Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/January

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 discussion was rename

To bring them in line with the permcat and key article names, the following should be renamed:

• Cat:Chakwal district geography stubs → Cat:Chakwal District geography stubs
• Cat:Dera Ghazi Khan district geography stubs → Cat:Dera Ghazi Khan District geography stubs
• Cat:Jhelum district geography stubs → Cat:Jhelum District geography stubs
• Cat:Rawalpindi district geography stubs → Cat:Rawalpindi District geography stubs

Grutness...wha? 23:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support stub cats should match the articels. Waacstats (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2011 (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 discussion was keep, possibly look into viability of general stub types for individual Swiss cantons

I propose renaming the following categories and templates:

Rationalle: These stub categories/tags are for the main categories of these cantons, not for the geographical articles about them, For exapmle, Cat:Aargau has a category named Cat:People from Aargau - clearly not for articles about the geography of Aargau. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I don't quite understand the rationale behind this - the stub categories may feed into non-geographic permcats, but they are definitely for holding geography stubs and are subcats of
  WP:WSS/P than for here. Grutness...wha? 22:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Followup - where there are specific geo permcats for these cantons, the stub categories are now children of them. The fact that there are such permcats in several cases is an indication that the problem is as much, if not more, with the lack of geo permcats for the others than any problem on the part of the stub categories. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • this, in turn, brigs up an other problem - that geo stub categories should be subcategories of general stub categories for the region - for example, Cat:Aargau geography stubs should be a subcategory of Cat:Aargau stubs. And in some cases, the region stub category has a small potential population- for example, Cat:Basel-Country stubs has a potential population of 96 stubs, and Cat:Canton of Jura stubs has only 97 potential stubs. And while the Cat:Geography of Aargau category tree has only 35 stubs (clearly undersized), Cat:Aargau has 58 (borderline undeersized, could easily excede 60 by the time this discussion is closed). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't really make that much difference whether there's a non-geo stub parent, and in many, if not most, cases for smaller entities this would simply make far more work for no real purpose. The vast majority of geo-stub categories don't have non-geo stub parents, since most stubs about a place are either geo-specific geo-stubs or far less-specific non-geo stubs. Most of the non-geo stubs which relate, say, to Glarus, also relate to most of the rest of Switzerland. Carry this through to its logical extreme - geo-stubs for places in the US go below the state level to the county level: are you suggesting we should have non-geo stub types for every county in the US as well? I suspect that would be both unwieldy and impractical, simply creating a ton more work for no real reward. It's one of the things about WP's stubs that a huge proportion of them are geo-stubs (as I know to my cost, having been sifting and sorting them for several years). And they can be divided by fine subregion in a way that non-geo stubs often can't - which is why there are so often geo-stub categories by subregion but not generic stub cats . As for the undersized nature of the categories, most of the problem there is that many of Switzerland's geo-stubs don't say whereabouts in Switzerland they are. There are over 500 geo-stubs which simply have switzerland-geo-stub because it would need more information to discover which canton they are actually in... but it's a fair assumption that with an average of 20 per canton, some of those close to threshold could be got well past the target if there's a decent effort to find out where these places actually are. Similar sorts of problems exist with the non-stub tree - Cat:Geography of Vaud, for instance - if you go by that alone, you'd say that it has no potential for a stub category, as it has only 23 articles. Yet it has over 200 stubs! Switzerland's articles (ironic, given that it's switzerland) are not particularly well organised over-all. Grutness...wha? 23:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to create none geo categories for these cantons then the articles would also have to go in the swiss geo category which would push it close to oversized and in need of splitting anyway. And as G says not every geo stub needs a none geo stub parent cat. Waacstats (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2011 (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 discussion was Upmerge all with no prejudge against recreation once they reach an appropriate size. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging all of the following until they can reach a proper category size. None of these have even reached 20 articles yet. For now, upmerge the templates for all of these to the next higher parent category/categories:

• Cat:2010s country album stubs (7 P)
• Cat:2010s electronic album stubs (18 P)
• Cat:2010s black metal album stubs (2 P)
• Cat:2010s thrash metal album stubs (3 P)
• Cat:2010s jazz album stubs (5 P)
• Cat:2010s pop rock album stubs (3 P)
• Cat:2010s rhythm and blues album stubs (9 P)
• Cat:2010s pop rock album stubs (3 P)
• Cat:2010s punk rock album stubs (11 P)
• Cat:2010s folk album stubs (11 P)

I haven't personally made a push to further populate these. Maybe someone who can delineate the various styles of music could see if more articles could be found in the next week or so. Dawynn (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even with all these upmrged to the main category it would be far from being anywhere near oversized so I see no reason for the small cats. Waacstats (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2011 (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 discussion was Delete all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following redirects were originally created as templates, moved soon after creation to the correct names (VA is the digraph for Virginia - VI is the US Virgin Islands). None of these redirects is used, and it's unlikely any will ever be used. One or two of them also have unfortunately confusing names (e.g., KingGeorgeVI-geo-stub). I propose deleting them. (NOTE - this isn't all of them, just an alphabetic batch. Others will be proposed here if this passes, unless there is agreement that all such unused VI redirects can automatically be assumed to be deletable. Grutness...wha? 22:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all, including the ones not listed. There's no real use for templates with typos like this, and none of these are currently used. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 08:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Administritive note: I have made a list of all the templates with the string "VI-geo-stub" in them: עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I('ve crossed out all the ones I can see which are actually for the Virgin Islands. All the rest can go, as suggested above - but they'll need to be checked to make sure they're orphaned. Grutness...wha? 22:57, 1 February 2011 (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 discussion was keep, redirect

I just cleared out this template, and would prefer not to see it used again. This is another of the continent-level templates that has since been replaced by individual upmerged country-level templates. Propose deletion. Dawynn (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Another option would be to simply make this a redirect to writer-stub. Certainly the category should be parent-only. Grutness...wha? 21:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An amicable solution. I turned this into a redirect for now. Dawynn (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2011 (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 discussion was Upmerge all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging the following categories to the next higher taxa. Note, I have several requests also on the proposal page, so "the next higher taxa" may change by the time these are ready to upmerge.

• Cat:Atlantidae stubs (19 P)
• Cat:Babyloniidae stubs (8 P)
• Cat:Capulidae stubs (35 P)
• Cat:Cingulopsidae stubs (25 P)
• Cat:Hipponicidae stubs (27 P)
• Cat:Personidae stubs (29 P)
• Cat:Velutinidae stubs (25 P)
• Cat:Xenophoridae stubs (27 P)

Each of these are pretty well maxed, based on the main parent category. Unless new articles are created soon, I don't see potential for them to grow. Propose upmerging until we see a surge in article creation. Dawynn (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support upmerger to whereever is thought best by those in the know. Waacstats (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2011 (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 discussion was Delete categories, upmerge templates R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging:

• Upmerge to Cat:German football defender stubs
  • Cat:German football defender, 1880s birth stubs (2 P)
  • Cat:German football defender, 1900s birth stubs (7 P)
  • Cat:German football defender, 1910s birth stubs (6 P)
  • Cat:German football defender, 1920s birth stubs (5 P)
  • Cat:German football defender, 1930s birth stubs (28 P)
• Upmerge to Cat:German football midfielder stubs
  • Cat:German football midfielder, 1880s birth stubs (4 P)
  • Cat:German football midfielder, 1890s birth stubs (3 P)
  • Cat:German football midfielder, 1900s birth stubs (5 P)
  • Cat:German football midfielder, 1910s birth stubs (8 P)
  • Cat:German football midfielder, 1920s birth stubs (9 P)
  • Cat:German football midfielder, 1930s birth stubs (24 P)
• Upmerge to Cat:German football striker stubs (or Cat:German football forward stubs)
  • Cat:German football striker, 1900s birth stubs (4 P)
  • Cat:German football striker, 1910s birth stubs (9 P)
  • Cat:German football striker, 1920s birth stubs (8 P)
  • Cat:German football striker, 1930s birth stubs (23 P)

Dawynn (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion and upmerger of the templates. Waacstats (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2011 (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 discussion was Delete categories, upmerge templates

Propose upmerging:

