The result of the debate was delete all
Ok, I take it all back, massive apologies to all, I entirely boo-booed, please delete all the below, put the pages back into
Category:Ancient Rome stubs, and we'll start from a clean slate - or rather, I'll stay clear of stub categories for a while as I may now have stub-o-phobia! In lieu of those, I've instituted a list of the topics that suggested themselves to me at
User:Neddyseagoon/Topics within Ancient Rome stubs, which keeps them all in the 'Ancient Rome stubs' category rather than my sub-categories, but makes it a bit easier to pick one's own interests out from the main list in the category - hope this will be a solution that is to everyone's satisfaction.
User|Neddyseagoon 22:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
Ancient-Rome-stub and its category are not severely oversized,fuck yet User:Neddyseagoon seems to have taken it upon himself to split it into a large number of completely unnecessary subcategories, all of which need severe work and preferably removal. Grutness... wha? 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
As to being harsh, when you split off the new categories, you added in the instructions for what to do to propose new categories - instructions which you ignored in doing so. If you had been ignorant of the procedures, then it would have been more understandable -but the instructions were there and you tacitly acknowledged that by copying them across. Under those circumstances, this isn't harsh at all. Grutness... wha? 22:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I'll now explain what I was trying (albeit in a very imperfect manner) to do , under each sub-head. And whenever you say 'underpopulated', bear in mind that they were all at the embryonic stage and would have been much fuller had I got further through reclassifying the Ancient Rome stubs into them. User|Neddyseagoon 18:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
One of (two of) the more egregious attempts at stub types I've seen in my time working at WP:WSS. Where to start?
These need to be deleted, quickly and thoroughly. Grutness... wha? 23:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply
While we're at it, there's this problem. There was an attempt to at least partially fix this unproposed stub type, which was reverted. It would have only been a temporary fix anyway. The template is an arch-stub, that is, an architectural feature or style stub, yet the category says that it is for buildings. In fact, it's for buildings and structures, and should be so named if kept, and the template should be Ancient-Rome-struct-stub. BUT again, buildings and structures are categorised by present day location, not by whichever civilisation built them, and as such this should be deleted.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a combination of country-struct-stub and Ancient-Rome-stub for these items, in the same way as is done with other buildings and structures built by other civilisations. Grutness... wha? 23:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Never proposed, severely undersized, and duplicates Cat:Ancient Roman mythology stubs. Delete. Grutness... wha? 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Five stubs only, never proposed, and everything in it is better dealt with in other stub categories. Hideously big icon, too. Delete. Grutness... wha? 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Severely undersized, never proposed, and fallaciously named. None of these are Roman ethnic groups. They are ethnic groups that lived at the time of the Ancient Roman civilisation and were described by them. Only the Latini and the Romans themselves could really be considered "Roman ethnic groups". Delete. Grutness... wha? 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Severely undersized, never proposed, you know the routine by now. Delete. Grutness... wha? 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Again, never proposed, severely undersized. Seems to erroneously suggest that all literature in Latin is from Ancient Rome (tell that to the Catholics). Delete Grutness... wha? 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Missed one - as above, undersized (six stubs), unproposed... everything here could go into the hardly-bulging ancient Rome battle or military stub categories - this one is completely unnecessary. Delete. Grutness... wha? 01:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete all
Ok, I take it all back, massive apologies to all, I entirely boo-booed, please delete all the below, put the pages back into
Category:Ancient Rome stubs, and we'll start from a clean slate - or rather, I'll stay clear of stub categories for a while as I may now have stub-o-phobia! In lieu of those, I've instituted a list of the topics that suggested themselves to me at
User:Neddyseagoon/Topics within Ancient Rome stubs, which keeps them all in the 'Ancient Rome stubs' category rather than my sub-categories, but makes it a bit easier to pick one's own interests out from the main list in the category - hope this will be a solution that is to everyone's satisfaction.
User|Neddyseagoon 22:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
Ancient-Rome-stub and its category are not severely oversized,fuck yet User:Neddyseagoon seems to have taken it upon himself to split it into a large number of completely unnecessary subcategories, all of which need severe work and preferably removal. Grutness... wha? 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
As to being harsh, when you split off the new categories, you added in the instructions for what to do to propose new categories - instructions which you ignored in doing so. If you had been ignorant of the procedures, then it would have been more understandable -but the instructions were there and you tacitly acknowledged that by copying them across. Under those circumstances, this isn't harsh at all. Grutness... wha? 22:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I'll now explain what I was trying (albeit in a very imperfect manner) to do , under each sub-head. And whenever you say 'underpopulated', bear in mind that they were all at the embryonic stage and would have been much fuller had I got further through reclassifying the Ancient Rome stubs into them. User|Neddyseagoon 18:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
One of (two of) the more egregious attempts at stub types I've seen in my time working at WP:WSS. Where to start?
These need to be deleted, quickly and thoroughly. Grutness... wha? 23:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply
While we're at it, there's this problem. There was an attempt to at least partially fix this unproposed stub type, which was reverted. It would have only been a temporary fix anyway. The template is an arch-stub, that is, an architectural feature or style stub, yet the category says that it is for buildings. In fact, it's for buildings and structures, and should be so named if kept, and the template should be Ancient-Rome-struct-stub. BUT again, buildings and structures are categorised by present day location, not by whichever civilisation built them, and as such this should be deleted.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a combination of country-struct-stub and Ancient-Rome-stub for these items, in the same way as is done with other buildings and structures built by other civilisations. Grutness... wha? 23:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Never proposed, severely undersized, and duplicates Cat:Ancient Roman mythology stubs. Delete. Grutness... wha? 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Five stubs only, never proposed, and everything in it is better dealt with in other stub categories. Hideously big icon, too. Delete. Grutness... wha? 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Severely undersized, never proposed, and fallaciously named. None of these are Roman ethnic groups. They are ethnic groups that lived at the time of the Ancient Roman civilisation and were described by them. Only the Latini and the Romans themselves could really be considered "Roman ethnic groups". Delete. Grutness... wha? 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Severely undersized, never proposed, you know the routine by now. Delete. Grutness... wha? 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Again, never proposed, severely undersized. Seems to erroneously suggest that all literature in Latin is from Ancient Rome (tell that to the Catholics). Delete Grutness... wha? 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Missed one - as above, undersized (six stubs), unproposed... everything here could go into the hardly-bulging ancient Rome battle or military stub categories - this one is completely unnecessary. Delete. Grutness... wha? 01:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply