Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/May/13


 * 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 keep, upmerge

Delete. Author requests immediate deletion. As pointed out, there is already a which is just dandy for database-software-related articles. At this point, the author does not intend to make use of this stub to categorize the potentially hundreds of database-related articles. Considering no one else has organized these articles properly up to this point, there's no expectation that anyone else will do this at this time. Therefore the stub is moot. This no longer concerns me. SqlPac 21:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * weak keep. As the nominator points out, there are potentially quite a large number of stubs that this could be used on. The fact that no-one has subdivided them further than they already are is not an indication that they should not be split further - neither is the fact that the creator of the template does not intend to use the template him/herself any indication that it could not be useful to others. There would be nothing wrong in keeping this at least as an upmerged template, as suggested at WP:WSS/D. Grutness...wha?  01:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * strong delete. The fact that no one has bothered to properly categorize these articles to date, and the fact that they exist in the nether regions of Wikipedia, unable to recruit or attract subject matter experts to give them the attention they deserve is a very strong indication that this stub is not needed anyway.  Currently many of these items are categorized (in some cases mis-categorized) under a wide variety of stub types.  AFAIC, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  Also, this template was created in support of the previously proposed Database Project; a proposal I am planning to withdraw ASAP.  As was pointed out as WP:WSS/D, the stub was created only in support of this project; and since the project proposal is about to be withdrawn, there is no reason to keep this stub.  Further, this stub was not proposed in full and total compliance with all the rules and regulations (signed in triplicate) as required by Wikipedia and the stakeholders of its various projects.  As pointed out by the stub sorters, the mere existence of this stub causes many problems for editors, stub sorters, and the Wikipowers-that-be.  To eliminate all potential problems, grief, and heartache, this stub should be abolished from existence immediately.  Be Afraid!  SqlPac 03:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Stub types aren't automatically tied to subject-specific wikiprojects - they are for use across the whole of wikipedia. Having a wikiproject dedicated to a particular subject is irrelevvant when it comes to whether or not a particular stub type is useful. The only difference with having a wikiproject is that it changes the requirements prior to having a stub category. It's interesting that you claim that many of these articles are uncategorised or incorrectly categorised, then in the next sentence say that things ain't broke. Grutness...wha?  05:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Many of the articles are uncategorised or incorrectly categorised. The vast majority have been that way since they were created, or shortly thereafter.  Saying "things ain't broke" does not mean that I think this is how it should be.  It's a simple acceptance of the fact that Wikipedia makes it much, much easier to just maintain the status quo and "go with the flow" than to try to do anything about it.  If the fact that many of the articles were uncategorised or incorrectly categorised were of any consequence, one would think that some entrenched Wiki-crat, who knows how to navigate this thing without stepping on everyone's toes, would have already said it was "broke".  Further, one would think that someone would have submitted all the required forms, etc., to have it fixed.  SqlPac 17:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, I like how you sidestepped the other facts I pointed out: 1) That the stub type was created outside of the Bureacracy, without the full approval of everyone who needs to bless it, an argument which should sound vaguely familiar to you. As you pointed out on the WP:WSS/D page and previously on my talk page, this stub simply makes life harder for editors, stub sorters, and all the other moving parts of the machine.  Deleting it should make life easier for a lot of people.  2) The fact that no one has seen a need for this stub to date might be a strong indication that it's just not necessary.  Regardless of what I think, you and Her Pegship  (tis herself)  do whatever you feel needs to be done.  So long as we understand this has nothing to do with me anymore; I've no interest. SqlPac 17:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep despite nom's tantrums, per potential use as described by Grut. I think the Librarian WikiProject might make some use of this. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 14:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I simply pointed out why I felt it should be removed - nothing more, nothing less. I do not understand all of the Wikipedia Bureaucracy, nor do I care to.  But I would like to thank you so much for the personal attack, Her Pegship  (tis herself) .  It's so very much appreciated Her Pegship  (tis herself) . SqlPac 18:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure SqlPac is a lovely person who's having a bad day, but it's still a tantrum, unsigned user. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 18:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And I'm sure that Her Pegship  (tis herself) is a wonderful person doesn't go around personally attacking everyone she disagrees with.  As I have said, this subject, this discussion, and the wonderful people involved really don't hold any interest for me.  So you have yourself a wonderful rest of the day Her Pegship  (tis herself) . SqlPac 18:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Gosh, maybe if it doesn't concern you, you should quit checking this page for comments and let others get on with the work. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 23:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This thread and the preceding one have been very annoying to observe. SqlPac, you really should begin to assume good faith from the people around here. Being bold does not mean "Be reckless". Creating a template takes 10 seconds, and applying it to articles takes minutes, but deleting a template normally takes a full 7 days. This is why we try to get things right from the start. Why bother? Because Wikipedia uses thousands of different stub templates, so in order to allow such a big system to function effectively, we try to keep them a bit organized since this is the only way to allow editors and stub sorters to guess the names and scopes of the different templates. The stub templates are used on more than 200,000 articles - some say 400,000 articles, and had this naming / scoping system not been enforced this would not be possible. The completely unregulated system has been tried in the past and it didn't work, which is why this project came into existence. Have a nice day. Valentinian T / C 23:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There seems to be about 25 articles in that are under  (and largely not in "software" catst, either).  Could be a lot more, uncatted or undercatted.  Keep template and upmerge if it remains small, and create cat if/when it passes 60 (or given the subcat, even 30-40 for that matter).  Alai 11:38, 19 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.