Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting

Active discussions
WikiProject Stub sorting
This page is maintained by WikiProject Stub sorting, an attempt to bring some sort of order to Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to improve/expand the articles containing this stub notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.


NOTE: This page is not a forum to suggest the creation of articles. If you wish to create an article on any subject, go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation and follow the instructions there.




Template:Uncategorized stubEdit

So why do we need this? I just got in to a silly editing tête-à-tête with Bearcat over why a big yellow warning banner is needed on a page to complain it has not been added to any categories even though it literally was in a category. And it was in a category that was already a child category of where I stuck it to get rid of this banner. Here is the example article: Newspaper bag. — xaosflux Talk 00:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Stub categories do not make an article properly categorized by themselves. Even if it has 75,000 stub templates on it, an article is still uncategorized if it does not have at least one direct category declaration being made on the page itself. There are several reasons for this:
  1. Stub categories group articles by maintenance status, not by a characteristic of the topic. They're not meant for end user browsing, but to attract the internal attention of editors who might be inclined to work on improving the articles. So a regular reader who isn't involved in content creation, and is just using Wikipedia as an information resource, will not find the article in the correct or expected places if it isn't in any real content categories, because reader browsing isn't what stub categories are for.
  2. Stub templates get removed from articles when they've been expanded beyond stub length, which makes them temporary. An article is still uncategorized if it is not included in any permanent categories that will not be removed from the article upon a change in its maintenance status, because pages have to stay categorized.
  3. It is technologically impossible for our uncategorized-article detection tools to determine that a page has categories that are being artificially transcluded by templates — the tools can only detect whether a page has direct category declarations on it or not. So if an article were to be exempted from getting tagged as uncategorized on the basis of stub categories, then the tools would pick that page up again, and it would be impossible to clear it off the list at all if we weren't allowed to tag it. But the people who work with the uncategorized tools are not obliged to put up with permanent clutter that pollutes the list and makes it harder to detect other uncategorized pages — we have to be able to clear the list literally right down to zero, and cannot be expected to leave some articles lingering on the list just because you think direct category declarations aren't important. One of the reasons for this is that the tools have limits on how many pages they're capable of detecting — so if stub-templated but otherwise uncategorized pages were left on the list because the stub template counted as categorization, then those pages would eventually crowd out the pages that did need to be tagged, leaving them completely undetectable because there were more stub-templated pages than the tool's upper count limit.
So for all of those reasons, an article is not deemed to be categorized, or exempted from having to have the uncategorized tag on it, until it contains one or more direct declarations of non-stub end user content categories. Bearcat (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
As pages with a stub template are literally actually in a category, at the very least that template is inaccurate and misleading. It isn't like it is in a hidden category either. A reader reading that page sees literally a warning banner that this page is not in a category, immediately followed by a line that says as in this example Categories: Newspaper stubs - an actual category that is browsable and otherwise incorporated in to our category system. — xaosflux Talk 00:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
If stub cats were not meant to be topical, they should be hidden and not incorporated right in to the topical category system - at the very least they are dual-purpose. — xaosflux Talk 00:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

