Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/March/14

Shannara-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 keep

Unproposed, no formatting in category, utterly unnecessary. The (unlinked) parent stubcat is in no need of splitting at present (fewer than 300 stubs), and the (unlinked) permcat has fewer than 120 articles, so there's a strong chance this wouldn't reach threshold. Delete. Grutness...wha?  23:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So truthfully, I had no idea that stubs had to be proposed... Delete and propose?  the_ ed17  19:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Better to debate it here - if the outcome is keep, it makes little sense to delete it just so that it can be remade. Most of the same people would be involved in the discussion in both places. Grutness...wha?  22:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, and don't re-propose. :) (Unless there's some strong argument to keep that I'm missing.)  Alai (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But is this category better to have than because of how specific it is? It may have only a few links, but is it really that bad to have a specific stub type? You would figure that someone looking for a Shannara stub to edit would like looking in a Shannara stub category rather than having to go through all of the fantasy stubs.... I dunno. You tell me.....Changing vote to neutral for now.  the_  ed17  18:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a deliberate threshold of 60 stub articles required before a stub category is made (as explained at WP:STUB - for more information of the reasons for this, User:Grutness/Stub_rationales provides some explanation. Grutness...wha?  23:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Category: Shannara stubs now has 60 articles...I went through and added articles that needed to be added... Take a look, tell me if I am wrong...  the_ ed17  20:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I glanced at some of these, on the basis of which it looks like you've on the one hand, tagged articles that were of medium length that were not previously tagged as stubs, or created very short articles, that presently will have a handful of "notability in fiction"-related tags slapped on them, by the several editors running riot with those at present. So, not ideal, no.  Alai (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the "medium length" articles had an intro with 5 sentences on what they did in the story! Eretria (Shannara character) is very short, but she is a major character in The Elfstones of Shannara, so she deserves her own article...and I still have to start Flick Ohmsford.  the_ ed17  22:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but lit-char-stub is more specific than Shannara-stub; people looking for Shannara articles would benefit more, I think, from a talk page template. This has the added advantage of putting an article in a category belonging to a WikiProject, which you could certainly form for the benefit of yourself & other Shannara aficionados. Therefore I suggest we delete this stub type. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 17:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look at this...if this has stub category, shouldn't Shannara, with a greater number of books in its series, have one too?  the_ed  17  19:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (outdent for sanity) Good point. OK, I can live with it for now. Take a look at WikiProject Media franchises and maybe you can create a Shannara sub-project; this would, I think, help your case and perhaps recruit some help. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 04:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is already a Shannara task force right here at WikiProject Novels...but then the problem: I think that I am the only regular contributor!  the_ed 17  15:09, 6 May 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.

Classical-music-stub /

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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

