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

The result of the debate was delete

Delete - An editor who did not understand that Taito is a part of Square Enix created this unproposed category for {{Taito-videogame-stub}} (which itself survived an earlier SfD here). If Taito stubs do not go into Category:Square Enix stubs then that category would only hold 36 stubs, which is around half of the minimum. Basically, I'd rather delete this one than that one, as Taito is a Square Enix property, and there is a WikiProject Square Enix. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the Category:Square Enix stubs text to clearly state the relationship. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly wasn't aware of this, I assumed Taito were still their own property. Still, the fact that the Square Enix catagory has fewer stubs than Taito does (by quite a margin) would indicate there is potentially room for Taito to have it's own stubs set...? Not sure. Overlord11001001 17:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not in this case, since the size of the SE category is notn suchn that it needs splitting. Stub categories have different size requirements to standard "permanent" categories, since they are used for a different purpose. With only 150-odd stubs between the two, there is no need to separate these out. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 2 August 2007 (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

A direct and unproposed copy of {{AFL-bio-1980s-stub}}. not even a redirect, this template simply transcluded a second template in its text. There is no such thing as an afl - these players are AFL players. As such, "Afl-x-stub" breaks the naming conventions. Delete Grutness...wha? 01:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete - likely created by someone who was trying to be helpful (as when people normally create redirects for alternate capitalizations) and didn't understand the concept of a stub redirect. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:27, 2 August 2007 (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

Unproposed. It's not part of the stubbing task to say who wrote an article - it makes no difference in finding specific articles., and there are already templates which are designed to do this non-stub-elated task. A bad precedent, too, since it would require the doubling of the numbers of virtually all bio-stub types if this was to become standard practice. Unnecessary and unhelpful. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Autobiographical articles are inherently biased and SHOULD be monitored to ensure that the author isn't attempting to self-promote via WP. Writing your OWN article in Wikipedia is extremely bad form, and should be discouraged as much as possible! Propose to expand the usage of this template. Aug 1, 2007

Did you actually read my comments? There are already templates which are used for monitoring self-created articles, separate from the stub process. There is absolutely no need to conflate two completely separate monitoring tasks in this way, and doing so will only make the stub-sorting process immensely more difficult. The stub sorting process is intended to help editors find articles on specific topics - it is unconnected with other cleanup processes. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete, unless there are plans for a {{Tv-cleanup-stub}}, or maybe a {{Tv-db-stub}} (for when a TV article needs to be speedily deleted and expanded). The premise of this stub is just plain silly. Let's be perfectly plain here, stub categories describe the subject, not the article, aside from the fact that the article is a stub. Instead, supplement {{Autobiography}} with {{Tv-stub}}. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:24, 2 August 2007 (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

Seems to have been created to go with a Cat:India education stubs, was mooted as a parent cat for Cat:India school stubs and Cat:India university stubs, but never implemented thusly. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep, it is useful for articles about education, or might it be replaced by the normal education stub. Marlith ^T/C 01:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to see which stub articles about education in India would need a general stub type when there are so many specific types under Cat:Education in India: {{India-academic-bio-stub}}, Cat:India school stubs, Cat:India university stubs, Cat:Indian scientist stubs; but if you can find 60+ I'll buy it. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:06, 3 August 2007 (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

Incorrect singular form, have created category with the extra s (stubs) this should be speedy deleted as creator request. Note the template feeds into the correct category.Waacstats 12:27, 2 August 2007 (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

Template:Nevada-State-County-Highway-stub (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template is unnecessary; very few, if no, articles that would require a stub template of this type. Easily replaced by Nevada-State-Highway-stub or US-road-stub. . Son 21:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom. --Holderca1 21:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Marlith ^T/C 01:29, 3 August 2007 (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

Never proposed, non-standard name, and an icon the size of which beggars belief. Already adequately covered by the longstanding {{horticulture-stub}}, there is no need for this stub type. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree. Sorry about this. A Wiki process that I didn't realized existed. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Wassupwestcoast, you can alternatively decided to change the hort stubs to hort and gardening stubs or add gardening stubs--obviously both of these together are counterproductive and one has to go. Ask in the project and on plants, as someone will know which stub categories already exist. KP Botany 20:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply to comment - currently, there are {{horticulture-stub}}, {{gardening-stub}}, and various stubs for individual plant genuses (genii?). If necessary, there is nothing wrong with adding two templates for those rare articles which relate to both horticulture and gardening. Grutness...wha? 01:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I hadn't actually thought of that, probably a lot of plants belong in both, and I don't know that one is the subcategory of the other. I don't know that you would have a category for both so much as you would categorize in both. I'm not really much up on horticulture or gardening. Plural for genus is "genera." KP Botany 03:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
      • (slaps head) I knew that - the word just fell through a hole in my brain :) Grutness...wha? 01:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I figured that would happen, the word sounding awful darn familiar.... KP Botany 04:00, 7 August 2007 (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; do not parameterize US-road-stub

• {{Arizona-State-Route-stub}} → {{Arizona-road-stub}} / Cat:Arizona State Route stubs → *Cat:Arizona road stubs
• {{California-State-Highway-stub}} → {{California-road-stub}} / Cat:California State Highway stubs → *Cat:California road stubs
• {{Connecticut-State-Highway-stub}} → {{Connecticut-road-stub}} / Cat:Connecticut State Highway stubs → *Cat:Connecticut road stubs
• {{Florida-State-Road-stub}} → {{Florida-road-stub}} / Cat:Florida State Road stubs → *Cat:Florida road stubs
• {{Kansas-State-Highway-stub}} → {{Kansas-road-stub}} / Cat:Kansas State Highway stubs → *Cat:Kansas road stubs
• {{Maryland-State-Highway-stub}} → {{Maryland-road-stub}} / Cat:Maryland State Highway stubs → *Cat:Maryland road stubs
• {{Massachusetts-State-Highway-stub}} → {{Massachusetts-road-stub}} / Cat:Massachusetts State Highway stubs → *Cat:Massachusetts road stubs
• {{Michigan-State-Highway-stub}} → {{Michigan-road-stub}} / Cat:Michigan state highway stubs → *Cat:Michigan road stubs
• {{Missouri-State-Highway-stub}} → {{Missouri-road-stub}} / Cat:Missouri State Highway stubs → *Cat:Missouri road stubs
• {{Nebraska-Highways-stub}} → {{Nebraska-road-stub}} / Cat:Nebraska Highway stubs → *Cat:Nebraska road stubs
• {{Nevada-State-Highway-stub}} → {{Nevada-road-stub}} / Cat:Nevada State Highway stubs → *Cat:Nevada road stubs
• {{NewHampshire-State-Highway-stub}} → {{NewHampshire-road-stub}} / Cat:New Hampshire State Highway stubs → *Cat:New Hampshire road stubs
• {{Pennsylvania-State-Highway-stub}} → {{Pennsylvania-road-stub}} / Cat:Pennsylvania Highway stubs → *Cat:Pennsylvania road stubs
• {{RhodeIsland-State-Highway-stub}} → {{RhodeIsland-road-stub}} (RI is upmerged with Cat:United States road stubs so no renames are necessary here)
• {{Texas-State-Highway-stub}} → {{Texas-road-stub}} the latter redirects to the former for this one / Cat:Texas Highway stubs → *Cat:Texas road stubs
• {{Utah-State-Highway-stub}} → {{Utah-road-stub}} / Cat:Utah State Highway stubs → *Cat:Utah road stubs
• {{Washington-State-Route-stub}} → {{Washington-road-stub}} / Cat:Washington state highway stubs → *Cat:Washington road stubs

added 8/5/2007, all will put in Category:United States road stubs:

• {{Colorado-State-Highway-stub}} → {{Colorado-road-stub}}
• {{Wyoming-Highway-stub}} → {{Wyoming-road-stub}}
• {{Arkansas-Highway-stub}} → {{Arkansas-road-stub}}

Rename all of these per WP:WSS/NG. {{Texas-road-stub}} is a redirect to {{Texas-State-Highway-stub}} so the content of the latter needs to be moved to the former and the latter deleted. master son^{T - C} 00:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Also, the genericized stubs will allow more articles to be cleaned out of Category:United States road stubs. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Grutness...wha? 01:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Rename. There are several street and bridge articles under WP:MDRD that currently have to be marked with {{Maryland-stub}} and {{US-road-stub}}, because they are not related specifically to state highways. Doing this will allow these articles to be marked with one stub template just as the state highway articles are. I'm sure this applies to the other states as well.-Jeff ^(talk) 02:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: bridges should normally get {{US-bridge-struct-stub}} rather than any form of road stub - and that type is likely to be split by state at some point in the not-too-distant future. Grutness...wha? 10:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. It's nice to see a uniform naming convention for all US Roads stubs. --Son 20:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Add to list: I added the CO, WY and AR stubs - discovered just recently - to the list. They will not have their own cats. master son^{T - C} 19:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Rename. Sitting on my to-do for months when Master_son beat me to it :) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • What happens to {{California-County-Route-stub}}? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • We're planning on merging it with the California road stub once it gets renamed. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Rename, sounds like a good and useful idea to me. Nyttend 18:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, just had an idea, how about we merge them all into {{US-road-stub}} and use a state paramter? --Holderca1 16:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's any other series of stub templates that does this. Perhaps someone from WP:WSS can clarify/comment. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I just finished the coding, {{US-road-stub|TX}} produces the same effect as the separate template for Texas. I did use the proposed cat names from above. See Template talk:US-road-stub for an example of it in use. --Holderca1 17:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I strongly urge reversion to standard coding (and standard usages). This is just a headache waiting to happen: people have proposed and/or solo-run implemented all sorts of different -- and thus, entirely conflicting -- uses for parameters of stub templates, and the casual editor (or stub sorter) of same is likely to be entirely confused. We don't want people to start having to read a manual just to use a non-standard stub template. Alai 05:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Now that someone from WP:WSS has commented, I'll give the opinion I've had all along - I don't like the idea of an "all-in-one" stub. As the saying goes, if the current system isn't broken (which it isn't), don't fix it. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:15, 13 August 2007 (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/upmerge

Template is of some use but category is undersize and as the permcat only has 22 articles I doubt this will get to 50/60 anytime soon. Waacstats 23:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and upmerge unless there's clear evidence of growth during this deletion process. No prejudice against recreating at a later date if numbers support a separate category. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 4 August 2007 (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 create "Collectible card games" cat and CCG-game-stub, delete Magic cat, upmerge Magic template

Rename to the more useful Category:Trading card game stubs for all trading/collectible card games (or TCGs). Current Cat has only 18 stubs. Keep and upmerge {{MTG-game-stub}}, and create {{TCG-game-stub}}. Although redundant, TCG is a very easily recognizable abbreviation for trading card games, usually used to easily differentiate within franchises (i.e. Pokemon TCG, Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG, etc.).~ JohnnyMrNinja 23:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• I would think that CCG is a more common acronym, used for Collectible Card Game. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I concur with the "CCG" observation; that also concords with our articles on the topic. Alai 03:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The article names are a separate issue, but should be renamed per naming conventions. I hate to use Google hits, but "Collectible Card Game" nets 334,000, whereas "Trading Card Game" nets 2,070,000. Huge difference. WotC refers to Magic the Gathering as a "TCG" [1]. The main Pokemon page refers to it's "TCG" [2]. Yo-Gi-Oh! refers to itself (cartoon and game) as a "trading card game" [3] or "TCG" [4]. Does anyone argue that these are by-far the most famous of this type of game? "Collectible card game" is not highly used by the major companies that produce such games, not the most recognized by English readers, and therefor is inaccurate by naming conventions. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
      • It's not a separate issue at all, and the stub category name is exactly the wrong place to start such a discussion, or to depart from the existing choice of name. BTW, permcat is at Cat:collectible card games, just to underline the point. (I wouldn't be surprised if those two games alone were responsible for large amounts of google pollution; MtG is itself definitely a "CCG", not at "TCG", in normal usage.) Alai 12:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Would CCG-game-stub be redundant? What about MTG-game-stub? Is the "game" really necessary? ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Technically, you're right. But {{CCG-stub}} would be cryptic and [[CCG|ambiguous}} (as would TCG), while {{CC-game-stub}} would be a bit strange. Alai 02:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Closing note: I went with CCG because it follows the permcat. If that needs to be changed, then take that to WP:CFD~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:38, 7 September 2007 (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

Ah, for a speedy criterion... presumably this is an attempt to make a duplicate of {{US-bio-stub}} - difficult to tell, though, since all it contains is {{<br>}}. Delete, speedily if possible. Grutness...wha? 01:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete. Not needed, duplicate, violates the NC. Valentinian ^{T / C} 07:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong speedy delete. Unnecessary duplicate. Anyway, its current content is "{{ }}". Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 00:00, 9 August 2007 (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

• The most controversial of all stub templates seems to have risen from the grave. Given the preceding history for this template, I don't feel the slightest hope that new edit wars won't break out over it yet again. We should stick to only having country-level templates for internationally well-recognized entities. Last discussion was [5], and the previous (rejected) proposal was [6] Strong delete per precedent in similar cases. Valentinian ^{T / C} 09:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete There is already a stub template for Cyprus. No need to start another one. ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 16:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep Somaliland, Western Sahara, and Transnistria all have their own stubs, so why can't the TRNC? The internationally recognized government of Cyprus may claim to have sovereignity over the whole island, including the north, but in reality, they don't, so there's no valid reason why this stub should be deleted. Onur 18:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The other templates were not started by members of this project but by outsiders. They should be deleted as well, like we did with {{Abkhazia-stub}}, {{Ossetia-stub}} and others. The reason that the current templates for Cyprus use a map rather than the internationally recognized flag is in order to avoid a ton of revert wars between editors wishing to add their own flag to articles about the locations north of the 1974 division line. So the Cypriot templates are based on a geographical scope encompassing the entire island, rather than a political one. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete and salt as re-creation of previously deleted stub type. Onur, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument - if you feel strongly about those other stub types, bring them here. They shouldn't exist anyway since, like TRNC, they are not widely recognised internationally. Western Sahara might squeeze in as an exception, but only just. The others are definitely SFD-worthy. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy and salt. It boggles the mind that this exactly recreates the earlier deletion, spacey NG-non-compliance and all. If you want this recreated, please obtain a prior consensus. Alai 02:51, 7 August 2007 (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

