Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/February/24

TexasTech-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 template and upmerge category to, per Pegship's suggestion. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Unproposed, and unnecessary. Tertiary institutions in the US are divided for the purpose of stub sorting - except in very rare circumstances - by location. We have Texas-university-stub for that purpose, and it's hardly overstretched. In this case there seems to be the same old confusion in the creators mind as to whether this is for stubbing or assessment - it links with a Stub-Class Assessment category (and as such should not have a stub template, but instead should have a talk page assessment template - which would probably be far more appropriate). Delete, and point creator of this towards Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Grutness...wha?  00:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Now appears to have gained a category,, despiote no indications of its size. If the consensus is to keep the template, ti will need upmerging. Grutness...wha?  22:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that was created along with the stub. I was just unsure about the overall structure. Hence the reversion of my own edits in its regard. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sorry about it being uproposed. Sometimes I forget how rule-oriented Wikipedia is. I do have a question, though. If it is appropriate to delete the template, is it also appropriate to delete ? If so, that is fine, I will nominate it. If not, please explain to me the difference so I can bring TexasTech-stub up to the same standard. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good question. UTexas-stub was deleted at one point, then was later proposed and accepted once it was shown that it had enough stubs to support a stand-alone stub category (60 stubs). Given the size of the parent permanent category for the university, there's no indication that the same would be true for Texas Tech, especially given that alumni would not normally get a university stub, and neither would sportspeople. Grutness...wha?  22:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I only bring up the UTexas-stub because it was the inspiration and model for the TexasTech-stub. Category:University of Texas at Austin stubs is full of alumni and sportspeople. In fact, over 2/3 of the articles are biographical stubs. Like the University of Texas at Austin, Texas Tech has both a portal and a WikiProject. Additionally, Texas Tech University is a feautred article. There are currently 93 stubs associated with the project. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * CommentHowdy. As someone who recently created a Texas A&M version of this template, and spent over an hour putting our new template on several pages, I honestly, think I have a middle ground.  all three universities have wikiprojects, with most of our pages ranked in wikiproject 1.0, I can understand why a second stub category with the exact same pages really does not make much sense. I do understand the value of having something on the bottom of the page.  As wikipedia editors, we sometimes forget that the vast majority of wikipedia viewers are not editors, and they do not check the talk page.  A blurb of text on the actual article that says, this page is editable, and please help expand it, could encourage people who ordinarily would not edit wikipedia pages to pitch in.  I propose merging the TAMU, Texas, and Tech, stub article templates.  A lot more like Texas-sports-venue-stub. The super category created would not be duplicate of the individial Wikiproject's wikipedia 1.0 stub categories, and it could include universities in Texas that do not have wikiprojects. Thus, we would have the advertisement to help pitch in on our pages, and not have three categories that are pretty much duplicates of wikiproject 1.0 categories. Thoughts? Oldag07 (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How about creating, tucking under it, and upmerging the TexasTech & TexasAM types to it? This would create a spot for all the Texas-inclined editors to find the school of their choice. Pegship (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not be opposed to that. However, I would be interested to have the University of Texas at Austin folks weigh in since their stub was first. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge per WordBuilder and OldAg07. — BQZip01 —  talk 21:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, and/or merge along the lines of the suggestion.  The proliferation of these on bios is not a good sign, though;  stubs wouldn't normally be sorted on such a basis, and using in that manner strikes me as the sort of arbitrary "things this particular WPJ is interested in" scoping that works better for talk-page templates and categories.  (Bios whose primary notability relates to a given institution are fine, but "is a grad from"/"played football" articles are not.)  Alai (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)`


 * Commnent: I just noticed the stub . I think it would be appropriate to combine into this the three universities mentioned here (Texas Tech, Texas A&M, and University of Texas) as well as other such schools in the state. I only support this if it is all-or-none, as I see no reason for any of the schools to have their own stub if the other schools are not allowed to. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and agree that this type of classification should be handled via talk page templates and assessment categories. I share Alai's concern about stub tagging of biographies on the basis of person by university attended or person by employer ("coached football for"). –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 20:24, 15 June 2009 (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.