Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/December

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 1[edit]

Cat:Indian Road stubs → Cat:Indian road stubs[edit]

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


Should be obvious. - R to r. Grutness...wha? 23:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename for obvious reasons of style. Crystallina 23:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, fix category page, disclose the state secret of what the template is called, and get rid of that *%$£ wikiproject ad. Or rather, -d, throughout. Alai 01:01, 2 December 2006 (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.

{{Argentina-jewish-institution-stub}} / Cat:Argentine jewish institutions stub[edit]

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


From WP:WSS/D. Um...? BJAODN? ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 19:45, 1 December 2006 (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.

Cat:Burkina Faso people stubs[edit]

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


Rename to Cat:Burkinabé people stubs to match the permcat and the similar material. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 19:45, 1 December 2006 (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.

{{Lithuania-music-stub}} / Cat:Lithuania music stubs[edit]

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


From WP:WSS/D. Too small. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 19:38, 1 December 2006 (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.

{{Russian-university-stub}} / Cat:Russian university stubs[edit]

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 & upmerge


From WP:WSS/D. Rename to {{Russia-university-stub}} and upmerge into Cat:Russia stubs. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 19:32, 1 December 2006 (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.

December 2[edit]

Rename of Climate / Meteorology stub categories[edit]

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


Both Cat:Climatology - Meteorology stubs and Cat:Climatologist and meteorologist stubs are inelegantly named and the first also breaks the naming convention with the hyphen-minus and the capital M. Suggest renaming the categories to Cat:Atmospheric science stubs (as a child of Cat:Atmospheric sciences} and Cat:Atmospheric scientist stubs (as a child of Cat:Atmospheric scientists). The former non-stub category has been around a while serving as a parent for Cat:Climatology and Cat:Meteorology and I just now created Cat:Atmospheric scientists to do the same for Cat:Climatologists and Cat:Meteorologists. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support. We should really have cleaned this up more thoroughly when it came up a while ago... Alai 04:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Yeah, I started this stub in Feb. 05 and wasn't really happy with the dual name thing at the time. Need to fix it. Vsmith 04:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Finally a name that makes sense. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but see no need to change the current templates. Grutness...wha? 22:34, 2 December 2006 (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.

December 3[edit]

{{American-bio-stub}} (redirect)[edit]

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 redirect of {{US-bio-stub}} that doesn't follow the naming guidelines. Other than that I have no real objection to it. By itself it is harmless enough, but the problems it could cause for confusion as to whether the vast number of US-*-stub 's have American-*-stub counterparts, leads me to suggest deletion. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unnecessary and ambiguous, since "American" has a double meaning. Grutness...wha? 22:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not in heavy use, will save users confusion (and indeed typing) in the long run. Alai 06:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirects can do more harm than good. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 19:26, 4 December 2006 (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.

{{MNTV-stub}} / Cat:MyNetworkTV stubs[edit]

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


Brought straight here for deletion without waiting for the discoveries page, as it's in the same vein as the other U.S. commercial television network stubs deleted back in October. Only 5 stubs, all station affiliates, 4 of them low power stations. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I thought I got all of them in October. Guess not. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 23:25, 3 December 2006 (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.

December 4[edit]

{{Hinduismstub}}[edit]

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


Badly-named redirect, resulting from a move. Alai 23:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 01:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Her Pegship 21:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at first I wondered what was going on but...per nom. — Seadog 04:11, 8 December 2006 (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.

Cat:Oregon sports venue stubs[edit]

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


Despite the {{WPSS-cat}} banner on top, this was created unproposed from an upmerged template, and should have stayed upmerged: the template is only on 14 articles. Cat:Oregon building and structure stubs is also undersized and technically unproposed, but upmerging the sports venues will put it at 53, and there are airports that can be double-tagged to bring that number up some. Upmerge and delete. --CComMack (t–c) 18:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I did anything incorrectly, I merely noticed that someone had created the stub type (ostensibly to differentiate it from the similar Western States sports venue stub) and attempted to bring the thing into line with the other Oregon stubs. I see no problem with merging and deleting. I'll go remove the banner. Katr67 19:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's now failry standard practice to create upmerged stub templates with no individual categories when there is a natural stub parent and size would be a concern. Some of us add a commented note in the template, but it seems that not everyone does. Grutness...wha? 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Do you think you could look over the other Oregon stubs and see if any of the rest of these need to upmerged/unscrewed up? I had created the buildings and structures and schools stub categories a while ago, seeing that there were other individual states within the Western states cats. Sorry I didn't realize size was an issue. What's the guideline? I wish I had seen a note... Katr67 22:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry for not having a commented note; I didn't know that was the current practice, but it makes a lot of sense. Grutness, is there an example of a template containing such a note that you could point me to for future reference? —CComMack (t–c) 21:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Usual size guidelines are 60 current stubs, but reduced to 30-40 if there's an active wikiproject directly relating to the stub type. It's explained at WP:STUB, and also at the top of the Stubsorting WikiProject's proposal page (where all new categories should be proposed prior to creation anyway. Grutness...wha? 23:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Katr67 23:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the other stubs, given CComMac's comments above about upmerging the sports venues into struct-stub, the only stub that's likely to be a problem is Oregon-bio-stub. We don't generally stub people by subnational region since people tend to move around a lot. The exception is politicians, who are usually automatically associated with one place. everything else looks pretty much OK, though the stub category tree is a bit askew in places (all of these stub categories should have Cat:Oregon stubs for a parent, to start with). Grutness...wha? 23:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking it out. I'll try to get around to fixing up the mess today. And as long as I've got your attention, is there any way to keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon *out* of the stub categories without taking the examples off the project page? Or is there a reason it should be there? Katr67 23:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The simplest way to remove it is to "subst" the template, and then remove the category. (Of course, that means you then have a copy of the template code, not a live transclusion, but probably close enough for most purposes.) WSS strongly prefers that the template appears in the category, but I don't think much minds either way about project-space inclusions. Alai 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! Katr67 20:51, 6 December 2006 (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.

"Mainland China" categories[edit]

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 PRC becomes umbrella cat for Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau


My reading of this discussion is that there's very little basis, and certainly no consensus for the current structure, which is in any event both internally inconsistent (in one case having a PRC umbrella, and the other keeping the "Mainland" and the SARs entirely separate), and with the permcats, which don't use this organisation at all. Alai 07:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I agree in principle to what you say, you may or may not recall that the current structure was the result of some fairly vigorous wrangling from certain wikipedians whom I find it nood-less, erm, needless to name at this point. In the case of the geo-stubs, there are separate categories for mainland China and Hong Kong within the PRC category, while the Macau geo-stubs are currently loose in the parent. Unless there is a suggestion to create a (heavily underpropulated) Macau-geo-stub category, this may reopen old wounds. A similar case is true with the struct-stubs - there are HK and mainland China struct-stubs, but no Macau-struct-stub, and if one were created it would be severely undersized. One option which would be handy but which probably wouldn't go down well with anyone would be to combine templates for HK and Macau into one geo and one struct category covering both SARs but - as I say - this probably wouldn't meet with much approval. Grutness...wha? 09:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm personally happy with either option you've alluded to for Macau ('rattling', and a "Hong Kong and Macau"/SARs cat). This may or may not amount to re-opening old wounds, but the current situation is far from satisfactory, much less "healed". As I say, it doesn't map to the permcats, in the case of the structs, it doesn't correspond to the "scope" of the present-day sovereign state in its internationally recognised borders (a bit like the Israel stubs situation in reverse), and it's been cited as a precedent for rescoping every (proposed) China type to "Mainland China", and splitting off an (unproposed) Hong Kong version -- which then gets taken to SFD, at which point there's recrimination, shameless padding of the category, and general suppuration. It's in short, pretty much repeatedly poking WSS in the eye on every organisational principle we claim to have. Normally we run a mile at giving special status to "disputed" regions -- and Hong Kong and Macau aren't even disputed (in any meaninful sense), they're part of the PRC. Alai 17:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Grutness, there isn't a problem with creating a new stubcat for any Chinese division that would require one - "Mainland" is not a division, but Shanghai and Hong Kong are. There is no problem having the Macau stubs floating in the general china cat, Macau is part of China. Nor would there really be a problem with creating a Shanghai stub-category if there were enough of them to form one. SchmuckyTheCat 20:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      There would be problems for Macau. With a separate cat, there would be problems of size. Macau does not have enough stubs to comfortably have its own stub categories (only about a dozen geo-stubs, for instance). And yet there are speecific editors who particularly look for Macau stubs, which would be very hard to find if mixed in with all other Chinese stubs. I'd forgotten that Shanghai is also a SAR, but I don't see a problem with adding that into such a category. This may yet be a reasonable compromise solution. Grutness...wha? 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid Shanghai isn't an SAR. It's a city (note: rather different from western usage) placed at province-level. — Instantnood 23:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that case ignore the last lines of my comment. The rest still applies and it still sounds a reasonable idea for HK and Mo. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: User:SchmuckyTheCat turned the perm cats empty or almost empty, and blocked whatever attempts to revert him. Therefore they were deleted. As a result the perm cat structure isn't actually an indicator. — Instantnood 19:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. — Instantnood 19:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support flatten all Chinese sub-categories. Any first level administrative division of China, whether it be a first-level city, an autonomous region, a province, or the SARS that has enough stubs should have a child stub-cat. This mirrors what is going on with non-stub categories. SchmuckyTheCat 21:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: SARs ≠ SARS. Deletion of perm categories has not been justified in the first place. — Instantnood 21:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do hope Schmucky just has a problem with his caps key (must be hard typing with paws, after all), and isn't suggesting that Hong Kong and Macau are dangerously infectious... (One could perhaps argue about the free-market capitalism aspect...) Alai 01:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep. Different meanings. Michael G. Davis 22:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm aware they have a different meaning; the question is, are the "Mainland China" level of organisation appropriate to have, as well as -- or in the latter case, currently instead of -- the PRC ones? We don't have a separate category for the "Mainland" of every country that has one, most obviously. Alai 15:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it usual for countries to have similar arrangements of separation? Michael G. Davis 19:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify my comments a little, since this got quite messy over time, my first choice would be to merge HK and Macao stub categories into one SAR stub category, this cat to be a subcat of a PRC stub category, in much the same way that the SARs are a specific special part of the PRC: within the country but separate. Similar measures could be taken with stub subtypes such as geo-stubs and bio-stubs. In the case of geo-stubs, the Chinese category is getting close to the point of splitting by province anyway, and having the SARs as a subcat at the same level as provinces would make sense. Under this scheme there would be no need for a separate "Mainland" subcat, as those stubs not connected with the SARs (of those provinces with their own stubs) could float free in the main PRC category. In the case of the bio-stubs, politician-stubs, general stubsand other types, the SARs would have their own subcat of the equivalent PRC stub type, with all other stubs floating free in the main PRC-whatever-stub cat. This would work in the same way that (to use a fairly weak, but useful analogy) stubs for many Oceanian countries with small numbers of stubs float free in the Oceania stubs category while the larger/more obvious splits (in that case Australia, New Zealand, PNG, and Fiji) have their own subcats. Grutness...wha? 10:12, 16 December 2006 (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.