I fought long and hard for this name, and now something like 5 months after the fact I conclude that this was a mistake. (I.e., yes, I am admitting I erred and was an pain in the butt). I detested the multi-word "glomming" used in stub template names, and still don't like it, but now recognize that it is, and there's nothing I can do about that. I would rather go with the consensus naming convention than try to nip at that convention by defying it. The inconsistency is probably annoying to more editors (everyone doing stub sorting) than the convention is to others (me and a handful of other grumblers, if even they are still around). So, rename to {{cuesports-stub}} (and either keep the {{cue-sports-stub}} redir, or fix all the present usages with a bot or an AWB trawl). And no I don't concede on the sports vs. sport issue on this one (not a US vs. UK thing, but a simply fact thing - cue[ ]sports refers to more than one sport, so the plural is appropriate; it has nothing to do with the -sport- WP:SS pseudo-namespace at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support change per SMcCandlish, and allow him/her/it to preserve his/her/its dignity. Cheers! Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:04, 7 August 2007 (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/upmerge

Seriously undersized, and as the parent is now empty, seems unlikely to be related to undersorting. Upmerge. Alai 04:14, 7 August 2007 (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

Unproposed and - given that there are only some 210 Nicaraguan geography stubs - not likely to come within a bull's roar of threshold. Template is misnamed, too - should be Nicaragua-protected-area-stub. The two most obvious options are renaming/upmerging or simply deleting. The latter is probably the better option - though Cat:Protected area stubs is a candidate for splitting, splitting out larger regions and those which actually have a large number of stubs would make far more sense than starting with ones which have very few. An upmerged {{CentralAm-protected-area-stub}} might be a viable compromise. Grutness...wha? 01:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not too sure of the rules for creating stub templates for protected areas. I followed the style of both {{CostaRica-protected-area-stub}} and Cat:Costa Rican protected area stubs. I was planning on starting (stub) pages for the list of protected areas of Nicaragua, but ill hold out on some and tag them with {{Protected-area-stubs}}.  LaNicoya  •TALK• 02:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Check WP:STUB - this gives the details about how to create stub types, when they should be created, and how they should be proposed beforehand. One usual rule is 60 currently existing stubs on a subject - though you may have good intentions to create more, often such intentions are not carried through on and we're left with near-empty stub categories. And even if all the redlinks on the page you mention became stub articles, there still wouldn't be 60 stubs on the subject - which is why a more widely-scoped category such as one for Central America in general might be more useful. The stub-type naming conventions are also useful to check - that would have told you that - like the Costa Rica stub template, it should have had the noun form rather than the adjective form of the country's name. Grutness...wha? 01:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to split Cat:Protected area stubs into something smaller, a {{CentralAm-protected-area-stub}} will certainly be useful. The growth potential seems fair given the many redlinks on Protected areas of Nicaragua, so I don't have any problem with an upmerged Nicaragua- template, but a distinct Nicaraguan category should wait till we have 60 stub articles. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

And contrariwise, if we're going to split out a Cat:Central America protected area stubs, let's populate it from by-country templates, if at all possible, in preference to from {{CentralAm-protected-area-stub}}. Alai 05:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Closing note: I didn't not take into consideration the creation of CentralAm-protected-area. Please take that to /P. You will have to recreate Nicaragua if it is deemed necessary. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:19, 23 August 2007 (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

• {{Chrudim-geo-stub}} --> {{Pardubice-geo-stub}}
• {{PardubiceDistrict-geo-stub}} --> {{Pardubice-geo-stub}}

I propose merger (redirection or deletion) of these two, because: Chrudim District and Pardubice Districts are a Districts of the Czech Republic. It is a second-level administrative subdivision of the country which is (from 2002) not fully used. Competences of districts are now low and districts became, let's say, traditional matter. Primary administrative subdivision of the country are Regions. We have stubs for all of them and they are just perfectly sufficient and more transparent. - Darwinek 12:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the number of stubs, this makes sense. If the districts are no longer used, it might be worth deleting these templates altogether. Has any new system been put in place to replace districts at the sub-region level? If so, that would be the logical thing to base stubs on if and when there are too many in a Region... Grutness...wha? 12:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• support for the merger - These stubs are real unecessary. For the purpose of helping editors find articles-stubs the region-based stubs are sufficient. To show the descending structure of administrative units Categories are, IMO, a better means. I would only support keeping those stubs if there were an active project focused on the appropriate district or whatever, which doesn't seem to be that case. – Caroig (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• These already are upmerged. It strikes me that getting rid of these entirely would just mean additional, duplicated work for us if and when at some future point in time, someone throws up their hands in horror that the regional-level categories are excessively large. (There seems to be a sudden trend of such un-sorting nominations, but at least this one's in the right place: last time, someone proposed deleting a category at /P, and after denying he was proposing a deletion, deleted it himself as a "speedy". All perfectly clear...) If I understand you (and the corresponding articles) correctly, these have not been abolished, and are still sub(sub)divisions of the country, and until such times as they are, and are replaced with something else, they'd be how we would make such a re-split. As they're upmerged, they don't effect the utility of using the category in the meantime. Consequently, oppose as all-downside, no-upside. Keep as upmerged templates, or failing which (though I can't think why), as redirects. Alai 03:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is that - as Darwinek pointed out - the district subdivision scheme is not really used in the Czech Republic. If there is a better way of subdividing the regions, then it would make sense to use that rather than districts. And if that is the case, these templates become redundant. Grutness...wha? 23:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Apparently, there isn't. (Unless you fancy villages vs. towns, landforms, etc...) I don't follow what's meant by "not really used": these are still the subdivisions, as far as I can see, whether or not they have reduced significance, powers, etc. (I'll remind you that we've recently split two German states by subdivisions that have been abolished (but not replaced).) Unless and until they're abolished, and replaced with something else, deletion of these would just be unsorting, for the sake of unsorting. Why? Alai 05:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Mmmm. I take your point. I'd misunderstood and thought that something new must have taken their place. In that case, I'm also less inclined to delete them. They are, as you say, upmerged, so it's hardly going to cause extra category sorting. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 13 August 2007 (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 CAsia; keep SEAsia template, delete cat; keep both MEast

This is a follow-up to a comment I made at W talk:WSS/P: With almost every country now having its own geo-stub template, I'd like to propose simplifying the Asian geography stub hierarchy by removing three subcontinental stub types that have largely outlived their usefulness -

• Cat:Central Asia geography stubs (no template)
• {{SEAsia-geo-stub}} / Cat:Southeast Asia geography stubs
• {{MEast-geo-stub}} / Cat:Middle East geography stubs

Central Asia is the most straightforward. It has no template, and every stub in it is within one of its six nation-specific subcategories. "Central Asia" is a fairly amorphous term anyway - some definitions include parts of Russia - others exclude Mongolia. deletion of this will need no redirecting of templates and will only save effort all round.

Southeast Asia is also a moderately vague term with several definitions. Currently this category contains fewer than 80 stubs, all but about three of which are either marked ith Brunei-geo-stub or Timor-geo-stub - the two remaining countries in the region that have not yet reached threshold. These templates can be redirected easily enough to Cat:Asia geography stubs, as can SEAsia-geo-stub.

Middle East is also fairly vague as far as its definition is concerned, though probably it is a stronger candidate for retention - I've basically added it here as much as anything to test the waters and "complete the set". Currently this category contains fewer than 120 stubs, all but a handful of which are either marked ith Bharain-geo-stub, Kuwait-geo-stub, or Qatar-geo-stub - the three remaining countries in the region that have not yet reached threshold. These templates can be redirected easily enough to Cat:Asia geography stubs, as can MEast-geo-stub.

