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 

[edit] Cat:Warhammer 40,000 stubs → Cat:Warhammer stubs

See this discussion on-going at /P. Alai 15:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was

 rename 

[edit] Cat:Sci Fi channel stubs→Cat:Sci Fi Channel stubs

Cap fix. --Groggy Dice 21:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, seems pretty clear-cut. Alai 21:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was

  delete 

[edit] {{Ontario-county-road-stub}}+{{Ontario-highway-stub}} / Cat:Ontario road stubs

Yes, the long-running US roads syndrome has gone north of the border: don't let "There are 4 pages in this section of this category" fool you: that's two templates, one (general, not specific to this stub type) wikiproject transclusions, and a grand total of one article. Delete, without prejudice to later recreation if they get some articles (though a proposal would be nice, too). Alai 14:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete

[edit] Cat:Sierra Leone bio stubs

Redundant and empty category. It looks like it has been created by mistake. Speedy this one please.

If anybody wondered, the category uses Cat:Sierra Leone people stubs. I know I should have seen this one before, but shouldn't this category have been named Cat:Sierra Leonean people stubs? The corresponding category is named Cat:Sierra Leonean people. Valentinian ^(talk) 17:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sped. Rename is fine with me, too, if that was a nom. Alai 23:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've listed the rename under today's date. Valentinian ^(talk) 20:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename

[edit] Cat:Sierra Leone people stubs -> Cat:Sierra Leonean people stubs

I effectively proposed this one yesterday (see below), but just to make it official: I suggest renaming Cat:Sierra Leone people stubs -> Cat:Sierra Leonean people stubs to make it follow the standard naming system and to match Cat:Sierra Leonean people. Valentinian ^(talk) 20:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• OK. Alai 01:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

[edit] {{Nbl-stub}}

No associated category, they all dump into Cat:Basketball stubs. Was listed on discoveries a couple months ago, and the idea of taking it here was mentioned, but nothing conclusive ever came of it, so let's see what happens. --fuzzy510 17:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Unused, bad caps, cryptic: delete. Alai 01:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename

[edit] {{Auto-company-stub}} → {{Motorvehicle-company-stub}}

To correspond with the name change from Category:Automotive company stubs to Category:Motor vehicle company stubs [1] and reflect the expanded scope. --Interiot 16:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Move, keep redirect. Alai 17:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, and why is that? It dilutes a rather focused category, which will now be able to include bus, truck, motorcycle and whatnot manufacturers. The whole process needs to be reverted, somebody really had nothing better to do... Bravada, talk - 13:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Which it already included, thereby underlining the basic problem of it being USian-specific terminology that not even USians are quite sure how to use. A whole group of such cats were recently CFR'd, too, so "needs to be reverted" implies a more involved process than you might think. Alai 18:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename

[edit] {{ski stub}} --> {{ski-stub}}

I wasn't sure where to put this (Discoveries, Proposals or Deletions) since it has elements of all 3. I found it today (the Discovery part), it was created for WP:SKI, it does have over 40 articles using the stub, so I don't want to just delete it. It should definitely be renamed due to malformation (the Deletion part). It currently feeds into Cat:WikiProject Ski, but a Cat:Ski stubs should created (the Proposal part). If I need to list the new cat on WP:WSS/P, let me know. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, WP:SKI has been notified of this. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Here is good. Rename, give it a cat, and adopt as an "official" stub type. Alai 15:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• is this for the skis themselves or for the sport which is skiing? if its the sport, then rename to {{skiing-stub}}. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 04:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • A sagacious point. The WPJ front page describes it as "The official ski stub for ski or skiing-related articles." (interesting choice of words, "official" there), so I'm assuming they're really looking for Cat:Skiing stubs, to correspond to Cat:Skiing -- there in fact being no Cat:Ski or Cat:Skis. However, the template name I think we can cut them some slack on: it doesn't have to exactly echo the cat name, just be unambiguous, and strongly suggestive of it, which I think ski- is OK on. Alai 04:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • the cat should be Cat:Skiing stubs tho, no? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes. Alai 06:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

[edit] Cat:Rap album stubs

Not proposed, created 29 July. No template, 3 2 articles. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Fundamentally duplicative of Cat:Hip hop album stubs, formed in a half-arsed way, tiny population: extreme delete. Note there is in fact a template, {{Rap-album-stub}}, you just wouldn't have thought it to look at the category, due to there being no link to it, and the (totally pointless) use of noinclude on the template (which latter I've removed). Possibly just redirect that to {{hiphop-album-stub}}. Alai 15:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{hiphop-album-stub}}. There's no reason for this one to exist, but I'm sure that multiple people will try to use it, only to create it once they find it doesn't exist. --fuzzy510 07:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

[edit] {{Fresno}}

This one really has no redeeming qualities. Not named right at all, has no category whatsoever, and it's way underused. --fuzzy510 20:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Valentinian ^(talk) 21:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Grutness...wha? 00:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Recreate as {{fresno-stub}}, unless that's already been done. Attic Owl 16:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• If by any chance this is fixed up to {{Fresno-stub}}, upmerge it, otherwise just simply delete. Alai 18:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless theres a WPFresno, like the normal thing done with city stubs. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

[edit] Central asia stubs (malformed redirect)

This one is neither template nor category. It is a redirect to the stub category floating around in article space. Delete asap. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

almost speediable...Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Feels pretty speediable, though actual grounds escape me. WP:XNR meets WP:SNOW, perhaps. Alai 18:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename

From the discoveries page. Only 1 stub, but StubSense reports 77 philo-stubs in Category:Ethics and its sub cats (plus a lot more with other stub types, but some of those look suspect) and the philosophy stub category is overful. Rename to {{ethics-stub}} as a subtype of {{philo-stub}}. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Per nom. Alai 22:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. Valentinian ^(talk) 00:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

From the discoveries page. In over half a year, this stub has failed to garner more than 20 stubs, even if it be kept, both the template and the category need renaming, but with only 20 stubs and only 10 articles in the non-stub parent cat (4 of which have this stub) I see no evidence that this stub will ever be large enough to keep. Delete the stub and make certain that all the articles have {{compu-soft-stub}} and Category:Palm OS software instead. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Can this be upscoped to, say, {{PDA-stub}}? (The template exists, but isn't in use, and doesn't have a category.) Alai 18:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • According to StubSense, Cat:PDAs has only 42 stubs which is a bit light. The next level up Cat:Mobile computer has 99 according to StubSense, so a mobile computing stub would make sense. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Let's do that, then, and upmerge the PDAs, too. Alai 22:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
      • If by that you mean create {{compu-mobile-stub}} → Cat:Mobile computer stubs → Cat:Mobile computer with a redirect from {{PDA-stub}} and a deletion of {{Palmsoftware-stub}} (restubbing with {{PDA-stub}}), then I'm agreeable. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I was thinking more in terms of keeping Palmsoftware-stub and PDA-stub as distinct templates, i.e., upmerging both, as size seems to be the only argument against either. Alai 02:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I don't see any harm in keeping it. --Yunipo 04:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Given our use of "soft" as a distinct naming component for "software" in other stub templates, if we needed a distinct template/redirect for Palm OS software, it would be better to name it {{PalmOS-soft-stub}} or even widen the scope to include the hardware and make it just {{PalmOS-stub}} than to keep the questionable {{Palmsoftware-stub}}. That's why I said when I nominated it that "even if it be kept, both the template and the category need renaming". I'm not opposed to have a redirect with possibilities, but the current template isn't quite right for that task. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
              • I largely agree, though the current template name doesn't offend me so much that I feel the urge to get rid of it in any hurry. I'd not be opposed to a rename, certainly. Alai 04:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
                • I think we should keep it, what good is there in deleting it? --PEAR 15:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

From the discoveries page. Was renamed as {{SouthAfrica-bio-stub}} which is now on the stub list, but was left as an ambiguous redirect that could just as easily mean SaudiArabia-bio-stub. Delete Caerwine Caerwhine 17:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• OK, delete. Alai 18:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Valentinian ^(talk) 06:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete as ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete; upscope

