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 rename category

Unproposed. There is a WikiProject for Omaha, but they appear not to have read {{ Wikiproject}} as regards stub types. No indication of the likely size of this category (and thus no indication that it will reach threshold), and also misnamed category (the parent is at Cat:Omaha, Nebraska, not Cat:Omaha). again, chances are that a talk-page banner template would suit the WikiProject better than a stub type anyway. Delete, or at the very least upmerge or rename. Grutness... wha? 23:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Keep. They have read the guidelines, and this stub type falls in line. As for the stub being unproposed, according to your guidelines this page is not for "Stub templates that were not approved by the WikiProject Stub sorting." The category was created today; it now has more than 50 articles in it, meeting that criteria; as for the naming convention I was following Chicago, Denver, London, Toronto, Vancouver, and Munich. There are several hundred Omaha articles and a talk-page banner will not suffice. • Freechild 'sup? 04:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Of those stubs you name, Cat:London stubs has Cat:London as a parent, so is not really relevant, similarly Cat:Munich stubs ( Cat:Munich), Cat:Vancouver stubs ( Cat:Vancouver, and Cat:Toronto stubs ( Cat:Toronto. You are right that botht he Chicago and Denver categorries also need changing, due to recent changes in the names of the respective permanent categories - and in the case of the Denver category there are other problems relating to size. I would certainly support any suggestion of bringing that category here. In any case, an argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a particularly good one. As to the guidelines for this page, you have only quoted part of the guideline you mention, which in full reads "Stub templates that were not approved by the WikiProject Stub sorting (again, unless other reasons apply)". Other reasons apply, as I explained above. I am curious though - why would a talk-page banner template not work for your wikiproject when it works much better than a stub template for others (including ones with many hundreds of articles)? Grutness... wha? 06:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I have already found at least one conversation on this page where you confronted another editor on the issue of city-specific stub sorting. Your logic between there and here fails to convince me that this issue is one of redundancy. Rather, its about how usable we're making WP. Simply relying on the talk page banner does not serve to compel the casual user to work on an article; rather, banners rely on folks who are ready to explore the site. The stub template compels users to go to work right then and there, and is therefore a powerful device that can encourage usability. Isn't that what WP is about? • Freechild 'sup? 15:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Which other city-stub would that be? Assuming that there is a blanket similarity between all city-specific stub types is incorrect, as circumstances vary from case to case. And yes, encouraging usability is a major aim of Wikipedia, which is why stub types already exist which would do just that - and all of the stubs you list as being Omaha stubs are already easily covered by other stub types which will do that. And all this still doesn't address the point that the category is incorrectly named. Grutness... wha? 00:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Scanning this page the other day I found a conversation b/w you and another editor in which you shared the same logic you presented in your proposal; in that you use the word, "again," alluding to previous instances in which you've made this argument. The variation I would ask you to consider is this: There are literally hundreds - if not a thousand - articles on WP related to Omaha. I will tag them extensively with a template simply named {{ Omaha-stub}}; I will likely not remember the un-easy-to-remember format of {{ OmahaNE-stub}} or w/e its renamed; I am sure there are others who agree the same, which probably led to the creation of {{ Chicago-stub}}, {{ Denver-stub}}, as I already mentioned; however, it probably also influenced {{ Austin-stub}}, {{ Atlanta-stub}}, {{ Houston-stub}}, {{ Jacksonville-stub}}, {{ Indianapolis-stub}}, {{ LosAngeles-stub}}, {{ NYC-stub}} and {{ NewOrleans-stub}}, as well. While I am very well familiar with policy about this type of comparison, I can't help but think a pattern of systemic bias is being projected in your commentary during this discussion; perhaps other perspectives are required to find a suitable resolution. • Freechild 'sup? 14:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Please read what I have written again, since you seem to have failed up until now. The category needs its name changed to Cat:Omaha, Nebraska stubs. The template name is fine, if it is to be kept. I have made no suggestion whatsoever of changing the name of the template. This is exactly the reason why Cat:Austin stubs was moved to Cat:Austin, Texas stubs and why Cat:Houston stubs was moved to Cat:Houston, Texas stubs. {{ NYC-stub}} is so named as an exception since newYorkk is used for New York state, and its category name ( Cat:New York City stubs) is, like the others I mentioned above, in line with its permcat parent ( Cat:New York City). The others also need changing to match the parent categories, but it is far simpler to catch new categories before anyone starts filling them, or - in the best case scenario, to advise on the correct name when the stub type is proposed (as would have happened if this type had been proposed). There is a very strong bias that is less systemic than systematic - the bias is to make the stub category names match the permanent category names as closely as possible - no more than that, and no less. Any bias in the naming of the stub categories is thus a result of the naming conventions for permanent categories, so I suggest you vent your anger there, not here. And wafting an "I found a converrsation which I won't now point out where you used one word which I may or may not be using in context" is even more flimsy that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Chances are my reference to "again" simply meant "yet again someone has created a stub type without seeing whether it meets standard stub criteria (scope, naming, size, format, hierarchy considerations, or any of a dozen other possible faiults)". Grutness... wha? 02:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Please remain civil Grutness; questioning my reading comprehension and suggesting I am "angry" does not build consensus or the project - we're on the same team here. Now that you have differentiated your position by declaring that you're simply talking about the cat name I can see where you are heading. However, you did name the discussion after the template, and in your opening salvo you did suggest the template be replaced by the talk-page banner. I am largely indifferent about the category name; however, I do stand by my concerns regarding the usability of the template, if you are still wanting to nix/change it. To clarify, please rename the cat if that is what you're seeking; if you still want to modify the template let's have a civil conversation about it. • Freechild 'sup? 04:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I will remain civil if you do - and would have done so if you hadn't unwarrantedly started accusing me of systemic bias (hardly a civil action on your part) - an accusation based on a clear misperception of what I was proposing. The reason why the template was listed as well is that it is standard practice on this page to list both, especially when it is unclear whether a stub template is the best solution to the problem. Given that the template is being used primarily in association with an Omaha WikiProject, it would make sense if a talk page banner were used instead. I am still unclear why your wikiproject would prefer a stub template when most prefer a talk page banner, but it is your prerogative to decide which is best for your purposes. Given that that was a possibility, you may note that my original proposal was either to delete it or to rename the category, rather than an out-and-out call for deletiuon. The category is the main cause of concern, however, and would need to be changed even if the decision is to keep the template. Grutness... wha? 22:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It appears to me - still - that the pattern established by the evidence I've submitted previously does expose systemic bias towards smaller cities that, according to the arguments you have presented throughout this conversation, should not use the stub template the way it is used in {{ Omaha-stub}}. However, rather than continue this conversation to inanity, I would be gratified if you could simply follow the thoughts of the following editors and close this conversation. • Freechild 'sup? 22:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I would close it, but given that I was the nominator, it's better to leave it to someone else. As to me following the thoghts of the following editors, you might like to note that both of them have commented that their !vote is per my original suggestion, so me following them would be a little recursive. Grutness... wha? 01:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The 7-day discussion period will close on May 10; it seems prudent to give it the full 7 before closing. Her Pegship (tis herself) 13:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep conditional that unproposed stubs don't automatically have to be deleted. The stub is already placed on about 60 articles; who knows but that there might be a bit more. Rename the category in line with Grutness' arguments: it's not like the article is named "Omaha". Nyttend ( talk) 04:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename category to "Omaha, Nebraska" as originally proposed. Her Pegship (tis herself) 13:45, 6 May 2008 (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.

