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

The result of the debate was kept

Never proposed and hideously named, but perhaps useful. I note that there is no UK-bank-stub, which is perhaps surprising, so perhaps a combined stub for banks and building societies (the latter of which this is for) may be useful. Would need serious renaming, though. BTW, this is upmerged into two stub cats (fine) and one permcat (not so fine). Grutness...wha? 06:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Send to SFD to be renamed as {{UK-bank-stub}} or {{UK-finance-company-stub}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I created this stub template, because the building society sector is both independent, and more importantly mutually-owned (and as you found out, there isn't a {{UK-bank-stub}}). OK, some societies are more commercial than others, but all of them still require members to vote on issues, so they have a bigger role to play than shareholders. If it's felt building societies are not distinct enough, maybe you could create/rename this into a {{UK-mutual-society-stub}} template (which would include friendly societies, and any remaining mutual insurance companies)?? (Extra3 15:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

• • The second reason, is that many articles about UK-based societies have only been created recently, and, as such, are still only stubs. My intention was to create awareness of them, so they can be filled out. As far as the categorisation goes, well, like I said, many of these articles are stubs. If this means they shouldn't be featured within a permanent category, then I'm a little bemused (unless the category should be embedded within the article, rather than the template). I'd be interested to hear what you think. (Extra3 15:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

• • • Usual practice for stubs is to have the stub template only include stub categories (usually just one, but sometimes two for upmerged templates). Appropriate permanent categories should be added to the article directly, not indirectly via a stub template that ideally will be removed once the article is no longer a stub. So it's fine (indeed it's expected) for stub articles to be placed in permanent categories, they just shouldn't be placed by means of a stub template. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • • I have now created Cat:United_Kingdom_building_society_stubs, to allow for stub articles to be grouped in. And as you said, the articles can be grouped under the main category Cat:Building societies, with another template. (Extra3 18:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC))
• Update: Links to 47 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:34, 30 September 2008 (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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerged

Yipes. Television stubs have been sorted according to genre, people, episodes, stations, countries, etc. but never by "type of technology on which it appears". Unproposed, only 1 article in it. I don't like it One Bit. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• And it's listed earlier on this page, as of March 2007. Oops. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:28, 11 May 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Undecided about this one - I almost took it straight to SFD but had second thoughts. Never proposed... not close to threshold at the moment, but potentially useful, perhaps. Perhaps. At the moment, an upmerging seems plausible. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Now contains 21 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Update: Up to 44 articles and there's a related WP. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:33, 30 September 2008 (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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Unproposed, but properly named, with 22 articles so far. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Still contains 22 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Update: Up to 23 articles now. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:32, 30 September 2008 (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

Unproposed, redlink category. Seems a reasonable idea, though, given the size of Cat:Databases. Mind you, that doesn't guarantee 60 stubs (well, 30, since there seems to be a nascent WikiProject - the same person who created that created this stub type ten minutes later, surprise, surprise). May well be a case of fixing it up and seeing whether or not it grows. If it does, fine. if not, there's still SFD... Grutness...wha? 01:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Might be worth upmerging to {{database-software-stub}} or seeing if there are articles tagged with that stub that aren't about specific programs. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it. There are literally dozens of Cat:Databases articles that are naught but stubs. Use {{database-software-stub}} on all database stubs, even those that are unrelated to database software. BTW, the nascent WikiProject was suggested a week ago (Look It Up, surprise, surprise). For an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit, you bureaucrats sure give hell to people who are trying to do the right thing. Delete the stub, delete the project, do whatever you really feel like doing. Enough of this nonsense, trying to improve Wikipedia by wasting ridiculous amounts of my time bringing articles like Null (SQL) from a one-paragraph stub up to Good Article status, and trying to help bring some badly needed attention to the extreme lack of good, solid database-related articles on this thing. Be Bold! Right? Apparently it only applies to vandals, and not to people trying to do the right thing. You need to get rid of that God Awful article since that's not how it works in reality. If it's not there already, you should add Wikipedia as a prime example of Bureaucracy. Please feel free to remove it all, there are way too many bureaucrats and dictators running around for me to try to do anything more. Peace. SqlPac 02:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Read WP:BOLD. It makes it clear that it applies to articles, but not to templates or categories. The nascent Wikiproject may have been suggested a week ago, but no stub type was, and that is what we are discussing here. We are not bureaucrats, nor are we dictators; we are people trying to keep track of what stub types are available and sort stub articles accordingly. unproposed stub types do nothing to help with that - in fact, they can seriously hinder the work of editors on wikipedia. You =might also want toread WP:CIVIL. Grutness...wha? 02:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Get rid of the stuff I've done, and you and I are through WP:CIVIL. BTW, here are a couple of Database-related stubs for you. Many are already indicated as stubs under a very wide variety of labels, a few are not currently labeled stubs even though they are stubs. Some are software-specific, some are not. Some do not currently exist. You might want to get crackin' on those. Update (SQL), Merge (SQL), Create (SQL), Drop (SQL), Begin work (SQL), Commit (data management), Rollback (data management), Truncate (SQL), Alter (SQL), View (database), Table (database), Index (database), Partition (database), Database storage structures, MyISAM, Deductive database, Distributed database management system, Relational_calculus, Database normalization, Referential integrity, Relational database management system, Superkey, Candidate key, List of object-oriented database management systems, Online transaction processing, Data Mining Extensions, SuprTool, Molecular Query Language, SPARQL, CODASYL, QUEL query languages, Object Query Language, Poliqarp Query Language, Data Definition Language, Data Manipulation Language, Data Control Language, Bulk Load, SQL:1999, SQL-92, SQL-96, SQL:2003, SQL:2006, Order by (SQL), Group by (SQL), Having (SQL), Where (SQL), From (SQL), PL/pgSQL. Peace. SqlPac 03:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • What are you so angry about? The only person here who has suggested deletion as a first course is you - and presumably you were being sarcastic. Both I and Caerwine have suggested that it may be worth keeping in some form. The 41 existing stubs listed would be quite enough to qualify for a stub type, given that there is a wikiproject. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
      • What am I so angry about? Because Ignore All Rules and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy are patent lies. You are enforcing an apparently non-existent Bureaucracy which I don't have time nor interest in dealing with. Don't presume. I'm not being sarcastic, you can honestly do whatever you like with all of my contributions so far. Though I would prefer you just delete all my contributions and be done with it. I've removed myself from trying to do anything beyond spell-checking an occasional article, and I couldn't care less (surprise, surprise) what you do with stubs or anything else beyond that. Those 41 existing stubs were located in the course of a 10 minute search. There are literally hundreds of database stubs that could potentially be categorized as such (I located over 100 on my first search a few weeks ago, as well as about 3 dozen articles that haven't even been created yet), but I'm not interested in continuing to document, organize, create new articles, or having anything else to do with these items. I'll continue making occasional edits to correct spelling errors in articles, but I have no reason to put myself in a position where I can be called to task for trying to contribute anything more to your Wikipedia. In the meantime, please delete the stub and let someone who understands/cares about the Bureaucracy do this type of thing in the future. I've come to the conclusion that beyond spell-checking an occasional article, Wikipedia is not interested in attracting subject matter experts and writers. It appears that recruitment efforts should be aimed at attracting the bureaucrats so desperately needed to avoid stepping on people's toes around here. Be Afraid!. SqlPac 17:23, 13 May 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

This material is now 60+ so I've been bold and given the template a category right away to cut the Asian category down a bit. The category is parented by both Cat:Asian politician stubs and Cat:European politician stubs as agreed back in November 2006.[1] Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Serbia is above the mark as well, so I'm listing both categories on WP:WSS/ST. Valentinian ^{T / C} 09:09, 17 May 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Never proposed, not really needed, except maybe as a parent for the {{india-university-stub}} and {{india-school-stub}} types which have been in long and continual use. Grutness...wha? 02:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly could use the category Cat:India(n) education stubs more than the template as a parent for the university and school stubs. Probably worth keeping and catting assuming we can agree on the name for the cat. We have Cat:Japanese education stubs and Cat:Mexico education stubs so we don't have consistency in the existing sub categories (without even considering the British / United Kingdom issue). Caerwine Caer’s whines 14:33, 18 May 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Sounds reasonable as a subtype of Romania stubs except for one niggling doubt - I have a feeling that Transylvania is a historic region of Romania, and is no longer used as a defined official region. If so, this one is a big problem, since subnational splits are always by current region. If it is kept, the category will need to be tidied up (it has no stub parents), and will also clearly need populating (there is currently but one stub). Grutness...wha? 01:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the random and haphazard stub creation. I basically created it on the spur of the moment upon encountering one article that I suddenly thought "Hey, this belongs in a Transylvania category, not just a Romania one!". If it is better to delete it, I won't lose too much sleep over it.

As for Transylvania as historic region--I don't know for sure what the current "official" status of Transylvania is, but it is a clearly-defined region with a unique (and tremendously interesting) history and a similarly unique multiethnic blend of cultures. It's also been bouncing back and forth between Hungary and Romania for the last 1000 years or so as borders and ethnic groups kept moving around (I think it was even independent for a while). K. Lásztocska 01:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 3 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Transylvania was indeed independent for a while [2]. A template would make sense, given the uniqueness of the region. Grutness is correct that it is a historical region rather than a current administrative entity. Valentinian ^{T / C} 07:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 7 articles, still no stub parent. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:30, 30 September 2008 (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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was take to sfr

Unproposed. Not about the car, but about Austin, Texas (and should therefore be named as such). Currently has one stub, which is also (correctly) marked as a Texas-geo-stub. Might be able to get to the threshold of 60 stubs for this one, but will need renaming to t:AustinTX-stub/c:Austin, Texas stubs for reasons which should be obvious if you look at Austin. Category will also need tidying, since it has no parent categories, stub or perm. Probably a "wait and see" for whether it should be kept or not. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's now been moved by its creator to {{Austin-TX-stub}} - another incorrect name :( At least the category now has a stub parent... Grutness...wha? 02:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Should this name stay the same, or would you like to change it to {{AustinTX-stub}}? There are now 60 stubs categorized under it, with more to come I'm sure. Joe I 04:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Give us a chance! :) Not everyone checks this page every day. I'd continue using the current names for nowGiven that there are 60 stubs, it seems likely to be worth keeping under some name, so it will be simply a matter of using a bot to do any necessary changeover. Grutness...wha? 01:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 88 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:26, 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Unproposed... not really sure about this one. Certainly the permcat parent has a lot of articles, but I can't see where it would fit on the stub tree (and there are no stubcat parents, so clearly its creator wasn't sure either). Grutness...wha? 01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The conspiracy stub, as [:category:conspiracy], is categorizable under a few different categories; I just didn't feel the stub needed to be categorized under anything except the conspiracy category. Conspiracy can fall under politics, pseudohistory/history, paranormal, spiritual, etc. However, I have since categorized it under a couple stub categories. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 03:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 5 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:26, 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerged

Two new unproposed templates, both feeding into Cat:Chinese radio station stubs (also unproposed). The category has some problems (recursive, and no perm or stub parents other than itself), and it seeems pretty small at present. Perhaps tidying it up and seeing if it reaches threshold is a reasonable move, though the combining of Taiwan and China into one category opens up "ye olde canne of wyrms" (or dragons, at least). Grutness...wha? 06:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Update: China-radio-station-stub links to 26 articles; Taiwan-radio-station-stub links to 4. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Numbers are still the same, although I did correct the category problem(s). Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:46, 30 October 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename & upmerge