Back in April Mumbai-stub was brought to SFD and no consensus was reached, tho the possibility of making it into Mumbai-geo-stub was made, which SPUI took as an invitation to make yet another redirect. Cat:Maharashtra geography stubs is getting close to being overlarge and a Mumbai-geo-stub would absorb most of the 70 odd stubs that had been given Mumbai-stub. Indeed, I've gone ahead and seperated out the Mumbai-geo-stubs from the other Mumbai-stubs in preparation for this SFD. I also gave Mumbai-geo-stub a distinct template so as to make it easier to see what's what. There are so few non-geo-stubs, I recommend we delete {{Mumbai-stub}}. As for {{Mumbai-geo-stub}} I see two distinct options. The simplest would be to simply give it a stub category of its own. The other is to make use of the fact that Maharashtra is one of the States of India that has an additional layer of bureaucracy between the State and District level called Divisions. The other possibility would be to make {{Mumbai-geo-stub}} into a redirect for a {{Konkan-geo-stub}} and create stubs for the other five divisions as well if they pass the 60 stub threshold. I can support either option for what to do with {{Mumbai-geo-stub}}. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Mumbai Stub. Attic Owl 16:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There are only 5 stubs using Mumbai-stub, which is too few for a stub type, even if there were a WikiProject Mumbai. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Let's go with the "division" plan, and upscope accordingly. Alai 18:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename

These two categories have non stub parents of Cat:Heavy metal songs and Cat:Heavy metal albums respectively. We already have {{metal-music-stub}} feeding into Cat:Heavy metal stubs with non-stub parent Cat:Heavy metal. Therefore, to make the categories follow the parents, I recommend we rename these two categories to Cat:Heavy metal song stubs & Cat:Heavy metal album stubs respectively. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• OK. I forget why I went with just metal: you sure there's not another handful of "metal" categories around somewhere? BTW, can I suggest that renaming noms be done with {{sfr-t}}/{{sfr-c}}, rather than the sfd versions? Thanks. Alai 23:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment they exist but they have Cat:Heavy metal as their parent. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. And by implication, the same should be done for Cat:United States metal musical group stubs which has Cat:American heavy metal musical groups as its non-stub parent. --Bruce1ee 05:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Have amended nomination to included a renaming of Cat:United States metal musical group stubs to Cat:American heavy metal musical group stubs (or if need be to reach consensus, Cat:United States heavy metal musical group stubs). Caerwine Caerwhine 02:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I know you're trying to match the stub cat to the non-stub cat, but just keep in mind that currently all the US musical group stub cats (14 of them) use "United States" and not "American". --Bruce1ee 09:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The latter, please. BTW, this whole America vs. United States thing was gone over fully a year ago at WSS, and there appeared to me to be a pretty clear feeling in favour of second. Alai 05:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Footnote: three per-decade album children renamed too (which were the ones I originally had in mind, having proposed these on the pattern of the nominated type. Alai 03:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename

From the discoveries page. Just added it to the stub list, as the stub type itself isn't in question (not with 125 stubs it ain't). However, other non-fiction literature stubs use -book- and not -text-. We have a Cat:Islamic studies book stubs and a Cat:Christian studies books (parent of Cat:Christian texts). Suggest an upscope and rename to {{Christian-book-stub}} / Cat:Christian studies book stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 20:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. Alai 23:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

Left over redirect to {{NZ-actor-stub}} from the name it was originally created as. Nonstandard plural and unused, so delete. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep, obviously. It makes perfect sense that someone might use the plural; deleting this will only make their editing experience that much more difficult.--SB | T 05:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete. A lot of the redirects probably do more harm than good. Valentinian ^(talk) 06:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete, "obviously". As V. says, redirects that flunk the naming guidelines "that someone might use" facilitate only temporary confusion as to what the NGs actually are -- which facilitation won't be extended next time they get a stub template wrong in the same manner, thus making things more difficult for all concerned in the long run. Alai 06:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom & for tidiness. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete obviously. anything which reduces the uniformity of stub naming makes the editing experience more hit and miss. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete for the reasons given above. Grutness...wha? 06:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

This is a loonie redirect to {{Canada-stub}}, eh. Lets take off this redirect, its the beauty way to go. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy BJAODN. Alai 04:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Alai. Valentinian ^(talk) 06:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, you hosers. </joke> ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Get this one oawt of here. Grutness...wha? 01:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Non-sense. Monni 15:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

From the discoveries page, this stub, created by a member of WikiProject Florida, is an undersized subtype of {{Florida-stub}}. (We have no {{Media-stub}}.) Only 45 stubs and Cat:Florida stubs is less than 200 stubs, so given the non-standard split and lack of urgency, recommend an upmerge to {{Florida-stub}} without keeping this stub types template. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Upmerge to {{Florida-stub}}, per Caerwine. --fuzzy510 04:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete

[edit] {{Western Sahara stub}} (redirect)

Already deleted back in January with a rename to {{WesternSahara-stub}}. Recreated in June. Speedy delete Caerwine Caerwhine 01:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Question Why wouldn't we keep the redirect, in case someone accidentally types in this text? I see no harm, and there's an obvious benefit. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sped. The sooner people stop "accidentally typing" names that don't follow the stub naming guidelines, and (re)creating redirects that perpetuate confusion as to what those naming guidelines actually are, the better. Stub template names don't use spaces. (Were it {{Western-Sahara-stub}} I'd have a lot more sympathy. Alai 01:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well-well, so that one exists too! Someone has been covering their bases... Hyphens there's more room for confusion regarding, so keep that one, for the time being at least. Alai 02:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd favour deleting that on, too, since it implies that it's a subdivision of the nonexistent {{Sahara-stub}}. Every other country/region uses camelcaps concatenation (ooo... alliteration :) Grutness...wha? 07:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

From the Discoveries page. Hasn't been on an article in I don't how long. Outside of extinct organisms, anything it has to deal with is covered by Cat:Evolution stubs (113 stubs) which is focused on evolutionary biology of which extinction is a sub-topic. As it is uUnused, and without anyone interested in developing this one over the last seven months, I say that we should extinctify this template. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Alai 02:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - to extend Caerwine's comment, those extinct organisms should be listed under other stub types too (reptile-, mammal-, bird-, etc etc etc) Grutness...wha? 07:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename

From the discoveries page. 77 stubs, so it ought to be kept, but the template needs renaming. Following the naming guidelines calls for the form proposed, but anything that gets rid of the spaces woyld be fine with me. Rename Caerwine Caerwhine 03:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Rename. I'm the mod of Wikiproject:Hello! Project, so I both fully approve of and wholeheartedly encourage renaming this. If this were a deletion, you'd get a hell of a dogfight from me! ;) ) --CJ Marsicano 04:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• rename - could it lose the exclamation as well and become {{HelloProject-stub}}? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to anything that gets rid of the space. I'd suggest a redirect to (preferably) or from BL's suggestion. Alai 00:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

Only 1 stub, plus we've come to conclusion that splitting sports on a per country basis is generally a bad thing for stub sorting. Delete Caerwine Caerwhine 22:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It can be useful in some cases, but if there's only one stub it's clearly not useful here. Either populate or delete. Grutness...wha? 05:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What about {{India-sports-stub}} & Cat:India sports stubs? This does seem to be a fairly common-sense way of finding stubs you are interested in working on. Where can I find the discussion where the decision was taken (is being taken?) not to go down the country route? --Mais oui! 10:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Populate to 60 or upmerge, or indeed delete if it doesn't grow significantly. Conclusion, what conclusion? If it's the only way to whack down oversized country-stubs, in cases where large chunks relate to sport, then sooner or later we'll have to create these. Alai 16:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename

In the US, "organization" is the most common by far, and the category should be renamed to reflect that. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Rename I could understand (but not approve of) the use of the commonwealth 's' if any of this stub's parents did, but none of them do. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Odd. I'm sure I even proposed this as -z-. Rename. Alai 22:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename Local usage is the general WP rule. Render unto Caesar and all that. Grutness...wha? 05:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

From the discoveries page. 23 pirates, 12 privateers, 33 stubs in all considering duplicates. Too small to be worth keeping as is, but might be worth merging into a {{Piracy-stub}} (Cat:Piracy is the parent of both Cat:Pirates and Cat:Privateers.) Caerwine Caerwhine 14:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Arrrrrrescope to piracy-stub. Grutness...wha? 05:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

