Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/January/20

South-Australia-protected-area-stub &rarr; SouthAustralia-protected-area-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 and upmerge

The category is very small and was never proposed, but it may be worth keeping. However, the template is not named in accordance with the naming guidelines. This isn't for anywhere in the South of Australia, it's for the single entity, South Australia, and as such the name should be CamelCase and unhyphenated. Grutness...wha?  22:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Likely to be somewhat populable, there seems to be about 34 possibles, on the basis of the last db dump. Oh wait, stubsense!  ... very similar.  Upmerge and rename.  Alai 02:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to SouthAustralia-...-stub for consistency. Should the "middle bit" be protected-area, protectedarea, ProtectedArea or something else? --Scott Davis Talk 06:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * -protected-area-, on the admittedly hazy basis that "protected" is kinda-sorta a type of "area" (not that we actually have -area-stubs...), rather than being a proper name or other strictly atomic descriptor. Alai 07:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Further checking reveals 1) most articles currently tagged Australia-protected-area-stub are South Australian 2) Navbox Protected areas of South Australia suggests there can never be more than 50 of these stubs, so they might as well be double-stubbed as Australia-protected-area-stub (currently 10 plus this cat and two well-populated subcats for Qld and NSW) and SouthAustralia-geo-stub (currently 276 - mostly towns). The navbox can be used to find them. I change my choice to upmerge to Australia-protected-area-stub --Scott Davis Talk 07:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like pretty robust logic to me. I've tagged  for upmerger, for sunshine clause purposes.  Alai 08:13, 21 January 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.


 * 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 upmerge

Very small, hasn't grown appreciably since it was last considered, upmerge to both parents, neither of which will feel the strain. Alai 04:22, 20 January 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.

Chess-opening-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 deferred upmerge

