Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/April/23

Kannada-cinema-stub / ; (for upmerger)

 * 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 delete cinema stuff, rename as Kannada-film-stub, upmerge film cat

We don't split cinema by language, though we do split films by language when necessary. Not convinced it is in the case of Kannada (the language of Karnataka, India), though an upmerged and renamed Kannada-film-stub may make some sense. The currently-named category and template don't, though. Grutness...wha?  07:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not sure I understand why cinema cannot be split by language while films can be split. If it is renamed to Kannada-film-stub then, it would not be possible to use this stub template for Kannada film actors, studios, directors, cameramen, Kannada cinema milestones/significant-events and other such things. It will be restricted to only Kannada films. So I thought it would be a good idea to categorize all these Kannada cinema related stubs under one umbrella, so that anyone interested in Kannda cinema can improvise on working out those stubs. - KNM Talk 15:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply. The main problem is that Indian cinema is split into films, cast, crew, etc (as are all nationally-split film production-related stubs), and only then are the films are split by language. It makes little sense to split people by language, since it is highly likely that a number of them are bilingual or multilingual and will work in other parts of India too. And for the most part we don't split people by subnational region, since people tend to move around a lot, resulting in multiple stubbing. A film studio located in karnataka certainly wouldn't move around, but it makes considerably more sense to double-stub that with karnataka-stub and a more general studio-specific stub than to have a regional cinema-stub that would cross through various parts of the stub hierarchy. Grutness...wha?  00:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Makes sense. - KNM Talk 04:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So far, films are stubbed by (a) genre, (b) country of production, and currently under consideration (c) language (Hindi, Telugu, and Tamil so far). We have an India-film-stub, and I'm sure if Kannada films need to be sorted out, Kannada-film-stub, scoped as the language, not the region, would be logical. Support rename & rescope per El Grut. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 04:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support deletion of Kannada-cinema-stub and . Created Kannada-film-stub and pointed the stubs to Category:Kannada film stubs.- KNM Talk 04:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOWBALL. Anyone? Thanks - KNM Talk 04:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Or more to the point, 'with agreement of only contributor' clause. I'll delete this once you've emptied it.  Kannada-film-stub is fine and dandy as (at least) a template, but when I crunched the per-language cats, it seemed very small.  So go ahead and populate, but if it's not of a sensible size, upmerger (keeping the template, deleting the category) may be required.  Alai 19:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. The cat is emptied now. - KNM Talk 19:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, deleted. Do you have an idea how many articles the -film- stub will apply to?  (I could only find eight eight India-film-stubs in the Kannada permcat.)  Alai 21:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably around 30 to 35 as of now. I have to manually dig them out and add the Kannada-film-stub tag. Per my observation, on an average weekly 2 to 3 such stubs are being created. - KNM Talk 21:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In which case for now it should be an upmerged template without a separate category. If you're right about the speed it's growing, though, we'd need a category soon enough. If it hasn't grown to close to 60 in the next few months, though, don't be surprised if there's a call to upmerge it. Grutness...wha?  01:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Or sooner, indeed! Any objection to upmerging now, or should I tag it and add it to the nom?  Alai 03:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, please, not at least as of now. Please provide me some time, with this new stub template and stub category. I will put in some effort in identifying all the Kannada film articles which are very small and transclude this template. Per the statistsics of Kannada films, there are totally around 2600 films released, and none of us certainly know how many have made into Wiki yet. So, no upmerging as of now. If you really need, consider it after some time, probably after a month or two. I'll also try getting some help from Karnataka WikiProject members, to assist in this task. Thanks - KNM Talk 05:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems a bit backwards to me, I'm afraid: better just to have an upmerged template for now, and revisit whether the category should be created in a month or two.  It shouldn't inhibit any tagging of existing articles and/or expanding the scope of coverage of same.  Alai 05:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, here's the stubs tagged in the permcat at time of the last db dump: No telling how many simply don't have a language cat... Alai 06:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Kaviratna Kalidasa
 * Pallavi Anu Pallavi
 * Nagara Havu
 * Beladingala Baale
 * Jedara Bale
 * Muddina Maava
 * Ganayogi Panchakshari Gavayi
 * Premaloka

(for upmerger)
Comment - Whats the purpose of listing this cat for deletion? Is there any policy in WP that mentions the criteria of minimum number of articles/pages to be present in the category, at the time of category creation? As such, whenever a category is created, obviously it is more or less empty, and as the days progress, it will have more content. The Kannada-film-stub template as well as stubs cat are brand new, not even a day old. I fail to understand why it is being nominated for deletion. Thanks - KNM Talk 06:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See WP:STUB. Stub types are traditionally proposed when there's a need on the basis of a significant number of existing articles to populate them, not to cater to possible future need.  The purpose is to keep stubs in categories of reasonable size, in the hopes they get a reasonable amount of attention.  Having an infeasible number of stub categories, each with a tiny number of stubs, would be as problematic as having them in excessively large categories.  Alai 10:03, 25 April 2007 (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.