probably put a lot of effort into this, but for now, the medieval armor category should suffice. Crystallina 07:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The category would expand considerably if I added a few that Crystallina got to first (I thought it ill-advised with the deletion up for question), past the 30 mark given for a stub type that could easily be associated with the Military History wikiproject. --Eyrian 06:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still 16 is very small, you'd get more stubs by doing: "Medieval defenses" Goldenrowley 05:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge unless there's 30 articles and a bona fide wikiproject on precisely this topic, or 60 articles, as per the actual stated minumum. If upmerged, recreate category and de-upmerge as and when there's sufficient numbers as above. Alai 14:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge as per Alai, and even if kept or later demerged, a rename of the category to drop the "u" so as to match the parent Category:Medieval armor is in order. (I'm neutral on the "u" issue here, save for preferring to follow the permcat. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- New Evidence - The Medieval warfare task force of WP:MILHIST seems very amenable to adopting the stub category. Given that the category now contains over 50 stubs, I feel that the decision to keep is much clearer. --Eyrian 00:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I support the idea of grouping stubs for this historical era, but "armor" is just one part of "Medieval warfare" - which is just one part of Medieval - Again I suggest you think broader and go with the category the stub selects as its parent "Medieval defenses" Goldenrowley 03:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC) ... or even better "medieval warfare" or "medieval history". Use the stub proposal page though if you go this route. Goldenrowley 20:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Medieval warfare" might be doable, but "Medieval armour and weapons" or "Medieval military equipment" would be more topical.
"Medieval defenses" is something of an absurdity, and I'm frankly uncertain why that category was created in the first place; the connection between armour and fortifications is rather tenuous, and one is certainly not a sub-type of the other.Kirill Lokshin 23:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Category:Medieval defenses has now been returned to its (original?) purpose of categorizing fortifications, so that's no longer a real option here anyways. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't it be more logical to call a category with that scope Category:Medieval fortification (to follow that line of digression)? I'd be happy with a "Medieval armo(u)r and weapon stubs"; it would kinda cut across an existing type, but that seems more logical than grouping glaive-glaive-guisarme-(roll thrice more) and P-90 variants together, anyway. Alai 20:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, renaming "Medieval defenses" to "Medieval fortification" is probably a good idea; I just didn't have time to take it to CFD. Same for the joint stub; people interested in the topic tend not to make a big distinction between the weapon part and the armor part (e.g. "arms and armour", etc.), so it would probably be more useful to group by era here. Kirill Lokshin 04:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see now you've recently created Category:Military equipment of the Medieval era. As and when that gets sufficient contents, that seems to me a suitable scope for a stub type (called, oh, I dunno, Category:Medieval military equipment stubs)`. Alai 06:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems sensible. I've added weapons and armour to the new cat; I'll try to see if there's anything else floating around that needs to be there. Kirill Lokshin 13:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SUPPORT IDEA. Propose it on Proposals once you have 30+ ready to go Goldenrowley 03:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems sensible. I've added weapons and armour to the new cat; I'll try to see if there's anything else floating around that needs to be there. Kirill Lokshin 13:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see now you've recently created Category:Military equipment of the Medieval era. As and when that gets sufficient contents, that seems to me a suitable scope for a stub type (called, oh, I dunno, Category:Medieval military equipment stubs)`. Alai 06:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, renaming "Medieval defenses" to "Medieval fortification" is probably a good idea; I just didn't have time to take it to CFD. Same for the joint stub; people interested in the topic tend not to make a big distinction between the weapon part and the armor part (e.g. "arms and armour", etc.), so it would probably be more useful to group by era here. Kirill Lokshin 04:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't it be more logical to call a category with that scope Category:Medieval fortification (to follow that line of digression)? I'd be happy with a "Medieval armo(u)r and weapon stubs"; it would kinda cut across an existing type, but that seems more logical than grouping glaive-glaive-guisarme-(roll thrice more) and P-90 variants together, anyway. Alai 20:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Medieval defenses has now been returned to its (original?) purpose of categorizing fortifications, so that's no longer a real option here anyways. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Medieval warfare" might be doable, but "Medieval armour and weapons" or "Medieval military equipment" would be more topical.
- I support the idea of grouping stubs for this historical era, but "armor" is just one part of "Medieval warfare" - which is just one part of Medieval - Again I suggest you think broader and go with the category the stub selects as its parent "Medieval defenses" Goldenrowley 03:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC) ... or even better "medieval warfare" or "medieval history". Use the stub proposal page though if you go this route. Goldenrowley 20:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge It would be more useful under Armour. The helmet section is too small to operate on its own. Captain panda Mussolini ha sempre tarche Quis ut Dues 01:53, 22 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.
