Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 19: Difference between revisions

====[[:Category:Stub templates]]====

:[[:Category:Stub templates]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Stub_templates&action=edit edit] | [[Category talk:Stub templates|talk]] | [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Stub_templates&action=history history] | [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/:Category:Stub_templates&limit=999 links] | [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=%3ACategory%3AStub+templates logs]) — ([[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_19#Category:Stub_templates|CfD]])

The article was ''speedy deleted'' while I was editing the [[Category talk:Stub templates]] even with though there was a <nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki> message placed by its creator. See that talk page for reasons to reconsider. [[User:Robin Hood|Robin des Bois &#9816;]] &#10163; [[User talk:Robin Hood | &#9993;]] 23:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Overturn'''. The first speedy made sense, empty for 4 days is indeed a criterion for speedy deletion. But you can't speedy something for reposting of deleted material unless said material went through the respective XfD discussion. Especially when it was speedied because nothing was IN it, because maybe there will be things put in. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small>^{[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]}_{[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]}</small> 23:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

**'''Comment.''' <s>FYI, the page could not have been empty for 4 days, since it was created on 17 November 2006. I keep track of the pages I create and there was three template pages put in the this category right after it was created. ''See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Bio-stub&oldid=88379678 this history entry] for proof.''</s> The Speedy deletion message was posted '''today''' as was a note informing me of it in my talk page. I just had the time to put the <nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki> message (as suggested in the deletion template) so I have the time to explain myself. Why all that rush? This is very frustrating for users that want to improve the WP and try follow the procedures. I keep getting the same arguments on the fact that the category was previously deleted. Again, please do read [[Category talk:Stub templates|my own reasons]] for creating the page and tell me why my own arguments are not valid instead of bringing back references on an old debate that was held by '''3 users'''. I did my homework, please be kind and follow proper procedures. [[User:Robin Hood|Robin des Bois &#9816;]] &#10163; [[User talk:Robin Hood | &#9993;]] 00:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

***'''Comment''' The first deletion was back in March 2006, by a different user. That is the one that was done for being an empty category. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 02:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

****'''Comment''' OH!.. My mistake. Thanks for clearing that up. It's pretty hard to tell since the history is deleted with the article. ;-) [[User:Robin Hood|Robin des Bois &#9816;]] &#10163; [[User talk:Robin Hood | &#9993;]] 03:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

*****'''Comment''' This is where the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Category%3AStub+templates deletion log] comes in handy ;) --[[User:Sherool|Sherool]] <span style="font-size:75%">[[User talk:Sherool|(talk)]]</span> 06:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

**'''Comment''' - the respective XfD discussion can be found [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_1#Category:Stub_templates|here]] - I've modified the header of this debate to reflect that. <strong>[[User:Martinp23|M]][[User:Martinp23/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]][[User_talk:Martinp23|rtinp23]]</strong> 11:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Overturn''' per [[WP:CCC]]. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 08:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Defer''' to [[WP:SFD]] and [[WP:WPSS]]. ([[User_talk:Radiant!|<font color="orange">Radiant</font>]]) 09:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

**'''Comment''' I'm not sure it should go there. It's neither a stub type nor a stub category. It's a template category. Of course, it will probably borrow some of the stub sorting structure (if too many stub templates share the same cat.) so it ''might'' be discussed in [[WP:WPSS]], but I'm sure it would create more confusion if we treat it as a stub. Is there a discussion page for template categories ? [[User:Robin Hood|Robin des Bois &#9816;]] &#10163; [[User talk:Robin Hood | &#9993;]] 13:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

*<s>'''Overturn'''</s>: [[WP:CSD#C1]] does not apply in this case: "Empty categories (no articles or subcategories for at least four days) '''whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories'''." (emphasis mine). I do not think this is a case where [[WP:IAR]] applies, as there is no obvious improvement in deleting this category. [[User talk:Tizio|Tizio]] 14:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

**'''Comment''' - In this case, the category was deleted first as a CfD from [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_1#Category:Stub_templates|here]] and later, by me as a receation of deleted material. It seems that, after the CfD, the category was deleted by a different admin, for being empty, only making it harder to investigate (!) <strong>[[User:Martinp23|M]][[User:Martinp23/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]][[User_talk:Martinp23|rtinp23]]</strong> 11:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

***If this is the rationale for deletion, '''endorse''' [[User talk:Tizio|Tizio]] 08:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse deletion''' per Martinp23. Though the the speedies have different rationales, each was accurate, given the CfD now provided. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 18:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Relist''' on CfD, per [[WP:CCC]] this deserves a second hearing. The previous CfD (2 voters) is not a convincing demonstration of consensus. The category in question ''seems'' like a perfectly valid part of the template-category scheme, and frankly the arguments against it are difficult to make sense of. -- [[User:Visviva|Visviva]] 11:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment'''. The idea of having a category for stub templates was debated at length early this year by [[WP:WSS]] - back then it was deemed to be a bad idea - IIRC the reasoning was that it's already hard enough to keep track of new templates being created and it was thought that having a category listing them in this way would not only duplicate the WP-maintained list [[WP:WSS/ST]], which allows far more information than a category would, but would also encourage greater creation of templates without some form of vetting process first. Also, since all stub categories are subcategories of a specific parent category, and all stub templates automatically are linked to a stub category, it was deemed to be redundant for that reason as well. In any case, during the debate (again IIRC), someone created a category but it was never used, and as such it was deleted as empty and unwanted. The deletion log should show an earlier deletion in about March or April of 2006. As such, a new creation of it was probably speedied as a re-creation of a deleted category. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 04:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse deletion'''. I don't doubt that this category was made in good faith, but the system of stub templates is complicated enough as it is, and last time anything like this was attempted, it received a rather negative response. It is also a recurring problem for WP:WSS that stub templates tend to "grow" in size when other users add noinclude sections etc., whilst most stub sorters try to keep the code as short and "lean" as possible. We already have {{cl|Stub categories}} which refers to the corresponding stub categories and we have [[WP:WSS/ST]] which lists all WP:WSS-approved categories and stub templates (I guess this list covers around 98% of all existing categories. The number of non-approved templates is very low). I'm afraid we could end up with a lot of extra work without apparent benefit and a risk that editors begin simply to add a template to this category rather than listing it on WP:WSS/ST which I consider superior, given the extra information on this page (number of articles and the stub tree structure). So we could end up with somebody having to spend time on regular cross-referencing list and category. This time could be better spent sorting stubs, hence my vote. [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] ^{[[User_talk:Valentinian|(talk)]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|(contribs)]]} 11:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)