Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/August/14

Michigan-County-Designated-Highway-stub /

 * 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

Given the recent Big Bang solution to the naming of the various by-state road stub types, this looks a little narrow and awkwardly-named. Suggest outright deletion, merging the articles into. Alai 06:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This doesn't look particularly useful and the simple state-road-stub system simplifies things nicely. delete. Grutness...wha?  12:04, 14 August 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.

INA stub

 * 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

Unproposed and...well, let's start with the name. INA can refer to a large number of things, so this template fails on that count. It also has a space rather than a hyphen, so that's two strikes against it. Above all that, do we really need a stub typed for a short period of one country's history? We don't generally have stubs diving up a country's history into separate periods - the only 20th century ones I can think of are Soviet-stub and Nazi-stub - both of which are likely to have significantly more stub articles than one on the Azad Hind/I.N.A. period of Indian history. And with only about 450 stubs, is far from needing splitting. What's more, the permcat associated with this, only has 76 articles - 80% of which would need to be stubs before this could become a viable subtype. Simply not necessary. Delete. Grutness...wha?  01:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC) The more accurately an article is tagged, however, the less work it is for other sorters later, and the more useful it is for editors looking for articles to expand.
 * Delete - It's not so small that it's unreasonable to start thinking about splitting (and de-WPJ-spamming, mind you), but this doesn't look to be the way. (Would an India-mil-hist-stub be useful?)  Alai 02:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly - and certainly a lot more useful than this one! Grutness...wha?  12:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Indian National Army is not just to do with Indian Millitary, its a defining bit of the Indian Independence movement, it draws not just from WWII, but also from WWI, people involved were not just Indians within India, but also a stupendously large part of Indian diaspora in Sout Asia. Tne people of the INA influenced not just India, but also other countries in south asia. The organisations that formed or interacted with the INA can't really be covered by Indian Millitary history. Also these covered not just India, but also Europe And a large part of Asia. As for categorisation, the WP:Stub page says:
 * It satisfies this. The issues you have can be edited, and it doesn't need to be deleted to address these. - Rueben lys 12:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It might satisfy that, but it doesn't satisfy other parts of WP:Stub. Such as:
 * Will there be a significant number of existing stubs in this category? (Ideally, a newly-created stub type has 100-300 articles. In general, any new stub category should have a minimum of 60 articles.
 * Would your new stub type overlap with other stub types? (Stub types form a hierarchy and as such are usually split in specific ways. Compare other stub splits at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types).
 * Note also the comment relating to when new stub categories should be created: If you identify a group of stubs that do not fit an existing stub type, or if an existing stub category is growing very large.
 * INA stub fulfils none of these requirements. Grutness...wha?  23:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I came here based on this post. Before keeping this stub type, I think there needs to be a showing that the number of existing stubs in this category may at least reach 60 articles per stub numerosity and the showing does not need to be based on existing articles at . It is being used in some articles per Whatlinkshere, which may be a basis for projecting use in more than 60 articles. Also, at Stub, it states in large, red letters, Do NOT create new stub types before discussing them at Wikipedia: WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. That should be done now, even as this STfD is going on. Further, in view of Whatlinkshere, it wouldn't hurt to review WP:CANVASS. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 14:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that there are only 78 articles in and its subcategopries, and a considerable number of these are beyond stub size, it is extremely unlikely that there are currently 60 stubs on this subject. Grutness...wha?  23:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Could I just clarify, I was not aware that you had to discuss this before creating a stub. Nevertheless, still voting for keep.Rueben lys 14:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your vote will be duly logged, at such time as this becomes a vote. Alai 18:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is highly recommended to discuss new stub types before creating them, as it says in several places on WP:Stub. The reason for this is simple: the entire Wikipedia stub system fits within a well-defined hierarchy - creating stubs at random creates major difficulties for those who actually use the stubs, both as stub sorters and article editors; creating stub types without first checking their scope, probable size, and naming makes it difficult to keep consistency across the stub system; finally, creating stub types without consulting the people who actually use stub types - i.e., the stub sorting WikiProject - means that it is unlikely that these stub types will be used. We can't use them if we don't know about them, and it's difficult to use them if they don't conform to the same pattern as all the other stub types. If something is marked "highly recommended" on Wikipedia, it usually means that it's an extremely good idea and not doing so will create unseen problems and consequences. Like an SFD. Grutness...wha?  23:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - While I commend Reuben lys for his eagerness to categorize this important event in history, the more well documented American revolution does not have a stub category either. Perhaps a modified stub template can be kept, but all entries can be placed in Categroy:Indian military history stubs. Baka man  17:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per Nom--NAHID 19:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I am not very fussed if it is really breaking so many policies and rules. The reason it was created was because there didn't seem to be any stub template that satisfied a categorisation of this particular movement, which is a defining point in Indian as well as south east asian history, especially that during WW II. It seemed to clump everything together as "Indian History" where and does nothing to delineate any aspect that marks it out as something belonging either to the category of WW II or the Indian Independence Movement or History of south east asia, or Indian military or anything else for that matter. So, somebody who at all has any knowledge or expertise or anything at all to contribute will not recognise the article as belonging to any of these categories. But if it is still felt that this stub is unneccessary (which I strongly disagree with) and needs to be further discussed (which I do agree with), it would be acceptable to have a more thorough debate over this.

Also, without offence (honestly) I don't like the tone of the comment by Alai informing me my vote will be counted when it does come to vote. I am sure it doesn't meaning to be offensive and I'm sure probably blowing this out of proportion, but I have had extremely distasteful experiences of admins in the past behaving or talking like they have a higher or stronger right to edit or decide some courses of action over other users. Without being rude (or offending you Alai), I'd rather this did not happen here.Rueben lys 23:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Alai's comment was simply repeating the standard comment regarding process pages such as this one. People do not vote on these pages, as the result is not simply a stacking up of numbers on one side or the other. This is a discussion about the issue, and when it is concluded the vaious arguments raised are weighed up in the final decision taken. As for not hhaving a specific template, it is covered by the hardly over-taxed India-hist-stub, double-stubbed if required with WWII-stub. Grutness...wha?  01:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But that's my precise point, a number of these articles are not to do with Indian and WW II history only (or at all), they are to with the south east asian history, some of them to do with the war in Europe, or even the WW I or the time between the two wars. I am not sure these could be covered by double tagging with WWII and Indian history stubs.Rueben lys 10:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that you can have up to four stub templates on an article, it's very unlikely that any of the articles could not be effectively stubbed with the existing stub hierarchy. I've just looked at all 27 stubs currently in that category, and there isn't a single one that couldn't be covered effectively - and in several cases far more accurately - by other existing stub types. Grutness...wha?  12:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And remember that "regular" categories can be added to address the nuances. Cheers, Her Pegship  (tis herself) 15:16, 17 August 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.