Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/February/17

Geologic-formation-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. Non-admin close.

Created seemingly as part of the recent split of geology stubs - though this one was never proposed as part of that split and would be redundant to every other part of the split proposed. The proposal was for various regional geology stubs, to cover "Rock formations, cratons, hotspots, outcrops, faultlines, things like that.", as I noted at the time - and as was supported at the time. By splitting out geologic formations from this, it defeats the purpose of having regional-geology-stub cover them, especially as a large proportion of them will be subcategorised as regional geology from specific places. I'd suggest deleting this and continuing with the originally proposed split by region. Grutness...wha?  01:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Further note - several categories were also created at the time for what should have been upmerged templates which were listed as only having separate categories if they reached threshold. Unless the threshold is reached, these categories may also require listing here. Grutness...wha?  01:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems rather absurd, please see this list third item. Now after you digest that please either: wipe that list or delete this silliness. Or, maybe you-all don't want anyone outside some stub-clique messing with your turf. Now, sorry 'bout the bristlyness, but I find your note on my talk rather incivil. The geologic-formation-stub (that was on that list as approved or whatever) is a much more defined area ... and in my cruising through the first page of geology-stubs I restubbed more to that than to the regional stubs. Therefore as this was a proposed stub type from your list, this deletion notice is simply null and void as someone here hasn't kept tabs on existing (yeah rather old) proposals. Further, do I continue working on reducing the geology-stubs, or am I wasting my time? Apology expected. Vsmith (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Regional geology and stratigraphic formations are fundamentally different. Regional geology of some arbitrary area is about the entire geologic history of that area. Articles about geologic formations are about the specific rock units, and these can often be found in several regions. As an editor, having the two stub classes would help me to find articles that I would like to edit, depending on my expertise. This should be kept, in addition to the fact that it seems its reason for deletion is void. Awickert (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The note on Vsmith's talk page is a "canned" standard message; please don't expect an apology for it as G did not create the wording. The main reason there are old items on the to do list is that there is so much work to be done and so few to do it, which is also the reason for the seeming wonkiness of this project. I can't speak to the distinction between regional geology and geologic formation, so will reserve comment for now. And I do hope Vsmith and others will keep working on the geo stubs -- as I said, we're overworked even for gnomes. :) Pegship (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Reccomend a speedy keep, as this was an improper SFD. I have been working to reduce the geology-stubs - restubbed over 100. The disputed stub cat currently has 59 valid articles and I've only reached the letter I. Rather than drop a canned message, Grutness should have discussed his concerns. If you have subject matter savvy editors working to alleviate a backlog, it's adviseable to work with them to better understand the topic -- and geologic-formation-stubs are far more meaningful than regional-geology-stubs as pointed out above by another subject matter expert, Awickert. Vsmith (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's some background: the geologic formation type was proposed in June 2007, then placed on the to do list; an inquiry was made (by me) in September, asking how it should be formed. It's possible that this was forgotten (I gave up on it and moved on). Thus, this is not an "improper" or "silly" SfD, possibly just misinformed. Also, we do work with "subject-savvy editors" (of whom Grutness is one in the geology dept), which is why there's a process for proposing stub types, so these editors can comment and contribute. Lastly, this is not a discussion over which is more meaningful, but which is more needed in the organization of stubs. Pegship (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note geography is distinct from geology and savvy with geog does not mean savvy with geol. As to the meaningful vs organization ... organization w/out meaning makes no sense. Vsmith (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, as a well-educated librarian, I understand the difference between geology and geography. Pegship (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy keep, please, as per reasons above. Whatever the background of the category is, I edit plenty of geology articles and I find it useful, so there's one vote at least. Awickert (talk) 07:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OOOKAY. Let's get this straight. As far as I see it, the situation is as follows. Two years ago, a stub type was proposed and never created. Last month, a series of other stub types were proposed without me (the proposer) having any memory of the previous proposal. The two types - that proposed in 2007 and that proposed last month - oppose each other, in that anything stubbed with one would automatically be stubbed with one of the others, serving virtually the same purpose. As far as