Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Archive15

December 2005[edit]

{{Mumbai-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 archive this debate, stub no longer exists

Created in July, used on 13 articles. However, it feeds into Category:India geography stubs. Unless there's a wikiproject, probably ought to be deleted... --Mairi 21:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If it was mumbai-geo-stub then it would make sense to have it feed into india-geo. But then, since Mumbai's a city not a state, it would be deletable. As a city stub pure and simple, it might work - but then it shouldn't be feeding into India-geo, because it shouldn't have any geographical features in it, so it's been wrongly categorised. Either way, it needs to be either fixed up or "fixed permanently" Grutness...wha? 22:45, 17 December 2005 (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.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 archive this debate, stub no longer exists

Feeds into Category:South Africa stubs, and the text says nothing about bios. There's also no {{SouthAfrica-bio-stub}} to redirect this too. --Mairi 05:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

probably would be useful, but sounds like it just about needs to be started from scratch. We got rid of SA-geo-stub and SA-stub not that long ago - this one (if kept) needs similar renaming. Grutness...wha? 09:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It should be renamed. --Valentinian 10:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Ethical-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 archive this debate, stub no longer exists

A nice little stub that doesn't murder, steal, lie... oh, it's for articles about ethics. Which might get enough use, especially since {{philo-stub}} is getting large, although it'd need a category and a rename. --Mairi 05:58, 21 December 2005 (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.

{{Balears-stub}} / Category:Balearic Islands stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed on WP:STUBS

For the Balearic Islands; created 2 weeks ago, used on 15 articles, looks well formed. --Mairi 22:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

probably useful, as long as it doesn't mix ordinary and geo-stubs. Lousy name, though. Bale ars? Why not {{Balearic-stub}} or {{Balearics-stub}}? Grutness...wha? 23:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Their Spanish name is Illes Balears and since "-ic" is an English adjectival suffix, the use of Balears for the Balearic Islands is a reasonable, tho apparently unused name for them in English. Probably not worth deleting unless the stub type is deleted, but adding {{Balearics-stub}} as either the main template or a redirect is worth doing if the stub type is kept. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

actually, we're both wrong, which explains why I didn't think the name was Spanish. "Illes Balears" is the Catalan for the Balearic Islands. "Islas Baleares" is the Spanish (the islands use both languages, by the look of it). Grutness...wha? 00:28, 28 December 2005 (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.

January 2006[edit]

{{extinction-stub}} / Category:Extinction stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 archive this debate, stub no longer exists

Created 3 days ago, I've only found one article tagged with it, since the category doesn't seem to have been created. Worse, the tag tamplate was incorrectly written, so it spews markup text onto the pages where it's used. I recommend we subsume it back into {{paleo-stub}}. --EncycloPetey 04:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sounds a good idea. I don't know what the article was, but I bet it was either a species which just happened to be extinct or something related to a geological/palaeontological event. Grutness...wha? 05:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the stub template was created by a sockpuppet vandal (User:Kai Barry 2) who was carrying on a campaign of seemingly experimental vandalism across a swath of articles begun under the name User:Kai Barry. BD2412 T 14:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it's basically a CSD G5? Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo} ^risin' 16:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{aerospace-museum-stub}} / Category:Aerospace museum stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed on WP:STUBS

I created this stub today, before I knew that there was a Stub Project, which is why I didn't follow the process (there was also no WikiProject banner at Category:Museum stubs, which didn't help). 43 articles either added independently or taken from {{museum-stub}}. Category matches with Category:Aerospace museums. McNeight 06:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

some people not connected to the project have been taking those banners off some of the catagories (tho a lot of them never had them). The template should probably be aero-museum-stub, since it would be a child of both museum-stub and aero-stub. 43 is a reasonable number of stubs tho. BL kiss the lizard 04:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Christian-text-stub}} / Category:Christian text stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 as redirect

Created today, used on 38 articles. Worth keeping, I'd think. For all of the above, {{Christianity-foo-stub}} probably ought to be a redirect (or the other way around), as it more matches our naming conventions but is rather unnatural. --Mairi 06:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed on WP:STUBS

This one was discovered by Grutness back in October. It's used on 44 articles (not far from threshold) and (IMO) has the potential to grow as future minor hurricanes are documented. It's already on WP:WSS/ST, and I've corrected the template a bit. I think it should be adopted. Conscious 13:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like a natural child of climate-stub, too. Grutness...wha? 22:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 2006[edit]

{{MLS-Stub}} and Category:Major League Soccer stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 archive this discussion, stub no longer exists

Populated with 5 articles currently, with just season and championship summaries as well as one stadium. Neier 08:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit odd, since we've been splitting football by country, and haven't got enough stubs for a separate US-footy-stub yet, let alone just one of its leagues. I think it's extremely unlikely we'll get 60 stubs for this. A rescope to a general US-footy-stub would be a reasonable compromise, though. Grutness...wha? 09:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

March 2006[edit]

{{UTexas-stub}} / Category:University of Texas at Austin stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed on WP:STUBS

I created this stub today because I wasn unaware there is a process for stub creation. I'm sorry about that. I will not make that mistake again. There are currently 42 articles in this category, and I am stilll looking for others that should be included. These articles are being found and improved through Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin. Johntex\^talk 20:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty sensible to me. Template name is a tad terse, but not unduly cryptic. (Still trying to work out why I thought there was a problem with the category name, and sleep deprivation seems to be the leading differential diagnosis.) Alai 20:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- oop - didn't notice this - I've just put it on sfd. Most of the articles on it are better suited to other stub categories, and the idea of different stubs for different universities is a bit daunting - we don't want a couple of thousand new stub types. But there is a Wikiproject, so that does change things a bit. hmm - this requires a biot of thought. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with this is that there are definitely other University of Texas branches and the current stub name doesn't make it clear that it's just for Austin. If there are a significant number of stubs related to University of Texas (as I'd imagine there might be), it might better justify the category if it included all of the branches rather than just one. Aelfthrytha 00:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 2006[edit]

