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

February 1

UFO stubs

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

{{Ufologist-stub}} / Category:Ufologist stubs
{{Ufo-org-stub}} / Category:Ufo organization stubs

Used on one article each. Bad capitalisation. Don't match permcats. Nonstandard "noincluded mini-essay" coding (would people ever keep the blether to the category page?). It's not impossible there'd be some use for at least an upmerged {{UFO-stub}}, but I suggest we delete these are start over with. Alai 07:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you guys, sorry I was the one who created the two. I thought they would be helpful in deciphering the different UFO article stubs. But if you guys want to rename them or merge them to something new, I dont mind at all (I would prefer to leave them as they are because they make it clear the type of article that needs to be expanded). (:O) -nima baghaei 14:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me note that I do love the idea of a merged {{UFO-stub}} instead of deletion (:O) -nima baghaei 14:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think leaving them as they are is in any way viable, since... well, see above. They don't have the right names, the right scopes, and they seem unlikely to have 60 stubs each any time soon. Alai 19:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about joining them into one stub: {{UFO-stub}} ... I like this idea actually, can we do it? -nima baghaei 20:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support UFO-stub as a replacement for these - possibly upmerged into something like the para-stub category or similar until it's clear that there are enough of them for a separate category (there probably will be quite quickly, at a guess). Grutness...wha? 21:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably to Category:Paranormal stubs rather than Category:Parapsychology stubs. Which reminds me, shouldn't we rename {{para-stub}}, given the massive ambiguity thereof? Or did we try that already? Alai 05:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don remember (:O( -nima baghaei 14:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we did - this is the nearest I can find in the log. This is also sort of tangentially relevant. Perhaps parapsych-stub would make more sense... Grutness...wha? 23:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, who was going to do this? Hehehe, I am lost with time now... (:O) -nima baghaei 14:28, 8 February 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.

Category:Water-transport stubs → Category:Water transport stubs

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 renamed

Rename To remove a hyphen so as to match its parent Category:Water transport. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speedying this. The only reason for the current version would be "adjectivising" the noun phrase, but that's not the pattern we use. Alai 03:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be worth considering the name of the template {{water-stub}} at the same time. It's not exactly the most intuitive... Grutness...wha? 05:38, 1 February 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.

February 2

Small Indian location categories, for upmerger

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

Attempting to clean up the code (and copious wikiproject links) on the India-geo-stub templates, I've also noticed that several of them are many smaller than the creation threshold (and I doubt they were successfully proposed, either). There are many "sandbox" articles that seem to be duplicates of others, so this is probably even more marked this initially appears. Here are the smallest three, for starters. Alai 02:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a clearcut upmerge to me. Grutness...wha? 04:38, 5 February 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.

February 3

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 only is this unproposed stub type misnamed (in that it has a space, against naming guidelines), but it isn't what it purports to be - it's a geo-stub, and one already covered by the long-established {{Manchester-geo-stub}}. Was only used on one article, which now has the correct stub type. No need for a duplicate, and not redirect-worthy due to its misnaming. Delete. Grutness...wha? 02:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alai 03:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AndromedaRoach 23:53, 3 February 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.

{{para-stub}} → {{parapsych-stub}}

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

Cryptic and copiously ambiguous, and especially invites confusion with the existing {{paranormal-stub}}. Rename in line with {{psych-stub}}. (Itself somewhat ambiguous, mind you...) Alai 01:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename, but on second thoughts would para-psych-stub be slightly better? Either that or parapsych-stub is better than the current (parachuting? paramilitary?) name. Grutness...wha? 01:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could argue it either way: I thought psychologists generally hotly denied para- being a sub-discipline, but on WP it does seem to be a sub-cat... Alai 03:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Depends on the psychologist. For instance, one of my MSc supervisors was unremittingly skeptic, but also acknowledged that it was up to psychologists to investigate any claims. Certainly I don't see much problem with it, and - as you said - it seems to be a subtopic here. Grutness...wha? 22:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to avoid confusion. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:08, 8 February 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.

Category:Album stubs/Child list

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

Note: this was originally at CFD, though as a template, TFD may have been a better place. Since it relates directly to stubs, however, I have brought it here. No vote. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Album stubs/Child list to Template:Album stub categories

Move to template namespace, This is a template, not a category. Eli Falk 07:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: I created the page and no one else has contributed. I support the proposal. Do we need further discussion? Alex valavanis 09:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It can't be moved, as it's in the category space. If you c'n'p it over, the category can indeed be speedied. BTW, can this be condensed somewhat? It's very long, which is a nuisance for navigating multi-page categories. A list of templates should really be sufficient, and could then be made multi-column to save vertical space. Alai 00:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where is the best place to store this list? It really needs to be kept in this form. It's just a matter of the best place to keep it. My vote: I don't care where you keep it, as long as you keep it. -Freekee 05:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd suggest following Grutness's suggestion: if it's intended for use as a template, it should be in the template namespace. Why would it need to stay in this form? It contains a lot of redundant information, and makes the actual category functionality harder to use. (Indeed, on one level, it is just redundant information.) Alai 05:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't really make a suggestion :) If I were to make one, though, I'd say that this, in a reduced form, could go in the text at the top of Category:Album stubs, but should be a single-use table, not a template, and certainly not a catgory in its own right. Grutness...wha? 07:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I meant the "Propose renaming Category:Album stubs/Child list to Template:Album stub categories": wasn't that you? Alai 16:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No - that was the first line of the CFD proposal. I didn't notice it was unsigned :/. Grutness...wha? 23:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It was User:Eli Falk - the line following it is part of the nom. Grutness...wha? 00:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK then, I suggest following his suggestion... but not his confusing indentation. Alai 05:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As information, the table is useful. It needs to be kept, but not in category space. A template could be created for it, or it could just go back to the way it was: a table in the text of Category:Album stubs, which was also transcluded to WP:ALBUM. Since the page can't be moved, I say let's delete it, and then either someone set up another option, or let's continue that discussion at the Album talk page. If need be, you can grab the code at User:Freekee/album stub category list. -Freekee 05:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sped, since, well, it was clearly going to have to be, as Freekee has just emphasised. Alai 06:00, 4 February 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.

February 4

{{palm-stub}}, Category:Palm OS stubs

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, undersized, badly ambiguous template name. Haven't we delete a PDA type of some sort already? At the very least, needs to be renamed (which I'm likely to speedy, to make room for the actually-proposed-stub-type-about-actual-palms), and upmerged -- ideally not to the bulging "software" type, but perhaps to a PDA-software-in-general category. Alai 09:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't delete, we upmerged {{palmsoftware-stub}}, {{PalmOS-stub}} and {{PDA-stub}} to {{compu-mobile-stub}}/Category:Mobile computer stubs and kept them as redirects/independent templates to the category. (link) The person who created this participated in that discussion but disagreed with the upmerge and created this stub the same day as the the SFD was closed. Speedy delete and restub with {{Palmsoftware-stub}} or {{PalmOS-stub}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK: sounds like some deletion was involved to me! That's what I was struggling to remember, thanks. Ludicrous behaviour on the part of the recreator, frankly. (Doubtless we're about to be told what a brilliant application of IAR that was.) Alai 23:46, 4 February 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.

{{FZ-stub}}, Category:Frank Zappa stubs

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 made me chuckle, but this group is not likely to grow as Frank Zappa is dead and the article about him contains... exactly one red link, delete. — CharlotteWebb 06:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were it just a matter of size I'd normally suggest renaming and upmerger, but for a stub type derived from one of the much-dreaded "things somehow related to" that make a nonsense of category inclusion, I have to say delete. And if anyone really wants to track spiders and record companies via the same resource, convert to a talk-page template. Alai 06:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two options: 1) Delete; 2) Take your zircon-encrusted tweezers and go and harvest dental floss.The former is probably simpler. Grutness...wha? 04:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - important; extremely useful. (Ibaranoff24 02:33, 6 February 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.

Category:Apple Inc. stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete

I'm not sure what's going on here (no links to the new category at all), but {{Mac-stub}} has been recatted to here, less than intuitively. (iPhones are now Macs?). I suggest that either: the template be recatted back, and this deleted; or, the type be formally rescoped, and the template be moved to something more in keeping (in which case, someone please tag the template for such, too). Or the two be split in some manner. Alai 05:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an explanation for my part in this; I noticed that around the time of the Macworld Expo, when Apple changed their name from Apple Computer, someone had replaced the "Macintosh stubs" category with the "Apple, Inc. stubs" category. Since the use of that comma was incorrect (it's Apple Inc., not Apple, Inc.), I changed the stub to point to a non-misnamed category. However, I agree with you that we should go back to having a Mac-stub for Mac-related articles, and have Apple-stub (or something along those lines) be the superclass stub for the whole bunch. —Cleared as filed. 15:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Couldn't tell if this was part of some masterplan, or just the usual series of choatic events. Alai 23:46, 4 February 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.

February 6

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 proposed. Badly named, virtually unformatted, unused. If needed, we'd have to start from scratch anyway. Either recreate as {{NorthDakota-bio-stub}} if numbers look sufficient, or just delete. Grutness...wha? 00:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has the perennial regional-bio-stub issues, as well as all of the above. Delete. Alai 00:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, recreate as necessary

As above, unproposed, badly named, and with no formatting whatsoever. Only one stub. Again, we'd have to start from scratch if there were sufficient stubs. Either recreate as {{Turkey-writer-stub}} if numbers look sufficient, or just delete. Grutness...wha? 00:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate per nom. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete

Spaced-out redirect. Alai 00:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on da beat. Grutness...wha? 00:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's already a correctly --- one (hiphop-album-stub). SkierRMH,06:26, 6 February 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.

February 7

{{Cuesport-stub}} ⇒ {{Cue-sports-stub}}; Category:Cue sport stubs ⇒ Category:Cue sports stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator as largely moot; non-moot part to be sent back to SfD.