So, to sum up - strong delete for the Central Asia category; moderate delete for the Southerast Asia one (with redirection of templates) and weak to mild delete of the Middle East one, with redirection of templates. Grutness...wha? 12:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• On the 'vagueness' issue: why aren't we using the UN geoscheme names and definitions for these subdivisions (if kept), and indeed, throughout? Alai 03:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It's been suggested in the past, but we've never done much about it. And in all of these cases, the articles referring to the regions make no claims that there are set UN definitions. The Central Asia one also shows why, if we were to use UN-related definitions, there would be problems. Though no official UN position is mentioned, this is: The UNESCO general history of Central Asia... defines the region based on climate and uses far larger borders. According to it, Central Asia includes Mongolia, Western China (including Tibet), northeast Iran, northwestern India, Afghanistan and eastern Pakistan, central-east Russia south of the Taiga, the former Central Asian Soviet Republics (the five "Stans" of the former Soviet Union), but also even the Punjab of India and Pakistan. For ease of stub sorting, a definition for a region that includes some parts of countries is not a useful one. Grutness...wha? 23:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I didn't suggest just any ol' UN-related thing, though, I suggested the UN geoscheme; see the definitional document linked from that article. Alai 03:00, 12 August 2007 (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

No uses; no category. Delete. --MZMcBride 16:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think we can safely speedy this; redirects from different spellings is one thing, but this one is just... mangled. Alai 05:09, 12 August 2007 (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

Unproposed and malformed (check the "expand" link), and with no category. Pretty useless, too. Are we likely to have 60 stubs on mattresses? I don't see us even needing this one - {{furniture-stub}} suffices. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete I think even a bed-stub would be hard pressed to be more than a feed in template at this time. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:37, 13 August 2007 (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 due to WikiProject

Delete and merge to {{California-road-stub}}, which has been expanded to accomodate the new articles. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, only 31 articles are tagged with this template - not enough to warrant a separate stub now that {{California-road-stub}} exists. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom master son^{T - C} 23:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, IF changes are made to the California road stub template that make the shield route neutral or include all California road types (ie:County, US Highway and Interstate). Otherwise, Keep. Gateman1997 02:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Interstate and U.S. Route articles are addressed by other stubs. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Then why are we covering county routes with the state route stub? Gateman1997 02:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Because it's not the state route stub anymore. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Then we should remove the state route shield ;). Or add the signage for all the routes it covers. Gateman1997 03:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering that this will also be covering roads that are not numbered, this is not practical. Considering that every other state route stub is named -road-stub and has a state route shield, California is fully capable of having just a state route shield on its template. I don't see any other states complaining about this. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Stubs aren't meant to be overly specific - the shield here is unique to CA and is only an example to identify to the state. whereas the county sheild is a national standard. master son^{T - C} 03:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well we could always put something that's not a shield in it like a state outline or something similar. Or just leave it blank. And though no other states have complained, I am. So now someone has complained. Gateman1997 03:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comments: as an arch-"too-small stub type deletionist", I must in conscience point out that this is just about big enough, given that it's the "main stub type" of a WPJ. (Why we need multiple Wikiprojects for "Californian roads" is, I must admit, much less clear to me, but not really my concern.) I don't really understand the 'image' objection, though. The point is for images to be recognisable and illustrative, not that they represent all possible instances. (Otherwise we'd tie ourselves in knots trying to work out how to choose an image for, say, {{scientist-stub}}, worrying whether a male German-American physicist can ever be used on, let's say, an article about a female Peruvian botanist, say.) In any case, that's a matter for content editing, not for a deletion process (though I have to admit to many a tangential mid-SFD rant myself, it must be said). Alai 04:05, 15 August 2007 (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

• rename Category:Narnia stubs to Category:The Chronicles of Narnia stubs per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_5#Category:Narnia.--Mike Selinker 15:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• rename per nom. Makes sense to keep this consistent with the permcats. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Rename. I think this could well be speedied, given the otherwise all-embracing CFR. Alai 00:11, 17 August 2007 (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

Given the recent Big Bang solution to the naming of the various by-state road stub types, this looks a little narrow and awkwardly-named. Suggest outright deletion, merging the articles into Cat:Michigan road stubs. Alai 06:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. This doesn't look particularly useful and the simple state-road-stub system simplifies things nicely. delete. Grutness...wha? 12:04, 14 August 2007 (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

Unproposed and...well, let's start with the name. INA can refer to a large number of things, so this template fails on that count. It also has a space rather than a hyphen, so that's two strikes against it. Above all that, do we really need a stub typed for a short period of one country's history? We don't generally have stubs diving up a country's history into separate periods - the only 20th century ones I can think of are Soviet-stub and Nazi-stub - both of which are likely to have significantly more stub articles than one on the Azad Hind/I.N.A. period of Indian history. And with only about 450 stubs, Cat:Indian history stubs is far from needing splitting. What's more, the permcat associated with this, Cat:Indian National Army only has 76 articles - 80% of which would need to be stubs before this could become a viable subtype. Simply not necessary. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - It's not so small that it's unreasonable to start thinking about splitting (and de-WPJ-spamming, mind you), but this doesn't look to be the way. (Would an {{India-mil-hist-stub}} be useful?) Alai 02:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Possibly - and certainly a lot more useful than this one! Grutness...wha? 12:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The Indian National Army is not just to do with Indian Millitary, its a defining bit of the Indian Independence movement, it draws not just from WWII, but also from WWI, people involved were not just Indians within India, but also a stupendously large part of Indian diaspora in Sout Asia. Tne people of the INA influenced not just India, but also other countries in south asia. The organisations that formed or interacted with the INA can't really be covered by Indian Millitary history. Also these covered not just India, but also Europe And a large part of Asia. As for categorisation, the WP:Stub page says:

It satisfies this. The issues you have can be edited, and it doesn't need to be deleted to address these. - Rueben lys 12:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It might satisfy that, but it doesn't satisfy other parts of WP:Stub. Such as:

Note also the comment relating to when new stub categories should be created:

{{INA stub}} fulfils none of these requirements. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I came here based on this post. Before keeping this stub type, I think there needs to be a showing that the number of existing stubs in this category may at least reach 60 articles per stub numerosity and the showing does not need to be based on existing articles at Cat:Indian National Army. It is being used in some articles per Whatlinkshere, which may be a basis for projecting use in more than 60 articles. Also, at Wikipedia:Stub#Creating_stub_types, it states in large, red letters, Do NOT create new stub types before discussing them at Wikipedia: WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. That should be done now, even as this STfD is going on. Further, in view of Whatlinkshere, it wouldn't hurt to review WP:CANVASS. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Given that there are only 78 articles in Cat:Indian National Army and its subcategopries, and a considerable number of these are beyond stub size, it is extremely unlikely that there are currently 60 stubs on this subject. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Could I just clarify, I was not aware that you had to discuss this before creating a stub. Nevertheless, still voting for keep.Rueben lys 14:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Your vote will be duly logged, at such time as this becomes a vote. Alai 18:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It is highly recommended to discuss new stub types before creating them, as it says in several places on WP:Stub. The reason for this is simple: the entire Wikipedia stub system fits within a well-defined hierarchy - creating stubs at random creates major difficulties for those who actually use the stubs, both as stub sorters and article editors; creating stub types without first checking their scope, probable size, and naming makes it difficult to keep consistency across the stub system; finally, creating stub types without consulting the people who actually use stub types - i.e., the stub sorting WikiProject - means that it is unlikely that these stub types will be used. We can't use them if we don't know about them, and it's difficult to use them if they don't conform to the same pattern as all the other stub types. If something is marked "highly recommended" on Wikipedia, it usually means that it's an extremely good idea and not doing so will create unseen problems and consequences. Like an SFD. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - While I commend Reuben lys for his eagerness to categorize this important event in history, the more well documented American revolution does not have a stub category either. Perhaps a modified stub template can be kept, but all entries can be placed in Categroy:Indian military history stubs.Bakaman 17:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - As per Nom--NAHID 19:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I am not very fussed if it is really breaking so many policies and rules. The reason it was created was because there didn't seem to be any stub template that satisfied a categorisation of this particular movement, which is a defining point in Indian as well as south east asian history, especially that during WW II. It seemed to clump everything together as "Indian History" where and does nothing to delineate any aspect that marks it out as something belonging either to the category of WW II or the Indian Independence Movement or History of south east asia, or Indian military or anything else for that matter. So, somebody who at all has any knowledge or expertise or anything at all to contribute will not recognise the article as belonging to any of these categories. But if it is still felt that this stub is unneccessary (which I strongly disagree with) and needs to be further discussed (which I do agree with), it would be acceptable to have a more thorough debate over this.

