Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/2006/August/24

August 24th

 * 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 redirect both to and reword to explain why; keep categories as parent-only types

SouthAm-geo-stub and CentralAm-geo-stub
Every country in Central and South America now has its own geo-stub, and because of that, neither of these templates is used on any articles. What's more, virtually no articles which could relate to places in more than three or four countries in the area is likely to be of stub size. For that reason, I proposed deleting these two templates, but keeping the related categories as parent-only types similar to one of their own parents,. Grutness...wha?  09:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Grutness. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per other "deprecated" templates. The logic of this nomination seems to be, "force stub-sorting through imposition of added frustration", the success of which I'm doubtful of.  It's not reasonable to expect people to instantly switch from "Oh bother, a redlink.  I see here's no country-geo-stub type, instead those fine fellows at WSS want me to use SouthAm-geo-stub instead" to "Oh *&%!, now SouthAm-geo-stub is a redlink, WTF do they want to do this week?".  On the same basis, we should obviously delete bio-stub, on the basis that every person must fit into some more specific -bio-stub type -- the question is though, do they know that it exists, or what it's called?  If desired, edit to indicate redundancy, deprecatioon, or to otherwise request that it be replaced with a country template.  Alai 23:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If these were regularly used templates, I'd agree with you. But they're not. Excepting for people on the stub-sorting WikiProject, people either use country-specific geo-stubs or simply use geo-stub. I've been monitoring these two categories for quite a few months now, and the templates are simply not used. Grutness...wha?  04:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Grutness. I haven't seen new material move into them either, and all countries have been split off. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone please explain to me why "I haven't seen it used lately" is a basis for deletion, in terms of a) the criteria on this page, b) the stub guidelines, or indeed c) any logical basis whatsoever. That's not an argument for a benefit of deletion, it's an estimate of the harm said deletion would cause, for no actual upside that's even being claimed.  While I do keep meaning to add some text to WP:STUB on upmerge templates, someone else'll have to add the rationale for "categories we've arbitrarily decided to make templateless", since I for the life of me can't see it, much less determine what other stub types this would or would not be applied to.  Bear in mind that we're still activiely creating "SouthAm-" and "CentralAm-" stub types, so the "guessability" of their not being -geo-stubs for same seems to me to be extremely low.  But maybe I should save my breath for deletion review at this point.  Alai 17:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, why not simply redirect them to plain geo-stub, then? They'll still be usable if anyone ever decides to use them, they'll be more readily sifted into their respective country-specific categories by myself and anyone else who regularly checks the geo-stub main category, and they'll effectively be neutered in terms of their actual (lack of) usefulness. Grutness...wha?  23:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Would this be before or after deleting them? I don't follow the above comment at all.  (Then again, I'm a little perplexed by the whole nomination...)  Alai 01:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be instead of deleting them, as a compromise solution. I'd like them gone completely, but you clearly don't - a third, middle way, seems to be the one that would likely keep us both moderately happy. Grutness...wha?  22:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I can see it's in some sense intermediate between our two suggested actions, but can you help me out at all on the why? For either, indeed?  If as you say, this is never used, then why is it better, for deprecation purposes or otherwise, for this to feed into a different category?  Alai 22:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Less re-checking. I already check and empty about eight geo-stub categories a day, all of whose contents should be listed in country-specific or subregion-specific categories. Most of them either have one or two items which won't subcategorise further (like, which has three) or are country-specific themselves (like ). Ones which are not at a specific country level aren't needed in the grand scheme of things, since the idealised eventual aim is to have every country with its own geo-stub. Unlike Africa, there's little chance of stub articles referring to half a dozen or morecountries with either South or Central America. If there are no stubs which are likely to ever use either of these templates as more than a temporary measure until a more specific stub is used, it makes a lot of sense to use the category that is most frequently checked and re-sorted, rather than a more finely grained one which would just add one more place to be regularly checked. Especially since there's a very good chance that the category in question would be empty 99 days out of 100. Grutness...wha?  23:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, that's at least something I can get my head around as an argument. OTOH, one might argue that an under-sorted geo-stub does less "harm" in the smaller, more specific category, even if it ends up lingering there a little longer, than if it clogs up a stubcat that's in constant need of aggressive "diffusion".  There's also the aspect of the "least surprising result" here:  if I tag something as a CentralAm-geo-stub, and then notice it's been categorised, and furthermore template-messaged as a plain "geography stub", I may have a "huh?!" moment.  (And then go "fix" the redirect, probably.)  It's better than a "red mist" moment as I discover someone's deleted the template, though.  Can I suggest that if we go this route, we don't redirect as such, but recategorise, so that the template can be given a bespoke message, clarifying the above?  (Perhaps along the line of the previously-mnetioned football-stub.)  Alai 00:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can agree to that - sounds like a reasonable compromise. I see the same sort of solution looming with the African region geo-stubs sometime in the not-too-distant future, too. Grutness...wha?  05:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Per Grutness 14th September. - Privacy 21:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.