Rename proposal "just for the record", as this was already covered in more depth than probably anyone wants at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/February here, a combined proposal for a new bio stub type under this, and cleanup of the existing ones and their categories. The short version: Both this stub and its cat. are malnamed, in different ways. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Clear, near-identical precedent: {{Water-sports-stub}}; Category:Water sports stubs — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename template to cue-sport-stub (singular, as is standard practice with stub templates, irrespective of the names of related categories), oppose rename of category - it is currently correctly named. Stub categories use "Noun (singular) stubs" - we dont have "Schools stubs" or "Elections stubs", I don't see this situation as being any different. The name of the WikiProject dedicated to these isn't really relevant - WP Games uses T:Game-stub and Cat:Game stubs, WP Mammals uses T:mammal-stub and Cat:Mammal stubs, and so on. And yes, Water-sports-stub and its category should be renamed in the same way. Note that the parent type is {{Sport-stub}} and Category:Sports stubs. Hmm...odd. One uses one form, one uses the other - no wonder there's confusion. Grutness...wha? 22:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not particularly convinced by this arguments. It sounds like a "my precedents/examples are valid because I say so, yours are invalid because I say so and because they should be renamed because I say so." I don't have much interest in what WP:GAMES's preferences are; all sorts of WikiProjects have varying preferences on all sorts of matters. It's neither here nor there. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Further precedents, from sports alone: Category:Racing sports stubs, {{Race-sports-stub}} Category:Winter sports stubs (its {{Wintersport-stub}} template isn't conformant with either preference!), Category:Winter sports biography stubs (ditto), Category:Air sports stubs, {{Air-sports-stub}}; also Category:Sports venue stubs, {{sports-venue-stub}}, Category:Sports event stubs ({{Sport-event-stub}} is an exception), Category:Sports team stubs ({{Sport-team-stub}} another odd-sounding exception), Category:Sports award stubs, {{Sports-award-stub}} (in those last few, "venue", "award", etc. are singular but "sports" largely is not; the odd-sounding Category:Sport organization stubs is the sole cat. exception I can find so far); and Category:Commonwealth Games stubs, Category:Southeast Asian Games stubs (perhaps the last two are iffy examples, since they are proper names; then again WPSS seems not to mind running names and words together, e.g. {{CommonwealthGames-stub}}, and otherwise mangling various text strings to the point of uselessness, cf. {{NI-bio-stub}}). More importantly, the only exceptions, save one (already noted), to the pluralizing to "sports" in cat. names are when "sport" is preceded by a country name, including: Luxembourgian, Belgian and South African sport, and Pakistani sport biography and many more of that form (but with India sports being a pluralizing exception). So, there is a very clear (written or not) convention on using "sports" not "sport" unless preceded by a country name (I suspect this is because regulating bodies tend to use "Sport" or the singular translated equivalent — Sportivo, etc. — in their official names.) Your insistence on "sport" appears to be a matter of personal preference, and overextension of a recent general trend into an area that has already developed its own standards, long earlier. Cf. also Category:Track and field athletics stubs, {{Athletics-stub}} (which is too vague but still fits the pattern), Category:Track and field athletics biography stubs, {{Athletics-bio-stub}} (ditto) (and Category:African athletics biography stubs, {{Africa-athletics-bio-stub}}, etc., etc.), Category:Sportspeople stubs (+ Category:African sportspeople stubs and endless more; there isn't one instance of "sportsperson stubs"), Category:Martial arts stubs (with template gibberished in the same way as Wintersport-stub), Category:Martial arts biography stubs, etc.: same thing really. I'm not the one seeking an exception here. Demanding "sport" or "athletic" just because a WikiProject's nascent quasi-guideline might technically prefer them, but would render the resulting categories counterintuitive and conflicting with most other categories of the same type, sounds like a mistake to me. You end up with confusing, hard to remember and contradictory categories like Category:Sports stubs ⇒ Category:Cue sport stubs, which was the whole point of this to begin with. :-) Given that it's highly unlikely anyone outside of WP:CUE is going to spend any time working on these articles or putting articles into these stub cats., I think I detect a teapot tempest here when it comes to all this resistance. Your wikiproject's nitpicking is getting in the way of our wikiproject getting work done. (A false dichotomy anyway, since I'm also a member of WPSS in the first place and have been for some time. Heh. As such a member I have to say that I think there's way, way too much agonizing over what this or that stub should be called as opposed to what stub types should exist; a shift of focus toward the latter would make this WPP a lot more effective, IMNERHO.) I don't mean any of that in a harsh way, I just think tree bark texture is distracting some of us from the woodland. WPSS's overall naming preferences are a pretty good rough guide (and I appreciate them - it's what allows me to guess at a name like turkey-stubs, vs. turkish-stubs or turk-stubs, and usually be right), but where they cause problems they should not be insisted upon with utter finality and wrought-iron rigor as to tiny particulars. Even WP Policies and Guidelines are not generally treated that way. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Before this goes any further, I would just like to point out that the fact that this is a debate at all may simply be due to the WPSS naming conventions not acknowledging that, due to the peculiarites of the English language, certain words are almost invariably used in the plural, being singular only in very particular usages. Examples: "Pants": plural except in constructions like "the ant went up my left pant leg". "Scissors": plural except when used descriptively or metaphorically, as in "a scissor kick", or "I scissored [not*scissorsed] right through that steak in no time"). Similarly, "sports": plural except when referring to a specific activity with its own unique ruleset, e.g. "the sport of curling"; or used metaphorically or in an archaic sense, as in "he's a good sport" and "that buck provided good sport"; or in a recent regulatory sense, as already noted (which isn't even universal, as singlular Sportivo in Italian is plural Depórtes in Spanish). Trademark usages don't count for anything ("SportNet", etc. — marketing language makes mincemeat of any usage or convention it can get its hands on.) So consider this a !vote for/proposal to Fix the WPSS docs to reflect English-language reality a little better.— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't that, since English language handles sport and sports in a different way to the simple yes/no idea you present above. The words sport and sports are both acceptable plurals of sport, but with slightly different meaning. Billiards and snooker are two different cue sports, but they are both forms of cue sport, and are thus both covered by the term cue sport, in exactly the same way that water sport covers all sorts of individual water sports. It's a similar sort of weirdness of the language that allows several different animals to be wild game or several species of fishes to all be fish.

Many of the examples you give are pretty odd ones, to say the least, BTW. Athletics is a singular sport - there is no more an athletic than there is a mathematic. Similarly, there is no such thing as a Commonwealth Game in exactly the same way as there is no such thing as an Olympic Game. And as for Sports venue stubs, yes, "sports venue" is a compound singular term for a venue which may be used for one or more sports, so that follows the naming guidelines perfectly, in exactly the same wat that, say "Arts organisation stubs" would be perfectly acceptable but "Arts organisations stubs" would not. Similarly, we do not have Cat:Sports awards stubs, which would be the plural - instead, the singular Category:Sports award stubs is used - these are awards which may be for more than one sport. I did not know about the air sport or race sport categories, or I would have proposed them here for renaming in the past, since they are incorrect as plurals rather than compound singulars.

So far, then, the examples given are as follows:

singular: Sports venue stubs, Cue sport stubs, Sports event stubs, Sports award stubs, Sports team stubs, Sport organization stubs, several national stub types
plural: Water sports stubs, Race sports stubs, Sports stubs, Martial arts stubs several national stub types
no distinction between singular and plural: Athletics stubs, Commonwealth games stubs, Southeast Asian Games stubs

Excluding the no distinctions and the national subtypes, I make that 6-4 using the singular form as in the naming guidelines - it is the water sport stubs, air sport stubs and the parent cat that don't follow the general pattern. Martial arts stubs don';t either, but of the four this is one that is a plausible exception - the term martial arts is often heard to cover all of these sports (unlike, I hasten to add, "cue sports" - cue sport is a perfectly common term to cover all sport that is played with a cue).

There is no reason why sport should use a plural where everything else uses singular. And there is a good reason for the use of the singular. What logical reason is there for talking about "X-type sports stubs' when each individual stub is to do with only one specific sport? Sure, if sports was a word never used in the singular, like pants or scissors, then sports stubs would make sense. But it isn't - tennis, for example, is an individual sport. And none of the individual stubs relate to sports, each of them relates to an individual sport, in exactly the same way that school stubs aren't "schools stubs" because each one deals with an individual school. I don't see any reason at all why this sport be different, and as such, I'm afraid I cannot support this proposal. Grutness...wha? 12:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I still don't buy it. :-)

