Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  keep. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 18:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types

 * (almost 220 K)
 * (33 K)
 * (21 K)
 * (87 K)
 * (14 K)
 * (301 K)
 * (10 K)
 * (67 K)
 * (23 K)
 * (105 K)
 * (148K)
 * (101 K)
 * (12 K)
 * (13 K)
 * (119 K)
 * (116 K)
 * (12 K)
 * (almost 51 K)
 * (almost 13 K)
 * (almost 51 K)
 * (almost 13 K)

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) This page works best if the stub category system were more or less a true category tree - that is, each node (category) having a set of children, none of which are shared with other nodes. In fact, we don't have that - many stub categories have multiple parents (especially categories about people and structures) - for example,  has 3 stub type parents - a geographical parent  and 2 other parents ( and ). And ultimitely, its parents would trace back to 3 differnet pages -  is on WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/Geography, and  is a child of both  (WikiProject Architecture/Stub categories - over 88K, not even a subpage of the subtype list, and not transcluded there) and of  (WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/Transport)
 * 2) Stub type renames and deletions are now (since we depricated SFD) handled largely by non-WSS people; it's unreasonable to expect them to dig through these pages to handle the renames.
 * 3) Having these gigantic pages (see the sizes listed above - and I believe that many of  these are incomplete, which means they should be larger), which means that any change to the stub category tree structure is an expensive task for a user to handle.
 * WikiProject Stub Soritng has been notified of this nomination. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep If you're not quite sure what specific stub template you're looking for, it's easier to search through a small number of gigantic pages than a gigantic number of small pages (the stub cats). -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I may have been able to agree with that - if these gigantic pages actually gave the full list of tags under each category; however, with the non-tree structure of the stub stpes (reason #1) and the out-datedness of parts of these pages make their usefulness much less. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep While not always up-to-date, I agree that these lists of stubs by subject make it easier to find the most appropriate stub for an article. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And if you were dealing with an article about a school, you would probably start under the "building and structure" section - and not find the correct stub type. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep If people in the project find these lists useful, then I see no reason for deleting them. Navigation through the categories themselves is less user friendly. Ideally some kind of stub type search function could replace this, or perhaps this page could be updated periodically by a bot analysing database dumps. While the given reasons for deletion are certainly not trivial, I don't think deletion represents an improvement (until something better exists). SFB 20:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.