Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/December/8

San Francisco-stub/redlink

 * 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 '''rename template. Note that category may need renaming to, but that will need a separate nomination'''

This one's been around for three months and has gained about a dozen stubs in that time - and it's needed a rename since day one. Worse, many of the stubs seem to be bio-stubs, which shouldn't have a locational template other than for nationality. If it can be populated, it needs renaming to SanFrancisco-stub, along with a category. If not, there's no point in having it. Grutness...wha?  10:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This should be combined with the SFBay Area stub below. Benjiboi 21:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No it shouldn't. A Frisco stub is useful to sorters who don't know and don't care what exactly constitutes the SFBA.  An SFBA stub is only useful to specialists already familiar with the SFBA and as such should be considered only if  was getting too large to manage save by such a specialist oriented split.  isn't getting too large at present, though it was in need of a thorough sorting which I have been doing. Caerwine Caer’s whines  23:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I give up, you can wikilawyer circles around anything I say so do whatever you want. Sorry i bothered to offer any insight here. Benjiboi 23:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename and make the category. I know it's marginal in size after I finished sorting, but it should grow to a reasonable size soon enough once it has a standard name for people to find. Caerwine Caer’s whines  03:27, 12 December 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.

San Francisco Bay Area-stub (upmerged)

 * 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. seems to no longer be in use, anyway'''

By strange coincidence, this one was created hours after I nominated the previous one. Seems to have been cut and pasted from California-stub, with all links still as with that template (including interwikis). Even worse than the previous, naming wise, and with a more ambivalent scope. If the one above this is plausible, this one certainly isn't. Delete. Grutness...wha?  23:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This actually is more inclusive than San Francisco-alone stub although I understand the misunderstandings. The 9 counties of the SF/Bay Area are quite interlinked and starting projects for San Jose, Oakland, Marin and dozens of other cities/areas does seem premature. Also similar to New York City, SF is landlocked so people and events specific to the city also have strong ties to the communities across the bridge with folks often moving from one to another or working in one while living in another. Also disagree that bios shouldn't be included as people often are tied to a specific city, is that really a problem? Benjiboi 21:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It depends on how tied people are to a locale. If a person's notability is limited to just that area then it may make sense, but except for politicians, few people are so limited, even if that is where they have always lived.  To take a hypothetical example, Bill Gates would not warrant a Washington-stub if his article was a stub article. As for the comparison with NYC, we have an NYC-stub, but we don't have one that includes the area beyond the five boroughs.  Stub sorting isn't intended to be a complete categorization scheme, just a way to get things into small enough yet easily comprehendable bits to enable casual sorters not tied to a particular project to bring articles to the attention of more knowledgeable editors.  An SFBA stub, while it might work well for people focused on the SFBA as a whole, would fail at being useful for the stub sorters who have no idea what constitutes the SFBA and no easy way to determine it.  isn't large enough to need an arbitrary split just yet.  Its at 262 stubs right now and I'm in the middle of sorting them (to help see if the SF and LA stubs are worth keeping) and expect that it'll be down to a 1 page category when I'm through. Besides, talk page templates, such as SFBAProject are better suited for keeping track of articles of interest to Wikiprojects. Caerwine Caer’s whines  23:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I give up, you can wikilawyer circles around anything I say so do whatever you want. Sorry i bothered to offer any insight here. Benjiboi 23:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of very good practical reasons for the way stub categories are arranged, as far as such things as size and split are concerned. It isn't "wikilawyering" - it's simply ensuring that the stub types have the maximum possible usefulness for the minimum possible number of stub types and minimum possible number of templates/categories per article. It's been fairly thoroughly established that the easiest size of category for editors to hunt through is between about 60 and 600 stubs. It's also not very useful to split a stub category into types that will have an "everything else" type (which is why US states are generally split by counties - and also generally split by all counties simultaneously). With other circumstances,w here there is a specific interest group working on articles, then Caerwine's suggestion of a WikiProject-specific talk page template is by far the most practical and useful mapproach - it can be used to assess all articles, not just stubs, that relate to a WikiProject. As far as bio-stubs are concerned, most people are not specifically tied to one city or ever one state - if they are notable, they are usually notable primarily for their occupation and nationality, and many people live in several different places within the course of their lifetime. It's the same with sports teams. We don't have stub templates for players for a particular sports team because chances are we'd have to tag some articles with six or seven different templates - it's far more sensible to stub them by a variable that will likely only have one template needed, like field position or decade of birth. Grutness...wha?  00:42, 12 December 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.

Los Angeles-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 '''rename template. Note that category may need renaming to, but that will need a separatee nomination'''

Also created today, equally badly named (it would be LosAngeles-stub if it were needed), and also created with links as California-stub. Worse, many of the stubs seem to be bio-stubs, which shouldn't have a locational template other than for nationality. Either rename and populate it properly, or delete. Grutness...wha?  23:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I can agree to the naming thing, fair cop to that, and i must admit I was oblivious to the whole stub proposal scheme, fair cop to that to, but i have to say, that a Los Angeles stub was needed as the only one that was closely related to an LA stub was about LA geography or particular neighbourhoods. Not Really useful when its not related to the article. (♠  Taifar  ious1  ♠) 00:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A LosAngeles-stub is probably a reasonable idea, though it shouldstay upmerged until we know it's reached the normal splitting threshold (there's certainly no sign yet of the 60 stubs that it would need for that, though for a city the size of LA, it shouldn't take much effort). Grutness...wha?  01:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone created a category for this stub as well. I've been going through   and doing a manual restubbing (including using this stub and San Francisco-stub.  (Not bothering with the Bay Area stub as California stubs was not in sufficient need of pruning as to make such a potentially ambiguous stub necessary.)  Looks like the two city stubs will be large enough to warrant keeping correctly named versions as upmerged stubs, but until someone goes trolling through the sub categories of California stubs, I can't see either stub being large enough to warrant a stub category of its own. Caerwine Caer’s whines  09:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Rename and keep the category. I know it's marginal in size after I finished sorting, but it should grow to a reasonable size soon enough once it has a standard name for people to find. We might wish to make the scope be the county rather than just the city. It's likely to get a number of false positives from the county anyway, and the increased scope isn't that much of a problem. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would certainly favour scoping templates by county, since that's how the geos work. It would also faciliate upmerging and later splitting of the somewhat-nebulous Areas and Regions.  Alai (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Has anyone looked here WikiProject Southern California? --evrik (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2008 (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.