Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/December/25

Central Asian archaeology 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 template renamed (no redirect) and upmerged

Never proposed (creator helpfully commented out the warning telling him not to create the stub type without proposal!). Only eight stubs, and as for the template name... I'd have no objection to an upmerged CAsia-archaeology-stub, but the current name is sub-sub-standard and should be deleted, an the category is unlikely to get to the required threshold in the near future. Grutness...wha?  04:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think an upmerged CAsia-archaeology-stub would be the best option; there are already a couple of by-continent upmerged templates in Cat:Archaeology stubs. I agree that the current naming is way off and should be deleted. Dana boomer (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2010 (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.

BS-geo-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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Unproposed, and if it had been, it would almost certainly have been rejected. We don't split geography stubs by seas, unless the areas designated by the articles are in international waters (in which case, we use Marine-geo-stub). All of the articles marked with BS-geo-stub are already correctly marked with their national stub types, or - in one case - by the correct subnational types. If the other national types needed splitting further, then - like with all other similar types - they would also be done by subnational regions. What's more, the template name is not only non-standard, but distinctly misleading (BS is the ISO code for the Bahamas, and other than that could mean any of many things or places - the Black Sea isn't even offered as a potential option on the dab page!). At the very least the current template needs renaming (with deletion of the current name) but given that it is a thoroughly non-standard andd unnecessary split, it would be far better to delete both it and the category were deleted completely. Grutness...wha?  10:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hallo! Why not to organise the stub for different seas? After all, we have different stub for each country. Also, we have Category:Black Sea, so why not to have stub? -- User:Ykvach 19:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All the stubs there are for specific seas are, as I said, already organised by their national jurisdictions except in those cases where the locations are in international waters. Given that in general terms editors are far more likely to work on geography stubs relating to a specific country, it makes perfect sense. If a stub is created for each sea as well, then it will simply be doubling up the number of templates on articles for little practical use.. Editors who are interested on working on specific subjects such as a particular sea are far more likely to be members of a WikiProject dedicated to that subject - and WikiProjects use banner templates rather than stub templates, as they are more versatile for their use. Grutness...wha?  21:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I agree with Grutness. Having separate stub categories by-sea and by-country makes little sense, as you end up with double the stub tags and little to no extra value. Dana boomer (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2010 (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.