From the discoveries page. Only 14 stubs and not any immediate prospects for more soon. I'm not nominating the template {{Iceland-band-stub}} as that could be turned into a double catted stub template, and I'm loathe to have the work the icon maker went to go to waste since it is possible we could someday get a WikiProject on Icelandic bands. Stryker denne kategori. Caerwine Caerwhine 14:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeg er helt enig. Stryg den. Valentinian ^(talk) 20:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

From the discoveries page. Since being first discovered it was first turned into a redirect to {{comics-creator-stub}} and whie listing it I have turned it into a redirect to {{comics-artist-stub}}. Not currently used on any articles and it doesn't follow the naming guidelines, so delete. Caerwine Caerwhine 13:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per NGs, and usual "more confusing than helpful" arguments. Alai 22:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Alai & Cw. Grutness...wha? 05:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Usgnus 18:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rayer

Like {{Tintin-stub}} this one also feeds into Cat:Franco-Belgian comics stubs. However, it had only 3 articles tagged with it, and looking over them I reached the conclusion that they weren't stubs, so now it has none. Efface ce modèle. Caerwine Caerwhine 13:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Rayez. Grutness...wha? 05:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

From the discoveries page. Only 21 stubs and not any immediate prospects for more soon. I'm not nominating the template {{Pakistan-film-stub}} as that could be turned into a double catted stub template, and I'm loathe to have the work the icon maker went to go to waste since I imagine that if we ever do get a Pakistani film buff editing the English Wiki, the category could make a comeback. Delete. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep 21 ain't bad for a small country, and I'd like to give it a chance. Plus, I was the icon maker. <g> ♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Upmerge per obvious enlightened compromise, thus preserving both Peg's lovely icon, and the stub creation size guidelines. Alai 22:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, that's not a compromise, that's per nom, which I was misled by over-hasty reading of. But six and half a dozen... Alai 16:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Upmerge as above. Grutness...wha? 05:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Upmerge as above. Monni 15:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all

[edit] Cat:Youth organisation stubs

As below, except that in this case, I noticed immediately on creating the category, because the template name was the same. Delete one, or the other, as duplicate. Alai 18:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Category:Youth organization stubs has nothing in it, while they are all in Category:Youth organisation stubs - it might be easier to delete the "z" and keep the "s" - but I would tend to favour moving everthing over to the "z". In any case sticking with just one makes most sense. j-beda 17:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The parent category is at Cat:Youth organizations, even though it feels wrong to type it with a...um... "zee", so support moving everything to the one with the zed. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

J, bear in mind that this is populated from a template, so it's one edit to switch them over; ease isn't a major consideration here. Alai 04:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Scientific organisation stubs

I proposed this under the United States spelling (as that's what the perm-cat and stub parent use -- not from personal preference, perish the thought), and then created it as such, not noticing that it'd already been created, early, under a different name, and with a different template, to boot. {{science-org-stub}} I'm happy to redirect to {{sci-org-stub}}, but it seems to be indicated to delete the category as a (before the fact!) duplicate. Alai 18:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{atheismstub}} (redirect)

Premature, badly named creation at this name, since moved. Delete, out of some residual regard for the naming conventions. Alai 16:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

delete per nom. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 03:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Usgnus 18:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. {{atheism-stub}} doesn't seem to have much use yet either... Mairi 06:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was postpone

This one was created recently (without proposal as far as I remember). Several problems here: 1) According to Mais Oui, most relevant articles already are beyond stub size. 2) Such a category will be nothing but trouble to maintain, and is only used on a mere 8 articles. Delete. Valentinian ^(talk) 18:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (Nomination withdrawn).

• Delete . "Current" anything is a bad idea for a stub template - it only means a later necessary change of template when a better thought-out scheme wouldn't. Grutness...wha? 22:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Mais Oui's wrong on the scope, I'm pretty sure; this came up as a viable split on my search for same on the UK-MPs. But I didn't propose it for the same reason Grutness mentions. Delete. Alai 02:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Very useful to a politics-interested editor to expland though... Dev920 12:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Admittedly politically "current" is a long time in Wikipedia: give or take resignations in favour of cushy jobs in Brussels, or indeed deaths, and the resultant by-election in either case -- or I suppose the whole government collapsing -- these contents are fixed for several years. Perhaps we could split the MPs by parliament, restricting tagging to the last/latest they sat in. That way if there's expansion of most of them by the next election, there's relatively few to re-tag when they're re-elected, but we avoid the messiness of "is this a current 'current', or an old "current" that hasn't been updated yet"? Alai 15:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Dev, there are plans afoot to split the main over-large stub category at the moment (see here), and one of the possible ways is by era. If that does happen, then it would probably mean replacing this one for a category including both current and recent ex-MPS - would that serve pretty much the same purpose for editors? Grutness...wha? 23:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me, as long as the eras are right. Discussion seems a bit confused over there. Maybe sort according to every 50 years or so?

• BTW, these weren't tagged, have now done so. In the interests of transparency, please don't close until the 22nd. Alai 15:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• FYI, the intersection of Cat:Current British MPs and Cat:British MP stubs would appear to number 352. So not only is viability not an issue, Con- and Lab- subtypes are certain to be, too. ("Good idea" is another matter.) Alai 06:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Firstly, this deletion nomination is kind of my fault, because I informed User:Valentinian that Stub Sense only finds 42 relevant stubs. Although this is true, I had not used our other methods of establishing potential size [Suggestion: at the main Stub soting page, could we not list all the useful methods to assist speedy research by stub sorters]. Also, per Grutness comment, that split "by parliament" has already started (see Category:MPs_of_the_United_Kingdom_House_of_Commons, by Parliament), and true to form, has gone straight to CFD (some people refuse to countenance any organisation of the ridiculously vast British MPs cat whatsoever!!!). Here is the CFD:

• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#category:MPs_of_the_United_Kingdom_House_of_Commons.2C_by_Parliament_and_subcategories

This stub would appear to be quite useful, so can we refocus/rename it, instead of deleting? I note that the relevant parent cat is currently named, rather unfortunately:

• Category:MPs of the 54th UK Parliament (2005-)

... but the creator has proposed that the names be shortened at CFD, which I and others support.

Thanks. --Mais oui! 07:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• It's something of an article of faith around here that Big (Stub) Categories Must Be Split, and it would be very handy if the permcat would obligingly split itself, so that we could follow along (and possibly save ourselves some work in the process, as it'd then be at least somewhat automatable). I missed these categories earlier as they seem to have just "missed the bus" on the last database dump, so they didn't figure in my prognostications about how it was feasible to split these. I'm now minded to put this on hold until the CFD and permcat splitting discussion is concluded, though equally there's little loss in deleting this and recreating a similar type later. Alai 14:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep, for lots of reasons (I created this category a few days ago, to separate out the stubs for current MPs from those for MPs from previous parliaments).

• There are now 308 articles in Category:Current British MP stubs, so the viability is surely not in doubt. (I had manually allocated this stub to only a few articles, but after a quick AWB run to allocate it to all stub-tagged current MPs, I discovered this SFD. As the stub-creator, it's a pity that the nominator didn't alert me of the nomination).
• The parent category for this stub is not "MPs of the 54th Parliament", but Category:Current British MPs.
• There are over 300 stub-tagged articles on MPs from the past, and it is useful to separate out the stubs on current MPs, who may be of more immediate interest, and where the sources are readily available to expand the articles beyond stubbiness. (NB: In my AWB run today, I unstubbed only those articles which were very clearly unstubby, but I thnk that a lot more of them could readily be unstubbed without expansion).
• The usefulness or otherwise of Category:Current British MPs is surely a discussion which belongs elsewhere? From my POV, updating that category after an election is only about two or three hour's work, and only needs be done every few years. It may be better to ditch it and use MPs-by-parliament instead, but that's another discussion. --BrownHairedGirl 15:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Struck my earlier bold-faced-comment for clarity, lest it not be clear the later one was intended to override it. I realize what it's current parent is, but I was suggesting it should have the "of the 2005 parliament" as a parent, for the reasons I outlined: "current" is a maintenance nightmare waiting to happen (and don't say it won't be a problem: if stub articles were that well-tended, they wouldn't be stubs, and we have very little notion of who is likely to be on hand and inclined to do this, come 2009 or 2010). I'm not addressing the existence of the perm-cat, just its "suitability as a parent" for the stub type. BTW, as stub creator, it's a pity you didn't follow the stub creation guidelines and propose this in the first place (as I'm semi-ritually obliged to tell anyone complaining that their unproposed stub type has been nominated for deletion without telling them -- then again, it is rather crucial to remember to tag the template and category for that reason). Alai 15:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict). Sorry BrownHairedGirl, I thought I'd already added {{Sfd-t}} / {{Sfd-c}} to this material. My apologies. I still don't like the word "current" in this context, but we seem to have a lot more material than I expected. I'll buy Alai's suggestion of putting this nomination on hold until it is decided how to procede with Cat:British MP stubs. I still don't like the word "current" for this kind of material, but I don't like stub categories deviating from the article categories either. (Just my 2 cents). Valentinian ^(talk) 15:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!, Valentian. First, big apologies to everyone for not following the stub creation guidelines; I simply didn't know of their existence. Sorry, I'll know in future, and thanks to Alai for alterting me.