{{Comic artist-stub}} / Category:Comics artist stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 archive this discussion, template no longer exists, category is already listed

Template created last 11 November, category not created until 17 March. Used by only 2 stubs, but with Category:Comics creator stubs being a verylarge category, I can see the desire to split out those who have been only writers or only artists, tho I am uncertain that would be an optimum split. If kept the template needs renaming, but the category is approprate, so before taking the template to SfD, I'd like some feedback as to whether the category should go as well. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

would probably be better to split by nationality same as we do with all other occupations. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

no template / Category:Computer vision stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 archive this discussion, category no longer exists

Created March 22 by user:KYN. Articles within use {{compu-stub}} rather than their own template, and the stub category is added manually. Suggested creation of stub template and proposal procedure on user's talk page on March 28; received no reply in the intervening time, though user is still active. –Unint 07:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the whole computer vision section is ~~fucked~~ badly categorised anyway - ive just put a load of very badly named cats on cfd from there. there are less than 60 articles in total in Category:Computer vision btw, so this ones not needed. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit late, but I've started the SfD. –Unint 02:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Blogging stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 now exists as internet-publish-stub

Moved from Wikipedia talk:stub

I was doing a bit of a tidy up on a random vlogger, BowieChick and was looking for some stub to throw on it. I found Template:Vlog-stub and the Category as shown above. However, vlog-stub has like 5 things in, and is probably too narrow a stub type. Whereas there doesn't seem to be a generic stub for bloggers is there? I could look further, but I really don't care much for blogs or blogging anyway, but would like to point this out to those stub fetishists who keep the WP running. - Hahnch e n 14:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This query was moved over from Wikipedia talk:Stub - Hahnch e n 20:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've had a proposal for a blogstub in the past which was rejected, since virtually no articles on blogs would survive afd. The correct stub to use would be WWW-stub, I'd think. Certainly five articles isn't enough for a stub type. Unless it grows soon this should go to WP:SFD. Grutness...wha? 03:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually abhor most blogs, and thought the now ended War on Blogs was a pretty good concept. Most of them are self promoting vanity pages, or put up by a rabid fan. But there has to be quite a lot of bloggers/blogs on Wikipedia now, no? I definitely think the vlog-stub is too narrow, and I doubt it's going to grow. But I think a blogging stub would be quite useful, I mean, we have stubs for webcomics, and they're just as poor. - Hahnch e n 12:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there are 60 blog stubs, fine; if no,t upmerge to {{website-stub}}. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

May 2006[edit]

Stadium offshoots[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 as redirects

Found these two today when going through stadium stubs:

Africa stadiums I'd say is worth keeping - there's a proposal going for a division of stadiums, and continent is a great way to do it. Mexico, however, I'd say should go. Only 14 articles, and I don't see much room for expansion. --fuzzy510 03:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Africa- was in fact proposed. Alai 03:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed at WP:STUBS

Created today without proposal. Very nicely formed and listed at /ST by its creator. I've populated it more, so it is now up to 67 articles. Keep. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Mascot-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed on WP:STUBS

I found this template today because it sorts things into Category:Stubs because there is no Category:Mascot stubs. It had previously been listed on this page (also quoted below), but nothing came of it. Amalas =^_^= 16:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I speedy-deleted the empty category before I realsied there was a template...which didn't link to the category. Seems to have quite a few stubs, but if kept it needs a category. One that it connects to. Grutness...wha? 06:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Category restored. --TheParanoidOne 21:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 archive this discussion, stub no longer exists

Previously deleted in Feb 2006 and then re-created on 7 May 2006. Used on exactly one stub. Please speedy delete this. Amalas =^_^= 17:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed on WP:STUBS

stubs TV,radio,communications masts. Created on 07:43, 6 July 2005 by User:Grutness. Contains approx. 4 pages of articles. - The DJ 11:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually on the stub types list already. --TheParanoidOne 19:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And was proposed and debated at the time, as you can see here. In fact, it's getting close to the point of splitting it by continent. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

A couple of categories[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed on WP:STUBS

Category:Himachal Pradesh geography stubs and Category:Polish football biography stubs have been populated, so I've added them to WP:WSS/ST. Conscious 10:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{China-mil-stub}} / Category:Chinese military stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed

Created around half a year ago. I don't remember it being proposed and it is used on a massive 8 articles. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{EasternOntario-geo-stub}}; {{SaintPetersburg-geo-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 Ontario already listed, Petersburg no longer exists

For some bizarre reason, the first was proposed, then the proposal immediately removed, and then created anyway, and populated almost up to threshold, all by the same person. Strange, but fair enough, though in no way necessary, much less urgent. Then they've created the second, which is considerably undersized at present, and I have my doubt about its ultimate viability, as its parent, which covers a vast area, is barely more than a single listings page. Alai 16:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Chhattisgarh-geo-stub}} / Category:Chhattisgarh geography stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed

Created two days ago, currently empty; no idea about viability. Alai 18:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Brandenburg-geo-stub}} / Category:Brandenburg geography stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed

Created months ago, but never populated. Alai 18:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes and no, it fed into the generic German category. It is used on 41 articles. Valentinian ^(talk) 17:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make that 53 articles. Valentinian ^(talk) 20:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One of these days I'll remember to check that stuff... Alai 01:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{24 Stubs}}/Category:24 Stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 longer exists

It's not technically named right, but the biggest problem is that it's waaaay too narrow of a scope - only 17 articles in Category:24 (TV series) are marked as stubs, says StubSense. --fuzzy510 04:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

quick! find another seven so its accurate! :) lousy incorrect name which will need changing even if its kept so this one should go to sfd where with any luck it may end up... er... Lost. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Template:Nbl-stub}} and {{Template:Nblbio-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 longer exists

Created 4/23/06. Associated category does not exist. As far as I could tell, not included on anything. Kudos to Wikipedia:WikiProject_NBL. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of them is not used at all, the other on 1 article, and the image is copyrighted logo. This is not good. Valentinian ^(talk) 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we SfD these then? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

