Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/April

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

A follow-up from previous tussles, User:Privacy (contribs) recently created [1] the above category without consultation, and to push for the creation of an entire hierachy of perm cats under the "Mainland China" brandname.--Huaiwei 07:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: In a matter of days since the nomination above, User:Privacy has single-handedly created nearly 20 "Mainland China"-related perm cats, many of which are related to the tussle over stub templates. Six of these are company cats under the Category:Companies of mainland China category, the later of which is also User:Privacy's creation.--Huaiwei 01:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cat:Mainland China geography stubs is already up for deletion since March 2 and while it hopefully will be closed soon, it hasn't yet. However, looking closer at the nomination, it's clear that Huaiwei meant to nominate Cat:Mainland China company stubs which Privacy created out of process to push his POV. So I'm putting the above comments in a sandy brown box, since they aren't really relevant to the intended nomination. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an attempt to change the category of a stub type without going through SFD. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In response to Caerwine's comment above, setting up the category is not a POV issue. Given the current structure of the People's Republic not having a stub category for companies of the Mainland is itself a problem. - Privacy 13:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The whole question of whether there should be Mainland China categories is one big mess of internal Wikipolitics. Your out of process attempt to change the category name reeks of POV and furthermore leads to having a template feed into a mismatched category. China is not the same as Mainland China and so no stub template that uses the China- prefix should feed into a stub category restricted to Mainland China. Any such stub category should have the corresponding template begin with MainlandChina-. Leaving aside the question of whether or not we should have Cat:Mainland China company stubs, the simple fact is that we have no {{MainlandChina-company-stub}} and therefore this stub category has no template feeding into it. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not forget that "China" is very often used in place of "Mainland China", for example, by the press. There is nothing wrong to name the template as simple as possible, like what has been done with -structure- and -geography-. Most importantly, Template:China-company-stub has always been applied only to companies from the Chinese mainland. - Privacy 10:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want to change Wikipedia's policy that "China" is to be used only in an inclusive sense that includes Taiwan this project is not the place to make that change. Until such time as that policy be changed, I'm going to support it. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have misunderstood everything. Category: Chinese company stubs has always been holding only stubs on Mainland Chinese companies. "China" should not, however, be used in place of "Mainland China".
        • I don't have much opinion regarding the title of the template. It doesn't appear to readers who don't edit; for editors it is much easier to remember. Template: China-geog-stub and Template: China-struct-stub both fed into Category: Mainland China geography/building and structure stubs. - Privacy 09:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete delete delete 1000 times delete. And can we have a discussion without all the puppets this time? SchmuckyTheCat 00:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Privacy. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ChoChoPK was prompted by Privacy to offer his brief comment. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. Useful and necessary category with a neutral name. Michael G. Davis 20:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Michael G. Davis is a suspected lackey, symphathiser or even sockpuppet of User:Instantnood, of which Privacy is also suspected to be in similar relation with.--Huaiwei 11:48, 10 April 2007 (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, unused, redundant with other stub types, questionable use of an adjectival form, and it links into the highly inappropriate Cat:Alcohol stubs. At the very least this should be renamed to something like Narcotic-drug-stub and upmerged into something more appropriate (such as Cat:Psychoactive drug stubs), but, given that it is unused and there's no guarantee of many stubs anyway, perhaps deletion might be a better option. Grutness...wha? 03:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Completely redundant with the more aptly named, well-used {{
  talk/review) 06:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete General Eisenhower (talk • contribs) 22:52, 7 April 2007 (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

Tackling a few from the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_type_sizes today... this one is unproposed, badly named (both the template with its capital S and the category which should be at Cat:Entourage (TV series) stubs. Unused, and even if every articles in Cat:Entourage (TV series) were a stub it still wouldn't get within 15 of threshold. Entirely unnecessary. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:39, 4 April 2007 (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 speedy delete

ISTR this one got modified after discovery or here at SFD... either way, this is emoty and is not connected by a template. As such, it's possibly speediable. Grutness...wha? 23:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ASAP. Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:45, 5 April 2007 (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 curiously named. According to the template it's for articles relating to the future, not for future articles (all viable stubs should be future articles in the long run). Unused, too. Theoretically, a rescoped/renamed stub type might be useful for articles on future years, but as it currently stands it crosses the hirarchy quite badly (Cat:Future has subcategories for buildings, events, products, vehicles...) so deletion might be a better option. Grutness...wha? 23:39, 4 April 2007 (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 cat, rename/upmerge template

ISTR this one cropped up at WSS/D a while back. Unused, unproposed, uses the digraph rather than full name for Italy. Currently there aren't enough stubs on Italian swimmers for this to reach threshold, though a renamed named {{Italy-swimming-bio-stub}} might well be useful. So that's delete the category, rename and upmerge the template. Grutness...wha? 23:39, 4 April 2007 (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 upmerge

The proposals in January is imcomplete, the Template should created, but the cat does not. There is only 38 stubs, and not supported by WikiProject. Matthew_hk tc 10:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This one's an interesting one, as the original proposal was for a blanket category for the Baltic states. If {{Latvia-footy-bio-stub}} and {{Lithuania-footy-bio-stub}} have been created (which they have), that might still be the best solution - it would house stubs for Lithuanian and Estonian players, with the (reasonably sized) Latvian one as a subcategory (the Lithuanian one is currently upmerged into the main European category). Grutness...wha? 23:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever we do, I don't like the regional categories for this type of material. The Baltic states are three very different entities, and I'm not sure we have prevailing reasons to group them as anything but Europeans. Perhaps we should send the Estonians a little heads-up? Surely we must have a few Estonian football buffs around? Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, {{Lithuania-footy-bio-stub}} does feed into its own cat at Cat:Lithuanian football biography stubs Only 43 stubs there, though. Perhaps a delete of that too and upmerge both into European? I'm definitely not in favor of the region-specific cat; it seems unneeded. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:52, 12 April 2007 (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 cat, create PRC-company-stub to feed into Chinese company stubs

Speedy Delete Empty, unproposed, category that is without a corresponding template. I don't see any need for this category unless we did have a {{

• Qualified delete. Realistically, I am unopposed if discussion meant that having PRC-company-stub was useful. Pragmatically though, my real answer is delete because then the mainland China POV pushers will use it to further their agenda that anything !=HK/MO/TW does equal "mainland" and thus this stub type would be empty, which is stupid. SchmuckyTheCat 00:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No. Jinmen and Mazu never belongs to Taiwan, and in modern times not considered Mainland China. They are ROC's. Please make sure you know what you are talking about.
  • Nobody requests to create Template: PRC-company-stub. Per earlier discussions on similar matter, Category: People's Republic of China something stubs are umbrella categories to hold the Mainland and Hong Kong ones where appropriate and necessary. (see my vote below for link) - Privacy 09:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per earlier decision on similar matter. (Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/December/4#"Mainland China" categories) This is an umbrella category to hold the Mainland and Hong Kong categories. - Privacy 09:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Privacy. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ChoChoPK was prompted by Privacy to offer his brief comment. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. Useful and necessary category with a neutral name. Michael G. Davis 20:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Michael G. Davis is a suspected lackey, symphathiser or even sockpuppet of User:Instantnood, of which Privacy is also suspected to be in similar relation with.--Huaiwei 12:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Would this be deleted in favor of using {{China-company-stub}} / Cat:Chinese company stubs? ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I've finally closed the huge discussion from March 2, so this should probably be a keep. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While {{
      PRC-company-stub}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Ah, I see. I assumed the list meant that they were all included. So, are you suggested a PRC-company-stub that feeds into Cat:Chinese company stubs? ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Having such a template is meaningless. Having templates for Hong Kong, Macau and Mainland China is already exhaustive. This category just meant to be an umbrella to hold the three categories. (Macau-company-stub may, tho, have to feed into the umbrella category, given the category would probably be too small.) - Privacy 21:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • We don't have a {{
            PRC-company-stub}} it would have enough entries to have a category of its own (this one that is under discussion), so it should. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
            ]
      • One, companies before the establishment of the PRC are always tagged according to their locations, like hills and lakes, buildings and structures -- those relocated their whole from where the communists occupied to where remains ROC are the only exceptions. Two, Template:China-company-stub has always been used only to mainland Chinese companies, and Category:China company stubs has always been filled with mainland Chinese companies. - Privacy 21:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As you've pointed out, unlike hills, lakes, buildings, and structures, relocation is possible for companies. that is the essential difference. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as umbrella category for the Mainland and Hong Kong ones. Passer-by (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and re-creation should go through proper procedures as per requirement at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting. While this may appear unnecesary and beuraucratic given the end result is likely to be the same, I feel it will set a negative precedent if we openly condone the behavior of renegades who disregard wikipolicies/guidelines and think they can overide them for no better reason than their self-perceived "truths". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huaiwei (talk • contribs) 16:25, 11 April 2007

Striked discussions entered by sockpuppets of Instantnood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchmuckyTheCat (talk • contribs) 00:12, 12 April 2007

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 rename

A comment from WP:WSS/P:

I suggest renaming this stub category to "veterinary medicine stub," which is broader, as it appears that currently there is no general veterinary stub category, and according to the article on zoological medicine, the field of zoological medicine pertains to zoo animals specifically. 69.140.164.142 07:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a reasonable suggestion - {{veterinary-med-stub}} and Cat:Veterinary medicine stubs would make more sense, considering the cope of the zoological medicine and veterinary medicine articles. TYhe current category also has the wrong permcat parent (Cat:Animal anatomy, a subcat of - surprise, surprise - Cat:Veterinary medicine). Grutness...wha? 23:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from stub creator - I initially proposed this stub and after covering enough ground with it and articles needing retagging, went ahead and created it. I initially changed it from {{vet-med-stub}} owing to the issues with the word vet (Medicine vet / Veteran). By all means PLEASE go ahead and change it over. The stub makes more sense and to be totally honest with you, i never thought of using veterinary instead of vet! Go for it. Please, go for it. Thor Malmjursson 01:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I was at Taenidia and saw the notice of this stub type change. I suggest you examine Taenidia carefully before labeling it Veterinary medicine. — Randall Bart ^(talk) 18:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Zoological medicine lists that discipline as a branch of veterinary medicine. As such, diseases of insects would still be covered by veterinary-med-stub. Grutness...wha? 21:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Since zoological medicine only applies to zoo animals, I think renaming this stub type would be appropriate. However, I think Randall's point was that Taenidia is an article about anatomy, not medicine, something that is true for a lot of the zoological medicine stubs. I would suggest that these stubs be made into {{anatomy-stub}}s, and the rest into veterinary medicine stubs. Unfortunately, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Stub sorting indicates that the anatomy stub category is only for human anatomy (not sure why), so another stub category ({{animal-anatomy-stub}}) would be necessary. --Joelmills 01:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the stub creator - Animal anatomy stub would be ok, but what we are looking for is a stub which covers specifically diseases of Animals, not just the anatomy of them. And (If my memry serves me correctly) I think there is already an animal anatomy stub... somewhere... :) -- Thor Malmjursson 15:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. What I was suggesting is that the stubs about animal disease or medication should be veterinary medicine stubs, and that the stubs about animal anatomy should be animal anatomy stubs (which I don't think exists, checking Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types). We could even have a veterinary-pharma-stub, if necessary, to have those stubs in the proper parent category. I would be more than happy to do the sorting if someone creates the templates and categories. --Joelmills 16:06, 15 April 2007 (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 rename

Per the permcat parent, Cat:Roman Catholic dioceses. Alai 05:09, 7 April 2007 (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 in favor of EU-org-bio-stub

Unproposed and redundant - exactly duplicates {{

• Sorry, didn't realised needed proposing. Created for EU specific politicans rather than generic European or specific national. -JLogan 16:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, given that it feeds into the same category as the above, and that there's already a separate {{MEP-stub}} for the actual EU-politicos. Alai 17:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, EU-politician-stub wasn't a bad name, but yes, delete. Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MEP is different from a Commission official, which is who I used it for. Didn't seem right to use a national stub as said person spent most of their time in the Commission with no real presence in national politics. -JLogan 18:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They still have a nationality, though admittedly they're not national politicians as such. There is a permcat Cat:Political office-holders in the European Union, so a scope along those lines isn't entirely unreasonable, I suppose, if it can be made a bit clearer that's what it's intended for. Alai 19:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have {{US-gov-bio-stub}} for the non-elected officials of the United States Government, so a {{EU-gov-bio-stub}} or perhaps simply a {{EU-bio-stub}} would be appropriate if appropriately scoped. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The persons in question should still be tagged with their nationality. Not sure it is a good idea but in order to avoid people from across the pond simply lumping everything from the Old World together under the EU heading, {{EU-gov-bio-stub}} {{EU-org-bio-stub}} would probably be the best name. However, I don't think we have 60 relevant articles for this split. The MEPs should not be included here. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caerwine's suggestion below is even better. Changing support to that one. Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, actual Commissioners are still politicians, though I doubt few of those are still stubs. Commission employees are indeed analogous to civil servants, but they're not working for a -gov- in the strict sense... Alai 22:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the EU is not a government then neither was the US under the Articles of Confederation nor the HRE after the Peace of Westphalia. The only other alternative I can think of would be {{EU-org-bio-stub}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'll buy that one. Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seams to work for me, unless we get to a state of elected Commissioners but that is ages away, cross that bridge when we get to it so to speak. -JLogan 14:16, 14 April 2007 (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 upmerge

{{Syria-hist-stub}} was created - unproposed - along with this category, which currently contains nothing other than four geo-stubs (which should be categorised as such). The unsubcategorised part of Cat:Syria stubs totals only 83 articles - waay too few to begin to think about splitting them up further. Keeping the template and upmerging it into both Cat:Syria stubs and Cat:Middle Eastern history stubs would seem to be the most sensible option. Grutness...wha? 23:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nominator. Keep stub template, but under Cat:Syria stubs.Must.^{T C} 17:02, 10 April 2007 (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 rename

This stub about

• Rename (and remove (ungrammatical) WPJ link, and get rid of the what's-the-point-of-sorting-to-this-when-it's-double-catted-with-its-parent aspect...). Alai 02:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and reword per above. Mind you - 29 stubs is mighty thin, even with a WikiProject. Perhaps this one needs watching for possible further action? Grutness...wha? 22:11, 9 April 2007 (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 speedy delete

Delete Unproposed empty stub type about a minor U.S. political party too small to even be considered a third party and maybe not a fourth party. Definitely no chance of it having the minimum 60 stubs for a stub type. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty (aside from the template, and... itself), unlinked to, so may be speediable. Alai 02:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been around for two months and is still empty, so a speedy probably won't hurt anybody. Valentinian ^{T / C} 07:45, 9 April 2007 (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 keep, rename cat

Unproposed, has about 25 stubs, but at present seems unlikely to meet threshold. At the very least, the category needs a name change, but an upmerge may well be more to the point. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resorting Cat:Pies has brought this up to 64 stubs, so I suggest we consider this stub type to be a boy and after renaming the cat to Cat:Pie stubs let it out of the corner and onto the stub list. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A further difficulty is that this is catted as a subtype of Cat:dessert stubs, which would make more sense if it were permparented with Cat:sweet pies (shouldn't Cat:tarts be a subcat thereof?), and renamed accordingly. Pies in general seems a less useful scope for splitting purposes (in theory all the "dessert pies" would have to be double-stubbed). Suddenly I feel hungry. Alai 02:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While tarts are usually sweet, in theory they could be savory since whether a pie is a tart has nothing to do with what the filling is. The pie stubs are roughly half sweet pies and half savory pies, so narrowing the scope would make this stub type too small to be useful. As for the stubparents, they parallel the parents of Cat:Pies, though one can (as Alai has) argue that only Cat:Sweet pies should have Cat:Desserts as a parent with Cat:Deserts as a parent for Cat:Overbaked pies. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard quiches described as tarts, as that article does: must be another "divided by the same language" thing. (Come to that, I've come across quite a few "apple tarts" with lids, though that seems likely to be a separate instance of linguistic drift.) OK, rather than over-splitting, over-merging, or getting into undue transpondian punchups, the status quo seems like the best option. Alai 18:18, 10 April 2007 (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 upmerge

This category should be merged with Category:Opera stubs as other genres of opera (there are about 20 of them) do not have individual stub cats. - Kleinzach 00:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nicht zu vermischen! This seems to have been created as, in effect, a category redirect (generally a bad idea for stubs, since people won't be scratching their heads at a lack of an Cat:Operetta stubs, they'd be wondering, if anything, about {{Operetta-stub}} (which is unused, and categoryless, but could certainly be upmerged, just in case). So in short, speedy as empty. Alai 03:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not speediable Kleinzach restubbed the articles marked with {{operetta-stub}} (example) and removed the stub cat from the template. StubSense being unable to update its en: database is actually useful for once and indicates that there were some 30 articles marked with {{operetta-stub}} at one point, whic is a bit light for a category of its own, but would be enough for an upmerged template if we wanted to split Cat:Opera stubs by genre. At over 600 stubs, the type is a candidate for splitting, though whether by genre would be the best split is debatable. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad, I looked a little too hastily at the history of the cat (which has never had a proper cat page, and at one point said "Currently, it is not possible to separate opera and operetta stubs."), and not at all at the history of the template. So amend that to: bad Kleinzach, upmerge template, delete cat slowly. Alai 06:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cat:Operas by language also looks like a superficially plausible axis to split on. Alai 06:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've often thought that with the performance and literary arts splitting by language rather that country of origin would generally be more useful, and in this case where the permcats are split only by language it would definitely be the only option between the two. The only problem would be for cases such as Die Fledermaus where in addition to the original German libretto, an English translation is performed fairly often (at least here in the States it is). Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Opera buffs seem fairly hung up on original language as a sort of "genre", even if performed in translation, which is why I mention it here, even beyond the consideration of works-by-language in general. Not that I can hear what anyone's allegedly singing about, regardless of language. Four languages look liable, I'll drop a note at /P. Alai 03:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have just discovered this discussion. I am not sure I understand the technicalities but please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Operetta where I explained that i had de-populated this category and proposed its deletion. Originally I thought I was putting up a Cfd and then someone moved it here.

Perhaps I should explain? Operetta is one of a number of genres of opera. The others all have a fairly consistent category structure, but the operetta ones have been anomalous. Many of the articles - a lot of them minimal stubs - have been neglected. The idea behind deleting some of the categories, which incidentally were never used consistently, is to create a logical structure. This is important because we have a large number of articles: our projected coverage is now 1400+ works by 400+ composers, in addition to articles about singers, directors etc.

Regarding the Cat:Operas by language the structure being followed is explained at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera. It's complicated but a lot of time and thought has gone into developing it.

Please let me know if I can clarify any other questions - as I explained above I was unaware of this discussion as it was not on my watchlist. Thank you, - Kleinzach 15:34, 15 April 2007 (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 keep, rename cat

Not sure where this came from, but saw it on

• They're separate counties, though. I assume they were just merged initially to enable them to be split from the UK- somewhat sooner. I'd suggest populating it, and creating a parallel West- same, in the likely-seeming event that the two are both populable (and deleting the parent, in due course). Alai 22:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, but obviously rename cat, if kept. Alai 22:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cat:Sussex geography stubs has 300 stubs, of which just by looking the name of the alone, there are enough to make a separate stub type for the ceremonial county of East Sussex (which includes Brighton & Hove) and to put the remainder into one for West Sussex. Rename cat, and keep template and do the same for West Sussex. Once the sorting out is done, come back here for an SFD to delete {{Sussex-geo-stub}} / Cat:Sussex geography stubs. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've speedied the rename, such was the obnoxiousness of the current cat name in my sight. Feel free to re-tag Cat:East Sussex geography stubs, anyone that wants rid of the whole thing. Alai 02:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been proposed twice, with a consensus for "create" each time, along with WestSussex-geo-stub several months ago, and has been waiting on the "To do" list to be created for some time. The category seems to have been incorrectly named, but other than that, it's perfectly acceptable and a definite keeper. Grutness...wha? 06:04, 12 April 2007 (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 speedy rename

Correct case. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems pretty clear-cut, since for one thing it's the caps of the permparent. Sped. Alai 21:48, 12 April 2007 (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 speedy delete by creator request

Unproposed and misnamed (though not as badly as the redirect at {{Mass spectromery-stub}}, also up for deletion). Even if 80% opf the articles in Cat:Mass spectrometry were a stub it wouldn't reach 60 stubs. Just maybe a more widely-scoped analytical chemistry stub would be useful, but this one doesn't seem to be. Delete - or at the very least rename to match stub naming conventions. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. I'll use {{

analytical-chemistry-stub}} or {{physics-stub}} instead. Thanks for pointing this out. --Kkmurray 02:16, 13 April 2007 (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.

It was me that suggested creating the stub type in the first place, and I support renaming it, consistency is good. --Tango 12:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a tangential point, I note the use of the US English term "math" rather than the rest-of-the-world English standard "maths" (which, when you think of it, makes sense, since there's no such thing as a mathematic) - any chance of a redirect at maths-lit-stub and similar at any other math-X-stub types that don't have them? Grutness...wha? 00:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One can be a polymath (indeed it helps if one is trying to help edit an encyclopedia as a whole, as opposed to individual articles), my Webster's New World Unabridged does note "mathematic" as a rare form of the noun and doesn't mention "maths" at all (because it's an old dusty dictionary), and finally according to the Online Etymology Dictionary We Americans coined "math" in the 19th century while Anglophiles didn't start using "maths" until the 20th. That said, I have no objection to using "maths-" in redirects to help out befuddled Commonwealthians. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of these days, you should read about old Mr Webster. Not a nice piece of work, and someone who unilaterally and obsessively decided to remove a lot of "Britishisms" from the US - Websters dictionaries still avoid a lot of them. And polymath isn't really the same thing. I'd be surprised if maths isn't a far older term thatn 20th century, too - I have an 1880s dictionary which lists it as an abbreviation for mathematics (unlike "math", which it lists as meaning "to mow"!) But I digress... Grutness...wha? 06:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A remarkably prescient dictionary; the OED quotes "maths" from 1911 onward, and has an 1891 use of "math" by a school poet, a Scot. Why can't we do what we normally do with Anglo-American divergencies: leave them alone? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that "adding a redirect to" is consistent with both "what we normally do" and "leaving [the template itself]" alone. Alai 23:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we had this same discussion regarding {{

maths-lit-stub}} ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:02, 18 April 2007 (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 upmerge

The stubs is not enough (43), and the cat is not proposed before. the Proposal in January is opposed/no aggrement on creating cat. Matthew_hk tc 19:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was brought up in passing at SFD last week when the equivalent category for Estonia was nominated. 43 stubs is borderline - upmerge would be reasonable - by comparison, Estonia had 38. Grutness...wha? 00:50, 15 April 2007 (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 rename to bus-sectexpand

Category:Bus articles with sections needing expansion

Template:Bus-section-stub

The idea of topic-specific section stubs makes my head hurt. In theory "sect-stub" should only be used when the article itself is not a stub. As far as I know this is the only template of this type. — CharlotteWebb 01:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have seen one other like it (for anime, IIRC), though I'm not a fan of them either. I'm not entirely clear whether it comes through here or just TFD, since sectstubs aren't stubs (which is why they aren't dealt with by WP:WSS - a separate WikiProject for sectstub was suggested at WP:WSS at one point, and the shuddering registered 3.7 on the Richter scale). If kept, it should be moved {{bus-sectstub}} to make it clear that it is a sectstub for buses, not a stub for bus sections. Grutness...wha? 01:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ideally we'd get rid of the component "stub" from the names of these templates, as we previously did with the corresponding category. Say, to {{
  sectexpand}} (and {{bus-sectexpand}} if topical version seem like a good idea (which to me, they don't)). But it's not clear to me whether we'd do that here, at TFD (do they handle renamings?), or just by making the move and seeing who yelps. Alai 16:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I say we should move it to {{bus-sectexpand}} and reword it. I created it as a way for history section of articles on bus routes to be expanded anyway.--sonicKAI 23:35, 25 April 2007 (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 speedy rename

The category is Cat:United States women's basketball biography stubs and all the entries in it appear to be biographies, but the template is missing the -bio- part (cf. {{hoops-bio-stub}} and {{US-hoops-bio-stub}}). Rename to {{US-women-hoops-bio-stub}} for consistency. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My bad, fixed. Alai 07:19, 15 April 2007 (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 upmerge/rename per nom

In the last day or so we have acquired several unproposed Pacific bio-stubs, none of which are likely to get within a bull's roar of threshold for categories, but all of which have them (and none of those categories has any parents, stub or perm). Ironically, the only one which seems plausibly viable has a misnamed template (PNG-bio-stub):

• {{Nauru-bio-stub}} / Cat:Nauruan people stubs ("for Naurun people") Upmerge
• {{Tonga-bio-stub}} / Cat:Tongan people stubs Upmerge
• {{PNG-bio-stub}} / Cat:Papua New Guinean people stubs ("for Papua New Guniean people") Rename as {{PapuaNewGuinea-bio-stub}} and upmerge.
• {{Samoa-bio-stub}} / Cat:Samoan people stubs Upmerge - this one is the only one populated. it gets to 40, which is reasonable, but not at threshold. Double-cattying to Cat:Samoa stubs and Cat:Oceanian people stubs would make far more sense.

As to whether these are likely to reach threshold, there are currently only 169 stubs in Oceanian people stubs not already marked with a nationality. More than 1 in 3 of them would have to be in any of these categories to make them viable. In the case of Nauru, BTW, it would take 1% of the country's entire population having stub articles for this to reach threshold! Grutness...wha? 08:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep - Stop being Discriminating. Oceania is something which is used 'In General' but it doesnt actually tell you which country they belong to and as a matter of fact the only reason I by-passed the stub proposal was that I didnt know about it. There was a stub present relating to fiji {{

What Grutness is saying is simply that stub categories are routinely deleted if they contain less than 60 articles, in order to avoid having a ton of categories with next to no content. He is not suggesting deletion of either articles or stub templates, although he is suggesting renaming one particular stub template since it doesn't use the standard naming format. The templates might be useful, but the categories aren't unless we have a good amount of relevant stub articles to fill them with. So he wants to keep the templates and articles but let more than one template use the same generic category until we have more material. At this point in time, we can begin creating more specific categories. I agree with this analysis, and this has been standard stub sorting practice for a very long time. As for the discrimination thing, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Suriname, Jamaica, the Channel Islands, and many other countries don't have distinct "people stubs" categories either, all due to this convention. On the other hand, I could name at least 20 countries that have been given more specific categories as soon as the material about them grew in size. When the Oceanian material grows, so will the category tree. Valentinian ^{T / C} 13:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cometstyles, I take great offense at your unwarranted slur. I am an Oceanian myself, and find it abhorrent that you should accuse me of discrimination with no evidence whatsoever. Please address the facts I present, do not automatically leap to the conclusion that I must have some vendetta against Oceania. Play the ball, not the man. I have actually exercised some leniency as regarding these templates, by suggesting upmerging when deletion would have been a reasonable option in some cases. Are you seriously suggesting that we will soon have 60 stubs for people from Nauru - there are over 150 for Fiji, hence its category - when Nauru has a population of 5800 people? At that rate, proportionately we should have some 60,000,000 bio-stubs worldwide - 40 times more articles than Wikipedia's entire total. Please read the instructions regarding when stub types are required and when they are not, and pull your head in. Grutness...wha? 01:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to

bio for these countries just because they are too small to be noted as independent. I have added some Samoans to the stub that I have created (42 people) but I didnt do the same for Tonga and PNG because I knew it would be contested and most probably deleted by people who dont know about it and if you clearly have read what I had written above, you would see that I didnt even mention Nauru anywhere because when I created that stub, I didnt know that there was practically no articles regarding people form Nauru and I knew it would most probably get deleted but I didnt think anyone would try to delete stubs for people from Samoa, Tonga or Papua New Guinea and now I believe for smaller countries such as (Nauru, Solomon,Tahiti, Kiribati, Vanuatu and Wallis-and-Futuna) its better to use the {{Oceania-bio-stub}} then stubs for each of their individual countries but that certainly doesnt apply to bigger and more advanced countries such as Samoa, Tonga and Papua New Guinea {well they are developing countries) and I agree with Caerwine<<below>> that each countries should have three stubs mentioned below and I also believe Double Categorising would be a good idea as well...--Cometstyles 10:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, given that that was basically what I was suggesting... upmerging means that, for example {{

WP:STUB). Greetings from New Zealand, BTW. Grutness...wha? 13:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Iam going to kick myself for creating a stub for Nauru but I knew it was going to get deleted anyway..a threshold of 60 might be good enough for developed countries but maybe shouldnt apply for smaller countries but I dont think anything could be doneabout it and I just have to wait for someone to "upmerge" the stubs before I can add anymore related articles..Thanks and BTW..Kiaora..Go to sleep..hehe..--Cometstyles 14:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since no-one's talking about deleting the templates, only changing the categories on them, you can go ahead and use them anyway. That way we will have a clearer idea of whether any of them do get to a reasonable size. Changing the category over simply means changing the code on the template, so it's not like there will need to be huge amounts of re-editing of articles. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may have reached the point where it would make sense to at the least have upmerged main, geo and bio stubs for all

192 UN member states. We have so many of those that it would be easier to not have to keep track of the exceptions to {{Country-stub}}, {{Country-bio-stub}}, and {{Country-geo-stub}} when applying templates. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I've been thinking the same about applying the Alai solution more consistently for the generic, -bio, and -geo templates. Around 2 years ago, most countries didn't have specific templates, and Africa was just a giant mess. Today, the material about Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and South America has grown, and most countries now have either two or three templates. The countries "missing" one or more template(s) are mostly confined to Oceania and the Caribbean since this material seems to have slow growth. I guess, one year from now, the last African countries will probably have all three templates, give or take Saint Helena. If we give all countries the three upmerged templates, we should add a note to the code why the specific category doesn't exist to avoid a lot of later cleanup (see e.g. the code I normally use on {{Croatia-politician-stub}}). If anybody wishes to see a more complete list of these templates, see my list here for the generics and -bios. Valentinian ^{T / C} 09:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Saint Helena is likely to have a geo-stub sometime fairly soon, at least (but its parent is UK-Atlantic, not Africa :) I also add a "hidden message" to templates expaining the lack of a category (see Kiribati-geo-stub for instance. Grutness...wha? 13:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do farmers know about cucumber salad? (Danish proverb) Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea on the note. On a semi-related theme, what I've also been doing recently is adding an additional sort key to upmerged templates when "top-sorting them", so that where there's a group of them in a single category, they appear a) after the "main" template (if any), and b) alphabetically among themselves. (i.e. I'm using the likes of [[Category:X stubs<noinclude>| Y</noinclude>]], where {{Y-stub}} is upmerged to the same cat as {{X-stub}} (which I cat with the more usual [[Category:X stubs<noinclude>| </noinclude>]]). Alai 03:24, 19 April 2007 (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

The first (Cat:Turkish musical group stubs) is premature downmerging of {{Turkey-band-stub}} which has exactly 30 stubs. The second (Cat:Turkish music stubs) is a placeholder category with no template whose only purpose is to feed the first into Cat:Turkish stubs, Cat:Music stubs, and Cat:Turkish music. Leaving aside the question of whether such a category is a good idea (The few other per country music stub categories all have associated templates.) it will have no members once the first category is deleted. Delete both categories. Caerwine Caer’s whines 15:20, 17 April 2007 (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, no category, and not what you think. No, this is for the television series Monk, not a sub-type of Reli-bio-stub. The parent permcat has 72 articles - over 80% of them would need to be stubs for this to reach threshold. Grutness...wha? 03:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is exactly what I thought it would be, given the tastes for some editors for popular culture. Unless there's a Wikiproject, I can't see this ever reaching threshold, and even then, given the ambiguity, it would need a rename to Monk-tvseries-stub or the like. Delete Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per threshold concerns. --Dweller 12:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently no one here at Wikipedia bothers to read anything I say. Newsflash: I'm new to Wikipedia. So, yeah, I wlil mess up some things on accident and will try to fix it. But don't get all in a huff over me, God! {{

helpme}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshEdgar (talk • contribs

)

With respect, I would have though being new to Wikipedia would make you more likely to check the instructions before making a stub type. And it's not a case of "getting in a huff over you" - it's a case of trying to fix up a stub problem, irrespective of who created it. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 19 April 2007 (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 rename to ITsource

Not really a stub template, so definitely shouldn't be named as one. Also has nothing whatsoever to do with Information technology, despite its name.Rename to something more appropriate and less stubby. Why not just {{IT-derived}}? Grutness...wha? 03:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or {{ITRef}} following the example of {{FRref}}, or even better, why not just use {{Translation/Ref}} which does almost the same thing and works for any language. The only thing that template lacks is the English name of the language the other Wikipedia uses. Delete and replace with {{Translation/Ref}}, altho as a non-stub template with a stub template name, perhaps we should send this to TFD instead. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see that giving it a name ending in “stub” was misleadingly against convention: thanks for spotting it. {{Translation/Ref}} is what I use when translating an article from the Italian Wikipedia fairly closely and fairly fully. Here, though, I found myself beginning to write a series of stubs using much longer articles as sources and “This article was initially translated from this Wikipedia article…” would have been misleading: there might not be a single sentence in the stub which was a translation of a sentence in the source. I considered {{ITRef}} by analogy with {{FRref}}, but again the situation was rather different: “This article draws heavily on…” is rather a different kind of message. How about {{ITref (summary)}}? —Ian Spackman 07:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you (and presumably other bilingual English-Italian speakers) will be the one using it, whatever you feel is best will probably be fine. Just as long as it doesn't end in "-stub" :) Grutness...wha? 13:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A further thought - how about {{ITsource}}? That would makeit sound like it had been largely sourced from it:wiki, which is the point of the template, no? Grutness...wha? 00:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I prefer source to ref. On the other hand I would like to keep in a word like summarised or précis, because an implicit part of the message is, “If you can read Italian, you could quickly expand this from the Italian article“. OK, let’s go for ITsource and I’ll later add a parameter to allow the wording to be switched between something like “This article was initially summarized from…” to “This article was largely sourced from”. Thanks to everyone for their inputs: including the “let’s delete it” one, because it made me clarify my thoughts. So I say Rename to {{ITsource}}. —Ian Spackman 12:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll speedy this tomorrow, and 'bot over the transclusion, if there's no input to the contrary in the meantime. Alai 23:42, 19 April 2007 (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 rename to SouthAfrica-actor-stub and upmerge

Only one stub gained in nearly a year since this unproposed , misnamed, category-free stub type was created. Stubsense suggests only 14 actor stubs from South Africa, though this may be undersorting. There's a current proposal on the table for an Africa-actor-stub, which would give this something to be upmerged into, but it would need renaming to SouthAfrica-actor-stub even then. may be better to delete this and start from scratch if and when necessary. Grutness...wha? 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and upscope to {{Africa-actor-stub}}, deleting the current template. Not enough South African actors as of yet for even an upmerged template and certainly enough Africans for an upmerged template at the very least. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to {{SouthAfrica-actor-stub}}, keep and upmer-- erm, well, feed into a higher-level category than the one this one's currently missing, as it were. I don't see much point in having thresholds for the existance of upmerged templates, which seem to me preferable than continental templates which at some point may end up being deleted... (OK, that would seem to be quite some ways off for African actors, I'll grant you.) Alai 04:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alai If you look at
  Thomas.macmillan 18:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]

• Rename Cat:German track and field athletics biography stubs → Cat:German athletics biography stubs
• Rename Cat:European track and field athletics biography stubs → Cat:European athletics biography stubs

If anyone wants to add the Asia and Canada cats so they can be renamed Asian and Canadian respectively, I'll support that (as well as United States to American), but since the whole adjectival vs. noun debate is still going on at the

• Rename I had been meaning to propose those weeks ago. Waacstats 10:26, 17 April 2007 (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

We've tried before to get rid of these redirects to {{US-road-stub}} that violate the naming guidelines. According to the Stub redirects page they were all orphaned in January 2006 and have not been repopulated since. So let's delete all of the following:

• {{US road-stub}}
• {{Us road-stub}}
• {{Us-road stub}}
• {{US street stub}}
• {{US street-stub}}
• {{Us street-stub}}
• {{Us-street stub}}
• {{Us-street-stub}}

I've left alone the other two redirects {{

• Delete with extreme prejudice. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete quick, while nobody's looking...!Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What's Henry V got to do with U.S. roads? Never mind, Delete Valentinian ^{T / C} 08:05, 25 April 2007 (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

A leftover and unused redirect from when {{minorplanet-stub}} was de-Orwellized back in 2005. Send it down the memory hole. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:43, 18 April 2007 (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 rename to planetary-science-stub

Unproposed, no category. If I didn't know better I'd think this was a Maoririder stub. Completely unneeded - all the planets in the solar systen have articles beyond stub size, and exoplanets have sections on the articles of their star parents, not separate articles. Currently this would have no stubs, and that is likely to remain the case for a long time. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - it currently is used on two articles! Both of those articles are currently at AFD... Grutness...wha? 01:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we have a {{

planetology articles that planet articles as are the two OR articles marked with this stub. Perhaps a rename to {{planetology-stub}} as an upmerged astronomy template would be in order? Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment - The stub might be useful if it is used for anything after the original research articles are deleted. However, most other articles related to planetary science are marked with more specific stubs (such as for minor planets, asteroids, etc.). If renamed, please use "planetary science" instead of "planetology". Dr. Submillimeter 07:40, 19 April 2007 (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 rename to pathology-stub

Less than ten minutes after being proposed at WP:WSS/P, this was created. The debate currently on at WP:WSS/P makes it clear that this is a very poor name for the stub - and since this doesn't have a category, either, it needs quite a bit of work. Another case of someone ignoring the conventions and creating more work for others :( Grutness...wha? 00:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... well I'm not sure how any of this is a problem - I am busy creating the stubs as part of a project on a significant topic, so it made sense to go ahead and create the stub rather than adding a bunch of blind links. If you want to change the name of the stub, I will change the links. There is a category for pathology which has been around for a while. If you know a way to integrate that with the stub, then why don't you do that, or educate me, rather than biting my head off? I do my own work. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 01:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a problem because we don't keep redirects that are ambiguous. Which means that if this is renamed, all the articles that you are stubbing with path-stub will need to be re-stubbed. Making more work. Whereas if you had waited for the debate as instructed at the top of the page it would have become quickly apparent that pathology-stub was a better title. "Doing your own work" is all very well - as long as you don't make more mess for other people to clear up after you. And as for "biting your head off", surely it would have made sense for you to read the instructions and follow them? The same applies to your new {{

So how do you propose that I list the pages which would be appropriate for the new stub template? I am linking them to my proposed stub template - you can then easily check to see if there is an appropriate number at the end of the week. I'm not listing the new template anywhere, but if someone else finds it in the next week and links other stubs to it, all the better. If the consensus at the end of the week is that my proposed stub template is inappropriate, I will remove all the dead links myself, as I just did for Template:path-stub. So just relax. I am a hard-working good-faith editor who is trying to help a project on a substantial encyclopedic project get off the ground. If you want to give me advice, I'll be grateful. If you're going to nitpick and call me names, then perhaps you should find another way to spend your time. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 02:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the same way that everyone else does in those circumstances. Make a list of them on a user sub-page, letting WP:WSS know about it, then once it's clear there are a reasonable number of stubs, you and the members of WSS between you mark them in a handful of minutes. It saves you work, in that others will help you stub them, it saves WP:WSS the effort have having to go through and check theat there are a viable number of stubs, and it saves everyone the effort of renaming and restubbing incorrectly made stub templates if problems are pointed out during the discussion phase. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the useful advice. I'm now listing candidates for Cat:Pathology stubs at User:Rustavo/Pathology stubs & have stopped tagging with th eproposed template {{Pathology-stub}} for now. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 02:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{pathology-stub}} now marks 56 articles. I encourage anyone to inspect those articles to see for themselves the appropriateness of this stub template. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:33, 18 April 2007 (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 withdrawn

While I've no objection to a Kiribati-stub - in fact, the Alai solution well suggests that every country should have its own stub - this isn't it. This is, in fact, a duplicate of Kiribati-geo-stub, and as such is both incorrectly named and redundant. Either this should be fixed up to be a true non-geo stub, or should go until such times as we have a proper Kiribati-stub ready to run. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been fixed to be an upmerged template, so keep it as such. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm willing to withdraw this nom. This does fit in with the idea of having base-level templates for all countries, and now that it's clear it is a base-level one rather than a geo-stub, it would be silly to get rid of it. We should really sart doing something about making those base-level upmerged templates for as many countries as possible. Problem a lot of the time is, of course, with the exact definition of "country", but for internationally recognised sovereign states like Kiribati I don't think there are any problems. Grutness...wha? 07:05, 19 April 2007 (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 rename/rescope to UK-canal-stub; Wikiproject to use talk page template

