Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Not deleted/May 2006

1st May

{{EU-law-stub}} / Category:European_law_stubs

I realise the category EU_law_stubs was only recently deleted. The above category is still identified as one for EU related law stubs, the template still says this is what it is and it includes articles which aren't EU related. Moreover:

• There's only 8 articles in this category.
• Half of them have nothing to do with EU law, even though the template is the {{EU-law-stub}}, which is confusing if nothing else.
• Even if it were to be expanded to a general category for stubs of the laws of European countries, it would still be somewhat of a hodge-podge without any clear reason linking the articles, other than: "this is a stub for all the European countries we don't have individual stubs for".
• It would be better to put the stubs in the relevant country or EU stub category: {{EU-stub}}, {{Ireland-stub}} etc...
• Or perhaps create a general civil law jurisdiction stub. But this would cover more than and not just European countries and would be another day's work.

Caveat lector 13:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Some good points. perhaps simply double-stubbing with {{law-stub}} and the relevant country-stub is the best solution for now, especially since there is some definite confusion as to what the scope of this stub type actually is. So either delete, or clarify the scope of the stub type. Grutness...wha? 14:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• The template didn't change as it was an upmerge. So yes, at a minimum, it should be explicitly rescoped, given an additional {{euro-law-stub}} template for that scope, and populated, and if it not, it should be deleted outright. But as the law stub parent is very oversized, I'd strongly prefer the first (and on that basis, am sure the first is possible). Alai 16:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Rescope, create additional template, and populate, as per Alai. --Mais oui! 09:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Create {{euro-law-stub}} (not a redirect) and populate. If no one wants to bother, delete is also an option ;) Conscious 11:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not proposing to move anything back into {{law-stub}}, I would have originally proposed rescoping but the category is only superficially attractive. What connects the articles is more geographic then legal. Caveat lector 22:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Double-stubbing counts indicate that 64 articles in Cat:law stubs are also tagged with a sub-type of Euro-stub (that isn't also a sub-type of law-), so this seems clearly viable given the suggested rescope. Alai 16:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Is there a separate stub for each country? Runcorn 15:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A separate law-stub? No, only for cases like {{UK-law-stub}} where there's sufficient numbers. Alai 16:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (again) My main problem with the category is if we rescope it and change the template as suggested, it would have to read: "This article is a stub relating to law of the European Union or the law of a European country (including both EU Member States and non-EU Member States)". This appears to be slightly awkward, to say the least. Caveat lector 20:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What I had in mind was simply keeping the existing template, for the EU ones, and creating a differently-worded templates for European countries (or more general articles about "the continental tradition" in general, I suppose). Then again, I'd think wording such as "relating to European law" rather covers it, no? Alai 11:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