December 5[edit]

{{Middle-School-stub}}[edit]

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


Used in only one article (Highville Mustard Seed Charter School), where I have removed it; this is actually not a stub template at all, but a misappropriation of the namespace. Suggest deletion. —TangentCube /c /t  21:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedied this as nonsense, above and beyond the run-of-the-mill such misappropriation (for which see below). Alai 00:02, 6 December 2006 (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.

December 6[edit]

{{Zoroastrianism-stub}} / Cat:Zoroastrianism stubs[edit]

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


From WP:WSS/D. A mite small. Might need resorting. Also open to upmerging. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, we only have 21 articles but a WikiProject does exist. Definite keep for the template, but since we have a WP, shouldn't we keep the category as well simply for simplicity's sake in the hope that this material grows? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, didn't know about the WikiProject. I probably should have looked a little harder. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Zoroastrianism is a major religion. ITs is also one of the oldest religions. The cat should stay because of the fact that Zoroastrianism articles are here on wiki. I will see if I can find stubs on Parsis to add to this and enlarge the number.Bakaman 01:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles on persons (Zoroastrians or otherwise) should be tagged with the appropriate xxx-bio-stub, and not with a {religion}-stub. Unless of course the article is on a person that is relevant to history/development/scholarship/etc of that religion (eg Kardir, Manek Dhalla etc). -- Fullstop 09:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, small even for a WPJified type, though. And populate, please. Alai 02:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to 27 articles now. Close enough. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 02:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Alai 02:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for the stub template. The category is less important but nonetheless useful since it allows for a quick check of which articles need development. -- Fullstop 09:30, 8 December 2006 (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.

various paranormal[edit]

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 redirect supernatural to paranormal-stub, upmerge cryptozoology


From WP:WSS/D. Related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal (which has been notified).

Delete. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete {{Supernatural-stub}} but keep {{Cryptozoology-stub}} with a possible merge with {{legendary-creature-stub}} given the nature of most such animals. Another possibility would be to upmerge to {{Cryptid-stub}} or {{Cryptobiology-stub}} so as to include plants as well as animals. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why did you put your comment out of order? Anyway... Cryptozoology distinctly diffrent then mythology. While, it may be a grey area when it comes to Bigfoot, the Cyclops is clearly not part of Cryptozoology. ---J.S (T/C) 23:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Important, used by project paranormal. I don't see a policy reason given why these should be deleted, nor is a stub template given as a suitable replacement. Keep both until more explanation is given. ---J.S (T/C) 22:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • supernatural-stub is clearly not being used by the project, because it's only on 8 articles. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete supernatural-stub - clearly not widely enough used and badly formed to boot. Cryptozoology... I'd weakly favour keeping as a separate item, though I can see some sense in the suggested merge with legendary-creature-stub. Grutness...wha? 05:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: (supernatural-stub) Every project needs a stub category. It is an important tool for editors looking for new projects for improvement. Unless a policy can be stated for its deletion (and under use is not acceptable because that is down to the education of users, not the validity of the stub), there is no reason to delete this cat at all. perfectblue 07:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If "every project needs its own stub category" is your reason for keeping, then it's a novel one, considering the number of Wikiproject-specific stub types have been deleted in the past. If a stub category is too small, it's not kept, whether there's a wikiproject or not - it's a perfectly "valid excuse", as you put it, as explained at WP:STUB (with regards to size considerations when a stub category is created) and at the top of this page (see here). What you're describing is what Wikiproject talk page templates are for (for example the ones on Talk:Day Tripper, Talk:Sodium, and Talk:Canadian pale), not what stub templates are for. Such a project template would be far more use for your project than a stub template would. Grutness...wha? 10:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not seeing a policy reason to delete actively used stub templates... and their are other unanswered questions... What stub templates should be used in the place of these two? I'm ok with stub-reorganisation, but I need more information before I can support this deletion. ---J.S (T/C) 15:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, supernatural isn't actively being used because it's only on 8 articles. There should be about 60 articles (or 30 in the case of a WP) for there too be a category. 8 falls far short of either of those numbers. Also as said above, cryptozoology overlaps with legendary-creature a bit, so you could use that instead. Or possibly have cryptozoology also feed into the legendary creature cat (one cat, two templates)? ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cryprozoology is very different then mythology... I can see the two templates feeding to one cat as reasonable, assuming the cat-name was general enough. But our project doesn't deal with legendary creatures, so it's nice to have cryptoids separate.
8 articles seems reasonable when a stub is adopted by a project. ---J.S (T/C) 16:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Also, it seems like J.S' question wasn't answered. If these two were deleted, what stub templates should be used in their place? --Careax 19:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8 articles isn't really reasonable. I already said "There should be about 60 articles (or 30 in the case of a WP)". Also, I already said "cryptozoology overlaps with legendary-creature a bit, so you could use that instead". How am I not answering your questions? ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 19:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What stub templates should be used in their place? Specifically in place of the supernatural stub? --Careax 20:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. It depends on the nature of those 8 articles. WP Paranormal has some other stub templates listed ({{myth-stub}} and {{para-stub}}) and there's also an {{occult-stub}}, so maybe one of those would work. Also, if you're looking for a stub that is solely for your WikiProject, you could always propose a {{Paranormal-stub}} that would encompass all of this. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the existing stubs would work for specific articles, but some articles aren't really applicable to any of them. But a new general paranormal stub might do it. Thanks for the response. --Careax 23:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Supernatural, Keep Cryptozoology. --InShaneee 19:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge or redirect to a {{paranormal-stub}}, split out more specific topics only when numbers genuinely justify this. And keep wikiproject links out of article-space templates, please. Alai 02:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: I've merged Template:Supernatural-stub to Template:Para-stub, and expanded para-stub's language to be open enough for all the sup-stubs. ---J.S (T/C) 03:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's getting there, but the template name is a little cryptic, and the category name is too narrow. {{paranormal-stub}} / Cat:paranormal stubs would surely be much clearer, and scope exactly in line with your 'project. Alai 03:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So is it just a case of switching the cat name and moving the template? I can run though with AWB and switch out the templates. ---J.S (T/C) 15:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. (Or I can do it by bot, though as it's not exactly huge...) Alai 01:39, 9 December 2006 (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.

{{arena-stub}} / Cat:Arena stubs[edit]

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


Either rename to {{icehockey-arena-stub}}/{{icehockey-stadium-stub}}/{{icehockey-venue-stub}} or just delete. Most of these are double-tagged by state, so I'm not sure an additional by-sport template is really necessary. Also brings up problems of multi-sport arenas (which is why they're split by state, I assume). As a side note, we might need a {{Canada-sports-venue-stub}}, just based on the contents of this category. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indifferent Flibirigit 20:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get rid of the hockey references if kept. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Many of these aren't even solely sports venues, but it's still possible to identify a primary use and/or form of structure. Alai 03:02, 8 December 2006 (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.