Unproposed - this cuts right through the by-county hierarchy of the geo-stubs, and at the same time being very ambiguous in its scop. It currently has bio-stubs, geo-stubs, water-stubs, org-stubs and museum-stubs all under one umbrella, plus its definition (for canals and navigable rivers) is in itself ambiguous (navigable to what extent) and arbitrarily splits articles on rivers ionto two types. This is probably the reason why there is no equivalent parent category Cat:United Kingdom waterways. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• navigable has a legal meaning in the UK. For example the head of navigation on the River Arun is at Pallingham under flood conditions you could get rather further (under normal conditions you would struggle to get a boat to the head of navigation but no matter) but the river would not be considered navigable beyond that point.Geni 01:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I counted at least 22 likely candidates, on titles alone, on just the first page of Category:Water transport stubs (A-E). Populating an alternative {{UK-canal-stub}} (see below) would be no problem at all. EdJogg 09:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 01:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 1:1 relationship with Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Waterways (whereby scope is covered; also Category:WikiProject UK Waterways); usage per Geni. Andy Mabbett 07:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- stub was created by Andy Mabbett. (EdJogg 09:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Rename Delete and create alternative: {{UK-canal-stub}}. The intention of this stub (I suspect) was to identify any stub articles that fall within the remit of Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Waterways. Since this project covers both canals and navigable rivers, and pretty much anything related to navigable (see User:Geni above) waterways in the UK (geography, history, civil engineers, haulage companies, physical features, boat types, etc), the stub scope will cut across other stub boundaries. However, it is not intended to replace these other stubs – many stub articles are identified as falling under more than one stub category. In particular, it has to cut through "by-county geo-stubs" since canals are, by nature, inter-county transport features! The revised name more accurately covers the majority of stub articles affected. Incidentally, there IS a category Cat:Canals in the United Kingdom, a sub-cat of Cat:Water transport in the United Kingdom. --EdJogg 09:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- part of the problem with the disputed cat is that it was not passed through the official proposal process. I would suggest that the cat is needed, although an alternative name (see above) would be acceptable. If an appropriate course of action is for the project to wait while a new stub is officially approved, then so be it, but it will make life easier for all if {{UK-waterway-stub}} is not deleted until the new one is available for use.

EdJogg 09:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It couldn't really be renamed to UK-canal-stub as it covers more than just canals. Simply south 12:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, which is why I have changed my original view. As suggested above, {{UK-canal-stub}} is a viable stub candidate on its own merits, regardless of the project's involvement. I think it could legitimately include locks, tunnels, aqueducts and other features on UK canals, as well as the canals themselves. There is further discussion about this at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Waterways#Stub template

EdJogg 12:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 20:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• you wish to claim that navigable does not have a legal meaning in the UK?Geni 18:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: either this or the suggested {{
  WP:WSS/P as soon as possible. --RFBailey 23:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I note there is a Cat:waterways, which is split to some extent by geography, just not in the case of the UK. However, it's an awkward scope for a stub type in any case, since splitting up the rivers in this way will only make sense for this particular aspect of their significance, which is not the only or necessarily the primary one. I know there's a Wikiproject, but "bespoke scope for whatever a project fancies" is better employed for the talk-page "Stub-Class article" categories than for article-space cats. So I'd favour a rename and rescope to UK-canal-stub, as suggested above, and revisiting what (if anything) to do with the rivers on the WSS/Proposals page. Alai 23:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from nominator The main objection to this stub type was not its lack of proposal - it was the fact that it cuts across the stub hierarchy. Rivers and canals are not split from other geo-stubs - geo-stubs are split promarily by subnational region. I would oppose UK-canal-stub for exactly the same reason - an alternative name would be as unacceptable as the current one. A 1:1 relationship between a stub type and a wikiproject has never been a valid reason for keeping a stub type if that stub type does not meet the standards of stub sorting, which is designed to be used across the whole of Wikiupedia, not just within individual WikiProjects. A far more appropriate means for the Waterways project to mark its articles is with a talk-page wikiproject-specific grading template, which would allow it to mark all articles connected with the project, not just stubs. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interesting...things are become clearer. Consider the following...
    1. As rivers are natural features, it makes a great deal of sense them being treated in the geo-stub arena.
    2. Canals are, by definition, man-made. There are already several railway-related stub categories, which are not (directly) geo-stubs as far as I am aware. Looking at it from a transport POV, you could say that canals have more in common with railways than rivers. I can see no reason why canals cannot have a stub category in the same way that railways and roads can.
    3. My proposal (which I really ought to move over to the Proposals page!) is for a stub to allow sorting of canal-related articles. It was not intended to be a project stub category. (Although there is obviously no reason why a project could not make use of it, where appropriate.)
    4. The 'UK' part of the name was included as I had evolved it from the stubname being discussed. I would be quite happy to have {{canal-stub}}, if the chosen name was an issue, although I suspect that the vast majority of articles within will be UK-based.
  • Does this get us anywhere?
  • EdJogg 00:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the geo-stubs at present cover both physical geography, and human geography in a fairly broad sense (including essentially anything with a fixed location, which more extensive than a "building or structure"). Alai 01:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Mmmm. Good points all, and to be honest, canals are borderline as far as geo-stubs are concerned (railways are not geo-stubs, but airports are, so you could argue precedent either way). As such, canals could probably be separated from geo-stubs without too much fuss. Rivers, though - as you say - are a different matter. I still think that from the point of view of the waterways project - since it deals with both canals and rivers - you would get far more use out of a talk-page template, but as far as stubbing is concerned, a series of canal stub types (UK-, US-, Euro-) does make some sense. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS - as for them being mainly in the UK, you'd be surprised. Most of the canal stubs I've tagged have been in the US. Grutness...wha? 04:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the project is rather UK based.Geni 18:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then this UK-related stub shouldn't overly bother you. Andy Mabbett 18:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that a UK-canal-stub would seem to imply a parent canal-stub, which would probably be easily populable, and a US-canal-stub might also be splittable. Those would need proposing at WP:WSS/P, however, and they're obviously of less direct concern to your project. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem you then hit is that the line between canals and rivers in the UK can be somewhat blurred.Geni 09:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If possible, split. Simply south 11:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Navigable Rivers are different from non-navigable rivers. People interested in improving one type until it is no longer a stub may not be interested in improving the other. There are sufficient articles which fit the proposed stub to make it useful in focussing the attention of editors with this area of interest.

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 very small in scope. The whole of Cat:Objectivism and its subcategories runs to barely more than 120 articles, many of which, if stubs, would be better served by other stub types (the bio and book types, in partticular). Chances of this reaching a viable threshold are slim, to say the least. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 19 April 2007 (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 rename

The main article has been renamed from

• If the parent cat is changed, rename to match. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, on the same contingency. Alai 20:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• ${\displaystyle {\mathfrak {Doch}}}$ Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:23, 22 April 2007 (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 rename to systemstheory

Possibly the most ambiguously named stub type I have ever seen. Never proposed - if it had been, I've no doubt that it would have been poinbted out that this stub type could apply tot he central nervous system, London Underground railway system, computer systems, river systems, language systems, military defence systems, and any of thousands of other types of system. As such, it needs, at the very least, a very drastic makeover in name and some rigorous definition as regards its scope. Better still, however, would be to delete it and use whichever stub currently existing which best applies (at present, it's impossible to tell which one that would be). Grutness...wha? 10:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not following procedures, this is intended for articles associated with an interdisciplinary Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems project. Can I make a proposal now or do I have to wait for the stub to be deleted? Your advice would be welcome. — Jonathan Bowen 15:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the parent article and the parent category a rename to {{systemstheory-stub}} / Cat:Systems theory stubs would seem advisable if kept. So the questions then become, are there 30 existing stub articles (the minimum for a stub type with an associated wikiproject) that this stub type would mark and where to place it in the stub category hierarchy?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Caerwine (talk • contribs)

(ec)I note that the corresponding permcat was also deleted. Can this be recast as something like Cat:systems theory stubs, and would that have a reasonable number of stubs (and/or sub-types). You could make a separate proposal, though it'd be a bit pointless doing it after deletion, or if it's just going to echo this discussion. OTOH, if said proposal or related discussion is going to get lengthy or involved... Alai 20:43, 20 April 2007 (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, uncategorised stub for an individual province of Iran. While a geo-stub might be appropriate (and Iran-geo-stub is getting in need of a split soon), a generic stub isn't. There are only 12 articles in Cat:Mazandaran which are not either geo or bio types, and bio-stubs are generally not divided up by subnational region other than in exceptional circumstances. With no "special situation" relating to this province, and no associated WikiProject, I don't see what those exceptional circumstances might be. FWIW, there seems to also be a little confusion about the name (no doubt due to transliteration) - categories and articles relating to this province are spelt Māzandarān, Mazandaran, and/or Mazanderan. Grutness...wha? 00:45, 20 April 2007 (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 speedy delete as empty and redundant

This was initially made when there were insufficient stubs for the two English counties with Sussex in their names to have separate categories. Note that Sussex as an individual county no longer exists and hasn't done for some time - this stub type was created for stub-sorting convenience only.

