Category talk:Stub templates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Deletion of this category

I visited all pages linked to this category. It seems to me that the debate was short (arguments have a ten-days span) and just a few people in favor for deletion took part of the decision. Prove me wrong, but a debate for a matter of such repercussion should not have been done so quick and underground. It was only mentioned in the VfD page, but no mention of anything on stub template categories has made the Village pump archives, or at least none that I could find.

The reason I created the category was a logical one. Stub templates had no categories. Templates are not stubs, therefore they should not be treated the same way. I don't necessarily wish to start the debate again or go against a general consensus, but it's deplorable that one of the arguments against the category was the maintenance. Have we gotten lazy? I know that going through every stub template is a tremendous job. But as was suggested in one archive of the Stub sorting project, wouldn't it be easy for a bot to search the existing stub templates and simply add <noinclude>[[Category:{{PAGENAME}} template]]</noinclude> or something similar? Technically, if every new article is read at least once by an admin or an old timer, would it be too much to manually add the same clause in new stub templates?

The other argument expressing that having categories for stub templates is useless since it is a duplication of the WP:WSS/ST page. I didn't know there was such a page. Useful page it sure is, but one has to know its existence to really make it useful. And I've been around WP for quite a while now. I can imagine that newbies may have a hard time finding the stub templates if they don't know where to look. Why do you think there has been so many attempts to create this category even after its deletion in March 2006? It has been asked for by some users to whom was merely answered that "opinion was pretty strongly against it". I fail to see how three people in a debate can speak strongly for the rest of the users. Simply responding the same way to people who want this category is ignoring the need for it. How many times will there be attempts to categorize the stub templates before we reconsider the matter?

Let's be practical. The reason for categories is precisely to provide a way to easily reach an article without searching for a list that might contain it. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel. I'm merely trying to use it with something else. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 20:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Categorization is neccessary. Categories and their articles are usefull because they point each other. But having the <noinclude> tag makes the link one-directional, therefore using categories is not appropriate.
  • Having one list vs. multiple categories: maintenance. If someone create Template:Сашка Васева songs - early period - stub and include it into Category:Bulgaria, Category:Bulgarian artists, Category:Beautiful creatures, Category:Esotheric and Category:Nuclear physics:
    • Will not add it to the protected list page.
    • Will wreak 5 categories (at will).

I agree: Let's be practical.--Kind regards,Петър Петров 12:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The noinclude tag serves only to place the stub template in a stub template category. It was a suggestion, but since there are more stub categories than stub templates, the classification of the stubs templates might be easier than we think. Of course, the template also needs an includeonly tag that will place all stub articles in their respective stub categories. I still fail to see why the hierachy of stub template became so heavy. Having categories for stub templates is NOT a problem in itself. The example given by Петър Петров does not apply. People will create weird categories weither no not the stub template exists. So the argument is really not relevant. -- Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 02:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
This category has now been listed at CFD for a second time, to see if consensus has in fact changed since March. Please see that discussion for a centralized debate on the merits of recreating this category (which has been undeleted for the duration of that discussion). -- nae'blis 19:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/u/Category_talk%7EStub_templates_08ca.html"