Also, without offence (honestly) I don't like the tone of the comment by Alai informing me my vote will be counted when it does come to vote. I am sure it doesn't meaning to be offensive and I'm sure probably blowing this out of proportion, but I have had extremely distasteful experiences of admins in the past behaving or talking like they have a higher or stronger right to edit or decide some courses of action over other users. Without being rude (or offending you Alai), I'd rather this did not happen here.Rueben lys 23:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Alai's comment was simply repeating the standard comment regarding process pages such as this one. People do not vote on these pages, as the result is not simply a stacking up of numbers on one side or the other. This is a discussion about the issue, and when it is concluded the vaious arguments raised are weighed up in the final decision taken. As for not hhaving a specific template, it is covered by the hardly over-taxed India-hist-stub, double-stubbed if required with WWII-stub. Grutness...wha? 01:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

But that's my precise point, a number of these articles are not to do with Indian and WW II history only (or at all), they are to with the south east asian history, some of them to do with the war in Europe, or even the WW I or the time between the two wars. I am not sure these could be covered by double tagging with WWII and Indian history stubs.Rueben lys 10:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that you can have up to four stub templates on an article, it's very unlikely that any of the articles could not be effectively stubbed with the existing stub hierarchy. I've just looked at all 27 stubs currently in that category, and there isn't a single one that couldn't be covered effectively - and in several cases far more accurately - by other existing stub types. Grutness...wha? 12:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• And remember that "regular" categories can be added to address the nuances. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:16, 17 August 2007 (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

First TRNC, now this. For the same reasons - or similar ones, at least - this should also be deleted. In fact, ISTR that a virtually identical stub type may have been deleted previously, in which case this would be speediable (the title of it, though, was different, and I can't seem to find details of it). Bosnia-Herzegovina - though a fairly shaky construct - is a federation, and any stubs relating to Srpska should naturally get BiH-stub. (Note - if kept, the namer needs changing, the formatting needs fixing, and it needs a category. So we'd pretty near have to start from scratch anyway). Grutness...wha? 02:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete The Bosnian material is in no need for splitting and this template looks too much like something that will lead to edit warring. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:30, 16 August 2007 (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

Created as a "placeholder" (i.e., kludge) measure to take the deprecated China-geo-stub in April. Since then, that template seems to have been used once. It would make more sense, in terms of surveillance of that template, to direct it straight to the main Cat:Geography stubs (which I check and re-sort daily) - that way, the any uses of the template that aren't initially noticed will be corrected within 24 hours, rather than sitting by themselves in an otherwise empty category. Grutness...wha? 13:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur unlike the proposed split of Korean geography stubs, I don't see any prospect for there to be stubs involving physical geography that would be best served by staying here. Caerwine Caer’s whines 16:50, 17 August 2007 (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

Unused stub template not listed anywhere. --MZMcBride 00:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have been the product of a WikiProject that got taken over by a larger WikiProject. Givedn that Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Little League task force and its talk page between them have had only one non-bot edit since February, I don't think anyone would notice this going. Since Cat:Little League only has about 50 articles in all, and a random sampling of 12 of those found only 5 stubs - all already marked with reasonable stub templates - it's not of much use to anyone else, either. Grutness...wha? 13:35, 17 August 2007 (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

This looks to have had a somewhat tortuous history of moves and duplicate templates, but as its parents are at Cat:theatre stubs and Cat:theatres, the latter variant should presumably be used. No objection to retaining separate {{theater-struct-stub}} with that spelling in the text for those delicates flowers who'd otherwise be driven off to Conservapedia by the sight of a non-Websterised spelling. Alai 04:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Change per permcat parent, add redirect template. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 21 August 2007 (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

Long-standing unused type, non-NG template. Alai 04:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - probably speediable if it is indeed "longstanding unused". Grutness...wha? 00:13, 21 August 2007 (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/listify

Empty, so technically speediable, but being used as a list, so I thought I'd list it to try and clear up any confusion about its use. Suggest the page contents be moved to a WPJ sub-page, and the cat deleted. Alai 04:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, and listify, per nom, assuming agreement on listifying with WPJ. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, it already is a list, so it's essentially just a matter of a namespace fix. Of course, if they don't want it at all, I'll happily (re-)speedy it, but assuming no response... Alai 01:28, 22 August 2007 (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

And also relatedly: the scoping statement implies this is about "rapid transit" in general, and the stub parent is Cat:rapid transit stubs. Rename, if that really is the intended scope. Alai 22:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Either rename or rescope. It's a mess as it is. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 21 August 2007 (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 London Transport cat, rename to LondonTransport-stub, have London-tube-stub be child, delete undergroundstub

Also with naming guidelines and ambiguity issues, and unilaterally rescopes the former {{London-tube-stub}} / Cat:London Underground stubs to be multi-mode. We should try to work out which axis we want, as having both at once will lead to some very small types (aside from the London Underground itself, which will be viably-sized with one, the other, or both in combination). At a minimum, rename to be NG-compliant; possible rescope (and further rename), if we're going to split by mode, rather than region. Alai 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete templates and revert to former agreed style (London-tube/London Underground). Chedck size of UK-bus-stubs, to see whether a London-bus-stub is suitable. If so, a combined Cat:London Transport stubs might be reasonable as a parent for both. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Most of the non-tube articles seem to be on bits and bobs of the Docklands Light Railway. There's also the issue of whether "London Transport" is appropriate naming/capitalisation: it seems largely to be driven by the Wikiproject of that ilk. (The current public transport body is "Transport for London"; a wholly generic type would presumably use lower-case "transport".) Alai 01:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The name London Transport stubs may be intentional, meaning 'stubs relating to London Transport' rather than 'stubs relating to transport within the city of London'. I'm sure I am not the only railway enthusiast who still refers to the London buses/Underground operators as "London Transport"... ("Transport for London" is such a clumsy name!). In which case, it makes sense to remove the DLR stubs (perhaps to a new 'Transport in London stub' category?), and if the remaining stubs are all Underground-related, rename the category accordingly. -- EdJogg 09:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Admittedly "London Transport" is pretty much the 'median' name it's had over the years, so perhaps that's fair enough as-is, and {{LondonTransport-stub}} is less painful than {{TransportinLondon-stub}}. So would could plausibly keep both, and make the tube types a subcat... Alai 23:36, 21 August 2007 (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