Unproposed, but potentially useful. This one sort of nibbles at the boundaries of toy stubs and aircraft stubs without fitting comfortably into either. Size is the one potential worry - I'm not sure it will come close to threshold. Perhaps a wait and see approach? Will need to be renamed, though - should be at {{Kite-stub}} (singular). Grutness...wha? 03:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I must first appologise as I didn't realise there was procedure for creating stub-categories. I have been working on many kite related articles, to get them up to scratch. As mentioned, kites don't fit comfortably into a toys stub, especially when you consider large traction kites that require training to use they are more 'sports equipment' than toys. On the other hand certain types of kite are made by hobbyists and would not fit into a sports category. This was the reason for creating the category. Richard Thompson (Talk! | Contribs) 08:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

How about a category for hobby stubs, and upmerge kite-stub into it?Goldenrowley 04:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Would this cover the traction kites used for sports? I use kites for kitesurfing so don't see it as a hobby more of a sport equipment. This is why I created the stub in the first place, because kites fall into more than one general category outside hobbies, sports and toys. Richard Thompson (Talk! | Contribs) 17:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Having seen some really neat kitesurfing the other day I tend to agree that hobby sounds a little lame but thats the only permenant category I saw chosen? Goldenrowley 03:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC).. Okay I followed the kitesurfing categories and kitesurfing is too small but it is part of the larger category of "Recreation" which seems to fit for all kites? Goldenrowley 03:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Richard Thompson (Talk! | Contribs) 12:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. Kites are used in both hobby and sporting/recreation arenas. Peter Campbell 22:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 12 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:57, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

This template had a short life being upmerged. Less than a day in fact, until an editor gave it a category. I'll clean it up, but it probably won't be worth the effort to delete it again. We have c. 55 relevant articles, and Yushchenko has just called an election, so it is likely this material will grow. Should we add it to WP:WSS/ST ? Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I would assume 55 articles "plus an election promise" is a keeper. Goldenrowley 04:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say 55 articles plus an election promise is worth about... 55 articles. :) (Around here, maybe a good deal less.) Alai 06:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Now up to 59 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:31, 6 May 2008 (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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge

Unproposed - not too sure there'd be the threshold stubs for it. Can't complain about a lack of parent categories though - this one has ten (!) including the potential SFD-bait Cat:Forensics stubs (which has garnered about 30 stubs since last November), Cat:Criminologist stubs (a clear case of parent/child reversal), and Cat:Crime biography stubs (inappropriate). Possibly a "wait and see, tidy and populate or upmerge", though there are enough stub types relating to this topic that one more might just add to the confusion. Grutness...wha? 01:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The stub was recently proposed but we did not reach a clear consensus? See: proposal archive Goldenrowley 04:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry about creating it unproposed, this category is mostly suitable for academic criminology, penology and victimology articles. Also, it can be used for investigative tools, forensic psychology and related subjects. Thanks.