I'm not entirely happy with the word current, but I think that the alterantive of something like 2005-MP-stubs could be a bit horible too, because it could lead to a new stub type for each parliament. With about thirty parliaments in the last century, that could get kinda horrible.

I think Alai's point about stubs being by definition poorly-tended merits a little further examination, because it's crucial here.

Yes, stubs are by definition in need of expansion, but expansion is a very difft job to categorisation. Expansion is very time-consuming, but categorisation can be very quick — as evidenced by my AWB run this afternoon attaching this stub tag in only 50 minutes. I expect that many of the more obscure backbenchers may remain stubby ad infinitum, but that's a different issue to ease with which they can be recategorised with a tool like AWB. Who'll be around in 2009 to do that? I dunno, but I'd be very surprised if there aren't a bevy of skilled wikipedians with sufficient interest in parliament to do the job quickly! In fact, if theren't, I'd that as a critical sign that wikpedia was ossifying, and I try to be a wiki-optimist :)

In the meantime, I hope that this new stub category allows us to more speedily unstub the current MPs who do have significant articles, and to expand more of those with real stubs. --BrownHairedGirl 15:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, BHG: first one's free, the thumbscrews we reserve for serial unilateralists. :) A stub type per parliament's exactly what I propose, at least for however far back would pass the threshold of 60 per cat (tagging each MP only with their most recent stint, otherwise things would get messy). I'd guess that there will be enough obscure outgoers at each recent general election to fill several such, and it's even more like to be the case going forward as current population appears to be complete. Several parliaments back we can lump them into several terms smooshed together, and once we get before 1922 I think we might as well just leave them all in a single GB/UK&I stub type, if early indications of size prove accurate. I'll grant you that it's unlikely that the "old currents" and the "new currents" would stay jumbled up for long, but why make life more complicated and more work than it has to be, and set precedents for other "high maintenance" type? At any rate, some sort of split is fairly urgently required, and it seems a racing certainty that party, time in some form or other, or some combination of the two is the solution in some form. Alai 18:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Alai, I hope that when you apply thumbcrews, you do so with a liberal dose wikilove ;)

Seriously, though, I don't think that the numbers require another split of stubs. There are currently about 300 articles tagged with {{UK-MP-stub}}, about 300 with {{UK-current-MP-stub}}. The current-MP-stub count will inevitably decline as articles are expanded, while the non-current stub-count could go either way. But I think that creating ten or twenty new stub categories is unlikely to be helpful unless the stub count increases substantially: at the moment, each would only have (on average) about 20 MPs.

There is a maintenance problem to, arising from "retreads": MPs who lose their seats, but come back later. It's easy enough with the high-profile ones, but the likes of Rifkind, returning after an 8-year gap, are not actually that rare. Parliamentary careers are not often smooth and linear. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, miscount of non-ciurrent-MP-stubs, so most of above deleted. Proper reply Split of British_MP_stubs. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we can resume deliberation of these now, as the CFD has closed. (If no discussion ensues either here at /P in a couple of days, I suggest this be closed as "deferred", and relisted later (if necessary), however. Alai 17:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll close this on that basis if there are no speedy "holdons". Alai 22:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

It doesn't make any sense grammatically, should be "Orthodoxy". Don't know why it's associated with Islam in the categories. Only on two articles or so. -IvanP/(болтай) 17:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I've fixed this mess. Redundant, badly formed and incorrectly named. Strong delete. (the correct one is {{Orthodoxy-stub}}, btw.) Valentinian ^(talk) 18:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete or redirect, not much bothered which (not recat). Orthodoxism isn't a complete non-word, just far from the usual term. Alai 23:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete. It's a real word, but with somewhat wider meanings than orthodoxy (many of the google hits for it relate to orthodoxism in communism, i.e., Marxism). Even then it's a very rare word (a google comparison gives 615 hits complared with over 13 million for orthodoxy). Grutness...wha? 23:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that Orthodoxy doesn't have much wider meanings than Orthodoxy, too... Alai 23:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above, and Orthodoxy is far more Jewish than Islamic: Islam should have Sunni-stubs. Dev920 01:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahemm, the "category" seems simply to be a copy-paste thing, but there is no doubt that the Orthdox Church is a Christian denomination, on par with Protestants and Catholics. Valentinian ^(talk) 09:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete, there's already an {{Orthodoxy-stub}} and an {{OrientalOrthodoxy-stub}}, and I've no clue what this could have to do with Islam. -Bobet 12:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete: The stub type in question is part of a larger family of stubs concerning the unrelated Islam religion. Also per above comments regarding {{orthodoxy-stub}}. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete

• Delete as nom. Duplicate of {{Album-stub}}, bad name with leading hyphen, no articles use it, original creator is blocked, or I would have asked them first. — MrDolomite | Talk 01:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may quote myself from the deletion log, "duplicate, badly named, no category, created by blocked user, and unused: speedying as some or all of the above". Alai 02:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete

Ihave created both Category:Artillery-stub and Category:Artillery_stub. Please remove the former. Kaushal mehta 08:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Done. And the latter, which should be Cat:Artillery stubs? Alai 15:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was move back

Please speedy this one. Somebody decided to move {{US-footy-bio-stub}} because they didn't like the name, causing confusion and a double redirect at {{US-soccer-bio-stub}}. I agree that it's a lame name, but this was just careless. --fuzzy510 03:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've moved it back, but I'm not going to speedy the redirect. Feel free to tag if you'd like it gone, otherwise we can sit back and wait to see who complains first... Alai 04:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete. Weve been deliberately avoiding the word football since its ambiguous. Footy isnt perfect, but is (almost) always clearly a term for soccer (the rugby-mad country where I live is possibly the only place it's ambiguous). Grutness...wha? 05:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that nothing's actually tagged for deletion at present... Doesn't footy also refer to Australian rules? Alai 06:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• yep, just hope that australia-footy-bio-stub is never created since it refers to three other codes more than it does soccer. - Nomadic1 08:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• D'oh. I'd not be opposed to renaming the whole hierarchy to {{football-stub}} (or to {{soccer-stub}}, which has been tried already, and failed), but this needs a systematic solution, not a piecemeal one. Alai 17:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus

See Proposals for more details. Almost everything in {{musical-theat-stub}} is about a specific musical; therefore, it should have the more specific scope. It would be a child of {{theat-stub}} and {{play-stub}}. Currently it has 88 articles but there are many more unsorted and sorted in different categories. Crystallina 03:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me. Rename, rescope and resort. Alai 04:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Isn't the name Cat:Musical stubs too general? It would imply it also encompasses Cat:Musical film stubs. --Bruce1ee 06:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it probably is: Cat:Musicals includes both, but somewhat nonsensically, there's no top-level category for musical plays. Perhaps Cat:Theatrical musical stubs. Alai 06:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I struggled a bit for a name for this - "musical play stubs" sounded rather cumbersome and not intuitive. Theatrical musical stubs seems like it'll work. Crystallina 13:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

comment. While I see the benefit of a musical-play stub I would not support the deletion of musical-theat stub. I have used this stub for people who are mainly associated with musical theatre, e.g. composers and librettists, in addition to a more general composer or writer stub. Unfortunately, in my opinion, this use of musical-theat stub is often removed in the name of stub sorting, just leaving the more general ones thus potentially restricting the visibility to those who may be able to expand the article. Rather than deleting musical-theatre perhaps its general use should be widened. PaulJones 18:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• I understand your concerns here. For the bio articles, {{theat-bio-stub}} may eventually warrant a split for {{musical-theat-bio-stub}}, which would cover the composers, librettists, etc. My main objective in taking this here was to better organize the theatre stubs, which are very scattered at the moment. Crystallina 18:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Crys. For the time being these should be double-stubbed with {{theat-bio-stub}} and something-or-other in the {{music-bio-stub}} hierarchy, and split once there's an adequate sufficency. No reason not to create this as an upmerged template immediately. Alai 02:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, The article is called Musical theatre, there is a Musical theatre category, and there is a Musical Theatre WikiProject. The stub and category even say that they are about musical theatre in general, not just specific plays. --Usgnus 22:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