After googling on this, I cannot find any instances, aside from one case of adjectival rather than noun usage, of "cue sport" being used in a plural sense (there are lots of hits for "cue sport", but all of them I've looked at so far refer to a specific one such as pool, not to all cue sports as a class; in that case "cue sports" is used, both in the industry (i.e. at commercial sites) and in the sports regulation/sactioning world (see original thread at Talk: Cue sport for documentary links to use by BCA and other organizations). You say "cue sport is a perfectly common term to cover all sport that is played with a cue" but a) this is no demonstrated by any evidence, unlike the inverse proposition, and b) in your wording it conflicts with what you say elsewhere, because you use "sport" as a singular, not the plural you insist you are using it as: "all sport that is played played with a cue" (emphasis added). You are in fact using "sport" in a completely different sense, like "science" or "exploration", as a term encompassing a concept that spawns activities rather than referring to the activities themselves. That actually makes sense in a context like "science" but doesn't in a context like "cue sports". Anyway, even if there may be a tiny handful of uses of "cue sport" out there as a plural, they would not demonstrate anything like broad usage (which I've already demonstrated clearly in the debate over the move of the main article.
Athletics, as that term is used here, is emphatically not a single sport at all; it's quite a number of them, from pole vaulting to sprinting and hurdles to the long jump. And it does not exclusively refer to the sports that college and high school sports administrators have lumped into that category, having broader meanings in other contexts; cf the Oakland Athletics, who do baseball, not track-and-field activities. And it isn't even used that way uniformly in the scholastic world; my high school's athletic's department included football, etc., and it's "athletics" team was called the "track and field team". A stub template name like cue-sport-stubs doesn't make any more sense than athletic-stubs (or martial-art-stubs, or water-sport-stubs; they would blindly follow the general WPSS naming preferences but end up being hard to remember because we don't actually use terms like "athletic", "martial art" or "cue sports" in an encompassing way like this. And again, we're not even getting out of sports yet. There are plenty of non-sports examples, too.
Re: sports-venue-stubs - you're missing my point. It's not that sports-venue-stubs isn't a valid name; it is, and it uses sports. Only one category of that sort uses "sport" instead of "sports" there, and that one is arguably misnamed. I.e., This is supportive of the notion that "sport" with no "s" as a plural of "sport" is an oddball usage, and thus to be avoided. This is not the case with art and arts both being plural for art; if anything, the reverse is true, and most people say "art", while "arts" is largely used by/in academics. I'm not arguing for sports-venues-stubs, because there is no venues/venue usage conflict or ambiguity. Compare billiard/billiards, by the way. It is usually used in the plural, and the categories were (probably still are, I have not check CfD today) Billiards, Billiards players, etc., not "Billiard".
Re: "[why use]'X-type sports stubs' when each individual stub is to do with only one specific sport?" But that's not the case, as is precisely the point with cue-sports-stubs, which is for all cue-sports (other than snooker, which has its own wikiproject that pre-dates this one). There are no eight-ball-stubs, carom-billiards-stubs, bumper-pool-stubs, etc., and almost certainly never will be.
Re: "the term martial arts is often heard to cover all of these sports" - which is precisely the case with "cue sports".
Your stats don't make any sense to me, since they are intentionally ignoring examples, while counting examples that you yourself considered invalid, and counting plural uses of "sports" as singular uses because other words in them are singular, which doesn't address a point anyone was making.
Summary: "water-sports-stubs", etc., plus "martial-arts-stubs" strongly suggest "cue-sports-stubs", and again the WPSS docs need to be updated to better reflect actual English usage, however helpful they may generally be when the don't run into exceptions like these. Rather than fight about whether there should be exceptions, just accept that there are, and document them. Very easy!

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the only thing we can agree on is that we disagree :) Let's have a look at your points:

If cue sport is usually a singular but occqasionally plural (which is what I was actually pointing out, albeit badly by the looks of it), then surely that is even more reason for that to be the name of the template and category, since they are meant to use the singular not the plural.
If athletics is the plural, what is an athletic? There is no such thing. Athletics is both the singular and the plural - athletic is only the adjective. It is for this reason that it is the only possible name for the template and category.
Re: sports-venue-stubs - you miss my point. The template name is sungular - it isn't sports-venues-stub. It conforms to the idea of using a singular, and so should sport-stub since - by your own admission - sports is the usual plural. Sports isn't a singular.
Point taken on the multiple sports, but it still makes the category name a plural, unlike standard stub category naming.
Perhaps it's simply a language difference thing - cue sport is the plural here as often as cue sports. But again, that's not really relevant. I mentioned martial arts as a vaguely plausible exception, but not one I'd actually agree with.
The stats. Well, if I hadn't ignored the ones I saw as irrelevant, then it would be even further weighted in favour of the singular. The issue of sports or sport when those two terms are used as adjectives or qualifiers is irrelevant - the point is whether the category name is X stubs or Xs stubs - which is why I have ignored that in the stats except in those cases where the word is the noun. The point that should be addressed - the point I am addressing but you don't seem to be - is that categories are in the form Category:Noun (singular) stubs, and whether the term sport or sports is used when they are describing that singular noun makes no difference. the only problem occurs where sports is the noun, turning the category name (or template name) into Category:Noun (plural) stubs.
Summary: "water-sports-stubs", etc., plus "martial-arts-stubs" gho against the naming guidelines, since they use the form plural-stub. As such, they should be changed to the singular, where Cue sport stubs should also be. Even easier!

Grutness...wha? 00:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be contradicting yourself in simultaneously saying that martial arts is at least "a vaguely plausible exception" yet also "should be changed to the singular". I don't really have any other response, since I've already been over all of this, and I don't think Alai or anyone else will appreciate me repeating myself at length to go over all the points you've re-raised. While I do not think you are wikilawyering, I think that something at that document is quite relevant here - you are pushing for a to-the-letter interpretation of a (not-quite) guideline rather than understanding and working with its spirit - namely of helpfully guiding the naming of categories and stub templates. When adherence to the letter of the WPSS docs results in unhelpful, highly non-intuitive conclusions like martial-art-stub, water-sport-stub and cue-sport-stub, and similarly malnamed stubcats, I strongly feel that a mistake is being made. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit boggled that McC, having argued (at considerable length) for the article on "sports, plural, played with a cue" to be at cue sport (no, really!) is now arguing (at increasingly corresponding length) that a stub article, very likely to be particular to one such sport, should be at the "double plural" (or to be somewhat fairer, plural-style collective). But it has to be said that there is a case that can be made made here: not all these articles are about a single cue sport, and some aren't even just related to a single cue sport (such as American CueSports Alliance, which despite the confusing use of "billiards" and "cue sports" in the article, actually is concerned with different varieties of pool), so this isn't a clear-cut example of an "Xs" category where each article therein is on an "X", and thus where the stub cat should be at "X stubs". This is closer to the territory of "what's the correct collective?", to which the answer is, "on what side of the Atlantic (or other applicable ocean, Grutness!) are you sitting?". See Sport#Terminology. It does appear that the other "sports stubs" are buying into the US-style collective, whether by accident (since there are other "plural stubs" that exist just through oversight or error), or design. I'll attempt to firm up to a bold-faced option either way just as soon as this debate settles down to more manageable proportions. Alai 04:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alai, please read the article naming conventions. The article is required to be Cue sport, singular, because of the conventions, just like cats, dogs and flowers (plural) are covered at Cat, Dog, and Flower. As noted to you already, the Cue sport article's text is in fact written in terms of cue sports, plural, and Cue sports does of course redirect there. I also cannot accept your apparent suggestion that the word "sports" (plural) does not exist in British English. The stub is already not "particular to one such sport", and is used to stub-tag articles on pool, English billiards, carom billiards games of various sorts, etc., etc. The only relevant thing it is not presently used for is snooker, because it already has its own custom stub template. I know you are upset with me about the naming of the English billiards article, but I honestly don't know how to satisfy you with regard to that. Re-raising the issue out-of-context from talk page to talk page with factually incorrect arguments (at least two, above, on the template's self-evident usage and on WP article naming) isn't going to fix that, or anything else. I want you to be happy with that and other articles, but I'm not the only one resisting your particular suggesions. Sorry. I'm not sure quite where to go from there, other than maybe you can raise the issue at the Village Pump and other eyes and brains will come to a consensus everyone can live with? Or at WP:CUE's talk page if you don't want an audience that large? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest we move the discussion to the stub naming guidelines talk page. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the larger issue raised should definitely be discussed there, but given that only two have opposed this nomination (actually only one, technically), and I believe I have addressed their concerns to the extent that they can be addressed in this context or that they belong here at all, is there any particular reason this proposal can't move forward, as proposed, since it does not conflict in any way with actual, long-standing practice as cited in detail above? If the eventual outcome of the much larger debate is that all something-sports-stub, something-arts-stub, etc. templates and their related categories must be renamed, having done this one won't add any particular burden to resolving the issue, won't hurt anyone, and will get me back to stub sorting in an area where no one else is even bothering. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Request~~: Please close this nomination in favor of the renames; it seems rather overdue. A related WSS/P that also proposed these renames was closed in favor of the creation of the proposed stub and without opposition (including to the category names) after it was revised to address hyphenation and to match the proposal here. Related category renames were completed at CfR here. The present SfD appears to have rationally addressed its opposition, has not been further opposed or had its justification rebutted in 6 days. The opposition to it has largely just raised off-topic concerns about other articles, relied on incorrect facts and assumptions (e.g. about WP Article Naming Conventions), relied on "evidence" not supported by citation but directly contradicted by cited usage facts, and been marred by borderline WP:AGF transgressions. This proposal is in concert with longstandng Wikipedia consensus practices when it comes to non-geographical sports stubcat names, and is not even contradicted by WP:WSS/NG at all (I've read every word of it quite carefully). The languishing of this proposal is getting in the way of real work being done, and should not be held up any longer by the possibility (not certainty) that the larger issues raised by it may be discussed in more depth at WSS/NG's talk page (though I hope that they will be, and am working on some consensus-building and non-confrontational ways to address them). "Wikipedia is not a fillibuster" as someone wise said to me recently. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to request: A clincher, when it comes to the category name — the only salient thing that WP:WSS/NG has to say about stub category names is 'The general form of category names is "Noun stubs" (e.g., Category:History stubs). Preferably, these should be in a similar form to their non-stub parent categories, although this is not always the case. The format "Adjectival stubs" (e.g., Category:Historical stubs) is not to be used.' "Cue sports" is a noun, and the proposed name closely follows that of the non-stub parent cat. So, we needn't argue any further at all about that half of the proposal; I'm not the one asking for a variance! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closure is 'overdue', yes, but 'in favour of the renames'? On what basis? Looks like a "strong no censensus" from where I'm sitting, which in itself is reason to keep it open somewhat longer. (Though I have to declare an interest in that I've been planning to reply to McC's above "rational address of the opposition", at some hypothetical time when I'm less vexed thereby.) Would you care to expand on who you consider to have been failing to assume good faith, and in what way? I'll reply to your rather sweeping "incorrect and off-topic" assertions in detail when I'm a bit more awake (and ideally, less vexed). (For now just pencil me in as considerably swayed towards 'oppose' by the nature of the (self-)supporting comments.) I really don't see what "real work" is being held up by any delay in this closure, and nor do I see why the closure of the CFD is material, given that it addressed entirely different issues. Alai 02:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On all of the bases already detailed (the original version was actually twice as detailed, but I figured one condensed paragraph would suffice). You've had six days + to become "less vexed"; if it takes you a week to calm down enough after being disagreed with and having your arguments challenged here, then perhaps you need some other wikihobby than SfD. It doesn't seem fair to assert that others cannot move on just because you are not in the mood, indefinitely. I don't understand your "swayed towards 'oppose'" comment, since it was already clear that you were from your initial post, and have opposed other related changes. I have to say it sure sounds like you are implying "I'm changing my mind, or saying that I am, because I don't like your style", which is not exactly a valid argument in any XfD process, whether Policy-based or not. The real work being held up is that the ultimate name of the category for the {{cue-sports-bio-stub}} template already approved at WSS/P is logically dependent on the outcome of this proposal, and ergo until it is resolved there is no bio stub sorting happening in WP:CUE. I remind you that the very purpose of WSS is the performing, and enabling, of stub sorting, not "vexed" argument for its own sake over nitpicky "rules" (mis)interpreting that fillibuster progress. The fact that the two prosals were linked was made explicitly plain in both nominations, so I have no idea where you are coming from with these "I really don't see..." and "entirely different issues" statements. If you really want to argue further, OK. If you really want me to detail the arguments again point-by-point and annotate why they are off-point, off-topic, unsupported by evidence, unsupported by policy, non-AGF, etc., etc., OK. You were the one who said you were tiring of the length of this discussion. I'd much rather not have to go there, and I think other readers would as well. And it isn't necessary:

The proposal is not in fact in conflict with WP:WSS/NG, WP:NC#Stub templates and categories, WP:NCCAT generally, WP:NCCAT#Sport (which only applies to by-country subcategories, and doesn't mandate the singular anyway) to the extent it could be considered relevant, or any Policy/Guideline, or any actual-practice consensus convention that applies to this topic area even within stub sorting. It only conflicts with a few participants' personal, subjective interpretations of WSS/NG. Issue resolved. Let's move on. If you want to take issue with something I've said about your arguments that did not address relevant policy/guidelines, let's take it up in user talk instead of subjecting everyone else here to another round of point-by-point debate that would be of questionable relevance to SfD anyway. Please. This is really getting tiresome, and further arguments based on personal preferences and "vexation" rather than actual policy/guideline bases are a waste of all of our time.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I quasi-retract the AGF complaint; it actually referred (now that I think of it) to the closely related discussion at WSS/P, not the one immediately above, in which the sole opposer (you) accused me of WP:NEO (by reference) and WP:OWN (directly, by that very shortcut), in the same post. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: Rather than subject SfD to a rehash of the old arguments, I've listed the oppose rationales here (as direct quotes not rephasals, with trimming of recycled parts), and responded to them again more succinctly than original, point-by-point, one after the other, in chron. order: User:SMcCandlish/Sandbox/CueSfd. I'm really not interested in re-arguing any of them here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Striking closure request. Leave open; convinced further discussion needed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:28, 23 February 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.

February 8

{{German-special-school-stub}} no category

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, unlikely to reach threshold. More importantly, this, quite clearly, is not how school stubs are split, and since {{Germany-school-stub}} isn't yet at the stage of getting its own category, let alone having such a category split, this is definitely a case of the wheeled farm vehicle being in advance of the equine quadruped. Grutness...wha? 06:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not support. The word "special" is controversial. Goldenrowley 20:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not how we'd be likely to split the German schools cat... if it even existed. Alai 09:53, 10 February 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.

February 10

{{Q Stub}} (no category)

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

Your guess is as good as mine as to what this is or does, but one thing is for sure, this is not a stub template so is incorrectly named. Mind you, even if it was a stub template, exactly what a Q stub would be remains a mystery... Delete, or if it actually has a real usage, rename to something more appropriate that doesn't use the word stub! Grutness...wha? 03:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at What links here shows that's is used only on User:MoRsE/Quality assessment as part of a series of templates used to keep track of the quality assessment of articles MoRsE is interested in. Take this one and {{Q N/A}} {{Q Start}} {{Q B}} {{Q GA}} {{Q A}} {{Q FA}} to WP:TFD for userfication or renaming. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Caerwine's observation is correct, it is meant for my personal quality assessments only. I wanted to get a better overview over the articles and at what stage they are. Is there a naming convention that I could follow in order not to make them collide with some other articles? I can rename them, that is no problem, if you just give me some hint to what. --MoRsE 08:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, for the avoidance of template-namespace confusion in general. Alai 09:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - User:MoRsE has expressed willingness to move this to {{Q Stub-class}}, which makes it clear it's an assessment template (the redirect can then be deleted). They probably all should be userfied, but that's more a tfd than an sfd thing. Grutness...wha? 23:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have now moved all those templates, and the originals have been put up for speedy deletion as redundant. --MoRsE 23:04, 10 February 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.

{{Test-stub}} (upmerged)

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, ambiguously worded. This is for school assessments and examinations, which might be a useful split of edu-stub, or might not - certainly there's no guarantee this would have 60 stubs. At the very least it needs a renaming, if not an outright deletion. Grutness...wha? 03:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to {{exam-stub}}, keep unmerged unless and until there's a proposal making the proposed scope clear. Alai 09:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that for medical exams, school exams, or cross exams of witnesses? Exam has much the same problem as test does with ambiguity. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Somewhat similar, but considerably less rampant. examination and Category:Examinations have essentially the scope I had in mind (the creator of this stub template I can't speak to). If you'd rather edu-test-stub, or indeed deletion, I'd have no particular objections, however. Alai 02:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was my intention that this stub be used for new pages about student assessments, and I believe that is quite clear given the link on the stub page. I did not realize that I had to propose the stub type before creating it, so I'm not sure if it meets the criteria. If it doesn't, then deletion is fine. (I do think that it could reach the max number of page hits if I were to enter all of the tests I know about. It just takes time to use.) I'd rather rename it, perhaps to {{edu-test-stub}} or {{assess-stub}} or something like that. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 15:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{st-test-stub}} might work well, for "standardized test stub". — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 19:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this discussion seems to be continuing over at the proposals page. perhaps the outcome here should be left until something is finalised there? Grutness...wha? 23:47, 13 February 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.

February 11

{{Milintel-stub}} / Category:Military intelligence stubs

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, and cuts through the idea of splitting military subjects by country and era. Not sure how useful it would be for that reason, and would suggest deletion - but if the decision is to keep it the template will definitely need to be changed to {{mil-intelligence-stub}} or {{mil-intell-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for a newbie mistake! Military intelligence is sufficiently specialized, yet relevant to every country's military (and the military of every era, aside from the current advanced technology) that it might be appropriate to keep it... but I would welcome feedback. Thanks for your help. JPatrickBedell 01:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could definitely use a stub type for spies and espionage, though as not all such activities are carried out by members of the military, I'd prefer one with a narrower focus such as {{espionage-stub}} or {{spy-stub}}. If kept, {{mil-intel-stub}} with only one "l" please. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately thought intell, since intel-stub makes me think of something else. Grutness...wha? 05:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you except for the mil- prefix and the fact that intel existed long before Intel. Better no abbreviation at all than using one that gets about 10% the hits of the other (altho the unabbreviated version vastly outhits them both). Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Monni 20:27, 24 February 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.

Category:Manga and anime character stubs

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 "Anime and manga character stubs". It's standard to use "anime and manga" instead of "manga and anime" (and it's also logical, "anime" coming first alphabetically). This is part of a larger CfD entry located here to rename a lot of categories that use "manga and anime" instead of "anime and manga".

Note - this will also affect the Template:Anime-char-stub. The template doesn't need to be renamed, but the text needs to be changed from "This article is about a fictional character found in manga or anime is a stub" to "This article is about a fictional character found in anime or manga is a stub" --`/aksha 03:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, provided the perm parent's CFR goes that way. (On the word order in the template, strongly apathetic.) Alai 23:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support if the CFR goes through. May be worth fiddling the wording to reflect the category name, too. Grutness...wha? 05:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The CFR has now closed with a consensus to rename. the wub "?!" 19:02, 22 February 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.

February 12

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 Category:Historical fiction book stubs to Category:Historical novel stubs (cat for {{hist-novel-stub}})

This naming doesn't match the naming for the stub template and is out of sync with the naming for the other "novel" stub category namings. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, to conform to permcat, though noting this is (at least theoretically) a rescope, too. Alai 02:19, 13 February 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 {{medsign-stub}} → {{med-sign-stub}}

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 an old stub stype that goes back to the days when everything fpr stub sorting was done on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria. Doesn't fit the naming guidelines developed since then. Rename to match the NG's as it is a subtype of {{med-stub}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Alai 02:20, 13 February 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.

February 13

Template:Marvel-villain-stub

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep, rename cat to supervillain

Moved from WP:TFD

Following numerous discussions at CfD regarding categories containing the the "villain" and the inherent POV associated with it, it seems to follow that this template be removed with instances replaced with the more general Template:Marvel-Comics-stub. Further, this template has generated the category Category:Marvel Comics villain stubs for the same reasons this category should be deleted as well. J Greb 01:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Although I don't read these comics and have never heard of them I still think this would be an appropriate template on the correct article.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or at least rename/rescope. Never proposed, permcat equivalent is likely to be deleted per strong precedent. Seems to have lots of stubs, but a quick random survey suggests that many of them are not stubs (70% of the 10 I sampled were not stubs). Certainly there seem to be enough stubs in the Marvel Comics category (assuming that they are stubs...) for a separate stub typoe for Marvel Comics characters - but not "villains". Grutness...wha? 00:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What's this, chopped liver? An unsplit "Marvel Comics characters" type would be preposterously and pointlessly large. Keep, or rename and rescope to Category:Marvel Comics supervillain stubs, per the original proposal. (On which the comment was that distinguishing between the "supervillians" and the bog standard "villians" wasn't needed -- no-one suggested it takes doctoral work in poststructuralist literary criticism to spot the "villain" in a comic book.) Note that the permcat is Category:Marvel Comics supervillains, which is at present CFD-free. Alai 12:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since we don't have villain categories. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least merge with Marvel-Comics-stub, not fully delete (would require too many pages to have Marvel-Comics-stub added manually).
- That's what bots are for. Grutness...wha? 23:37, 19 February 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.