--Cyril Thomas 12:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

These seem reasonable to me, in fact, I like that there is a stub for "the study of crime". What if we merged forensic-stubs and crime-stbs into crimology-stubs, since it is the logical umbrella term? Goldenrowley 04:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me as far as the forensics one is concerned, and it would get it to a reasonable 40-50 odd stubs - as I implied above, it's likely that forensics stubs would have need looking at sometime anyway. A merging of the two would reach a reasonable size. Not too sure about merging crime-stub in to it, though - that might be a more useful parent category for it and various other subcats (like the crime-bio one) as well. Grutness...wha? 03:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think the parent category should stay as it is, criminology is definitely fit to an umbrella term for many categories, still, it's better to seperate forensic science and medicine from the criminology category. Of course, criminology stub could be used as a secondary stub for those articles, including articles deals with forensic psychiatry and psychology, even criminal law, though criminology often acknowledges the descipline is the non-legal aspects of crime. Still, there are many divisions of arts and science criminology tag perfectly fits into, like victimology, correctional administration, police science, penology, law enforcement, criminological psychology, research on crime etc. Thanks for the supporting views.--Cyril Thomas 02:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to keep on the basis of the subcats-that-should-be, but this Needs Work. Alai 06:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 19 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:58, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Not sure if this quite qualifies as a stub template... Probably speediable as strange and unused. Alai 02:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's speediable, and if not, definitely SFD fodder. Any page which simply has {{stub}} needs "placing a more exact stub template where the stub currently exists in this article", so it's redundant. Also the pedant in me rankles at "I.E." Grutness...wha? 02:59, 6 April 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, attached to a WikiProject - in fact, the only category this one has is a WikiProject category, so it at the very least needs a stub category. Currently has eight stubs, of which about half are bio-stubs. Certainly not currently at the viable stage even with WikiProject presence. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 10 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Update: Now links to 52 articles. Seems decent enough as there's a Project. Keep. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:06, 27 October 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge

Empty, unproposed, stub type that would be a subtype of Cat:clothing stubs, which at ~500 stubs is splittable, but not badly in need of splitting. Suggest we take this to SFD to upmerge to a somewhat broader {{footwear-stub}} / Cat:Footwear stubs if we want to split clothing by the categories of Cat:Types of clothing, as I'm not certain if shoes will have 60 stubs but I am fairly certain that footwear will at the vey least be close to 60.

Is that you, CW :)? Upmerging seems to be a good idea. Grutness...wha? 09:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There's 30 on the basis of permcatting, so could actually be populable. Upmerge if no one manages/bothers. Alai 06:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 4 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Update: Links to 10 articles. Kathleen.wright5 22:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC). Now that it has been Stub-Sorted there are now 31 articles Kathleen.wright5 23:17, 27 March 2008 (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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Unproposed, redlink category, used on just two articles - seems like overkill and is badly named too (we don't have single-stubs, we have song-stubs, and we also don't divide out "indie" songs from the rest, as the dividing line of this subgenre is just too subjective). Looks remarkably like SFD-bait... Grutness...wha? 02:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• No, we also have {{single-stub}}s; oversized cats of them, in fact. And we split albums into {{indie-rock-album-stub}}, etc. Keep if popula/ble/ted, upmerge if not. Alai 06:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected. Odd - why would we have both song-stub and single-stub? Seems like the two cover very much the same ground. Yes, I realise not all songs are released as singles, but it still sounds like the sort of articles which would attract the same groups of editors - and many of the "single" permcats have been subsumed into "song" ones over the last few months. Grutness...wha? 05:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure there's any deep thinking behind it; we've ended up with both, hence we've started splitting both. (The original single-stub was created by someone who never even ended up with a talk page, and it went to SFD at the start of 2006 and survived.) WikiProjectwise they'd both be covered by the Songs people, we could ask them if they have any feelings on that. Of course, if we merged them both we'd have yet more re-splitting by decade, genre, and whatever else to do, but other than that... Alai 00:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Update: Links only to userpage and WPSS discussions. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:00, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge

Seems quite a reasonable split - if there are the numbers for it (which there may be, though the current one stub there doesn't necessarily guarantee that it will be followed by 59 more. At least the parent cat has enough articles to suggest that it's likely). The template has the largest stub icon I think I've ever seen, and the category has no valid parents, stub or otherwise (apparently, the category is a template, but that's all it is!). If kept, those items will need tidying up, but an upmerge may well be in order anyway. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Biggest stub template image I ever did see: 75px... on the short side. Shouldn't that be -ism, rather than -ist, to match the cat? Other than that, and the "small matters" G. mentions, sensible enough in principle. Cleanup, move, and possibly upmerge. Alai 00:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I wondered about the -ist/-ism thing, too - but it looks like most of our religion templates work that way (T:Anglican-stub/C:Anglicanism stubs, etc). Grutness...wha? 06:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Update: Links to 2 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:00, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Probably a reasonable idea for a stub type, if there are the necessary number of stubs. Would be nice if it had a category, though... Unproposed, and currently used on just one article. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 18 April 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Never proposed, no category. I can't see any way this is going to get within cooee of threshold - Cat:Newspapers published in Afghanistan has only four articles, so I doubt there are 60 stubs. May be better to upmerge it than to delete it outright, though. Grutness...wha? 10:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if its only 4 newspapers from Afghanista, then a generic Newspaper stub should be used. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I created that stub template. I'm sorry, I didn't know that there was any formal procedure for making them. Basicly, I saw the "Asian-Newspaper-stub" template and modified it for Afghanistan. Go ahead and delete it if I did something wrong.--Kirby♥time 00:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 3 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:01, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Created today, 22 April 2007, as a subcategory of Category:Aromatic compound stubs. Currently populated with 4 stubs (there are 56 in the parent category). I don't know anything about aromatic compounds, so I can't speak to this category's potential, but I'm bringing it here for your consideration. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 4 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:01, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

• {{Scotland-footy-goalkeeper-stub}}
• {{Scotland-footy-striker-stub}}
• {{Scotland-footy-midfielder-stub}}
• {{Scotland-footy-defender-stub}}

All created in the last 24 hours, along with their respective categories, shortly after Italy was split in this way. Italy was proposed for this split since the parent category was very oversized, and it must be admitted that the Scottish equivalent is also fairly large. Probably a good split. Grutness...wha? 07:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep We've recently split France and Italy this way with a proposal to split Brazil the same way currently unoppsed and all three categories were/are smaller than this one is. Waacstats 12:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep - category is larger than Brazil etc. WATP  15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The categories look rather small to me. Three of them have a mere 20-30 stubs. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Update:
• {{Scotland-footy-goalkeeper-stub}} - 59 articles
• {{Scotland-footy-striker-stub}} - 103 articles
• {{Scotland-footy-midfielder-stub}} - 160 articles
• {{Scotland-footy-defender-stub}} - 171 articles
• Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:03, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, though a logical split. Not convinced yet that it will reach threshold - if it doesn't upmerging of the template and deletion of the category would make sense. Grutness...wha? 07:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction - it seems that it already has over 50 stubs, so threshold worries seem assuaged. Looks like a keeper. Grutness...wha? 07:59, 23 April 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge

Created earlier today without proposal, and has 28 stubs. I'm pretty sure that a similar stub type has been rejected in the past, though - though not with this exact title - since it was already satisfactorily covered by {{Med-org-stub}}. Suggest an upmerge, with a deletion of the category. Grutness...wha? 07:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Contains 28 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:03, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was taken to sfd for deletion or upmerge

