Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/March/26

Universalforumofculures-stub (redlink)

 * 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

About as useless a stub type as imaginable - no parent permcat, and only about four articles which are about this forum, only one of which is a stub. Pointless. Delete. Grutness...wha?  23:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And unused, so speedy delete. Alai (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And misspelt too. Delete. Stifle (talk) 23:54, 29 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.

LGBT-bio-stub (upmerged)

 * 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 but reword to clarify scope (see Severo's comment at the end of this discussion)

Though I can see the rationale behind this one, it's not in line with normal stub-splitting practice, and is too wide a scope to be of much use. This stub type is not for people specifically associated with LGBT activism (if it was, then there might be less of a problem) - it's for LGBT people in general - people who would normally be split by either occupation or nationality. Splitting by sexual preference strikes me as an unhelpful method of sorting these articles, and one which will simply add an extra template to the bottom of the articles. There'd be no doubt this could reach threshold, given that it's likely that 5-10% of all bio-stubs could qualify for this template - itsm practicality, however, is severely limited. Either rescope to cover only LGBT activists, or delete. Grutness...wha?  02:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - There already is a different stub type for activists. My thinking in creating this template is that there are a lot of biography articles in the LGBT Studies project, and the main stub template we use LGBT-stub gets used for biographies, but does not not seem very appropriate for them. I created this one, and we were discussing it at WT:LGBT. Aleta  Sing 02:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: We separate literature stubs from writer stubs. It makes sense to have a separate stub for LGBT bios.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * All discussion on new stub templates should take place at WP:WSS/P, as is stated at WP:STUB. It sounds like what you need is a talk-page banner assessment template, rather than a stub template. Grutness...wha?  03:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We've had a talk-page banner with assessment, so, no, that was not my aim. :) It was, as I said before, an attempt at having a more appropriately worded stub template than we had for biography articles. I realize now that the process of my introduction of a new stub type was incorrect. Aleta  Sing 03:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think as long as the template is used to tag people who are notable in terms of LGBT issues I don't see to much of a problem. If it was used on people just because they were/are LGBT then there would be a problem. Waacstats (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That is my main concern. If it is simply used for people notable in terms of LGBT issues, then there's far less of a problem - as long as it is used to supplement rather than replace nationality and profession stub types. Grutness...wha?  00:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly never intended it as a replacement for nationality or profession stub types... only as a replacement for one saying "LGBT issues" on biographies. Aleta  Sing 01:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep. It would make managing LGBT biography articles much easier. It is not "too wide to be useful": the fact that it would be used on many LGBT bios means it will be helpful. It seems utterly appropriate that editors with an interest in LGBT people & issues have a way to easily identify and contribute to articles where a person's LGBT-ness is relevant enough to be mentioned. Queerudite (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Aleta; it would help the project AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. My hunch is that it will help the project and the LGBT crew, myself included, have had to be vigilant about who is tagged in the project and how. Please note as well that the LGBT tag indicates a bio is of interest to the project not that the person themself is automatically deemed to be LGBT. Banji <u style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">boi 14:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong rescope to include only people directly notable in relation to LGBT identity or issues, and absolutely not simply on the basis of people's personal orientation (season wording to taste, but carefully). Otherwise, delete as utterly inappropriate in its present form.  Alai (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Based on the way ethnicity stubs are used for bio pages, I disagree with the need to rescope. Bios are commonly stubbed (and WikiProjected) based on ethnic identity and national origin even when those categories are only vaguely relevant. I think the tag is fine for anyone who identified as gay, even if they are important for other reasons. Aristophanes68 (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment "utterly inappropriate"? You're acting like it's an insult. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is utterly inappropriate from a stub-sorting point of view in its current form. The aim of stub-sorting is to divide stubs into small, useful categories for editors specialised in specific areas of research. Nationality is of very great importance when it comes to finding editors who can help edit articles - which is a basic purpose of stub-sorting - as is occupation or field of interest. Researchers from, say, Moldova are more likely to know about Moldovans, editors who are interested in physics are more likely to know about physicists. Editors whose knowledge of LGBT matters are strong may well be able to assist with articles about people well-known within the field of LGBT activism, but are not necessarily particularly likely to be more or less able to help with articles about people who are simply gay, say, but not in any other way connected with LGBT issues. And creating a stub type that could conceivably be used on 10% or so of all bio-stubs- i.e., tens of thousands of articles - is not anyone's idea of "small useful categories". A stub type for LGBT activists is fine - and one already exists. A banner template for people covered by the LGBT WikiProject is also fine - and one of those already exists too. This is redundant to those two to a large extent, and isn't really much help on its own merits. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying but I don't fully agree, those who have knowledge of LGBT issues and concerns on wikipedia actually would be able to assist even if the parent category LGBT bio stub were quite large; I could see further refining it (kinda) if the goal is to sort down to smaller groupings by adding parameters if someone is intersex/transgender; bisexual-related; lesbian; I could also see having "activism" although that would seem an awfully large category so I wonder if coupled with other stubs like LGBT bios from United States and then sort that by our traditional L/G/B/T might make any sense. Other parameters could be sorting by year of birth and whether they are living or not. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banji <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">boi  02:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on the comparison you've made, if it's true that they're being used in such a way, I equally strongly believe that "ethnic" stub types should also be so (re)scoped -- if they have to exist at all, about which I've been consistentlyextremely skeptical about (see the archives). Wikipedia is way too fond of vaguely-defined and utterly non-notable interpretations of ethnicity as categorisation, the last thing we need to be doing is start turning them into stub message in the article-space too, and then moving on to do the same thing with sexual orientation.  If you want an open-ended "tracking" resource, please use a talk-page template, and don't hijack stub templates for such a purpose.  If the "owning" project is going to insist on applying it in such a manner, then strong delete.  Alai (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what LGBTProject is for. Indeed, for all of the arguments above (AgnosticPreachersKid, Banjiboi) that state it should be kept because it is of interest to the LGBT project, that is what your project banner is for. SeveroTC 22:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Such as say, Wikiproject templates, say? "Issues" is one thing, but I'm highly skeptical of the value of facilitating editors whose only common point of interest with a number of different subjects is on the basis of sexual orientation.  I'm fairly convinced this is yet another nail in the coffin of keeping stub types on a more systematic basis than the grab-bag that exists in talk-page templates and categories (just as in this "discussion", people have already cited the highly problematic precedent of tagging people by ethnic identity as a basis for keeping this type).  Just how open-ended are we planning on making article-space bannerising people by non-notable attributes?  Alai (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Rescope – could be useful for people who derive their notability through LGBT issues. It should not be used on a biography where LGBT issues are not the main notability of the subject. SeveroTC 22:13, 1 April 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.