February 15

Category:Georgian cuisine stubs

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 both

Double upmerge as underpopulated (permcat has 26 stubs); if kept, then rename to Cat:Georgian (country) cuisine stubs per other stub categories for this country. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support upmerge. There are two other cuisine categories which are seriously undersized and at least one of them (Cat:Armenian cuisine stubs) may need the same treatment (the other, Spain, is probably easily populable). Grutness...wha? 22:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

((Old West-stub)) / Cat:American Old West stubs and ((Old West-bio-stub)) / Cat:American Old West biography stubs

The result of the discussion was Keep American Old West stubs, upmerge the bio stubs into it. Change name of both templates

We seem to have acquired a couple of new unproposed stub types, both with faultily-named templates. No objection to keeping either - but at corrected names (((OldWest-stub)) and ((OldWest-bio-stub)), deleting current names, per standard naming conventions). The bio category may need upmerging, since both categories are undersized and only just reach 60 stubs between them. Grutness...wha? 22:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support suggested change. Waacstats (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support template rename, Oppose category deletion. I'm a new member of the project -- let's get a consensus on the template so we can lose the deletion notice. No worries on the upmerging because I'll be working on stubbing. --Hutcher (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The upmergiong is the only deletion being proposed - so you seem to be both opposing and supporting it...? Grutness...wha? 23:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support template rename and Oppose category deletion, per Hutcher. Furthermore, I thought it was policy for every stub template to have an automatically-linking category? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is policy for every stub category to have a category attached, but there isn't necessarily a one-to-one relation between the two. Many stub categories are upmerged into more general stub categories if they are only used on a small number of stubs ("small", for stub-sorting purposes being under 60). Grutness...wha? 23:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support template rename, Oppose category deletion per Hutcher and Wilhelmina Will. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 19:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support template rename, Oppose category deletion. Size of a category is relevant if the topic is not high traffic. Well-trodden topics like this one have potential for growth each.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, and general stub sorting rules are that once a topic template gets a significant number of stubs it gains its own category. So consolidating at the moment, while numbers are small, does not preclude splitting out a separate category again if numbers increase. Grutness...wha? 23:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support template rename, Oppose category deletion per reasons listed above.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support template rename and support consolidation in general. I think we can merge the stub cats, though I can see how that might cause confusion within the main (non-stub) cats. I also don't care deeply about the category merge, though when in doubt, I tend to prefer consolidation of small ones. However, 60 is enough to split, I'd feel differently if we were talking fewer than 10. Montanabw^(talk) 19:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Support template rename; Oppose category deletion. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment - please note, those of you !voting "oppose" to the deletion of Cat:American Old West stubs, that I have not proposed it for deletion, and have only listed it here because of its connection with the stub templates listed. The proposal is to rename both templates and consolidate them into the AOW stub category, upmerging the bio category until such time as there are enough stubs for it to be viable in its own right. An AOW-specific stub type would still exist under this proposal. Grutness...wha? 23:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ah, understood... regarding the categories at least. With regards to the templates, are you suggesting that these stub templates be merged, and then have their particular template pages deleted, instead of simply redirected to where they were merged? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, both templates would remain, but they'd both put stubs into the same category (the bio one would probably also be linked with the US people stubs category). Grutness...wha? 05:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Consolidation of stub categories into more general parent stub categories if they are small. Easier to find them all in one place if someone actually wants to expand stubs. I hate going through a dozen nested cats with three articles each. So whatever the actual proposal is, here is where I'm coming from! (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 05:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense - and is exactly the reason why WP:WSS has a threshold, so that there aren't hundreds of tiny two-stub categories to keep track of! Grutness...wha? 05:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grutness, now I fully understand what you propose and I Support your 05:59, 5 March 2011 comment. It makes sense; it's the right way to go. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]