See Proposals for more details. This stub category, honestly, is just gumming up the works. Its scope is not sufficiently different than any of the other existing or proposed splits, it barely reaches threshold, and only invites a lot of double-stubbing. It's been proposed for deletion before and is still around, but I don't think it's necessary and think other axes for sorting would be better in the long run. Crystallina 03:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong degum. Alai 04:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ISTR suggesting this should be SFD'd when it was first discovered. Grutness...wha? 05:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. --Usgnus 03:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

Used in about 40 articles, but I don't think individual artists should have their own stub types. The stub types are by category (songs, albums, artist pages, etc), but not individuals. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Too few stubs and stubs at this level of granularity need to be merged into larger articles if they can't be expanded past the stub stage. Caerwine Caerwhine 14:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Too narrow scope, not above 60 articles and no category (but the first reason is the most important). Valentinian ^(talk) 18:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Lots of nano-stubs, many of which seem to be at an absurd level of re-re-re-splitting: the <X> remix of the <Y> language version of <Z> single should be merged at least to the level of the <Z> single, if not the <W> album. If not deleted outright. Alai 21:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No offence to ms Ruslana, but while I see some individual artists as possibly being stubworthy, I don't think she fills the bill. At present The Beatles are the only artists with a separate stub (and there is an associated WikiProject), and while Ruslana may be very popular, I doubt she'd be top of the list for the next similar split, if at all. Also, as Alai points out, many of the listed stub articles probably deserve merging. Anyone care to start an AfD process on some of them? Grutness...wha? 00:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename

I'd probably have speedied this, except that after editing the template, I'm still waiting for the contents to flip-flop over. Rename per the naming guidelines, perm parent, stub siblings, and sensible usage. Alai 05:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy rename per naming guidelines etc. I created the badly named stub and I see no reason why anyone would oppose the renaming. --Ezeu 06:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Done, much obliged to you for your speedy agreement to speedy this (even if my deletion reason that you were the only contributor turns out to be incorrect, oops). Alai 07:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was postpone

[edit] Cat:Central Africa geography stubs → Cat:Middle Africa geography stubs

I believe there's some general agreement to rescope the subregions of Africa to conform with the UN definitions. If so, we should clearly also rename to follow that terminology, in the interests of clarity. Alai 04:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Postpone I have no objection to doing this, once the permanent cats are rescoped. But as of now, they haven't been and the relavant permanent cat is Cat:Central Africa not Cat:Middle Africa. Take the permanent cat to CFD first and rescope/rename the stub category so as to synchronize with the permanent category. Also, if we do rename, shouldn't we also move {{AfricaC-geo-stub}} to {{AfricaM-geo-stub}}? Caerwine Caerwhine 06:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • We should, but I'm in no hurry to do a "destructive" template move. Alai 00:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Postpone. The way things are going, most african countries will soon be split off with their own geo-stubs, and when that happens the regional African categories will be pretty much redundant. I don't see this as being a necessary move in the long run. What's more, the stub category's parent is, as Caerwine points out, Cat:Central Africa, which itself reflects the root article Central Africa. Grutness...wha? 09:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You know what they say about the long run. There also exists very similar scoping issues for comparable categories: for example, the politicians. Horizontal consistency seems like a plan. Alai 00:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Mmm. Good point, but I'd still prefer to wait to see what happens with the permcat parent. Grutness...wha? 01:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep template, delete redirect

Template (and its redirect) now unused, as all of its articles have been drained into subcats. Leave the category as a parent. --CComMack (t•c) 23:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the redirect. I'm inclined to say keep the template, and annotate as "deprecated" (and the category as "to be diffused"). I don't think it's a good idea to potentially frustrate future stub-sorting (and stub-sorters) with unexpected redlinks, where there would logically be a valid template. Alai 00:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I guess I was misinterpreting what normal procedure is, after the discussion in passing here. Could this be clarified somewhere? --CComMack (t•c) 08:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete redirect and keep template per Alai. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete redirect and keep template; I don't know what part of the UK any specific city is in without looking it up, so it's much easier for me to sort into UK-railstation-stub and let WikiProject UK Railways members further sort them. Slambo (Speak) 13:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both Many stations keep appearing which need to be expanded and some of these cannot be specialised, at the moment. The templates act as a good intermediate stage and so stations will constantly be linked to this template. Simply south 21:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep

Again, an unused template, as all articles now tagged at the provincial/territorial level. Two templates still upmerged, so don't touch the category. --CComMack (t•c) 23:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, confusing way to "enforce" category diffusion. Alai 01:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Alai. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was move

Was never sure exactly why the UK- template got the renaming and the US- never did. "-railstation-" is much more obvious and less ambiguous than "-depot-". Note: new name is currently a redirect to the old, which is reflected on neither WP:WSS/ST nor WP:WSS/R. Rename and leave as redirect. --CComMack (t•c) 23:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Shouldn't that be {{US-train-station-stub}}, per the article and also the stub category name? Redirect copiously. Alai 02:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Given that the permanent cat is Cat:Railway stations in the United States I'd not be adverse to renaming the stub category to match as Cat:United States railway station stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd rather see {{US-trainstation-stub}} than {{US-train-station-stub}}, and would rather rename the category per Caerwine than either. --CComMack (t•c) 08:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, my bad on the hyphen. Alai 14:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support either US-railstation-stub or US-trainstation-stub, preferably the former. I must admit I'm frankly amazed that the permcat isnt "Railroad stations in the United States", since that's what railways tend to be called there. Grutness...wha? 09:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was move

Given that Who is a proper noun in this case, and also part of the capitalised title of a television programme, this should properly be at {{DoctorWho-stub}}. A shift to the new name is simple enough, but I've brought it here in case there is enough support for getting rid of the former name, which I would weakly support myself. Grutness...wha? 07:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Move (probably speedily), keep redirect (at any desired speed), make Tardis smaller (though of course, only on the outside). Alai 14:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per Alai. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Moved; if you still wish rid of the redirect, please tag that. Alai 17:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Nah - I'm easy either way about that. Since the comments above seem to veer towards keep, I'll accept that. Grutness...wha? 09:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was one deleted, one kept, one not nominated

For some reason, {{cvg-stub}} seems to have three redirects, two of which are unused. While {{Videogame-stub}} may be worth saving, I don't see the point in also having two unused redirects, {{CVG-stub}} and the frankly misleading {{Video-stub}}. Both of these should probably go. Grutness...wha? 01:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support deletion of video-stub. Ambivalent on deletion on CVG-stub, but tending towards delete seeing as it is unused and therefore a loose end. --TheParanoidOne 05:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Transplutonicly strong delete of {{video-stub}}, apathetic keep of the other two. We'e far from consistent on capitalisation of abbreviations, and I see no harm in covering bases on reasonable variations where there's scope for relatively well-informed confusion. BTW, I assume you're in fact only nominating the two you've tagged, G. Alai 06:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah. Videogame-stub makes a certain amount of sense and seems to be in use. Since the other two aren't in use, it shouldn't make much odds to get rid of them. Grutness...wha? 07:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete video-stub. Not decided about CVG-stub; while it may catch incorrect caps, it isn't really used, and being lenient about caps just causes confusion down the line where they aren't redirected. Crystallina 16:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If we had a clear convention on caps in general, redirecting from other capitalisations might indeed be somewhat "lenient". But we don't; what we in fact have is wholesale inconsistency. Until that's changed (plus some reasonable grace period) I don't think we should treating these the way we do, say, templates with spaces instead of hyphens). Alai 19:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete Video-stub. Keep CVG-stub. While we've been fairly consistent so far about using cvg, the CVG project itself hasn't been for its templates. If anything, if they were forced to decide, I'd bet on them favoring CVG over cvg. Keep Videogame-stub.