{{Compu-prog-stub}} / Cat:Computer programming stubs

I have to admit that this was proposed, but it was also strongly objected to (by me); I was highly tempted to remove the {{WPSS-cat}} template from it, but better to just delete the whole thing. 18 stubs at present, and not in my opinion sensibly populable without arbitary depopulation of, or redundant double-stubbing with, other compu-stub sub-types, in particular {{soft-eng-stub}} and {{compu-lang-stub}}, which between them essentially entirely cover the likely scope (which is not actually made explicit). Claimed connection to WikiProject Computer science, which I don't see as being very pertinent as it doesn't seem to have been discussed there either, and because that has a wider scope not specific to this type. Alai 01:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. If anything is redundant here it would be {{soft-eng-stub}}, which is less general. —Ruud 02:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You say "less general", I say "more clearly defined". The existing categories are well-populated and have fairly specific scopes: this is either redundant with one, or cuts across the two in a way that's not objectively determinable. Alai 06:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Articles on programming languages should be tagged with {{compu-lang-stub}}, articles on software engineering topics with {{soft-eng-stub}} and articles on programming-related things with... uhhm... —Ruud 08:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
      • And exactly what are these alleged articles that fall under the third category, but not the first two? The current population is ad hoc nonsense: please stop adding to it. Alai 16:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
        • See my reply to Conscious below. —Ruud 16:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• One of the two definitely needs deleting - I'm ambivalent as to which. Grutness...wha? 06:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• I prefer deleting {{compu-prog-stub}} unless I'm shown at least a couple of articles that can't go into {{soft-eng-stub}} or {{compu-lang-stub}} (or better yet, 60). Conscious 11:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You can put any article that is tagged with {{soft-eng-stub}} under {{compu-prog-stub}}, but not the other way around. This includes most of the artilces currentlty in Cat:Computer programming stubs, and there is more in Cat:Computer stubs and Cat:Computer science stubs. —Ruud 16:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and Comment: "Programming" is very much a seperate catagory from "Software Engineering", "Computer Languages" and "Computer Science". Granted there is some overlap for some things (and looking around, some mis-catagorisation going on). For example, Sentinel node and Sentinel value are two programming techniques that are irrelevent to the specific "Computer Science" of the algorithm they're used in, are implementation details irrelevent to "Software Engineering" and are not language-specific (so don't go in "Computer Languages" either). If you want more examples - give the catagory more time to fill up and for some poorly catagorised stubs to be moved over (for example, I just recatagorised Sentinel node). --60.240.154.10 10:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - I can see scope for articles that are programming-specific, but not language-specific. However I agree that the current population of the category in question is not particularly good. I do not want to see {{soft-eng-stub}}. There is more to software engineering than programming. That is illustrated by the fact that Category:Software engineering stubs contains a number of articles (such as SPIN model checker, Function point, and Wright (ADL)) that are beyond the scope of programming. --Allan McInnes (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Programming languages could be treated as a separate topic from programming, but this is more likely than not to create grey areas and confusion e.g. algorithm and data structure design, functional vs declarative languages, modularity, object orientation, etc. There are also programming topics which don't fall under the heading of languages, e.g. portability, robustness, documentation and maintenance, and which don't necessarily fall under the narrow heading of software engineering either. Yes, there's more to software engineering than programming, but the reverse is also true. I'd suggest deleting {{soft-eng-stub}} and {{compu-prog-stub}} and using the single umbrella category of {{compu-sci-stub}} which would cover languages, programming, formal logic, software engineering, machine learning, neural networks, genetic algorithms, natural language processing, distributed programming, databases, etc and so forth. Broad categories with alphabetic listings are far more useful than arbitrary, inaccurate, narrow ones. -- Ruby 23:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • While {{comp-sci-stub}} isn't yet overpopulated, it seems to be going a bit far to delete the SE type too, which will certainly get it there that much sooner. I agree that neither has an ueber-crisp definition, but soft-eng- seems by far the preferable in terms of "scopability". Alai 00:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Please explain - why is overpopulation the main concern here rather than clarity, and how do you define overpopulation? I don't think one extra page of links under CS would make any difference to its usability, and I maintain that an indexed alphabetical list would be far more useful than a contentious, muddled taxonomy. As for "scopability", there are plenty of topics currently listed under SE which belong properly under CS. There is an argument for keeping SE, but not in its current state. If it is retained, then it needs to be weeded out so it contains strictly engineering topics - certainly not topics such as metasyntax or bit-sieve - and there should be cross-referencing between CS and SE. I've also just noticed that Category:Computer languages has been categorised under Category:Computing, alongside Category:Computer science, Category:Software, Category:Product Lifecycle Management, and all sorts of other arbitrary categories. This whole area needs a complete rethink, and I suggest that amendments or additions should not be made unilaterally. And on a much simpler point, I notice we now have a redirection from {{compu-sci-stub}} to {{comp-sci-stub}}. I also prefer comp. I propose that all compu stubs left standing after this exercise be redirected to, or preferably replaced with, comp stubs, since comp is the only natural and commonly used abbreviation. -- Ruby 12:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
      • See WP:WSS for the de facto definition of overpopulation (i.e., >800 stubs, or more than four listings pages). Your "rather than" presupposes that there are no subdivisions of computer science that aren't "contentious and muddled", which I'd not accept, and certainly don't find convincing as any sort of argument that CS should be allowed to grow indefinitely, unsplit. I'm not going to contend that the current contents of SE are invariably sorted correctly, simply that they are sortable with that scope. I suggest you make your renaming proposal separately, tagging each affected template as per procedure, if you wish it to go anyplace: a large number of well-established types use "compu-" in their template names, so a mass renaming isn't something that it's reasonable to do on the basis of a thought in mid-discussion on one rogue instance. (I think that while "Comp. Sci." is indeed a very common abbreviation, abbreviation of "computing" and "computer" is much less clear-cut in general.) Alai 18:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I made no such presupposition. I did however make the presupposition that reaching an agreement on a clear, unmuddled taxonomy would involve a large amount of time, thought and discussion, and that using a single alphabetical list would be a far preferable interim solution to the current mess. -- Ruby 18:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree in part; some parts are more muddled than others (hence my two current SFD noms...), but I think SE is "fixable without structural change". It's a sufficiently commonly-used and well-defined term that it ought to be usable as such; there are (I imagine) few undergrad CS degree courses that don't have SE courses/modules/whichever under that title, for example. (Notice I make no bold claims about whether or not it's actually engineering, which is another matter entirely.) Alai 18:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Non-stub categories would be better discussed at WPJ CS, or at the categorisation policy page or wikiproject: they're certainly beyond the scope of this page. BTW, please don't repeatedly rewrite comments under a single signature: it makes threated discussion extremely difficult. Alai 18:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm new to all this, and the fact that non-stub and stub categories are unrelated is a bit mindboggling. But ok, I'll try not to reply at all in future until I've finalised my thoughts. -- Ruby 18:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Sorry if I strayed into WP:BITE territory; I certainly don't want to deter you from commenting. But it's at least a good idea not to make significant changes to a comment after it's been replied to, lest the reply-ee feel they're being made the proverbial mug of. Stub-cats and perm-cats: they're not completely unrelated: in fact, we try to follow the structure of the non-stubs, simplified and smooshed down to fit with the size guidelines (that stub types ideally remain >=60 and <=800 articles, for the sake of critical mass on the one hand, and manageability on the other), and to keep the number of stub types to reasonably manageable levels. That's admittedly somewhat complicated by the perm-cats being somewhat less centralised, though, so it could easily change when we're not looking, as it were. (And in some ways it's less well-organised from a hierarchical view: some of the transitive inclusions in the perm-cats would make your hair curl.) But yes, there are certainly some "co-ordination issues" that arise. Oh, I should also have mentioned WP:CFD, which is the direct analogue of this page, though the CS wikiproject is probably still the most logical place to start. Alai 18:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Thanks. Please note though that I didn't intentionally alter my comment significantly after you'd replied - I'd consider that to be discourteous. When I started editing it, you hadn't replied yet - I guess I just took far too long to edit it. Also, thanks for the clarification - I'm relieved to learn that there is a relationship, and that the perm-cat structure is regarded as primary. Bearing in mind that I've no idea why perm-cats are less centralised, why their size guidelines need to be different, or how the admin side of things is organised (sorry - I've joined this discussion without doing all the background reading on Wikipedia which I should have done), is it feasible then to suggest that this whole discussion of C/CS/S/SE classification take place at perm-cat level - which is a real muddle at the moment - and then the agreed solution be mapped down to stub-cat level? Because the task seems daunting enough without tackling it as two parallel exercises.-- Ruby 19:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
              • The difference in centralisation thing is in large part historical accident, as far as I can tell; categories have been handled all along in an "emergent wiki fashion", while stub-sorting was the brainchild of the stub-sorting wikiproject, and so has a natural home in that sense. (Which of course doesn't stop people from creating their own stub types willy-nilly, and then accusing WP:WSS of elistism, unwikiness, WP:OWNership, and whatever else, so it's not a given by any means that everyone considers any degree of centralised discussion or process to be any sort of a good thing.) The different in size criteria is because of their different purposes: perm-categories are supposed to be part of the "finished encylopaedic content", so for them, it's not desirable for them to be too large at all, while them being small isn't much of an issue unless they're positively miniscule. Stub types, OTOH, are explicitly just a "transitional measure" for any given article (and in theory, for the whole 'pedia, but in practice more come in than go out...). We don't want them excessively small since the whole point is to attract attention to articles that might otherwise languish forever in some little-visited corner of the wiki, and so a certain "critical mass" is desirable; we're less concerned about categories being large, until they start being so large they're positively unusable. This also relates to wanting to keep WP:WSS/P to feasible proportions. (It occurs to me that we should probably make some of this rationale more explicit on WP:STUB, or a related page, as it comes up pretty often.) Alai 22:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I really do not wish to come across as brash and critical, but I'm finding this incredibly daunting. I've gone round in circles trying to find an appropriate place to start or join a discussion on the permanent categorisation. I've looked around Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_science and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing. I find the structure of those pages and the relationship between them very confusing, and the tentative proposals seem to me to be just as confused as the existing structure. Also, I can't find any discussion! Those pages appear to be lists of lists. I feel that to be approachable and manageable, the computing-related projects need a unified discussion forum structure and some means for people to propose and compare alternative hierarchies. If those things exist, then I haven't found them. -- Ruby 21:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah: the actual discussion would be on their respective talk pages: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories and Wikipedia talk:Categorization. I notice there's now a policy proposal at Wikipedia:Proposed category reorganizations, which may be on the lines of what you're looking for, though obvious caveats about the possible frustrations of a process "under construction" would apply. Alai 22:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - seems redundant, but may be useful for people unused to finding their way round the stub system - Runcorn 15:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