Obvious NG and duplication issues. Also, per my comments at WP:WSS/P, it's far from clear whether we should be splitting {{UK-metro-stub}} by region, by mode, or given their fairly modest size, at all. Alai 17:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Have just found several stub articles suitable, and will add them when i get chance, no later than Wednesday. Bluegoblin7 20:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Hav begun added these: see below. Bluegoblin7 11:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Rename template to meet naming guidelines (i.e., UK-tram-stub). If size suggests it's worthwhile, also rename category to Cat:United Kingdom tram stubs per NGs. If there are fewer than the threshold number of stubs, upmerge. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support Grutness's renaming suggestions. As commented at WP:WSS/P, it would be reasonable to rename the existing Category:United Kingdom metro stubs as Category:United Kingdom rapid transport stubs (or 'rapid transit'), and then subdivide the current content between Cat:United Kingdom tram stubs and Cat:United Kingdom metro stubs, according to whether they related to tram systems (those that involve predominantly on-street running) or metro sysems (which don't). The current category contains ~120 articles and could be roughly divided in two, meeting the required thresholds. A 'Tram' category would also allow correct categorisation of articles relating to historical tram systems in the UK, which could not be classified as 'metros' nor 'rapid'! Also, I do not think that a geographical split would be a helpful alternative. -- EdJogg 10:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I do in fact think that the above is a really good idea. I have listed tram stubs below, that could use UK-tram-stubs or whatever.

• • • • There are 79 stubs above. We have enough stubs to warrant this template, and there are still articles that need to be added, and some articles still need to be written/re-written. I think this template will be a keeper! I suggest that the template is kept, and the changes should be made. And, at a later date, more integration can follow.
    • I can add more stubs if necessary, as there are loads more out there, but I think I have proved my point about this template.
  • Notes on above stubs:
    • Italics means the article is on a station or stop.
    • An asterisk (*) means that the article is currently one of the proposed re-categorised metro stubs.
  • Bluegoblin7 14:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • This list is not without its own problems: some of them aren't tagged as stubs at all (and indeed, often don't seem at all like stubs), and others aren't primarily to do with trams at all (such as Rapid transit in the United Kingdom). Also, retagging the various {{Euro-tram-stub}}s in the above would make that start to look fairly pointless, going to my earlier "too few stub articles between too many stub types". Having said that, there does seem to be a workable "core" of articles that would get this type, especially given the wikiproject. Given the lack of decisive input on the modes vs. regions, can't really resolve it on those grounds, either. So I'm going to go with keep rename to comply with the stub naming conventions. Alai 23:43, 24 August 2007 (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

Two articles, and numerous discussions on the topic of TV material have concluded that by-programme-maker isn't a good axis. Delete. (Failing which, upmerge.) Alai 05:50, 21 August 2007 (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

One article, otherwise fine. Populate or upmerge. Alai 05:45, 21 August 2007 (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

Highly undersized, for fairly obvious reasons. Suggest upmerger, while they're daily growin'. Alai 05:39, 21 August 2007 (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

Currently has one stub in a rather ill-formed category dent hat is only borderline notable enough not to go to afd. No sign of any proposal. Consistent naming for the category would be Cat:2000s rock musical group stubs, only - given that there are very few articles in Cat:Rock musical group stubs and no other decades have been split off, this seems a poor subject for a split at the moment. Delete Grutness...wha? 02:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• There's no perm-catting of bands by year or decade (which would mean what, exactly? formed in? active only in?), so this doesn't even seem a very crisp or convenient way to split. Delete. Alai 02:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• The purpose of stubs is to assist editors with certain expertise to identify articles that they may help expand. Bands formed in the last decade that are notable but the information is less readily available for researching because of their relative newness are of greater importance to guiding editors to. There is a cross-section of artists that are notable but takes a bit more effort to complete their bios than Google searching, and I personally (and I hope other editors) would like a stub-section to guide me to new and up-and-coming artists worthy of further research. I propose renaming it to Cat:2000s rock musical group stubs to encouraging research on these new and noteworthy bands. Keep --In Defense of the Artist 15:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• A noble cause, but unless there are currently 60+ articles for it, delete. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:13, 23 August 2007 (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 is rare indeed for us to split bio-stubs by ethnicity, and for the most part controversial to do so - as well as being unnecessary and overly confusing, given the usual method of splitting is by nation then occuption (very few people have ethnicity as a major factor in their notability as opposed to what they actually do). In those instances where a person has two nationalities, fine - use two stub templates. In those where it is only ancestry, it's leaving the door open to unnecessary fractionated splitting. Delete. (note: if decision is to keep, it will need renaming to stub standards) Grutness...wha? 02:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. There is no reason why a stub may not have other stub(s) in addition to this one. In this case, ethnicity is very important and if an editor is looking to expand stubs about Vietnamese Americans, this is a very good tool to allow for that. Badagnani 02:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete, per all the prior arguments about tagging people by ethnicity, which isn't what they're notable for, and is a distinctly retrograde basis to be prominently pigeonholing people on. Use a list, or a talk-page template if you really want to keep track of people of that basis. Alai 02:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• I created this template because the Vietnam-bio-stub template uses the current flag of the communist government, a flag that most Vietnamese-Americans object to, and having that flag in bios of those people seem out of place. DHN 03:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Are they Vietnamese citizens? If not, the entire template would seem out of place (as would this "replacement"). Alai 04:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I doubt that they are Vietnamese citizens any longer. Most Vietnamese Americans have American citizenship, but there are some who are still Vietnamese citizens. DHN 05:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete' per nom & Alai, and remove the flag from the {{Vietnam-bio-stub}} template. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Vietnam's now a "disputed region"? Alai 04:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the template per old precedent but keep the flag on the Vietnamese templates. The Vietnamese templates shouldn't be used on material relating to citizens of the U.S. anyway, as we don't sort by ethnicity but by citizenship. I hate Communism as much as the next man but the current regime in Hanoi is internationally recognized as the legitimate government of Vietnam. The Saigon government even officially surrendered to the former, so the legal situation is very clear. Valentinian ^{T / C} 05:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - "We don't sort by ethnicity" is illogical. The purpose of stubs is to assist editors with certain expertise to identify articles that they may help expand. Guiding those editors to the proper articles is of paramount importance, not some arbitrary and unhelpful idea of what "we don't do." If an editor has expertise on the Vietnamese in America, a stub should exist to do that. Yes, the Vietnamese in America are certainly notable for their ethnicity as well as for what they have done as individuals. The idea that most Americans have that one's ethnicity or heritage doesn't matter is ethnocentric and not typical of concepts of ethnic identity in other parts of the world. This dismissive attitude on behalf of the "delete page regulars" commenting here, in regard to what I have stated above is most disturbing. Badagnani 07:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people come are the result of mixed marriages and in some cases the "nationality" of a deceased notability may be a matter of controversy. Danes and Norwegians argued for a long time about the nationality of Ludvig Holberg, or take Frederic Chopin: Polish or French, or what about Nicolaus Copernicus? A lot of similar disputes exist, e.g. some of the naming controversies we've experienced over material relating to Poles, Germans or Lithuanians (depending on your point of view). WP:WSS tries to keep stub sorting as free of controversy as possible, and consequently, we don't sort according to race, gender or ethnicity, only according to citizenship. It may be a clunky solution but it works. Some immigrants cut the ties to their former country the day they cross the border into their new homeland, other cling on to the culture of their former country for generations. How can we objectively determine if a Vietnamese-American primarily identifies himself as Vietnamese, American or both? Valentinian ^{T / C} 12:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - many people who identify as Vietnamese are/were citizens of the former Republic of Vietnam and were never citizens of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (formed in 1976). If we sort by citizenship and not ethnicity, then I shall remove the Vietnam-people-stub template from articles dealing with Vietnamese people living outside of Vietnam. Many of them would be highly distressed to see a biography of them adorned with the flag of the communist government. For examples, see [7][8][9], etc. DHN 00:32, 23 August 2007 (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 RMacedonia