But why do we have the {{uncategorised stub}} template? An uncategorised stub article needs {{stub}}, which will be replaced by a {{Foo-stub}} once stub-sorted, and {{uncategorised}}. There seems no point in this particular template. PamD 00:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I've questioned whether "uncategorized stub" and "uncategorized" actually needed to be two separate templates in the past as well — but the point that was raised in response to my concerns was exactly what's happening here: some people don't realize that artificially transcluded stub categories don't count as "categorization" for the purposes of rendering a page "properly categorized", and thus simply remove the "uncategorized" template on the basis of the stub category. I don't see why a merged template couldn't just include wording about stub templates, but it basically amounts to "they were created that way and nobody's tackled the job of trying to merge them before". That said, the core issue that was being raised here had less to do with why "uncategorized" and "uncategorized stub" are two separate templates, and more to do with an assertion that stub-templated but otherwise uncategorized pages don't need any form of uncategorized template tagging at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:uncategorised has the same issue above, it tells readers this page is in no categories, when it very well may be if it were used like this. — xaosflux Talk 00:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
If stub cats were not meant to be topical, they should be hidden and not incorporated right in to the topical category system - at the very least they are dual-purpose. — xaosflux Talk 00:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
As I said above, even if an article has 27,000 stub templates on it, it is still uncategorized if it does not also have at least one direct declaration of an end-user content category on it. I've already explained several of the substantial and important reasons why this is the case — the most important one being that if pages are left untagged just because of stub templates alone, an essential maintenance tool will be broken because it is technologically impossible to make that tool detect categories that are artificially transcluded by templates. The tools work by looking for the presence or absence of actual direct category declarations on a page, and have no way to detect that a page is "categorized" by templates importing category transclusions — so if we ignored stub-templated pages, the uncategorized-page detection tools would get kludged up by untaggable pages that we weren't allowed to clear. That would crowd out the pages that did have to be addressed, thus having the effect of breaking the tools, and making it impossible to ever locate uncategorized pages at all anymore. So whether you agree with the need or not, the categorization project has to be able to clear stub-templated but otherwise uncategorized pages off the uncategorized page detection tools. Bearcat (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like a bit of law of the instrument argument there, but more importantly this doesn't address my reader-facing point at all. — xaosflux Talk 01:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
It looks like I'm not the first person to see this problem: Template_talk:Uncategorized_stub#Change_wording?. — xaosflux Talk 01:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, it's not "law of the instrument" in the sense that article describes — it's not an attempt to make a tool fit a task it isn't designed for, it's a matter of a tool that is designed for the task becoming unusable. Secondly, the issue you raised here wasn't with the wording of the uncategorized-stub template, it was with the idea that stubs need any template at all. Bearcat (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The issue I'm raising is that a reader-facing caution banner is on an article saying there are no categories, and we place that immediately above a reader-facing line that says the page is in a category. — xaosflux Talk 11:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The difference between the two templates isn't relevant to that issue, because which template gets used doesn't change anything about it. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
As for this discussion, I made a single edit at [1]. Does this work? --Izno (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@Izno: not really. See my note at the TfD too, but basically I think we look like we don't know how to mark up a page when we have a line that says this page isn't in categories followed by a line that says here are the categories. If "stub categories" are not meant for readers, they should be hidden categories.... — xaosflux Talk 19:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
You've now said that stub cats should be hidden three times in this discussion - the first two were both at 00:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC). There has been previous discussion of the matter, see for example Category talk:Stubs#Proposal: Stub categories should be hidden. The matter was also referred to at Oxford yesterday by myself, with Iridescent (talk · contribs), RexxS (talk · contribs) and Thryduulf (talk · contribs) listening. The visibility of stub cats encourages people who have improved one article to seek out more of the same sort of thing with a view to also improving those. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the discussion above, I have nominated Template:Uncategorized and Template:Uncategorized stub for TFM. Feel free to see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 17#Template:Uncategorized. --Izno (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  • A thought: should stub categories be hidden? That would solve the contradiction between what the "Uncategorised" template displays and the reality that the stub is in a category, albeit a category of a specific type which we don't count as a category when describing it as uncategorised. If they are truly only intended for the eyes of editors, perhaps we should avoid confusion by hiding them from the reader. They would still function, and the stub would still display its message that "This foo related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.", but there would be less confusion. Perhaps? PamD 18:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
When it comes to the distinction between "maintenance" categories and "content" categories, the stub categories are certainly the only type of maintenance category that we routinely make visible instead of hiding. Hiding them would make them a little bit tricker for editors who wanted to work with them to find — but it is still possible, it's just that some "novice" users would need a quick bit of education in how to actually do it. I don't see a compelling reason why they would need to be visible rather than hidden, personally — but I am aware that some people might disagree, so it would probably be best to publicize a wider discussion on that matter rather than just deciding to change this immediately. The only other concern I have is that there are over 16,000 stub categories — so making them hidden would take a heck of a lot of work to implement. But I suppose somebody could probably program a bot to automate that if it were decided to go that route, so that's not in and of itself a reason not to. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Stub categories needing attentionEdit

...is a bit over populated. I was going to try and take a crack at the backlog, but I wanted to see how it was filled first.

  • Less than 50 pages = undersized
  • More than 800 pages = oversized

I suggest that the category be split into 4: oversized / no permcats / no stub tag / undersized. Since it just requires a few edits to Template:Stub category, I don't think a full CfD is needed. Thoughts? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

As items in this category are already sorted into sections, what would be the advantage of creating sub-categories? Her Pegship (I'm listening) 22:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@Pegship: to make it easier to track backlogs - all categories starting with "A", "B", etc DannyS712 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

New bot for consolidating stub templatesEdit

There is now a bot SDZeroBot (talk · contribs) for consolidating multiple stub tags on pages into a single tag, wherever possible. See BRFA and edits. Any feedback on potential expansion is welcome. SD0001 (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

New bot task filed: BRFA, for improving specificity of geographic stub tags. SD0001 (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Two blank lines?Edit

I haven't read long discussions, but why there is two blank lines, instead of logical one blank line? Extract from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#Stub_sorting_methods:

The guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout § Standard appendices and footers states that any stub tags should be placed at the very bottom of the article, after all other templates and categories. Two blank lines should be left between the first stub tag and whatever precedes it.

