Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/January/12

Hero-of-Russia-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--Aervanath (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

An unproposed stub type, with a non-standard name (this is not a subtype of Of-Russia-stub). Also, similar types have either been deleted or opposed prior to creation in the past (ISTR Zscout390 proposing this particular stub type about two years back), since being awarded an honour isn't necessarily a good way to split stubs (it makes far more sense to split them by occupation, which is how country-bio-stubs are normally split). At the very least this needs a rename to Hero-Russia-stub or similar, but outridght deletion is also probably worth considering. Grutness...wha?  22:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't split by award so delete. Waacstats (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I am working on User:Russavia/Hero at the moment, in getting a complete list of all 750 Hero of the Russian Federation recipients onto WP. Every single one of these people is notable, and in many cases their notability comes from being given this title. And every single one of them has a story to tell, above and beyond the title they have received. Not all recipients are military personnel, and not all recipients are Russian -- there are Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Ukrainian and even American people who have had this award conferred upon them. As one can see from this list, a vast majority of these articles do not yet exist, however, this is changing. User:Ellol has created some stubs already, and in talking to him, he has said that he will be helping with creating more as time goes on. And I will also be doing so. Given that there is a massive amount of articles to be created on this single topic, with 750 articles in total, the stub type is absolutely valid. Stub types are there first and foremost to assist editors. Others may not agree, but for editors who wish to edit in this area, now and in the future, the stub type is absolutely essential in helping editors to identify which of these are stubs and need expanding. Usefulness to editors who are editing in this area is more important than any stub guidelines, which by the way does not state that we don't stub by awards, or anything else. How useful the stub type is to editors is the only factor which should be taken into account. Renaming to Hero-Russia-stub is fine, but I absolutely oppose deletion on the basis of wikibureaucratical nonsense. --Russavia Dialogue 13:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Definite keep There's a giant massive of information on Heroes of Russia, and it may well be supposed as this information gets introduced into Wikipedia, at some point there would be tens complete articles and hundreds stubs. A template for Heroes of Russia stubs (whatever the name of template) is quite essential because it will be vitally important to help the editors navigate across perhaps hundreds of articles. ellol (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That soubnds like every good reasons to have a WikiProject and associated talk page assessment systems in place. It's not, necessarily a good reason to have a stub template, and certainly not a good reason to have a stub template that crosses just about every category of Russian biography, nor to have one thaat sets a precedent for other astub types based on specific awards. Grutness...wha?  00:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Russavia and Ellol. KNewman (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support creation of permcat and/or assessment template; delete stub type per Grutness & Waacstats. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Grutness, Waacstats and stub sorters across the globe.--TM 02:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. While classifying people by award seems to be (and is!) a logical approach on its own, it is, however, simply not compatible with the way the stub sorting project works.  First of all, implementing a new stub type without first proposing it may fly when the logic is obvious and in line with the rest of the stub sorting scheme, but here we obviously have an example of a new stub type that, while logical in its own right, does not work well as a part of the big picture.  Second, we should not be forgetting that the stub sorting project covers the entire Wikipedia, and that it aims to facilitate the stub maintenance, not to serve as a parallel tool for the classification of articles (for that, we have categories, lists, assessment notes, etc.).  Finally, I should note that here we have a well-defined, fairly stable set of articles (750 of them).  While 750 is a large enough number to substantiate a category, a (properly defined) stub type, etc., we should not be forgetting that stub sorting is not a goal in itself.  Of 750 articles in scope, a great number of them are still red links.  Yes, this is changing, but if one is planning to work on this area, the number of the actual stubs will be changing as well as articles get expanded.  Surely the intent isn't to have 750 stubs forever?  They will grow, and at any given time only a certain subset of them is going to be sortable stubs.  In the meanwhile, classification of stubs using existing means (by occupation?) works just as well, without having to compromise the integrity of the stub sorting system.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:54, January 21, 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.

Manchester-hospital-stub &rarr; GreaterManchester-hospital-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 rename

One of those terrible right hand doesn't know what the left hand's doing things. Waay back when, this was a discovery - at GreaterManchester-health-stub. Back then, standard stub naming was "Manchester-x-stub", so it was renamed. Since then, we've changed all other stub types to "GreraterManchester-x-stub"...so this one needs to move again. Luckily it's only used on a handful of articles! Rename, preferably losing the redirect. Grutness...wha?  06:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename may be worth keeping original as redirect but not particularly fussed. Waacstats (talk) 11:03, 12 January 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.

Manchester-school-stub &rarr; GreaterManchester-school-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 rename

As above - standard is now to use "GreaterManchester-foo-stub". Rename, preferably losing the redirect. Grutness...wha?  07:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename may be worth keeping original as redirect but not particularly fussed. Waacstats (talk) 11:03, 12 January 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.