4th May

{{Greece-footybio-stub}} / Cat:Greece football biography stubs

Unproposed stubs. Also, not just in the stub category, but also at there are few Greek footballers in wikipedia. KRBN...wha? 13:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Before I start, I fixed the heading here and I'd recommend you fixing your clock which is somehow a day fast (and please leave any messages on user talk pages, not user pages!). I also added the sfd templates to the stub template and category. Having said that, you're right that this wasn't proposed, and at the moment it is small, at 25 stubs (Alai, do you have a count for this one?). If it doesn't grow it should be upmerged into {{Euro-footybio-stub}}, but we should see if we can get it up to threshold first - I suspect it may well do. Grutness...wha? 12:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: There might currently only be 24 articles in the category, but if all Cat:Greek footballers were evaluated as to their stubbyness, the category would have quite a few more inhabitants. Furthermore Greece has so many notable footballers that they will (hopefully) eventually spawn enough articles to fill the category. Poulsen 14:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Magic double-stubbing eight-ball doesn't find any at all, sorry. (Dump is recent enough that the 24 were all in the new cat.) CatScan has some buttons to test for stubs on the basis of length of article, and number of wikilinks: by all means populate away! (Assuming it's giving some love currently.) Keep template but upmerge unless this grows significantly. (Say to north of 40.) Alai 18:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I know that, because I recatted the majority of them myself ;) What I am saying is, that even though there are currently only 24 articles in the stub category, the vast majority of the 54 articles in Cat:Greek footballers should be in the stub cat if you look at how short they are. Poulsen 18:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There are loads of entries in Euro-footybio-stub. We need several more stubs like this to make that category manageable. - Runcorn 19:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually <600, which is only medium-loads in the grand scheme of things. If by "like this" you mean two dozen at a time, I'm less than keen, though I'm not opposed to creating stub templates (emph, templates) to facilitate future splits when it's more urgent/viable. Alai 19:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Populate or upmerge. Upmerging would keep the template, and we'll be able to re-create the category when there are enough stubs. Conscious 19:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There are only eight articles in Poland-footybio-stub, but nobody seems concerned. Runcorn 17:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I noticed that one (only seven, btw), but thought I might wait a little while and see if it grew as it's so new. It's also unproposed, mind you, so we have no claims as to its likely scope. Speaking personally, I just start at the smallest ones and work up, nothing more complicated than that. Alai 17:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure it's new, but the Greece one is even newer. Runcorn 18:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed, but then again I didn't nominate it. While as I say, I start with the smallest ones, it still makes sense to me to consider them on their individual viability when they do come up, for whatever reason. Note that upmerging means that recreation, if it does grow later, will require no re-sorting effort. Alai 19:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Poland/Polish cat comment: Said category has been populated (80 articles) with existing stubs + sub-1kb articles. Poulsen 10:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

{{running-stub}} and {{runningbio-stub}}

Unproposed stubs - neither of them with individual dedicated categories (one feeds into the category for athleticsbio-stub, the other straight back into Cat:sports stubs). Basically, they duplicate {{athletics-stub}} and {{athleticsbio-stub}} so should be at least redirected, even if not removed ( a case could possibly be made that things like marathons aren't track and field athletics, but they are usually regarded as such and as such can easily be covered by the same stub - especially since marathon runners also frequently compete inevents that are obviously track events such as the 10,000 metres). Grutness...wha? 05:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• WikiProject Running is associated with these stubs, and at over 1200 athleticsbio-stubs, that stub type needs splitting. As for the cutoff, the same one used for the Long-distance track event article sounds reasonable. athletics-stub with only 108 stubs is not really in need of splitting, but a bit over one-third of the articles are about various marathons and other road races, so as a wikiproject stub it is barely viable. A definite keep on runningbio-stub and a weak keep on running-stub, with both at the least being kept as redirects. Caerwine Caerwhine 07:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• We just discussed this one, and the result (IIRC) was upmerge, so they were indeed upmerged. Unless my recollection is awry, on that basis I'd oppose redirection, or indeed such rapid reconsideration at all for preference. Alai 17:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • One of them's not upmerged where it should be, though. Surely running-stub should feed into the same category as athletics-stub! Grutness...wha? 01:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I dunno, "running" is in theory not strictly contained within "track and field athletics"; I was not clear what the exact intended scope was. We don't need SFD to edit a template, though, and relisting three days after the earlier closure is rather rapid, and sets an unfortunate precedent if we proceed with that intent. Alai 04:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
      • If I'd realised this had been listed earlier, I wouldn't have brought it here (I don't remember it... my memory must be going!) Grutness...wha? 09:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Yup, definitely losing it. :) Alai 17:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Is there a case for keeping running and merging running-bio? Runcorn 18:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