--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I was once told (like, ten years ago) that certain bots and scripts expect two. I've not yet found out which bots and scripts those are. Certainly nobody's ever complained when I have used only one blank line. What I generally do is: if there are no blank lines, I add one; if there are three or more, I reduce them to two; if there is either one or two, I leave it alone. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Use of tracking category by Template:Parent-only stub categoryEdit

Noting that I have edited Template:Parent-only stub category so that it uses Category:Stub categories needing attention for tracking parent-only stub cats with a |newstub= parameter (sortkey N) and ones without a |category= parameter (sortkey Q). Until now, the same tracking was being done via hidden links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Tracker for parent stub categories with stub tag and Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Tracker for stub categories with no permcats. The hidden links have been retained for now, but can be removed later.

Something similar was done for {{Stub category}} (which also historically used to use hidden links) in 2011 (diff) SD0001 (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Now removed the hidden links and updated the documentation. SD0001 (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Template for nominating stub templates at CfDEdit

Noted in (somewhat) more detail at WT:CFD but I created {{sfd-t2}} and {{sfr-t2}} for stub template nomination discussions, thought folks here might be interested. Also added a |stub=yes parameter to {{cfd-notify}} that changes some of the messages and links so this it be used for stub template nomination notifications. ~ Amory (utc) 16:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 17:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Stubsearch functionEdit

A while back, there was a tool created by User:Danski454 that would provide a dropdown menu from which one could choose a stub type to apply to an article (see discussion here). I've been re-sorting Nepal geography stubs and it's tedious as hell, and this tool would be useful, BUT none of the Nepal geo stub types show up in the search. I posted a note on Danski454's talk page and haven't heard back yet, but has anyone else had this problem? I don't know where the tool gets its list of stub types - maybe that's the issue - any suggestions? Her Pegship (I'm listening) 18:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

You can consider upgrading to the StubSorter script which shows every valid stub tag, and lets you search easily like in Hotcat, without using hierarchial descent.
Danski454's tool looks up the stub tags from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types and its subpages. Are these Nepal stub types listed over there? SD0001 (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Geography stubs are on a separate page; maybe that's the issue. I'll try the script you mention. Thanks, Her Pegship (I'm listening) 16:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 stub typesEdit

Hey folks - I stumbled across {{COVID-19-stub}} / Category:COVID-19 stubs while perusing CfD; this was created out of process, and seems to have been applied to many articles whose main subject is not coronavirus. As the stub type is listed as an option at the COVID-19 WikiProject, I left a note there and invited them to come here to discuss it. Any thoughts? Her Pegship (I'm listening) 02:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I would not fuss about it having been created out of process. Most stub types don't go through WP:WSS/P (ref). The category looks legitimate to me as there are enough number of articles and it is helping COVID-19 editors to find articles to expand. The only trouble is that biographies of people who died due to COVID-19 have been included here, which I am not sure is appropriate. Still, if it it helping COVID-19 editors, I don't see a point in re-sorting them until such the pandemic has subsided and editor interest in the topic has reduced. SD0001 (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate your concerns. Reasons why I'm posting about this stub type being created out of process follow (in no particular order):
  • The stub type is getting tacked on to those bios, as well as on to articles about institutions which existed before the current crisis and whose main mission is not specifically related to the virus.
  • My suggestion on the project page was that they use the "Stub-Class Article" template on talk pages, which would help their project more effectively.
  • The stub types on the list you linked to have been created according to WPSS guidelines; the "speedy creation" section sketches out types that may be created that way, and the names of those creating them are names of longtime stub sorters who know the "drill".
  • The template and category banners claim that they're maintained by WPSS, and "Further information can be found at" WPSS is included in the template documentation.
  • The stub template and category have not been added to the stub types list.
  • The stub type is not part of any hierarchy in the way that permanent categories are, which is vital to the structure of WP as a whole. It might belong under Category:Infectious disease stubs, for example, rather than as a top-level stub type.
I do understand that this isn't that big a deal to the WP overall, but as the nature of stub sorters includes a fair dose of nit-pickiness, I feel compelled to at least point it out. Cheers, Her Pegship (I'm listening) 16:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
P.S. I found that this was created as an upmerged template to Category:Epidemic stubs, and the category was changed to Category:COVID-19 stubs by 91.124.169.249 (talk · contribs), probably in good faith. If anyone thinks that category should be deleted, but the upmerged template kept, that sounds like a good compromise. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 16:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Update: There's been some clarification at CfD, that this stub type relates to the pandemic event, not the disease itself, thus the category has been proposed for renaming to Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic stubs; however, I'm not sure how a corresponding stub template would be formed. Any ideas? Please comment at the CfD. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 21:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