Caerwine Caerwhine 19:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect both to Cat:Geography stubs and reword to explain why; keep categories as parent-only types

[edit] {{SouthAm-geo-stub}} and {{CentralAm-geo-stub}}

Every country in Central and South America now has its own geo-stub, and because of that, neither of these templates is used on any articles. What's more, virtually no articles which could relate to places in more than three or four countries in the area is likely to be of stub size. For that reason, I proposed deleting these two templates, but keeping the related categories as parent-only types similar to one of their own parents, Cat:Americas geography stubs. Grutness...wha? 09:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Grutness. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per other "deprecated" templates. The logic of this nomination seems to be, "force stub-sorting through imposition of added frustration", the success of which I'm doubtful of. It's not reasonable to expect people to instantly switch from "Oh bother, a redlink. I see here's no country-geo-stub type, instead those fine fellows at WSS want me to use {{SouthAm-geo-stub}} instead" to "Oh *&%!, now {{SouthAm-geo-stub}} is a redlink, WTF do they want to do this week?". On the same basis, we should obviously delete {{bio-stub}}, on the basis that every person must fit into some more specific -bio-stub type -- the question is though, do they know that it exists, or what it's called? If desired, edit to indicate redundancy, deprecatioon, or to otherwise request that it be replaced with a country template. Alai 23:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If these were regularly used templates, I'd agree with you. But they're not. Excepting for people on the stub-sorting WikiProject, people either use country-specific geo-stubs or simply use geo-stub. I've been monitoring these two categories for quite a few months now, and the templates are simply not used. Grutness...wha? 04:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete per Grutness. I haven't seen new material move into them either, and all countries have been split off. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone please explain to me why "I haven't seen it used lately" is a basis for deletion, in terms of a) the criteria on this page, b) the stub guidelines, or indeed c) any logical basis whatsoever. That's not an argument for a benefit of deletion, it's an estimate of the harm said deletion would cause, for no actual upside that's even being claimed. While I do keep meaning to add some text to WP:STUB on upmerge templates, someone else'll have to add the rationale for "categories we've arbitrarily decided to make templateless", since I for the life of me can't see it, much less determine what other stub types this would or would not be applied to. Bear in mind that we're still activiely creating "SouthAm-" and "CentralAm-" stub types, so the "guessability" of their not being -geo-stubs for same seems to me to be extremely low. But maybe I should save my breath for deletion review at this point. Alai 17:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, why not simply redirect them to plain geo-stub, then? They'll still be usable if anyone ever decides to use them, they'll be more readily sifted into their respective country-specific categories by myself and anyone else who regularly checks the geo-stub main category, and they'll effectively be neutered in terms of their actual (lack of) usefulness. Grutness...wha? 23:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Would this be before or after deleting them? I don't follow the above comment at all. (Then again, I'm a little perplexed by the whole nomination...) Alai 01:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be instead of deleting them, as a compromise solution. I'd like them gone completely, but you clearly don't - a third, middle way, seems to be the one that would likely keep us both moderately happy. Grutness...wha? 22:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I can see it's in some sense intermediate between our two suggested actions, but can you help me out at all on the why? For either, indeed? If as you say, this is never used, then why is it better, for deprecation purposes or otherwise, for this to feed into a different category? Alai 22:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Less re-checking. I already check and empty about eight geo-stub categories a day, all of whose contents should be listed in country-specific or subregion-specific categories. Most of them either have one or two items which won't subcategorise further (like Cat:Africa geography stubs, which has three) or are country-specific themselves (like Cat:England geography stubs). Ones which are not at a specific country level aren't needed in the grand scheme of things, since the idealised eventual aim is to have every country with its own geo-stub. Unlike Africa, there's little chance of stub articles referring to half a dozen or morecountries with either South or Central America. If there are no stubs which are likely to ever use either of these templates as more than a temporary measure until a more specific stub is used, it makes a lot of sense to use the category that is most frequently checked and re-sorted, rather than a more finely grained one which would just add one more place to be regularly checked. Especially since there's a very good chance that the category in question would be empty 99 days out of 100. Grutness...wha? 23:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's at least something I can get my head around as an argument. OTOH, one might argue that an under-sorted geo-stub does less "harm" in the smaller, more specific category, even if it ends up lingering there a little longer, than if it clogs up a stubcat that's in constant need of aggressive "diffusion". There's also the aspect of the "least surprising result" here: if I tag something as a {{CentralAm-geo-stub}}, and then notice it's been categorised, and furthermore template-messaged as a plain "geography stub", I may have a "huh?!" moment. (And then go "fix" the redirect, probably.) It's better than a "red mist" moment as I discover someone's deleted the template, though. Can I suggest that if we go this route, we don't redirect as such, but recategorise, so that the template can be given a bespoke message, clarifying the above? (Perhaps along the line of the previously-mnetioned {{football-stub}}.) Alai 00:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I can agree to that - sounds like a reasonable compromise. I see the same sort of solution looming with the African region geo-stubs sometime in the not-too-distant future, too. Grutness...wha? 05:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Per Grutness 14th September. - Privacy 21:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

There are only 4 articles in this category. So it should be deleted. Furthermore it lacks a category (i.e. it makes red links). Finally the stub category might be a bit premature, because any entry on the 2008 olympics will be a stub until they are held. C mon 20:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, they do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery... I see no body of articles on this topic -- and nor should there be, for obvious WP:NOT reasons -- so delete for the next two years. Granted that the parent is quite large, at over 700 articles, but I'm pretty sure that 1984 is a more likely candidate... (Someone remind me to check after the next db dump.) Alai 20:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Grutness...wha? 23:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Caerwine Caerwhine 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I created it because in the next 2 years, pages on these games may pop up or may need to use this template. There are lots of pages now that should use it but aren't because I created it after the stubs were made, and haven't gotten around to adding them to it. It also follows the previous years (e.g. Template:1996-Olympic-stub, Template:2004-Olympic-stub, etc. [see the list at Category:Olympic_stubs]) It is important that it stays, I believe. As far as the category goes, make one. Or I will. It's no big deal. → JARED ^(t)  17:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It follows the pattern, but not the size guidelines, or the proposal process (for both of which, see WP:STUB). Alai 04:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Category created during run of this nomination, and tagged immediately prior to this edit. Alai 04:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• I've found and tagged another 16 of these, so I propose to close this as an upmerge unless someone objects, or wishes to close it on a different basis. Alai 04:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

Found that the category had been marked for SFD for a while with seemingly no action, so I'm just bringing it all here. 17 articles in a category with a really small scope, and a very ambiguous abbreviation for the template. --fuzzy510 15:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note that this has been SFD'd twice this year already. Alai 17:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this one was a disappoinment, I'd hoped for something about lost European traditions, I don't know like Kung-Fu from Spain or whatever. Instead, all articles are about fencing, all but two are -bios and nothing "interesting" at all. Delete Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 17:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. If it's been deleted twice before, then speedily delete. Nothing here that couldn't be better covered by a fencing-stub, by the looks of it - are there enough stubs for one of them? Grutness...wha? 23:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It hasn't, I said it's been SFD'd twice, i.e., in the spirit of "do we have to rehash this again?", not "speedy it". Alai 01:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I was unaware that it had been brought here at all. Really, if I didn't see the SFD template on the category, I'd have never brought it here. --fuzzy510 15:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, good point, I didn't notice that the last SFD hadn't been closed. OK, let's just retag them with fencing-stub, bio-stub, and/or hist-stubs as appropriate, and delete this, at the third attempt. Alai 16:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