{{Polish Air Force stub}} / Cat:Polish Air Force stubs

Yet more spaces, but more to the point, very small, and seems unduly narrow in scope. {{Poland-mil-stub}} (which I've hinted heavily at before) would seem much more sensible. Alai 01:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• rename, rescope, re... um something else beginnig with re. Just do it Alai. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 04:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is small because it was created... 3 days ago. I created it for a purpose as I'm currently planning to create stubs on most Polish air force units, notable airmen and so on. Also, we already have a similar {{RAF-stub}} and it works just fine. //Halibutt 09:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps if you'd proposed this stub first, it would have made things easier. Mind you, you'd have also found out then that stub types are created when larger stub categories need splitting, and when there are already a large number of stubs in existence (the usual threshold is 50-60). {{RAF-stub}} works fine because there are several hundred RAF stubs, and because its name is in accordance with stub naming guidelines. {{Polish Air Force stub}} has three stubs, and is very poorly named. At the very least it needs renaming, and unless it is populated very quickly, it needs deleting. And a Poland-mil-stub sounds a far better scope for such a stub, as Alai points out. Grutness...wha? 12:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right, I should've spent hours announcing the stub rather than writing articles. I didn't and I'm sorry for that. However, {{Poland-mil-stub}} is also needed. The two won't collide as the latter would instantly get overpopulated. Just take a look at the list of battle stubs and military armament stubs linked from the articles on Polish Defensive War or Polish-Bolshevik War to get the idea of how many articles would instantly get there once it's created. Not to mention the list of Polish generals I'm working on, the list of Polish units (both division sized and smaller), list of Polish armies and so on. Finally, feel free to move the template anywhere you like - provided that it's not {{PAF-stub}} //Halibutt 13:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
      • If by "hours" you mean "minutes", and by "announce" you mean "propose", then I'd agree that yes, you should have. (What more important tasks we've detained you from I dast not speculate.) The "swamping" argument I don't buy: as I say, I've been suggesting a Poland-mil-stub for months, and no-one from the wikiproject bothered to say "yes, we'll propose it as a stub for our project", or even, "this is certain to have 60 articles in its scope", so I'd lay long odds against anything happening "instantly". I certainly see no credible case that it would be anywhere near overpopulated, so it's no argument against upmerging this exceptionally underpopulated type. Alai 16:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • because the project was dead and it was not until recently that we resurrected it... As to the general Polish military stub - what I meant to say is that it would instantly become overpopulated the very second it is created. In last 5 minutes I found at least 20 articles that fit into the Polish Air Force stub, will write more as promised. The general Polish Army stub would include hundreds of entries, as most of Polish Army related articles are stubs at best. //Halibutt 12:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now Give it a short time to get populated, but I'd be very surprised if it gets enough entries. Runcorn 18:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Still only three entries. Runcorn 21:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep this needs more than like 6 days to be filled. Renominate in late June or July. Their are numerous US airforce stubs, so this could potentially be a useful template. Falphin 21:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, there are numerous USAF stubs, which is why that's a sensible stub type. (Also helps that that one was properly proposed.) I'm not clear what this tells us about PAF viability. Alai 03:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep for the moment. Give it a chance to reach 60, if it doesn't then delete. In any case, a rename seems in order. Valentinian ^(talk) 12:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

5th May

Cat:Assam geography stubs / {{Assam-geo-stub}}

Unproposed but recently added to the stub list. A reasonable split - except it's only reached a size of 12 stubs in the three weeks since it was created. If this doesn't reach threshold it should be upmerged, with the template kept as a redirect as per what is now the usual way. Also, for some obscure reason the category has Cat:Karnataka as a parent, which surely can't be right. Grutness...wha? 13:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Populate or upmerge. The proposal implied there was scads of these, but was short on specifics. If this wasn't an especially bad choice, there must be some undersorting here, though: there's nearly 800 in the India-geos, supposedly from about 20 unsplit states and territories of India, it's highly likely some would hit 60. So who's the Indian Count? (bwah-ha-ha-ha!) :) Alai 17:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Populate or upmerge per Alai Runcorn 18:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, a quick CatScan of Cat:Assam finds 40 India-geo-stubs, so this is indeed (at least moderately) populable. Alai 15:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Up to 46 currently. Alai 18:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

5th May

Cat:Stub-Class hurricane articles

On a scale of one to ten, this one rates a "WTF?" Apparently, this category is for articles that should have {{hurricane-stub}}. To put something in this category, someone has had to edit the article talk page and add Category:Stub-Class hurricane articles. In which time, they could have instead edited the article itself and added {{hurricane-stub}}. As it happens, almost all of these articles have {{Hurricane-stub}}, so this category is just doubling up on Cat:Hurricane stubs. There is absolutely nothing that this category does that the other one doesn't already do more efficiently. Delete/Merge. Grutness...wha? 23:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

On closer inspection, this appears to be part of the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme. A similar thing is done for Music genres, but there Cat:Music genre stubs is (sensibly) used for the "stub-level" classification, saving doubling-up on the work. Military history and Chemistry - the two other areas of Wikipedia that have started this - both seem to follow the Hurricane model, although in the case of chemistry there are only two articles that the Chemistry Wikiproject seem to rate as stubs (whereas we list 960 stubs plus eight subcategories listing many more) Grutness...wha? 23:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Unless there's some killer reason they need a talk-page category specifically (in which casem, what is it -- symmetry with other classes?), or are using the word "stub" in some different sense from everyone else (in which case, can they please pick a different term, and rename?), I'm inclined to go with G's first thought, and delete. Alai 02:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Mind you, this might be better done at CFD, or at the least, with some cross-coordination. Alai 02:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    • As far as the killer reason is concerned: User:Mathbot/WP1.0. Mathbot relies on a category on the talk page to generate worklists (which produces a certain overlap, but is far easier than trying to keep up with the dozens of actual article-page stub categories, at least from the perspective of the WikiProjects involved). Kirill Lokshin 16:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't follow (in spades). Firstly, why does it make the slightest difference to the bot whether the template's on the talk page or the article page? And what do you mean, dozens of stub categories? Surely the relationship is one-to-one? And lastly, doesn't that whole activity fall under the category of, giving human editors a lot of extra work to do, to make things marginally easier for a piece of software? (I know that rather the wikipedia way, throw enough volunteer labour at a problem and it'll get done, but...) If this is extended to duplicate larege chunks of the stub hierarchy for no good reason, I'm going to be highly concerned. Alai 16:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The one-to-one relationship only holds true for small WikiProjects (keep in mind that the WP1.0 grading scheme is fundamentally WikiProject-driven rather than stub-category driven). WP:MILHIST, for example, has a few dozen different stub types related to it (and probably piles of articles that aren't even tagged with one of the correct ones).