How are/should be stub template merges be handled?Edit

  FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#How are/should be stub template merges be handled? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Automatic Category TOCs?Edit

I've noticed recently that any stub category of any size, at least as far as I've looked, now has one of those Automatic Category TOCs. So any stub category with 100 or more items will have a table of contents (even though up to 200 items listed will go on one page).
Do I gather correctly that this feature has now somehow been added to the template for creating stubs? I don't see the code for setting up these TOCs on any stub page I've looked at. I kind of feel that any category, stub or otherwise, that fits onto one page doesn't need a TOC. But that's my opinion, and apparently there are people who think differently.
But with stubs there is a problem about that with a certain group of categories. These are categories in which every entry begins with the same letter. In non-stub categories, there are ways to get around that; these ways are not available (as far as I can tell) for stub categories.
And there are a lot of them. One huge class of them is categories of species in a particular genus. Every article in the category will begin with the genus name--the first part of the two-part "scientific name." There's a way around it in non-stub categories; you give each category link a "sortkey" for the species name--the second part of the two-part "scientific name." Then the category lists them under letter headings for those species names.
Take, for example, the one I'm working on now--the 600 article in the category for moths of a genus called Dichomeris. Look at the non-stub category page, and you'll see that the species Dichomeris abscessella is under A; Dichomeris baccata is under B; Dichomeris cachrydias is under C--and so on. I've been putting them that way; when I finish, the whole category will be that way. But the stub category has every entry but one under the letter D. So that's where the TOC directs. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this is something recently implemented across categories in general; I've noticed it popping up (and creating unattractive layouts) on many categories, not just stub cats. I don't know how or where it originated; if anyone finds out let us know, as I have some useful suggestions for the creator(s). Her Pegship (I'm listening) 02:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
(P.S. If you use the DEFAULTSORT template on an article it will sort as you describe in stub categories also. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 02:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC))
The category mentioned above is Category:Dichomeris stubs. The change concerned is this edit by BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
The new TOC does no harm: without it you'd still see all the Dichomeris stubs in one sequence. In many cases it's useful. I can quite see that in cases like this the article/stub needs to sort under "Dichomeris" everywhere except in Category:Dichomeris and Category:Dichomeris stubs, so tweaking the DEFAULTSORT isn't the answer. If you need to get to, say, "Dichomeris M...", a workround is: pick a letter from the TOC menu, say "P". This gets an empty listing at the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Dichomeris_stubs&from=P. Change the "P" to "Dichomeris M", and go to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Dichomeris_stubs&from=Dichomeris%20M. PamD 08:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
A little involved, but neat trick. Uporządnicki (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
CatAutoToc effect Pages %
No TOC 396,859 86.52%
standard {{Category TOC}} 53,004 11.56%
{{Large category TOC}} 8,847 1.93%
Total 458,710
Purge this page to update the totals.

Thanks to @Redrose64 for the links and the ping, and to PamD for explaining things well. There are currently over 15,000 stub categories. Instead of TOCs having to be added and removed manually as stub categories change size, the use of {{CatAutoTOC}} means that a TOC is now generated automatically if the category meets the size thresholds set out at {{CatAutoTOC}}. Unfortunately there are a few edge cases like this where the TOC adds little benefit (tho not, as PamD points out, zero benefit) ... but it does no harm. This is the first such case that I am aware of, out of just over 49,000 categories where CatAutoTOC generates a TOC. There may be a few more, but I think that the benefit to the other categories outweighs the issues here.

If Her Pegship has concerns or thoughts about the way that CatAutoTOC works, those would be best discussed at Template talk:CatAutoTOC, to keep discussion centralised. One of those issues is the size thresholds used by CatAutoTOC. I chose those thresholds myself based on my estimation of current practice, but as User:AzseicsoK noted above, there are inevitably differing views.

