Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion‎ | Log

January 1 (Happy new year!)

edit

Category:Science fiction novels stubs→Category:Science fiction novel stubs

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

The result of the debate was rename


Correct (singular) term. I checked the history to see what knucklehead named this category and...um...it was me. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nyuk nyuk nyuk! Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Sonic-stub}} / no category

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

The result of the debate was delete


Never proposed, no category (thus malformed), no stubs, and a highly ambiguous name. Sonic lists a couple of dozen meanings, the most obvious of which is related to sound. This, however, relates to Sonic the Hedgehog (itself a dab page, though not nearly such a bad one). While it's quite possible that there would be enough articles related to Sonic the Hedgehog for this stub type to be worthwhile, it certainly isn't in its current messy form, and starting from scratch is the best option. Delete this and suggest creator actually proposes a properly named and formed subtype at WP:WSS/P. Grutness...wha? 01:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleteEli Falk 05:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 3

edit

{{Classical Tamil-stub}} → {{ClassicalTamil-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was delete in favor of India-lit-stub


41 articles, with associated project. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

rename {{Southern Gospel-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was rename to US-southern-gospel-stub


From WP:WSS/D. Associated with a WikiProject, decently sized, just needs renaming. The only question is, would it be {{SouthernGospel-stub}} or {{Southern-gospel-stub}}? As in, is Southern Gospel a subset of Gospel? I'm certainly not an expert. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 19:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete


From WP:WSS/D. 2 articles. No corresponding ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Dance songs. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 19:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{India-literature-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was rename to India-lit-stub


From WP:WSS/D. Feeds directly into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:India stubs. Used on exactly 1 article. Potential scoping problems with below. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 19:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, mainly because the India project is quite productive and I think it'll get used; and rename {{India-lit-stub}} to conform with other lit-stub templates. However, this is the first lit-stub to be split off on geographic lines; I would like to know what other stubbers think about going this direction. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move (keeping redirect). I do wonder if by-language might be more useful. While the Indic language at least form a group, presumably this would with its present scope also cover India-related literature in English, Portuguese, etc... Alai 04:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the WPJ's tendencies and the habits of lit article sorters, I believe it would be for literature by people from Indic cultures (in any language). Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Tamil-literature-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was delete in favor of India-lit-stub


From WP:WSS/D. No associated category. Used on exactly 2 articles. Potential scoping problems with above. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 19:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was rename and upmerge


From WP:WSS/D. 24 articles related to a city in Serbia. Not proposed. Possible rename of template to conform to NG, then umperging into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Serbia stubs. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

rename {{SATC-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was rename to SexandtheCity-stub


From WP:WSS/D. Decently sized, but just needs some renaming. {{SexandtheCity-stub}} is a bit long, but clear enough. Any other ideas? ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that the show has a very long title, which is why I used the abbreviation. If there is no precedent/guideline/policy against long named stub templates, I'd go with {{SexandtheCity-stub}}. Koweja 19:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC) (template creator)[reply]
Oh, and sorry about not listing it on the project page, I didn't know it existed until right now. Koweja 19:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{BearsStub}} / no cat

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

The result of the debate was delete


Wildly misnamed, both in terms of the naming guidelines and ambiguity. Strangely worded, no category, six stubs, several of which are the connection of a sportsperson to a sports team, which is generally frowned upon (yes, it's about the Chicago Bears, not the large mammals - and also not the the California Golden bears, the Knoxville Ice Bears, the Smiths Falls Bears, Phoenix Polar Bears, the Sydney Bears, the Brisbane Bears, etc etc etc). I don't think i need to add that it wasn't proposed. Appears to be a nascent WikiProject either started or about to - in which case a project-specific talk page template would make a load more sense. Delete Grutness...wha? 02:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either rename to {{DaBears-stub}} for Da Bears or delete, with strong preference being given to delete. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Go Bears (and delete). Alai 03:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 4

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

The result of the debate was keep


From WP:WSS/D. 41 articles. There's a better discussion on /D that I don't need to repeat here. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete too specific. -- Selmo (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have to say keep, with the CW-style "judiciously-used" caveat. There seems to be well over 60 articles already tagged as WW2-stubs (not currently oversized, but a repeat customer at /T on earlier occasions), so separating out the biographies from the other-types-of-thing seems a straightforward and logical step. Used over-liberally, there would be potential for yet-more-multi-stubbing, it's true, but as far as the already-multi-stubbed articles are concerned, this would be an unqualified improvement. Alai 20:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep


From WP:WSS/D. A bit small at 24 articles, but there is a Portal:Creationism. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep


From WP:WSS/D. We don't usually like to split people by state because they move around too much. However, this does have slightly over 60 articles. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Judiciously used, per state bio stubs are useful. I generally add a state stub type if a person has a notability that is specific to that state. Also Texas, with its period of independence has extra reasons for a stub of its own, not to mention those who were notable in Texas when it was part of Mexico or Spain. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. CW's argument seems broadly valid, though the 'judicious use' falls in the "there's the rub" category. Alai 01:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

cocktails

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

The result of the debate was variously delete and clean up per nomination


From WP:WSS/D. All associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Cocktails

I'm not sure how WP:NG applies here. Or does NG mean something else? Linking to the various terms, while a pain, is very helpful for people trying to learn the policies and guidelines that apply. Thanks. --Willscrlt 23:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, NG = Naming Guidelines, which can be found at WP:WSS/NG. Sorry about that. I usually try to link everything. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 03:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The end result (ideally) should be: {{cocktail-stub}} feeding into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Cocktail stubs. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • AMEND (see modified proposal under Alai's comments) DENY ALL - Hopefully we can fix specific problems rather than delete all these resources outright.
  • Each of the items listed part of a massive cleanup project the WikiProject Cocktails is undertaking. It started in December and the cleanup project ends February 28th. At the very least, please do not delete these prior to that date. It has been soooo much effort to help categorize and tag all the articles, this would set us back terribly and just be devastating to the efforts of a small, but growing number of people who are helping to improve these broad section of articles. We have been making real headway, and these helpful tags and the related categories have been at the heart of organizing our work. If we did something wrong (and I'm sure we did since it's up for discussion here), please give us a chance to fix it.
  • The micro-stub is something that is fairly unique to the cocktails pages. Within cocktails, there is a very common problem of articles that are nothing but a recipe for making a mixed drink. We are fully aware of WP:NOT#IINFO, but before deleting the information outright, we need to either transwiki the information to WikiBooks or integrate that information into List of cocktails or one of the other related lists.
  • Prior to the micro-stub categorizing, these recipe-articles were being deleted--several per week--by people who did not understand the goals of the WikiProject Cocktails cleanup project. It severely disrupted the work flow and results of our efforts. Since creating and using that, we have had an increase in awareness, an increase in participation, and we have been able to get a lot accomplished. The "micro-stub" may be non-standard, but it's an extremely beneficial tool for categorization and cleanup for a somewhat unique problem our Project faces. Of all the proposed deletions, the micro-stub is the one I most strenuously object to at least through February, because it is so important to our ongoing work. We are working on transitioning to proper assessment of articles, so we only need about a week to make that change.
  • I am not asking for an indefinite stay of execution on these things... just hold off on implementing any actions until we get a chance to fix things. These are intensive works in progress, not random templates and categories that were created on a whim. Each one was well thought out, and attempting to do so within the "proper" ways of doing things here. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has more guidelines and policies than the average well-meaning Wikipedian can possibly hope to learn in a short amount of time. But that does not give us an excuse, but I do ask that you give us the time to fix things without a horrendous disruption to our efforts. Thank you for your consideration. --Willscrlt 22:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have provided background information and some possible fixes on Amalas' talk page directly related to this that might be an acceptable alternative to deletion and the disruption that would cause for our WikiProject's efforts. Please consider the possible fixes we have suggested as an alternative to deleting these resources -- at least until March 1st. Thank you. --Willscrlt 23:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/amend as per original nom. Vehemently, strenuously and absolutely delete cocktail-micro as a substub-style abomination. This could bbe handled far more effectively through WikiProject-specific talk page templates - it certainly doesn't need several grades of stub template. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I swear Grutness, I'd think you were discussing a spider or something, not a variation on a stub category. (Said with a twinkle in my winking eye.) I get your point, though. --Willscrlt 10:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you knew the trouble we had with substub ((i.e., "this is even smaller than a stub") in the early days of WP:WSS, you'd know why! Grutness...wha? 22:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/amend per nom. If the wikiproject would like help in listifying or talk-templatising these as an alternative, I'd be happy to do so. It's hardly reasonable to wait two months before dealing with these, though. Alai 01:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may take you up on that offer, Alai. I have made pretty good progress on implementing proper assessment procedures for articles using some resources people have suggested to me. The biggest thing I need is help figuring out the Parser functions to make the Project talk-page header work properly. Right now I am setting up the infrastructure to handle the change around, but in a day or two, the template will be the thing I have to get working right. I have a first draft in my sandbox. It is based on the The Beatles WikiProject's template.
Two months will not be necessary. If people could see their way clear to grant up to a one week stay of action, that would be most appreciated. I did copy down all the article names, but it will be much easier to update if they remain linked. If not, I can live with that, too. All finished with the changes. It was suggested that I list the affected articles in the Project to-do list, which was a great and very workable suggestion. I have removed the cocktail-micro template from all articles. (Now is that cheering I hear Grutness? ;-) The Category:Cocktails (stubs) category is ready to be deleted. I would still like to see the following change made... --Willscrlt 13:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could we amend the name change to "Mixed drink stubs", because that is a much better name. Cocktails are specifically drinks that are made primarily with distilled spirits (brandy, gin, rum, tequila, vodka, whiskey, and a few others), but excludes beer, wine, and non-alcoholic mixed drinks. Having now read the stub creation guidelines, especially the number of items that should be contained within a stub category (minimum of 60), it would not make any sense to create other stub categories for the various other types of mixed drinks. The change is also in line with the name change for the WikiProject itself that is coming under consideration (WikiProject Mixed Drinks instead of WikiProject Cocktails) for the same reasons. I mean, if we are going to go through all this bureaucracy, we might as well have something that benefits the WikiProject at the same time, right? So here is how I would like to see this all turn out:
This is all essentially what Amalas originally proposed, but implemented in a way that helps the WikiProject rather than harms it AND brings everything into compliance within one week. It sounds pretty fair to me. I hope you all agree. And thank you everyone (except maybe Grutness ;) for being so civil and generally very helpful in this very stressful situation. Fortunately I'm a long time community player (elsewhere), and I am not a quitter. I did freak out, but I'm okay now, and I am working toward a positive and cooperative solution towards this whole mess. All I'm asking for is the chance to make things right. And the offers of help are appreciated. :-) Thanks again. --Willscrlt 10:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hrmph :) Hopefully the advice is useful. I think the flexibility of the talk page templates will - in the long run - be a lot more useful to you than the stub-like templates ever could havee been. Grutness...wha? 22:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Willscrlt is leading this project singlehandedly it seems and he's organizing things the way he needs to. The cleanup will end at the end of February, I think you should give the project until then till you delete themm Nardman1 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nardman1, but this has been an important push in the right direction for improvement
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.

