Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/February/11

CAsia-studies-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 - to be honest - a peculiar one. At first glance, it's difficult to see how this would be different from a CAsia-stub, and it's only on closer look that it becomes clear that this is being used as a bio-stub type, mostly for academics whose area of expertise is Central Asia. As such, it cuts across such stub types as historian-stub, academic-stub, and their subtypes. Most of the few non bio-stubs this could take would naturally belong in the longstanding. It's worth noting that the parent permcat has fewer than 10 non-bio articles, and all of those, if stubs, would be well covered by the above combination. As to the parent stubcat, remerging this would leave it with a barely viable 65 stubs - definitely too few to even contemplate splitting. Delete. Grutness...wha?  10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry if this caught anyone by surprise. My thought was that a lot of the stubs in question had been previously Central Asian history stubs, which seemed inaccurate. I felt it would be helpful to have a distinction between articles/stubs about Central Asia history as opposed to those who study that history (but aren't really part of it themselves). As for the limited number of articles at the moment, the idea was that more articles would be created (there are quite of number of articles, including non-bio articles, which can be created on the subject). I was simply trying to make things more organized. As for the unproposed, guilty as charged (pleading ignorance - I've now discovered and read about the proposing process). If it really bothers people, I won't fight deletion, but knowing which Central Asia studies articles are stubs (as opposed to just throwing them into the mass of history stubs) seems helpful to me. That was all. Otebig (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Splitting historians by subject area as well as by their nationality strikes me as a good thing, but there hadn't been a good idea for how to make the stubs distinct from the *-historian-stub series. Merging them into a *-series-stub series of templates might work.  However, it does seem that there are too few at present identified for a CAsia-studies at present, but upmerging  to a new Asia-studies-stub /  seems quite viable, keeping the existing CAsia-studies-stub as an upmerged template feeding into both  and .  Europe-studies-stub and Africa-studies-stub would also seem worthwhile.  The Americas would prove a problem from the usual viewpoint of stub sorting, as the split there is clearly Latin America / Anglo America instead of our usual North America / South America, but a US-studies-stub /  would handle most of the distinction, leaving the remainder of the Americas to wait for now in an  that would be the logical parent of all these stubs. Consider all the above to be a comment for now. Caerwine Caer’s whines  19:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds plausible, though it does keep the problem as to whether it relates to people or other things. Most non bio-stub types can already be covered by other things (area history stubs, area politics stubs, and the like), and "X studies stubs" doesn't make it clear that it is being used primarily for people. The idea is a reasonable one, but it would need some tinkering with to name it, and unfortunately there is no such word as "Centralasiaologist". Perhaps rather than X-studies-stub, an X-scholar-stub for scholars concerned with particular regions would be a practical solution? Grutness...wha?  23:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Still being a stub novice, I'm not quite sure what to do next -- should I propose a Central Asia-scholar-stub? Otebig (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just started debate on a range of scholar-stub types on the proposal page at WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2008/February - feel free to add any comments there. Grutness...wha?  23:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Central Asian studies stubs. I think a Central Asian studies stub section makes much more sense than merging Central Asia into general historians or into Asian studies. Asia is larger on the map than Europe and the Americas combined and dividing it into regions only makes sense. There are a fair number of journals of Central Asian themes being published and it's a growing field of study, so keeping it separate is the right idea. Also, many academic departments combine Central Asia with Russia because of the historical connections, and lumping Central Asia with "Asian nations", whether it be China, Japan or S.E. Asia doesn't make much sense because the Central Asian states share more in common culturally, religiously and linguistically with the Middle East than they do with Asian nations. Central Asia is a distinct region, so let's keep it a distinct category.David Straub (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Um... have you read all of the comments above? If so, which stubs do you think - other than the bio stubs, types for which have been proposed to replace this - wouldn't fit more naturally into the current Central Asian history, Central Asian geography, Central Asian politics, or general Central Asian stub types? Grutness...wha?  05:07, 14 February 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.