More generally, this article assessment program is in no way tied to the stub-sorting project. The assessments are meant to be added to the articles by members of the subject-area WikiProjects, rather than by the stub-sorters (as most regular stub tags tend to be); by the same token, the category structure is designed for said subject-area WikiProjects, and is not meant to be governed by the same arbitrary rules used on actual stub categories. Is the only problem here the fact that the designers of the grading scheme chose to use the word "Stub" for one of the quality levels? Kirill Lokshin 18:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, if it's being done on a per-wikiproject basis (as was not at all evident), then it could be many:one. But I still don't see how that represents any significant complication. The rest of your comment is dismaying in the extreme: you're in effect saying, 'this is indeed exactly like stub-sorting, but we don't like the way "the stub sorters" do it, so we're doing to duplicate the entire system from the ground up'. (Though I take it as axiomatic that it'll never actually duplicate any significant amount thereof in practice, just enough to waste effort and sow confusion.) If you can actually explain to me how this is "fundamentally different" to stub-sorting without merely disparaging the latter (or if necessary, as increasingly seems to be the case, in addition to doing so), I would be much obliged. The name is certainly part of the problem (... as I already said, explicitly). But the fundamental problem is, as I assume that the name "stub" was chosen because they do in fact mean "stub" as everyone else would also understand it, necessarily either a) every affected article will be tagged with both, or b) hap-hazard inconsistencies will be introduced. Alai 19:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if we could have the "professional" stub-sorters do it, we'd be quite happy ;-)

If you recall, though, stub tags occasionally become problematic (there are too many per article, or too few; they're wrongly named, or mis-capitalized, or use redirects, or should be split), and anyone editing the article may quite justifiably do whatever he wants to them. Talk-page WikiProject banners, on the other hand, are pretty much sacrosanct (by general convention if nothing else); putting the rating directly into them means that the average passerby won't muck around with the grading system too much.

And, of course, consistency suggests that if all the other classes of articles get tagged on the talk page, so should "Stub-Class" ones, naming issues aside. Kirill Lokshin 19:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think of us much more as enthusiastic amateurs. :) (As does my bank manager, sadly.) I don't see anything likely to be problematic about the "problematic" cases you mention: if a stub-type has been split, then it was indeed very large, and we're simply in the above-referenced many:one situation. If you want a single listing for 1.0-bot purposes, then surely this merely requires a bot with the (very small) bit of savvy required to traverse a sub-tree of the category space? (e.g in your earlier examples, all sub-types of {{mil-hist-stub}}. If it's simply been renamed, I don't see how that matters. (I don't think any stub type has ever been deleted merely for being badly-named, though doubtless a few were sent to their demise with shouts of "And you had the wrong pluralisation, too!") It's in theory possible that a wikiproject has been wickedly denied a stub type by WSS, but this tends to a) be very rare, and b) tend to happen only were the wikiproject itself had an excessively narrow scope, and had very few articles at all (and hence, very few stubs), so I doubt it's a practical worry, at least until such time as 1.0 is really scraping the bottom of the wikiproject barrel.

That the two taggings might systematically differ is more pressing, but is more worrying, too. If 1.0-stub-grades are to be determined by some distinct process, with different levels of inertia, and different outcomes, then it really does invite confusion. Renaming the "grade" might be an option, but does 1.0 really "action" stub-grade any differently than it does "starts"? Couldn't the two simply be merged, with the additional interpretation (should anyone care) that if it's tagged as "start grade" and as a "stub", then it's in effect "stub grade"? Alai 19:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as renaming the grade is concerned, that's a possibility, but it's something that would need to be brought up with the rest of the WP1.0 project; I don't know if the extensive debate would be worth the trouble ;-)

As for WP:MILHIST, you've fallen into the obvious trap of equating stub-sorting terminology with WikiProject terminology. We do cover {{mil-hist-stub}} and all its descendants; but we also include the {{mil-bio-stub}} tree, and most of the plain {{mil-stub}} tree as well. (A number of our articles have also wound up with strange tags like {{Euro-noble-stub}}, but that's more an issue of sorting them out.) So the bot would have to traverse all the stub categories (and presumably check for a WikiProject tag on the talk page anyway, to avoid false positives), which is somewhat more complicated. Kirill Lokshin 23:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Another point—and one that poses more practical difficulties—is that nice group of people (I won't mention any names) that wanders around deleting stub tags from articles because "there are too many of them". Unless we have some way of detecting this, removed stub tags could cause articles to disappear from the rating lists with nary an explanation; I'm sure you can see where this could cause some trouble for the projects involved. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds to me just you just need a {{mil-hist-bio-stub}}, then; or renaming your wikiproject, if it corresponds to no known part of the category system (stub or otherwise). Alai 00:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it does correspond to a known part of the category system; it just happens to be a very large part of it. ;-)

(It's actually fairly close to the union of Category:War and Category:Military, in practice.) Kirill Lokshin 00:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If it covers the present day military, it's not very well-named; if it doesn't, it cuts across multiple different categories, and thus as I say, doesn't correspond to a part of the category system, but to several different such. In any case, we're departing increasingly far from the point. Alai 00:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• So someone's made a mistake! Let's fix it. Runcorn 10:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep This category is completely independent of stub-searching and as such, shouldn't even be on this discussion page. The category is used for article assessment purposes only. The category is essential for the new automated assessment system to be used by WP:1.0 and by the WikiProjects. Walkerma 18:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• • As I thought, should be on CFD (and deleted there). Alai 19:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • CFD seems to be the right place for this one. There's just got to be a better way. Valentinian ^(talk) 20:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This isn't a stub tag or category; it is a quality assessment, as described on Template:Grading scheme. It is not a measure of length, so it does not conform to Wikipedia's stub guideline, nor it is designed to. It is used in an assessment log which is difficult to manage when over 600 pages are assessed by one individual WikiProject, and much more difficult as Version 1.0 keeps gathering more data about articles. If this category is simlar to anything, it is to Article validation. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If they're not stubs-by-the-extremely-widely-accepted definition of same (given that there's a guideline on the topic), then use of the term "stub" is pointlessly confusing, and should be done a way with as a matter of urgency. Thus if not deleted, then rename. Alai 00:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • If it is required for something, it should be renamed. A stub article is an article marked with one or more stub templates. It can be renamed to - I don't know - "articles in need of expansion" or something similar. Valentinian ^(talk) 09:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

9th May

{{Sweden-battle-stub}} / Cat:Swedish battle stubs

As above. Populate or delete. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Populate or delete Runcorn 21:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• I populated it and it numbers around 42 right now. Thats pretty close to 50, and from looking at List of Swedish battles(which is laregly incomplete) I believe that it wouldn't take too long for this category to reach 50. So I suggest, Keep. Falphin 22:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• I found a few more so it is now up to 50. Weak keep Valentinian ^(talk) 23:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Threshold is 60, not 50, but what's done is done... Keep, or upmerge to a Nordic/Scandinavian battle stubs type. Alai 02:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

May 10

{{Disney-comics-stub}} / Cat:Disney Comics stubs

"Disney Comics" or just comics by Disney? Needs to be made consistant, but I don't know which one is right. - SoM 22:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Comics about the Disney characters have been made under license by several different companies over the years, so it should probably be lower case "comics". Caerwine Caerwhine 03:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Closing note: no decision was arrived at. Conscious 05:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

May 12th

{{Dallas-stub}} / Cat:Dallas stubs

See comments at "More space-filled redirects" below. At only a little over two dozen stubs (well below threshold), this stub type is marginal at best, especially since there doesn't seem to be a Dallas-specific WikiProject. What's more, all the items here are perfectly well covered by Cat:Texas stubs or Cat:Texas geography stubs, neither of which is exactly bursting at the seams (160 and 220 stubs respectively). Couple that with the potentially confusing name (one of the biggest TV series in the US in the early 80s was called "Dallas"), and this seems both unnecessary and ambiguous. Delete, unless anyone can show good reasons why not. Grutness...wha? 14:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm against it for the most part .. I agree that Texas stubs and Texas geography stubs both cover it well, but there's also a WikiProject Dallas in the work and I (the creator of the stub) am beginning to place it on pages for the tentative list. Texas is a large state.. if people have expertise about Dallas, they may have an easier time sorting through just Dallas topics rather than the whole state of Texas. But then I'm again I'm not exactly familiar with wikipedia policy on this sort of thing, I'm sure cleaning house with hundreds of pointless stub-categories is rather annoying.. so, I suppose now that you know that the category (was/is) going to be expanded and a wikiproject Dallas should be running by June.. you can decide what to do..? drumguy8800 - speak 06:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Under those circumstances, if it was an article I'd suggest userfying it for now, then proposing it properly once the WikiProject's up and running. Not sure that's possible with a template and category, though. Hm... perhaps postpone this for now, but if there's no sign of a Wikiproject and suitable number of stubs by the end of June, then we're likely to bring it back here. What does everyone else think? Grutness...wha? 13:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Templates can certainly be userfied (though they'd to be be included different on each article), but doing it with a category isn't feasible, as I understand it. Drumguy, why not just go ahead with the wikiproject anyway? It doesn't have to be fully-fledged right away, just "slap up a skeleton page and they will come", as it were. But if that's not possible I'd have no objection to postponing consideration for a month. Plenty of smaller fish to fry in the meantime... (You speak great sooth on the topic of 'cleaning house', btw.) Alai 04:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Closed as keep for now. Conscious 19:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

May 15th

{{Music-video-stub}}/Cat:Music video stubs -> {{Music-video&dvd-stub}}/Cat:Music video&dvd stubs

Rename {{Music-video-stub}} to increase its scope to include dvds. Videos and dvds are so closely related it seems pointless proposing a separate stub category. {{Music-video-stub}} currently has 65 stubs and already includes some dvd stubs. --Bruce1ee 10:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering that music DVDs contain video clips for music (the term "video" referring to a visual presentation, not the medium used to deliver it), there is no need for any change: {{music-video-stub}} automatically covers music DVDs anyway. Grutness...wha? 10:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Agree with Grutness. Video is the companion of Audio. Not the physical media. Plus, I think ampersands in the stub name look a bit ugly. --TheParanoidOne 05:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, per above. Anyone else recall the early-80s trend to phase out use of the word "album" in favour of "CD", lest anyone think one wasn't on the latest medium? Alai 16:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose per all of the above. Her Pegship 19:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Point taken – I had (incorrectly) assumed that "video" meant "analog videotape". --Bruce1ee 05:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

May 18th

{{Montenegro-bio-stub}} / Cat:Montenegrin people stubs

Used on 1 article. One option is to upmerge to {{euro-bio-stub}}. But there is also a {{Serbia-bio-stub}}, and no {{SerbiaMontenegro-bio-stub}}. Maybe make both {{Serbia-bio-stub}} and {{Montenegro-bio-stub}} feed into Cat:Serbia and Montenegro people stubs? (IIRC they haven't held the separation referendum yet, but will probably have done so by the end of this discussion period...) Conscious 06:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait the referendum and see. In any case, though, I strongly oppose creation of SerbiaMontenegro-bio-stub. The two countries are one just in last 10 years of history, and it would IMO be silly to classify Serbian people from 19th and 20th century into a modern state of volatile nature. I'd prefer euro-bio-stub if Montenegrin category is cfd-ed. Duja 07:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Duja's right - things may well change within the next few days with the Montenegro independence referendum. However, unless this one gets a lot more articles then even in the event of Montenegrin independence this should be upmerged into euro-bio-stub. Grutness...wha? 10:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a common category for Serbia and Montenegro is not an option. Keeping the Montenegro category is an option only if it's populated. So I think that it should be merged to euro-bio regardless of the referendum outcome (btw, it's on 21 May). Conscious 15:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, Category:Montenegro stubs already contains some 40 biographies. So, {{Montenegro-bio-stub}} should be upmerged there rather than to {{euro-bio-stub}} (some of the stubs are already double-stubbed to profession-bio-stubs). Those 40 in {{Montenegro-stub}} however, are fairly close to reach the threshold, so it might be retained as well... Duja 08:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Upmerge to {{Montenegro-stub}}. Granted it's close to populable, but doing so would leave two undersized types: both it and its parent. Provided we keep both templates, splitting out later when viable is a simple operation. Alai 18:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The two categories have now been sorted. The -bio-stub is up to 60 articles, the generic stub is up to 46 articles. Valentinian ^(talk) 10:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that now everything can be kept as is. Conscious 15:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Please wait for the news. Serbia and Montenegro may spit into two nations Matthew hk 07:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, we're only debating if we should have one or two templates for Montenegro. I think we have enough material now, so keep to both of them. Valentinian ^(talk) 07:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Montenegro gained its independence. The official results have been announced. Read the Montenegrin independence referendum, 2006#Results article for more information on this. So this means that the category and stub template can stay. Crna Gora ^{(Talk/Contribs/Edit Count)} 21:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep both (serbia-bio- is tagged too, but not listed separately) as subtypes of Cat:Serbia and Montenegro people stubs, which should already exist, and strangely doesn't. Granted we'll be deleting it again once independence has actually happened (which contrary to the above comment, it has not yet). Alai 15:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