June 2006[edit]

{{Template:Beta Theta Pi Chapter-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 longer exists

Created 5/30/06. No cat associated. Included on two articles. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one can safely be taken straight to sfd. Grutness...wha? 05:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Minor-Belgian-city}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 longer exists

SFD? TFD? Redirect to {{Belgium-geo-stub}}? Conscious 17:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

either or both. its almost speediable as nonsense at the moment. lobster? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lobster??? Never mind! Delete. If the Belgian material becomes too big, we can start by splitting Flanders and Walonia. Valentinian ^(talk) 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{UU stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 longer exists

Created 2006-06-01. Noticed when the template creator decided to tag a number of American politicians with no obvious affiliation with Unitarian Universalism. Many of the tagged articles are also well beyond the simple stub level. --Allen3 ^talk 04:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nneds a rename at least. has aboput 50 stubs tho. lets see how big it is when the "non-stubs" are taken out. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{US-poet-stub}} / Category:American poet stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed

Was this one ever proposed? It seems like the poets have been split from {{US-writer-stub}} (at least according to the text on the latter one) but there must be more than 12 US poets. Valentinian ^(talk) 20:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed here, summary of creation here. It had said there were 176 articles, but I don't know where they went. Amalas =^_^= 21:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Dukestub}} / Category:Duke University-related Stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 longer exists

I've had a look around and I don't think this has been proposed and accepted. It was created May 4, 2006 and editted May 30, 2006. Contains 14 articles in the category. - Erebus555 19:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty small, and it's not named right. I'd say to take it to SfD, but even if it does stay, it needs a name change and to have the logo removed (using logos for vanity purposes violates fair use) --fuzzy510 20:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i agree. both the template and cat are badly names so good work by whoever made it! BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Central Asian geography stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed

I was about to start on the latest geo-stub tally when I discovered that User: Ketiltrout had taken it upon him/herself to create several new stub types:

They're all well formed, just a bit small - in two cases quite considerably so (Turkmenistan 28, Uzbekistan 32). The rest can probably survive OK, but these two may need to be upmerged if they don't get close to threshold soon. In the case of Kyrgyzstan, we had only recently voted to upmerge it back into the Central Asia category at SFD, so technically it could be speedied. On the bright side, if these are all kept, then there's no reason to keep the CAsia-geo-stub or category. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep 'em. It'll grow in eventually. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{monkey-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 longer exists

Created today, redirects to {{stub}}. Should probably just be deleted. Amalas =^_^= 21:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{STP-stub}} / Category:São Tomé and Príncipe stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed

Has 55 articles, but the name is quentionable, since it is an abbreviation. In my opinion naming it that way would easier though.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 16:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the templates been on SFD since yesterday! BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed

Now has 62 articles, keep.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 16:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been expecting this one for a long time. I've been bold and added it to WP:WSS/ST Valentinian ^(talk) 19:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Zambia-stub}} (no cat.) and {{Zimbabwe-stub}} / Category:Zimbabwe stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed

I was about to propose these two but they've already been created! Both seem viable.

{{Zambia-stub}}: c. 80 excl. geos. [1] (Apparently created yesterday!)
{{Zimbabwe-stub}}: c. 100. Two child categories already exist. [2] (Created 1 month ago but I don't remember a proposal).

Valentinian ^(talk) 21:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is a zambia-geo cat. these look useful enuf. keep them and make the cat. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created it. It is clearly viable and the template is in active use. Valentinian ^(talk) 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed

Please keep. Very important for Wikipedia:WikiProject National Health Service. Very many entries (130+). The project needs to keep track of them so we can arrange a tidy-up and expansion. It is a sub-category of Category:United Kingdom medical organisation stubs but of course not identical to the latter!.--Smerus 07:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see this was the subject of an earlier discussion - what a pity it was not publicised at the time that it was under consideration. The NHS is the 3rd (or maybe 5th) largest organisation in the world. The WikiProject is trying to make some sense of it on Wikipedia. This means that a lot of stubs have been thrown up in a short time as we work out how to fill in the gaps. We are intending to start intensive work on the stubs soon; so the stubs have a functional purpose. The Category:United Kingdom medical organisation stubs may be appropriate for UK organisations which are not part of the NHS (e.g. BUPA, BMA, etc.) It cannot replace or substitute for Category:NHS stubs, which is organisation specific; and which, moreover, includes issues like reports, legislation and strategies which are not covered by Category:United Kingdom medical organisation stubs. I apologise that appropriate procedures were not undertaken, and regret that it was not possible for myself or other members of the WikiProject on the NHS to participate in the earlier discussion; but please retain this very helpful tool.--Smerus 08:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fits the criteria for a stub category. Please retain. 62.6.139.11 16:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it would have been better to debate this when it was up for deletion at WP:SFD rather than coming here after the debate had unanamously decided to rename and rescope it to UK-med-org-stub to cover all british medical organisations! if you want it remade id suggest proposing it at WP:WSS/P - which is what you should have done in the first place! BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree - but I was not aware, nor was the WikiProject, that it was up for deletion or renaming. I am trying to deal with the situation as it is, recognising that it is not as we would like it to be....I hope you may accept the argument that the UK-med-org-stub does not cover by its nature the range of issues that the NHS-stub does --Smerus 12:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now formally reproposed here--Smerus 13:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Mauritania-stub}} / Category:Mauritania stubs and {{Comoros-stub}} / Category:Comoros stubs and {{Seychelles-stub}} / no cat[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed

All are well formed, but IMO unlikely to reach threshhold.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 13:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you included geo-stubs then a couple of them might be - both Mauritania and the seychelles are getting close to geo-stub splits. But once that happens the general categories will be back close to zero again. Grutness...wha? 14:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he beat you to it, Grutness; {{Mauritania-geo-stub}} / Category:Mauritania geography stubs were also created today. I'm fixing the code on the {{Seychelles-stub}} but I'm not creating any category, unless its future has been decided. Valentinian ^(talk) 15:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody's interested, it's apparently the same user creating all the recent Africa material. This seems to be the complete list: {{Angola-stub}}, {{Comoros-stub}}, {{DRCongo-stub}}, {{Mauritania-stub}}, {{Mauritania-geo-stub}}, {{Seychelles-stub}}, {{STP-stub}} and {{Zambia-stub}} I hope he'll propose new templates in the future. Valentinian ^(talk) 15:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'll just let CrzRussian and a couple of others know all the stubs that need to go into Mauritania-geo-stub. There's about 50, so it's not too bad, but... grrrrr... Grutness...wha? 15:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we might as well make the best of the situation. If Mauritania-stub turns out to go through the floor after splitting off the geos, we can always upmerge it later. Btw, I don't normally edit other people's user pages, but in this case I've taken the liberty to subst:'d all the stub templates the creator had added to his user page. ... Valentinian ^(talk) 15:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not wait a two weeks or so and then delete everything, that doesn't reach threshhold. I've been going through all the Africa-related stub cats anyway to try to find enough stubs country-splits (see User:Carabinieri/Africa).--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 16:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. In any case, I'm keeping a list of the countries without a national template (User:Valentinian/Country stub templates). Valentinian ^(talk) 16:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Comoros is up to 44 articles, Seychelles is up to 70 (incl. -geos I'm afraid), Mauritania is up to 50, Mauritania-geo is up to 52, Angola is up to 91 (excl. -geos), DR Congo is up to 74, São Tomé and Príncipe is up to 80, Zambia is up to 30, and Zimbabwe is up to 47 (with two viable children). Why not give the lot the chance to grow a little more? Who knows, more material could be lurking somewhere. Valentinian ^(talk) 21:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Mexico-stadium-stub}} / Category:Mexico stadium stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 redirect

Properly named, and well-formed. Only has 45 articles (right now - I'm sorting Category:Stadium stubs and might populate it a little more in the process), but considering the size of its parent, I don't think it's unreasonable to bend the rules a little bit here. --fuzzy510 04:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{IOM-stub}} / (no category)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 longer exists

Wow, this one has existed for more than four months. Oddly formed and no cat, but it is actually used. The articles on the local politicians looks pretty short, so it might have a relevance after all. If you hadn't guessed it already, yes, it has to do with the Isle of Man. In any case, it needs a rename. Valentinian ^(talk) 15:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the code, and it is actually used on 60+ articles. I'm taking it to SFD for renaming. Valentinian ^(talk) 17:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted via SFD. Logged discussion here. --TheParanoidOne 19:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{sf-book-stub}} / {{sf-novel-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed

Not sure if this is where I should note this...I found that {{sf-novel-stub}} redirected to {{sf-book-stub}}, although the two parent categories seem distinctly different by their cat page descriptions. I have un-redirected the novel stub template and begun to sort out which stub articles belong where. Hope this works for all concerned... ♥ Her Pegship♥ 22:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely confused: what cat page descriptions? Category:Science fiction novels stubs didn't exist (and thus didn't have a description) until you created it a couple of hours ago, so on what prior basis did it "seem distinctly different"? In effect you're proposing (or rather, performing) a split of the "science fiction anthologies, short works, or books about science fiction", for which we have no indication of viability of, or consensus for. You should have taken this to /Proposals, surely. Alai 23:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I omitted the word parent - The two parent categories seem distinctly different by their cat page descriptions. To elaborate:

I saw that there was a Category:Science fiction books, Category:Science fiction books stubs, and Category:Science fiction novels, but no Category:Science fiction novels stubs.
The explanatory text for Category:Science fiction books read: "This category is for articles about books which are not novels - for example, anthologies, reference works, etc. See also Category:Science fiction novels."
The text for Category:Science fiction novels read: "This category is for articles about science fiction novels, i.e. full-length, narrative-style works. For books which are not novels - for example, anthologies, reference works, etc. - see Category:Science fiction books."
It seemed that someone(s) had created the two separate categories but only one stub type, with {{sf-novel-stub}} and {{sf-book-stub}} both feeding into Category:Science fiction books. I read the discussion page for Category:Science fiction books, which explained the rationale for that category's existence but not for the redirect.

Since there was a Category:Science fiction books, Category:Science fiction books stubs, and Category:Science fiction novels, I assumed that the redirect of {{sf-novel-stub}} was a mistake. Anyway, I wasn't sure how to propose a stub type that already existed and only lacked a category. Please advise. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 02:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A template-redirect does not a stub type make; it could (and IMO should) have been proposed in the same way as any other proposal for a new type. Alai 17:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to propose it for deletion so I can go through the process. :( ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To change topic from the extended discussion of change-of-venue: are there around 60 non-novels that would make a sensible separate "book" type, distinct from the "-novel-stubs"? Not that I think this split is at all necessary, but let's at least establish if it's feasible. Alai 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of folks have been working on the sf-book-stubs, and it looks like the majority are either (a) science fiction novels, (b) science fiction short stories, (c) science fiction anthologies, or (d) characters, locations, or phenomena from science fiction. A few non-fiction books are scattered in there, which could certainly go under nonfiction-book-stub. There are no stub types for items (a), (b), or (c). Otherwise, the definition of "science fiction book" as opposed to "science fiction novel" is unclear to me, and since the stub articles could be sorted elsewhere, perhaps there should be stub types created for the items I mentioned. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 00:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. The stub type for a), b), and c) would surely be "sf-book-stub"; my question is, is there sufficient numbers for a stub type for b), for c), or for combinations thereof. If there's not, then splitting, and moving 99% of the contents of sf-book-stub to sf-novel-stub seems like an epic waste of time. Alai 01:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