Now East Sussex has its own geo-stub category and template, and West Sussex's one was proposed and agreed to at WP:WSS a while back. As such, I propose deleting this category and template and creating the new {{WestSussex-geo-stub}} and Cat:West Sussex geography stubs, and sorting everything in the current stub cat into the East and West stub types - in exactly the same way as happened with the long-departed Yorkshire-geo-stub. Grutness...wha? 03:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support... provided this isn't a sneaky way to get the SFD-closers to do the donkey work! Alai 04:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Damn - rumbled! :) It needs doing, basically. Makes no sense having categories for Sussex and East Sussex. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fortunately they were well-catted enough that ~250 of them were readily bottable. Think you can manage the <30 remainder? :) Alai 04:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! Yeah - I'll see what I can do about the others. The three with "East Sussex" or "West Sussex" in the title should be particularly easy to work out ;) Grutness...wha? 07:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. That last batch had 12 East Sussex, 10 West Sussex, three that were both, two that were not geo-stubs and (I kid you not) one vandalised article about a variety of lettuce! The category's empty now. Grutness...wha? 11:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• With only three dual Sussexes, I think we lack reason to keep {{Sussex-geo-stub}} around as a stub template with dual stub categories. (If we had more, I could see keeping it to reduce the number of applied stub templates on such articles, but three is too few.) Delete both template and category. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:45, 23 April 2007 (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 rename

Another tv series-specific stub type. Upmerged, but ambiguously named (CSI is a dab page). At the very least this will need renaming, if not outright deletion (perhaps if the creator of it had proposed it, it would have saved some work... this isn't the first time they've created an unproposed stub type, either :[ {{CSI-tv-stub}}, perhaps? Grutness...wha? 00:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Alai 04:05, 22 April 2007 (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 cinema stuff, rename as Kannada-film-stub, upmerge film cat

We don't split cinema by language, though we do split films by language when necessary. Not convinced it is in the case of Kannada (the language of Karnataka, India), though an upmerged and renamed Kannada-film-stub may make some sense. The currently-named category and template don't, though. Grutness...wha? 07:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Not sure I understand why cinema cannot be split by language while films can be split. If it is renamed to Kannada-film-stub then, it would not be possible to use this stub template for Kannada film actors, studios, directors, cameramen, Kannada cinema milestones/significant-events and other such things. It will be restricted to only Kannada films. So I thought it would be a good idea to categorize all these Kannada cinema related stubs under one umbrella, so that anyone interested in Kannda cinema can improvise on working out those stubs. - KNM ^Talk 15:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. The main problem is that Indian cinema is split into films, cast, crew, etc (as are all nationally-split film production-related stubs), and only then are the films are split by language. It makes little sense to split people by language, since it is highly likely that a number of them are bilingual or multilingual and will work in other parts of India too. And for the most part we don't split people by subnational region, since people tend to move around a lot, resulting in multiple stubbing. A film studio located in karnataka certainly wouldn't move around, but it makes considerably more sense to double-stub that with karnataka-stub and a more general studio-specific stub than to have a regional cinema-stub that would cross through various parts of the stub hierarchy. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Makes sense. - KNM ^Talk 04:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• So far, films are stubbed by (a) genre, (b) country of production, and currently under consideration (c) language (Hindi, Telugu, and Tamil so far). We have an {{India-film-stub}}, and I'm sure if Kannada films need to be sorted out, {{Kannada-film-stub}}, scoped as the language, not the region, would be logical. Support rename & rescope per El Grut. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion of {{Kannada-cinema-stub}} and Cat:Kannada cinema stubs. Created {{Kannada-film-stub}} and pointed the stubs to Category:Kannada film stubs.- KNM ^Talk 04:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOWBALL. Anyone? Thanks - KNM ^Talk 04:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Or more to the point, 'with agreement of only contributor' clause. I'll delete this once you've emptied it. {{Kannada-film-stub}} is fine and dandy as (at least) a template, but when I crunched the per-language cats, it seemed very small. So go ahead and populate, but if it's not of a sensible size, upmerger (keeping the template, deleting the category) may be required. Alai 19:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The cat is emptied now. - KNM ^Talk 19:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, deleted. Do you have an idea how many articles the -film- stub will apply to? (I could only find eight eight India-film-stubs in the Kannada permcat.) Alai 21:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably around 30 to 35 as of now. I have to manually dig them out and add the {{Kannada-film-stub}} tag. Per my observation, on an average weekly 2 to 3 such stubs are being created. - KNM ^Talk 21:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which case for now it should be an upmerged template without a separate category. If you're right about the speed it's growing, though, we'd need a category soon enough. If it hasn't grown to close to 60 in the next few months, though, don't be surprised if there's a call to upmerge it. Grutness...wha? 01:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or sooner, indeed! Any objection to upmerging now, or should I tag it and add it to the nom? Alai 03:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, please, not at least as of now. Please provide me some time, with this new stub template and stub category. I will put in some effort in identifying all the Kannada film articles which are very small and transclude this template. Per the statistsics of Kannada films, there are totally around 2600 films released, and none of us certainly know how many have made into Wiki yet. So, no upmerging as of now. If you really need, consider it after some time, probably after a month or two. I'll also try getting some help from

Karnataka WikiProject members, to assist in this task. Thanks - KNM ^Talk 05:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

That seems a bit backwards to me, I'm afraid: better just to have an upmerged template for now, and revisit whether the category should be created in a month or two. It shouldn't inhibit any tagging of existing articles and/or expanding the scope of coverage of same. Alai 05:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, here's the stubs tagged in the permcat at time of the last db dump:

• Kaviratna Kalidasa
• Pallavi Anu Pallavi
• Nagara Havu
• Beladingala Baale
• Jedara Bale
• Muddina Maava
• Ganayogi Panchakshari Gavayi
• Premaloka

No telling how many simply don't have a language cat... Alai 06:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:Kannada film stubs (for upmerger)

Comment - Whats the purpose of listing this cat for deletion? Is there any policy in WP that mentions the criteria of minimum number of articles/pages to be present in the category, at the time of category creation? As such, whenever a category is created, obviously it is more or less empty, and as the days progress, it will have more content. The Kannada-film-stub template as well as stubs cat are brand new, not even a day old. I fail to understand why it is being nominated for deletion. Thanks - KNM ^Talk 06:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:STUB#Creating stub types. Stub types are traditionally proposed when there's a need on the basis of a significant number of existing articles to populate them, not to cater to possible future need. The purpose is to keep stubs in categories of reasonable size, in the hopes they get a reasonable amount of attention. Having an infeasible number of stub categories, each with a tiny number of stubs, would be as problematic as having them in excessively large categories. Alai 10:03, 25 April 2007 (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 rename

There's no immediate permcat, but so far as I can see, this should be -ian rather than -ia, by anyone's theory (that I'm aware of so far...). Alai 02:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as doubleplusgood idea. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support For consistency with other Oceanian stub cats. Waacstats 12:47, 25 April 2007 (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

I can't se this ever getting enough use to be worth having. Currently used on one article, which is pretty close to all that it could be used on, other than items being readied for transwiki'ing to Wiktionary - Cat:Languages of Iceland only has eighteen articles other than the subcategory on Icelandic films (which is perplexingly a subcategory of it - even including that subcat there are only 45 articles). I randomly sampled half of those articles, and one was a stub - and that was marked with a more descriptive and useful stub template. What's more, the name of the stub template is a little ambiguous - we use X-lang-stub to refer to articles about specific languages within language families, not articles relating to a particular language in some way. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Valentinian ^{T / C} 08:02, 25 April 2007 (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.