May 22nd

{{arena-stub}} / Cat:Arena stubs

The proposal for a separate arena stub was brought up about a month ago at WP:WSS/P, and there was no consensus - yet it seems this stub has been around since February. Stadium stubs are currently being split by country and don't need to be further split into stadia and arenas - an arbitrary pair of terms which are used interchangeably for a lot of the articles using these stubs and also in a lot of countries (it's worth noting that stubs with this template include Amherst Stadium, Colchester Legion Stadium, Ilfis Stadium,...). What's more, the template says it's for ice hockey venues, although the term arena, where it is used, is used for a far wider group of sports than just this one. What's more, Cat:Stadium stubs makes it clear that its for stadiums and other sports venues, which quite clearly would include everything that this stub is for. Add to that the fact that some countries use multi-sports venues for ice hockey, and... just delete. Grutness...wha? 08:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No strong opinion either way, but most of those buildings were previously categorized as "Buildings in..." Designating their sport venue status is important. BoojiBoy 14:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

we can use stadium-stub for that. whats a stadium and whats an arenas too ambiguous. if this is kept itll need better defining or naming but i dont think it should be kept. Delete. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per the above. Valentinian ^(talk) 11:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this was the proposal or not, but merge with stadium stubs. BoojiBoy 03:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep, rename to something clearly ice-hockey-ish. The parent has only recently been made non-undersized, and the US- counterpart is, as I've pointed out elsewhere, rapidly going the same way; shoving these articles back in there is, therefore, highly undesirable. Arguments against splitting by type of venue (either type of structure, or type of sport, as opposed to only by ever-more-local location) seemed to rest around the meaning of the word "stadium" in NZ, and to be contrary to the spirit of "axis most likely to see expansion by" (i.e. whether "Midwestern United States sports venue stubs" or "Wisconsin sports venue stubs" is as coherent a grouping with regard to primary notability as the above). Alai 15:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely not a New Zealand only thing - how do you explain the stadiums marked with this stub in the list above - none of which are in New Zealand, but which are in the US, UK, and mainland Europe - and which are just a small sample of the stadiums (so named) that are listed as arenas? There is clearly going to be confusion as to what is a stadium and what is an ice hockey arena. And you've also forgotten a major reason not to split this way - many ice hockey venues are used for other ice-related sports, so splitting by sport would mean double, triple, and quarple stubbing. I've no objection to using this as a redirect to stadium stubs, but I strongly oppose it as a separate category/template type. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that "ice hockey arena", and "stadium" are terminologically disjoint, just that "ice hockey venues" are an entirely logically feasible, and most certainly numerically viable, sub-type of "sports venues". "Arena" vs. "stadium" is, I agree, suggestive of a split on an entirely different axis (or of wholesale confusion, depending on one's local usage, perhaps), but the current scheme is explicitly scoped to cover all sports venues, and generates text to that effect, so I don't see that that distinction is material here. Hence the "rename" part, above. I've not forgotten about double-stubbing, I'm just far from convinced it's a significant concern. Many sports venues are indeed used for more than one sport, at least on occasion, and often several non-sports purposes too, but it's very frequently pretty clear that a venue's primary notability relates to its being "home of the <name> <sport> team". Worst comes to the worst, we can "recombine" on the most common combinations. Splitting by form of venue (ballpark/(outdoor) stadium vs. this or that type of indoor venues) would be less liable to this sort of double-stubbing than the current scheme, wherein tagging large numbers of them as music-venues, etc, would be highly likely on the same basis, but apparently it's not possible to get that scheme past /P, either. Until we get a clear consensus on how we should split these chronically large, and incipiently oversized categories, shoving an at-least-arguably-sensible split back therein seems at very least, premature. Alai 01:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ya know, a large number of these look to be Canadian, and there is no {{Canada-stadium-stub}} at present. How about a rescope and resort to Cat:Canada stadium stubs? Caerwine Caerwhine 00:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So in other word, change the template, the category, and the contents, but otherwise keep it just as it is? :) Alai 22:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If there's enough of them to make a Canadian stadium stub category, go ahead (although Alai does make a great point, haha). Let's please just not start classifying stadiums by the type of sports they host - some venues could legitimately be double-, triple-, or even quadruple-tagged, and that would completely defeat the purpose of splitting the stadium stubs. An arena stub category would be great (as long as it was clearly defined as to what an arena was, which I'd assume would be the North American definition of an indoor stadium holding ~20,000 people, not the occasional European usage as any stadium), and would make great headway into splitting the category down to size. --fuzzy510 23:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I count 49 in Cat:Arena stubs, plus 15 in Cat:Stadium stubs that're also in or under the Cat:Canada category, so yes, it would be viable. I can provide the lists, if StubSense remains Unwell. Still seems simpler to me to start that from scratch, mind you, as there's more that would have to be removed from this type than would stay in it, and it's easier to (semi-)automate that way 'round. I've already suggested separating out the arenas (in the above sense) from the "essentially-outdoor" stadia; the reaction was lukewarm-to-hostile. Alai 00:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

May 31st

{{Ethiopia-hist-stub}} / Cat:Ethiopian history stubs

I don't remember a proposal for this one. Created 13 May, but only used on four articles. The material for Ethiopia is large, but this one seems pretty undersized. Delete or upmerge. Valentinian ^(talk) 07:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Proposer never added an sfd tag to the template or category and by sorting existing stubs I've been able to bring it up to 35 stubs, which while marginal, isn't bad for a stub type under a month old with plenty of potential for growth. Had it been proposed, I wouldn't have supported it yet, but it's large enough that I don't think deleting it is worth the effort. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right, I forgot about the templates. Nice work populating it, perhaps it will be viable anyway? Valentinian ^(talk) 08:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Viable enough to let it percolate a while. If in a couple of months it hasn't grown, I wouldn't be opposed to bringing it back here for an upscope to {{AfricaE-hist-stub}} which should defnitely cross the 60 stub threshold. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