{{Gibraltar-Fauna-Stub}} (upmerged)

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

This one is pretty clearly unnecessary. never proposed, miscapitalised, and given that (a) there are only 48 Gibraltar stubs overall (b) there is no Category:Fauna of Gibraltar, and (c) Fauna is stubbed by taxonomy, not national boundaries, this seems a fairly unlikely choice for a stub type. It will certainly not reach the desired threshold number of stubs. Delete. Grutness...wha? 02:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me at least borderline for being speediable. Strong delete. Alai 12:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied, after creator agreed to deletion (see here). Grutness...wha? 23:26, 20 February 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.

{{Cinema-stub}} / Category:Cinema stub

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 cuts across stub classification to some extent. Vaguely plausible scope, but probably a far better thing to do would be to upmerge this into the theatre stubs and split by country from there, especially since many structures have been both live and film theatres during their existence. Category is also misspelt. Grutness...wha? 02:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this stub is meant to represent the stubs of actual cinema theare buildings as opposed to cinema in general so agree with deletion. The spelling 'cinema' seems ok though. Bobbacon 08:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think G. was referring to the "spelling" of "stubs" in the category name, on the pattern of, well, every other stub cat... Alai 12:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. As to cinema-stub being for the buildings, I hadn't even considered the possibility it was for cinema in general, but you're right it is a bit vague. If upmerging is considered the most useful outcome it would probably need to be re-created as {{cinema-struct-stub}} to make that clearer (with that feeding into the theatre buildings category). My original point remains, though, that a lot of older cinemas started out life as live theatres, and some structures are still used for both purposes - so expanding the theatre building category to cover both is probably a sensible option. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 13 February 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.

National food and cuisine stubs

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

{{India-food-stub}} / Category:Indian food stubs
{{Malay-food-stub}} / Category:Malaysian food stubs
{{Mexico-cuisine-stub}} / Category:Mexican cuisine stubs
{{Spanish-cuisine-stub}} / Category:Spanish cuisine stubs
{{Turkish cuisine stub}} / Category:Turkish cuisine stubs

Unproposed, and with a misnamed template. And that's assuming we have "cuisine stubs", which we don't - this should either be a food-stub or a drink-stub. And we haven't split food by ethnicity, either. A renamed Turkey-food-stub would be better, but even then I'd have some serious doubts about the number of stubs, considering that Category:Turkish cuisine only has 88 articles. First choice delete, second choice rename. Grutness...wha? 02:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we do have {{cuisine-stub}} / Category:Cuisine stubs with well over 500 stubs and four (now five subtypes). The subtypes have varying names and provenances, but the cuisine stub was properly proposed and placed on the stub list back in December 2005. While most of these are likely local dishes rather than an entire set of customs, the permacat is Category:Turkish cuisine not Turkish cuisines or Turkish foods. I can live with a {{Turkey-food-stub}} and/or a {{Turkey-cuisine-stub}}, so the only question in my mind is whether or not there are sufficient stubs. We probably ought to bring the others here as well so we decide their fate as well, so I'm adding them to this discussion. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I've finished tagging the other four, I'm ready to talk. Both India and Mexico have enough stubs at present, the other three don't, tho to be fair to the Spanish one, that one has so far limited itself to just actual cuisines so far rather than foods found in that cuisine with its tags. I can see the sense of a stub type for the dishes in a national cuisine where we have enough of them to matter and the relevant permcats will be of the form Fooian cuisine I can live with either using Fooian cuisine stubs or Fooian food and cuisine stubs and then using both {{Foo-food-stub}} and {{Foo-cuisine-stub}} to feed into it. However, for now, unless someone is willing to stub search the relevant permcat for stubs, keep only the India, Mexico, and Spain ones for now. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{Turkish cuisine stub}} ;Unproposed, yes, I did a mistake due to the lack of info about wiki rules. I am ready to make proposal if necessary now.
- Cuisine is not equal Food. It is more comprehensive;for ex; Instruments, tradition etc.
- There will be numerous article created under the scope of WP-Turkey,but there are enough article related with Turkish cuisine which are tagged already with Turkey-Stub which I begun to change with this new template to give a guidance to the participants of that project.
So,My vote is KEEP. Regards. Must ^TC 17:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - If there is a Turkish cuisine stub, there are others we are not going to clog it up, and they are not Turkish foods, also stop spamming articles with that stub you tagged tons that are not even stubs! Jamaana 06:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cretanforever 19:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm well aware of the distinction between food and cuisine, however most of the articles that are about a regional cuisine will be about the food, because there isn't likely to be that many separate stub articles that can be written about the other aspects since until they can be expanded past the point of a stub, they likely belong merged into the Cuisine of Turkey article. However, assuming you started from the beginning of the alphabet with your examination of the existing Turkish stubs, Then based on the ones already in the subtype, I strongly doubt that there exist the 60+ stubs to justify a separate stub type at this time, and we don't generally keep stub types based on the promise that there will be more stubs real soon now. At best an upmerged template might be worth keeping if there are 30+ stubs, and a quick look at the Turkish stubs indicates that there are ~30. Even if kept. the stub must be renamed to conform to the naming guidelines. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but modify the name if necessary.. Baristarim 06:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Baristarim... Chapultepec 09:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have nothing against this stub, but I think it has been over-used for articles which could no doubt become more complete, but are well beyond the status of stubs. The other problem is that a lot of the articles it is being used for are, yes, part of Turkish cuisine, but they are also part of Armenian, Greek, Lebanese, Bulgarian, etc. cuisine. Do we really want to tag them with a dozen stub notices? Perhaps some editor who is not from the region could take a look at a few of the examples and give an opinion. --Macrakis 16:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not wrong. People adding this tag to kebab, and then using popup-based anti-vandalism tools to revert the (predictable and blatantly correct) removal of same, are "having a laugh", and should desist before their behaviour reaches assorted other forums. I also note it was added to Alanya kebab, which article states "Such kebab is completely unknown in Turkey." On another note, I've moved this to {{Turkish-cuisine-stub}} to minimally conform to the naming guidelines, though if the scope is supposed to be "food actually from present-day Turkey", then Turkey- would be more conventional. Alai 17:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this seems true. Soon the related articles will abound with lots of stubs. If the stub in question will continue to be used, it should take place in the articles that won't cause a conflict with the other cuisine categories. Chapultepec 19:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments;
- Turkey-cuisine is not Turkish cuisine; "Hamburger" is in Turkey cuisine but not belong to Turkish cuisine. Turkish cuisine can not be restricted with the borders of Turkey.
- Stub is stub. Even if ,any article which contains a lot of paragraphs can be stub.In many articles-in this scope- there are plentifull of data; but away from to give correct info to readers.
- In some hours in wiki-without a large investigation- I found and tagged more than 60 articles-in this scope-.
- So; there should be a stub template, and name is Turkish cuisine. Must^TC 09:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no doubt that you've tagged more than 60 articles. However, your judgement as to the "scope" (tandoor? Turkish?), and as to what's a stub (kebab? -- stub may be stub, but stub is not this) is very suspect (assuming it's actually being exercised at all). You're also using it in addition to {{cuisine-stub}}, and continuing to use the non-NG template name, so this activity resembles "stub sorting" barely at all. The stub-sorting project gets endless grief about over-tagging of stubs, and about lack of consistency in template names, so stuff like this is really the last thing it needs. If you're going to ignore any particular definition of "Turkish", ignore the primary notability of a topic, ignore what's actually a stub or not, ignore the stub naming conventions, and continue to mis-use the "undo" button a) in a content dispute, and b) to make what are plain bad edits, then not only will you not achieve the keep-through-category-padding you presumably want, but you'll be in very real danger of your behaviour being examined in a more formal manner. Alai 14:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We should make them by regions, for example Caucasus, Middle eastern etc, because like this other nationalities would want this and it would cause a mess.

For me, not cause a mess.Why we should make regional.What make sense, "Middle eastern cuisine" or "Caucasus cuisine"?. Cuisine is strongly related with culture.These regional cuisines are a collection of different cuisines, we can not talk-except some cases- about a specific cuisine in one geographic area.Must ^TC 14:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, Middle eastern is considered a culture, it makes more sense sounds less POV, all those you tagged are Turkish related but also belongs to other cultures than you want us to clog it up with Italian, Armenian, Azeri, Iranian etc? because if we make like Mexican cuisine stub we need more because its not fair do you get my drift? Nareklm 14:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many foods are shared among multiple cuisines. Though there is certainly a wonderful variety of kebabs in Turkish cuisine, kebab is found from Serbia to Pakistan, as documented in the kebab article. Compote is a dish with a French name which is popular in most of Europe (especially Eastern Europe) as well as the Middle East (and also found in North America under the name "stewed fruit (notably prunes)", yet Mustafa Akalp has tagged it with the Turkish cuisine stub label. That isn't helpful. --Macrakis 19:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My vote is still keep, but I think we should take care of not having a conflict with the other cuisines while placing the tag in the articles. Otherwise in the near future we will be able to see lots of national cuisine stubs in the related articles which will certainly be a mess. Chapultepec 20:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point. However, most of those articles will (hopefully) become longer soon so that we won't need the stubs. Baristarim 20:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add more for other nations. We can have a couple on any given article so that people who want to expand articles on Italian food can easily find them, and if the food also happens to have some origins in Greece, people interested in that can find it. Valley2city 16:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fine than we are going to make the rest. Nareklm 09:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Caerwine. For example, there are over Mexico cuisine stubs, and that will probably grow. Blank Verse 01:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Errr... Is there a consensus on whether to Keep the India food stub or not? If not, my vote is Keep. Am not voting for or against the others. --Madhu 18:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I created the indian food stubs, and the category has over 140+ entries, making it a viable stub template.Baka man 22:59, 25 February 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.

