Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/May/1

Greater Colombia-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. The template is incorrectly named, and stubs are - with a very few exceptions - split by current nation-state, not by former states. Currently only used on one stub, and I have strong doubts about whether this would reach the threshold level of 60 stubs. What's more, there is no permcat parent. There is nothing here which could not better be served either by a Ecuador, Venezuela, Colombia or Panama stub, or by SouthAm-hist-stub. Grutness...wha?  23:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment well I think the southam-hist-stub is too general (is there a template:northam-hist-stub? NO), if you check what links to that template you'll see hundreds of unsorted articles. Why do you need to tag a single article with three or four stub templates, when one can do the work of those four? (and its category actually links directly to the present-day countries) Greater Colombia was formed by the three countries, but it should be treated as a country, as what it actually was. I think its own template will classify stubs from that period better. My apologies that I didn't propose it, but I would like to know what you think about this to go throught the right chanels or simply delete it. -- I am greener than you! (Lima - Charlie - Over) 01:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are only three countries in north america and each has significant numbers of history stubs. There are far fewer than threshold for most individual South American countries, hence the obviation of grouping. As to your "hundreds of stubs", there are seventy-two - only a little over the threshold for a stub category, and certainly far too few to consider splitting. Grutness...wha?  02:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * just to make my point, should we delete this template: and use instead the Russia-stub?? they eventually will become complete articles, what happens after there are no longer 60 stubs? delete the template? is that number some type of wikipedia guideline? -- I am greener than you!  (Lima - Charlie - Over) 04:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, there are many stubs for the Soviet Union (about 360 - five times as many as for South American history as a whole), and the country had far greater global significance, existed for far longer, and covered a far greater number of countries. If necessary, and stub dealing with the whole of greater Colombia could have all the individual country stubs added with no ill effects. Having fifteen separate stub templates (one for each country) for anything dealing with the Soviet Union as a whole would be a major setback. As to what happens when there are no longer 60 stubs, the template gets upmerged into a larger category - as has happened with some stub templates. In practice, however, since Wikipedia is constantly expanding, the number of stubs in a stub category rarely decreases - for every ten expanded, more than ten new ones get added in. Grutness...wha?  02:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * M.m., for every ten expanded, thirty new ones... Alai 15:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add - to address your question about the number of articles, to quote Stub: 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.).
 * Where are these hundreds of unsorted articles? And do they relate to the history of Greater Columbia as an entity, or would this be relating to the individual histories of its components?  (Soviet-stub is used on the former only, and not the latter, which is why we have it.)  Alai 05:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that isn't much over threshold itself, delete, pending evidence of this alleged stub-berg of articles relating to the history of GC, during its twelve year existence.  Alai 06:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too little material. Valentinian T / C 00:42, 3 May 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.