Never proposed, only about a dozen stubs, incorrectly capitalised category - and its logical parent, only has about 150 articles. Clearly not needed. Delete Grutness...wha?  01:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Upmerge, to be kind, no fundamental problem with the template. Could conceivably grow a lot, but seems unlikely to be any time soon.  Alai 04:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If you go down list of chess openings, you will find quite a few other stubs, and there are probably ones that don't have links on that list. Almost all of these were started by one person several months ago. I don't think he still edits. A couple of months ago on the chess WikiProject, it was suggested that we do something one way or the other (either expand or merge back), but nothing has happened. Bubba73 (talk), 16:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There are dozens of articles that should be in this stub but aren't. To name a few:
 * 1) Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 7...O-O
 * 2) Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 9.Bc4
 * 3) Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 12.h4
 * 4) Sicilian, Sozin, 7.Be3
 * 5) Sicilian, Najdorf, 7...Be7 Main line, etc.
 * Well, if we keep the template, point it back at the parent, and delete the separate category, we keep the former option open for later, without losing the tagging effort. Alai 20:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd support that for an idea. If it grows considerably, there's n othing to stop it getting its own category later - but it's far too small for now. Grutness...wha?  02:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Should I go and add chess opening stubs to it? As I mentioned, the short chess opening articles may go away, but right now nothing is being done.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that as the nominator is going for the idea of keeping the template, using it is a pretty safe bet. Alai 06:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I went through and made a quick judgement about ones I think should be added to this stub category. I probably made a few errors in both directions (inclusion and exclusion).  Now there are about 75 articles in it.  But the big question remains: what to do about these articles.  Several months ago an editer wanted to make an article about each of the 500 ECO codes.  On the Chess Wikiproject, that was generally thought to be a bad idea, but nothing has been done about it.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I probably made more errors of inclusion than exclusion. Some of the ones I put as a stub have 3 or 4 paragraphs, and that may be all that needs to be said.  But most are only 1 or 2 paragraphs. Bubba73 (talk), 17:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Tagging them pro temps might be useful if, as you say, the merger question is still an open one. I'd imagine the Chess project is in a better position to make a determination on that than us chickens.  All other things being equal, 3 or 4 paragraphs on a not-very-major topic probably isn't a "stub" per se, though.  Alai 19:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I probably included a few 3-4 paragraph articles as stubs that are really sufficient for the topic. Most were 1 or 2 paragraphs, though.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking very quickly though these, I'd be inclined towards the merge camp: I think it's rather telling that many of these aren't named lines, but are instead being indentified by move variation.  One or two have outright terrible names, such as QGD; Slav, 4.Nc3 (my chess is just about good enough to work out what that meant, despite the lack of a wikilink to the jargonistic abbreviation, but I think it's very practice).  Would that be a reasonable principle:  merge to a "named" variation article, unless and until such an article becomes so large that summary style/article size argues for a further split?  Alai 05:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm a member of the chess project, and people seemed to agree that merging was best, but no one has done it. Here are ones I put as stubs which are close calls: Benko's Opening, King's Pawn Game, King's Knight Opening, Old Indian Defense, Ware Opening. I think that probably all of the ones that are currently stubs that are a subvariation of an opening (often identified by a move rather than a name) should be merged. Bubba73 (talk), 05:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And with perhaps a few exceptions, any of the stubs started by WTHarvey should be merged. He is the one that wanted every one of the 500 ECO codes to have its own article.  When it first came up to delete some of those, I was against it - before I saw that there were broader articles that could handle them better.  Then I became for merge back.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually it might have been "Sim man" that wanted to add all 500 ECO codes. He was adding them by code number (I just stubbed 3 of them).  WTHarvey was adding them by the opening name and a variation name or move.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Bubba, what sort of number of stubs would you expect on openings if merging is done? If it's a fairly small number, then keeping the template but upmerging it into the main Chess stubs category would probably be the more logical move, even if there seem to be quite a number of stubs at the moment. It would be good to have someone from WP Chess who is able to answer this - I must confess that if it's anything less well known that the Sicilian defence or Giucco (sp?) piano, I will never have heard of it. Grutness...wha?  06:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There are currently 79 articles in the stub. I think merging back would get rid of 57 of them - mainly all of the ones that start "Ruy Lopez", "Sicilian", etc. That would leave about 22.   Bubba73 (talk), 15:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I put a notice on the chess project. That should get more members over here.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, when I (wrongly) put this up, and it was then immediatly put up for deletion, I thought that it would be deleted instantly and all stubs would be put back into the chess stub category. But someone goes and makes the number of stubs at 79 and suddenly I remember why I created it. Because there are so many chess opening articles that are too short. I myself think that the best thing to do with them is with the Ruy Lopez and Sicilian openings, merge them (or just delete the article in some cases, they already have subsections on those articles). I think most of them won't expand past stub anyway. Once a lot of them have been merged, then it probably would be safe to say its worth deleting this stub category. At least the awareness of these articles has been raised by my big mistake of making this category. Cream147 21:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Should we defer deletion of the category until the merging and deletion of the articles is complete? Or would you guys be OK with working from an upmerged template? Alai 07:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd imagine it would be a lot easier working from the category, and then upmerging once it's sorted out. Wait for someone else to say something though. Cream147 10:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Another thing about all these articles is that from the point of view of someone who doesn't know algebraic chess notation, all of these articles look very strange and wouldn't make any sense. On the openings that do survive this mass merging/deleting, isn't it worth linking to algebraic chess notation somewhere throughout each of the articles? Cream147 10:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right about that. With all of those small articles, each one would need to have a lot of redundant information (link to algebraic notation, etc).  Bubba73 (talk), 14:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would be slightly easier to keep this stub until the 57 or so articles I mentioned get dealt with. It would be easier to find the list of them.  However, it would not be much more difficult to pick them out from the general chess stub list.  As far as keeping this stub - I don't feel strongly one way or the other.  I happened to see that it was up for deletion (on the basis of few members) and I knew that there were dozens of articles that should go in it.  What I do care about is what should be done about all of these small articles, and I favor merging them back into the larger articles, or deleting them if they don't contain any information that isn't in the larger articles.  I wish the rest of the Chess Project would take this own (perhaps divide up the effort) so it doesn't all fall on a few people.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't mind deferring this somewhat, but I'd prefer not to do so open-endedly, as then chances of it then being overlooked entirely start to increase. If it's not be upmerged at all, it needs renamed, but it's a bit pointless to do that, and then upmerge shortly afterwards.  What say I wait a week, and then upmerge?  Alai 23:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll put a message on the chess project page, and see if anyone will get interested into working on the little articles, WikiProject Chess. Bubba73 (talk), 03:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the stub type: for the moment (with 79 entries) we can keep it for now until we empty most of it. I agree with Bubba that a lot of these entries should be merged (or just redirected) to an article further down in the chess opening tree; the articles on sub-sub-variations of the Sicilian are probably the most glaring example. (Note: With the Sicilian being a giant in chess opening literature, I have no problem with individual articles on major variations, e.g. Sicilian Najdorf or Sicilian Dragon). Some months back I boldly gave the merge/redirect treatment to a number of small Nimzo-Indian variations and would support giving that treatment to more of these stubs. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I get the general idea, what I was hoping for was specifics on the timescale. Absent which...  I'll check back in a week.  Alai 17:25, 29 January 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.

Georgia (country)-hist-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

This had five pages in it, two of which weren't stubs and two of which were bio-stubs - which only leaves a user talk page! only has 105 articles, so is definitely not in need of splitting, and there's no point in this remaining because both the template and category are incorrectly named. I've no objection to an upmerged and correctly named Georgia-hist-stub, but the current template and category should be deleted. Grutness...wha?  01:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Alai 04:22, 20 January 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.