{{Molecular and Cellular Biology-stub}} / Cat:Molecular and Cellular Biology stubs[edit]

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 lots of stuff happened - see final solution by Amalas


From WP:WSS/D. Previously deleted. Overlaps existing {{cell-biology-stub}}. Awful template name. The associated WikiProject has been notified. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom as re-creation. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete yet - WP:MCB is trying to gain a consensus view of the best way to reorganise the relevant cell, molecular, and protein stubs. A speedy deletion would not be helpful here. Dr Aaron 08:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have also left comments on the WP:MCB talk page Dr Aaron 08:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete yet. The subjects covered by this stub are not all cell biology, so the overlap is only partial. TimVickers 19:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In theory this can be speedily deleted as a re-creation, but it's probably not a good idea since there is reorganisation going on at the WikiProject. It should definitely go though - it crosses other categories horribly and is painfully named. Grutness...wha? 20:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes, we have been notified, but I must say I take some minor exception to the tone of the notice. If you want us to change it, there are much nicer ways of going about it. After all, not everybody is familiar with your guidelines. I request however that you stay deletion at least long enough to let us change everything over to the stub name that you like. – ClockworkSoul 23:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do apologize for the tone. I was putting a number of things up for deletion and after awhile, my notifications and descriptions get more and more terse. I do often forget that not everyone knows about the guidelines (I've been here awhile, so it happens), but that's also why I linked to them in the notification. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 23:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly merge both into Cat:molecular and cellular biology stubs if there's a scoping difficulty with the existing type. If an additional template is required, please make it NG-compliant: perhaps {{molecular-biology-stub}}, for those that are not precisely {{cell-biology-stub}}s. Don't worry about these being 'cast adrift': if there's an identifiable destination, they can and will be 'botted over at the close of the discussion. Alai 02:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I've done this, with the agreement of the wikiproject. Basically this seems to be the root cat for quite a large hierarchy, and might ultimately help attend to matters such as the biochems, which have been more or less projectless to this point, so it seems to be basically sensible as regards scope. Alai 22:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the updated hierarchy, based on the permcats:

I think this covers everything and this can now be closed. Hopefully. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:52, 13 December 2006 (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.

December 7[edit]

Cat:Georgia stubs → Cat:Georgia (country) stubs[edit]

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 is part of a large group nomination at WP:CFD. Under those circumstances, please comment there rather than here. Grutness...wha? 10:37, 7 December 2006 (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.

December 8[edit]

{{FSU-metro-stub}} / Category:FSU Metro stubs[edit]

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 template(s) by country and/or city, upmerge


I was going to put this on WSS/D, but then found it had already been discussed with the consensus to send it here in early September. Seeing no further discussion in the September logs, here it is. The category currently contains 26 articles. Propose upmerge to {{Metro-stub}}/Category:Rapid transit stubs. Slambo (Speak) 21:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose What's wrong with the category, we have stub categories that are empty and fill in and out due to how fast people edit them. I see nothing wrong with that. The only point is that instead of creating stubs, we usually leave the artilce red-linked and put it in complete, but if you want that category to grow exponentially I can create at least a hundred FSU metro stubs. --Kuban Cossack 23:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and upmerge. May be needed later, but if so, it should have a far better name and a better scope. FSU does not have a metro system. Neither does the FSU, or FSU. In any case, except in very rare circumstances, we use current national boundaries, so a stub type covering 15 countries which no longer form a cohesive unit and split across two continents is not the most sensible split, especially since I doubt that any of these metro systems have individual lines crossing current national borders. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Grutness. Poor scoped, poorly named, small. Alai 01:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The scope is very far from normal, agree, but could this be because of a WikiProject / taskforce or similar? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 01:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Comments. Although FSU is an abstract term, one needs not to realise that it does refer to the ex-Soviet countries...Now I personally find this category very helpful, because I do happen to operate in the seven ex-Soviet countries that have a rapid-transit system. If anybody doubts that statement, my full list of Metro contributions. As for poor management, then on the contrary, in my opinion its better not to create stubs, but instead to write complete articles from start. However, one of my key associates in the effort User:DDima, at times uses the stub function... However whenever he does so, I know exactly when such an article would come up by viewing that category. ... I think the only fair compromise that I propose here is that after we complete the 500+ articles on Metro stations, then I myself will put this stub category and template for deletion...However, at present, our rate is not excatly fast, as one thing is to create a hundred stubs another is to write 500 articles, roughly to the standard equivalent of Vyrlitsa. --Kuban Cossack 02:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given the current contents of 25 articles, almost all from the Moscow metro, and all of them from only three countries, I think your suggested "compromise" of "wait another 500 articles" is indistinguisable from your original unqualified opposition. I instead suggest that this be replaced with a {{Russia-metro-stub}}, a {{Ukraine-metro-stub}} and a {{Belarus-metro-stub}}, all upmerged to Cat:rapid transit stubs, or the proposed (I believe) Cat:European rapid transit stubs. If it's really necessary to "split up Europe", we should try to stick to standard modern definitions, like the UN subregions. Alai 04:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are other and better ways besides stubs to keep track of small numbers of articles that need improvement. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I really do not see any problem with it... It is helpful and the topic is of wide range. If consensus is to delete them, perhaps we can only delete the category and still keep the stub temp, so the articles will go into the Metro stubs category... Or if some do not like the name, we can rename it to smthing like Eastern European Metro stub... —dmytro/s-ko/ 19:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course per user:DDima. --Irpen 20:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. FSU abbreviation stands for different terms, as Grutness pointed out (above). I should either be country-specific, like {{Ukraine-metro-stub}}, {{Russia-metro-stub}}, as Alai suggested (above), or even city specific. Or just {{Metro-stub}}. At the end, it's just a stub. --KPbIC 21:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • By city is theoretically sensible as upmerged templates, but we're a looooong way off anything aside from {{Moscow-metro-stub}} being separately viable (and we're some way off that). Might as well go for the more specific template at least in that case, though. Alai 02:14, 15 December 2006 (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.

December 11[edit]

{{YCL-stub}} / Cat:Communist youth movement stubs[edit]

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


From WP:WSS/D. 8 articles. Delete both and retag articles with {{CP-stub}}. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per above nom. Grutness...wha? 23:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 01:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. The template is not widely used at the moment, but there are several more articles to which it could be used. Rather than deletion, its usage could be promoted. --Soman 07:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; badly named, much too small. Alai 18:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but should also get {{youth-org-stub}} Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. At this point used in 50 articles, with potential for wider use. Subcat to both 'CP' and 'youth org' stubcategories. I think there is a problem with to much of multiple stubs (many articles have 3-4 different stub templates, looking a bit crowded). This template fills a function. --Soman 09:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I make that 48, which is still small. But I'll stretch to a weak keep, provided the template is renamed to something semi-comprehensible (I'm open to offers). Alai 02:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{CP-youth-org-stub}} if we're not going to try and rename the cryptic {{CP-stub}} and {{Euro-CP-stub}}. If we try top rename the other two then {{communist-youth-org-stub}}, {{communist-party-stub}}, and {{Euro-communist-party-stub}} would be sensible in my opinion. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the existing less-than-obvious templates were partly why I forebore from making any specific suggestions. (CP's more "highly ambiguous", than "totally obscure", to my mind, though.) I'd be OK with any of the above. Alai 05:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be in favour of changing the lot as per Caerwine's suggestions. Have a quick look at CP! Grutness...wha? 10:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, weak keep since it has grown so much. Agree that the lot should be changed per Caerwine's suggestions. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:41, 18 December 2006 (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.

{{OU-stub}} / Cat:University of Oklahoma-related Stubs[edit]

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


From WP:WSS/D. 18 articles. At the very least needs a rename to...something. It is associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Oklahoma. They also have plans for a {{OKState-stub}} it seems. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or Odense U. :) Per Caerwine. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 01:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyone knows the Open University is the OU. Waacstats 23:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upscope, per CW, without a separate OU-stub template. (Which I'd also oppose were it used in the way Grutness implies (not that I'm suggesting he's suggesting this). Even as a Brit, it makes me think a) that could be almost anything, and b) even given the large hint that it's a university type, I'd probably think first of the Open University, especially given its logo, rather than Oxford (the OUP not withstanding). So in short, massively ambiguous.) Alai 18:02, 12 December 2006 (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.

{{Quebec-City-Stub}} / Cat:Quebec City stub[edit]

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


From WP:WSS/D. At the very least, rename to {{QuebecCity-stub}} / Cat:Quebec City stubs. A mite small at 22 articles, but Cat:Quebec stubs has about 150, so maybe there are more floating around in there. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - note that some 75% of the articles in here are actually Quebec-geo-stubs. If there's going to be a QuebecCity-stub (the correct name, as pointed out), it's be good to know whether that is what is wanted or whether a QuebecCity-geo-stub is actually what is required. Especially since several of the other items marked are bios, which we don't usually even divide by province, let alone city. Grutness...wha? 23:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for rename / Oppose for deletion - I really don't mind if the stub template is Quebec-City-Stub or QuebecCity-Stub, but the a stub template is necessary for this section... it's not because we have a small number of articles in it that we should delete the template. Normally when an article is identified as a stub, it's not just put in a category, we also put a stub template, and if we can, a specific stub template. --Deenoe 11:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Cat:Quebec stubs is for stubs related to the province of Quebec. --Deenoe 12:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am aware of that, but since Quebec City is in the province of Quebec, if we were to upmerge it, that's where it would go. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and upmerge (keeping template). Alai 18:02, 12 December 2006 (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.

Innumerable extremely small record label stubs[edit]

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 any cats not above 40, upmerge templates


And many, many more... my morale levels aren't sufficient to tag them all just at the moment. The most annoying thing is that this makes my properly proposed Cat:European record label stubs completely pointless: all the stubs have been diverted off into 3-article categories, created without so much as a mention. Upmerge all, either to existing parents or new by-region categories. Alai 06:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge all per nom - and delete any templates which aren't actually being used, if any. Is this all the work of one creator? If so, someone might need to have a word... Grutness...wha? 08:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I've been doing some work on categorizing all the stubs from the main record-label-stub category. Previously there was only stub categories for UK, US and Canada. I really don't see any harm in having one for each country. I've only been adding in the countries as I find new stubs, IE - I've not been creating one for every single country in the world. Furthermore the Cat:European record label stubs didn't exist until 4am this morning! Some of them have also had quite a few entries in them already (France and Germany spring to mind). Lugnuts 12:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you aware of the stub size guidelines? (Or indeed the new stub type proposal page?) The Euro- type didn't exist until then because I actually waited for input on the proposals page before creating it (discovering these in the process), as opposed to steaming ahead and creating these willy-nilly. It's conceivable that Germany or France might be viable (and last time I looked Sweden and the Netherlands were in the same ballpark), but a) not demonstrated, and b) hardly a justification for the rest of the category-creation spree (or indeed a "strong keep" thereof. Alai 15:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Moan, moan, moan. I still stand by my original comments. If anything I think it'll help to get these articles expanded by people who edit Wikipedia from those countries, instead of them being lost in the pit that is just record-label-stubs. Lugnuts 20:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you aware of the stub size guidelines? You mean this bit then: The need for stub categories arose when the main Category:Stubs became so full that it got quite hard to find articles on a specific topic. Lugnuts 20:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe the part Alai was referring to was Ideally, a newly-created stub type will have between 100 and 300 articles. In general, any new stub category should have a minimum of 60 articles. This threshold is modified for the stub category for use by a WikiProject. (If a Wikiproject is associated with more than one stub type, normal size considerations apply.) but I may be mistaken. Currently these 3 categories have 5 articles between them, which is a far cry from 60 each. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 21:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • That would be the bit I had in mind, yes, thank you Amalas. (I guess if one is going to selectively apply WP:STUB, similar thinking might as well apply to WP:CIVIL, but both seem rather regretable to me.) The need for a split is why I proposed and created the Euro- type, which actually follows all of the guidelines -- including size, need, and the "actually proposed" part -- not just applying one bullet point in a way that contradicts the remainder. Alai 18:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry, you just sound like an old woman! For Christ's sake, I was trying to improve it! I would understand if it was deliberate vandalism. I'm as passionate about this as the next guy, hence my input. I don't understand though why we need to have a discussion about stubs being created, but not for categories. This is where someone now points out that the latter is discussed before creation... Happy editing! Lugnuts 19:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Let me be more direct: knock off the gratuitous incivility, please. Were your arguments intended to be purely rhetorical, if this is the way you react to counter-points to same? Or are we supposed to accept unchallenged your assertions about how great an idea these types are? It doesn't have to be "deliberate vandalism" to be "an extremely bad idea", which latter instance is pretty much precisely what we have deletion processes for (as opposed to just shooting non-guideline-compliant material on sight, much as that might actually spare us some grief in some instances). We 'need' to have (or at least would hope for) prior discussion for these in a general effort to co-ordinate stub-sorting effort; and as against the perm-cats, as for one thing, they have different purposes, and hence, there's different criteria for them to exist -- in particular in this case, size. (Of which you were evidently either unaware, or were choosing to ignore; given the nature of your comment, it's still not clear which.) And for another, because of people who create them on a completely inappropriate basis. (Unfortunately, those tend to be the people who just merrily ignore the proposals page, so it's questionable if that plan ever actually gets us anywhere.) Alai 20:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • gratuitous incivility - Oh dear. Maybe you should step out into the real world for 2 minutes. This is about as "gratuitous" as a church bring-and-buy sale! I've put my point across well and in good nature humour too.
                  Or are we supposed to accept unchallenged your assertions about how great an idea these types are? - Yep, that's the one.Lugnuts 20:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For now, a preemptive deletion of any category with less than 30 articles, with a further review in a month or so. Since the templates have apparently been created on an as needed basis, keep them, and adjust the categories as needed. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you might point out yourself on such occasions, there's a reason the templates don't appear in the nomination... Alai 20:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge/delete all that don't accumulate a significant number (more than 30 seems okay, I suppose, I was thinking of 50-60 myself). I understand your concerns about people from those countries finding the articles; categorizing them into main categories would achieve this same goal. Crystallina 00:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the remaining categories, which I've just tagged. (Fellow process-fiends might want to let these sub-nominations run for the extra couple of days.)

None of these were over 30 at time of tagging; most are less than ten; many have a single article in each. As per my earlier estimates, the Australians and Germans are likely to be at least close to viable if fully sorted-to, as might a couple of others. I also note that I've made some renames from hyphens (Puerto-Rico- to PuertoRico-, etc, but I feel no burning need to get rid of the redirects, given that this aspect of the NGs still seems to be "bedding down", so they're arguably useful. Alai 00:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts 20:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • The number you're looking for is 60. Alai 02:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge/delete any that aren't near 40ish articles. Mairi 20:26, 16 December 2006 (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.

December 12[edit]

{{Internet-term-stub}}[edit]

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


From WP:WSS/D. No category. Not used on any articles. Probably speediable. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 19:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. Alai 19:26, 12 December 2006 (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.

Belfast[edit]

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


From WP:WSS/D. Associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Belfast.

Too small, even if associated with a WP. There were also concerns on /D that this wouldn't be the right way to split. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this somewhat populable? If so, double-upmerge the the -geo-, otherwise, upmerge both. Alai 19:22, 12 December 2006 (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.

{{Carnatic music-stub}} → {{Carnatic-music-stub}}[edit]

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


From WP:WSS/D. It's large enough and makes sense enough to list on WP:STUBS, but the template needs a rename first. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the person who brought us {{Classical Tamil-stub}}, judging by his brag^Wadmission-sheet. Maybe someone should mention the NGs to him. Speedily renamed, no objection to listing. Alai 18:58, 12 December 2006 (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.

{{McDonalds-stub}} / Cat:McDonald's stubs[edit]

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


From WP:WSS/D. 22 articles. Not really sure this is a good split. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, as a side note, the template creator (User:Irish the Great) is blocked as a sockpuppet of User:MascotGuy, who is considered a long-term vandal. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Not outrageous, but scope is such that it will (or ought) always to be doubled-stubbed. (I guess that's one type we don't have to worry about the "free keep from creator, regardless of guidelines".) Alai 18:22, 12 December 2006 (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.

{{pageant-bio-stub}} / Cat:Beauty pageant contestant stubs[edit]

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


From WP:WSS/D. It's pretty close to 60 articles, though. A {{pageant-stub}} was proposed in April, but not created. This might be useful to weed out Cat:Model stubs though. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was proposed at WP:WSS/P on May 26 and only received one comment, which was by Alai supporting it.--Carabinieri 18:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah-ha! I found the proposal. It didn't show up on the Archive summary page when I search for "pageant". Sorry about that... Consider this withdrawn, but I'm going to leave the discussion templates ({{sfd-t}}, etc) up anyway, unless someone else feels otherwise. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems OK, as long as it doesn't end up applied to every actress and model who was once in a BP. If kept, clarify scoping statement to make clear it's for people who are primarily notable for this. Alai 18:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This is a brilliant idea for all the stubs that have previously been tagged as "model" etc because there was no alternative... there are many, many articles that could be tagged with this but we just haven't got around to to it. Definitely needs to be kept. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 20:58, 17 December 2006 (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.

December 13[edit]

Ghost towns[edit]

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 top-level Ghost town stubs, delete rest


From WP:WSS/D. Associated with WikiProject Ghost towns. 9 categories. 11 templates that don't conform to the naming guidelines. 7 stub articles total.

Left a notice on the WikiProject talk page 9 days ago, no response. Recommend a definite delete on all except Category:Ghost town stubs with a rename of {{ghost town stub}} to {{ghosttown-stub}}. The potential is there for a viable and useful stub type, but given the lack of response from the WikiProject, I wouldn't mind a delete of even the root stub type, if that's needed for consensus. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • ye ghods. Delete all except possibly the generic one (which should be named as per Caerwine). Even that is pushing things a bit (well, a lot, actually). No real reason why these couldn't be stubbed with appropriate geo and hist stubs instead, if there wasn't a WikiProject. Does lack of response indicate a moribund project, perhaps? Grutness...wha? 01:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, with the faint possibility of the parent (which if kept should indeed be renamed, though to {{ghost-town-stub}} would be a little more intuitive, as the argument for the other is a little "subtle", to put it mildly). There's a possible argument for "historical geography" vs "current geography" (in the discussion on the "Roman" types, I found the counters to this rather weak), but this doesn't seem to be quite the right implementation thereof. Alai 02:22, 13 December 2006 (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.

December 14[edit]

{{FOX-stub}} / Cat:Fox network stubs[edit]

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


From WP:WSS/D. This has previously been deleted in other forms/spellings. 22 articles. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if there are othe rnetwork stubs. otherwise, delete to keep in line with the other networks, such as CBS, NBC, Univision, and so on. The Legendary RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 17:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned in the SciFi one below, but we had previously deleted the other network stubs, ABC-stub, NBC-stub, etc. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; seems to be used only on US TV stations currently, which IIRC are being sorted by state (and failing which, region), which seems likely to be more useful. Alai 01:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Other than the restubbing, there's no real reason this couldn't be speedied, since it's basically a re-creation. Grutness...wha? 22:18, 15 December 2006 (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.

{{SciFiUS-stub}} / Cat:Sci Fi Channel stubs[edit]

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 restub w/ sf-tv-stub or other appropriate & delete


From WP:WSS/D. Used for Sci Fi Channel (United States). A bit small at 38 articles. We've deleted most of the by-channel stubs already, so this shouldn't be much different. I'm also open to a renaming if someone feels strongly that this should be kept. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given that we're instead going with by-genre splits -- which probably makes more sense outside of the US "home market", where these end up all over -- perhaps scope this as such, and rename to {{sf-tv-stub}}, or something to that effect. (I realize that's a bit like changing the axe-head twice and the handle three times, but...) Alai 18:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, I mean "merge to"... Alai 18:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm fine with the merge. Makes sense. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:26, 14 December 2006 (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.

{{Australian-Greens-politician-stub}} / Cat:Australian Greens politician stubs[edit]

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/upmerge


From WP:WSS/D. Too small. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge / rename per Alai. Delete the redirect. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:57, 20 December 2006 (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.

{{Finnish mythology-stub}} / Cat:Finnic_mythology_stubs[edit]

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/upmerge


This discovered stub is not following mythology name standards, and is not more than 10 stubs: I propose to upmerge to {{euro-myth-stub}} and Cat:European mythology stubs because that is the next higher level. Goldenrowley 04:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it's kept it'd be good to have some uniformity in the names (and for the template to follow the naming guidelines) but an upmerge is probably a far better solution (with the requisite change to either {{Finland-myth-stub}} or {{Finnish-myth-stub}}). Grutness...wha? 05:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't forget about {{Finnic myth-stub}} too. That will need to be nixed as well. Oh, and rename/upmerge. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I've added the {{sfd-t}} to both stubs. Goldenrowley 03:03, 15 December 2006 (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.

December 16[edit]

Cat:Portugese sports venue stubs → Cat:Portuguese sports venue stubs[edit]

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 spelling. Her Pegship (tis herself) 06:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling error, what spelling error? *embarrassed coughing* Alai 06:16, 16 December 2006 (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.

December 17[edit]

{{NA-composer-stub}} redirect[edit]

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 redirect as a result of my moving this to {{NorthAm-composer-stub}}, it must be said -- where it really should have in the first place, given past precedents. If there are no speedy obs., I'll bot over the transclusions presently. Alai 20:02, 17 December 2006 (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.

December 18[edit]

{{2012-Olympic-stub}}[edit]

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


Though I can see the point of all the separate year olympic templates (and let's not forget that Winter olympics are now intercalated!) this one strikes me as unnecessary - especially since the only article tagged with it is about 1912!. Delete - at least until after Beijing. Grutness...wha? 23:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 20:17, 20 December 2006 (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.

{{Defunct-stub}} / Cat:Defunct Airline stubs[edit]

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


Airlines are surely better split by where they are from than whether they're still going. Has a mere 14 stubs, a miscapitalised and unparented category, and don't even get me started on the name of the template! Delete, or - if kept, rename. Grutness...wha? 10:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. By-location splits are much better than this. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. As the creator of this stub, I agree that by-location splits are important but I think it is still important to note whether or not they are going or not. I do agree on a name change, would {{defunct-airline-stub}} be more appropriate? Though the stub is small, it is growing through my WikiProject. -Jondude11 21:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC) talk[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.

{{Uruguayan-polit-stub}}[edit]

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 -politician- and delete -president-


Never proposed... may prove useful, but not with this name! At the very least rename to {{Uruguay-politician-stub}} (yes, it's for politicians, not politics). Unused, BTW. Grutness...wha? 06:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Create category if / when we have 50-60 articles or so. Delete the similar "-president" since we don't single out presidents for other nations. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 09:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting per Valentinian. Xiner (talk, email) 20:17, 20 December 2006 (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.

{{Hkbstub}}[edit]

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


Never used - for a Hong kong bus company, y the looks of it. Doubt it'd ever get to 60 stubs, certainly it isn't at the moment at 60, and is both cryptically and non-standardly named. Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 09:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:30, 19 December 2006 (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.

{{USA-bio-stub}}[edit]

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 what you think. This is for U.S. Army bios - already well covered by other stub types. Unused and - not surprisingly - never proposed. Delete as already covered and astoundingly ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 06:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 09:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was proposed albeit only as the category. The same guy who created {{US-army-bio-stub}} from the proposal also did the this stub, but didn't quite complete the work for whatever reason. It is ambiguous, seeing as how most people are not worried about the distinction between U.S.A. (United States of America) and USA (United States Army) that is used by the GPO. Still, once get rid of this one, we probably ought to consider for the purpose of consistency renaming {{USAF-bio-stub}} and {{USCG-bio-stub}} to match {{US-army-bio-stub}} and {{US-navy-bio-stub}}. Perhaps {{USAF-mil-bio-stub}} or {{US-USAF-bio-stub}} with matching stubs for the other four armed services (A Marine Corps bio stub has been proposed and will probably be created soon.) I know that there does seem to be some redundancy by adding a superfluous US- or -mil- to the template, but it would enable consistency without having to resort to a {{US-coastguard-bio-stub}} or the like. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:19, 19 December 2006 (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.

{{Pakistan-School-stub}}[edit]

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


Misnamed (and never proposed). has 33 stubs, so may be worth keeping, but not with this capitalisation. Should be at {{Pakistan-school-stub}}, if kept. Grutness...wha? 05:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename, and perhaps review it in a month to see if it's grown or not. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:31, 19 December 2006 (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.

{{Simcoe-county-road-stub}} and {{York-regional-road-stub}}[edit]

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


Hopelessly hyperspecific stub types used on two Canadian highways. Never proposed, of course :/ Grutness...wha? 05:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 09:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 20:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE.PLEASE DO NOT DELETE. It is very important for us to classify all the stubs we marked for each specific county, as per part of our WikiProject. If these stubs are deleted, this means the WikiProject would be ruined. -- The Geography Expert--Glad to serve you • Chat or discuss something with me • What I give *This signature prooves that this discussion/article/section is official! 21:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see there's any reason why a Wikiproject template linked on talk pages wouldn't do the job far better (as used by other WikiProjects - have a look at things like Talk:Flying (song), Talk: Canadian pale, Talk: Grahame Sydney and the like for examples. You don't need specific stub templates to do that job - and talk page templates would do the job far more efficiently as far as a specific wikiproject is concerned. Grutness...wha? 05:43, 21 December 2006 (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.

December 19[edit]

{{UGA-stub}} → {{UGeorgia-stub}}[edit]

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


Rename, paralleling {{UTexas-stub}} and {{UOklahoma-stub}}. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 20:12, 20 December 2006 (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.

Cat:European Communist party stubs → Cat:European communist party stubs[edit]

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


Fixing capitalization. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:31, 19 December 2006 (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.

December 21[edit]

{{ITV-stub}} / Category:ITV stubs[edit]

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


To quote Grutness: "This one was kept after an SFD debate a year ago, when the WikiProject involved assured us of how rapidly growing the stub category was... nine stubs in a year doesn't seem rapidly growing to me, though". The debate in question. I only count 8 stubs myself btw. Can easily all be categorised under {{UK-tv-channel-stub}}

Strong Delete TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You're right, there are only eight. I miscounted. Grutness...wha? 03:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have {{BBC-stub}}, {{BBC-TV-stub}}, which could also be categorised under the main UK one. The ITV stub could be of equally good use (I only found it today, otherwise would have used it earlier). The JPStalk to me 15:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The big difference is that one has an ACTIVE wikiproject, and the other does not apparently. There is no reason why BBC-TV-stub can't use UK-tv-prog-stub either, other then that there is an active project. One of the reasons i oppose this type of stubbing, is that the involvement of parties in a TV production can be very untransparent. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:55, 28 December 2006 (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.

{{Artemis Fowl-stub}} / Cat:Artemis Fowl stubs[edit]

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 template


From WP:WSS/D. This had already been deleted in April (although it was {{AFStub}} then). Yes, it's a re-creation, but it does have 30 articles now, so I brought it here instead of speedying. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, and certainly rename the template if kept. If it grows further before the debate period's finished it could well be keepable. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because there are many articles in it and it is a useful category for people who like Artemis Fowl, and want to improve the articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.180.205.82 (talk • contribs)
Keep; there are over thirty articles in the category and I'm sure it is helpful for improving Artemis Fowl articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollymoon (talk • contribs)
Keep This page seems that it will grow in size over time. Cocoaguy (Talk)| (Edits) 20:26, 23 December 2006 (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.

{{biogeography-stub}} / Cat:Biogeography stubs[edit]

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


From WP:WSS/D. Waaaay too small. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not only waaay too small, but covered by other stubs anyway. I halved it by moving Montane to topography-stub... it now has just one stub. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. biogeography is an important discipline at the intersection of physical geography and biology. Tossing biogeography articles into the stub categories of other disciplines will only obscure matters, rather than bring greater order or clarity. Biogeography is not, for example, a sub-discipline of topography, which is the study of landforms; Montane, pygmy forest, Oak savanna, and Evergreen forest ought not be classified as topography stubs at all, but rather as biogeography stubs.

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.

{{lobbying-stub}} / Cat:Lobbying stubs[edit]

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


From WP:WSS/D. Has 43 articles, but the articles would be much better stubbed -org- or -politician- or whatever. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - All the articles I have seen of this stub is of various organizations (technical and non-technical). I think this is mainly a redundant site. Chris 20:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • restub the articles and delete this one, as per above. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 21 December 2006 (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.

Hong Kong politicians[edit]

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 both -politician- stubs


From WP:WSS/D. These need a good sorting out and deciding which template/cat to use.

~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two options: 1) Keep the politician stub (and its redirect), but there's no reason the others can't be covered by the more generic HongKong-bio-stub type, so delete them. 2) upmerge the politicians into the poli-bios, but lose the gov-bio redirect. Don't mind either way from these two options. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the -politician template. Delete the rest. In other words: the standard system. This material hasn't grown for a long time and the system is a mess. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 01:17, 26 December 2006 (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.

Ossetia[edit]

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


From WP:WSS/D Associated with WikiProject Ossetia. 7 articles total.

Probably just a delete all, unless more articles can be found. If so, then keep the general Ossetia-stub and delete the rest. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. yet another disputed territory stub group, and one that crosses current international borders (South O is in Georgia, North O is in Russia). Grutness...wha? 23:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete like any similar case. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:12, 22 December 2006 (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.

Cat:Professional wrestling people stubs → Cat:Professional wrestling biography stubs[edit]

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


Rename to match other sport biographies. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Geoffg 03:19, 22 December 2006 (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.

{{Kirk stub}} / Cat:Church of Scotland stubs[edit]

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 showing a clear lack of use of the naming guidelines, and also some confusion as to what the stub type is for - none of the four stubs marked with this are about the church of Scotland per se, they are about church buildings of that denomination in Scotland. As such, if anything, they should be marked with Scotland-church-stub (or at the very least, if we don't yet have that, with UK-church-stub). Certainly there is no indication that there would be enough stubs on the organisation, liturgy and ranks within the Church of Scotland to require a stub type - and if there were, it would have a more clear-cut template name. Grutness...wha? 06:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Certainly there is no indication that there would be enough stubs on the organisation, liturgy and ranks within the Church of Scotland to require a stub type - and if there were, it would have a more clear-cut template name." On the contrary, there are a large number of biographical and geographical articles (current and potential) relating to the Kirk that would benefit from categorisation into a Church of Scotland stub as separate from a {{christianity-stub}} or {{church-stub}} or even a a {{scotland-stub}}. I only tagged four articles since I'm not an expert in the Kirk and these happened to be articles I came across whilst categorising churches in Scotland. I would tag more, would come across as an attempt to promote the tag unfairly so I will refrain from doing this until a decision has been made. Regards the name, by all means rename the stub to {{Church_of_scotland-stub}} etc., but I don't feel deletion is the answer. PMJ 21:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well as it stands at the moment, definition is certainly the problem. A ChurchofScotland-stub would be analogous to a RC-stub or Anglican-stub, covering the liturgy, organisation and ranks, but not the actual buildings or the people involved in the running of the church, which would get some form of location-church-stub and some form of reli-bio-stub respectively. You have church-stubs (i.e., relating to the actual buildings), bio-stubs (relating to the people involved) and actual ChurchofScotland-stubs (relating to the church itself) all mixed together, and the permcats for the three combined amount to about 200 articles, the vast majority of them people. I've no objection to a ChurchofScotland-bio-stub if there are 60 stubs about people connected with the church, but with only 41 churches in total with articles, it seems unlikely there would be 60 stubs there, and the 71 articles in the main permcat include a mixmatch of people and organisation, with fewer than 60 of those articles seemingly being the sort that would get a general ChurchofScotland-stub (60 is the threshold normally used for splits of stub categories, as explained at WP:STUB and elsewhere). Grutness...wha? 23:20, 23 December 2006 (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.

{{Miami-stub}} / Cat:Miami stubs[edit]

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 unused. Judging by the number of subcats of Cat:Florida stubs, such a category (and an associated {{Miami-geo-stub}}) might be useful, but there's no evidence of it here. If there's no sign of this reaching threshold in the immediate future, there's no point in keeping it. Grutness...wha? 06:44, 21 December 2006 (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.

December 23[edit]

{{Auto-tech-stub}}[edit]

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 it (and auto-part-stub) to automotive-xxxx-stub, create Automotive technology stubs cat


Created today with no proposal. This is a tricky one - it feeds into the Cat:Auto part stubs, for which we already have {{Auto-part-stub}}. The reason given in the edit summary for its creation is that this would cover the grey area of auto technology which isn't actually parts, and there is some merit in that, but if kept its place in the stub hierarchy will need to be looked at - if anything it will need some swapping around, since parts are technology, not the other way round. At the moment, I'd say weak delete, though a persuasive case for keeping it could easily make me change my mind. Grutness...wha? 03:13, 23 December 2006 (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.

December 28[edit]

Cue sports mess[edit]

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 use cuesport-stub / Cue sport stubs; snooker-stub, snooker-bio-stub / Snooker stubs


I tried to straighten this out a bit, but it still needs some work.

Part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports
everything feeds into this. rename to Cat:Cue sports stub
redirects to {{billiards-stub}}, not used on any articles, delete
redirect to {{billiards-stub}}, pick one to use
currently the "main" template, but should be deleted in favor of one of the above
Part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Snooker
create Cat:Snooker stubs
feed into create category above
malformed redirect to above, delete

~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 21:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I see in the stub categories and on two Wiki Project pages, I recommend:
There just aren't enough non-bio stubs to justify having stub types for the variants to have their own stubs, but there are enough for their bios to do so and apparently with little overlap. I'm assuming that the change from Billiards to Cue sports that has been proposed and has apparently reached consensus does take place with corresponding changes in Cat:Billiards and Cat:Billiards players, but since those haven't yet occurred, I'm leaving them alone for now. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) Erk - a mess, and one not helped by various definitions of the term "billiards" worldwide. I'd suggest
...and deletion of the rest. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far, I've only dealt with the Snooker items. I deleted the {{snookerbio-stub}} redirect, and the rest of the hierarchy now looks like this:
{{Snooker-stub}} / Cat:Snooker stubs (this cat's parent is currently Cat:Billiards, snooker and pool stubs until it gets renamed)
{{Snooker-bio-stub}} feeds into this category as well as into Cat:Sportspeople stubs

~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was apparently to move Billiards over to Cue sports, and although that has yet to actually happen, I'm assuming it will and I am updating the stub templates accordingly:

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.

{{Cluj-stub}} / Cat:Cluj-Napoca stubs[edit]

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 ClujCounty-geo-stub and upmerge


From WP:WSS/D. It's for a Romanian city. Used on 9 articles. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This stub and category is needed to develop the articles about Cluj-Napoca and will be used for a period, after that I will propose it for deletion. I need this in order to find exactly the articles that needs to be expanded.--Roamataa 21:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what user sub-pages are for. It makes far more sense to list articles on a sub-page than to create sepatrate templates and categories only to delete them later. Strong delete. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only to delete them later, but to organize better the development of certain articles. Anyway, I checked again and it seems there are more articles that have to be here. I added them and will add the remaining ones so that the category and stub will be used enough. Now used on 89 articles and more to coming. Keep.--Roamataa 08:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
changing to strong delete. As I said, this is not the best way to organise these for working on them. If you intend to make this and then delete it later, then this is a very bad way of doing it. Create a sub page of your user page where uypou can list any articles relating to Cluj-Napoca along with what needs doing on them. That way you can arrange them by topic, by state of completion, by how you intend to work on them etc etc etc. This is how such things are usually done by WikiProjects and by individuals working on large numbers of items. Stubs are more for use by unorganised groups of individuals all working on a tiopic - a different situation to the situation here. Grutness...wha? 09:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Cat:Cluj County stubs, since that's evidently what it's been (re)scoped as, or else delete. The latter is probably better, given the hodge-podge of misc. articles about the city, and what are largely nano-geo-stubs about the county. (An (upmerged) {{ClujCounty-geo-stub}} would be fine.) Alai 03:11, 5 January 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.

{{India-comedian-stub}} / no cat[edit]

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


From WP:WSS/D. Only used on 2 articles. Currently upmerged to Cat:Comedian stubs. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Double upmerge to Indian people and Comedians, perhaps? If it doesn't gain a population in the next couple of months, then revisiting deletion would be a reasonable option. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's already upmerged to Comedians, so that wouldn't change much. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 21:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: The 2 articles were better served with India-actor-stub rather than India-comedian. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:50, 4 January 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.

{{Modern English Bible translations-stub}} / no cat[edit]

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


From WP:WSS/D. Used on 1 article. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:22, 28 December 2006 (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.

{{Uruguay-celeb-stub}} / no cat[edit]

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


From WP:WSS/D. Associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Uruguay. Not used on any articles. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:18, 28 December 2006 (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.

{{Dharmic-Religion-stub}} / Cat:Dharmic Religion stubs[edit]

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 Dharmic-reli-stub / Dharmic religion stubs


From WP:WSS/D. Only used on 4 articles. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this category is a necessary aid to prevent unnecessary duplication of articles. There are a number of religious traditions that are referred to as Dharmic religions. There are concepts which are shared by all of these religious traditions. When a stub is created and placed in say stubs related to Hinduism, it may remain unnoticed by Buddhists. As a result, a similar article may be created under a different name. The cost of duplicate articles in terms of effort is much greater than the cost of maintaining a category of stub types in my opinon. Although the category only has four articles in it at the moment, I don't see that as a convincing argument for deletion. --BostonMA talk 20:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, only 4 articles IS a convincing argument. According to WP:STUB, Ideally, a newly-created stub type will have between 100 and 300 articles. In general, any new stub category should have a minimum of 60 articles. 4 is very much smaller than 60. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, a newly created stub type will have between 100 and 300 articles. So this is clearly not an "ideal" stub category. However, in my mind, the question is whether it is useful, and whether its usefulness outweighs the costs. As I have already explained, the cost of creating duplicate articles is rather high. I see the cost of having a well defined category as rather low. Could you make an argument about why it should have 100 to 300 articles, rather than simply citing a guideline? Thanks. --BostonMA talk 20:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not one argument, no - two. 1) From the point of view of maintenance - Even with this guideline, the number opf stub categories is immense and difficult to maintain. To drop the threshold would mean to greatly increase the number of categories deemed viable, with the associated increase in maintenance. WSS is a small wikiproject - it only has some 400 members, and it is virtually a full-time job keeping track of the 4000 stub types that currently exist. if the threshold was dropped to say 30, the number of categories would increase severalfold, probably to the region of 10,000 stub types. 2) from the point of view of editors - The reason this threshold is used is to provide an optimum size for categories for the benefit of editors. A stub category works differently to a standard permanent category - they are not designed for readers to be able to locate one article; they are designed for editors to be able to find a range of articles on a similar subject which they may be able to work on. It is exceptionally rare that an editor would be able to contribute to all the artiocles on a subject - it is much more likely they would only be able to extend a small proportion of them. Similarly, it is a rare editor whose expertise lies on one minute aspect of a topic. For that reason, making the stub categories small and limited in scope increases work for editors. One editor can easily search through 100 articles to find the 15 or so they may be able to work on - it is far more effort to look for the same number of articles if they are distributed amond half a dozen stub categories. The optimum sizes used are just that - an optimum for editors, requiring a compromise between sifting through an overly-large category and picking among several tiny ones. Long hard experience on Wikipedia has shown that 100-300 articles is this optimum range. Grutness...wha? 08:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or upmerge unless we have a lot of untagged material for this one. If it can be brought to 30-40 articles, then I might be swayed. The size criteria exist in order to avoid having to maintain a ton of templates that are hardly used at all. Since this project maintains many hundreds of stub templates used on around 400,000 articles, the number of templates has to be controlled in one way or another, so this is one generally used method. In case the opinion should be for keeping the template, please note that the name does not conform to the naming standard. If kept, the name should be fixed. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or upmerge. The argument about avoiding duplication sounds like a better argument for a permcat than for a stubcat. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article count of this category could easily be brought 30-40 by appropriately recategorizing a number of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism etc. stubs. However, because of the newness of this category, it is likely that many editors who might be looking at Hinduism, Buddhism or Jainim stubs might not yet be aware of this stub category. I am therefore reluctant make an extensive recategorization without first gaining some explicit editor support. I will make an effort to find out who may be interested. --BostonMA talk 00:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a related permcat Category:Dharmic religions. --BostonMA talk 01:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This stub type is a good idea. I have seen many articles with two or three stub templates - Hinduism, Budhhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Ayyavazhi, etc. It is more elegant and efficient to have a single category. A new stub type cannot be expected to have 300 articles, but many stubs in other categories need to be recategorized. This shouldn't be a problem at all. deeptrivia (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another note: Adherents of many officially Hindu sects do not like to identify themselves as Hindus. For example, members of Arya Samaj say they are Arya, not Hindu, members of Brahmo Samaj do not like to identify their beliefs as a part of Hinduism. There are also debates whether some systems like Kabir Panth qualify as separate religions or are a part of Hinduism. Putting Hinduism stub on such articles might not be NPOV, but no one will have any problem with the Dharmic religion template. deeptrivia (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note There are now 38 pages in this cat. --BostonMA talk 03:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems basically sensible, if the existing types are placed as sub-cats, to follow the permcat structure, and if the template is renamed to {{Dharmic-reli-stub}} (a redirect from {{Dharmic-religion-stub}} would seem sensible). On that basis, keep. Alai 03:00, 5 January 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.

{{Napoleonic Fiction-stub}} / Cat:WikiProject Napoleonic Fiction stubs[edit]

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 currently used on any articles, and yes, that is the real category name. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gah. Delete tonight, Josephine. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 29 December 2006 (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.

{{Tanzania-politics-stub}} / Cat:Tanzania politics stubs[edit]

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


Used on one article. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to this deletion. I created the category, but someone else suggested a better categorization and implemented accordingly. Therefore, this template should be deleted. Malangali 21:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then it can be speedied, since the creator of it supports deletion. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 29 December 2006 (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.

rename {{mtgstub}}[edit]

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 MTG-game-stub


Associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering. Needs to be renamed. MTG redirects to Modern Times Group, so that option is out. Maybe a {{MagicTG-stub}}? ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is a subtype of {{card-game-stub}}, how about {{MTG-game-stub}}? Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, it certainly needs renaming... MTG-game-stub is probably unambiguous enough. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MTG-game-stub is fine by me. Shadowin 05:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we have a winner. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 10:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to comment, I've redirected MTG to a disambig page, rather than give it priority to Modern Times Group. No objections to the proposed rename. -- Norvy (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{MTG-game-stub}} seems good, {{MagicTG-stub}} doesn't seem like it would be intuitive for editors trying to use it. Jay32183 03:31, 3 January 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.

December 29[edit]

{{Cebu-stub}} / no cat[edit]

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


From WP:WSS/D. Not used on any articles. Probably speediable. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and yes, probably speedily. Grutness...wha? 23:17, 29 December 2006 (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.

{{FireService-stub}} / Cat:Fire Service stubs[edit]

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


From WP:WSS/D. Redundant to existing {{emergency-services-stub}}. Used on only 5 articles. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep I created the template and as one of the WikiProject Fire Service creators, it is my task to tag articles as stubs. I haven't gotten around to it yet because I had been working on my other WikiProjects, Youngstown and U.S. Congress. The "emergency services" are broad and include police, fire, ems, rescue and related fields. This is simply for fire service related articles. --Daysleeper47 15:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are at least a couple of stubs stuck in {{US-bio-stub}} that could use this stub (or the more generic {{emergency-services-stub}} now that I am aware of it. However, rename to {{firefighting-stub}} → Cat:Firefighting stubs to match the appropriate non-stub parent category: Cat:Firefighting. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are only about 120 articles in Cat:Emergency services stubs, so I'm not sure we need to split out firefighting just yet. Do you think there are more untagged emergency services stubs out there? ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 19:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to {[tl|firefighting-stub}} and upmerge for now. If it gets bigger it can always get a category later, and whatlinkshere will still be available for any that wants it. Grutness...wha? 23:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to firefighting and upmerge per above. I think currently it's too narrow. --Brand спойт 01:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and upmerge. Alai 03:14, 5 January 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.

rename of {{Archbishop-of-York-stub}}[edit]

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


Rename to match {{ArchbishopofCanterbury-stub}}. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:47, 29 December 2006 (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.

rename of {{Bishop-of-Durham-stub}}[edit]

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


Rename to match {{ArchbishopofCanterbury-stub}}. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:47, 29 December 2006 (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.

{{Physiology-stub}} / Cat:Physiology stubs[edit]

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


From WP:WSS/D. A bit small at 16 articles, and there are less than 200 articles in the corresponding permcat. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also of note, it looks like the template and cat were created 16 November, but then the template was deleted on 17 November "per WP:SFD". Here's the previous discussion. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:43, 29 December 2006 (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.

{{Wikimedia-stub}} / Cat:Wikimedia stubs and {{MediaWiki-stub}} / Cat:MediaWiki stubs[edit]

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


From WP:WSS/D. Merge w/ {{Wikipedia-stub}}. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikimedia-stub is not used on any articles, MediaWiki is used on 2 articles, but they do not properly populate into the category. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reverse merge? Seems to me that Wikipedia stub and MediaWiki stub are both subordinate to Wikimedia stub, so if anything Wikimedia is the one that should be kept, with Wikipedia-stub also kept as a redirect (MediaWiki-stub can go). I'd suggest simply changing it to Wiki-stub, but that would imply the inclusion of all Wiki-based websites, not just those connected with WM/WP. Grutness...wha? 23:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to the Wikimedia suggestion, instead of Wikipedia. Regards. --Mac 06:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trouble is, there's no Cat:Wikimedia (any more), and Cat:Wikimedia Foundation is narrower than the intended scope. Given the lack of current population, though... Alai 03:25, 5 January 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.

{{Andalusia-bio-stub}} / Cat:Andalusian people stubs[edit]

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


From WP:WSS/D. "Created back in May and used on 40 articles. Non-standard scope and I'm pretty sure the image used is the picture of a secessionist leader." ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The stub is useful and very close to the advisable minimum of 50. I will review any unlabelled stubs and marked them accordingly during the weekend. Regarding the image, it is PD portrait of Blas Infante, "Father of modern Andalusia", as officially legislated by the Andalusian Parliament on 14 April 1983[1]. Hardly a POV choice! (NB: Compare with {{Scotland-bio-stub}}). Therefore, Strong Keep. Asteriontalk 14:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm glad if the image is neutral, but I don't see the point in splitting off the material for Andalusia, since the Spanish material isn't that great. The number of British articles is completely bloated, so the UK bios have been subdivided by constituent nation, but this is pretty much the exception that proves the rule. I don't see the same need here, and it seems more logical to me e.g. to have articles about the Moors grouped in the same category nomatter if the persons in question lived in Andalusia or in what is now parts of Castile or Aragon. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 10:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there should be a different stub for Al-Andalus, as opposed to modern Andalusia (i.e. Andalusi bio stub). Also a reminder that as for the Statute of Autonomy, Andalusia is defined as a Nacionalidad. Andalusia-bio-stub feeds into Spain-bio-stub, so no content is lost. Regards, Asteriontalk 13:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for asking so bluntly, but what is a "Nacionalidad"? An ethnicity / "constituent nation" / protected minority / home-ruling region or something completely different? My Spanish is terrible. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My fault. Both Nacionalidad and Nación as in the statutes of autonomy for Andalusia, Basque Country, Catalonia and Galicia (the autonomous communities of Spain with more devolved rights) are usually translated as Nation, but not in the sense of Constituent Nation as in the United Kingdom Act of Union. The concept is difficult to grasp indeed! On a practical basis, I do actually agree that there are too few bio stubs to warrant a separate category. So it might make pragmatical sense to upmerge but I would argue in principle against protection against recreation. Thanks, Asteriontalk 00:58, 2 January 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.

{{Tenacious D-stub}}[edit]

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


Never proposed, of course. No cat, though there is a redlink to one. Malformed name. And split by artist. 60 stubs? Your guess. Currently the only artists with their own stub types are the Beatles and Tenacious D. Which ranks Tenacious D above Elvis, the BeeGees, U2, the Beach Boys, Elton John, Eminem, Van Halen, Pink Floyd, Weird Al... you name it. Not. Tenacious Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Used on a massive 8 articles or so. Splitting by artist is not a good idea. I shudder at the thought of {{MasterFatman-stub}} or {{BigFatSnake-stub}} as children of Cat:Danish musical group stubs. Delete Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 13:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomCaerwine Caer’s whines 18:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Scope too narrow. --TheParanoidOne 06:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Asteriontalk 10:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NRV. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 09:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No question.. Rehevkor 23:25, 4 January 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.

December 30[edit]

{{Anime-series-stub}} / Category:Anime series stubs[edit]

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


Relisted from WP:TfD. Duplicate of {{anime-stub}} with no consensus to create/split. (One people proposing and one agreeing with no other discussion does not form a consensus.) It is also unused after existing for over a month. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't believe that this was ever proposed as a stub type in the first place. --Squilibob 22:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons mentioned above. -- 9muses 23:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate. Cat:Anime and manga stubs is a very large stub category that needs splitting and Cat:Anime series enough to suggest that this is a useful split if it were actually done that is. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unneeded -- Ned Scott 03:36, 31 December 2006 (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.

Numerous Hong Kong redirects[edit]

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 "Hong Kong-", "Hong-Kong"; keep "HongKong-, "HK-"


The naming guidelines make it fairly clear - full name, CamelCase, or abbreviations if they're widely enough used to be unambiguous. No gaps, and no hyphens unless a subtype is implied.

So why does HongKong-geo-stub not only have a fairly acceptably named redirect at HK-geo-stub, but also unacceptably named ones at {{Hong Kong-geo-stub}} and {{Hong-Kong-geo-stub}}? Does it really need so many redirects?

And why is there also a redirect to {{HongKong-stub}} at {{Hong Kong-stub}}?

And, since "Hong-Kong-xxx-stub" is unacceptable (after all, it's not a subtype of Kong-xxx-stub), what about these redirects: {{Hong-Kong-bio-stub}}, {{Hong-Kong-edu-stub}}, {{Hong-Kong-gov-stub}}, {{Hong-Kong-road-stub}}, {{Hong-Kong-tv-stub}}?

I'd like to propose keeping the HongKong-xxx-stub styled templates, and any HK-xxx-stub redirects, but deleting all the Hong-Kong-xxx-stub and Hong Kong-xxx-stub redirects. Grutness...wha? 05:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: They were created before the CamelCase rule was put in placed and strictly enforced (and some of the newer ones were created following the old ones as examples). Their existence is useful merely for checking edit history, iff they were not relocated by using the move button. — Instantnood 12:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and delete per Grutness. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh. Yes, I did say "Keep and delete" didn't I? I think that's the first time I've ever seen that as a vote... Grutness...wha? 05:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Grutness said (is this better, G.?) Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 10:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all the real templates, change the inscription of articles that uses redirects, and delete all the redirects. --Deryck C. 10:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete the redirects then keep the templates --Jacklau96 12:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I will also go with what Grutness said, or in other words, per nom. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete of any space-filled templates, weak delete of the Hong-Kong- and HK- versions, as respectively technically-but-not-necessarily-widely-understood-to-be against the NGs, and much too cryptic and ambiguous. Alai 18:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But if you delete, there will be no stubs for hong kong articles. --Jacklau96 01:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not suggesting we delete the HongKong- versions, i.e. the correctly and clearly named actual templates, just the redirects (which are all that's nommed, if I understand this correctly -- in fact, not even all of those). Alai 02:01, 6 January 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.

{{Hungary-geo-stub/b}}[edit]

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


...and so, we move into "wtf?" territory, with a fork of a template. Unused, unexplained, unnecessary. Delete, please! Grutness...wha? 05:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 01:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the sole difference between the two is that {{Hungary-geo-stub}} uses a flag colored cutout of Hungary while this one uses a topographic map of Hungary. Would be useful if we split stub types between physical and political geology, but we don't and I can't see us as being likely to any time soon. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 10:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NRV. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 09:10, 4 January 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.

December 31[edit]

{{1930s-horror-film-stub}} / Category:1930s horror film stubs[edit]

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


Was listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries a couple of weeks ago. Decision was to give it a couple weeks, and then if it's still undersize send it to deletion. It currently contains 19 articles. Eli Falk 21:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for {{1940s-horror-film-stub}} / Category:1940s horror film stubs, which has 24 stubs.Eli Falk 05:43, 1 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2006/December&oldid=135396968"