• Category:Burmese scientist stubs to Category:Burmese people stubs and Category:Asian scientist stubs
• Category:Portuguese scientist stubs to Category:Portuguese people stubs and Category:European scientist stubs
• Category:Sierra Leone scientist stubs to Category:Sierra Leonean people stubs and Category:African scientist stubs
• Category:Slovak scientist stubs to Category:Slovak people stubs and Category:European scientist stubs
• Category:South African scientist stubs to Category:South African people stubs and Category:African scientist stubs - withdrawn from nomination as having been populated
• Category:Venezuelian scientist stubs to Category:Venezuelan people stubs and Category:South American scientist stubs

Rationalle: All are underpopulated; Category scans have shown that all of thes would remain under 50. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. One of them also seems to be mis-spelt (Venezuelian?). A little surprised that South Africa won't get to 60, but prepared to take Catscan's (and your) word on it! Grutness...wha? 09:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scan for South Africa shows 44. If 16 more are found or created at some point, we can alwayts re-create it through the
    WP:WSS/P procedure. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • ANd the fact that the Venezuelan category is misspelt would be a reason to rename it, not upmerge it, so that's irrelevant for this discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not irrelevant if the consensus is to keep, which is why it was necessary to bring it up. BTW, the South African one has now been populated - there was a mispointed template which should have been feeding the category; it now has 75 stubs, so keep that one. Grutness...wha? 23:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Noted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:32, 25 January 2011 (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 discussion was Upmerge all (other than the ones removed from the discussion) as undersized. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion of the following categories. Suggest double upmerging to Cat:European singer stubs and the appropriate national category indicated.

• Cat:Bulgarian singer stubs (12 articles), upmerge to Cat:Bulgarian people stubs
  • Related: propose double-upmerging Cat:Bulgarian musician stubs (12 articles) to Cat:Bulgarian people stubs and Cat:European musician stubs
• Cat:Czech singer stubs (34 articles), upmerge to Cat:Czech musician stubs
• Cat:Greek singer stubs (41 articles), upmerge to Cat:Greek musician stubs (now 60 stubs)
• Cat:Hungarian singer stubs (24 articles), upmerge to Cat:Hungarian musician stubs
• Cat:Irish singer stubs (42 articles), upmerge to Cat:Irish musician stubs (now 60 stubs)
• Cat:Moldovan singer stubs (8 articles), upmerge to Cat:Moldovan people stubs
• Cat:Romanian singer stubs (33 articles), upmerge to Cat:Romanian musician stubs
• Cat:Swiss singer stubs (32 articles), upmerge to Cat:Swiss musician stubs

Dawynn (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, assuming that they can't be brought up to threshold. I'd suggest trying to get some of them to 60 first though. Grutness...wha? 22:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be quite some undersorting - I managed to get the Irish one to 60 stubs using cat scan. Grutness...wha? 22:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Greek one is also now at 60 stubs, but it was a push to get it there. Unless there's serious undersorting, the others are unlikely to get to threshold, I'd say. Grutness...wha? 23:04, 22 January 2011 (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 discussion was delete. -Mairi (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting deletion of the following redirected template names:

• {{Fossaridae-stub}} Family not recognized (and misspelled here). Planxidae is the true family name.
• {{Neotaenioglossa-stub}} ITIS considers this taxonomic name to be a synonym for Cerithioidea.
• {{Basommatophora-stub}} The gastropod group has requested not to sort at this level.

Dawynn (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2011 (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 discussion was Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing to upmerge the Category:Maryland road stubs category into Category:Southern United States road stubs. There are only 12 7 articles under the MD category, and there is no need for a state-specific category. Keep the template, but reclassify it to feed into the new category. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Per nom. Dough4872 02:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Grutness...wha? 22:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as I fully endorse the nomination rational (a.k.a. "per nom") Imzadi 1979 → 23:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. (Although I do think it is weird that Maryland is in the south...) -- LJ ↗ 20:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • MD's northern border is the
    Mason-Dixon Line, the "traditional" boundary between North and South. Imzadi 1979 → 22:28, 22 January 2011 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 discussion was Upmerged, and deleted bu Zsinj. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to sort all of the articles under Karnataka geography stubs, but there are still some small district categories under this Indian state. I'm proposing removing the district categories listed below, and upmerging to the indicated Division level categories:

• Upmerge the following categories to Category:Bangalore Division geography stubs

  Cat:Chikkaballapur district geography stubs (5 P)

  Cat:Chitradurga district geography stubs (38 P) - Update: 44 articles

  Cat:Davanagere district geography stubs (37 P) - Update: 41 articles

  Cat:Ramanagara district geography stubs (2 P)

  Cat:Shimoga district geography stubs (37 P) - Update: 52 articles

• Upmerge the following categories to Category:Belgaum Division geography stubs

  Cat:Gadag district geography stubs (25 P)

  Cat:Haveri district geography stubs (35 P)

• Upmerge the following categories to Category:Gulbarga Division geography stubs

  Cat:Bidar district geography stubs (26 P)

  Cat:Koppal district geography stubs (39 P) - Update: 41 articles

• Upmerge the following categories to Category:Mysore Division geography stubs

  Cat:Chamarajanagar district geography stubs (35 P)

  Cat:Chikkamagaluru district geography stubs (35 P)

  Cat:Kodagu district geography stubs (26 P)

I've been generous here, not mentioning categories that have at least 40 articles listed. Dawynn (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose : Valid stub categories. There are 100s of places in those categories waiting to be created. Besides these "Division"s is obsolete now -- Tinu Cherian - 14:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. If the Divisions are obsolete, then please update Wikipedia to indicate such. This article would be the best place to start.
2. One thing that may help: Someone with better knowledge of Indian geography should review the categories as they stand. I sorted based on current tags, plus a little inference, but my inference may have been way off. And the current tags may not be accurate, especially for areas now found in the newer districts. Dawynn (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge into either Division or whatever is the correct current subnational region. Tinucherian, as explained at both

WP:WSS/P, stub categories are not made on the basis of how many stubs are waiting to be created but only on the basis of how many actually exist. If we worked on the basis of how many could be made, then we could have tens of thousands of completely empty stub categories waiting for the creation of articles. If as many articles are made as you claim could be, then any upmerging will only be temporary - as soon as the required number of stubs exist, categories will be split out. Grutness...wha? 22:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

My initial impulse was to tag all of these categories with fewer than 40 articles. With that in mind, and seeing that some of these categories have made progress, I'm removing from nomination all of these categories that have at least 40 articles now. Dawynn (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do something already. It's been over a month since the last comment here. When will this discussion end? What way can I "vote" to make it end soon? The stub templates, already so pointlessly visible in articles, look even uglier with the message advertising this discussion. Kill it soon. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2011 (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 discussion was split/delete

Split into {{NorthKorea-rail-stub}} and {{SouthKorea-rail-stub}} and delete - the joint permcat for these, Category:Rail transport in Korea, has nothing but the 2 national rail categories for the 2 Koreas. I also propose creating categories for either or both, subject to enough stubs - otherwise, upmerge the templates to the national stub category and Cat:Asia rail stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiProject Trains has been notified of tis discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• WikiProject Korea has been notified of tis discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:46, 19 January 2011 (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 discussion was Delete category, upmerge template

Upmerge - permcat has only 9 articles; this category is the intersection of 2 stub categories where a scan shows only a single article. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:42, 18 January 2011 (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 - has bewen populated by enough articles. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge - permcat, Cat:Spiraxidae, only has 11 pages in it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Its for maintenance within WikiProject Gastropods and also per purposes of WikiProject Stub sorting:

• 1. Ensure better categorization of stubs
• 2. Ensure that stubs are sorted as uniformly as possible - categories of families are standard of the wikiproject Gastropods and such names are the best, because other upper categories are usually with long names (so nobody uses them) or taxonomically very unstable.
• 3. Aim to keep categories at moderate sizes - the category will be certainly populated and its upmerging with already overpopulated cat has no practical meaning.
• 4. Maintain stub categories and templates - done
• 5. Ensure that any new stub categories and templates are reasonable, usable, and useful - for me, who edits only articles of about gastropods it is reasonable, usable, and useful. --Snek01 (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either populate or upmerge Stub categories are not for maintenance within a WikiProject - that's what talk page banner templates are for. They are for maintenance across the entirety of Wikipedia and maintained as such by an independent maintenance WikiProject. in which case:

• 1. A category of this size provides worse categorisation of stubs - isfor this reason that a standard minimum size for stub categories is in place, as exxplained at
  WP:STUB
• 2. The standard threshold of 60 stubs ensures that stubs are categorised as uniformly as possible in terms of category size - the current categoiry fails on this score. Templates are often upmerged in those instances where categories would be too small, and for the sake of editing it is the templates which are made uniform in terms of subject matter.
• 3. Aims to keep categories at moderate sizes -i.e., the standard of 60-800 stubs. Anything smaller than that produces far more work than it saves. Given that the parent is overpopulated, some attempt needs to be made to split out those parts which are capable of reaching threshold - but this should be done in the standard way, by the proposing and vetting of splits off the category at
  WP:WSS/P
  (as is the case with the two splits of this category currently proposed). This category should be kept only if it can be shown to have enough currently-exissting stubs to reach threshold.
• 4. Maintain stub categories and templates. This is done via
  WP:WSS/D
• 5. Ensure that any new stub categories and templates are reasonable, usable, and useful. If this category doees not reach the standard thresholdd, it is none of those three things.

Given the apparent size of tthe permcat parent, upmerging seems the most likely alternative and desirable outcome . I note too that Cat:Planorbitae sytubs is considerably undersized aand may also need upmerging in the same way. Grutness...wha? 21:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Category now has 60 articles. Dawynn (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2011 (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 discussion was delete/rename per suggestion

Been tidying up Cat:Algeria geography stubs, and there are ba couple of problems...

1. Cat:Oran Province geography stubs is seriously undersized, and there's no sign of any more stubs which could populate it. I suggest upmerging it until the numbers are closer to the threshold. (A couple of others are marginally undersized by a handful of stubs, which isn't too bad, but Oran has fewer than 30 stubs)
2. Cat:Bouira Province geography stubs - the province name is actually Bouïra Province, with diæresis over the i. The category should be renamed Cat:Bouïra Province geography stubs accordingly.

Grutness...wha? 03:19, 16 January 2011 (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 discussion was delete seven, keep {{US-railstation-stub}}, {{athletics-bio-stub}} and {{basketball-bio-stub}}. -Mairi (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following templates are all empty. In each case, appropriate sub-level categories and templates had already been built. Proposing the deletion of all of these templates, with the associated categories becoming parent-only categories.

• {{Caucasus-bio-stub}}
• {{US-midwest-tv-station-stub}}
• {{Korea-sports-venue-stub}}
• {{Europe-musician-stub}}
• {{SouthAm-politician-stub}}
• {{SouthAmerica-airport-stub}}
• {{US-railstation-stub}}
• {{CentralAm-politician-stub}}
• {{Athletics-bio-stub}}
• {{Basketball-bio-stub}}

Dawynn (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seven, but keep three. Yes to the regional/continental ones, but I'd be wary about getting rid of {{US-railstation-stub}}, {{Athletics-bio-stub}}, or {{Basketball-bio-stub}} completely, on the basis that they'd be the sort of base-level stub templates that editors would expect us to have. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • National and general stubs have been crossed out. Dawynn (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2011 (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 all except for the Oceania ones, which have already been crossed off. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following templates show up on Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused stub templates. These templates have already been orphaned, in favor of regional and national templates and categories. I nominate these all for removal. The parent categories will remain, but should consider using the {{Parent-only stub category}} template, instead of the {{Stub category}} template.