90% of sf-book-stub is going to end up in sf-novel-stub anyway. I can leave the rest of it in sf-book-stub, but I would like to revise the category description for Category:Science fiction books & sf-book-stub to read: "This category is for articles about [science fiction] books which are not novels - for example, anthologies, [short stories, novellas], etc." and leave "reference works" out of it. Maybe refer users to Category:Literary criticism. Eh? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 04:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your 90% is correct, then essentially this is just a laborious way of doing an essentially unnecessary rename, and a slight rescope to make it less inclusive, while leaving the excluded stubs in an unviably small type. Why bother? Wasn't this gone over when the whole "novels" shebang was up on /P last? Alai 22:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Corporation stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 longer exists

What have we here? Something created on 7 June and not used (and no template either). Looks like the work of a newbie. The correct category is Category:Company stubs. Valentinian ^(talk)

unused for over a week is speediable isnt it? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. Speedy. Valentinian ^(talk) 08:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it's also a recreation of a deleted cat (probably inadvertently). Alai 17:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{NLP-stub}} / no associated cat[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 longer exists

Used on exactly 3 articles. Delete please! Amalas =^_^= 18:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd take this straight to SFD. --fuzzy510 23:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{india-sports-stub}} / Category:India sports stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed

I'm this close to taking this straight to SFD. Overlaps many categories that have already been established, and the majority of the stubs in the category would go into these categories. No reason to realign everything just for one category. --fuzzy510 07:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Dvd-stub}} / no cat.[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 longer exists

Just now I ran into Template:Dvd-stub, which associated articles with Category:DVD stubs. Since the template is not widely used (I tagged maybe 11 articles with it before noticing the category isn't even created!), I wondered if there is a category involving DVDs (so that this template can be modified), or if such category should not exist, so that the template can be sent to TFD. Thanks. And sorry if this is not the right place to ask this. -- ReyBrujo 17:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from Talk:WP:WSS/P)

It is badly named, there's no cat. and movies are sorted according to genre. We don't need this one. Valentinian ^(talk) 18:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for having listed it at the wrong page. I have TFD'ed the template. Thanks for the information! -- ReyBrujo 19:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub templates are debated on WP:SFD. I'm moving your request there. Best. Valentinian ^(talk) 19:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template deleted via SFD. Logged discussion here. --TheParanoidOne 11:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{NZ-radio-station-stub}} / Category:New Zealand radio station stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 longer exists

Used on *one* article, and cat. is not connected to the parent template. Delete if it can't reach threshold (isn't 60 radio station stubs for NZ a bit steep?) Valentinian ^(talk) 09:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even as a kiwi I'll admit that's stretching things a bit. I could probably find 10-20 stubs, but 60? Grutness...wha? 03:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{California-County-Route-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 redirect

Small and badly formed. The work of a WP. Valentinian ^(talk) 14:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've had a SFD renaming this already. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 16:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mess with the U.S. stubs by state[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 most are listed, all should be kept

A new cat's in town with a fondness for making and editing templates. However, he's changed the code of - apparently - all templates of the U.S. states, so they now diverge from the standard layout. Furthermore, he's created any templates he felt was missing (like e.g. {{Alabama-stub}} and {{Connecticut-stub}}). For pity's sake: Alabama is used on 1 article. On the positive side: the categories generally look fine. I've changed A-F to the standard layout, but this one's gonna take a while to fix and recheck, so all help is welcome. Valentinian ^(talk) 14:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As noted earlier, save for the non-standard template code. I've been going ahead and using these where appropriate while doing re-sorts, but I haven't made a concerted effort to populate any of them. Caerwine Caerwhine 14:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the code. All of them look ok now. Valentinian ^(talk) 21:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{southcarolina-history-stub}} + Category:South Carolina History Stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 longer exist

This category was created last week, was not proposed, is malformed, and contains two stubs. This is aside from the fact that a split of {{US-hist-stub}} has not yet been begun because it isn't needed. Could someone SFD it please? Aelfthrytha 23:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well you could yourself but OK. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Film-producer-stub}}, no cat[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed

Just created by a newbie; no contents yet, and I'm not sure it was done correctly. Can some wiser head than mine please check? thanks - ♥ Her Pegship♥ 22:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify; 'twas not I who created it. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was OK except for the fact that the contents belonged in a hypothetical Category:Film producer stubs not in {{film-producer-stub}}! I've corrected that problem. StubSense reports 306 stubs in Category:Film producers (list), so it certainly looks viable enough, and should even bring film-bio-stub down form overlarge status. Give it 7 days for anyone to issue an objection, and if we hear none, give it a cat and list it on the stub list. There are also enough to make adding a {{US-film-producer-stub}} at the same time viable. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slight caveat as to the amount of <n>-stubbing this will produce, where n > 2, but on balance probably a good idea (and the US- subtype, as CW suggests). Alai 05:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

July 2006[edit]

{{Archbishop-of-Canterbury-stub}} / Category:Archbishops of Canterbury stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 redirect

Aside from not being proposed, and some problems with the template and category names, with 90 stubs, it certainly meets the stub count minimum. Recommend taking this to SFD to fix the problems and also leaving a comment with the Anglicanism Wikiproject. Caerwine Caerwhine 20:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sent this off to SFD for a renaming just now. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{1632-stub}} and Category:1632-verse stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 longer exist

The parent cat itself has less than 30 articles, so unless someone can think of a reason why not, I'll be quickly sending this one to SFD. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SFD it. The stub-splitting threshold is 60; the parent category has only 33 articles. How do you spell Q.E.D.? Grutness...wha? 05:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

and Category:Clothing stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 longer exists

171 just through the letter E. Created 2 days ago. User is changing over articles tagged with {{clothing-stub}} which continues to be a redirect to {{fashion-stub}} by the hundreds using AWB - now at 170. This needs to be sorted out immediately. - CrazyRougeian talk/email 11:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

straight to SFD - same with the one below. This must be stopped asap. Grutness...wha? 11:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK... here's what I've done:

speedied fashionstub as a duplicate
repointed clothing-stub to the new Category:Clothing stubs
made clothingstub into a redirect to it.