38 articles in this category. The template is poorly named, and the convention right now is to split by country, not league. --fuzzy510 19:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• But given the size of Cat:United States basketball biography stubs, the question is, how do we then split those? This doesn't seem like the way to do it though, if it's not populable, and leads to much double-doubling, both of which seem likely. Can't we split by position? Or failing which, era/decade? Alai 20:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Position would be my preference to split it, if there are permcats for the different basketball positions. Decade would be my next choice. League simply isn't going to be viable - without looking, I'd bet that 80% of the stubs in there are NBA players, which won't do much to help once it's split. (For the record, deleting this stub type doesn't seem to do much to worsen the situation with US basketball bios, since a lot seem to be either double-tagged with the US tag, or not from the US.) --fuzzy510 20:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think there are such permcats (in either instance). I'll grant you that's an almighty nuisance, as for one thing it reduces the chances of doing this by 'bot to zero but I don't think it should stop us in theory... You're obviously correct about a per-league split only potentially helping with a couple of "chips", not the whole block. Alai 20:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • As creator of these categories, it wouldnt bother me seeing Nblbio-stub go, as long as the other category stays put. As for renaming the NBL player stubs, I dont really see the point as Australian basketball isnt at that depth yet. Jasrocks ^(talk) 23:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm totally confused, what other category? Only one category is nominated for deletion. As to lack of a necessity to clarify "NBL": see that page. I've only just realized it wasn't the National Basketball League that was being referred to (hence my comment about US bios above). Delete as undersized, a split on the wrong axis, and horribly confusingly named. Alai 06:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename

Simply to keep up with the normal standard. Only a select few countries don't use the ethnic name in the category name, and since this one was not actually created by us, the creator almost certainly just didn't know. --fuzzy510 20:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support move, though also sympathize with creator, given the obtuseness of the "rule" as to when we use "Greece", and when we use "Greek". Alai 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Heck, I'm happy just to have one less country's worth of football bios to sort out..... --fuzzy510 20:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename

The parent refers to "United States", as do every other sports biography category involving the United States. Not really that important, but I'm apparently unusually obsessive about consistency today...... --fuzzy510 20:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Obsessive support. Alai 20:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• ditto. Grutness...wha? 23:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The non-stub parent uses American, not United States as per the naming conventions for non-stub biography categories. We should be moving stub biography categories to match those conventions, not in opposition to them . Caerwine Caerwhine 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename

The parent refers to "United States", as do every other sports biography category involving the United States. Not really that important, but I'm apparently unusually obsessive about consistency today...... --fuzzy510 20:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support compulsively and consistently. Alai 20:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Nitpicking support from here too. Grutness...wha? 23:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The non-stub parent uses American, not United States as per the naming conventions for non-stub biography categories. We should be moving stub biography categories to match those conventions, not in opposition to them . Caerwine Caerwhine 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

Stub category for the reality TV show. It's been around for nearly 3 months, and has 7 articles. We've shot down many stub types for individual shows before, and I certainly don't see this one having much of a special case. --fuzzy510 20:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless shown to be at least somewhat more populable, possible upmerge to {{reality-tv-stub}}, co-incidentally recently proposed if that's itself viable. Alai 20:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without hesitation. Far too narrowly scoped. Will never reach a useful threshold. --TheParanoidOne 20:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A different stub tag can be used for the few articles that actually need it. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 21:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, or at the very least rename the template to correct capitalisation. Grutness...wha? 23:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or upmerge per Alai. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Upmerge per Alai or delete. --CComMack (t•c) 06:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename, rescope, redirect, as below

I think this one is in need a rename and a slight rescope. Mesoamerica and Central America are not synonymous, altho there is a large overlap. Suggest a rename to {{Mesoamerica-myth-stub}} / Cat:Mesoamerican mythology stubs to match the parent category of Cat:Mesoamerican mythology. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• On balance it'd favour renaming as above, but certainly keeping the existing template name as a redirect to reflect the more typical subregion structure of sub types, which is close enough it to be feasible (though not enough to have two different templates with different scoping texts), and an significant annoyance if it were to turn into a "surprise redlink". Alai 01:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• comment. Just to echo Caerwine above, as long as it's understood that Mesoamerica & Central America are not the same thing, otherwise should be fine. I suspect without doing the background research that the vast majority of stubs in the former CentralAm cat concern Mesoamerican mythology, though there are probably a couple (and potential for more to be written) which concern mythologies of non-Mesoamerican cultures, eg from Panama. There's also the general {{Mesoamerica-stub}} in use, but if it is thought that there are sufficient in the mythology subcat to justify a separate stub for those, then should be OK to break it out.--cjllw | TALK 02:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As this category was intended in scope, it is a regional category that parallels {{NorthAm-myth-stub}} and {{SouthAm-myth-stub}}. As I understand Wiki right now, the {{Mesoamerica-stub}} is a "historical era" so would only cover myths of that era. I estimate there are about 85% myth articles in it from the Mesomericans, and 15% other groups in Central America. My suggestion is to reword the stub and category page so that is says "relating to Central American and Mesoamerican mythology" Goldenrowley 05:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Since CentralAm is a subregion of NorthAm just as MEast is a subregion of Asia. I see Mesoamerican-myth-stub has being more like {{Celt-myth-stub}} or {{Norse-myth-stub}} The few Central American myth stubs that don't fit the Mesoamerican definition can be placed under {{NorthAm-myth-stub}} either directly or by making {{CentralAm-myth-stub}} a redirect to NorthAm once the Mesoamerican stubs have been migrated over to the new template. Caerwine Caerwhine 07:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • SUPPORT for this idea : ".... making {{CentralAm-myth-stub}} a redirect to NorthAm ({{NorthAm-myth-stub}}) once the Mesoamerican stubs have been migrated over to the new template ({{Mesoamerica-myth-stub}})" Goldenrowley 18:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• support, Caerwine's suggestion supra makes good sense to me.--cjllw | TALK 08:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

I've completely emptied {{Americas-myth-stub}} when making the new North, South and Central American myth stub categories and doing a sort. It's done its job but time to retire it. I'd like any future traffic to {{myth-stub}}, it will flatten that category level on the TOC, if you all approve. Not sure how to do deletes and redirection though, I'd need some guidance. Goldenrowley 20:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Added the category as well since we don't usually categorize the Americas together for stub sorting. The myth stub was an exception and without a template to feed into it, I see no reason to keep the category as well. Delete Caerwine Caerwhine 23:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both, per CW. Alai 01:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was move template, delete redirect

See discussion at WP:WSS/D. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the redirect, per the naming guidelines. Move the template due to ambiguity of UU to {{UnitarianUniversalism-stub}}, {{Unitarian-stub}}, or {{Universalism-stub}}, in that (decreasing) order of preference, adding/keeping all other redirects. Alai 17:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both templates, moving the stubs to using {{UnitarianUniversalism-stub}} and add the two redirects with possibilities of {{Unitarian-stub}} and {{Universalism-stub}}. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the redirect, move template to {{Unitarian Universalism-stub}}, and update stubs accordingly. HellaNorCal 00:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The naming guidelines would preclude {{Unitarian Universalism-stub}}, due to the space in the template name; it'd have to be {{UnitarianUniversalism-stub}} (or at worst at {{UnitarianUniversalism-stub}}, though that'd be a little misleading as it'd suggest a hierarchy, with parent at {{Universalism-stub}}). (Personally I'm inlikely to move the {{UU-stub}} usages, unless that's deleted too, due to past griping over such ploys, but certainly the ones at {{UU stub}} will be.) Alai 03:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I think you meant "at worst at {{Unitarian-Unversalism-stub}}", but that's neither here nor there. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
      • That's what I was struggling to type, indeed. Alai 16:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete redirect, move template to {{UnitarianUniversalism-stub}}. --CComMack (t•c) 06:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Both {{UU stub}} and {{UU-stub}} redirect (well it's an {{sfd-r}} currently). The template was moved to {{UnitarianUniversalism-stub}}. No articles transclude either {{UU stub}} or {{UU-stub}}. {{UU stub}} should definitely be deleted, and I don't care either way about {{UU-stub}}. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

I have restubbed the 2 pages that have this errant stub as {{NorthAm-myth-stub}} to join the rest of Innuit myths. "This is used on just two articles" per evaluation. Goldenrowley 19:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete "Empty" and doesn't conform to naming standards ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Possible rename per NGs and upmerge if this is even semi- populable, but probably just delete. Alai 21:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Amalas. I doubt there are enough for such a stub, even if it were attached to a Wikiproject. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename

[edit] Cat:Military biographical stubs hierarchy, to Cat:military personnel stubs, etc