As per stub naming guidelines. A slight slip, by the looks of it. Grutness...wha? 06:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? Why? I accidentally spelt Iran as Iran? If you really thought so, why's this at SFD, rather than on my talk page? Wherein do the naming guidelines mandate abbreviating countries? Add a redirect if you really want to save the extra two characters. Alai 19:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, well... see my note on the proposal page. Re the naming guidelines, that's interesting, I thought it had been put in there, per the discussion
    here. But in any case, don't we want consistency? We don't have LimburgNetherlands-geo-stub or CanterburyNewZealand-geo-stub, or PunjabIndia-geo-stub or any of the others which need dabbing by country - we use the digraph. For consistency surely it's better to use IR. As for your talk page, last time I did that it blew up out of all proportions, so I though things would be calmer and simpler if I just took it here. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Bit odd to characterise it in the way you did, then. CanterburyNewZealand-geo-stub would be inconsistent indeed: NZ seems to have elevated itself to the august (?) company of "US" and "UK" (and erstwhile wannabe "HK") that use a digraph in all stub template names. But every other "Iran" template uses "Iran", no other province is proposed to use "IR", or any such variation, so as consistency goes, it's very much a special case. I certainly don't want to end up with digraphs as "root" template names, and I equally don't want to have to explain to people why digraphs are Forbidden in one context, and Compulsory in another. I'd in fact strongly prefer to see this sort of usage restricted to cases where length is a fairly pressing concern, and/or where there's some general "pattern of use" (like all those US counties with deeply unoriginal names that rather cry out of it). So I'm having my doubts about LimburgNL- and PunjabIN, too, and suspect a non-redirect-removing move to Limburg(-)Netherlands-geo-stub and Punjab(-)India-geo-stub would be pretty sensible. Alai 05:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the abbreviation "IR" slightly problematic given that we also have Iraq? Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using the alpha-2 codes does present the problem of ambiguity. Perhaps the less ambiguous alpha-3 code instead? Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. KurdistanIRN sounds like a workable solution. Valentinian ^{T / C} 15:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it is one letter short of the whole thing...  :) -- Cat ^chi? 15:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, lucky us that we don't have to fear a KurdistanVeryLongCountryName-geo-stub :) Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Btw I recall provinces name being "Kordestan". According to the article

Kurdistan province (Iran) "Kordestan" seems to be the UniPersian spelling and was the original title of the article. It was moved at a point but I see no log for the move. -- Cat ^chi? 19:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Mmmm. That might solve things - though there may be objections if the page is moved back. Not that it really needs to be - one or two of the other termplates are at fractionally different names to the pages due to the problems with the transliteration in general (Hamadan/Hamedan, Esfahan/Isfahan, Baluchistan/Balochestan etc). And at Kordistan it wouldn't need any dabbing, any more than the Azarbaijan templates do. Grutness...wha? 23:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Iran I think spelling out the counties name should be preferable. With weird (wired?) provinces like Kordestan and Azerbaijan they make disambiguation a nightmare. -- Cat ^chi? 02:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another one for the possible-redirect list, then; the ghost of SPUI is bound to be pleased (in a week with another "process page" on MFD, yet). I'd tend to think that it's a bit of a subtle distinction for the canonical name, but I'd not be opposed, at least if the article is moved. Alai 05:41, 29 April 2007 (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, send Florida media to its own SFD

We split media primarily by type, and only then by country and - later - subnational region. tehre is absolutely no need for an overarching media-stub for a single US state - we don't even have a US-media-stub. Never proposed, and if it had been it would have almost certaily been rejected for exactly those reasons. The category also contains two other templates Tennessee-newspaper-stub and Tennessee-radio-station-stub), both of which had been deliberately left pointing to standard upmerged categories. Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you feel you need to do, I'm not familiar with stub guidelines to be honest (wasn't even aware there was a WikiProject devoted to them. I was just trying to create a logical tree for the existing media stubs to work around, with the intent to populate it as time permitted. WP:Tennessee is new, so we haven't had time to really flesh out what everything will fit in...heck, haven't even had time to fully assess and tag all of the Tennessee articles. Chalk it up to unfamiliarity. As for "deliberately left pointing", I simply left alone those categories that already existed in the stub templates. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 07:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that Cat:Florida media stubs has existed for some time. Ideally, we'd keep or get rid of both on a consistent basis (I'm inclined towards deletion). Alai 19:05, 26 April 2007 (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

Delete. Unproposed and poorly named. I think it refers to International Baccalaureate schools. Currently home to 7 articles, and school stubs are split by geography as a rule. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Badly named, badly capitalised, badly scoped, badly populated. Delete. Alai 23:57, 27 April 2007 (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

Merge with {{

• Restub and delete Regardless of the fair use status of the icon in {{
  NRHP}}, it isn't useful and doesn't appear to have any official status. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 and upmerge

Unproposed and misnamed. I've no objection to a bio-stub for the Faroe Islands, but convention suggests that {{Faroes-bio-stub}} would be the correct name - and given the size of Cat:Faroe Islands stubs (under 100 stubs), upmerging might be the best option. Rename and upmerge. Grutness...wha? 00:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name is the only problem? Go ahead and change it, as long, as people of this nationalitiy get their own bio-stubs -- Arne List 12:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to {{Faroes-bio-stub}} and upmerge to the generic category until this material shows more growth. Valentinian ^{T / C} 15:37, 28 April 2007 (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

Not quite sure what the creator of this was tryin to do - looks like maybe a misguided attempt at a "translation required" template. Certainly not what it says it is - probably almost speediable. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy is in order here. Valentinian ^{T / C} 10:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy and BJAODN. What the...? There are more conventional ways to request assistance! YechielMan 00:47, 30 April 2007 (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 rename

Unproposed, very peculiar use off upper/lower case, hyphens and spaces that defies naming guidelines. Category has no parents, though it must be admitted that the logical permcat (Cat:Davis Cup) has enough items that thiswill be able to pass threshold. Cat:Tennis stubs is not in need of further splitting, at just 240 stubs, but this one, if adopted, wouold pretty much clean it out - I count some 130-140 Davis Cup stubs in there. As such, rename the template to {{DavisCup-stub}} (deleting the current name), but keep and fix up the category. Grutness...wha? 23:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Seemed a bit odd to me, too, but as there's an actual
  Davis Cup-Fed Cup Project, I assume this is a useful split at least to some. But I'll at the tennis WPJ, just to make sure. Otherwise, rename per nom. Alai 02:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I brought it hre rather than to the discoveries page because I initially didn't think it would get close to threshold - Iwas quite surprised when I say how many stubs it could deal with. BTW, there are quite a number of Fed Cup stubs too, though not threshold - perhaps two templates leading into a Davis/Fed cup stub category might make some sense? Grutness...wha? 06:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The project (or at least, the one responder so far -- I don't think it's exactly a large project...) says "nothing to do with us, gov" (and expresses no desire at all for a Davis/Fed cat, or indeed to populate this one). OTOH, it would likely be easily bot-populable, and it'd split a 2-page cat into two 1-page cats (a possibly desirable, if profoundly non-urgent step). So it looks like a bit of a toss-up between upmerge and populate (after first renaming the template in either case). Alai 16:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to clarify: I'm not against having the stub, I'm just sort of "meh" about it. It does seem like a good division, and if it's easily bot-populated, then that shoots down my main reason for not liking it. Also FYI, there will be more Fed Cup stubs coming, once we start making team articles. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 02:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Meh" is what I'd inferred, and was trying to convey. :) If it's potentially useful, let's rename and populate, and then do the same with the Fed cup stubs in due course (for which we might create an upmerged template now, to save retagging later). Alai 23:34, 6 May 2007 (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 speedy delete

Where to start? Never proposed. Misnamed template, in terms of capitalisation, blank space, and "not what it says on the can". Misnamed category, both in terms of capitals and abbreviations. Malformed category links. Already covered by other categories, such as soviet-stub, various hist-stubs and geo-stubs. Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Tag with {{
  Soviet-stub}} instead. Valentinian ^{T / C} 07:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Sped as unused. Alai 16:06, 3 May 2007 (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 speedy delete

Not what it says on the can (I was expecting a stub type for biograpohies of actual warriors, or at the very least for New Zealand's top rugby league team) - this is an unproposed stub for a series of books. The parent permcat only has about 25 articles, so the chances of this reaching the 60-stub threshold are zilch. If it were needed it would have to be renamed unambiguously and upmerged , but since it's hardly likely to be needed editorially or for stub-sorting purposes, deletion seems the better option. Grutness...wha? 06:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I, the creator of this template, give the closing admin the full permission to delete this template. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
  T|C) ^ER 06:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Sped. Alai 09:12, 30 April 2007 (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.