At least that keeps things looking a bit more sensible. Clothingstub should still be deleted, but it's less urgent. I'll sfd it. Grutness...wha? 01:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{fashionstub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 longer exists

by the same user, is a clone of {{fashion-stub}} and redirects to the same cat as the original. - CrazyRougeian talk/email 11:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed

Discovered while stubbing some Pennsylvania road stubs. I assumed that it existed, but then I looked on WP:STUBS and it's not listed there. Supposedly deleted in October 2005 [3] Recreated in June 2006. Only 27 articles as of my timestamp. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 21:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{UU stub}} moved to {{UU-stub}} and Category:Unitarian Universalism stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 taken care of

Found this while sorting religion stubs. It seems viable, but the name needs to be fixed. (And for some reason, all the stubs here show up in {{reli-stub}} too and I'm not sure why... Crystallina 14:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badly named. I don't see the double categorization. 70 pages in the cat. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved it and fiddled with the stub code a bit. Somehow I got it to work; the downside is it involves taking every stub and resorting. Crystallina 15:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UU fails the disambig test. I'm inclined to take this to SFR. Alai 16:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a lot of people brought up in the UK, "UU" will instantly mean one of Northern Ireland's main political parties. I'd agree about sfr. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought University of Utah :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed

Similar to Pennsylvania-stub above (except it never went to SFD). Only 11 articles. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Motor vehicle stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 longer exists

Near as I can figure out, this got created as a byproduct of this CFD that renamed all the automobile manufacturer categories to motor vehicle maufacturer categories. {{auto-company-stub}} had its category moved by the person who closed out the CFD from Category:Automotive company stubs to Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers to Category:Motor vehicle stubs which they then created. Now, with the change in the parent cats a case could be made for an SFR to Category:Motor vehicle company stubs, tho the stub type includes more than just manufacturers. Howver, since there is no Category:Motor vehicles, I'm going to take this directly to SFD for a deletion, possibly speedy once the template revert refills Category:Automotive company stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{state-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already taken care of

I thought the Pennsylvania- and Ohio-stub's were just a fluke, but it looks like User:CoolKatt number 99999 made all the states on 11 June 2006. [4] Was this sactioned by WP:WSS? If so, then maybe something needs to be added to WP:STUBS. If not, then all of them need to be dealt with. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was already noted as a discovery last month, and no one's had the energy to try a mass deletion of them on SFD. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely wasn't sanctioned - the usual position here is that state-specific stubs should only exist if there is a state-specific wikiproject. I fear we've got a tough fight with this one, though. Any that haven't reached threshold in the next couple of weeks probably need sfd'ing. Grutness...wha? 05:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also the (re)creator of {{UPN-stub}}, which I've just speedied as a recreation (we SFD'd this a month or three ago). I don't object to them if they pass the applicable size threshold, with bona-fide notable-in-connection-with state articles (and not bio-padding). Alai 08:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I probably spent waaay too much time on it, but I put together a table for all these stubs, complete with article counts and color coding. User:Amalas/State-stubs
- Delete: 25 - including a speedy-able {{WestVirginia-stub}} since it's empty
- Keep: 15
- ???: 10 - Mostly due to having a WikiProject, but not having 35 articles. However, many of them do not even have the stub template listed on their WikiProject so they probably don't know it exists

Should we even try to put all these up for deletion? Also, the ??? states need to be figured out as well. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whee - that's a lot of work (and a lot of stub types!). I'd say that if we're going to do a mass deletion then all those you've marked "delete" or "speedy" should go. As for the questionable ones, perhaps the best thing to do is to approach the wikiprojects concerned and say "if this stub type doesn't have XXX articles relating to the state (excluding bios) by date X, it will be SFD'd. Of course we could surreptitiously SFD any that the WikiProjects don't know about anyway... SC and Arizona could probably be removed that way. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've put all the deletes and ??? up on WP:SFD. For the WikiProjects that did not have the template in their list, those templates will simply be deleted. I notified the other WikiProjects that they need to be above 35 articles within 6 days or else face deletion. I have updated WP:STUBS to only include states that were marked as "keep" in my table. Hopefully I thought of everything. If not, I'm sure someone will point it out for me. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Colorado-photo-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 longer exists

This peculiar beast feeds into Category:Colorado stubs, but the text specifically requests a photo to improve the article. Caerwine Caerwhine 20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this as well, when I was working on the state-stubs above. It's part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Colorado, so maybe we should ask someone over there. My tentative guess is that it should be renamed to be not a stub. Like {{Colorado reqphoto}} or something like that.

Hmmm... after checking the "what links here", I found absolutely ZERO articles that link to this... [5] Should probably just get sent to WP:SFD ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, even better idea. Isn't there a {{reqphotoin}}? We could delete this stub and tell the WikiProject to use {{reqphotoin|Colorado}}. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This one should go to SFD. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{disaster-stub}} / Category:Disaster stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed

Has {{WPSS-cat}}, but not listed on WP:STUBS. 75 pages, plus {{Emergency-services-stub}} sub-stub. Is this for real or not? ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the SfD discussion here. They probably just omitted adding it to the list. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 22:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for digging that up. I'd like to add them to the list, but where would it go? Under Miscellaneous? ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these have been added to WP:STUBS under Misc. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:United Kingdom guitarist stubs / {{UK-guitarist-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed

This has 69 articles and is probably useful for reducing the size of Category:Guitarist stubs, which has almost 1000 articles. --Sbluen 05:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was proposed here [6] in April 2006 and created the following month, although it wasn't listed in WP:WSS/ST – I've listed it now. --Bruce1ee 05:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find the proposal because there were no links to the category. I didn't look at what links to the template. --Sbluen 14:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 2006[edit]

{{Phil-org-stub}} / no cat[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 redirect