{{Eberron-stub}} / Cat:Eberron stubs

Never proposed, only 17 stubs, vaguely enigmatic name, and adequately covered by Cat:Dungeons & Dragons stubs which is only around the 400-stub mark. Either delete or upmerge. Grutness...wha? 05:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• upmerge, of the two Percy Snoodle 10:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or rename to a more general D&D campaign setting stub or something like this. It would not be a bad idea to create a good subcategory for the 400-so D&D one mentioned above. On the other hand, note that three other D&D campaign settings stubs have quite a few stubs: Category:Dragonlance stubs with 66, Category:Forgotten Realms stubs with 110 and Category:Greyhawk stubs with 137. I think that Eberron is the youngest of D&D settings but it seems to be gaining popularity, and I expect the number of stubs in that category will only increase. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've no objection to the re-creation of this when it reaches a viable level, but at the moment it's really too small. If we're going to think about a split of the main category a quick scan through the D&D stubs suggests that a D&D-creature-stub or similar might be more useful. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I find the category useful, as D&D settings can be very different. I just discovered the Eberron stub category, and I'm glad it exists separately from other D&D stubs, because I have a lot of knowledge specific to Eberron. Being able to find Eberron stubs without having to wade through material concerning, say, Forgotten Realms, is very nice. Also, as Piotrus says, the category will likely increase. Zorblek (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as sub-category of D&D. If there are 400-odd D&D stubs, then it stands to reason that some degree of organisation will prove useful - and dividing some of them, at least, along Setting-specific lines, looks entirely reasonable to me.GMPax 06:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment - splits of stub categories are usually considered when a category reaches 600 stubs, and only into subcategories which have a population of 60 or more. Grutness...wha? 07:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm a bit late with my comment, but to me it doesn't make much sense to only consider a stub category based on the number of stubs it contains. It might be a reasonable guideline, but more important should be the usefulness of the category, and personally I believe it is needed. The obvious way to divide D&D stubs is to do it according to setting. Links go to other topics within the same setting, but more rarely to similar topics in other settings. Eberron is still very lacking when it comes to major events, organizations and well known people. One way to go about it would be to begin by creating stubs, but I don't think Wikipedia would be better for it. --Maggu 12:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • And who says they currently need to be divided at all? "Usefulness of the category" is so subjective as to permit essentially complete duplication of the permanent category space as stub types, which road lies utter madness. Upmerge -- a template should be essentially as "useful" as a category for this few, or a project-page list; it can be easily be split back out if it ever does actually grow. Alai 17:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • There sure are a lot of people who have never edited an Eberron article but yet have opinions about this... Why is it so very important to kill off a category which clearly several editors find useful? I don't think it's possible to define a universal criteria for when a stub category should exist, and I strongly believe the D&D stub category should be divided. (Preventing "utter madness" is the reason for having these discussions, right?) Just take a look at the edits people do. Wikipedia editors working on D&D are clearly divided along setting-specific lines, and there are a lot of D&D stubs. To prevent the interesting stubs from being drowned among hundreds of irrelevant stubs for other settings, setting-specific stubs are useful, even if one of the four categories happens to contain only 20 stubs at the moment. --Maggu 18:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
      • And there sure are a lot of people who've little in the way of involvement with WSS, who've opinions on the creation and keeping of stub types (that're entirely at variance with the stub guidelines), if we're going to get into that sort of line of argument. It's no more and no less important than "killing off" other stub types that're significantly undersized, and if we can't kill off this, on the basis of a few "I find it usefuls" (see guidance on such rationales at top of this page), we're ultimately likely to meet the same fate as with those. You claim that several people clearly find it useful; I'm more persuaded that lots of people fail to understand the logic of stub-sorting, and get highly defensive when their home-brew re-splits are questioned on the basis of established practice. "These discussion" are likewise part of the problem, since the defenders invariably use similar arguments for keep-no-matter-what, don't engage with either the rationale for the guidelines, or any of the suggested alternatives for tracking small numbers of stubs (as I've just provided, and you've just ignored) and the guidelines often go unenforced on the basis of said "votes" leading to "no consensus" to abide by same. Iterate as necessary, and we end up with 500,000 stubs split into 25,000 stub types, each of which 3-4 people "clearly find useful". If you can explain to me how to keep this one, and delete or upmerge every other unproposed stub type with 19 articles in it, splitting a two-listing-pages parent, I'd be highly receptive. Alai 20:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Established practice? I might not be into stub sorting, but as far as I can see the guidelines clearly state "As a rule of thumb", and I argue that the scope is not too limited. As mentioned above, just look at the number of stubs in the other setting categories. There are four official settings published by Wizards of the Coast. There should be four subcategories. And, I have to admit, I do utterly fail to see the problem with having 25,000 stub types, as long as each article contains only one stub template. (I'm pretty sure that's the case for every single article in the Eberron category.) If the people involved in the relevant project feel a stub category is superfluous, I'm sure it can be handled within the project. Finally, I'm also curious about the "suggested alternatives for tracking small numbers of stubs". I'm sorry. I didn't mean to ignore them, but I can't seem to find them. Where were those again? --Maggu 17:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
          • "Official WotC settings" are absolutely neither here nor there. You won't find a statement in the stub guidelines saying that 'categories are to be created by game-company definitions of officialness, and size criteria be blowed'. What you will find is: "Will there be a significant number of stubs in this category; are there enough article stubs to warrant this new type? Typically the threshold ranges from 100 to 300 articles. [...] In general any new category must have at least 60 articles."
          • The alternatives aren't in the guidelines (though that might not be a bad plan...), but I mentioned them above: you can use a list in the project space; where there's a template, but not a category (as I've suggested in this case), you can use the "What links here" to dynamically track current usage. In particular the template option enables one to re-split easily if usage grows to the point where a separate category is indeed indicated. Alai 18:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete or upmerge per nom. This one is too small. Valentinian ^(talk) 17:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)