Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/April/12
April 12
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating this category as too narrow. Will be completing more exhaustive searches soon, but for now only about 30 articles. I suggest upmerging template to Category:ZeniMax Media stubs until enough articles are found to fill this category again. Dawynn (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2010 (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 Rename to {{UK-MP-2010-stub}} / Category:UK MPs 2010– stubs. As a participant is the discussion, I should not normally be closing it ... but since this discussion has been open for nearly 3 months, and there is consensus to keep the stub type if it is renamed to clarify its purpose, I'm going to WP:IAR and close this debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replace {{UK-current-MP-stub}} with {{UK-MP-stub}} and delete, thereby merging Category:Current British MP stubs to Category:United Kingdom MP stubs
With very few exceptions, Wikipedia does not categorize by current/former status. In the case of this stub template and category, please note that Category:Current British MPs was deleted in 2007 and the category now contains fewer than 50 articles. -- Black Falcon (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. This is not a normal mainspace category; like other stub categories, it is a maintenance category. It will be particularly valuable after the election on May 6, when there will be at least 150 new MPs in the House of Commons (144 standing down, and at least some of those seeking re-election will be defeated). Many editors will want to focus on expanding stub articles on those people who are MPs after the election, and this stub category will be very helpful in identify articles in need of expansion. It will of course need to be purged of MPs who have not been re-elected, but that's a maintenance issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Wait a few months. As BrownHairedGirl says we are expecting a large number of new MPs to be elected in a few weeks time. Wait a few months and see if the activity level of the stub category has increased. Road Wizard (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If this is intended to be and/or is being used as a maintenance category for one or a few WikiProjects (Biography and Politics of the United Kingdom), then it should be converted to a talk page category populated by {{WPBiography}} and {{WP UK Politics}}. I do not deny the usefulness of the category grouping as explained above, but individual-WikiProject maintenance categories have always been restricted to talk pages. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it is a WikiProject category. If you removed stub types solely because a WikiProject covers the topic then we would probably lose the vast majority of stub types. In terms of pure stub sorting, the destination category you have selected has 572 pages already; if we assume 150 new stub articles based on the estimate above then the category would need to be split anyway. If you don't like a "Current MP" split, can you suggest a workable alternative? Road Wizard (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Purely from the perspective of stub sorting, I would suggest waiting until May and renaming to Category:UK MPs 2010–present stubs or Category:UK MPs (2010–present) stubs after the election. This would be consistent with the naming convention used by subcategories of Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support that renaming after the election. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Purely from the perspective of stub sorting, I would suggest waiting until May and renaming to Category:UK MPs 2010–present stubs or Category:UK MPs (2010–present) stubs after the election. This would be consistent with the naming convention used by subcategories of Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it is a WikiProject category. If you removed stub types solely because a WikiProject covers the topic then we would probably lose the vast majority of stub types. In terms of pure stub sorting, the destination category you have selected has 572 pages already; if we assume 150 new stub articles based on the estimate above then the category would need to be split anyway. If you don't like a "Current MP" split, can you suggest a workable alternative? Road Wizard (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename or delete. I can see the use of this approach, but we don't categorise people by 'current' and 'former' status; if renamed to 'UK MPs 2010-present', or something similar, it would be acceptable. Robofish (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2010 (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.