- 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 no consensus
Where to start? Never proposed. Only five stubs. Incorrectly named. Ambiguously scoped. Individual people, but not nationality.
These last three things are the biggest problems. It's apprently for "stubs relating to Assyrian" - which links to Assyrian people, an ethnic group largely spread through four different countries, each of which has its own stub. As such, it fails normal stub-creation practice in the same way as the deleted Kurd-stub and its ilk. Also, though it links to Assyrian people, it's a mishmash of aseveral different stub types, even within its five current stubs. It also risks the political POV problems inherent in articles for races that cross international borders. There is a WikiProject, but - as usual - it would be far better served by a talk page WPikiProject template than by a stub type. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I dont understand your arguement. Just because only 5 pages are listed, thus this template should be deleted? Ok, give me 10 minutes, I'll go tag 20. I dont understand this statement of your; an ethnic group largely spread through four different countries, each of which has its own stub. - what do you mean each of which have its own stub? I honestly dont understand one arguement of yours. Please be clear. I created this stub to help us with the Assyrian project. Chaldean 02:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My argument is that stub types are never created for separate races which have areas overlapping international borders, since these templates have, in the past, been found to be prone to edit-warring. Edit warring on templates is far worse than on articles, since it puts strain on the servers. This is compound further when these templates automatically link with categories as is the case with stub templates. This is one of the reasons stub templates should be proposed before creation at WP:WSS/P, to check whether they are likely to cause problems in this way. Furthermore, stub types are only created once it is certain that there are 60 stubs which can take the template. They are also only created if they do not work at odds with the stub hierarchy, such as splitting people by other than their internationally accepted nationalities, or their professions, splitting places by anything other than internationally accepted national and subnational boundaries, and - with very rare exception - splitting historical events by currently internationally accepted nations. "Each of which has its own stub" is perfectly clear. Those initial five stubs consisted of two iraq-bio-stubs, one asia-party-stub, and two MEast-hist-stubs . Now, please address the point that I raised that a wikiproject-specific talk page template would be far more useful to your project. Grutness...wha? 10:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I too don't understand your arguments for deletion. Any ethnic group without their own country like the Kurds don't deserve a stub? MarsRover 03:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My argument is that stub types are never created for separate races which have areas overlapping international borders, since these templates have, in the past, been found to be prone to edit-warring. Edit warring on templates is far worse than on articles, since it puts strain on the servers. This is compound further when these templates automatically link with categories as is the case with stub templates. This is one of the reasons stub templates should be proposed before creation at WP:WSS/P, to check whether they are likely to cause problems in this way. Furthermore, stub types are only created once it is certain that there are 60 stubs which can take the template. They are also only created if they do not work at odds with the stub hierarchy, such as splitting people by other than their internationally accepted nationalities, or their professions, splitting places by anything other than internationally accepted national and subnational boundaries, and - with very rare exception - splitting historical events by currently internationally accepted nations. Now, please address the point that I raised that a wikiproject-specific talk page template would be far more useful to your project. Grutness...wha? 10:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It should stay there still a group of people called "Assyrian" if its a person, village, tribe, historical event it still relates to the assyrian stub. Nareklm 04:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Stub types are never created for separate races which have areas overlapping international borders, since these templates have, in the past, been found to be prone to edit-warring. Edit warring on templates is far worse than on articles, since it puts strain on the servers. This is compound further when these templates automatically link with categories as is the case with stub templates. This is one of the reasons stub templates should be proposed before creation at WP:WSS/P, to check whether they are likely to cause problems in this way. Furthermore, stub types are only created once it is certain that there are 60 stubs which can take the template. They are also only created if they do not work at odds with the stub hierarchy, such as splitting people by other than their internationally accepted nationalities, or their professions, splitting places by anything other than internationally accepted national and subnational boundaries, and - with very rare exception - splitting historical events by currently internationally accepted nations. Now, please address the point that I raised that a wikiproject-specific talk page template would be far more useful to your project. Grutness...wha? 10:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The existing, well-populated Category:Stub-Class Assyrian articles does this job (if job there is to be done) much better. I don't doubt that the subjects these articles pertain pertain to historic, cultural and/or ethnic Assyria, but looking at several of the actual articles, the actual related-to-Assyria content -- or even permcat -- doesn't seem to be there, so this stub category seems to be really putting the cart before the horse. Delete. Alai 00:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete'. Alai located a stub-class Assyrian article list, that "does the job" Goldenrowley 04:02, 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.