Created on May 25. Not badly formed, but there is not category. No articles. There is already a {{charity-org-stub}} so this one isn't really necessary; I wouldn't know the difference, anyway.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 20:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably get a redirect to eliminate confusion. My personal opinion would be to be bold and just do it now since there are no articles using it. P.S. Make sure to delete it from Category:Organization stubs ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weve deleted phil stub twice - once for philosophy and once for philately. this should be deleted too since its obvious phil is ambiguous. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 04:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, BL Lacertae hit it right on the head. I read that and immediately thought philosophy. Since it's so ambiguous, I'd not only delete this, but not provide a redirect. --fuzzy510
- delete Monni 15:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted {{phil-org-stub}} at templates for deletion, and created {{philanthropy-org-stub}} per the discussion at wpss/proposals. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 00:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{France-footyclub-stub}} / Category:French football club stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed

Added to stub list back in May without going though proposals first as far as I can tell. Undersized at present (24 stubs), but somone ought to go through its parents to make certain that's its truly undersized rather than a victim of undersorting before taking it to SFD. Leaving it on the list for now. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few more than that now (though still not at threshold) - if we're planning any more splits of the Europe category, Spain looks just about ready, BTW. Grutness...wha? 00:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm resorting Category:Football (soccer) stubs, so I'll see if anything trickles down from there. --fuzzy510 18:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Atlases[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 longer exists

{{Atlas-stub}} and Category:Atlas stubs have suddenly appeared, the work of User:Electionworld. While there are a considerable number of stubs (80 or so), it appears that this will not grow nuch further than that, since each article is of a templatised type, and more importantly this overlaps to a large extent with {{map-stub}}, which is for maps and cartography. No direct WikiProject (though there is WP Maps). Grutness...wha? 07:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your remarks. I wasn't aware of the procedure to create a stub template. Some explanation: I am creating a set of entries holding galleries with maps of countries etc. These entries are listed in the Portal:Atlas. I am now busy to create the articles (step I) and this will be followed by adding content to the articles (step II). In between these steps, I place this {{Atlas-stub}} tag in the entry, to know for which entries step II has not been finished. This semi-project was mentioned by me at the WP Maps. The stub is not intended for any other file. If it is better not to have a separate stub-category and there is an alternative way (by templates), I can agree. Electionworld (prev. :Wilfried) (talk 07:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this sort of situation, it's far better to make your a portal-specific template that is unconnected with the stub system, say "{{Maps in progress}}" which you can add to a Category:Atlas Portal pages in progress or similar. Otherwise, you will get stub sorters sorting other map-related pages in there, which clearly you don't want. It would be relatively easy to move the template to a new name and repoint it to a new category.... if you do decide to do that, then the old names can be listed at WP:SFD (unless...I can't recall, you're an admin, right? If so, you could speedy the old names as a sole-editor). The other option would be simply to keep a list on a Portal sub-page. Grutness...wha? 07:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but to get the pages in the right category, a redirect of the template is not enough. I have to replace in every page the atlas_stub template with the template:Atlas in progress template, to get the pages in the right category Category:Atlas entities in progress. Since I am leaving for a short stay abroad, I don't have te time now to do this. Electionworld (prev. :Wilfried) (talk 08:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I'll do some as well, since I made the suggestion :) Grutness...wha? 09:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the articles so we can delete {{Atlas-stub}} now. Valentinian ^(talk) 09:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. You beat me to it. Will do the deletions. Grutness...wha? 09:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add in {{Atlas in progress}} the text of {{map-stub}}, since all of these entries are in the same times map-stub?. Electionworld (prev. :Wilfried) (talk 13:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see any reason why not - a simpler solution might just be to add Category:Atlas entities in progress as an extra parent category to Category:Cartography stubs. Grutness...wha? 23:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Bermudan cricket biography stubs / {{Bermuda-cricket-bio-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 longer exists

This stub was created without being proposed. It has one article right now. --Sbluen 06:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been speedied at its creator's request (seems they didn't read the instructions properly, then noticed their mistake). Mind you, it may one day be useful, just not now. And if it were to be made, it would be either "Bermuda cricket...", as is standard practice at WP:WSS, or would have the correct adjective (Bermudian). Grutness...wha? 08:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Several undersized Polish geography subtypes[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed

The extreme csse being Category:Łódź geography stubs, but several others are "mid-range". There's undersorting of the parent, so these might yet grow, but if not, haul them off to SFD for upmerging. Alai 14:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like most of them were created only a month ago (per this discussion). It looks like Poland-geo-stub has been pretty well sorted, so my guess is that, at this point, any cat that's below threshold can be safely upmerged (keeping the template of course). ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure all of them were actually proposed, though: that discussion mentions only half a dozen in relation to a naming change. Perhaps they were mooted earlier, though I'm fairly sure we didn't say "go ahead and create a type and put eight stubs in it". I've left the Polish geographers a note; perhaps some of these will creep up to viability. Alai 19:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{UU-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 taken care of

Found today via {{UU stub}} (which is a redirect). UU-stub has 74 articles, so it should probably be kept (and possibly renamed), but the redirect should probably be deleted. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see we need a separate stub for one Northern Ireland political party, though maybe rescoping it to NI-party-stub might be reasonable. Are there enough of them? Grutness...wha? 23:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - just looked at the template and notice I was thinking about a completely different UU. Reason enough why this is badly named, I would think... Grutness...wha? 23:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guessed right, but it fails the disambig test in spades. To SFD, and thence to extinction. (Or to a big red message saying "which UU would that be, now?) Alai 04:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both templates and the category have been listed on SFD here. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to express my great amusement at being mistaken by proxy for an Ulster Unionist in this discussion. :-D --CComMack (tc) 06:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all. I was the one who made this stub template. The reason for the naming was that it's a pain in the ass, to speak openly, to type in "Unitarian Universalism" every time you want to put up a stub template. HellaNorCal 00:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The basic rule of thumb is that if UU is a disambiguation page it shouldn't be used for a stub template name. There are suggested renamings in the debate at WP:SFD - you'd probably be better to make any comments and suggestions there. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Inuit reli stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 longer exists