Unproposed, newly created stub type, already thoroughly covered by other stub types. The category might conceivably work as a parent-only container for the specific types for, example, classical compositions, classical albums, and classical musicians, but there is no indication there'd be any stubs that could use this that couldn't more effectively use one of the subtypes. As such, the template is redundant and should be deleted. Grutness...wha?  07:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Request for clarification: I am not sure I understand the concept of redundancy here. My understanding is that overlapping stubs are common. also multiple stubs on single articles. I see there are four classical music stubs already ('Classical composition', 'Classical album', 'Classical music group', 'Classical musician'), but they are obviously not appropriate for every classical music article (e.g. orchestras, publications and books, concert halls and managment etc etc.) Perhaps a less specific tag might be better? But this is my first time here - before I say keep or delete I'd like to understand the process (and its rationale) better. Thank you. Best. -- Kleinzach (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Multiple stubbing does exist, but so as to avoid excessive stubbing only the primary classifications of each article are used to identify stub types. If this wasn't done, there would be as many stub templates on articles as there are categories - in some cases dozens. A lot of editors complain when there are as many as two or three stub templates on an article, claiming they make the articles ugly. As such, an absolute maximum of four stub templtes per article is used, and where possible we strive for far less. In the examples you gave, orchestras are a form of classical music group, and are classified as such. Publications and books are classified as music book stubs and music publication stubs. Similarly concert halls are primarily identified as music venues (an important point in this case since a very small minority of classical music venues are only classical music venues, and are further divided by their location. Management would similarly be listed under music organisation stubs. Before new stub types are created, it is important to confirm that stubs could not currently be sorted successfully using other stub types, or that by doing so the number of stubs using a particular stub type would be so large as to make hunting for stubs difficult for editors (this is all explained at WP:STUB, along with the proposal procedure). Grutness...wha?  09:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep Stub proliferation is indeed a bad thing, but that is all the more reason to have ones that are broadly applicable. How are editors going to find out the 'correct' stub for concert halls as explained above? Only a stub expert would know! So that's decided! I am in favour of keeping the Classical-music-stub and deleting the strangely named (and doubtless little used) 'Classical album' and 'Classical music group' stubs. ('Classical composition' and 'Classical musician' are obviously worth keeping.) Thank you for the clarification. -- Kleinzach (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * and its sub-cats hold over 300 articles. has 80 and is growing. Non-"experts" can easily find these and other types on the master list of stub types. So that's decided. I don't have anything against, but please, let's avoid dismissing current guidelines summarily. Her Pegship  (tis herself)  15:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's slightly disingenuous. The subcats of (orchestras etc.) are obviously working fine. Anyway we are talking about stubs.  are surely a motley collection, no? (I don't think the word 'album' has been used for recordings since the LP era.) -- Kleinzach (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad; I meant to say, which does indeed contain over 300 articles (cumulative). And as long as iTunes uses the word "album" I think it is not dead yet. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 04:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While a hardcore minority of twits decided in the mid-80s that the term "album" was passe', and that such releases were henceforth "CDs" (a prime instance of confusing the medium and the message, or at least their respective importances), that's far from being the case. Witness WP's article on the topic being at album, the category hierarchy starting at, and the permcat parent of that stub type being .  So I think we can fairly safely say that the naming and scoping is not some quaint relic of WPSS practice.  Alai (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The usual English word is 'recording', but referring back to Pegship's point about iTunes, maybe it's still used for popular music? . . . -- Kleinzach (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you feel that the current category naming doesn't follow "usual English" usage in unpopular music circles, you should start off by proposing a rename of the permcat. The stub cat is clearly just following the rest of the hierarchy, and is amazingly unlikely to be changed without a rename further up.  (To which, for the record, I'd strongly opposed, on the basis of both consistency with the rest of the category tree, and actual "usual English".)  Alai (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I remember being a new editor here and having to spend 10 minutes trying to chase down the stub for a piece of classical music only to find there wasn't one and I had to categorise the stub myself. By having this stub we let new editors place the article under a broad category and other more experience editors can then change them. And believe me not every editor knows the stub categories inside out. Example? Broken consort is a music-related stub, so is Bruckner rhythm. Also thanks to this we have some dodgy categorisations eg. Händel-Werke-Verzeichnis listed as a composer-stub. Since when is catalogue a composer? Sometime on I also plan to split into  and . The two are very different areas of music and require wholly different knowledge to edit for. A classical composer is usually maintained by the classical music editors whereas bandleaders by other music genre editors. I have not heard of anyone who specialises in just classical conductors and bandleaders.  Centy  – [ reply ]•  contribs  – 16:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This sort of analysis/information would be very useful when stubs get split - it'd be great if you could join in any debates on the splitting of classical stubs when they occur at WP:WSS/P - I'd also ask you to propose any splits you consider, such as the bandleader/composer one, there so that they can get as much input from people involved in stub organisation. Stubs splitting always works more effectively when WSS and any specific WikiProjects related to the stub subjects work in collaboration (as we have done on classical music stub types in the past, come to think of it, when the current splits were set up). Grutness...wha?  01:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As supercilious in tone ("So that's decided!"?) and weakly-reasoned in content as I find the "keep" argu-votes, I'm not sure it's worth the candle to delete this. It's of some modest organisational value as a container, as Grutness notes, and it's just about possible that it'll see some use as a "between the cracks" type, so it might as well have a populating template, too.  If it turns into a dumping ground for people who can't be bothered looking up stub types, that's their own lookout, at least in the first instance.  (If I end up re-sorting 800+ of 'em, I shall be less than pleased, however.)  Alai (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you check the context you'll see "So that's decided!" meant (Thanks to the clarification provided) I've now determined my position. -- Kleinzach (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I found the several other instances of much the same tone more instructive context. Alai (talk) 02:37, 20 March 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.