February 14

{{Cossack-stub}} /Category:Cossack stubs

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

Looks like we have another potential Maoririder on our hands... User:Potatomaster27 has created a handful of...interesting... templates, of which this is one (the other two are below). A split by a specific people within a country goes against stub precedent, and there is no evidence that this would find anywhere near enough usage for a separate stub type. Red-linked category, and this is only used on a user page. Usefully (?) there is also a redlinked, non-existent WikiProject. The icon would probably be offensive to many true Cossacks, too. delete Grutness...wha? 01:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update - looks like a category has now been created - with an sfd-c template ready attached! Grutness...wha? 03:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cossacks are awesome and deserve their own special template. They could be used for...Soviet stuff. I also made a category for Cossack stubs as of 10 minutes ago or so. So keep it.Potatomaster27 02:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Using Cossack-stub for "Soviet stuff" and putting the USSR flag on it is similar, but a little milder, than using Israel-stub for Nazi things and using the WWII era german flag on it. I advise you to read Cossack, particularly the first paragraph of the section headed "Cossacks after the Russian Revolution", to see why it would be inappropriate. Also please note precedents on stub types for specific people within a country, which this stub type goes against. And as far as I know being awesome has never been part of the stub creation criteria. Grutness...wha? 03:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. just leave it alone, it's not hurting anyone
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piratebob13 (talk • contribs)
- If it wasn't hurting anyone, I wouldn't have brought it here. Grutness...wha? 03:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. who is it alegedly hurting?
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piratebob13 (talk • contribs)
Delete Stub types that have too few articles hurt because they increase the number of stubtypes past the point where they can be managed. Stub Sense reports all of 45 stub articles in Category:Cossacks and its children, and we want at minimum 60 stubs for a regular stub type. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:17, 14 February 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.

{{Klingon-stub}} / Category:Klingon stubs

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

And now we get into weightier territory. There are only 48 articles in Category:Klingons, so the chances of 650 stubs is remote, to say the least - plus we've recently been in long talks with the Star Trek WikiProject about splitting the Star Trek stubs, and this wasn't the way decided. Another redlinked WikiProject on this one, but a blue-linked cat 9also nominated). Delete with a capital d. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jIHoH per nom. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I must admit, this one doesn't really have any uses. I also can't use the Klingon Insignia for the template because it's copyrighted. Potatomaster27 02:37, 14 February 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.

{{Potato-stub}} / Category:Potato stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete

The mind boggles. Several articles, all with tsome 9often very tenuous) link to potatoes. The category is, to say the least, interesting, and there's no sign of the red-linked WikiProject Potato. The template has interwiki links to Catalan and Czech templates, which unfortunately are on German geography. As does Klingon-stub. Delete with a capital potato. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! What's wrong with a potato-stub! I've tagged at least 3 or 4 articles, such as "Potatoe". I also deleted the interwiki links to Catalan and Czech templates - those were an accident. Keep, keep, keep!!! Potatomaster27 02:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If we were to have a potato stub, it would be - like similar plant-stubs, for specific species of potato and for articles related to the propagation and use of potatoes. Not for articles like Potato (band). Grutness...wha? 03:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mash unless 60+ stubs can be found. However, we do have a precedent of having stubs for plant families or orders and Stub Sense reports 105 stubs for the family Solanaceae which includes some false positives for potato and tomato dishes. Even after the false positives are struck it looks like it would have ~60 stubs, so a rescope and rename might be worth doing, though it would do very little to reduce the nearly overlarge plant stubs as the largest contribution would from a group of 17 articles from the appropriate {{Asterid-stub}} plus those stubbed with vegetable, fruit, and plant plus some others. A safer bet for having over 60+ might be to go with the order Solanales which has 123 stubs, but has the disadvantage of having seen a good bit of change in membership with the 2003 revision of the APG. Still, if some people are determined to have a narrower stub than {{Asterid-stub}} for the potatoes, one could do worse than either {{Solanales-stub}} or {{Solanaceae-stub}} Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think a potato stub would be very appropriate and it's not like it would cause any trouble.
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piratebob13 (talk • contribs)
Keep. A potato stub can actually have a lot of uses with potato-related articles. I think it would be a very good idea. Bobbinson 20:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bobbinson's only previous edits have been to User pages, including one made (and reverted) to Potatomaster27's alternate account. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For those of us having trouble keeping P27's obvious socks separate from his admitted socks: which is his 'alternate account'? Alai 02:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Potatomasterr is the account I meant. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Valentinian ^{T / C} 01:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus

Not necessary. Feeds into Category:Square Enix stubs, which has fewer than 40 stubs, let alone being close to needing to be split. And the template is, erm, not standard, to say the least. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this though, it's retarded and too specific. I take no credit for this btw. Potatomaster27 02:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say it did - I said you created three - this is the fourth one on today's list. Grutness...wha? 03:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, I'm just saying. Potatomaster27 04:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the usual grounds, with extra strength for "userbox design", and not even being about the real DragonQuest. Alai 12:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For your information, this stub is about the Dragon Quest video game series, not the DragonQuest RPG. Dragon Quest is the #1 selling video game series in Japan, and it has many loyal North American fans. --Rika95 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or to put it another way, the template is ambiguously named as well as being non-standard, unproposed and below threshold. Grutness...wha? 05:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    - I do not understand what 'non-standard' and 'below threshold' mean. I am totally new to creating or fixing content on Wikipedia. Someone else created the stub. I don't understand what's going on, but I hope to continue communicating with the group of Dragon Quest fanatics on Wikipedia so we can improve the Dragon Quest pages in whatever way we can.--Rika95 06:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - For your information, that did not in fact inform me any further at all, as I would have thought would have been fairly clear from the nature of my comment. But at least the template has been cleaned up a little (I've further removed the background colour and fixed the sort key problem), which does something to temper my ire. But this still seems at best pointless, and at worst potentially confusing. 'Non-standard' means, "not formatted in compliance with WP:STUB". 'Below threshold' means, "doesn't have 60 articles, as indicated on WP:STUB". Likewise, 'unproposed' means... well, you get the general idea. Alai 12:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Keep. If it does not have 60 articles it is because it has not been given any attention in all this time. We intend to change that, if only we are allowed. If the problem is that it is confusing to DragonQuest RPG people, we could always specify this is for the series of video games. Please propose something to make things better, do not just delete what you do not like. Icecypher 14:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we get rid of it then we will also need to get rid of {{FinalFantasy-stub}} and put them under Category:Square Enix stubs as well. If we are willing to do that as well then I'll agree to deletion. If not then I think simply fixing the stub to match the standard is more appropriate. SMimas 02:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point - with only 15 stubs, it's hardly optimal. Grutness...wha? 05:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on SMimas' grounds. The Dragon Quest stubs really haven't been given any attention by those who monitor and place Square Enix stubs, a specific stub like this is warranted by demand, the precedent that the Final Fantasy stubs set, and as such, required for retention. Keep. Siyavash 02:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the precedent set by Final Fantasy as well as the fact that if the Dragon Quest articles are currently being expanded it will be needed soon anyways.CalNom 18:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DQ articles are in the process of being created, so this stub will be necessary in the near future.marcoxnoto 23.00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep Based on the precedent set by Final Fantasy as well as the fact that if the Dragon Quest articles are currently being expanded it will be needed soon anyways. Dragon Quest is just as important a series as Final Fantasy. This game is a cultural sensation in Japan much bigger than Halo or Final Fantasy is in the states. Deleting it is paramount to denying Japanese culture. 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we can rename it to Dragon_Quest_stub, though, because the other DQ's people are right. DragonQuest, without the space, is for the paper role playing game. It is understandable why it could get confusing. Icecypher 15:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename I definitely agree that it should be renamed to Dragon_Quest_stub. Doing so would eliminate any confusion between the Dragon Quest RPG video game and the Dragonquest table top RPG.--Rika95 22:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Icecypher, Rika, you're straying considerably from the point. The name is about the only thing about this template which si right! It is in accordance with stub naming guidelines, which Dragon_Quest_stub would not be. The problem with the template is the number of articles which use it. Where are the 60 articles that are needed for a stub type? If the parent doesn't even have 60 stubs in it, then there's certainly no reason why there should be a child type.
- To the unnamed commenter above them, and also to CalNom and Siyavash, please note that FinalFantasy-stub is now proposed for deletion for exactly the same reasonj, so using it as a precedent is a little strange, to say the least. Furthermore, if the articles are currently being expanded as claimed, there will be, if anything, less need for a stub template as these articles expand beyond stub level. And also, if this is "warranted by demand", then why is it only used on 15 stubs?
- Marcoxnoto - when more stubs have been created, then I've no objection to a re-propsal for this stub type. Unitl then, it is not needed and - by precedent - should be deleted. Stub types are not made or kept on the basis that there may be future stubs.
Grutness...wha? 05:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But this isn't a "stub type", it's an "upmerged stub template". Usual practice for well-scoped but somewhat undersized stub types is upmerger. What precedents are there for deletion of already upmerged templates, on size alone? (Extreme narrowness or non-use aside.) This looks to me like setting a precedent, tha following it (as I commented on the FF nom). Alai 03:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wonder why there are multiple Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest stubs that pertain to individual games or characters? Why not have one universal Final Fantasy stub and one universal Dragon Quest stub? Those might serve to remove redundant stubs. If there would be just one Square Enix stub, then it should be okay to remove all other Square Enix stubs. I suppose there is concern about the existence of excessive stubs. Though, it can be tricky when elements of a franchise expand beyond the ownership of Square Enix, such as the Dragon Quest manga and anime. (I heard that these weren't owned by Enix, but I could be mistaken.)--Rika95 21:25, 21 February 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.