Surprise, surprise, someone decided to unilaterally move {{Macedonia-geo-stub}} to a new title, without first checking the naming guidelines or proposing the rename. unfortunately, they chose a non-compliant name. Now, while I can understand the name "Macedonia" creates some problems with one neighbouring country, this new name is not a good one, for the reasons stated. In order not to create a diplomatic incident, may I suggest the solution used by the UN with the renaming of this to {{FYROMacedonia-geo-stub}}. It's probably worth checking the other Macedonian stubs to see whether similar botching has been made of them, too. Grutness...wha? 07:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The material relating to the Rep. of Macedonia / FYROM / Slavic Macedonia / (whatever) uses the form "Macedonia-" If we do a rename, how about "RepMacedonia- ..." or "MacedoniaRep-...". The main article is called Republic of Macedonia and the corresponding permcat is Cat:Republic of Macedonia. On the other hand, the bio per country category uses category names like Cat:Macedonian artists. "RepMacedonia" would be my first choice, but on the other hand, we have template names like {{BlackSeaTR-geo-stub}} and {{LimburgNL-geo-stub}} so {{MacedoniaRep-geo-stub}} might be the most consistent solution. We also have a {{RCongo-stub}} around (Republic of Congo). Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Purely on aesthetic grounds, absolutely reject anything reeking of FYROM . {{RMacedonia-geo-stub}} by analogy with {{RCongo-stub}} is fine with me if needed to assuage the tender feelings of the Greeks and/or provide additional disambiguation from {{CentralMacedonia-geo-stub}} and {{WestMacedonia-geo-stub}}. (BTW, shouldn't there be at least templates for all 13 Peripheries of Greece?) Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It would seem sensible if the remaining peripheries were templatised, yes. Alai 23:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

{{RMacedonia-geo-stub}} works for me. The BlackSeaTR analogy's a bit of a strectch, since it's for regions within countries, rathert than the countries themselves (and even if it was used that would make it MacedoniaMK-geo-stub). Grutness...wha? 00:05, 24 August 2007 (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 reverse redirect

Just a minor bit of housekeeping. At the moment BosniaHerzegovina-geo-stub redirects to the poorly-named BiH-geo-stub. I've not too much objection to the BiH name being kept, though it is a bit kludgy, but since we're now adding -bio-, -politician- etc stubs, it would be as well to use a better "main name". Grutness...wha? 07:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. AFAIK, the more recent templates all use "BosniaHerzegovina- ..." Btw, if anybody wondered, BiH means "Bosna i Hercegovina", i.e. "Bosnia & Herzegovina". Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:19, 23 August 2007 (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 moved this to {{NewJersey-road-stub}} per the naming guidelines, suggest we tidy up the redirect, by the same reasoning. Alai 17:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed - delete away. Jersey's a small island - I doubt we'll ever need separate stubs for its old and new roads :) Grutness...wha? 23:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:45, 28 August 2007 (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

Unproposed, with very few stubs likely in the subject covered (ot would require about 75% of the articles in Cat:Synchronization and its subcats to be stubs for it to reach threshold) - of which are alreadyeasily coverable by existing stub types. The template also links directly to permcats (surprisingly, though, not to Cat:Synchronization), which is poor stubbing practice. A more widely-scoped timekeeping-stub (or even time-stub) might be a better solution than this. delete or upscope. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 27 August 2007 (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 "us" and "uk" redirects

Surely the definitive "SPUI-style" redirect. Only helpful if we were to systematically alias all "US-" templates as "us-", which I propose isn't worth the candle. Alai 14:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There are probablu a few other "us" and "uk" ones that need removing too. Delete this one, though. Grutness...wha? 00:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed there are. We need to look at the following sometime:

• us-author-stub
• us-band-stub
• us-bio-stub
• us-building-stub
• us-figure-skater-stub
• us-football-bio-stub
• us-football-stub (the football ones are doubly useless)
• us-law-stub
• us-mil-stub
• us-poli-stub
• us-rail-stub
• us-school-stub
• us-struct-stub
• us-structure-stub
• us-writer-stub
• uk-bio-stub
• uk-bsoc-stub
• uk-hist-stub
• uk-law-stub
• uk-org-stub
• uk-poli-stub
• uk-singer-stub
• uk-stub
• uk-trade-union-stub
• uk-tv-prog-stub

Sigh. Grutness...wha? 00:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I should have seen that coming. I was initially surprised to come across this, as I thought we'd already deleted these en masse, but on reflection I think that was just the "spacey" ones, taking those first as the most clearly wrong. So, would now be good, or would you prefer to wait until the end of this nom? Alai 02:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably better to start these as a group nom seperately, rather than just adding them in "post fact" to this nom. But as soon as possible, I'd say. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Just an unnecessary redirect making a mess. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:53, 29 August 2007 (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 take it all back... These are now unused -- someone's obviously been busy! Since there's now per-state templates for everything in the Southern USCB region this is unnecessary, and I think ultimately counterproductive. Suggest we delete these, and return the regional cats to being containers amd upmerger targets, only. Alai 05:55, 28 August 2007 (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

Noticed while checking the details re the Jilin etc nomination below: not sure how this one slipped through with an adjectival form, but AFAIK it's the only geography stub category which doesn't use the noun. It also may need rescoping - irrespective of how we feel about Tibet one way or the other, this category should be for the current Tibet A.R. to keep it in line with the standard practice of using official top-level regions. The scoping of this category looks a little mpre muddy than that. Grutness...wha? 12:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose renaming; I'm not sure how all the others "slipped through" with "noun forms", but they fail to pass tests of normal usage, actual consistency with their permcats, or any reasonable one of practical convenience. I'm not necessarily against rescoping now that there's templates for all (I think?) said provincial-level entities (which was not the case at time of creation, mind); OTOH, I sure as heck ain't doing the re-sorting, so I'm going to construe nomination as volunteering so to do. However, I very much disagree that there's anything "muddy" about the current scope: compared to the average stub cat, it's a marvel of precision (though I do say so myself), and it uses the PRC's own characterisation of what's "Tibetan". Some thought should also be given to the issue of putting one interpretation of "Tibet" in {{Tibet-stub}}, and a much narrower one in {{Tibet-geo-stub}}. If there's a rescope, a rename to, say, {{TibetAR-geo-stub}} might be in order (though I suppose we'd need to keep the redirect by way of the sanity clause, so perhaps that's practically moot. Alai 03:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • So, do you propose changing the other 700+ geography stub categories, all of which use the noun form? We've been through this before many times, and - as always - there are very good reasons to use the noun form where the permcats deliberately avoid using the adjective - which they do with geography by making them all "Geography of Foo". As to the scope, if that's how PRC defines it, then okay, I'll accept that, though it does mean that quite a number of places listed in other regions of China (Gansu, Qinghai, Yunnan, Sichuan) will also be regarded as being in Tibet, which seems odd. A change to TibetAR-geo-stub's a reasonable suggestion, though, as you say, with the redirect kept, it woujld be a fairly moot issue. But if you do want to start nominating changes to the adjectival, go for it - presumably starting with Dominican Republic geography stubs and Dominica geography stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:09, 1 September 2007 (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