Found this stub referencing Innuit myth as its core - I love the picture for Innuits but I don't know how many articles are stubbed this way just came across one. It could be either a sub-category of religion or a subcategory of NorthAmerican Myths, if there are lots. Goldenrowley 20:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per naming guidelines. Monni 21:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. The way to check the number is to look at the template's "What links here" page. This is used on just two articles. Grutness...wha? 06:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong "note that this isn't the place to 'vote' for deletion". Beyond a certain number of "take it to SFD"s, there's diminishing returns in not just, well, taking it to SFD. Alai 17:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - I'll take it to SFD and mark it so, thanks Alai! Goldenrowley 19:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Lea-stub}} / No cat[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 longer exists

Since 9 July. A nice long time undiscovered. 18 entrants. SFD fodder. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On SfD. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

September 2006[edit]

{{Animal-rights-stub}}/Category:Animal rights stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed

Created without debate. Has ten stubs. May be useful, but I don't recall having seen very many stubs on this subject, and many of the stubs currently using it may well be better served with other stub templates. Parent permcategory used is not Cat:Animal rights, as that doesn't exist other than as a redirect (a very good reason why this stub category needs - at the very least - a rename). Grutness...wha? 23:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oops - my bad - seems it was proposed after all. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In my opinion, this is an appropriate and useful stub template to assist anyone wanting to bring to completion the stubs on animal rights. I find that the 13 pages already marked with this stub template are sufficiently 1) distinguished from other stub categories and 2) similar among themselves to prove the feasibility and usefulness of this new stub category for anyone particularly interesting in working on animal rights stubs. Accordingly, I suggest that this stub template should be sorted under the Law stubs parallel with the Human rights stubs. --Rednblu 00:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though it was proposed (my mistake), there are a couple of things about it which the above comments don't adress. Firstly, the permcat has a completely different name (Category:Animal liberation movement) - the stub category should be named similarly as Category:Animal liberation movement stubs. Secondly, the human rights stub template is at {{humanrights-stub}}, so this one should be at {{animalrights-stub}} to match (ideally, I'd prefer it if the permcat was at cat:Animal rights, but it seems to have been moved from there to its current location at some point in the past). As to the size, 13 is hardly enough for a stub category, but this latter point seems to be being addressed, though - it's now 23 stubs, so it's almost 40% of the way to the threshold required for a new stub category. So basically what my comments boil down to is that this should probably be kept but definitely needs renaming. Grutness...wha? 05:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You already know the following also. First, animal liberation redirects to animal rights. Second, the first sentence of the animal rights page reads: "Animal rights, animal liberation, or animal personhood, is the movement to protect animals from being used or regarded as property by human beings." Third, the animal rights page is categorized with [Cat:Animal_liberation_movement]. Fourth, apparently the category consolidation to "animal rights" begins with the "stubs" which surely would mature to a new [Cat:Animal_rights] that has not yet been defined. So in the transition, there would be the old [Cat:Animal_liberation_movement] that would probably be around for a long time--and may or may not be redundant. Are those some of the questions you are considering? --Rednblu 06:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, not really, no. Basically there shouldn't be a stub category called X stubs unless there is already a permanent category called X. Either this stub category should have its name changed or there should have been a move made to change the name of the permcat via CFD before this was created at this name. Creating a stub category with a name and then using it as a basis for the creation of a newly named permcat seems to be a case of (if you'll pardon the coincidentally apt metaphor) putting the cart before the horse. Personally I agree that Cat:Animal rights is a better name for the permcat, but it's not up to me to decide that - it would obviously affect the work of a lot of editors, so needs to be dealt with through the proper channels (i.e., CFD). Your comments also don't adress the problem of the incosistently named template - this stub type needs to go to SFD at some point to sort that out at least. Grutness...wha? 07:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice analysis. Is it practical to require moving to the PermanentCategory before creating the StubCategory? --Rednblu 20:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd suggest that the thing to do might be to test the waters for a rename of the permcat at WP:CFD, since the permanent categories are more important in the scheme of things than the stub categories. When there's a decision on the name there, it'll be a bit clearer what needs doing with the stub type. Certainly, IMHO, a permcat name change would make sense, since it parallels the Human rights category, it's a slightly more widely-scoped category name (not all animal rights issues involve animal liberation), and third - as you point out - animal liberation redirects to animal rights. I'll take it to CFD. Grutness...wha? 23:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion at Proposals. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 03:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean Proposals at this link? --Rednblu 18:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note there's a wikiproject. The populability of this always looked a little marginal. I'm a bit surprised that anyone could argue there's a clear-cut case for {{animalrights-stub}} over {{animal-rights-stub}}, given other exemplars like {{Ancient-Rome-stub}}; both look to me like similar examples of "subliminal hierarchy", if not to say the latter being a weaker one. I agree that there should be a match between the category names, a point I'm sure I made at the time of the proposal (the permcats seem to be a moving target in this area, though). Then again, I'm doubtless a fellow "fetishist". (!) Alai 13:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Speech-and-debate-stub}}/Category:Speech and debate stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed

Horrible name without permcat equivalent (no Category:Speech and debate - permcat is the much more sensible Category:Debating. Plenty of stubs, but in desperate need of a rename at least. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has redirects at better-named {{Debate-stub}} and {{Speech-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Prolonged debate over name here. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 03:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Another one I didn't notice. Actually, that would have been during one of my recent wikibreaks. Still don't like the name (especially since there's no permcat parent), but since it's been all debated out... Grutness...wha? 06:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Permcat should be Category:public speaking, which is more general (if the permcats are to be believed). As it's somewhat undersized, narrowing to debating only seems a bad idea. I'd have no objection to a rename to Category:public speaking stubs, or to moving around the templates (as long as {{debate-stub}} and {{speech-stub}} are kept in some form), but I'm not much bothered by it as it stands. Alai 07:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

textiles[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 already listed

{{textile-stub}} and Category:textile stubs Noticed under art stubs, but it is not on the main list of stub categories. Seems okay to be approved as both stub and category. Goldenrowley 03:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISTR this was proposed and okayed many moons back. Grutness...wha? 05:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phew. I will mark it approved (it just lacks the seal of approval on the top) Goldenrowley 05:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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