Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/January/13

January 13

Central Africa stubs

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 per nom

"Central African" can mean "of the Central African Republic", in the same way "South African" can mean "of the Republic of South Africa". However, all of these stub categories refer to the region known as Central Africa, not to CAR specifically (though CAR is in Central Africa). To clarify the meaning of these and to differentiate them from the CAR stub categories, these should be renamed to "Central Africa XXX stubs", in the way that Central Africa geography stubs is already named. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Makes sense. A bit of a fudge, but given that the demonym for CAR is officially "Central African", either this or a change to Category:Central African (region) Foo would be a good move. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 13 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.

Washington stubs and others

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

All non-stub categories that refer to the U.S. state of Washington were recently renamed at CfD from the format "Washington" to "Washington (U.S. state)". Now nominating relevant stubs in Category:Washington (U.S. state) to conform with this format as well. I don't see a need to change the template names, but others who know more about stubbing may have better opinions than mine about this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would make sense to keep it consistant. It should be noted that this would be the second state in this format, the first was Category:Georgia (U.S. state) school stubs with the template format being {{GeorgiaUS-school-stub}} Dbiel ^(Talk) 22:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the only reason the template name is likje that is to distinguish it from a Georgia not in the US. If we were to do something similar with the templates here, {{WashingtonState-X-stub}} would be a more sensible way to go about it, and in line with similar overseas distinclions (e.g., {{BaselCity-geo-stub}}). IKt might be worthwhile changing those over as well, but it's less important than the categories, IMO. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, the conflict here is Washington State and Washington DC Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move as nominated I don't like the move, and I really don't think it's necessary, but it's definitely not a big deal (definitely not against policy :-), and why keep the stub categories named differently than everything else? Most importantly, move because there's a consensus that the category names should be changed, and I'm loth to say that the decisions reached at CFD should have no effect on categories discussed here. Nyttend (talk) 20:24, 25 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.

{{Ornithischian-stub}}/Category:Ornithischian stubs and {{Sauropodomorph-stub}} / Category:Sauropodomorph stubs

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 sauropoda, del ornithischian as undersized, not required, & misformed

For once, beign unproposed is actually a major reason for something being here, rather than just mentioned in passing. {{Ornithischia-stub}} (the name at which {{Ornithischian-stub}} would be if it were correctly named) was opposed when it was proposed for creation two years ago, for good reasons which still apply. The ambiguity of the fossil evidence is a major factor in particular why the Orinithischian stub type is likely to be a problem - certainly enough of a problem that it needs serious debate before any suggestion of it being created - it would certainly need a visit to WP:WSS/P rather than a unilateral creation.

The sauropodomorph category I've largely listed here because it was created by the same editor at the same time, so it makes sense to bundle them together for debate, though it too has problems, as mentioned below.

As to the mechanics of the stubs, the templates seem fine, but the categories are severely lacking (no permcat parents, only one stub cat parent, and no listing in Category:Stub categories). The one parent, Category:Dinosaur stubs is not in need of splitting in terms of size, though there is at least some indication in the 320 articles in Category:Ornithischians that it may have some use if there are enough stubs (which has yet to be proven). There is, however, no Category:Sauropodomorpha, which is perhaps surprising - it's two main subtypes, sauropoda and prosauropoda both have their own categories, so it would make sense if there were (a stub type for it would also be in line with the existing one for theropods). Perhaps the solution here is mroe a non-stub one, in the creation of such a permcat. Without it, there shouldn't be a stub type, but I'd like some input from WP:WikiProject Palaeontology and other related groups before creating in. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but from what I can tell most of your objections are problems you could have solved with considerably less effort than it took to list those templates here in the first place. To respond to your points, though:

If the ornithischian stub template is improperly named, why didn't you move it?
I didn't see any compelling arguments there. One of the big ones was that people would have a hard time spelling "ornithischian." Honestly if you can't spell ornithischian you shouldn't be editing dinosaur articles here anyway, and I assume the reason we sort stubs is to make it easier for editors to potentially destub them, correct?
Just because not all dinosaurs can be easily, with 100% confidence classified as a Saurischian or Ornithischian does not negate the fact that hundreds and hundreds of them can. I would say that easily 95% of them could be. The dinostub cat isn't going anywhere, there's no reason not to list more basal or chimerical forms there, especially considering how few there would be.
If the stub templates need some categories why didn't you just add them?
There were nearly 350 articles in the dino-stub category. That strikes me as enough to split considering that the stub proposal says that new stub types can be proposed for pages with one fifth of that quantity and implies that even smaller stub types wouldn't be forbidden.
There are more than enough stubs to justify their creation, considering that most of the more than 200 remaining dino stubs will end up in one category or the other.
I had no idea there wasn't a sauropodomorph category. I've started it, though, so it doesn't really matter.

Sorry if I sounded grouchy, but I really would have liked to have finished this, or come close to doing so, before the day was up. Abyssal (talk) 07:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to your points one by one:

The renaming would normally require the deletion of the old name. that isn't done without consensus for such a deletion at WP:SFD.
The fact that such a stub template has been rejected in the past is in itself a reason why it should not have been created. Admittedly the spelling reason is not a particularly good reason, but the other reasons are weighty enough.
The fact that "hundreds and hundreds" of dinosaurs can be allocated with some certainty of an ornithischian category does not mean it can automatically be created wsithout debate, especially since - as pointed out - it has been rejected in the past.
There is no point adding stub categories or other categories if they are likely to be deleted. They will be added if the consensus is to keep them.
The standard stub category size before splitting is deemed appropriate is 800 stubs. A minimum of 600 stubs is usually needed before splitting is contemplated, as is explained at WP:STUB.
Emptying the basic stub category to populate subtypes is not in itself a good reason to create thise subtypes, especially when, as pointed out, the basic category is nowhere near the size at which splitting is normally considered useful.
I hope you consulted otgher people working in the area of dinosaur-related articles before creating the Suropodomorpha category - as pointed out at WP:BOLD, extreme caution should be taken before creating new categories.

I am also sorry if I sound grouchy, but following standard procedures on this sort of thing saves a lot of effortfor others in the long run, and it would have been very useful if you'd done so. Grutness...wha? 10:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Good number means about 60 articles or more, or 30 or more if it is the primary stub type of a WikiProject, though this figure may vary from case to case." Sounds like my "hundreds and hundreds" would have fit the bill just fine. Abyssal (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Hundreds and hundreds of dinosaurs" is not the same as "hundreds and hundreds of existing stubs which do not already have a more acceptable stub designation." In any case, the number of stubs is irrelevant if the other points aren't met. It would be perfectly reasonable - to take an extreme example - to say that since we have hundreds (no, tens of thousands) of stubs with names beginning with A, we should have {{A-stub}} for them. Numbers alone are not sufficient reason for a stub type. Grutness...wha? 23:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs starting with A is not a useful or natural grouping. The ornithischia and sauropodomorpha are both. Your argument was a straw man. If you don't want the category to be split, fine, I give up, you can revert the changes. I don't care, I was just trying to split it up so that the groupings would be smaller, more specific and thus better suited for potential editors to form goals aimed at destubbing them. If you think that leaving the category as a bloated amalgamation of several hundred articles on ecologically and anatomically very different animals is more conducive to their being destubbed, then I will defer to your wisdom, however mysterious it may seem to me. Abyssal (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying I don't want it split up. In fact, I was the one who proposed ornithischia-stub when it was previously proposed. B ut that proposal was rejected, and as such this requires debate. As to the category being "bloated", standard stub categories are,m as stated at WP:STUB optimally at between 60 and 800 articles in length. This isn't a bloated category by some distance. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Let's see if anyone else has any comments. :) Abyssal (talk) 00:25, 15 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.