I see it, one of two things can happen: (a) delete this one and keep the ones proposed in January, or (b) keep this one and delete the ones proposed in January. Certainly there is no way in heave or earth that both types should exist, as they render each other redundant. In normal circumstances, any new stub type which crosses one already proposed and approved would instantly reopen the earlier type for reassessment. I do not know why this didn't happen in this case, but it definitely changes the playing field as far as the earlier proposal is concerned. Given that the newer proposal is a more widely scoped stub type and will more readily produce splittable numbers of stubs, I would suggest that it Would be the better stub type to keep. It would have been excellent if information about the earlier approved type had been mentioned when the newer proposal was made last month - if it had been, this whole business would never have arisen. As for "dropping a canned message", put that down partly to having 10 of the last 24 hours in hospital in extreme pain, and partly down to the fact that that is exactly what the message is for. As it is, I did add an extra paragraph to the message indicating why the geologic-formation-stub was counterproductive to the other stubs that had been made - this part was not a canned message, but was, rather, a wish to find out why it had been made. As such, and for all the other reasons mentioned above, I stick by my original call - this should be deleted, as the other stubs made at the same time render it of no worth to stub sorting. As to Awickert's comments, they are true, but geologic formations by their very nature are part of the regional geology of a specific area. You will note, for instance, that is a natural subcategory of  - i.e., a regional geology category. As such, they can and should be stubbed by an appropriate stub for whichever region they are located in. They may overlap several areas, as Awickert suggests, but they do that in a similar way, for example, to the way rivers and mountains may be part of the geography of more than one country. As always in these cases, the solution is multistubbing. It's certainly worth noting that a considerable proportion of those stubs which have been marked with geologic-formation-stub are only in one country, and the use of that stub template would probably prevent several potential category splits on a by-country level for the regional geology stub types. Grutness...wha?  07:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, G; again, I plead ignorance. I was under the impression that these two could coexist in harmony - i.e. geologic formation stubs for generic descriptions of types of formations, and regional geography geology stubs for formations in specific locations, thus I did not speak up in the January discussion. Pegship (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies for my editing under the influence of irritation above. However, the geologic-formations-stub is valid and helpful as noted above. Too bad I wasn't aware of it before - not a regular around here, back when I started a few stubs there was no work group, we just created what was obviously needed.
 * I see the two, geologic formation and regional geology stubs, as quite compatable with formations in one (could be stratigraphy-stub) and all other miscellaneous regional stubs in the regional geology stub cat. There should be plenty to reach your majic number of 60 for both. Now, the country specific stubs may fall short of that ... dunno yet. Not familiar with that 60 threshold or the reasons for it. Anyway, keep both the formation and the regional stubs as valid and helpful to editors adding content. The US, Canada and Aussie stubs - well wait to see how things develope. Vsmith (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A note for clarity. In the geologic-formation-stub, the formations to be included are the formally recognized stratigraphic units (be they groups, formations, members, ...) and not just any old pile of rocks that may be referred to informally as a rock formation. Not sure that the non-geologists in the audience are aware of the technical distinction. Vsmith (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep many thousands of stratigraphic units and geological formations exists and are well documented. Even if the proposal process was not rigorously followed, this stub type can be very useful, an can co-exist with stub sorting by region. --Qyd (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, finished pass through cat:geology-stubs, now down to 611 from about 900 stubs. The cat:geology-formations-stub now has 119 included stubs. Also the cat:regional-geology-stub has 109 stubs, the cat:US-geology-stub has 74 stubs, cat:Canada-geology-stub has only 24 stubs and the cat:Australia-geology-stub has only 17 included stubs. Seems the later two are a bit shy of the "60" figure I've seen around here. As mentioned above the inclusion of Canadian formation stubs w/in the Canadian-geology-stubs would have probably made it reach the "60"; however, there weren't nearly enough Australian formation stub articles to affect its outcome. Looks to me like the Canada and Australia-geology stubs should be upmerged as you-all say here into the regional-geology-stub cat pending creation of more articles fitting there. Regional-geology-stub, US-geology-stub and geologic-formation-stub are all valid stub cats with plenty of articles and potential for growth. Vsmith (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per Vsmith and Awickert. Black Tusk (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Can we close this already? --Qyd (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)