{{Sailor-Moon-stub-section}} and {{Sailor-Moon-stub-List}}

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

The result of the debate was listed at WP:TFD


From WP:WSS/D. I'm not 100% positive this should be here (as opposed to WP:MFD), but these Sailor Moon-specific templates are acting like {{sectstub}} and {{listdev}}. -stub-section is used on 4 articles and feeds into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Sailor Moon stubs. -stub-List is used on 3 articles. Delete this nonsense and use {{sectstub}} and {{listdev}} instead. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Those are Stubs templetes for the use of articles under WikiProject: Sailor Moon. They are for our use, Also They are still under constrution. We are well aware that they do not feed the articles into the proper Catigorys. I am informing the other Project and asking them to cast their votes. Lego3400: The Sage of Time 16:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I could go either way. They're very cute, but I know very little about the stub-sorting project and how complicated it is, so I'd rather not make more work for those who do. --Masamage 17:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Pay-tv-stub}} (no category)

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

The result of the debate was delete


Never proposed, badly formatted (no category, to start with), only one stub (a programme stub)... and this is not how we split tv stubs! Delete Grutness...wha? 06:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even if we did split this way, ambiguous as to whether cable/sat channels or PPV events were meant. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete


Never proposed, only one stub, and - judging by what's written under domotics - that stub doesn't actually relate to domotics in any way. Not likely to reach 60 any time soon (i.e., not in the next couple of years). Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maintain the stub category. You can see what links to it, using: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Domotics-stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac (talk • contribs)
Erm, yes... that's exactly what I did, which is why I noted that Clothes valet isn't anything to do with Domotics (the link between something which is akin to a heated towel rail and home automation is tenuous, to say the least). Neither, for that matter, is Equip´baie (a trade fair for general home fittings), one of the three extra stubs which have been added to the category since I nominated this stub type for deletion. Given that ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Domotics has - along with its subcategory - only 32 articles (several of which are not stubs, and several of which probably don't actually belong there, since they have little to do with domotics), the chances of this haveing 60 currently existing stubs is remarkably slim. As such, i stand by my original comment that this should be deleted. Grutness...wha? 12:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 5

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

The result of the debate was keep; create Category:Hindu theology perm cat


Not proposed. No corresponding perm cat. I recommend merging with {{Hindu-philo-stub}} (also not proposed, but it's well populated and there is a ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Hindu philosophical concepts). ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 19:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object Here is the proposal. The ensuing discussion produced 3 supports and no opposes for a consensus. Also, there is a significant difference between {{Hindu-philo-stub}} and {{Hindu-theo-stub}} as "theology" also includes rituals and ceremonies, godhead, scripture and a degree of mythology that "philosophy" does not usually encompass - there are a lot of stubs based on Vedic myths, ceremonies and theology that cannot be associated with the usual definition of philosophy. But ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Hindu philosophical concepts should serve as the main category for both these templates. Rama's arrow 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did finally manage to find the full proposal. I do apologize for not finding it earlier. I always seem to search for things and not find them, only to have someone point it out shortly thereafter and I'm like "where did that come from?" Anyway, I can see that the text of {{Hindu-theo-stub}} does include things like scripture and ceremony, but that's not clear just by looking at the template name/category. Are you sure ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Hindu philosophical concepts is the right corresponding perm cat? What about ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Hindu texts and/or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Hindu traditions? Maybe a clearer wording would benefit. Also, maybe we should have the parent just be ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Hinduism stubs instead of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Hindu philosophy stubs so as to make it clearer that they are separate things. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 21:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - for some damned reason, I can't find a proper archive either. I don't think we should drop these stubs under the Hinduism cat, as that defeats the purpose of having a separate stub. I know it appears strange, but I would recommend creating ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Hindu theology, of which the ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Hindu texts and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Hindu traditions would be sub-cats. I think the problem you are trying to attack here is of categories, not stubs - I wish we could control the creation of categories to an extent. Rama's arrow 23:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are correct. I try to have the stub cats follow the perm cats as closely as possible. So I suppose when the two don't match up, I assume the stub cat is at fault. I'm not sure that simply creating a ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Hindu theology container will really solve anything though. Out of curiosity, is there enough Hindu texts to have its own {{Hindu-text-stub}} (similar to {{Christian-text-stub}}? Maybe splitting that out will help clarify some scope issues. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 23:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't think that will work, especially as a majority of the entries in the Christian text stub are commentaries, studies and modern versions. The present number of Hindu text stubs aren't enough. Rama's arrow 00:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of a permcat does seem a little odd; is there any reason for why there's not? If these articles are all legitimately on Hindu theology, adding a new permanent parent would seem sensible. Alai 01:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am probably one of the few updaters of this stub. Theology refers to taxts and commentary, while philospohy refers to actual concepts.Bakaman 03:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--D-Boy 15:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 6

edit

Problems in British Columbia

edit

We've just had a flurry of stub-type creation for British Columbia-specific subjects, all of them without proposal, all with redlinked categories, and all of them either with incorrectly-formed names or split along lines we don'tnormally split along (or both). All oif them also have encoded sort-keys, something which has been rejected as an idea more than once in the past. I present for perusal. Grutness...wha? 04:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for being bold and going ahead creating these stubs; I thought it was like Userboxes and other kinds of templates, make-as-needed; I didn't realize there was a procedure or rule-sets governing their structure/naming and I was going to try and figure out the categorization issue so the redlinks wouldn't be there. I made these as part of article-organization efforts for WikiProject British Columbia with an eye to knowing how many stubs of various/certain kinds we "need" in order to establish some kind of consistency and thorough coverage of the province and its history/geography/people etc. And I was also gung-ho because of my creation of a nifty and appropriate logo, as used in the Userbox for the project visible on my userpage, which uses the provincial flower (the Pacific Dogwood) instead of variations on the provincial flag. I'll comment on the why and wherefore of each stub below. Should I wait, also, until this SFD is resolved/decided before making a request for these stubs to be created in the appropriate stub-creation-discussion arena?Skookum1 08:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that people who quote WP:BOLD never actually look at the page.It says that being bold editing articles is fine, but not categories or templates! Personally, I'd wait - some sort of consensus here will conme as to what's best to be done with these, then you can see whether that makes some things more or less likely for proposal. Grutness...wha? 10:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete


We don't normally split people by subnational region except in the rare case of politicians (who are always associated with their constituency). Only two stubs, and no need. And that's without even mentioning that the category name should be British Columbia people stubs". Delete. Grutness...wha? 04:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm sorry I didn't know about the naming convention, or would have made this {{BritishColumbia-people-stub}}. Our history and even our current society is full of notable people who aren't politicians - as several historians have commented, BC's history is remarkable for its cast of "characters" - outlaws, publishers, mountain men, prospectors, flim-flammers, cultists, and so on; most of whom haven't been heard of - much less conceived of - east of the "Granite Curtain" (aka the Rocky Mountains; if that's a redlink I'll figure out what kind of article it has to be and write it; it's very citable and is as much a slang term as a state of mind...). So that's why I created the "bio-stub" - for biographies of non-politicians. If all these have to be in the Canadian people stubs, so be it, but "subnational" is a relative term for Canada...but perhaps only a Canadian from outside Central Canada would know what I mean by that...I've often had difficulty giving Canada stubs to things/people to do with BC before 1871, as we weren't part of Canada until then...Neutral but still would like to see {{BritishColumbia-people-stub}}. But hopefully I'll be diligent enough that I'll write articles, instead of just stubs, so the stubs won't be needed (?). Besides, why do the politicians get special treatment anyway? Lord knows they get enough special treatment as it is ;-| Skookum1 08:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. The template would be at the name it currently has, but the category should be ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:British Columbia people stubs. Except, as I said, we don'tusually divide people by subnational arrea - we go for nationality first, then occupation. Politicians are the exception partly because there are so damn many off them with articles, and partly because they are just about guaranteed to stay connected to one area forr their entire careers. Grutness...wha? 10:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mobile people issues. Alai 05:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to -poli-, upmerge to Canada politics stubs


A better possible split, but if we were to split on this basis, it would be BritishColumbia-poli-stub, by naming precedent. Only one stub. Delete, or possibly rename as upmerged template. Grutness...wha? 04:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These stubs would not be for people but for issues/arguments and political events and various crises/scandals and so on -of which we've kind of got a monopoly, historically, even worse than Quebec (!). One such example is Solidarity Crisis, and for that particular "event" there's perhaps another five or six stubs that are needed; such that somebody wanting to look these up, or wanting to write on them, will find the definitions of the various articles already laid out. There's a good twenty scandals that are in need of at least stub creation, and a double that many of major political eras/quarrels, all of which have a name of some kind (e.g. BC Legislature Raids, which is still really only a stub despite having some content). The "split" here would be off the main {{BritishColumbia-stub}}, rather than off the people hierarchy. Adjust and keep (i.e. to {{BritishColumbia-poli-stub}} ).
I never suggested that this was designed to be for politicians. When I said "upmerged template", I meant to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Canada politics stubs. Politics stubs take the form poli-stub, not politics-stub. Grutness...wha? 10:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge on size and naming precedent, move per -poli- precedent, but keep redirect. Alai 05:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete


A road stub I can understand, or a rail stub, but I don't think we've ever had a single "transportation stub" per se. Possible renam to -road-stub as an upmerged template, other than that, delete. Used on one article. Grutness...wha? 04:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I just put it there, as I happened to visit that page to check on something right after I craated the transportation stub. Transportation is a big theme in our history, as well as in current infrastructure, and as far as Material history goes we have a plethora of existing stubs and potential articles on the means and business of getting around our most difficult geography. Ferry routes, steamers and ships (including on at least 100 lakes and about thirty rivers), docks and ports, as well as historic routes, shipping companies etc. We're talking in the hundreds of stubs, perhaps well over a thousand. Marine highways are necessarily the same thing as ordinary highways here, and the ports that go with them are equivalent to bridges - do bridges get the roads stub, or nothing special at all (even though they're technically, after all, roads). As for railways, during the period a few hundred licensed, chartered railways were enacted under provincial legislation; up to 50 of them got built, most fairly short but each with a history and article-worthy material. So I thought a general "transportation" stub would cover the whole lot - rail, road, marine routes as well as their infrastructural components. Some also could get the "scandal" stub (poli-stub), by the way, but that's a longer story...{{tl:BritishColumbia-road-stub}} would do, although there's still no stub name for lists of ships, ports etc., nor the various freighting companies (many of which used roads as well as trails and steamers and even camels and hand-packers on trails where "road" would be a huge exaggeration...i.e. they were "intermodal"). Prefer to keep; again, if you want the Canadian stub cats cluttered with a few hundred new items, that would be the consequence of not creating a separate stub for BC for this stuff.Skookum1 08:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shipping companies, ferries,s hips, etc, would all take a BritishColumbia-shipping-stub, if such existed. Roads ((I note the only stub using this stub template was a road) should take a BritishColumbia-road-stub, and railways would take a BritishColumbia-rail-stub - if there were enough for any of these three stub types. Personally, I think that there are likely to be enough for some of these... but lumping them together into a transportation stub is something that has never been done at a national level,let alone a subnational revel, hence things like {{Canada-road-stub}}and {{Canada-rail-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 10:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that would be {{BritishColumbia-water-stub}} not -shipping- going by the example of the existing {{water-stub}} for water transportation stubs. Still, I'd like to see a viable {{Canada-water-stub}} before even considering a NC specific variant. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the border has moved south a few miles, i take it you mean BC not NC ;) And yes, it was water-stub I meant. Grutness...wha? 07:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given that we've got, according to our popular/national mythology, 3/4 of the world's fresh water, and more lakes than I care to count....the {{Canada-water-stub}} is a pretty good idea all by itself; but knowing how many water bodies and streams there are in various provinces that are going to have articles (and in the case of streams, BC especially: see Category:Rivers of British Columbia and also Category:Lakes of British Columbia, both of which are far from complete. Other provinces have more lakes, and far less named streams of significance; out here a "creek" is often ten times the size of a "river" in other parts of the continent...(that's not a boast).Skookum1 08:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand - {{water-stub}} is used for water transport - boats, ferries, etc. Rivers and streams would all take a regional geo-stub, as with everywhere else. Grutness...wha? 11:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh...well, we're gonna have a lot of BC geo-stubs, then. Lots and lots of them....just started a discussion, I hope, among BC WikiProject members, for my idea about historical regions vs the unworkability of regional districts; have a look at the project's talk page and look for "historical regions of British Columbia" (it's very late or I'd link that directly; tomorrow am), because of this subdivision issue, if we can/want to do it. As for this water-stub, how is that different from the shipping-stub?Skookum1 11:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was my mistake - it's water-stub, not shippingg-stub (there isn't a "shipping-stub"). Grutness...wha? 02:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not the way these are split; re-sort to -road-, -rail-, etc, if those are viable. Alai 05:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete


Cuts smack through the middle of BritishColumbia-geo-stub, which would be further split by subregion, not by towns, which are one of the types specifically listed as beihng no-nos. Strong delete for this one, irrespective of the fact that it has quite a number of stubs. Grutness...wha? 04:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has "quite a number of stubs" because I started working my way through geo-stubs after creating it, although I only finished "A" and "B" in the category listing; any others that have it are incidental because I found them while looking up something else. Similar extreme-content issues apply here as for the other three stubs above. We have hundreds of small rural communities, including Indian Reserves, which will have to have separate articles, and they're located in such a way, and distinct enough from each other, that they can't be lumped together in articles covering a bunch at once. Dividing up the geo-stub by subregion then requires a BIG discussion about which subregions we use for that - because the Regional district system flexes all the time (virtually with every change of regime, often within eras of given regimes), and some Regional Districts that were around in my youth ('50s-'70s) are no longer extant. And nobody thinks of where they're from here in terms of Regional Districts. So that leaves "historic regions", not all of which have precise definitions and also which freely overlap in most cases, e.g. the Boundary Country is seen by some to be part of the West Kootenay, while in other reckonings it's part of the Okanagan. Even a discussion we had about what "Lower Mainland" means (the most populous part of the province, Greater Vancouver and then some) required an arduous discussion about exactly what definition it has; so "subregions" won't work here. Now, the further bit is that, in addition to the extant few hundred rural communities and Indian Reserves, British Columbia also has more ghost towns than the rest of North America put together, and a good couple of hundred of them are going to get articles, a good few dozen already have at least a stub. So this "geo-stub" cat, which also apparently must include rivers, islands and a host of other features, is also going to have over a thousand initial entries that are just towns and settlements (historical or current). And we have something like 15,000 islands....(PS I'm not meaning to be long or flip in all these comments; those familiar with my posts know I write this way naturally, and not to be ponderous or overblown; I just can't help it). So given the volume of communities articles, and the need for other subdivisions of the geo-stub cat, I must necessarily vote and plead Keep. And why are towns "no-no's"? Just asking....Skookum1 08:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because overall about 80% of all geography stubs are for towns and communities. As such, it makes little or no sense to separatee them out from other geography stubs. Yes, there are likely to be big discussions about what subregions woould be best to use - similar discussions have occurred for about thirty countries so far, and also for some other parts of Canada (Ontario is divided by subregions). But that doesn't mean that consensus isn't possible on that. And given that people who are interested in geography tend, for the most part, to know about a particular area, it makes far more sense to divide geography stubs down by region and then subregion. The very few exceptions to this aare things hat specific editors aree likely to know a lot more about - nationalparks and ecoregions, for instance. It would be far more likely that an editor who knows about communities around Kamloops would also know about the mountains and rivers around Kamloops than they would about communities around Fort Nelson. This is why it says at WP:STUB: For example, geography stubs are sorted by country so you wouldn't want to create mountain-stub or river-stub. Grutness...wha? 10:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, split the -geos up by regional districts, or any generally recognised coarser-grained sub-regions if those are currently too small. Alai 05:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 7

edit

Rename {{astro-stub}} to {{astronomy-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was rename


Rename to more appropriate, and memorable, name. Mike Peel 11:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 8

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename


I propose to rename this category: ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:South American mythology stubs
When I was a new user with this group you helped me to create 2 stub categories, one for North American mythology and one for South American, however, on South American I accidentally forgot the "N" at the end of "American" Goldenrowley 02:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping! Much appreciated! Goldenrowley 15:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/rescope to Category:Ceramic art and design stubs


I propose to rename this category: ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Ceramic art and pottery stubs I became aware this week of a few comments that the "ceramic stub" is unclear, that ceramics have industrial and applied uses uses, not just art, over on the discussion page at ceramics (art)... looking at the ceramics stub, the parent is ceramics (art). When I nominated it lastyear, it was because we badly needed some art categories and this holds the large bunch of ceramic art and pottery stubs. I think this is the best solution. Goldenrowley 02:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx,Theriac 15:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change scope. I disagree with the proposal, although I do understand the thinking behind it. "..and pottery" is not appropriate as indicated by Alai, and in any case, pottery is a type of ceramics, not distinct from it.
The discussion has arisen because it has become apparent that there are many ceramics-related articles which are not covered, or are only very debatably covered, by the present ceramics-stub as long as it is only art-related. If the stub is amended to ceramics-art-stub, or left as it is, there will need to be a large number of subjective decisions about which individual ceramics producers make "art" and which do not - a POV can of worms. I would strongly object to renaming Category:Ceramics to what was suggested, by the way, and for the same reason.
Rather than renaming the stub to make it narrower, thereby leaving many articles with no available ceramics-related stub at all, I suggest instead leaving the name as it is and linking the stub also to the main article Ceramic and the Category:Ceramic materials, which then makes it wider in application and removes the potential for the existing "is it art? is it not art?" controversy.HeartofaDog 18:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(added) In other words, the ceramics-stub should be re-scoped to be applicable to all ceramics-related articles, not only to articles dealing with ceramics-art (which is proving a tricky thing to define).HeartofaDog 18:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Art" is obviously a charged word as regards the boundary with "mere decoration", etc, but there's little confusing either of those with tungsten nitride, etc. (Not actually marked as a stub anyway, as it happens.) What about a disambiguator (throughout) along the lines of "(arts and crafts)"? (As opposed to Arts and Crafts.) Alai 19:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would probably help quite a lot. The difficulties appear primarily when dealing with commercial manufacturers of ceramics / ceramics factories - rather than adding Category:Ceramic materials (I do take your point about that), how about linking additionally to Category:Ceramics manufacturers? That AND the "arts and crafts" suggestion should cover the bases. HeartofaDog 21:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't much mind what it links to, and category-page scoping statements can be as exhaustive as one wishes, but ideally stub templates should strive to be the proverbial "soul of wit", and be reasonably brief. Would "(art and design)" perhaps be a more comprehensive disambiguator? If on the other hand we go with an all-embracing everything-about-ceramics category, that could work too, but for consistency the permcats would ideally be changed around, so that ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:ceramics is the top-level for everything, and not just the "ceramic artifacts", which could maybe go into a more specific-sounding category. Alai 00:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I like the idea of an everything-about-ceramics solution very much - otherwise, as we've been seeing, however you try and split it isn't quite right because it overlaps into so many different areas. So that sounds good to me, and those categories would benefit from a systematic overhaul.HeartofaDog 00:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT: ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:ceramic art stubs or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:ceramic art and craft stubs both suggested by Alai. No offense HeartofDog, but I decidely at this time oppose changing the "ceramic stub" into something that covers all ceramic-made objects. It may have ceramic as its parent, but thats only because there was no "ceramic art" or craft category to link to, if there was, I would have linked it already. But if we wish, we can form the permanent category fairly quickly.... To clarify further, this Ceramic stub is in the Stub Table of Contents as a subcategory or child of art stubs but these children of art sometimes branch into crafts ... most notably the textile arts are also considered a craft, but they havent yet branched into rudimentary object articles. Art stubs are divided by art mediums (hence painting, sculpture, textles, glass, metal, paper,woodworking, etc. It has reason to stay an art category as there are over 60 articles at least on ceramic art and pottery (or, slighly refocusing, as art and craft), and further adding topics dilutes the classificitaion limits. Taking a parallel example: On sculpture art category, should we include rocks and bricks, and call it "things made of rocks"? Or the craft of metalworking, shall we say airplanes are made of metal and it is easier if we put all things made of metal together?? By the same token if we refocus what was hoped to be a ceramic art stub into "things made of clay", then the stub is no longer helpful to Wikipedia art editors. (in other words, if this stub category did not already exist, I would want to create it one day). There are lots of things in the world made of clay, dishs are made of clay, so are sinks and toilets, roof tiles and other construction materials. Putting them all together is useless to me, to someone else maybe not but I dont see a point for it, if so, group them under "material" section and maybe call it ceramic-material-stub. I'd rather see Jasperware with some very badly designed other art pottery, than see it grouped with roof tiles. Goldenrowley 05:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment(no offence taken!) I can see Goldenrowley's reasoning, but it's too narrow, and I don't buy it. The parallels with sculpture and metalware are IMO not close enough. There is no difficulty at all distinguishing between sculpture and rock; and metalwork is easily sorted by the metal being worked (ie, precious or base). There is however every difficulty in allocating the products of a series of porcelain and pottery factories between art and not art. My view is therefore still that both ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:ceramic art stubs and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:ceramic arts and crafts stubs are unworkable, for the reason already given, which is that there is a vast range of ceramics articles (ie, all those relating to factory production of ceramics) to which it is impossible to apply them objectively or meaningfully.
After all, this whole discussion was triggered by a well-informed editor (1) who objected on good technical grounds to ALL factory-made ceramics being termed "art" - including Wedgwood, Sevres and Chelsea. Goldenrowley thinks (2) that some are art and others aren't, which seems reasonable until you try to define which are which. I think (3) that any factory-produced ceramics with any kind of aesthetic design input may as well be called "art" in the sense of "commercial art". Any of these views may be right or wrong, but the point I'm making is that there is no general agreement on the subject, which is why the present stub doesn't work when applied to factories and needs a more radical change.
As I am not looking at the world through art-coloured glasses I have no problem at all having all ceramics-stubs in together - it seems to me logical and unambiguous. However, if that's not acceptable for artistic reasons I would have no problem with:
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.
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete


As per all other stub types for disputed territoriees, this will prove far more of a headache than it could ever be worth. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Georgia (country) stubs is not over-full, and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Abkhazia stubs is oddly populated by loads of geo stubs, several bio stubs (not divided by subnational region except in very rare circumstances), typography and linguistics stubs, and party stubs. Annoyingly, this new stub has been used to replace, not supplement, the former stub types, which will mean considerable work even if this stub type is kept. It shouldn't be, though. Delete. Grutness...wha? 05:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The grab-bag contents are less than satisfactory, but note that Abkhazia is de jure a first order division of Georgia (in fact, an "autonomous republic"), so this is how the Georgian stubs would/will be split if/when that happens, regardless of the sovereignty dispute. But since even the grab-bag is undersized, I'd prefer to either simply delete this, or to re-sort to upmerged -stub and -geo-stubs templates (which has the merit of enabling semi-salting of unproposed repopulation of the separate category). The -bio-stub is more marginal, for the reasons Grutness alludes to. Alai 06:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete like any similar case. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 06:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one to create this stub, so let me explain myself. First of all, I am sorry that I did not follow the procedure. Frankly, I did not realise (really) that this could be controversial. I see how that does not really matter and that controversial or not, procedures serve their good use and are to be followed, but here we are, so:

-Firstly, the procedure that I followed was: I went through all the articles in the Abkhazia category, and to all which were already stubbed, I added the new tag. I further added a stub-tag to all articles I encountered which consisted of only a few lines or which seemed to consist of nothing more than one piece of text copied from some source. Furthermore, I added tags to articles on individual characters of the Abkhaz Alphabet which already were stubs, I figured that these articles partained to Abkhazia due to being related to the Abkhaz Alphabet article. I did not also create Abkhaz geography and biography stubs because the total number is indeed not that large and I thought it a concern for a later date. I did not delete Georgian stubs, I don't know whether that is what any of you believe.

-As for the reason for having Abkhazian stubs in the first place. The Abkhazian conflict knows two points of view. One point of view is that Abkhazia is part of Georgia, the other point of view is that Abkhazia is an independent state. NPOV is official policy on Wikipedia, so we need to represent both points of view. To say that there can't be such a thing as an Abkhazian stub because it belongs to Georgia, de jure, is to voice a Point of View. There is no objective basis on which one can say that Abkhazia belongs to Georgia. (UN, international community etc. are irrelevant, their position is still only an opinion, not fact.) Objectively, Abkhazia's status is disputed. And as such, it's stub articles should either carry both Georgian and Abkhazian tags (my original idea, though a tad redundant), or one neutral tag (with a map or both states' flags).

-As for not granting disputed regions tags in order to prevent edit wars: this would truly be sad, wouldn't this equal taking the easy route just to evade controversy? It is not true that unrecognised states do not get stubs as a principle. There exists a tag for Taiwan or ROC related stubs (Template:Taiwan-stub). It is exactly such a stub that I wish for Abkhazia also. While Taiwan is recognised by some 5 hands full of minor states, it is nevertheless internationally unrecognised. It is true that popular atlases may show you 'Taiwan' but not Abkhazia, but that is irrelevant, we are not here to merely follow others, we are here to follow principles. Any principles that apply in the case of Taiwan, apply also in the case of Abkhazia.