Incorrectly named redirect to a generic stub for Turkmenistan and I created the Turkmenistan-bio-stub just before discovering this redirect. It was used on 2 articles only but these have been sorted to the correct name and prior to proposing this for deletion had no links to it at all. At the very least it should be a reirect of the bio stub, but I think it should be deleted as it is redundent. Waacstats 08:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. It will also lessen the risk of confusion with the Iraqi Turkmen. Valentinian ^{T / C} 10:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Grutness...wha? 12:02, 30 August 2007 (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

Those three templates can NOT be considered directly as a subcategory of the Category:Northeast China geography stubs those provinces were created long time before the artificial Chinese macro-region of Northeast China (having only a political-socio-economical aspect). Northeast China become famous since the controversial Northeast China Project. On the other side, Manchuria (see Category:Manchuria) has a historical and cultural aspect, and the term Manchuria although being considered as an offense by some Chinese peoples remain widely used by Western countries.
If a such unmodified template exist, what about the case of Tibet and Southwest China or Xinjiang and Northwestern China or Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region and North China?
The concept of Northeast China, Southwest China, Northwestern China, North China, Western China are intangible and loosely defined concept, for administrative and governmental purposes, by the governmental bureaus of People Republic of China. Whlee 08:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. These are completely in line with stub-sorting practice. By standard stub-sorting practice, the next step down from national-level geo-stubs is whatever the official first-level administrative division of the country. In the case of the PRC, this is the 22 provinces (we'll ignore whether that number should be 23 for now), plus the 10 other divisions at the same level, as listed at Province (China). Also for the purposes of stub-sorting, such templates are often grouped into larger subnational regions due to the relatively low number of stubs using each template. Thus, for example, geo-stubs for the United States were, at one time, grouped into Midwest, West, Southeast and Northeast categories, with individual templates for all 50 states and the one district. That is the current situation with PRChina's geo-stubs. In time, as the number of stubs increases, more of these provinces will reach the required threshold for their own categories, but at present there are too few for that, so the stubs are listed according to the larger regions. This is the reason why {{Fujian-geo-stub}}, {{Jiangsu-geo-stub}}, {{Jiangxi-geo-stub}}, {{Shandong-geo-stub}}, {{Shanghai-geo-stub}}, {{Anhui-geo-stub}}*, {{Zhejiang-geo-stub}}*, {{HongKong-geo-stub}}*, {{Macau-geo-stub}}*, {{Beijing-geo-stub}}, {{Hebei-geo-stub}}, {{InnerMongolia-geo-stub}}, {{Shanxi-geo-stub}}, {{Tianjin-geo-stub}}, {{Heilongjiang-geo-stub}}, {{Jilin-geo-stub}}, {{Liaoning-geo-stub}}, {{Gansu-geo-stub}}, {{Xinjiang-geo-stub}}*, {{Ningxia-geo-stub}}, {{Qinghai-geo-stub}}, {{Shaanxi-geo-stub}}, {{Chongqing-geo-stub}}, {{Tibet-geo-stub}}*, {{Guizhou-geo-stub}}, {{Sichuan-geo-stub}}, {{Yunnan-geo-stub}}, {{Guangxi-geo-stub}}, {{Hainan-geo-stub}}, {{Henan-geo-stub}}, {{Guangdong-geo-stub}}*, {{Hubei-geo-stub}}, and {{Hunan-geo-stub}} all exist. You will note that includes several of the ones you argue should also exist above.At the moment, only those marked with an asterisk have enough stubs for their own categories - the rest are upmerged into larger regions. If anything connected with the Chinese geo-stubs needs deletion, first choice would be Macau's category, since it has far too few stubs but - as one of the two "Special regions" it has other reasons for being split off. Grutness...wha? 11:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Grutness's points. "Manchuria" is much more ambiguous, and is likely to be a lot more "controversial" to boot. "Northeast China" might be fairly meaningless as a political unit, but it has a convenient and clear definition, and it doesn't seem to offend many sensibilities (obviously with at least one exception). Deletion would be quite bizarre, and just be counter-productive to sorting efforts, throwing articles back into the previously-oversized parent, and what's worse causing "why is this province a redlink?" doubletakes when anyone tries to sort to these in future. (I note that none of these templates are actually tagged for deletion, btw. And isn't it actually the category you wanted to nominated.) Alai 05:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I dunno how can i formulate that exatcly.

Jilin template need to be categorized as belonging to Manchuria AND Northeast China (if that entity really exist, that entity is considered as a PRC region according to their ideology). Same comment for Liaoning and Heilongjiang.

In addition to that the case of Henan illustrate us how this system is quite intagible. Henan province belong to South Central China but is located on the North China Plain (see also Northern and southern China)Whlee 23:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't we just finesse whatever concern is at work here (I confess I'm still largely in the dark) with a wording change on the category page? Something like, "also known as the Chinese portion of Manchuria"? Attempting to second-guess how the regions should be delineated and named seems an unhelpful avenue of approach. Alternatively, take the Polbit solution, and flood the upmerged categories with so many articles the provinces all get split out into their own categories. :/ Alai 17:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Per Grutness's points, there is a precedent for naming geography stubs as such. Neranei (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Closing note: These templates are clearly to be kept. However, if there is still a wording dispute, please take that up on the template/category talk pages. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:04, 7 September 2007 (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 to Euro-tram-stub

Seems to have been accidentally created recently at the wrong name (should be Euro-tram-stub) - nip it in the bud with a quick rename? Grutness...wha? 00:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep as at least a redirect. Perhaps we can use this to revisit whether we really need to abbreviate Europe in stub templates to Euro? We currently have 69 stub templates and redirects that exist beginning with "Euro-" and 9 that begin "Europe-". The other 8 "Europe-"s are all redirects. 6 of the "Euro-"s are redirects, five to other Euro's and one {{Euro-tram-stub}} with the comment in its history that indicates that the stub was there and then recently moved to {{Europe-tram-stub}} to try to comply with the Naming Guidelines which do after all call for avoiding abbreviations. Granted Euro-'s been accepted for quite some time, but why should it? Is saving two letters that important? Call me a euro-skeptic, but I think at least, we should have Europe-*-stub redirects for all the Euro-*-stub templates, with an eye to reversing the redirection at a later date and then deleting the abbreviated versions. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• (ec)Move to Euro-, for purposes of uniformity with precedent, keep redirect, for the sanity of people who haven't memorised our less-than-100%-consistent scheme for when we abbreviate, and when we don't. (At any desired speed.) Alai 03:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Okay, that would be me who moved it to "Europe"... After all our abbreviation avoidance lately, I thought that the full name would be useful. I support reversing the redirect, if you think that "Euro" is more common/useful. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 13:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm good with either, but let's move them all, if we're going to move any. On reflection, "Euro-" does seem like an unnecessary exception to the general pattern (any other six letter names we abbreviate?), and possibly also an exception to the idea of using nouns in templates, which is one thing we've managed to be pretty consistent about. (I realize 'Euro' isn't a adjective, but it's a derivational affix, which is the next most confusing thing.) Alai 23:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Basically, I'm all for uniformity either way. I don't mind if they're all changed to Europe, just as long as there's some consistency one way or the other. An overall chnage (keeping the Euro-s as redirects) may well be the best solution. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever we do, it should be done consistently. Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, and Oceania are written in full, the Americas are abbreviated (NorthAm-, CentralAm-, and SouthAm-). But I wouldn't oppose an overall change to "Europe-". Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

'Move to its previous name of Euro-tram-stub. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:51, 25 September 2007 (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.