February 15

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

As suggested by SMimas during the discussion on DragonQuest-stub (below). This has been around for a long time - nearly two years! - but has only gained 15 stubs in that time. The parent stub cat it feeds into has only about 45 stubs, so doesn't need splitting. There's no logical reason why we have this - it doesn't help stub sorters or editors. Delete. Grutness...wha? 05:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's upmerged, so why is size any real concern? Mind you, the fed-into category is itself rather small... but you haven't nominated that. Alai 11:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't - but if the category is small enough not to need splitting, then having two separate templates feeding into seems like overkill. it is also being used as a precedent for a third template to feed into this small category. A 40-stub category is borderline, but having three templates for it (and who knows how many others may suddenly appear?) is definitely not necessary. Id it was close enough to splitting size that a second template made sense, then fine - but it clearly isn't. Grutness...wha? 23:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I recall now: there's a wikiproject, so 40-odd is actually fine. I'm more concerned about setting precedents the other way. If we start deleting templates that are quarter-way (or indeed halfway) towards viability as fully-fledged types, on what basis do we justify having these in other cases? People will complain we're "playing favourites". Alai 13:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as a member of WP:FF, I personally don't care if the stub type is deleted (SquareEnix-stub seems to work well enough right now), but I'd like to note that the template was much more populous once upon a time. Maybe WP:FF is just that good and de-stubbified all those articles? :) Axem Titanium 18:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If only all WikiProjects were so conscientious ;) Grutness...wha? 00:13, 17 February 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.

February 18

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 is a stub for a list of non notable bus routes (in the greater Minneapolis area) in the process of being deleted. Wikipedia is not a travel guide, so there is no need for a stubs on non notable bus routes. --Адам12901 ^Talk 21:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the articles bite the big one (merger included), delete as unneeded. If these survive, then rename and upmerge, on the basis of the naming guidelines, and size criteria. Alai 02:15, 20 February 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.

February 20

{{Beatles-stub}} / Category:Beatles Stub

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 either at WP:WSS or at WP:WBeatles - and indeed discussion of such a stub type in the early days of the Beatles WikiProject was against having such a stub type. Only had one article, which was a fict-char-stub 9and only a borderline stub at that). Category scope is...odd... to say the least, and the name is just plain wrong (it's also unparented). Not needed, either, since there is a WP talk page template which covers this far more effectively. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Finding 60 stub articles about the Beatles that do not relate to songs would be a rather tall order. Valentinian ^{T / C} 01:23, 21 February 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.

February 21

{{web-browser-stub}} / Category:Web browser stubs

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 upscope

Rename and upscope to {{web-software-stub}} / Category:Web software stubs. There is a need for a stub for web authoring software (web server software is covered by the existing network-software-stub) and this existing stub type is just barely over threshold, so rather than recommending a new stub (especially since I'm not certain if there would be enough for a new stub type), I'm asking for an upscope to web software that would have the added benefit of following the general *-software-stub format used by a number of the subtypes of software-stub. Recommend that we keep the existing template as a possibility for future expansion. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An obviously good idea.DGG 07:19, 28 February 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.

February 22

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

Ethnic group in Foo stubs

Though I can understand why these have been named this way rather than the suggested alternative, to emphasise that these are groups within the continent rather than groups with their origins there, the titles torture grammar. The wording of the templates and categories make it clear what they are for, but the proposed new titles don't induce quite as much winceing. Grutness...wha? 06:24, 22 February 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.

{{Finnic-stub}}, {{Finno-Ugric-stub}} (and redirect {{Fenno-Ugric-stub}}

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

Seems we've had these unproposed stub types since September last year. During that time they gained two articles between them, one of which is now marked with {{euro-ethno-group-stub}} (the other wasn't a stub). Unneeded - and if they were to be kept the latter should have the first hyphen removed. Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:51, 27 February 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.

February 23

{{Turkmen SSR-stub}} / Category:Turkmen SSR stubs

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 the Discoveries page. Unproposed stub type with malformed template. Only 11 stubs at present. Discussion recommended delete, restubing with {{Turkmenistan-stub}} and {{Soviet-stub}}. I concur. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Already covered by other stubs, badly formed template, and not normal practice to have stub types for defunct political states (with one or two notable exceptions). Grutness...wha? 03:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant EdwinHJ | Talk 16:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Caerwine. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:16, 23 February 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.

February 24

{{SriLanka-artist-bio-stub}} / Category:Sri Lanka artist bio stubs

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 (unopposed, and per WP:WSS/NG)

Unproposed, horribly formatted and named (the template doesn't link to the category to start with, and check the wording of it...). Doubt it will get close to threshold. An upmerged template would be a possibility, but since this one is incorrectly named (should be SriLanka-artist-stub) we'd have to start again from scratch anyway. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 24 February 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.

{{Punjab-geo-stub}} / Category:Punjab geography stubs

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, unpopulated, and problematical. Punjab as a historical region shouldn't have a stub type, since it crosses current natiuonal borders. However, there are two current states called Punjab, one in india and one in Pakistan. These already have their own templates ({{PunjabPK-geo-stub}} and the misnamed {{IndianPunjab-geo-stub}}). As such, this new type is not only unproposed, unpopulated and ambiguous, but also redundant. Delete, and see the following proposal... Grutness...wha? 23:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Grutness's reasoning works for me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:26, 26 February 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.

{{IndianPunjab-geo-stub}} → {{PunjabIN-geo-stub}}

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 per normal stub naming. Perhaps this needs to be mentioned in the naming guidelines (SMcC?), but all other ambiguous subnational region names use the form NameDigraph-geo-stub (e.g., PunjakPK-geo-stub), so this one probably should too. Grutness...wha? 23:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Gruness. Good point with regard to WSS/NG redraft. Will add one of those HTML comments notes we're saving up for Phase II redraft. Actually, added it to redraft's talk page first, pending a question. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:24, 26 February 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.

{{Arena Football League-Stub}} (redlinked cat)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename

The the very least this needs renaming to {{ArenaFootballLeague-stub}}, per standard stub naming. No vote on whether it needs deleting, I don't know enough about Arena Football for that, but I've used the more general template warning on the template, so if there's enough support for deletion, so be it. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete empty now, I can't imagine that there are 60 Arena football league stubs, I'd be suprised if there were 5. Unless they meant Arena football team stubs? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename related to a Wikiproject. Will be used for players in the league. Haven't had time to tag articles. --ROASTYTOAST 21:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per RoastyToast. If after some appropriate amount of time still unpopulated, return for deletion. NB: If it does mostly refer to teams, that's OK. If they later have loads of team stubs and loads of non-team stubs, they can propose a split, but better to consolidate for the time being, I would think. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:28, 26 February 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.

{{Tv-episode-list-stub}} upmerged)

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 not useful, especially since lists don't normally get stub templates, but rather get {{listdev}}. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Grutness. Does not compute! But retag "What links here" results with {{listdev}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:29, 26 February 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.

February 26

Template:Billiards-stub, Template:Cuesport-stub redirs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete

Delete redirects; no longer used. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:37, 26 February 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.

Category:Cue sport stubs ⇒ Category:Cue sports stubs

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 per Category:Cue sports biography stubs WSS/P here, so parent and child cat are consistent, and per WP:WSS/NG#General form: "Preferably, these [stub category names] should be in a similar form to their non-stub parent categories". Current name doesn't satisfy WSS/NG (parent cat. is Category:Cue sports not Category:Cue sport) and is in conflict with its own child category as arrived at by WSS/P. In reference to previous disputes about wider naming issues especially with regard to sports categories, I believe that the WSS/NG overhaul which is currently in progress (details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming guidelines#Redrafting, stage 1) will ultimately settle the matter in a consensus manner (that may eventually necessitate a rename of this and many other sports stub cats, or may not; no assertion is made by nominator about the very long-term merits of this rename; it is rather a present-day consistency fix; the worst that can happen is that it will be like several similar stubcats and someday need renaming). This is not intended to reopen any prior debate about the ultimate disposition of the sports stub template and category names; it is only addressing a WSS/P already decided, and the conventions as described in WSS/NG as presently accepted. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sisyphus-stub, anyone? "Similar to" doesn't mean "identical with 'stubs' tacked on", though, otherwise we wouldn't have renamed the many (many, many) Category:Buildings and structures stubs types to Category:Building and structure stubs, et al. Broadly speaking I'd prefer a general principle of "if the article is at "X", and the perm category is at "Xs", the stubcat should be at "X stubs", since the usage issues are essentially similar (I don't claim this is clearly established by precedent), but in the meantime, since we have a shedload of stub types at Category:Sports stubs, etc, we should probably rename in line with those, at least pro temps, until such time as a wider rename of all of those is contemplated. Alai 02:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. While I have a preference, I'll ultimately be OK with however way consensus goes on that larger issue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:51, 1 March 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.

February 27

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, no stub category (feeds straight into the Category:MythBusters - and that permcat has only 15 articles). The chances of this reaching even close to threshold are virtually nil. Also its unclear whether this is for the episodes, myths tested or exposed by the programme, or people involved with the programme. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This stub is going to be inroduced to all pages MythBusters. Currently, WikiProject MythBusters is just starting up, and we are trying to standardize and consolidate articles. This is just one of the tools we are using. It only has a few articles because we have not added it to the pages it needs. If it turns out that there are too few articles that need the stub, we will just have a major over-arching category. Please give us some time to get things straight---we are just starting out ........jw 04:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that even with a WikiProject this stub type would need more than 15 articles to be effective, and the main category only has 15 articles, so there are likely to be even fewer than 15 stubs. With that few articles, you'd be far better off with a list of the articles as a subpage of your WikiProject, listing all the pages and what needs doing to them. Also, as I said, there are questions as to exactly what types of articles this stub would cover. Grutness...wha? 03:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with Grutness on all points. This is "overprojectification" (by analogy with "overcategorization"). Jaypenguin: I think it would be more productive for you to use a larger-category TV stub type, one level up (it might even attract new editors/project members!), and for your project-internal categorization purposes use a standard-style WikiProject talk page header (which can be used to assess articles as Stub-class and auto file them in Category:Stub-class MythBusters articles under Category:WikiProject MythBusters (which I note doesn't even exist yet). I.e., use the WP 1.0 Assessment and Peer Review system to classify your small number of articles as stubs or not for your particular needs. The WP:WSS stub sorting system really isn't going the help you much, because your topic is of too narrow an interest. See the WikiProject Council for stock talk page WikiProject templates and such, not to mention more info on how to set up WikiProjects to be more effective (an internal Category:WikiProject MythBusters is a must). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:21, 6 March 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.

