Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2012/February/24

ChesapeakeVA-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 discussion was upmerge all. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Upmerge-only 9 entries. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I've been cleaning up, which is listed under . When I started the other day, Virginia geography stubs had over 800 pages. Now it's down to 213. Several of subcategories, which already had stubs, have less than 10 pages. If we upmerge all those, it makes the category overpopulated. I've seen this in other categories elsewhere: one party deems a category "polluted" or "overpopulated," while another party says the subcategories are too small to warrant their own sub. Not sure what the solution is, but it does seem contradictory. Thoughts? Cheers. Encycloshave (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete category, upmerge template. Nowhere near threshold, and a clutch of underpopulated categories is not any easier to navigate than an overpopulated category. SeveroTC 16:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how a "clutch of underpopulated categories" is difficult to navigate. Say we delete all the underpopulated categories in Virginia geography stubs and bring the parent category to over 800 pages. Say I'm looking for stubs related to Chesapeake, Virginia. With 9 related pages, how is it easier to sift through 800 plus links? Wouldn't it be easier to locate the subcategory titled City of Chesapeake? What am I missing? I understand the threshold and that it is a guideline, which is how I understood Wikipedia worked. Deleting a subcategory in very large parent category, simply for the sake of adhering to rule seems contradict one of the pillars of Wikipedia. If in fact we delete this and the rest of the "underpopulated" categories in Virginia geography stubs, then it would make sense to remove verylargestub. After all, to remove these subcategories would be to prohibit the recommendation, "Subcategories may be helpful for browsing."
 * Bear in mind, I didn't create these stubs. I merely came across the category by following "See Category:Overpopulated stub categories (verylargestub)" on the Stub sorting project's To do page. Someone on Wikipedia has deemed certain categories as overpopulated, but perhaps the left hand and right hand should get together and see what is more important: reducing large categories or maintaining unrealistically high thresholds. Cheers! Encycloshave (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the 60 threshold is troublesome for overpopulated categories for which the natural next split is into many smaller divisions, but I think under 10 is getting a bit extreme. If we did that everywhere the stub system would become both too hard to maintain and pretty useless.
 * Compromise: There are 18 of the 58 subcategories of which have less than 10 items, totalling about 100 articles. Upmerging these 18 would only take the parent back to about 300, which is not considered oversized. Most other undersized subcats have 30+, and while still under the usual threshold, are at least useful navigationally and may yet grow given time. --Qetuth (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that would be a good compromise, though we might want to hold off on that. As I pointed, a few region-oriented subcategories have been created. I think that would make it easier, assuming the reader/editor knows which area of the state a given county is located. We could provide a map such as the one provide in, or this one File:Virginia counties and cities.gif. The only snag with regions is how do decide the divisions. The existing regional subcategories follow different systems: Smithsonian definitions and , which is is based on various independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encycloshave (talk • contribs) 14:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on this map (found in the Northern Viriginia geography category), I proposed regional categories, completing the split that had been previously started. Please share your comments on the Proposal page as to whether this split is acceptable.  If the proposal is accepted, these tiny categories would no longer be needed.  Templates could upmerge to the regions with no threat (at this time) of overpopulating the region categories. Dawynn (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that we have usable regional subdivisions, we need no longer fear flooding the parent categories by upmerging. I would suggest deleting all of these categories with less than 30 tagged articles:
 * (7 P)
 * (8 P)
 * (8 P)
 * (8 P)
 * (9 P)
 * (9 P)
 * (9 P)
 * (9 P)
 * (10 P)
 * (11 P)
 * (12 P)
 * (12 P)
 * (16 P)
 * (19 P)
 * (22 P)
 * (22 P)
 * (25 P)
 * Dawynn (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2012 (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.