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

Unproposed, and convolutedly-worded, even were it not the case that we don't split football stubs on whether players have played internationally (we split by year of birth and position played). Splitting by two axes is complicated enough - splitting by a third is thoroughly unnecessary. Delete. Grutness... wha? 23:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I am gradually creating articles for all the England players on List of England international footballers (alphabetical). My aim is that the biographies should be as full as I can make them using as many sources as I can find, both in books and on the web. The fact that a player was red-linked on the list indicated articles that were still required. Recently, however, other users have been creating stub articles for players on the list. Consequently, I can no longer use the list as a quick reference to articles still required, so I created the stub type and added it to newly created stubs to give me a point of reference. You can compare the standard of article by looking at (say) Walter Alsford and Claude Ashton. If this causes a problem to you, then delete it; in which case I will create a list in my user space of articles requiring expansion.

As for the name of the stub, I don't see that it's particularly convoluted - as the slogan goes, "It does what it says on the can." Daemonic Kangaroo ( talk) 04:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Creation of new articles doesn't mitigate against the fact that stubs on footballers are sorted primarily by nationality and then by age and position, not by whether a player played internationally or not. There is already a very full and thorough stub system for English footballers, and there is no need for this new stub type. Grutness... wha? 06:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The stub system may be "full and thorough" but is it useful? What are the stub templates actually for? I assumed that they were to aid editors to look for articles which they can review and expand, not an end in themselves. As an editor who likes to create/expand articles, if I were looking for an area for expansion, I would not look in Category:English football defender, 1960s birth stubs. The only connection between articles in this stub category are the decade of birth and approximate playing position. The stub category I created would group together all stub articles for English footballers who played for their country. To me that is useful and IMO there is a need for it. If it enhances the WP project and does not cause a problem, why are you so keen to get rid of it? Daemonic Kangaroo ( talk) 09:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo ( talk) 10:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Indeed, the stub templates are for just that purpose. And surely it is much more likely that editors willd have far more of an idea of football from a particular era in general than simply either know those players who have or have not appeared internationally. I know, for example, that my own expertise in football-related articles would be for players who played in the 1960s to 1980s, irrespective of whether they ever won national honours. Surely it is natural that the first things that an editor would know about a player is when and in what position they played. The stub system is organised the way it is for two purposes: firstly, to make it easy to find articles about a particular subject readily (which the current stubs on football do), and secondly to form a system that is not so complex that it is impossible to keep readily organised. For that purpose, splitting off stubs is done on specific axes, and the fewer axes the better. In general, splits are only done on one or at most two comprehensive axes (that is, subdivisions in which it is possible to place all articles), though in the case of football stubs and one or two others which have high numbers of stubs a third axis was necessary. Through discussion with editors working on football articles, it became clear that the most natural axes to split on were nationality, position and era. Your new stub introduces a fourth axis, and one which is an incomplete axis - the only possible way of completing this axis would be to have a "English footballers who never competed internationally stubs" category. Three axes is complex enough for editors to be ablee to find articles to work on readily, and is already very complex for stub sorting to be effective. A fourth axis is too much, and is unnecessary. As it says in the guidelines at WP:STUB: Would your new stub type overlap with other stub types? (Stub types form a hierarchy and as such are usually split in specific ways). Grutness... wha? 00:44, 5 May 2008 (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.