{{Turkish cuisine stub}} (redirect)

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

Yes, I know - this was part of a mass proposal only a couple of weeks ago. But in the rush the fact that this was a misnamed stub seems to have been overlooked - it was renamed, but the faultily worded original wasn't deleted. Since we now have a perfectly acceptable {{Turkey-cuisine-stub}}, this redirect can (and should) be deleted. Grutness...wha? 23:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per nom's reasoning, this sounds utterly uncontroversial, just fixing an oversight by removing something that is already surpassed by a properly-named template. Copied this to WP:SFD#To delete, which seems to be our equivalent of SD. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:02, 6 March 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.

CVG mass rename

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 all to *-videogame-stub

{{cvg-stub}}
- {{cvg-bio-stub}}, {{cvg-char-stub}}, {{cvg-company-stub}}, {{cvg-culture-stub}}, {{cvg-fict-stub}}, {{cvg-hardware-stub}}, {{cvg-musician-stub}}, {{cvg-software-stub}}
- {{action-cvg-stub}}, {{adventure-cvg-stub}}, {{anime-cvg-stub}}, {{fighting-cvg-stub}}, {{music-cvg-stub}}, {{platform-cvg-stub}}, {{puzzle-cvg-stub}}, {{racing-cvg-stub}}, {{rpg-cvg-stub}}, {{shooter-cvg-stub}}, {{simulation-cvg-stub}}, {{strategy-cvg-stub}}

The video game people have by and large, save for one exception, noted below in an separate SFD, finished renaming the computer and video game stub categories, to say just video game. Now the question is what to do with all those templates that have cvg in them. Do we change from the cryptic cvg to the equally cryptic vg or shall we consider videogame to be short enough to dispense with abbreviations, and replace cvg with that? Personally, I favor that we rename all to use videogame. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming {{cvg-stub}} to {{videogame-stub}} over redirect and children with same change. Monni 20:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom (i.e., to "X-videogame-stub"). Oppose using "vg" as an abbreviation, as it is too ambiguous (see VG). No preference as to keeping or deleting cvg redirects. Grutness...wha? 23:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all: I support renaming everything to something like {{vg-stub}} and keeping all the redirects. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all - Yes, it would be kinda weird to leave it as computer and video games after all this time. --Addict 2006 05:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. I completely agree with Dread Lord CyberSkull. §†SupaSoldier†§ 16:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to "vg-whatever". Seems a good idea to keep it short, though "videogame-whatever" is fine too.--Mike Selinker 04:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support if renaming to videogame as its easier to see where it is come from. Oppose if its shortened to vg as it doesn't really help and just means people that have learnt cvg must rememeber to type vg instead. Ksbrown^talk 09:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to videogame-stub or something of the like; get rid of all the sub categories. Agree that vg-stub is unclear. -- ${\sqrt[{\tfrac {_{32^{\circ }\mathrm {F} }}{^{0^{\circ }\mathrm {C} \;\;}}}]{_{\infty }}}\approx {\tfrac {\sin('d)^{\underline {\flat y}}}{\mathbb {Z} y+\Re _{\varnothing }\!{n!}}}\otimes$ user|TALK 19:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to videogame-stub, but oppose vg-stub. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to videogame-stub, vg-stub is too cryptic. Clement Cherlin 12:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I thinks it's a good idea to use just one stub template for all short video game articles. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 13:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to video-game- for preference, or else videogame-, for clarity and consistency. Oppose vg- (and strongly oppose deletion of sub types). Alai 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "videogame" versions, not "vg", not "video-game" ("video-game" is not a common spelling and would ergo be confusing; vg is geeky and not easily guessable as to meaning, plus easily mistaken for a country or language code.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to "videogame-". oppose rename to "vg-". Entro-P 13:31, 6 March 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 {{educational-cvg-stub}}

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

Besides the what do we do with cvg issue of the above, there is the question whether to take the opportunity to replace educational with the edu abbreviation used by other education-related stub templates. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to edu-videogame-stub per nom. Grutness...wha? 23:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Grutness. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:47, 6 March 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 {{sports-cvg-stub}}

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

Besides the what do we do with cvg issue of the above, there is the question whether to take the opportunity to replace sports with the sport used by other sports-related stub templates. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to sport-videogame-stub per nom. Grutness...wha? 23:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to sports-videogame-stub (sports not sport). Last I looked there was definitely not a majority of sport[s]- stubs being sport- versus sports-, while -sport- not -sports- is used in the combining form (as a Major Component, per WSS/NG) after geographical names. This mirrors the vast majority of non-stub category usages: Almost all "Sports something" and "Qualifier sports something" (where "Qualifier" is something like "Racing", "Water", etc.) categories use "sports". Meanwhile, the geographic sporting categories almost universally use "sport", singular, e.g. "Category:Sport in Italy". I think the "what to do about sport vs. sports" issue in stubspace needs further discussion (and my take on the issue is much less simplistic than I think has been understood so far). So, for this particular rename nomination I propose leaving "sports" as-is for now in the stub in question. If it already said "sport" I would not advocate renaming that part of the stub name to "sports", because that could be seen as a US- vs. UK-English debate, and we shouldn't go there. Another way of putting it, I think the current rename nominations with regard to the CVG stubcats should focus on what to do about the "cvg" segment, and re-order them where necessary to satisfy WSS/NG, but not wander into disputed territory. :-) I object to "tak[ing] the opportunity", as Caerwine put it, because it would pre-emptively move to settle the question before the debate has actually come to a conclusion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:39, 6 March 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 {{cvg-web-stub}}

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

Since the stub type is for websites, I suggest that at the same time as we take care of the cvg issue above, that we rename to end in website-stub, the same as its parent {{website-stub}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to videogame-website-stub per nom. Grutness...wha? 23:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Grutness. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:48, 6 March 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.

Category:Computer role-playing game stubs → Category:Role-playing video game stubs

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

Probably didn't get caught up in the permacat rename because it didn't mention video games in the category title. Propose that we rename to match the permacat Category:Role-playing video games Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Grutness...wha? 23:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Looks like this one just slipped through the cracks. — jmorgan (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom et al. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:50, 6 March 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.

Delete redirects {{cvg-char stub}} {{cvg-corp-stub}} {{cvg-item-stub}}, {{cvg-soft-stub}}

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

As long as we're cleaning up these, lets delete these redirects left over from previous template renames and start the new names off reasonably clean of redirects. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, clean is the way to go... Monni 20:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yep. The redir mess might just cause the creation of new cvg templates. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:58, 6 March 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 redirects {{manga-cvg-stub}}, {{cvg-rpg-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename

The first exists because in general for every anime stub type a redirect from manga exists. The second redirect exists so as to help people unsure as to whether cvg or rpg should go first. Suggest that we rename to match whatever is done with the other cvg stubs. (By the way, I created the notification template, {{sfr-r}}, just to handle this peculiar case.) Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, but it sounds like the specifics are unknown. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:00, 6 March 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.

February 1

UFO stubs

Category:Water-transport stubs → Category:Water transport stubs

February 2

Small Indian location categories, for upmerger

February 3

{{Greater Manchester-stub}}

{{para-stub}} → {{parapsych-stub}}

Category:Album stubs/Child list

February 4

{{palm-stub}}, Category:Palm OS stubs

{{FZ-stub}}, Category:Frank Zappa stubs

Category:Apple Inc. stubs

February 6

{{North Dakota-bio-stub}}

{{Turkish-writer-stub}}

{{Hiphop album stub}}

February 7

{{Cuesport-stub}} ⇒ {{Cue-sports-stub}}; Category:Cue sport stubs ⇒ Category:Cue sports stubs

February 8

{{German-special-school-stub}} no category

February 10

{{Q Stub}} (no category)

{{Test-stub}} (upmerged)

February 11

{{Milintel-stub}} / Category:Military intelligence stubs

Category:Manga and anime character stubs

February 12

Rename Category:Historical fiction book stubs to Category:Historical novel stubs (cat for {{hist-novel-stub}})

Rename {{medsign-stub}} → {{med-sign-stub}}

February 13

Template:Marvel-villain-stub

{{Gibraltar-Fauna-Stub}} (upmerged)

{{Cinema-stub}} / Category:Cinema stub

National food and cuisine stubs

February 14

{{Cossack-stub}} /Category:Cossack stubs

{{Klingon-stub}} / Category:Klingon stubs

{{Potato-stub}} / Category:Potato stubs

{{DragonQuest-stub}}

February 15

{{FinalFantasy-stub}}

February 18

{{MT-rt-stub}}

February 20

{{Beatles-stub}} / Category:Beatles Stub

February 21

{{web-browser-stub}} / Category:Web browser stubs

February 22

Ethnic group in Foo stubs

{{Finnic-stub}}, {{Finno-Ugric-stub}} (and redirect {{Fenno-Ugric-stub}}

February 23

{{Turkmen SSR-stub}} / Category:Turkmen SSR stubs

February 24

{{SriLanka-artist-bio-stub}} / Category:Sri Lanka artist bio stubs

{{Punjab-geo-stub}} / Category:Punjab geography stubs

{{IndianPunjab-geo-stub}} → {{PunjabIN-geo-stub}}

{{Arena Football League-Stub}} (redlinked cat)

{{Tv-episode-list-stub}} upmerged)

February 26

Template:Billiards-stub, Template:Cuesport-stub redirs

Category:Cue sport stubs ⇒ Category:Cue sports stubs

February 27

{{MythBusters-stub}}

{{Turkish cuisine stub}} (redirect)

CVG mass rename

Rename {{educational-cvg-stub}}

Rename {{sports-cvg-stub}}

Rename {{cvg-web-stub}}

Category:Computer role-playing game stubs → Category:Role-playing video game stubs

Delete redirects {{cvg-char stub}} {{cvg-corp-stub}} {{cvg-item-stub}}, {{cvg-soft-stub}}

Rename redirects {{manga-cvg-stub}}, {{cvg-rpg-stub}}