Keep. sephia karta 02:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, there is one neutral Template:Cyprus-stub for both states on that island. sephia karta 02:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:WesternSahara-stub, Template:Transnistria-stub, Template:Palestine-stub + Nagorno Karabakh related stubs carry both Armenian and Azerbaijani tags + Western Sahara's category is within the countries of Africa category ('de jure' it is still Spanish).
Abkhazia and South Ossetia seem to have been the exception to the rule so far. sephia karta 03:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cyprus-stub does indeed cover the whole island - thereby meaning we do not have to have a separate stub for TRNC - the equivalent here is having a Georgia-stub that covers both the recognised nation of Georgia and the unrecognised Abkhazia, thereby meaning we have no need of a potentially problematic Abkhazia-stub. Transnistria-stub has, ISTR been deleted at least once in the past and needs to come back here again by the looks of it. Palestine is accepted by a fairly large number of countries as being a separate territory for most purposes. WesternSahara-stub has long been a problem, it must be admitted. As for being de jure Spanish, that is true, but putting stubs related to it in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Spain stubs would be highly misleading, in much the same way that Bermuda does not use UK-stub and French Polynesia doesn't use France-stub - in those cases the massive geographic dislocation of the territories from the country to which they are connected politically does play a part. BTW - apologies for thinking you had deleted Georgia-stub templates from those articles. Grutness...wha? 05:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But critically, the Cyprus stub tag does not use the flag of Cyprus but rather a map of the island. This in addition to the fact that the name Cyprus in itself could apply to both states makes for a neutral NPOV stub tag. The Georgia stub tag does employ the Georgian state flag, and the term Georgia only applies to Abkhazia according to the Georgian POV.
I don't understand why it is such a problem to have a neutral stub category for Abkhazia, if we can also have e.g. a stub category & tag Template:Quebec-stub. Quebec is not an independent state, and no one claims otherwise, nor is it geographically dislocated from Canada, and still it has its own stub, because it happens to be an interesting political and cultural entity. Seperate stub tags can be justified on the same grounds for Western Sahara, Taiwan and indeed Abkhazia, and this does not imply either recognition or unrecognition of resp. the SADR, the ROC or the Republic of Abkhazia. Similarily, even the seperate stub tag for Transnistria, or hypothetical seperate stub tags for the Republic of Abkhazia or the ROC do/would not imply recognition or unrecognition of those states, they merely assert that these are political entities which things can be related to. These and other unrecognised states may be illegimate in the eyes of many, but that does not change the fact that encyclopedically, they are real existant things. It would be POV to exclusively tag all Abkhazian stubs with a Republic of Abkhazia tag, or all Taiwanese stubs with a ROC tag, but that is not what I or others want. What I want is to prevent the opposite, that all Abkhazian stubs are exlusively tagged with Georgian stub tags.
So, what I propose is a stub category Abkhazia, which is both within the category of Georgian stubs and within the category of Abkhazia (itself again within the category Georgia and also within the category of unrecognised states). Subspecification into geographical/biographical/historical stubs is upto the guidelines of the stub project. The stub tag would replace any Georgian stub tags present in Abkhazian stub articles not directly related to Georgian political institutions, Georgian individuals, Georgian history, etc., to avoid duplicity (as the Abkhazian stub tag would be neutral, bipartial). Seperate stub categories for the political entities of the Republic of Abkhazia and the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia are not introduced until/unless the number of stubs is large enough to warrant this (as per the stub project's regulations).sephia karta 14:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As i read your remarks, its very easy to detect POV and biased approch to Abkhazia problem, what do you mean by "the Republic of Abkhazia " ? There is no such "republic" officially and according to international law, its de jure status is within the borders of the Georgian state, wheather you like it or not. Your stub is definitely a POV approch, which only further aggravates the very delicate issue on the status of that separatist enclave. Transmistia stub is also a mistake and it should be deleted accordingly. Abkhazia does not posses any means of state or unrecognized state, 70% of its population is driven out by force, the "republic" is run by dengerouse militaristic regime. By the standards of UN, OSCE, and the international law on the territorial integrity of the state, Abkhazia is recognized officially under the Georgian jurisdiction. Chechnya stayed de facto independent for a while; however, the region is back in de jure control of the Russian federation. Therefore, it’s not productive to create stubs which will cause further dispute and undermine the NPOV integrity. Ldingley 20:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have argued why my approach is NPOV. Please explain to me what part of my reasoning is flawed rather than indiscriminately labeling it POV.
It is factually inaccurate to state that "Abkhazia does not posses any means of state or unrecognised state". Apart from recognition, Abkhazia does posses all the properties of a state that can be expected for a population of around 150,000. It has a government, parliament, elections, a civil society, a military, flag, anthem, you name it. You can disagree as much as you want about the right of existence of that political entity that calls itself Republic of Abkhazia, but you cannot deny it's existence. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and therefore it must show the world as it is, not as it should be. You and I likely agree on the criminality of the North-Korean regime, but we cannot deny its existance and Wikipedia does treat North Korea as the state that it is, despite the numerous crimes it has commited.
Even the UN, the OSCE, while they agree that Abkhazia should be part of Georgia, acknowledge the fact that the reality of the ground right now is different. If it weren't, there wouldn't be a conflict to solve. sephia karta 00:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't have templates that will be the subject of edit wars. Any template relating ot a disputed territory has a very high risk of such a scenario. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 17:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC}
But you don't know that there will be edit wars. There were some edits shortly after I initially created the tag, but it has been stable since. And I for one, knowing that the issue is delicate, intend to first propose changes on the talk page from now on, should I hav issues with the tag. Also, while the topic of Abkhazia is controversial, I wouldn't say there have been any edit wars as of late over it.
Regardless, where does it say that we can't have templates that might cause edit wars? Wouldn't adhering to that principle equal avoiding controversy at the cost of other principles?
And as I've pointed out, other disputed territories, despite the very high risk you claim, do actually have their own templates, so I really don't see the argument here.sephia karta 14:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 10

edit

upmerging Asian universities/schools

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

The result of the debate was delete Indonesia and Pakistan, keep Thailand


~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus


Not proposed, one stub, and the category curiously has various boxing categories as its parents (a copy and paste error?). Though I can see the thinking behind the creation of this, I doubt its usefulness. Way over 90% of the world's baseballers are likely to be Americans - the sport is virtually unknown outside a handful of countries. And baseball bio-stubs are already being split along role-related lines outfielder, pitcher, etc). I don't really see that this would bee a useful split. Ironically, I could see logic behind, say, a Japan-baseball-bio-stub, since the few that aren't from the US do stand out a bit more from the crowd. Delete. Grutness...wha? 03:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the majority of baseball bio's will be no doubt be Usonians, there are quite a few from other countries in the Americas, enough so that unlike {{Amfoot-bio-stub}} and its descendants, it is not useful to assume by default that players are Usonian by default. There are over 200 articles in Category:Dominican Republic baseball players and Category:Venezuelan baseball players and over 100 in Category:Canadian baseball players and Category:Cuban baseball players. (East Asian countries are probably underrepresented due to their players not usually playing in the U.S. leagues.) No objection also adding position based splits of this as well. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected - I'd forgotten about Caribbean baseballers, and some of them may well be viable (especially since we tend to split Puerto Rico from the US "proper"). A split by nationality and role may be useful after all... Grutness...wha? 05:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, my earlier comment seems to have vanished, all but the edit summary. Assuming it doesn't rematerialise... If we're going to keep this (which we might as well), I suggest we also immediately create US- versions of the by-position types, since populating this directly would be painful and counterproductive. Alai 01:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was gonna say keep, but I noticed that they were already split by decade, which means there's no reason to keep this. Delete. That being said, the category could stay and hold all the subcategories, but there's enough categories that do that.--Wizardman 01:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 12

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

The result of the debate was rename/rescope to WesternAustralia-road-stub and Western Australia road stubs


11 articles. Can't see this growing to 60. I also found {{Perth-stub}}/‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Perth, Western Australia stubs today, but I decided to let it stay as it was decently populated w/ a WP. Also open to upmerging. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several points to make here:
  • Anyone who thinks this can't grow to 60 (or 100, for that matter) is advised to look at List of major roads in Perth, Western Australia. The Perth metropolitan area (which this covers, rather than just the downtown area) covers a land area not dissimilar to that of metropolitan Los Angeles, but with 1/10th the population (about 1.6 million). As such, roads have been critical in Perth's definition and growth, and are linked extensively in those Perth articles which are considered complete (according to Wikiproject Perth, only 40 out of 338 articles meet this criteria, but this is moving ahead slowly).
  • This stub was created barely a month ago (12 Dec 2006). For nearly the entire time since, the December-January holiday period has deprived us somewhat of editors, who will become more available as we go into February. Road stubs get created when people are working on suburb articles to fix redlinks, and much of the information about Perth roads is in book form in the State Library rather than online.
  • The SfD guidelines only highlight two categories which might be marginally relevant to the reasons for deletion:
    • "They are not used in any article, and their category is empty" - clearly not the case, as it has 11 articles.
    • "Their scope is too limited" - see above notes. Note that the 50 is only described as a "rule of thumb", and there is certainly no mention of 60.
  • Also, no logical destination to upmerge them to. --Orderinchaos78 22:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I still feel that this move is incredibly premature. It encourages the development of low-content stubs which, if someone like myself becomes busy with a dozen other things (or in fact already is), very little will happen with without encouragement. I would expect that the guideline wouldn't normally anticipate 60 stubs being created by one or two people within the first month of a stub and category's existence purely to stave off the threat of an SFD which, I might note, I only accidentally noticed because of a small announcement at the bottom of a page I was working on. I'm not sure any of the other road editors are even aware this debate is going on, especially as quite a few are still on holidays until the end of this month. Also, upmerging to Australia-road-stubs leaves us where we were before, not being able to even find our articles in the mass of Victorian and NSW ones that were created some time ago. Orderinchaos78 14:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did in fact notify WikiProject Perth, just so you know. I figured that was the best way to contact people who would be involved in this discussion. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 22:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - changed to Strong keep. SatuSuro 04:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC) SFD is innapropriate. If the proposer had been an Australian editor, I would have wondered what was on earth going on. In some stub work in the areas that I work on - - sometimes there are only one or two of us working on any of these locations over a period of time due to the holiday season - I consider this proposal as badly timed and lacking in understanding of the local context. Considering the complexity of any SFD (which I have not encountered prior to this) and the long term ramifications on a new WikiProject - Western Australia - I would ask anyone who is going to comment further to be cognisant of the issues that Orderinchaos78 and self have pointed out here. I am most concerned the proposer talks of finding and deciding to let stay - I would be a lot more comfortable if it was addressed by an experienced Australian editor - and then at least the overall precedents and implications for the whole Ausralian wikiproject would be taken into consideration - WP Australia and WP Australia Places would be far more appropriate avenues to tackle the issue - I certainly would give credence to a debate there than here... SatuSuro 15:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep These are being maintained by both Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia (WP:WP) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Perth.
    • They are not the fancy of a single editor.
    • They are new.
    • They are peer reviewed by wikipedians of high standing and long experience.
    • If they don't work out we will remove them. We like things tidy. No contest. Fred at WP:WA. Fred 15:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rescope and double upmerge per Grutness. Stub types/categories are intended to split existing stubs into categories of 100-300 articles, not allow for growth. The guideline doesn't "anticipate 60 stubs being created by one or two people within the first month of a stub and category's existence purely to stave off the threat of an SFD", because it specifically says not to make the stub until there are already at least 60 relevant stubs. I don't see any implications for the whole Australian wikiproject, this is just a normal stub issue. It may indeed be useful to split stub categories up by state regardless of size, but this would have massive implications for the stub system as a whole, unless we are making Australia a special case. JPD (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep there are way more than 11 roads in perth!!! I see its gone up to 15 38 while we've all been sitting here talking about it. the WP Western Australia people are a good if small lot and work hard at this stuff and it's stupid wasting their time having to change this to that then that back to this when they hit some arbitrary magic number that two guidelines cannot even agree on (that one says 60 this one says 50...) I mean it's fine to say "change it" but I bet the people voting "rescope" and stuff in this SFD won't be the ones actually going into 60 individual articles and changing them themselves once it hits 60 (which it will) I think this is one of those cases where legalistic ideas have overtaken common sense. I mean is wikipedia seriously going to run out of hard disk space if one little stub sticks around? and yeah this "finding" and "deciding to let stay" i thought the whole point was the community decides not one user who spends a lot of time looking for other people's stuff to delete... also people saying "it has to be state" don't know an awful lot about western australia. you won't find a lot of named roads outside of perth, put it that way... those there are would get pretty upset about getting bundled in with perth (like the bunbury people) as it would disrupt THEIR work. DanielT5 17:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it's not about how many roads there are in Perth or even how many roads there are that deserve an article, it's about how many Perth road stubs there are. It's very strange to object to some "deciding" to start a community discussion to delete it, when someone has obviously "decided" to create the stub, even thought WP:STUB suggest several times that new stub types should be agreed to by the community. Noone has said "it has to be state", but someone who knows a lot about how the stubs sorting system works, and a reasonable amount about Australia, has suggesting that it would make the most sense. I don't see how Bunbury roads being in a WA stub category rather than left in the Australian category would disrupt the work of anyone interested in Bunbury. JPD (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It is a logical stub category, there's quite a bit of material now, and that's only going to grow with the Perth editors becoming very organised. Rebecca 23:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and rescope. —Moondyne 04:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rescope/upmerge per Grutness. The only reasons for having a Perth-road-stub are (1) because there are a lot of people out there who are likely to be interested in tracking and improving stubs about Perth roads, but have no interest in tracking and improving stubs on more general topics such as Western Australian roads or Perth in general; or (2) there are so many stubs on the more general topics that it is difficult for editors to locate stubs of interest. I don't see either of those conditions being met here, now or in the next year or so. Hesperian 04:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rescope to include all Western Australian roads. Gnangarra 05:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with this proposition. Wikiproject Western Australia is capable of distinguishing its own area of interest (separate from Perth's) if necessary through project pages, so the distinction is not necessary. Orderinchaos78 02:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I agree with gnangarra that we should rescope to include all WA roads. If you give this a chance, the category will grow eventually--M W Johnson 00:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This seems to be a head-on crash between the very enthusiastic Perth and WA editors, and the stub sorters who need order to do their job. I'm not sure if this stub was created "in process" or not, but I'm confident the Perth people know what they're doing. I'd suggest/support widening to WA scope, but choose not to vote such on this proposal. I'd also remind M Johnson that the objective is to shrink stub categories, not grow them. --Scott Davis Talk 01:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weird, the comment I made here earlier seems to have simply disappeared. Anyhoo, I was trying to say something to the effect of: hopefully no more than a minor fender-bender. It's also in WSS's interests to see the Australian roads sub-divided as and when that's feasible, it's just a matter of on how broad a basis, and how soon. The current scope is for one thing less than thunderingly obvious: I did a double-take at Fremantle roads being tagged as "Perth", not being entirely up to speed on my Western Australian local government entities. (Is there even a separate article for that entity?) "Western Australian road stubs" would be much more obvious, as well as at least slightly broader in terms of numbers of stubs. Alai 01:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironically this SFD has probably provided the largest momentum we've seen in road articles in some time - I was quite shocked to see how few of the really important arterials had nothing whatsoever. Being careful to create only stubs which actually can grow (i.e. are verifiable, notable, reliable sources can be found, contribute to the history and development of Perth, etc) we're already up to 50 with several to-do lists of more to create - it will most likely be over 60 by the time admin action on this SFD is considered. I'm firmly in agreement with ScottDavis that we shouldn't be trying to grow stub categories - however in the short-medium term present there is a need for one here. One would hope that at some point in the next 12 months this category will be empty once again as we'd have got all of the articles to minimum Start class and possibly in some cases Featured or GA status. Orderinchaos78 16:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment, If the outcome of this SFD is to keep this with its current scope, the template will still need renaming, since Perth is a dab page, and for many people the Australian city will not be the first place though of (PerthAU-road-stub would be consistent with other similar cases in the past) Grutness...wha? 12:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete


From WP:WSS/D. Currently not used on any articles. Creator agreed to use Sweden-xxx-stub templates. Possibly speediable. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was rename template, keep cat


From WP:WSS/D. Template definitely needs a rename to {{NewOrleans-stub}}. Currently only 10 articles, but there is a WP:NO, so I suggest upmerge to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Louisiana stubs. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep


From WP:WSS/D. 43 articles. Upmerge. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually 125+ articles Pretty soon there will be about 300 stubs. Please give it time .Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been a month since creation and if only 45 articles have been tagged since then, I don't see how there will be 300 soon. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged some films that were not stubbed categorize dcorrectly and addeed a few more as I am doing. I now count 62 films.

Glad to see it is not only the the population of elephants that has tripled. WP:SNOW? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 18:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably closeable without recourse to SNOW, since the current population negates the cited reason for nomination. Unless Amalas wants especially wants to let it run, or to add a rider... Alai 18:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This can be closed. Thanks Ernst Stavro Blofeld, for all the hard work. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge


From WP:WSS/D. 24 articles. Upmerge. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was upmerge to fungus stubs and botanist stubs


From WP:WSS/D. 11 articles. Upmerge. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This category is genuinely needed by WikiProject Fungi to point out the articles on mycologists that are in need of expansion. Upmerging this stub back into "botanist stub" is at cross-purposes with this. Peter G Werner 17:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about upmerging it into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Fungus stubs to keep it within WP:Fungi's scope? (I'm thinking along the lines of it being similar to a fungus-bio-stub or something like that) ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be preferable to losing it in "botanist stubs". If you have to upmerge it, put it there. Peter G Werner 19:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Until it has enough stubs to warrant a stub category of its own, using What links here on {{mycologist-stub}} should be adequate for the Fungi fun guys. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make that a double upmerge with {{Mycologist-stub}} feeding into both [[cl|Botanist stubs}} and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Fungus stubs until it has enough styubs to warrant a category of its own. Caerwine Caer’s whines 09:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What is fungus-bio-stub but renamed mycologist? How many mycologist stubs do we need to make it worthwhile? (I will gt to work on a few more...) Cas Liber 20:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting that we rename this fungus-bio-stub or anything like that. I was trying to imply that it would be similar to other things like {{econ-stub}} - {{economist-stub}}, where the logical <subject>-bio-stub is replaced by a more specific <subject>ist-stub. I mean, you could use {{econ-bio-stub}} (which is a redirect to economist), but economist is a much better word. I hope that made sense.
Usually 60 stubs is the general guideline (listed in the proposal procedure). ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 21:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong feeling of deju vu about this discussion. If not populated to ~60 articles, upmerge to both of the above-mentioned types. Alai 00:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge


From WP:WSS/D. 21 articles. Upmerge. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was upmerge


From WP:WSS/D. 21 articles. Unclear scope (at least just by looking at the template and cat names). ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 13

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

The result of the debate was delete


Category page does not have the propert setup -holds only 4 stubs. Goldenrowley 18:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Malay-stub}} (and its redirect {{Malays-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was delete


Never proposed, four stubs. Dreadfully named - feeds the nonexistent ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:List of Malay stubs! Unclear whether it's for the race, the language, the peninsula... all of which are covered adequately by other stub types. Delete Grutness...wha? 00:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep


Never proposed - only 19 stubs, but has a wikiproject. Doesn't look a likely stub type at present. >\Grutness...wha? 00:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing nom due to growth in category. But please propose creation next time! Grutness...wha? 04:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems a sane scope, is appropriately used (i.e. not on the actual fish), and it's about 60% of the way to viability. Nor does there seem to be a good upmerger target (shoving them in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:fish stubs doesn't seem like a good plan. I'd be inclined to cut them some slack and hope they populate. Alai 01:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This stub is created by Wikipedia:WikiProject Aquarium Fishes after several members agreed it was needed. I apologize that it was not officially proposed here, but we did proposed it to the Aquarium Fishes wikiproject members and had our discussion here. Like Alai said, this stub is useful for the wikiproject members and is not mergeable with the fish stub (or any of its sub-stubs). We are just beginning to organize the fishkeeping articles, so in the near future you will see many more articles marked with the fishkeeping stubs. So, I'd like to ask for some time before you decide whether to delete or keep the stubs. --Melanochromis 03:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As one of the members of the aforementioned WikiProject, I too move that the fishkeeping stub be kept. The WikiProject is currently in its infancy, but hopefully it will grow. I'd have devoted more time to it myself over the past couple of weeks if offline life hadn't intervened with bureaucratic woes (sigh). Calilasseia 11:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 33 stubs now, so seems fair enough. Alai 22:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 14

edit

{{HeBible-stub}} → {{Tanakh-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was rename


Per [1] and to be consistent with the cat. This is the best of several flawed alternatives. - crz crztalk 02:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was rename


Fed from {{Portugal-royal-stub}}, which clearly scopes itself as being about royalty, not nobility. Rename category to suit (or else, rescope to be more inclusive). Strangely, we discussed this one this time last year, seemingly without result. Alai 02:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep


West Virginia is two words not one. Wikipedia:WikiProject West Virginia is correcting it. --71Demon 01:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete All of the above are wrong as well. You are purposely putting a spelling error into something that many people use as an educational tool. Wiki's naming in this case is wrong. It may be the naming convention to make West Virginia one word WestVirginia, but it is not. Like it or not, wikipedia is an educational tool. As a result we have a duty to be held to a higher standard, yes many of us know that West Virginia and these other enteries are two words, but many kids will not. This spelling error you are creating on purpose doesn't need to be there, the computer behind this doesn't care. You shouldn't continue to create spelling errors, because there is a problem with the naming conventions. See the forest, stop looking with the at the trees. Wiki is an educational tool, you have a duty to make sure it is held to a high standard. That is why you should spell things correctly. It is common sense go with the correct spelling, over the wrong spelling. --71Demon 13:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, you are saying that West-Virginia is the correct spelling of the state's name? Funny... I've never seen it with a hyphen. See the forest yourself. Stub templates are NOT an educational tool; they are an editing tool to enable the articles to become better educational tools. Open any of those stub articles and you will not see "WestVirginia" in the text of the article - it is not intended to be there in the article's text, so does not get in the way of the article as an educational tool. The standardised naming of stub templates is however a very important tool for editors, and what you are proposing is to remove that tool by creating a system less thorough in its naming standards. Stub templates are named entity-stub, or entity-variety-stub, or subentity-entity-stub. As such, by creating West-Virginia-school-stub you are creating subentity-entity-variety-stub for a variety of articles (school articvles) on a subset (west) of a type of article (Virginia) i.e., articles on schools in the west of Virginia. West Virginia is, however, and independent entity from Virginia, and as such should not have a hyphen. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per standard naming conventions for Wikipedia. This is not the platform for a fundemental change in guidelines. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 02:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per the standard naming conventions used throughout the stub system. Anybody wishing to change same should first take a very good look at WP:WSS/ST and examine just how many templates / articles would be affected by a general change to the naming system. Why on earth go through tens of thousands of articles renaming to a new system? Doing so would only give a ton of work with no benefit at all, only a gigantic risk of creating new errors to fix later. Besides, any such massive operation (which would be next to impossible to carry out, even by bot) would probably cause so much strain on the servers that this entire project would be shut down as well. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 14:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and knock the spurious "speedy delete" 'votes' on the head. "Speedy" is not a generic intensifier to be used when or not any speedy criterion applies. "West Virginia" isn't spelt with a hyphen either, come to that, which is added to stub templates names only to indicate hierarchy, as Amalas points out. The argument that "many kids" will ignore the spelling of "West Virginia" in articles, but conclude from template names (only even visible if one is looking at page sources or meta-content) that "WestVirginia" is the name of the state (but not make a similar error with "West-Virginia") fails not just the naming conventions, but the alternative test proposed of "common sense". Alai 05:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. So it's two words instead of one, no reason for deletion. Plus it's based on standard naming conventions.--Wizardman 01:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete template


Despite having {{WestVirginia-school-stub}} for a long time - and upmerged, since there are only 32 such stubs around - someone decided to create an incorrectly-hyphenated form of it with its own category. The category is, of course, empty, and it was also, of course, never proposed. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP it is a stub patterned off of Virginia's. --71Demon 01:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep All of the above are wrong as well. You are purposely putting a spelling error into something that many people use as an educational tool. Wiki's naming in this case is wrong. It may be the naming convention to make West Virginia one word WestVirginia, but it is not. Like it or not, wikipedia is an educational tool. As a result we have a duty to be held to a higher standard, yes many of us know that West Virginia and these other enteries are two words, but many kids will not. This spelling error you are creating on purpose doesn't need to be there, the computer behind this doesn't care. You shouldn't continue to create spelling errors, because there is a problem with the naming conventions. See the forest, stop looking with the at the trees. Wiki is an educational tool, you have a duty to make sure it is held to a high standard. That is why you should spell things correctly. It is common sense go with the correct spelling, over the wrong spelling. --71Demon 13:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "spelling error" as you would have it seem. The stub sorting naming guidelines are pretty clear about how this stuff works. The hyphens are not to separate words, but to create a hierarchy. {{US-bio-stub}} is a subset of {{bio-stub}}, just like {{US-footy-bio-stub}} is a subset of {{US-bio-stub}}. Are you trying to say that {{West-Virginia-school-stub}} is a subset of {{Virginia-school-stub}}? Because, if I'm not mistaken. West Virginia and Virginia are two completely separate states. Also, see Grutness's long list of similarly names templates in the discussion above. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stub templates are not used as "education tools". They are used as standardised names for editors, in order to assist them in finding articles to expand. The articles themselves are the education tools, and there is nothing in them that uses the spelling WestVirginia. However, if you are so convinced that West-Virginia is actually the correct form, I suggest you start moving all the articles on West Virginia (sic) to West-Virginia, starting with moving West Virginia to West-Virginia. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the template as redundant and misnamed. Keep the category. We should stick to one naming system. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 14:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and be sure to put {{WestVirginia-school-stub}}, the proper template, back onto all the pages this template is removed from. TomTheHand 21:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the template, Keep the category. Whammies Were Here (PYLrulz) 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete


Never propsed, ridiculously named... one of the most clear-cut pieces of deletion-fodder I've seen for a long time. Appears to have two stubs, none of which are particularly ancient (one of them was only made a couple of days ago, in fact), - one Ancient-Egypt-stub and a prodded Euro-hist-stub. Absolutely useless. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 16

edit

{{Japan-single-stub}} (no cat)

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

The result of the debate was delete


Never proposed, used on about a dozen articles. Not how singles are split, though - they're split by decade primarily, and if a secondary split was needed, then style would be far more logical than country of origin. A rescope to J-pop singles is possible, other than that, deletion is probably the best option. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no action, possible reconsideration to amend scope


Only 16 articles here, and unlikely to be many more. I suggest that these are upmerged into {{Armor-stub}}, proposed last week and just created. Crystallina 17:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having an "armor" stub is ridiculous. The purpose of having stub types is attracting editors with interest and knowledge. There is no such thing as a general armor expert. The purpose of a stub tag is not the same as a category; not organizing information but attracting knowledgeable contributors. Therefore, stub types should correspond to bodies of knowledge typically encapsulated by individuals. As I stated in the stub's discovery entry, what might be useful is a "medieval military equipment" stub. Lumping all of these articles into such a general category completely defeats the purpose of having a label more specific than "stub". --Eyrian 01:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still 16 is very small, you'd get more stubs by doing: "Medieval defenses" Goldenrowley 05:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The category would expand considerably if I added a few that Crystallina got to first (I thought it ill-advised with the deletion up for question), past the 30 mark given for a stub type that could easily be associated with the Military History wikiproject. --Eyrian 06:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sure there is somebody, somewhere, who would call himself an 'armor expert', or at least be knowledgeable enough about armor in general to make use of such a category. We already have a {{weapon-stub}}; surely a dearth of 'weapons experts' doesn't mean such a useful and logical split off military stubs shouldn't exist. Regardless of this, however, the medieval-armor-stub was never proposed, or if it was it isn't in the December archives. I've been through the armor categories, as you've noticed, and I just haven't found enough specifically medieval armor articles to merit this split. I know you've probably put a lot of effort into this, but for now, the medieval armor category should suffice. Crystallina 07:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • What, then, is the purpose of sorted stubs? Can't experts just dig around their preferred categories for stubs? Indeed, the stub (which predates armour-stub by about three weeks) was never proposed. I created it before I knew the policy. The discovery discussion reached a point that I saw as tacit approval, and I didn't see any point in proposing it after creation. Weapon stubs are split into multiple categories, as well. It is paramount to note that, with the additions pending an affirmative result of this discussion, the number of stubs in the category would rise above the 30 specified as necessary for a stub category associated with a WikiProject (I've mentioned this to the Medieval history task force of WP:MILHIST). --Eyrian 07:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The purpose is to make it easier to locate stubs - thousands of stubs in one category makes digging rather difficult. It's much easier when stub categories are kept down to a reasonable size. Looking through categories is time-consuming even for smaller categories, and for larger categories - for an extreme example, Category:American film actors - there's no point trying. I'm not sure what your objection to having a parent armor-stub category is. I proposed it a week ago without any problems. My concern, however, is that there just aren't enough articles - even after the additions - to merit this specific of a split. Crystallina 07:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Why? There is a stated minimum of 30. There are certainly at least 8 articles ready for inclusion which, when added to the 22 already in the category, that should be sufficient. I have no objection to an armour stub category, but when there exists a large body of work and experts on a particular area that is easily distinct from a parent category, particularly when that area of knowledge is (tragically) largely populated by stubs, it seems to me that a stub should exist. --Eyrian 07:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge unless there's 30 articles and a bona fide wikiproject on precisely this topic, or 60 articles, as per the actual stated minumum. If upmerged, recreate category and de-upmerge as and when there's sufficient numbers as above. Alai 14:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge as per Alai, and even if kept or later demerged, a rename of the category to drop the "u" so as to match the parent ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Medieval armor is in order. (I'm neutral on the "u" issue here, save for preferring to follow the permcat. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Evidence - The Medieval warfare task force of WP:MILHIST seems very amenable to adopting the stub category. Given that the category now contains over 50 stubs, I feel that the decision to keep is much clearer. --Eyrian 00:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge It would be more useful under Armour. The helmet section is too small to operate on its own. Captain panda Mussolini ha sempre tarche Quis ut Dues 01:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus


Where to start? Never proposed. Only five stubs. Incorrectly named. Ambiguously scoped. Individual people, but not nationality.

These last three things are the biggest problems. It's apprently for "stubs relating to Assyrian" - which links to Assyrian people, an ethnic group largely spread through four different countries, each of which has its own stub. As such, it fails normal stub-creation practice in the same way as the deleted Kurd-stub and its ilk. Also, though it links to Assyrian people, it's a mishmash of aseveral different stub types, even within its five current stubs. It also risks the political POV problems inherent in articles for races that cross international borders. There is a WikiProject, but - as usual - it would be far better served by a talk page WPikiProject template than by a stub type. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I dont understand your arguement. Just because only 5 pages are listed, thus this template should be deleted? Ok, give me 10 minutes, I'll go tag 20. I dont understand this statement of your; an ethnic group largely spread through four different countries, each of which has its own stub. - what do you mean each of which have its own stub? I honestly dont understand one arguement of yours. Please be clear. I created this stub to help us with the Assyrian project. Chaldean 02:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My argument is that stub types are never created for separate races which have areas overlapping international borders, since these templates have, in the past, been found to be prone to edit-warring. Edit warring on templates is far worse than on articles, since it puts strain on the servers. This is compound further when these templates automatically link with categories as is the case with stub templates. This is one of the reasons stub templates should be proposed before creation at WP:WSS/P, to check whether they are likely to cause problems in this way. Furthermore, stub types are only created once it is certain that there are 60 stubs which can take the template. They are also only created if they do not work at odds with the stub hierarchy, such as splitting people by other than their internationally accepted nationalities, or their professions, splitting places by anything other than internationally accepted national and subnational boundaries, and - with very rare exception - splitting historical events by currently internationally accepted nations. "Each of which has its own stub" is perfectly clear. Those initial five stubs consisted of two iraq-bio-stubs, one asia-party-stub, and two MEast-hist-stubs . Now, please address the point that I raised that a wikiproject-specific talk page template would be far more useful to your project. Grutness...wha? 10:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I too don't understand your arguments for deletion. Any ethnic group without their own country like the Kurds don't deserve a stub? MarsRover 03:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My argument is that stub types are never created for separate races which have areas overlapping international borders, since these templates have, in the past, been found to be prone to edit-warring. Edit warring on templates is far worse than on articles, since it puts strain on the servers. This is compound further when these templates automatically link with categories as is the case with stub templates. This is one of the reasons stub templates should be proposed before creation at WP:WSS/P, to check whether they are likely to cause problems in this way. Furthermore, stub types are only created once it is certain that there are 60 stubs which can take the template. They are also only created if they do not work at odds with the stub hierarchy, such as splitting people by other than their internationally accepted nationalities, or their professions, splitting places by anything other than internationally accepted national and subnational boundaries, and - with very rare exception - splitting historical events by currently internationally accepted nations. Now, please address the point that I raised that a wikiproject-specific talk page template would be far more useful to your project. Grutness...wha? 10:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It should stay there still a group of people called "Assyrian" if its a person, village, tribe, historical event it still relates to the assyrian stub. Nareklm 04:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stub types are never created for separate races which have areas overlapping international borders, since these templates have, in the past, been found to be prone to edit-warring. Edit warring on templates is far worse than on articles, since it puts strain on the servers. This is compound further when these templates automatically link with categories as is the case with stub templates. This is one of the reasons stub templates should be proposed before creation at WP:WSS/P, to check whether they are likely to cause problems in this way. Furthermore, stub types are only created once it is certain that there are 60 stubs which can take the template. They are also only created if they do not work at odds with the stub hierarchy, such as splitting people by other than their internationally accepted nationalities, or their professions, splitting places by anything other than internationally accepted national and subnational boundaries, and - with very rare exception - splitting historical events by currently internationally accepted nations. Now, please address the point that I raised that a wikiproject-specific talk page template would be far more useful to your project. Grutness...wha? 10:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existing, well-populated ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Stub-Class Assyrian articles does this job (if job there is to be done) much better. I don't doubt that the subjects these articles pertain pertain to historic, cultural and/or ethnic Assyria, but looking at several of the actual articles, the actual related-to-Assyria content -- or even permcat -- doesn't seem to be there, so this stub category seems to be really putting the cart before the horse. Delete. Alai 00:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete'. Alai located a stub-class Assyrian article list, that "does the job" Goldenrowley 04:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 18

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

The result of the debate was keep as UK, attempt to standardise (one way or other)


Original proposal goes with ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:British guitarist stubs, which is consistent with other categories. Delete. Monni 06:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose per innumerable past arguments about this, and please don't empty categories prior to consideration here. Alai 07:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose renaming back ;) Care to put out links to "innumerable" past arguments and guidelines to support those arguments. Monni 12:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So far as I know, there are no actual guidelines either way. Frequently, SFRs on the topic end up as no consensus, so linking you to those will just give you permutations of the views in this debate, by and large. Given the lack of clear consensus, the de facto situation is in effect "he who strikes first" (though I've on occasion modified this when several related stubs already had "the other" pattern). To recap the issues: these are fed from templates called "UK-": matching the categories seems to follow the principle of least cognitive dissonance (or in extreme cases, double-take: "blah is from the UK, but who said she was British?"). Ambiguity and scoping issues, as I discuss more below. "Stub grammar": we have permcats of the form "Xs in/of/from the United Kingdom", and permcats of the form "British Xs"; if we map the former to "United Kingdom X stubs", and the latter to "British X stubs", we introduce pointless inconsistency between the two, when we're not even retaining the strict form of the original category. (And if we make them all "British X stubs", we're importing the linguistic imprecision beyond where even the permcatters did; if we called them "X of the United Kingdom stubs", or "Stubs of X of the United Kingdom", we're recreationally torturing an innocent^W^W the language.) Likewise throughout for "US-"/"American" stub types. Alai 08:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep United Kingdom, delete British. This category is meant to include Northern Ireland guitarists, who are technically not British, alongside their English, Welsh, and Scottish counterparts. Grutness...wha? 12:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Wouldn't it be better to rename/rescope the parent and siblings then to reflect the wider scope? I thought one one the important things in sorting is to keep things unambiguous and consistent... Monni 13:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a look at {{UK-bio-stub}} and its cat is ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:British people stubs. And the rest of the children are an absolute mixup of United Kingdom and British. Ugh. Also, I thought that if it was meant only for England, we went with something like England-xxxx-stub and English xxxxx stubs. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Britain=England+Wales+Scotland, UK=England+Wales+Scotland+N.I., British=completely ambiguous between the two (and more besides), hence its being a disambig. The scope of "England-" types is perfectly clear, it's just a bit pointless to create them in many cases, if "sorting" to them would move 90% of the "UK-" membership to therein. Alai 08:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I really think we should "rename" all UK stub categories starting either British or United Kingdom (but not mixed). As the templates are UK-..., I'm open for both choices. I know it's sh*tty job but that's what I've been thinking since I noticed unconsistency in American (continent) categories. Monni 16:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We really, really, really need to decide on one or the other, because this is getting way out of hand. For this, and for United States/American. It just isn't consistent at all. (I have no preference.) Crystallina 23:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The UK/British and US/American issue is one that should be dealt with by the general category naming conventions and for better or worse they call for using "British" and "American" for biographies following the example set by the base category for people of that country located in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:People by nationality. It really reinforces the perceptions some editors have of us stub sorters as self-absorbed elitist when we don't follow the standard conventions simply because some of us don't like them. It's only a few hyper-correct types (which stub sorting seems to attract because of the same impulse towards order) who get upset by the idea of having the Northern Irish counted as British. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge


Far, farv too specific a topic for a stub type. There is nothing here which couldn't be served by the various Ontario categories that exist. No wikiproject, only eleven stubs, and, of course, no proposal. Delete. Grutness...wha? 05:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I apologise for overlooking the requirement of proposing the stub. As well, Lethbridge is in Alberta, not Ontario. Further, the Lethbridge stub has more pages (now more than eleven; I was able to do only a portion yesterday) than the Calgary stub. Granted, far less than say Toronto. FWIW. --Kmsiever 15:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - apologies for the geographical faux pas! Still, a stub type should have at least 60 current articles that can be categorised with it before it's created. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're not supposed to have a Calgary-stub either, for much the same reason. Upmerge both, until of a sufficient size. Though wouldn't splitting Alberta by county/municipal district be better in the long run anyway? Alai 19:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really; Alberta's cities are not part of any county or MD. --Kmsiever 22:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I need a by-country local-government ready-reckoner for occasions like this. OK, given how fine-grained cities/counties/municipal districts seem to me, what about splitting by region (i.e. in this case, Southern Alberta, and upmerging this template there? Alai 01:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a good idea. A few of us just spent some time creating the regional articles. Keep in mind, however, that Calgary and Edmonton are their own regions. --Kmsiever 03:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did notice that; not all of the regions will necessarily themselves be immediable over threshold, but at least it's more likely than the lower level. Alai 07:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a fair compromise.The main point of my nominating this is that it's simply not a very good idea splitting off individual cities except for very large, obviously-over-threshold cases, since we'd end up with eight or nine city-specific categories plus a grab-bag "everywhere else" category for every province, which wouldn't help anyone. Grutness...wha? 12:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 20

edit

{{South-Australia-protected-area-stub}} → {{SouthAustralia-protected-area-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was rename and upmerge


The category is very small and was never proposed, but it may be worth keeping. However, the template is not named in accordance with the naming guidelines. This isn't for anywhere in the South of Australia, it's for the single entity, South Australia, and as such the name should be CamelCase and unhyphenated. Grutness...wha? 22:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was upmerge


Very small, hasn't grown appreciably since it was last considered, upmerge to both parents, neither of which will feel the strain. Alai 04:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was deferred upmerge


Never proposed, only about a dozen stubs, incorrectly capitalised category - and its logical parent, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Chess stubs only has about 150 articles. Clearly not needed. Delete Grutness...wha? 01:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There are dozens of articles that should be in this stub but aren't. To name a few:
  1. Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 7...O-O
  2. Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 9.Bc4
  3. Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 12.h4
  4. Sicilian, Sozin, 7.Be3
  5. Sicilian, Najdorf, 7...Be7 Main line, etc.

If you go down list of chess openings, you will find quite a few other stubs, and there are probably ones that don't have links on that list. Almost all of these were started by one person several months ago. I don't think he still edits. A couple of months ago on the chess WikiProject, it was suggested that we do something one way or the other (either expand or merge back), but nothing has happened. Bubba73 (talk), 16:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, if we keep the template, point it back at the parent, and delete the separate category, we keep the former option open for later, without losing the tagging effort. Alai 20:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should I go and add chess opening stubs to it? As I mentioned, the short chess opening articles may go away, but right now nothing is being done. Bubba73 (talk), 02:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that as the nominator is going for the idea of keeping the template, using it is a pretty safe bet. Alai 06:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I went through and made a quick judgement about ones I think should be added to this stub category. I probably made a few errors in both directions (inclusion and exclusion). Now there are about 75 articles in it. But the big question remains: what to do about these articles. Several months ago an editer wanted to make an article about each of the 500 ECO codes. On the Chess Wikiproject, that was generally thought to be a bad idea, but nothing has been done about it. Bubba73 (talk), 16:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I probably made more errors of inclusion than exclusion. Some of the ones I put as a stub have 3 or 4 paragraphs, and that may be all that needs to be said. But most are only 1 or 2 paragraphs. Bubba73 (talk), 17:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging them pro temps might be useful if, as you say, the merger question is still an open one. I'd imagine the Chess project is in a better position to make a determination on that than us chickens. All other things being equal, 3 or 4 paragraphs on a not-very-major topic probably isn't a "stub" per se, though. Alai 19:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I probably included a few 3-4 paragraph articles as stubs that are really sufficient for the topic. Most were 1 or 2 paragraphs, though. Bubba73 (talk), 04:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking very quickly though these, I'd be inclined towards the merge camp: I think it's rather telling that many of these aren't named lines, but are instead being indentified by move variation. One or two have outright terrible names, such as QGD; Slav, 4.Nc3 (my chess is just about good enough to work out what that meant, despite the lack of a wikilink to the jargonistic abbreviation, but I think it's very practice). Would that be a reasonable principle: merge to a "named" variation article, unless and until such an article becomes so large that summary style/article size argues for a further split? Alai 05:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I'm a member of the chess project, and people seemed to agree that merging was best, but no one has done it. Here are ones I put as stubs which are close calls: Benko's Opening, King's Pawn Game, King's Knight Opening, Old Indian Defense, Ware Opening. I think that probably all of the ones that are currently stubs that are a subvariation of an opening (often identified by a move rather than a name) should be merged. Bubba73 (talk), 05:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And with perhaps a few exceptions, any of the stubs started by WTHarvey should be merged. He is the one that wanted every one of the 500 ECO codes to have its own article. When it first came up to delete some of those, I was against it - before I saw that there were broader articles that could handle them better. Then I became for merge back. Bubba73 (talk), 05:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it might have been "Sim man" that wanted to add all 500 ECO codes. He was adding them by code number (I just stubbed 3 of them). WTHarvey was adding them by the opening name and a variation name or move. Bubba73 (talk), 05:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bubba, what sort of number of stubs would you expect on openings if merging is done? If it's a fairly small number, then keeping the template but upmerging it into the main Chess stubs category would probably be the more logical move, even if there seem to be quite a number of stubs at the moment. It would be good to have someone from WP Chess who is able to answer this - I must confess that if it's anything less well known that the Sicilian defence or Giucco (sp?) piano, I will never have heard of it. Grutness...wha? 06:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 79 articles in the stub. I think merging back would get rid of 57 of them - mainly all of the ones that start "Ruy Lopez", "Sicilian", etc. That would leave about 22. Bubba73 (talk), 15:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put a notice on the chess project. That should get more members over here. Bubba73 (talk), 15:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, when I (wrongly) put this up, and it was then immediatly put up for deletion, I thought that it would be deleted instantly and all stubs would be put back into the chess stub category. But someone goes and makes the number of stubs at 79 and suddenly I remember why I created it. Because there are so many chess opening articles that are too short. I myself think that the best thing to do with them is with the Ruy Lopez and Sicilian openings, merge them (or just delete the article in some cases, they already have subsections on those articles). I think most of them won't expand past stub anyway. Once a lot of them have been merged, then it probably would be safe to say its worth deleting this stub category. At least the awareness of these articles has been raised by my big mistake of making this category. Cream147 21:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we defer deletion of the category until the merging and deletion of the articles is complete? Or would you guys be OK with working from an upmerged template? Alai 07:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine it would be a lot easier working from the category, and then upmerging once it's sorted out. Wait for someone else to say something though. Cream147 10:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing about all these articles is that from the point of view of someone who doesn't know algebraic chess notation, all of these articles look very strange and wouldn't make any sense. On the openings that do survive this mass merging/deleting, isn't it worth linking to algebraic chess notation somewhere throughout each of the articles? Cream147 10:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about that. With all of those small articles, each one would need to have a lot of redundant information (link to algebraic notation, etc). Bubba73 (talk), 14:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be slightly easier to keep this stub until the 57 or so articles I mentioned get dealt with. It would be easier to find the list of them. However, it would not be much more difficult to pick them out from the general chess stub list. As far as keeping this stub - I don't feel strongly one way or the other. I happened to see that it was up for deletion (on the basis of few members) and I knew that there were dozens of articles that should go in it. What I do care about is what should be done about all of these small articles, and I favor merging them back into the larger articles, or deleting them if they don't contain any information that isn't in the larger articles. I wish the rest of the Chess Project would take this own (perhaps divide up the effort) so it doesn't all fall on a few people. Bubba73 (talk), 16:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind deferring this somewhat, but I'd prefer not to do so open-endedly, as then chances of it then being overlooked entirely start to increase. If it's not be upmerged at all, it needs renamed, but it's a bit pointless to do that, and then upmerge shortly afterwards. What say I wait a week, and then upmerge? Alai 23:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put a message on the chess project page, and see if anyone will get interested into working on the little articles, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess#Stub being considered for deletion. Bubba73 (talk), 03:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the stub type: for the moment (with 79 entries) we can keep it for now until we empty most of it. I agree with Bubba that a lot of these entries should be merged (or just redirected) to an article further down in the chess opening tree; the articles on sub-sub-variations of the Sicilian are probably the most glaring example. (Note: With the Sicilian being a giant in chess opening literature, I have no problem with individual articles on major variations, e.g. Sicilian Najdorf or Sicilian Dragon). Some months back I boldly gave the merge/redirect treatment to a number of small Nimzo-Indian variations and would support giving that treatment to more of these stubs. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I get the general idea, what I was hoping for was specifics on the timescale. Absent which... I'll check back in a week. Alai 17:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete


This had five pages in it, two of which weren't stubs and two of which were bio-stubs - which only leaves a user talk page! ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Georgia (country) stubs only has 105 articles, so is definitely not in need of splitting, and there's no point in this remaining because both the template and category are incorrectly named. I've no objection to an upmerged and correctly named {{Georgia-hist-stub}}, but the current template and category should be deleted. Grutness...wha? 01:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 21

edit

{{North-Yorkshire-geo-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was delete


Pointless non-NG redirect, created after the fact. Serves just to allow typing of an extra character, and increase FUD about the stub naming guidelines. (Though at least it's not a space.) Alai 04:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keith D 21:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 22

edit

{{Mixoploidy-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was delete


Created without proposal on 9 November 2006, used on only one article (mixoploidy), no category. As per discussion at WP:WSS/D. Delete. --David Edgar 12:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Olympiad-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was delete


Now here's one that is a prime target for naming confusion. This unproposed stub type is for international science and mathemattics fairs that use the term Olympiad - a meaning of the term added almost as an afterthought to the page Olympiad which - not surprisingly - primarily refers to the olympics. At the very least it needs renaming and the addition of a non-redlinked category, but this currently has only two stubs with little indication that it will grow to 60 in the near future, so I'd favour a delete. Grutness...wha? 02:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 23

edit

USN, US Navy, or US navy?

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

The result of the debate was standardise to US-navy-, keeping USN- redirects


We have just acquired a {{USN-bio-stub}}. Trouble is, we've had {{US-navy-bio-stub}} for quite some time, and it's quite heavily populated. We clearly don't need both...but which one should be deleted? Or should both make way to a {{US-Navy-bio-stub}}? My own thought is that US-navy-bio-stub is better, since it doesn't automatically imply The United States Navy and can be used for other American naval biographies, such as those members of the Confederate Navy of the 1860s, or for American maritime military personnel otherwise not in the USN. However, the wording of that template suggests otherwise - that it is only for USN personnel. In any case, I don't know the lie of the land as well as some others here, so I'm open to suggestions. Any preferences? Grutness...wha? 03:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We also have a {{USN-stub}} but no {{US-navy-stub}}. (I've added the former to this discussion and tagged it.) Suggest that since these are both descendants of {{navy-stub}} that we keep US-navy- versions as the base stubs and retain as redirects the USN- versions to match the USAF- USCG- and USMC- stubs. (If it weren't for the dreadful ambiguity I'd also support USA- redirects for the US-army- stubs as well.) There are too few notable CSN personnel that weren't also in the USN and the USN officially includes the Continental Navy it its history, so neither really affects stub sorting. The USCG- stubs covers most of what other US military naval power there has been as the State naval militias have never amounted to much, even when they were loyal colonies of the United Kingdom. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you disapproved of the usage "United Kingdom of Great Britain"? :) Alai 06:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If one needs to distinguish the 1707-1800 realm from the 1801-1922 or the present version, then United Kingdom's not the best choice, but that distinction is superfluous to this discussion. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per both of you, keep US-navy-bio-stub, redirect USN-bio-stub to it, move USN-bio-stub to US-navy-bio-stub, without retagging or deletion of redirect. Or for added nuance, keep both as separate templates feeding into the same category, and finesse the wording (United states naval, vs. United States Navy.) Clarify the scope of the category to be the more inclusive reading. Alai 06:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got a bit confused there - or you did, one or the other. when you say "move USN-bio-stub to US-navy-bio-stub, without retagging or deletion of redirect" are you actually referring to USN-stub and US-navy-stub? Grutness...wha? 04:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, looks like over-enthusiastic use of cut'n'paste, actual or mental. Yes. Alai 15:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 24

edit

{{Hungary-history-stub}} → {{Hungary-hist-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was rename, delete redirect


From WP:WSS/D. Fairly simple rename to stub NGs and deletion of original name, with a bit of shifting of articles to the new template. Grutness...wha? 23:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move, but keep redirect, and don't shift anything. Abbreviation is just a conventional convenience, I don't see any need to make it compulsory. Alai 00:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. If the other templates have been standardized already, won't a redirect simply be more confusing than benefitial? -geo and -bio are abbreviations as well. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 08:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are indeed, but I'd argue those are somewhat different cases; for one thing, they're saving a good deal more letters, and in the case of "bio", it's actually a fairly viable term in its own right. But more to the point, they're also much more embedded in stub naming and scoping convention: they generally do not correspond to "Geography of ..." or "... biographies" permanents categories (or in the latter case, even stub cats), but are rather beasts of our creation. Alai 16:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Naturally, the -bio and -geo categories are a lot more entrenched in the stub system, but I still think having redirects for one or two members of an entire series of stub templates is somewhat messy / confusing. Besides, I'm simply not a big fan of template redirects. The Hungarian material is rather small and I can easily update the links by AWB if we don't keep the redirect. Valentinian T / C 10:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Nurse-bio-stub}} (upmerged)

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

The result of the debate was no consensus


Unproposed, unused. Seems fairly straightforward, and at first glance sensible, but... we divide medical professionals by nationality, not by actual role, since quite a number have either performed several different roles or are simply hard to pigeonhole in one specific profession. We don't have doctor-bio-stub for exactly these reasons. As such, this creates a problem best removed. Grutness...wha? 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, nursing is fairly distinct from the various grades of doctoring, or from the other medical related categories grouped under "medical biography" in the stub system, so it's a doable split. By my count 53 of the existing 148 nursing stubs are bios, so its actually just shy of being viable in its own right. The by nation splits have arisen from the fact that the national bio cats were overlarge and a Nation-med-bio-stub were a way to reduce the related Nation-bio-stub rather than any view that a split by nation is preferable to a split by specialty. Indeed, when {{med-bio-stub}} was created the original thought was that it would be split by specialty and the redirect {{nurse-stub}} was created at that time. The plain medical biography stubs are just over 600 so it will be needing further paring in the near future as well. Suggest we get input from WikiProject Nursing as to whether they would find it useful, as it's certainly viable, tho I think the simple {{nurse-stub}} would be sufficient if it is. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, did anyone actually contact WikiProject Nursing? ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of a clear consensus to do that, or anything else. :) Alai 00:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete


All unnecessary. Unproposed, and if they had been, the proposer would have been told that we use current country names (and we already have {{Zimbabwe-stub}}) except in very rare cases (like Ancient Rome, for instance). Even if we were to use these, it's inordinately unlikely that the last one would come anywhere near 60 stubs, since it only existed for one year. delete Grutness...wha? 06:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, or if strictly necessary, upmerge or redirect templates (minus the extra hypens). The scope can be spelled out as explicitly as one wishes on the category page. Alai 08:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have read into further detail about stub creation and use of Country related stubs and agree after much thought that these aren't appropriate. They may be deleted as and when required. Mangwanani 12:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename


At some time recently, the company Namco changed its name to namco bandai, and someone reacted by moving the stub type from "Namco-stub" to "Namco Bandai-stub", without first checking the naming guidelines on stub templates. I've moved it from there to NamcoBandai-stub, in accordance with the NGs, but we now have this fairly heavily populated redirect which should be depopulated and deleted. The category should also probably be renamed to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Namco Bandai stubs. Grutness...wha? 05:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 26

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

The result of the debate was keep and populate


Rename to {{graphic-design-stub}} and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Graphic_design_stubs}}. I discussed the problem of broadness on discovery page. Goldenrowley 00:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Adding that it can be easily populated over 60. I just wanted to wait for this decision before adding any. Goldenrowley 21:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Separate. I'm not against having a "graphic design stub" category. However, the stub category I started was for design in general. There are many topics about design in general listed in the Category:Design page. Coming from a graphic design background, I know that there are many other design disciplines that may overlap graphic design, but are of a different nature all together such as web design, software design, information design, ect. Some of the stubs on that page I didn't assign. It's fair to call them graphic design stubs if the majority of the article is about graphics. If the majority of the article is about design for any other product or service, it can fall under the category of design until someone finds a more specific category. This is especially important for all the emerging multidisciplinary design professions. Oicumayberight 05:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I undertand where you are coming from as a "designer" myself, however how to keep this from being a free for all with auto design, fashion design, flower design which is alread in there and electrical engineering design...we have the problem of mixing up disciplones with "engineering" and "crafts" all mxed together with graphic design? Goldenrowley 20:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The opposite effect is the multidisciplinary and general design topics get over-simplified to fall under only one of the many categories for design disciplines that use them. For example, articles like the KISS principle article may only get listed under Category:Software development philosophies, when we know it applies to many more disciplines.
The article and the category is meant to cover the broad and general design topics, similar to the problem solving article. Problem solving is essentially what design is. I've been working to include most of the multidisciplinary and general design topics. It's fine to link the main article of individual design discipline to the main design category as long as every article in that discipline is not linked as well. For example, graphic design is the main article of design, which is OK to link. However, typography is a sub discipline of graphic design, and should not be linked to the main design article or categories. When I get around to it, I will move links to the sub discipline articles and stubs away from the topic. Oicumayberight 21:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I am convinced now you have me on board, does anyone else see overlap or concerns? I dont really want graphic and engineering altogether and can forseee proposing subgroups in the near future dependent on how fast it fills up. I might propose the first sub-category is "designer stub" for all the biographies of designers (I think). Goldenrowley 22:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not many wikipedians are advocating design in general. I created a Category:Design Wikipedians and a user box for people who may be interested. Many of the engineer types see overlapping concerns, but most of them want to treat design as a sub discipline of engineering. I think more people will come around when the see also section of the design article is a little better organized. That's my next project. Oicumayberight 22:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm if not many support from engineers, I am willing to settle for "design" as a stub, but rapidly disambiguate them by having 2 sub-categories, such as one for industrial-design-stub(?) and one for graphic, web, print and media design, such as media-design-stub(?) ... what do you think? Goldenrowley 20:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem with having multiple stubs. My goal is to first link them to the general design category, and then other more specific categories or articles as they emerge, and away from the main "design" category.
If you want stubs to sub divide design disciplines, the ones that have main articles are fine. Industrial design would be a good stub for hardware. As for "media design", without a main article, I don't think it would get much support on wikipedia. Communication design is probably the closest thing to media design.
Multidisciplines and disciplines that don't have many sub disciplines or subtopics unique to those disciplines can just fall under the "design" stub. There are many design disciplines that don't really fall under the category of either media or industrial products. There is also a host of other disciplines that might use both media and industrial products like Software design, Game Design, and Business design. It really depends on what the software is being used for if it favors one category over another. The game design article is no longer limited to software or media for that matter. Oicumayberight 02:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I think I'll go over to stub proposals right now and propose "industrial-design-stub" and "comm-design-stub" as a start. Goldenrowley 03:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 27

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

The result of the debate was rename and upmerge


Never proposed, cryptic name, no indication this will reach threshold, category has no stub parents... oh, and the main category for the Star Fleet Universe only has 37 articles. Nothing here that double stubbing with cvg and StarTrek stubs wouldn't fix. Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename template, as this would be ideally be worth separating from the "Paramount 'Trek universe", but upmerge if not populated. (It's not related to a CVG, though, and the contents are more fictional-world- than board-game-.) And very strong remove fair use image from template. In fact, I shall do that right now... Alai 07:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm the one who made the stub, being the first time that I had ever tried to do something like that (similar to my first template creations this week). I created this one because in many ways the SFU has diverged greatly from the mainline Star Trek that many who are only familiar with it's 'Parent' would be confused by the contents. As a result, I decided that when I saw a couple of articles with the Star Trek stub, I thought it would be best to seperate them out slightly. If I violated stub creation guidelines, I do appologize for not reading more into that. If it is determained that this stub is not of any further use, is there any way to create a 'sub-stub' of the main Star Trek stub to differentiate it, just as Category:Star Fleet Universe is a sub of Category:Star Trek? --Donovan Ravenhull 12:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The main problems with this stub type are the name (we don't use ambiguous abbreviations, and SFU could mean one of many things (m y first thought was "Six feet under"). The other is the size (60 stubs is the usual minimum for a new stub type). Is this likely to grow to that sort of size? Grutness...wha? 20:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not. For me, the question is do I think these should go under Star Trek stubs or generic ones... --Donovan Ravenhull 20:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's feasible to keep a separate template, as I suggested above, but the current name is much too cryptic, and the category is too small. {{StarFleetUniverse-stub}} feeding into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Star Trek stubs seems do-able, though. Alai 01:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Several SLT stub types

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

The result of the debate was delete


So what, you ask, is an SLT when it's at home? It's a Sri Lankan Tamil. There is no need from a size point of view for a split in the SriLanka-X-stub types, and even if there was, splitting by a single people within a country who are involved in an independence struggle fails stub guidelines on very many ways. And even if it didn't, we'd use proper template names, not these...things. And even then, we'd need to know that there were plenty of stubs which these could use. And even then - even if all those unmet conditions were met - we would umperge them into approriate stub categories, not - as in one case - into a permcat (a permcat with only some 45 articles, what's more). Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's perhaps possible that there are 1.5 stubs between these three... entities. I don't know if there's a salvageable scope in there someplace, but best to just delete and do over from the ground up. Alai 07:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Watch your tongue Alai :) Somebody has opened an AMA case against Grutness because of the above post, see: Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/January 2007/Yugayuga. This time, I'll take extra care formulating my own evaluation: Q1: Are these templates named according to the naming standard and are they scoped like similar templates? A1: None of them live up to the naming standard, and the "literate" template is a non-standard scope. Q2: Are the template names impossible to misunderstand? A2: No. I was guessing at Saint Louis Timberwolves or something similar (yes, my knowledge about U.S. football is very limited). Q3: Is the ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Sri Lankan people stubs in need of splitting? A3: No, since it only holds less than 90 articles, the standard threshold for a new template is 60; a number which should also be retained for the original template. 90 is smaller than 60+60 so it fails there as well. We do have an additional 124 cricket players, but we have no count for how well-represented the Tamil community is there either. Q4: Are any of these templates likely to be controversial? A4: Yes, due to the politicial situation on that island. Q5: Do we normally create stub templates based on ethnicity? A5: No, due to the concern mentioned under Q4. My conclusion: Delete all. And just for the record, I have nothing for or against either Tamils, Singhalese people or any other persons living in or near the Indian subcontinent. Valentinian T / C 08:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tangential comment - yes, Yugayuga (the stub types' creator) took out an AMA case against me because of this. Due to his comments, I have taken out a RfC against him for accusing me of racism. If either of you feel like commenting about it, it would be welcomed... Grutness...wha? 00:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 29

edit

{{New Westminster-school-stub}}

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

The result of the debate was delete


Well, let's start with the incorrectly formatted name and lack of proposal, and move on quickly from there to the fact that this is for schools in one historic but small Canadian city (popn about 60,000). There's certainly no need for this hypercategorisation. Delete. Grutness...wha? 07:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 30

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

The result of the debate was rename


Consistency with permanent parent. (Or to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Roman Catholic people stubs, if you want to be really consistent.) Alai 10:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support adding the Roman, weak support on the switch to people. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2007/January&oldid=105930095"