• {{Africa-athletics-bio-stub}}
• {{Africa-boxing-bio-stub}}
• {{Africa-footy-bio-stub}}
• {{Africa-sport-bio-stub}}
• {{Asia-footy-bio-stub}}
• {{Asia-handball-bio-stub}}
• {{Asia-sports-venue-stub}}
• {{CentralAm-athletics-bio-stub}}
• {{CentralAm-footy-bio-stub}}
• {{CentralAm-sport-bio-stub}}
• {{CentralAm-sports-venue-stub}}
• {{NorthAm-footy-bio-stub}}
• {{Oceania-Olympic-medalist-stub}}
• {{Oceania-athletics-bio-stub}}
• {{Oceania-cycling-bio-stub}}
• {{Oceania-handball-bio-stub}}
• {{SouthAm-athletics-bio-stub}}
• {{SouthAm-boxing-bio-stub}}
• {{SouthAm-cycling-bio-stub}}
• {{SouthAm-footy-bio-stub}}

Dawynn (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nom, with caveat. Unlike, say, -geo- or -history- stubs, there are unlikely to be any "cross-border" articles, so deletion seems a reasonable option, especially in the cases of Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Note, though, that in the case of Oceania there are many small countries, not all of which may yet have their own templates (we have little use for a Tokelau- or Nauru-sports-bio-stub of any kind yet, for instance). Grutness...wha? 22:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oceania nominations have been crossed out. I'm fine with leaving these alone. Dawynn (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2011 (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 discussion was Rename per nom. Ruslik_Zero 19:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:United States soccer striker stubs to Category:United States soccer forward stubs (or Category:American soccer forward stubs)
• and rename the relevant stub tags appropriately

Rationalle: The related permcat to this position is Category:Association football forwards. While Cat:Association football strikers does exist, it only has 51 articles, not enough to justify even one stub category, let alone 21. (Note - The reason for the differently named category for the United States is the fact that there, the game is always called Soccer, while Football refers to a different game - see Football (word).) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Football has been notified of this discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Forwards is a more versatile phrase, particularly for pre-war players. —WFC— 10:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support the proposed rename, forward is the better expression. Eldumpo (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I played as a forward, but rarely as a striker (I had a mean cross from the right wing, mind you... :) Grutness...wha? 03:23, 16 January 2011 (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 discussion was Split category

Split into Cat:Tea stubs and Cat:Coffee stubs and delete - each of these potential categories is currently viable (there are currently 93 tea stubs and 81 coffee subs); there is no joint percat. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink was notified of this discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --
  Kleopatra (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Grutness...wha? 22:13, 13 January 2011 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Contains very few articles (currently 8) as project maintainers have made a concerted effort to raise the quality of related articles. Propose keeping template {{EastEnders-stub}} as an upmerge to Category:United Kingdom television programme stubs. Dawynn (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the project members have reduced the number of stubs by merging or expanding articles, so it's not really worth keeping the category just for 7 articles. Unlikely that more EastEnders-stubs will be created in future as we now have lists for characters that don't meet notability guidelines. AnemoneProjectors 13:39, 11 January 2011 (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 discussion was Renamed by Grutness. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to {{SouthOssetia-geo-stub}} - the use of spaces in a stub tag is incorrect. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (and delete current name), assuming this is needed as a template - we've had problems in the past with independentist/irredentist areas and stub types... Grutness...wha? 22:15, 13 January 2011 (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 discussion was Rename to Category:Syrmia District geography stubs. Ruslik_Zero 19:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Cat:Syrmia geography stubs (wouldn't oppose Cat:Syrmia District geography stubs) - per name of permcat, Category:Syrmia. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:54, 11 January 2011 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - contains nothing but a single, national category also contained in its parent (Cat:Rugby union biography stubs). Most other contenents don't have their own stub category here (the only ones which do are Austalia, which is itsef a country, and Africa). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although none of these have been requested, there are now categories for four continental / world regional areas. Africa, Europe, Oceania, and South America. The European and African categories are being used to house templates for countries where a national category is not appropriate yet. Admittedly, there needs to be some cleanup performed here. For instance, category:English rugby union biography stubs can be found under category:Rugby union biography stubs, category:European rugby union biography stubs, and category:United Kingdom rugby union biography stubs. The whole thing seems cobbled togther by someone who doesn't understand the concept of nesting categories. Dawynn (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2011 (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 discussion was delete category, upmerge template

Upmerge to Cat:Fantasy stubs - malformed category, underpopulated - related permcat contains only 44 stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:33, 10 January 2011 (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 discussion was delete category, upmerge template