Briefly, my rationale for setting the threshold for a TOC at >100 pages in a category is that

  1. that seemed to me to be a widely-used threshold
  2. a TOC is useful not just for navigating between the pages of a multi-page category, but also for navigating on a single page, just like a TOC on articles. Once a category has more than about 70 pages, then on most laptops the page list extends below the fold (i.e. scrolling is needed), so a TOC can be helpful.

But if editors hold to a different view, please take it to Template talk:CatAutoTOC, where we can collaborate on setting up an RFC.

Hope this helps --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

New discovery: Malaysia mass media stubsEdit

I've just found Category:Malaysia mass media stubs which was created by TheImaCow (talk · contribs) on 29 April 2020; it contains a stub template, {{Malaysia-tv-stub}} which is used on only one article, and was itself created by Fandi89 (talk · contribs) on 27 April 2020. I cannot find any evidence that either was proposed at WP:WSS/P, let alone approved. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  • It looks like neither was discussed or approved; also, there's a slew of stub categories nominated for speedy renaming at CfR due to a consensus on the term "mass media" to replace "media". The Malaysian media stub cat is parent to sub-cats for tv, newspapers, and film; not sure whether that justifies its existence, but there it is. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 17:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
    Argh. That CFDS includes Category:Malaysian mass media stubs (note the subtle spelling difference), so I shall fix {{Malaysia-tv-stub}} to use that, which will make Category:Malaysia mass media stubs empty and thus eligible for WP:C1 next Thursday. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
    Argh indeed. Thanks for taking that on. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 22:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

New Icon for Japanese Crime StubEdit

In my opinion, the icon for the stub {{Japan-crime-stub}}, is kinda morbid and distasteful. I suggest we replace it with the more traditional-to-crime-related-stubs, the Handcuffs. All in favour? WikiMacaroons (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Clearly it's a no-good bad guy being hauled in by Kojak. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
RedRose: You're not wrong. However, I don't like it either...but then, I'm not crazy about any image that includes a firearm, let alone a person using it. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 18:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, how about 40x30px which has a Japanese name (see ja:手錠)? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Alas, that image has been nominated for deletion... Her Pegship (I'm listening) 22:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
So it has. Next time, I'll go
  • our article → image in that article → commons category → different image
instead of
  • our article → pick Japanese article from sidebar → edit page to get lead image
Extra step. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Oddly, Japan seems to be the only Country with its own crime stub category, as you can see here. WikiMacaroons (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, here are two more ideas from c:Category:Symbols of crime:   (File:85 Ŝtelisto.svg);   (File:Crime P icon.png). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Fwiw, I like Crime P icon. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 14:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, in case anyone's interested, the template was proposed and created in 2007 as an upmerge, and in all that time has apparently been used on only 30 or so articles. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 15:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I like that one too, Her Pegship, how do we get it changed? WikiMacaroons (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Edit Template:Japan-crime-stub and amend the |image=Crime.svg parameter. I suggest that you blank out the |pix=30 at the same time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Done! Thanks, RedRose! :) WikiMacaroons (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

What to do and whereEdit

Howdy all - I just came across {{State of Palestine-stub}} and am pondering how to address several issues with it. Maybe you can give me some suggestions. In the beginning, we had {{Palestine-stub}} / Category:Palestine stubs, and although there was some concern over the cope of the category, no consensus was reached, so it remained.

In 2017, {{State of Palestine-stub}} and Category:State of Palestine stubs were created by Greyshark09. Category:State of Palestine stubs was later redirected to the original Category:Palestine stubs and the template was (I think) redirected to {{Palestine-stub}}. Now I find that Greyshark09 (talk · contribs) has reversed the redirect, so that {{Palestine-stub}} redirects to {{State of Palestine-stub}}, which sorts articles into Category:Palestine stubs.

My take: {{Palestine-stub}} should be restored as the main template for Category:Palestine stubs. If {{State of Palestine-stub}} is kept, it should be renamed {{StateofPalestine-stub}} and should be upmerged to Category:Palestine stubs. {{Palestine-stub}} should be restored as the main template for Category:Palestine stubs. I just don't know where to take the discussion - TfD? CfD? RfD?? Any ideas? Thanks for reading. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 21:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a political minefield, do it carefully. I'm neutral.GreyShark (dibra) 06:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I hear that. I think I will upmerge both {{State of Palestine-stub}} and {{Palestine-stub}} to Category:Palestine stubs and then propose {{State of Palestine-stub}} for renaming to {{StateofPalestine-stub}}. Any opinions? Her Pegship (I'm listening) 18:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Stub sorting".