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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 1[edit]

{{Automobile 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 mm dnsnbaba{| class="wikitable"

|- ! header 1 ! header 2 ! header 3 |- | row 1, cell 1 | row 1, cell 2 | row 1, cell 3 |- | row 2, cell 1 | row 2, cell 2 | row 2, cell 3 |}ade 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


Malformed and redundant to {{auto-stub}}. I would have just redirected it, but we seem to be on a "delete all redirects that have spaces" kick. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:05, 1 September 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.

{{Canada-hist-bio-stub}} / Cat:Canadian historical figures stubs / Cat:Canadian historical figure stubs (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


When a split of the Canadian bio stubs was proposed, this was the one category that was not approved. Convenient, then, that this is the only one that gets created. --fuzzy510 16:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the person dumb enough to propose this in the first place, I believe it's populable, though whether it's a good axis for a split is an open question. I'll stay silent on that, but at the very least delete the incorrectly pluralised version, Cat:Canadian historical figures stubs, either in favour of, or as well as, the other. Alai 16:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the dimwit who created this stub, I apologize (in the future can we strike stubs which are not approved for us dimwits). However, I guess I always liked this stub since there are many articles from the Dictionary of Canadian Biography which are hard to place in stub categories anywhere else. --YUL89YYZ 18:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can certainly believe that's so, on the same basis as the US and AU "settlers" who're mainly notable for essentially that. But hist-bio might be a little on the broad side, since it'd probably overlap quite a bit with politicians, writers, etc, which it'd be better to sort as those. Alai 19:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creating bio-stubs based on whether people are historical or not is not a good idea. Everyone is "historical" if they're notable enough to have an article, even people still alove. As such, scoping a category listed as "histoical" becomes a total nightmare - which is why it is a term never used for bio-stubs. A rename/rescope to canada-settler-stub, for people who were simply settlers and nothing more, is certainly a possibility, but the current name is a very bad idea. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Goldenrowley 06:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC) - adding my reason Grutness makes strong point I am convinced everyone worhty to be in the archives is historical.Goldenrowley 18:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Grutness. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:06, 11 September 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.

{{Lea-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


Who knows what a "Lea" is? Wrong. It's a "Law Enforcement Organization". Unlicensed creation, no cat, 18 entrants, bad name - we can let go of this stub type. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe someone already proposed a {{law-enforcement-stub}}, so create that, shove those in there, and delete this. Alai 02:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lea" is a river in north London. Rename/delete as per Alai. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My mom's name is Lea. Goldenrowley 06:16, 7 September 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.

{{Cz-geo-stub}} / Cat:Czechia geography stubs → {{Czechia-geo-stub}} / Cat:Czech Republic geography 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


Unreasonably cryptic, if technically unambiguous (Cz is a redirect). Sets a bad precedent for using TLDs as (well, beyond that already established by US, UK and NZ, though at least those are generally-used acronyms). Rename to {{Czechia-geo-stub}}, {{Czech-geo-stub}} or {{CzechRepublic-geo-stub}}, in that order of preference, probably keeping all of the above (as) redirects, though I'm open to some rationalisation. Alai 01:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the current name the result of an old naming dispute? Btw, to be consistent with the other Czech stub templates, it would be {{Czech-geo-stub}}. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 20:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm agreeable to that. Alai 20:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for czechs, "Czechia" sound a bit horrible, so better use one of the other two names. I suggest the shorter, {{Czech-geo-stub}} --Bilboq 23:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds pretty horrible to me too, I just didn't like to say. :) (That it's not taken off in the Anglophone world, despite decrees as to its semi-officialness by the .cz government, doesn't entirely surprise me.) Alai 23:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of this one (as Valentinian points out), you'll see why it was created with the name of cz-geo-stub. There was a long, bitter edit war between those who preferred the name Czech Republic and those who preferred the name Czechia. This template was actually protected for about six months because of it. I don't want that edit war to start up again, but would certainly welcome a better name (and {{CzechR-geo-stub}} would be the best one IMHO, possibly with redirects from Czech- and CzechRepublic-). I'd definitely favour moving it to be in line with the article names if those who were warring have moved on, though. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Czechs can't agree on "correct" name not only in wikipedia, similar "wars" are going in blogs, media, personal talk, etc... These wars between Czech (Česko) and Czechia (Čechy) will probably go for some time ... advantage of {{Czech-geo-stub}} is that you can say that "Czech" is an adjective (Český), as in "Czech Republic", which might shut up those "Czechia" preferring people. People from Moravia will hate the Czechia probably the most, as technically Czech Republic is divided into 3 historical parts: Czechia, Moravia and Moravian Silesia. Maybe CzechR will be the best though ... --Bilboq 00:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be a fairly distant 4th in my preference ordering, but it'd beat "Cz". Alai 00:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the category to match parents. Delete {{Cz-geo-stub}} as cryptic TLA. As for the other templates/redirects, I don't care which one is the template and which are the redirects, but keep them all. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Czech-geo-stub. That's the most intuitive choice. Mutebutton 15:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is me who generates most of Czech Rep. geographic stubs and I have no problems with Cz. Artificial name Czechia did not catch on, CzechRepublic is too long, Czech has too many meanings. Cz is short, known and fitting and anyway, in long term all Cz stubs will get filled. Pavel Vozenilek 13:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Czech form. Petr K 14:17, 8 September 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.

September 2[edit]

Labor union-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 relaunch debate as new proposal now that some points have been clarified


Here's a list of them:

{{Union-stub}}/Cat:Trade union stubs;{{Africa-labor-org-stub}}/Cat:African trade union stubs;{{Asia-labor-org-stub}}/Cat:Asian trade union stubs;{{India-labor-org-stub}}/Cat:Indian trade union stubs;{{Euro-labor-org-stub}}/Cat:European trade union stubs;{{UK-labor-org-stub}}/Cat:United Kingdom trade union stubs;{{NorthAm-labor-org-stub}}/Cat:North American trade union stubs;{{US-labor-org-stub}}/Cat:United States labor union stubs;{{Oceania-labor-org-stub}}/Cat:Oceania trade union stubs;{{SouthAm-labor-org-stub}}/Cat:South American trade union stubs;{{worker-activist-stub}}/Cat:Worker's rights activist stubs

They are terribly incostently named. I propose using either {{worker-org-stub}} and {{worker-activist-stub}} or {{labor-org-stub}} and {{labor-activist-stub}}.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 13:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I completely agree, and argued for worker-org-stub at the time these were created. Several of these are just plain wrong - especially UK-labor-org-stub, since the spelling "labor" doesn't exist in the UK. Support changing them to worker-org and keeping worker-activist. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was my first thought, but to be fair, that's a redirect, not the "real" template. Alai 04:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename temlpates per Grutness. Have also added an SFR to rename Cat:United States labor union stubs to Cat:United States trade union stubs so as to match the parent cat Cat:Trade unions of the United States. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where? You mean "tagged in" to this discussion? Anyhoo, support that, and support making the templates consistent one way or another, keeping current names as directs. Alai 04:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Though BTW, the main article is at Labor unions in the United States. More grist to the mill of "vertical vs. horizontal consistency". Alai 05:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I favor letting CFD worry about whether articles and categories match in name in cases such as this where the same concept has different terminology in different English speaking countries. That means all SFD and WSS have to do is worry about matching the parent categories. If I felt strongly about it beyond that, I'd have sent the parent to CFD for renaming instead. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree make them consistent. I write lots of contracts and almost all of them are between us and "Labor organizations" or "Labor Trusts"/ I cant think of any that have 'worker' in the Name. Suggest therefor {{Labor-Org}}. Labor-Org denotes an legal entity on the behalf of Laborers. A Union is a type of Labor-org so is instantly included. activist denotes a person being politically active. Goldenrowley 06:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarifying my above: I suggest therefor {{country-labor-org-stub}}, where the real names of country replaces the "country". Goldenrowley 18:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I strongly oppose this new suggestion. Just because one country uses the term "labor organization" doesn't mean that it is a standard term worldwide. Most English-speaking countries do not have the word "labor" - they have the term "labour". Grutness...wha? 23:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, is this round three or round four for this discussion? I guess it depends how you count. (one, two) I will admit to being frustrated with this process. At this point Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour has become a viable community with a number of editors who consistently work in this area – all the stubs and most of the cats being discussed here are clearly marked as being part of the project – why would no one think to contact the project for input? It just doesn’t make any sense. I’m not trying to imply bad faith, I’m just frustrated that I only discover this conversation (which is more complicated than it appears) by accident. I would think that involving related communities would help the process, or at the least reduce misunderstandings down the road…

This does not make them all identical, but it does make them consistent. We won't be able to name them all identical without offending one group(labor) or the other(trade). Previously there was opinion to avoid the word "union", but I believe it is clear enough to not be misunderstood. However, I'm of the opposite opinion when using the word "Worker". :) Worker is a political word in the labour world, and using it may well lead to other disagreements, from political points of view, as well as class points of view.--Bookandcoffee 19:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or as a second possibility, use {{X-labour-org-stub}} for everyone except the US which is {{US-labor-org-stub}} - but then you're left with the difference between the cats and stubs, unless they are changed to Cat:X labour organization stubs, in which case they will no longer match the actual text that is displayed on the article page.--Bookandcoffee 00:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal seems reasonable. - FrancisTyers · 11:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned most of the affected templates and categories do not seem to have been tagged as part of this nomination, which might explain why B&C only "discovered this by accident". Given the earlier noms, there would appear to be no basis to believe this would be in the realm of the straightforward and uncontroversial. I'm certainly not going to "action" this one this basis: I suggest that it be either closed without result; or else that it be "done over": everything potentially effected to be tagged, and wikiproject (and anyone else) given a fresh seven days to comment. (On the face of it we have a "vote" to mass-move all the templates and delete the redirects, but that would seem rather uncalled for in the circumstances.) Alai 04:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with starting with a new proposal, I would support the 2 ideas presented very neatly to us on Sept 8 or Sept 10 but it should be proposed for a full 7 days. I simply did not know other countries used the word Labour and that would become the problem over how to spell a word on stubs. Goldenrowley 03:50, 11 September 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.

September 5[edit]

{{ChannelIslands-Political-stub}} / Cat:Channel Islands Political 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


Poorly named stub category. Never proposed, let alone approved, and with only 23 stubs - of which 15 are bio-stubs. ChannelIslands-stub was created by the same user at the same time, and it has a grand total of one stub. While that one could be kept for a while to see whether it is of any use (which I suspect it will be), the politics one definitely requires deletion (if, by some chance, the vote is to keep, it should be renamed in accordance with the naming guidelines). Grutness...wha? 04:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is way too small and as used now, it cuts through the system used elsewhere. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 06:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is part of an ongoing project, and will expand over time I only have so much time to write. The Channel Islands Stub should go though as there is a Jersey Stub and a Guernsey Stub which I have moved all the articles initially in Channel Islands stubs into. Apologies for not checking the procedure though. There are political stub categories for other countries so I do not see any reason why the Channel Islands shouldn't also have one.

RichardColgate 12:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Some other countries have them - but only those where there are a sufficiently large number to warrant a separate category, and only when the parent stub category is large enough to require a split. And they don't include bio-stubs. At the current time, there aren't enough stubs for a separate split to be worthwhile to either stub sorters or - more importantly - editors of Channel Island articles. And since there is no Jersey-stub nor Guernsey-stub, I don't see where you could have moved those articles to. If there were such stubs already, I would have also nominated ChannelIslands-stub for deletion. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The trouble is that there is no 'parent category' for Channel Islands stubs other than stub. I see your point though Channel Islands stubs would be most useful as a starting point. The only stub category I can otherwise see is Channel Islands Geo Stubs though I can see that some originally Channel Islands stubs have been moved into the Jersey and Guernsey catgeory. I think if just Channel Islands stub is used then there will be too many articles and some sub-categorisation can occur and geo and political would seem to be the best two.

DariusJersey 13:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        • If you'll read my comments again, you'll see that this is why I have suggested keeping {{ChannelIslands-stub}} and its associated category. Richard Colgate seems to have muddied the waters thoroughly by moving articles from the category which I suggested keeping but leaving those in the category I proposed deleting. I repeat: there is no need for a separate "political stubs" category for the Channel Islands, especially since such category is clearly being used contrary to the stub hierarchy. There is, however, a strong possibility that an overall Channel Islands stubs category would be very useful. Grutness...wha? 23:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and resort them, and this is just my humble opinion.

Goldenrowley 06:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep For me personally (as a resident of the Channel Islands) this is the most useful category on wikipedia, could quite easily meet the minimum criteria if all articles which should be in this category were added. Most of the information is not widely known locally. I perfectly understand that this will have limited appeal in the wider world. But hey most of the stuff on wikipedia is of absolutely no interest to me either.

DariusJersey 12:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is suggesting to delete this material. We are debating the proper name / scope of a stub template, nothing more. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 20:37, 8 September 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.

September 6[edit]

Cat:Canadian bridge (structure) stubs → Cat:Canada bridge (structure) 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 the cat so as to be similar to Cat:Canada buildings and structures stubs. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I proposed this category at the end of August, the argument was made (not by me) that it should be "Canadian" and not "Canada". --Stéphane Charette 16:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for pointing out that discussion. Makes sense.~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: danger, WSS grammar at work. I think we're really in danger of jumping the shark on this whole "follow the permanent parent, in a way no permanent category ever would" kick. Alai 18:41, 6 September 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.

September 11[edit]

Organized labour 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 "trade union" wording


There have been several discussions about renaming these stubs. (original naming, rename one, rename two) They are not consistent and have generated some ongoing difficulties because of a couple conflicts: (labor vs labour) (trade union vs labour union). There are several choices to address this problem.

  1. rename to {{Africa-worker-org-stub}}. Some previous objections to this have centered around the political connotations of the word “worker”. (redirects already exist)
  2. rename to {{Africa-trade-union-stub}}. Some previous objections to this have noted that the word “union” has several uses, and "labor union" is the common usage in the US.
  3. rename to {{Africa-labour-org-stub}}, with a spelling exception for {{US-labor-org-stub}}. This option is closest to the current names. Previous objections have noted the problem of inconsistency in spelling from country to country.

I would like to see one of these proposals adopted. As the original creator of most of these stubs I have had difficulty remaining… uh… detached from the discussion, and will recuse myself from further comment on this. Any of these choices (or others) will work just fine with me.--Bookandcoffee 17:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is also important for the {{worker-activist-stub}} to also match the other stubs, i.e. it should only be kept the way it is if proposal #1 is used.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 19:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please tag any template or category that will potentially change under this proposal with sfr-t/sfr-c and the proposed new name? I for one am not going to be doing a bunch of renames in seven days' time at the risk of being told, "why did you move that stub type? I use it extensively, it wasn't tagged, and I didn't find out about the discussion until now". (Admittedly I did exactly that with some mil-stub cats, but there was lots of permcat precedent there, only categories were affected, and the nomination of the stub parent seemed to be entirely controversy-free.) Let's also be explicit about what redirects it's proposed to keep, and which to delete. Alai 23:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alai I am going to try and make the sfr-t/sfr-c things right now...I know what you mean! Goldenrowley 04:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Bookabndcoffee beat me to it on the sfr-t stubs Goldenrowley 04:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would favour a rename of all to X-trade-union-stub/X trade union stubs, since the permanent parent categories - even for the United States - are at "X trade unions". This also avoids the labour/labor problem and any political connotations with the word "worker". The use of the word union is only ambiguous when it is not used with the word "trade". I would, however, favour keeping worker-activist-stub, since not all activists working for the cause of workers' rights are trade unionists (note however that the category needs renaming to the correct punctuation). Worker-activist-stub is therefore more all-inclusive. Furthermore, since people who are active in workers' rights movements are, by definition, political, this should not run foul of any potential problems with the name. Matching the other stub categories isn't really relevant either, since it isn't for the same thing (it's for people, not unions) - an analogy here would be with Cat:University stubs and Cat:Academic biography stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Cat:United States labor union stubs → Cat:United States trade union stubs to match non-stub parent. Correct the punctuation of Cat:Worker's rights activist stubs and leave it's template as is. Rename {{union-stub}} to something unambiguous. I'm going to be neutral on all other issues raised by this uber-reorg. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Grutness: not all labor organizations are automatically also labor unions - there are and there have been other forms of organizations such as workers centers.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 01:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • good point - there are things like Workers' rights collectives, too. A trade union stub split would either be slightly more narrowly scoped or would need to be specifically worded to allow for such organisations. I'd favour the latter, since I doubt there would be so many as to warrant a separate stub type for such groups. Grutness...wha? 23:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also don't think a seperate stub type is needed for these types of organizations, I was only making the point that the template and the category both need to be worded and named in a way that such forms of organizations are included, i.e. I would be against proposal #2.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 23:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Booksandcoffee, thank you for your endurance sorting these articles. I can Support your proposal #2 "trade-union-stub" and #3 "-labor/labour-org-stub". Decidedly, #2 is my first choice (having deferred to Wiki style etiquette it says to chose a word that does not have different spelling in different regions of the world and then to be consistent with the spelling, whatever we do). I myself don't see anything objectionable with saying "trade union". I don't mind worker-activist-stubs either. Goldenrowley 04:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it seems the discussion is sort of dying and there doesn't really seem to be a consensus, I'd propose the following: We keep the status quo, except:
  • Not sure why you think there doesn't seem to be a consensus - the majority who have commented have said that proposal two is the one they favour as first choice. Given that the permcat parents are all at "trade union" too, it doesn't seem sensible to change everything to contentious spellings. Also, the majority of those commenting above said there was no problem with worker-activist-stub, so I don't see any need to change that. Grutness...wha? 00:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking over all of the comments, I guess you're right. Although I disagree with it, I guess it's probably the the solution with the most support.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 01:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, I doubt there'd be any objections to template-redirects at the other names, though the plain union-stub is probably too ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 23:00, 16 September 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.

September 12[edit]

Cat:Germany company 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


Misspelling of correct Cat:German company stubs. Empty. Can probably be speedied. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • My bad, sped. Alai 19:32, 12 September 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.

{{Ottawa-area-stub}} / Cat:National Capital Region 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


Seriously undersized, and cross-cat to boot, overlapping as it does Quebec and Ontario. Alai 18:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion on this point at Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion#Ottawa, National Capital Region, and stubs. A consensus did seem to develop to restub the articles in {{Ottawa-area-stub}} with {{Ottawa-stub}}, but then to reword {{Ottawa-stub}} with the {{Ottawa-area-stub}} wording. That way the stub would work well for all National Capital Region articles, even those pertaining to subjects located outside the Ottawa city boundaries. Skeezix1000 18:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Alai 19:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me but with added comments:
  1. There was never any proposal at WP:WSS of an Ottawa area stub or a National capital region stub category, so why they exist is a bit of a mystery to start with.
  2. Since there is no Cat:National Capital Region parent, and that name is very ambiguous, this should be deleted.
  3. {{Ottawa-area-stub}} seems to be a geo-stub and there could well be a case for the creation of an {{Ottawa-geo-stub}}, leading into a Cat:Greater Ottawa geography stubs category, as a subcategory of Cat:Ottawa stubs.
Therefore I suggest splitting Ottawa stubs into Ottawa-stub/cat:Ottawa stubs and Ottawa-geo-stub/cat:Greater Ottawa geography stubs, the latter to be a subcategory of the former, and getting rid of the badly named "area" stub and its associated category. This would split the current Ottawa stubs almost exactly into two equally sized groups and - more importantly - would parallel the system used for other cities which have their own stub types (London, Sydney, Washington DC, etc). Grutness...wha? 23:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. That would be consistent with Toronto, the only other Canadian example, which has both a stub and a geo-stub. Alai and I have reworded {{Ottawa-stub}}, as discussed above. As for the geo stub cat, I would avoid calling it "Greater Ottawa" -- for whatever reason, no one uses that term (perhaps because it was attached to some failed municipal reorganization proposals in the 1980s and 1990s). I think Ottawa geography stubs or Ottawa area georgraphy stubs would be fine. The wording of the template can mirror {{Ottawa-stub}}. Skeezix1000 11:37, 21 September 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.

September 15[edit]

Cat:Singapore company 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 upmerge


The template exists, but the proposal was to have it feed into Cat:Asian company stubs, since StubSense only finds 52 stubs and I assume that there are plenty of false hits among them, I highly believe it will take quite a while for this one to reach threshold.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 23:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I created this category after I found the template. I wasn't aware of the guideline then, which I feel is a good one. --Vsion 02:30, 18 September 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.

{{OPM-album-stub}} / Cat:OPM album 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


Triple threat here: unproposed, tiny, and cryptically named. Do one of: populate and rename; populate somewhat, rename and upmerge, or just delete. Alai 18:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Besides being tiny, it has no direct non-stub parent for this genre which it should have at the very least before the stub was created. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • dlete per above. Grutness...wha? 23:35, 15 September 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:stadium stubs → Cat:sports venue stubs, and hierarchy[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


Suggested new categories for rest of hierarchy:

In most usage, a "stadium" is a particular type of sports venue, not the whole class of such. The permcats are all at Cat:Sports venues, etc. Whether or not the templates are moved, the redirects should clearly be kept, in one direction or the other, so I'm not tagging those. Alai 05:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. Caerwine Caer’s whines 08:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The templates can stay where they are though. Grutness...wha? 23:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename categories and templates, per discussion on /P. --CComMack (t•c) 23:37, 19 September 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:Eastern Orthodoxy stubs and Cat:Oriental Orthodoxy 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 no consensus at CFR


Both of these are listed for renaming (to Cat:Eastern Orthodox Christianity stubs and Cat:Oriental Orthodox Christianity stubs respectively) in a group nomination at CFD. Probably better to debate them all together, but this page needs to be kept in the loop. Grutness...wha? 23:31, 14 September 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.

September 21[edit]

{{Struct-stub}} and all its child-struct-stubs → {{Structure-stub}} &c.[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 no consensus (and no tagging)


Summarily rename to make WP less cryptic. I have a friendly bot (Alphachimpbot) who will do the job, I am sure. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Summarily? No strong opinion on template moves, but oppose deletion of struct-stub if turned into a redirect (and hence any unnecessary mass bot-edits). Alai 15:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, or like that, w/o the bot, and a full complement of redirects. Summarily here was meant not as "without discussion" but as "rename the whole shebang" - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Though I wouldn't be opposed to adding {{building-stub}} & {{structure-stub}} as redirects. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • May we ask why? - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may ask, but I'll spare you the need to do so. Whether it be struct, structure, or building, these are all abbreviations for the category Cat:Buildings and structures and struct has the advantages of already existing for quite some time and being shorter, hence the opposition. It is slightly cryptic, which is why that opposition is weak. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No real opinion on whether the templates should be moved, but if they are, the struct- names should at least be kept as redirects, for the same reasons that Alai is against the deletion of mid-hierarchy categories - they've been in use for a long time, and any removal of them is going to create a major "huh?" factor. Grutness...wha? 04:35, 25 September 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.

September 22[edit]

{{Aragon-stub}} and Category:Aragon 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


Underpopulated stub category, been here for two months. Only one stub. MER-C 10:19, 22 September 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.

{{Armenia-band-stub}} and Category:Armenian musical group 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


Underpopulated stub category, been here for half a month. Only one stub. MER-C 13:21, 22 September 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.

{{Blizzard-stub}} and Category:Blizzard Entertainment 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


Underpopulated stub category, been here for half a month. Only one stub. MER-C 13:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Populate or delete category - if kept, rename template to something less ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 23:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Populate or delete- if keptRename template with a possible merge with {{Warcraft-stub}} Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:55, 24 September 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.

{{CE-law-stub}} and Category:Council of Europe law 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


Underpopulated stub category, been here for one and a half months. Only one stub. MER-C 13:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no parent Category:Council of Europe law, and even [[Category:Council of Europe only has 27 articles. Furthermore the template name is hardly optimal. Far better to group these in with other European law stubs and have them as a separate stub type if there seem to be enough of them. Grutness...wha? 23:10, 22 September 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.

September 24[edit]

Cat:Hong Kong sportspeople 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


Significantly undersized, and never proposed, as far as I'm aware: upmerge to Cat:Chinese sportspeople stubs. As an aside, this "type" uses a (numeric) template parameter as a sortkey, and a non-standard paramater of {{Stub Category}}, which WSS really ought to make up its mind whether it's going to support, or to deprecate. (I'd suggest the latter, especially as coded in this manner.) Alai 13:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is not and should not be a subcategory of the Chinese category (as long as Hong Kong sends its own teams separate from China to sport events). Many other stub articles have yet to be retagged. — Instantnood 14:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It['s small enough to be better upmerged somewhere, and the other viable option would be asia-sport-bio-stub. BTW, I notice that this stub template is parameterised, which seems a good idea in principle but needs a mite of discussion, since if it's done for one template editors will expect it from all of them (and that would need a hang of a lot of work). Indeed, we had a discussion about such templates fairly recently at WP talk:WSS and decided it wasn't worth the effort, IIRC. Grutness...wha? 23:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what sense is Asia "viable" as an alternative parent for "Hong Kong" types and categories to China/PRC such? Alai 16:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure if there's a word "more" missing in your question - if you're asking why it's more viable, it isn't - China would still be a better solution, though it's clearly not going to please everyone. if you're simply asking why it's viable, that should be obvious - Hong Kong is in Asia. Consider an analogy to the Kosovo-geo-stub situation - that was deleted and there were complaints that the stubs were initially moved into Serbia-geo-stub, so in the end they wre relovcated to Euro-geo-stub, since at least everyone agreed that Kosovo was in Europe. Grutness...wha? 22:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I didn't mean more, I meant at all. Is it viable to recategorise Cat:Scottish sportspeople stubs to Cat:European sportspeople stubs or Cat:sportspeople stub, on the basis of Scottish separate participation in the Commonwealth games, in soccer, and various other sports? Would it factor into your determination either way if a ScotsNat editor were making a long-running series of such edits, dismissing attempts to determine consensus, and the subject of a series of ArbCom cases in and around such issues? This isn't a "disputed" situation, as Kosovo is in some senses, this is a "clearly established situation that some people don't like". (And they have perfectly obvious reasons not to like it, but that's not the business of the stub or category system.) Unless the alternative is predicated on the disappearance of the PRC, or a (further) change in the status of Hong Kong, it doesn't seem to me to be viable at all, and on a practical note, it seems tactically unwise to moot compromises with IN's "solutions", while he's not in the mode of accepting compromise and consensus. Alai 12:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's completely irrelevant. Scotland has its own categories because there are enough stubs for those categories to be viable; if there weren't, they would be categorised with the UK categories, since Scotland has been an integral part of the UK since the 1600s and - until recently - had no special political status within it. Hong Kong has only been back as part of China for nine years and had separate political jurisdiction ever since that time. As such, it counts as a specific sub-category of the People's Republic of China. But stubs aren't arranged by means of PRC - for historical reasons within stub-sorting, they are arranged by mainland China, which Hong Kong is not part of. Hong Kong is, however, part of Asia. A better analogy would be with Gibraltar, which - though considered politially part opf the United Kingdom has its own legislature. Gibraltar's geo-stubs are in the Europe geography stubs category, not in the United Kingdom one - as, indeed, were stubs for Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man. Grutness...wha? 06:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You may be thinking of 1707, or more precisely, 1800, not that the "no special political status" has been strictly true at any point in history. And either our practice is to follow borders of present-day sovereign states, or it's not: the age of the state (or the border) should hardly parameterise such considerations. (And Gibraltar's by no means a better analogy, as it's not a part of the UK at all, it's a British overseas territory.) The number of stubs is certainly "completely irrelevant", since where to upmerge, and where to categorise are exactly symmetrical questions (which is why I asked it in the form I did). (That we have two "votes" to ignore the size guidelines in this instance is another matter.) What're these "historical reasons"? That Instantnood unilaterally reinterprets and rescopes any "China" or "PRC" subtype as "Mainland China", regardless of any existing consensus, structure of other categories, permanent or otherwise, or much else? I'm not aware of anything that requires any vast amount of re-sorting effort, so I'm not at all clear why we'd be beholden to "history", of that sort or otherwise. Alai 02:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hong Kong has always been having teams separate from *any* China teams. Scotland does not have its own Olympics participation. Scotland and the U.K. is not the same as Hong Kong and the P.R.C. after 1997 or Hong Kong and the U.K. before 1997. - Privacy 21:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not the point. The point is the size of the category, which is too small to be an effective stub category. Grutness...wha? 06:33, 2 October 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.
 
  • (responding to user:Alai's comment at 02:09, October 4) I did not " unilaterally reinterprets and rescopes any "China" or "PRC" subtype as "Mainland China", regardless of any existing consensus, .. ", and there are other topics having separate stub types for mainland China and Hong Kong. As a matter fact, most of those stub types titled China are not intended to cover Hong Kong and Macao, as reflected by their actual application that they're almost never tagged onto Hong Kong and Macao stubs.

    If stub types were to be sort according to present-day sovereign states, Gibraltar and other British overseas territories belong no where, since they're not sovereign states, nor are they regarded as part of the UK. Although separate teams in football and to Commonwealth Games, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales do send one single team to Olympic Games – that's not the case for the People's Republic of China. There's obvious no valid reason to merge the Hong Kong (and Macao, if there will be any) sportspeople categories with that for the rest of the PRC. — Instantnood 19:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think you are still missing the point. We agree that Hong Kong and the PRC are two separate things. That's why there are two separate templates: {{HongKong-sport-bio-stub}} and {{China-sport-bio-stub}}. However, at this time, Cat:Hong Kong sportspeople stubs does not have enough articles to warrant its own category. The template will stay the same and the articles will still use the HK template, but the category will now be Cat:Chinese sportspeople stubs instead of HK. This isn't and shouldn't be a big political deal. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I certainly don't agree they're two separate things. Hong Kong may have more autonomy than a province, or indeed a non-special "autonomous" region, but that doesn't make it not part of the PRC, nor is it clear that "Mainland China" is an entity with encyclopaedic standing. IN, you justify your actions with reference to other stub types, but that's entirely begging the question of my point. How many of those are the result of your actions, rather than any established consensus? I think perhaps we should take this over to a centralised discussion at Wikipedia:Categorization, and settle it one way or the other. Alai 22:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mainland China is certainly not a country by any definition of the word, yet that doesn't mean it has no encyclopædic value, unless to those who're so unaware of the usage of this term in real life. Only one of those stub types was directly the result of my actions. Many articles which the term is used or involved were created with no involvement of mine. — Instantnood 21:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • (responding to user:Amalas 13:53, October 11) " We agree that Hong Kong and the PRC are two separate things " - Why should the stubs be fed into the same category then? — Instantnood 21:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 28[edit]

{{blog-stub}} / Cat:Blogging 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 category, redirect template


After having created {{internet-publish-stub}} to cover these, as well as vlogs, podcasts, and other various internet publications, this stub type is now empty and redundant. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge. It's not at all clear to me what the basis for depopulating this would be (or was). Alai 16:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely to reach stub threshhold, while {{internet-publish-stub}} is more likely. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category, either delete or redirect template. Grutness...wha? 22:35, 28 September 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.

Category:Movie 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


Duplicates Category:Film stubs. 06:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatusRoma (talk • contribs)

  • Delete - unnecessary fork of long-established stub category. Can probably be speedied, in fact, since there's no indication it's been used. Grutness...wha? 07:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per Grutness ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete please, so people will quit using it and creating cleanup for the Film WikiProject. <g> ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Cannot it be redirected? - Privacy 21:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It could, but category redirects never work properly and are a pain in the butt in general. In any case, since everything that goes into a stub category does so by means of a category-dedicated template, there's no need for a redirect, since it would never be used as a destination name. Grutness...wha? 00:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:10, 5 October 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.
      • What if I type en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Movie_stubs in the url toolbar of my browser? How would I be brought to Category:Film stubs? - Privacy 00:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 29[edit]

{{TRNC-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


This one was recently posted on WP:WSS/P and the discussion was closed as "do not create" (see: [1]). However, the template had already been created before the discussion started. Delete per the previous discussion. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per that discussion - we've been deliberately avoiding stub types for countries with severely limited international recognition due to fears of POV-pushing +c. I don't see any reason to revise that principle for this stub type. Grutness...wha? 23:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fixing up {{Cyprus-stub}} as necessary. Alai 16:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Cyprus meaning the whole island, including the TRNC and the two British territories? - Privacy 21:33, 1 October 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.
      • When do geo stubs follow current political boundaries, and when do they don't? - Privacy 00:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2006/September&oldid=83205466"