Upmerge - related permcat (Cat:Museums in Serbia) category tree has only 25 articles in it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:28, 10 January 2011 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to reflect equivalent change in the permanent category. Grutness...wha? 23:08, 9 January 2011 (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 discussion was Rename per proposal

Propose renaming:

Reason: Per names of permcats, and to make it clear what these are. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follows permcats so rename. Waacstats (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2011 (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. Originally created by Waacstats as a way to help alleviate the load on

Delete as unused. though I'm sure I wouldn't have proposed it if it didn't have much use at the time (prehaps a reclassification has occured or something.) Waacstats (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2011 (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 Renamed by Dawynn. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Cat:Roman Catholic churches in the United States stubs/{{US-RC-church-stub}} - per its parent, Cat:Roman Catholic church stubs/{{RC-church-stub}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

would Cat:American Roman Catholic church stubs or Cat:United States Roman Catholic church stubs be easier, follows the similar pattern of Cat:British Anglican church stubs. no problem with template. Waacstats (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here from me. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support WS's suggestion of Cat:United States Roman Catholic church stubs, and suggest that Cat:British Anglican church stubs should be changed to Cat:United Kingdom Anglican church stubs, per Cat:United Kingdom church stubs. Grutness...wha? 22:17, 13 January 2011 (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 discussion was delete categories, upmerge templates

Propose upmerging:

• Rationalle: All these categories are highly undepopulated (none of these have more than 40). Note that the bold entries don't follow the standard pattern. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. Grutness...wha? 22:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom with the following ammendments Sierra Leone, Venezuela and Burma are all upmerged to the relevant national people stubs and the scientist categories for these countries are deleted (probably by a further nom). Waacstats (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2011 (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 discussion was delete category, upmerge template

Upmerge to Cat:Film director stubs amnd Cat:Algerian people stubs - This stub category belongs to the permcat Cat:Algerian film directors, which has 7 articles and no subcats (other than this one). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. Grutness...wha? 22:49, 5 January 2011 (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 discussion was Delete both the category and template. Ruslik_Zero 19:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and if not, then rename to Cat:Historical reenactment stubs - permcat is Cat:Historical reenactment, and a scan shows only 40 stubs in the category tree of that category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This seems to duplicate Category:Stub-Class Reenactment articles, with that category populated with article talk pages based on assessment in the talk page banner, and this category populated with articles based on use of Template:Reenactment-stub. I'm not sure what the preferred way to resolve that is. cmadler (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant to the more specialised project banner, which is the usually preferred method of sorting such things (see Wikipedia:Stub#Stub types, WikiProjects, and Assessment templates. Grutness...wha? 22:49, 5 January 2011 (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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 20:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double upmerge - nevere proposed, not populated, I can't fond anywhere near enough pages (let alone stubs) which would go here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:19, 4 January 2011 (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 discussion was Delete

• Delete both - never proposed, highly underpoplulated category and scan doesn't find many more, template misnamed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...not to mention that we don't split out specific types of landforms for stubs. Delete per nom. Grutness...wha? 06:26, 3 January 2011 (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 discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 19:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unproposed, and problematical on many levels:

1. heavily underpopulated
2. category name uses the long deprecated "-related" schema
3. template name makes it seem like a subtype of museum stub, i.e., a stub for museum buildings, rather than items connected with one museum
4. used on a number of different types of already well-catered for stubs, mostly UK-archaeology-stubs but also UK-academic-stubs and even a London-road-stub.

Unnecessary, confusing, poorly named, and - if necessary for a WikiProject - better covered by a talk page banner. Delete. If kept, template should be renamed (preferably to {{BritishMuseum-stub}}) and upmerged, though the agglomerative nature of the articles tagged will make that tricky. Grutness...wha? 01:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though I think this may have something to do with a link between Wikipedia and the British Museum may be worth checking out first. Waacstats (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2011 (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. Dawynn (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to something (not even sure what) - category only contains 9 articles, scan only suggests 38, no parent category or permcat. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both category and template. A mishmash of different stub types - several of them {{Compu-network-stub}}s, but including everything from a Quebec radio station to business-bio-stubs. Another example where a WikiProject's talk page banner does the same job for them more effectively. Grutness...wha? 22:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]