Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/January/18
January 18
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 discussion was Delete category, upmerge template
Upmerge - permcat has only 9 articles; this category is the intersection of 2 stub categories where a scan shows only a single article. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:42, 18 January 2011 (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The result of the debate was Withdrawn - has bewen populated by enough articles. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - permcat, Category:Spiraxidae, only has 11 pages in it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Its for maintenance within WikiProject Gastropods and also per purposes of WikiProject Stub sorting:
- 1. Ensure better categorization of stubs
- 2. Ensure that stubs are sorted as uniformly as possible - categories of families are standard of the wikiproject Gastropods and such names are the best, because other upper categories are usually with long names (so nobody uses them) or taxonomically very unstable.
- 3. Aim to keep categories at moderate sizes - the category will be certainly populated and its upmerging with already overpopulated cat has no practical meaning.
- 4. Maintain stub categories and templates - done
- 5. Ensure that any new stub categories and templates are reasonable, usable, and useful - for me, who edits only articles of about gastropods it is reasonable, usable, and useful. --Snek01 (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either populate or upmerge Stub categories are not for maintenance within a WikiProject - that's what talk page banner templates are for. They are for maintenance across the entirety of Wikipedia and maintained as such by an independent maintenance WikiProject. in which case:
- 1. A category of this size provides worse categorisation of stubs - isfor this reason that a standard minimum size for stub categories is in place, as exxplained at WP:STUB
- 2. The standard threshold of 60 stubs ensures that stubs are categorised as uniformly as possible in terms of category size - the current categoiry fails on this score. Templates are often upmerged in those instances where categories would be too small, and for the sake of editing it is the templates which are made uniform in terms of subject matter.
- 3. Aims to keep categories at moderate sizes -i.e., the standard of 60-800 stubs. Anything smaller than that produces far more work than it saves. Given that the parent is overpopulated, some attempt needs to be made to split out those parts which are capable of reaching threshold - but this should be done in the standard way, by the proposing and vetting of splits off the category at WP:WSS/P (as is the case with the two splits of this category currently proposed). This category should be kept only if it can be shown to have enough currently-exissting stubs to reach threshold.
- 4. Maintain stub categories and templates. This is done via WP:WSS, not via any subject-oriented WikiProject, as explained above. Given that this category has not been proposed by WP:WSS, it is appropriat to vet it either here or at WP:WSS/D
- 5. Ensure that any new stub categories and templates are reasonable, usable, and useful. If this category doees not reach the standard thresholdd, it is none of those three things.
Given the apparent size of tthe permcat parent, upmerging seems the most likely alternative and desirable outcome . I note too that Category:Planorbitae sytubs is considerably undersized aand may also need upmerging in the same way. Grutness...wha? 21:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Category now has 60 articles. Dawynn (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2011 (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.