OK, so the flips have stopped flopping in the permcats, so let's deliberate the corresponding stubcats. It's not 100% clear that the two names have absolutely identical scopes, but close enough for government work, I'd think. At a minumum, we should fix the -ical inconsistency, as the root of a stubcat name is expressly supposed to be a noun phrase. Alai 22:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

As we just deleted the UK- version of this redirect, this should probably get the chop too. (That one was used on one article, this one isn't at all.) Alai 22:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename

With all of the regions in this area now having their own stub cat, the Central Italy stub cat is not needed any longer. (The parent category Cat:Italy geography stubs would have 20 regional subcats, which is a very manageable number, so no extra hierarchical level is needed. The same is true for Cat:Southern Italy geography stubs as soon as my bot starts creating Molise articles, so I'm nominating that one as well. -- Eugène van der Pijll 16:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'd broadly support, though I'm a bit concerned that there are now a couple of regional-level, and numerous provincial-level categories that are seriously undersized, and that were proposed only in the most abstract terms (in particular, without reference to size). Are these in imminent danger of being bot-populated, or should we be looking at upmerging these? Alai 21:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Except for Molise, none of the regional categories are undersized currently. The new provincial categories (which are, BTW, not related to the two cats discussed here) are mostly populated; the few that are still undersized, will be populated during next week if I keep up the current schedule. (Unless you want to delete them, in which case I will give them a higher prority). Eugène van der Pijll 22:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

...ehm, except for the provincial cats for Sondrio and Mantua, apparently, which are at 56 and 46, and which will not be bot-populated any further... Eugène van der Pijll 22:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Actually, they are not undersized (look at their templates' What-links-here), but a number of comuni do not show up in the categories. No doubt because of the job queue problems mentioned on the Village pump. Eugène van der Pijll 23:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, slight "digression on the theme" on my part. A week's time is soon enough for me, and possibly some of the categories I was looking at were suffering from the same thing. If the categories are still "stuck" after a few more days, I'll run touch.py over the templates (unless the VP has a brighter idea). Alai 23:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

All seems fine now in regard to the "stuck" articles. Alai 05:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus

I honestly didn't want to take this one straight to SfD, but I couldn't think of any better place to discuss it. I don't really think this one serves much of a purpose for us right now. There are 65 articles that use the tag, but they all could go into other categories that were, when this was created, either in their relative infancy (baseball bios) or non-existant (baseball teams). We don't split out any other league separately, and I don't really know that this should be an exception. --fuzzy510 19:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• This I'm not at all sure about. The Negro leagues are more than Yet Another Baseball League, they're a whole category of such, and have considerable historical significance. They're also quite plausible as an axis a specialist would want to work on. (A wikiproject would be the clincher, obviously.) And "double-stubbing by league" isn't much of a risk for segregation-era baseball... I'm inclined to say "keep", but I'm open to argument either way. Alai 01:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

Only used on 14 articles, and that's not because of a lack of sorting - I've been through the football bios plenty of times, and this is not ready for creation yet. --fuzzy510 05:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Upmerge. Alai 16:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Template has been upmerged. All that's left is to delete the cat, which I can't do. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename and upmerge

Not proposed, only 9 articles. Does have a WikiProject. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or at the very least rename to just {{FawltyTowers-stub}}. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename and upmerge on account of the WPJ. Alai 02:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Template has been renamed to {{FawltyTowers-stub}} and now feeds into Cat:United Kingdom television programme stubs. Nothing links to {{FawltyTowers-tv-stub}}, so that redirect can be deleted. Cat:Fawlty Towers stubs is empty, so it can also be deleted. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Amfoot-punter-stub

Proposed in June, except that it's redundant to the already-existing {{Amfoot-kicker-stub}}. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It may be ambiguous, but it ain't redundant. Kicker usually refers to a placekicker, not a punter. While there has historicaly been some overlap between the two positions, as well as the quarterback spot (Hence the Punt, Pass and Kick competition for youngsters sponsored by the NFL), in modern football with all the substitutions you want being allowed, they are almost always seperate specialists today. Keep either as is or with a move to the less ambiguous {{Amfoot-punter-stub}} if it's felt necessary. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• As it's ever-so-slightly undersized, possible merge to the kickers, keeping the separate template, renaming and explicitly rescoping the category, but that seems somewhat overengineered, so on balance just keep or rename, per CW. Alai 02:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  56 pages is undersized? 1ne 22:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  55 (since the template hardly counts), and yes, slightly (creation threshold is 60). Alai 04:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Punters aren't placekickers. Keep (although it's my own). 1ne 21:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • But the other stub type isn't called placekickers. (Actually, neither cat even mentions what the sport is, which isn't ideal.) Rename the cat to Cat:American football punter stubs, and its counterpart (which I'm about to tag) to Cat:American football placekicker stubs, or else merge the two to Cat:American football kicker stubs, keeping both templates (under whatever name) regardless. Alai 04:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Oppose Cat:American football placekicker stubs. The position is usually called just kicker with placekicker only used when trying to be extra descriptive. More to the point the parent is Cat:American football kickers. Support adding American football to the category names, both to match the parent cats and to avoid ambiguity. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      • You're saying we should call punters kickers? Punters aren't kickers, and like Caerwhine said, they're rarely referred to as placekickers. Here's some proof of the difference between punter and kicker on NFL.com: Dave Zastudil, a punter and Dave Rayner, a kicker. 1ne 07:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Trust me, I already understand the difference between a (place)kicker and a punter. Nonetheless, they're both specialist positions involving kicking things (indeed, the same thing!), there's overlap between the two, and one of them is undersized, so mergeing is hardly a ludicrous population. We could always call it Cat:American football placekicker and punter stubs, just to make it even longer... Alai 07:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
          • They're still not the same thing. And how is the punter stubs category "undersized"? There's 55 pages in it. 1ne 07:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm aware they're not "the same thing", they're "somewhat similar things". You asked me about size above, and I answered you there. See also WP:STUB. Alai 08:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Somewhat similar doesn't mean they should be in the same category. 1ne 20:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
                • It means it's not infeasible that they be in the same category, especially when it's straightforward to make that it includes both in its scope explicit. Alai 23:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - they're separate things. —this is messedrocker (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, merging the two makes no sense. That's like merging the offensive linemen with the defensive linemen. VegaDark 08:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• I've moved {{punter-stub}} to {{Amfoot-punter-stub}}. The redirect can stay and so can Cat:Punter stubs. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

Not used on any articles. All it does is transclude {{Ireland-bio-stub}} and {{painter-stub}}, so why not just let people double-stub and get rid of this useless template? ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Amalas. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Alai 02:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - This was discussed in July, opposed, but created anyway.

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

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

The result of the debate was keep

None of the other singers are split by genre; they're all split by country, so why start here? This will just lead to unneeded double-stubbing. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Actually we do have other genre splits. {{Opera-singer-stub}} existed well before we started splitting {{singer-stub}} by country. Also {{US-rock-singer-stub}} exists as a way to handle the overlarge {{US-singer-stub}}. The question isn't whether we need genre splits, but which ones? Caerwine Caerwhine 22:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Horribly vague in scope (but that's a problem we in any case have with the albums, singles, songs, etc), but probably a necessary stick to beat various oversized types with. Alai 02:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Proposed in July, no opposition. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 04:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Holy crap, you mean I proposed and created this? I think I have to start keeping better track. :) Alai 06:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Hey, at least you recommended keeping it. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 03:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep

Theater is the common spelling in the US. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Both spellings are well in use in the U.S., with theatre being the spelling more commonly used by the professionals. (C.f. American Theatre Wing, United States Institute for Theatre Technology, Antoinette Perry Award for Excellence in Theatre (aka Tony Award)) Caerwine Caerwhine 22:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename

Proposed in May, no articles use it, redundant to existing {{snooker-stub}}. Existing Cat:Billiards, snooker and pool stubs is fine. Will consider possible renaming for clarification. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Rename to {{billiards-stub}}, which seems to be the missing one from the set. (Or delete this one and create that one, if preferred.) Alai 02:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• {{billiards-stub}} is now the official template. The redirects - {{snooker-stub}}, {{pool-stub}}, and {{cuesport-stub}} - are all orphaned, can be kept, and are listed at WP:WSS/R. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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.