Template talk:Tajikistan-bio-stub

Including the articles in a big category like Asian people (Without inclution in any subcategory) is useless. Besides, in this case, Asian people is misleading, because it often refers to people from East Asia (Its common usage in North America is the same as East Asian). Jahangard 09:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't include it in . It includes it in the relatively small - in fact it makes up about 25% of that category, and a large proportion of the others are for people from Georgia and Armenia. Very few of the stubs in that category are for east Asian people. The decision to add the template to that category was decided by discussion less than a month ago. reverting it again will be regarded as vandalism, and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Grutness...wha?  09:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In that discussion 4 users participated and among them, only you have mentioned this category. You can not consider it as the concensus (or the result of the discussion). Jahangard 09:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Its kind of silly to have it in the Category for Asian people stubs. If anything it should be in Tajikistan people stubs or Central Asian people stubs. - Francis Tyers · 09:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no such category, as you would know if you had been following the debates on both Tajik-bio-stub and this, its successor, at WP:SFD and WP:WSS/P. But you haven't been following those debates, so you won't know the decision reached at the first of them, which was to have it at the perfectly sensible until such time as it grows to the threshold required for its own stub category, at which point it will logically be moved to the currently non-existent . Currently, there are far too few stubs for such a separate category to be considered - as would be clear to you if you had taken time to follow the discussions, rather than simply reverting my attempts to make this template conform to those decisions. Grutness...wha?  09:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is the old discussion that you are referring to it: . You claim that the inclusion of (in this template) was the result of that discussion. It's not. How do you justify your claim? Jahangard 09:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no such category, as you would know if you had been following the debates on both Tajik-bio-stub and this, its successor, at WP:SFD and WP:WSS/P. But you haven't been following those debates - only seeing those partys of them that Jahangard has pointed you to - so you won't know the decision reached at the first of them, which was to have it at the perfectly sensible Cat:Asian people stubs until such time as it grows to the threshold required for its own stub category, at which point it will logically be moved to the currently non-existent Cat:Tajikistani people stubs. Jahangard seems to think that the template points at Cat:Asian people, which has thousands of articles. it doesn't - it points to Cat:Asian people stubs, which has 131 articles, already towards the lower end of the optimim size for a stub category, as explained at WP:STUB. Currently, there are far too few stubs for such a separate category to be considered for either central asian people stubs or for Tajikistani people stubs; creating the former would leave Asian people stubs with well below the optimum number of stubs, creating the latter would lead to a category with only some 25 stubs (60 is regarded as the minimum requirement for stub categories). This would all have been clear to you if you had taken time to follow the discussions and check the guiding principles used for stub categories, rather than simply reverting my attempts to make this template conform to the decisions reached at WP:SFD in October. Please, in future, check out all the facts relating to an issue before leaping to the defence of someone who is trying to unilaterally overturn a decision taken less than a month ago. As to the number of people involved in the decision, that is not relevant to the proper process having been carried out, the result of which, as listed at the top, was "The result of the debate was "upmerge/delete cat", which was done - a decision you are now trying to singlehandedly overturn. Grutness...wha?  10:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oof, it would be better to keep this discussion in one place. Regardless, the Category "Asian people stubs" is so wide as to be useless. It should be removed. We can wait until there are enough articles to add a Category for Tajiks. I'm not arguing to create a new Category (yet) just to not include an existing one. - Francis Tyers · 09:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is standard stub practice, and has been since I've been a member of the stub-sorting project (two years). This is the first negative comment on upmerging I've heard in all that time. The present stub categories work well for everyone else - I suppose there always has to be one or two people who don't like them, but unless you feel like overhauling the whole system of upmerging templates into most appropriate parent categories, I don't really thinkthere's any reason to remove it. Given that these are bio-stubs, if Cat:Asian people stubs is seen as inappropriate, we'd simply go to the next level up - Cat:People stubs. Bio-stubs go with bio-stubs; Tajikistan-stubs go with Tajikistan-stubs. If you feel that this system is inappropriate, feel free to take it up with the 150 or so people who devised the system and who use it regularly over at WP:WSS. Grutness...wha?  10:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But do you edit pages on Tajikistan or Tajik people? This system is inappropriate for us. It would almost be better to have no stubs. - Francis Tyers · 10:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree - it would be far better to have no stubs. But we have stubs, so we categorise them as best we can. It is true that I don't edit many articles on Tajikistan, although if you'd like to check many of the Tajikistan-bio-stubs you will see that I have edited quite a few of them (I have also been making stub articles on Tajikistani people in the last hour or so, to try to get the number of stubs up to speed - which is probably what you should have been doing, too, if you want a separate category). In any case, the system works very well for every other country which doesn't have its own bio-stub, or geo-stub, or hist-stub, or politician-stub, or struct-stub, or... why should one type of Tajikistani stub be any different from those on every other country? The system is inappropriate for you but appropriate for everyone else? Seems unlikely, yet there are no complaints about it from anywhere else. It is likely, hoewever, that any system that tries to fit everything into it will have minor niggles - it can never be completely perfect but rather has to be a best compromise. Perhaps if you explained what is so inappropriate about it for you it might help. Currently, as the system stands, editors to articles on Tajikistan - which presumably includes both you and Jahangard - can find these articles in, which is hardly huge (under 100 stubs, in fact). Editors to biographical articles can find these articles in amongst other biographical articles relating to people from central Asia, which make up the bulk of the articles in . So not only is it easy for you to find the articles if you are looking for articles on people using Tajikistan stubs as a base category, they are also easy to find for people looking to edit biographical articles on people from Central Asia as a whole. Thus two sets of editorrs can find the articles readily, rather than just one set if one of the categories is removed. That is the way stub sorting and categorising works. What is inappropriate about that? Grutness...wha?  10:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm way ahead of you ;) We only have 2 left to go before we hit 60. - Francis Tyers · 11:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

We now have 60. - Francis Tyers · 11:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You must've made about 25 stubs (I only had time to hunt down six or seven!) - good work! In any case, I've updated the information at WP:WSS/P. The debate should be allowed to run for a while, in case anyone finds another reason to object (unlikely), but I doubt it will need the full one week that is usually taken for this. Grutness...wha?  11:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, cool :) Yeah, I found a couple of sites with lists of Presidents, Prime Ministers and First Secretaries (from Soviet times) and just went with that :) - Francis Tyers · 11:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I just looked for redlinks in Tajikistan politics articles, and also found an interesting list of Tajikistani artists. Grutness...wha?  12:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool. I'm going to pass that onto some of the guys on the tg.wiki. Hopefully we can get some articles on them too :) - Francis Tyers · 12:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)