Unproposed, redlinked category. We normally split tertiary institutions by location, though we do have {{Lawschool-stub}} and {{Seminary-stub}}. This is part of that second-dimension of splits, and may be quite a reasonable one, but if kept, it should probably be renamed to {[tl|Businessschool-stub}}, since X-school-stub is used exclusively for schools - i.e., primary, intermediate, and secondary institutions. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the point on format, I agree that it should be reformatted to read Businessschool-stub instead of business-school-stub. The only reason I did not set it up like that originally was that it had so many s's in a row. Business schools are professional schools, comparable to law school or medical school, and would help to coordinate schools of a similar nature. I'm not sure how to formally submit this for review, could you guide me as to how to submit this for review and change the format to businessschool-stub? Thanks! Muchris 13:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This stub has been to SFD twice before in January 2006 and March 2006. The first one ended as no consensus and the second time it was deleted due to its small size. Things have improved in a year, but it's still marginal according to Stub Sense. It reports 121 stubs in the first 500 articles (with no more stubs found if one increases to the max 4000), but once one eliminates false positives from faculty, there's only around 50 business school stubs. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 2 items and is upmerged to Cat:Business stubs. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Update: still upmerged, unused. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:01, 17 May 2008 (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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Created around a month ago. I've cleaned up the code. Potentially useful I guess. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and create cat - A quick look at transclusions for {{Palestine-bio-stub}} shows about 25 relevant articles. I also see about 75 articles currently tagged as {{Palestine-stub}} that are actually biographies. That would put about 100 articles in Category:Palestinian people stubs, leave 100 in Category:Palestine stubs, and leave 250 in Category:Middle Eastern people stubs. There are undoubtedly {{MEast-bio-stub}}s that could be restubbed as well. So, I propose full stub and category. — jmorgan (talk) 13:13, 8 March 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Mentioned by the creator on the stub list talk page. Currently used on three stubs. Well formed template which effectively acts as a custom redirect for {{horror-novel-stub}}. I'm a little leery of the small size, as the parent has only 120 stubs, but the scope is clearly defined and Cat:Horror does have subcats for zombies and vampires in fiction. Recommend that we keep and list as a redirect. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Doesn't look well-formed to me (like most of the "novels" templates, in fact), and there's no Cat:Zombie novels. I'd be more inclined to delete. Alai 16:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• I would agree that it should go - but for reasons of volume - I don't think this will ever be large enough to be warrented. Also I don't know that many consider this a separate genre. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:50, 3 April 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was redirected to gastropod-stub

Newly created, and a bit of a case of putting the cart before the horse. Mollusc-stub isn't yet at a stage where it requires further splitting, and if it was, surely creating Cat:Gastropod stubs would make far more sense than leaping in to create a subtype of it. There is, BTW, a gastropod-stub - it was created then moved to this "correct name" and now redirects to orthogastropoda-stub. There also isn't a Cat:Orthogastropoda - there is, however, a Cat:Gastropods. If we want to split the molluscs, then I suggest that deleting this and replacing it with a more widely-scoped gastropod-stub would be the way to proceed. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• My apologies, I wasn't aware of the "new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals" ruling. I created the gastropod-stub, then moved it when I realised I was only working with Orthogastropodas and not also Eogastropodas. As there has been a trend lately to remove the Cat:Molluscs from Orthogastropoda pages I assumed people didn't want them appearing in the mollusc category so was doing what I could to change the situation. There are numerous articles, with more coming, in the Subclass Orthogastropoda so was doing some forward thinking.

The guidlines ask:

1. Is there a stub for this topic already? *No
2. Will the new type be well-defined enough to help editors identify articles that they have the expertise to expand? *It will narrow the field from the generic Molluscs to the true snails which is a narrower field to concentrate on.
3. Does the new stub type cover ground not covered by other type, or create a well-defined subtype that does? *It creates a well-defined subtype that is not easily confused with the larger type.
4. Will there be a significant number of stubs in this category; are there enough article stubs to warrant this new type? *There are at least 75 articles currently classed under Category:Mollusc stubs that would fall under the new stub type.
5. Would your new stub type overlap with other stub types? *No
6. If you are breaking a subcategory out of a pre-existing category, will the new stub reduce the size of the parent category by a significant amount? *Absolutely

Again, my apologies. Good day. Nashville Monkey 03:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: just noticed that Wikipedia:Stub states

{{guideline}} so is not in fact a policy as I was led to believe... Just an observation on my part. Nashville Monkey 03:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oookaaay. let's tackle a few of your points one at a time:

1. My apologies, I wasn't aware of the "new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals" ruling - Apology accepted... but please note that much of what you quote above is in the very next paragraph on from the notice about proposing stub types, at Wikipedia:Stub#New stub types. It's also at several other places on the same page in big red letters, and at the top of most stub categories.
2. As there has been a trend lately to remove the Cat:Molluscs from Orthogastropoda pages I assumed people didn't want them appearing in the mollusc category - Well, did you consider that they have been removed from that main category because they are already in a subcategory of it? It is silly to have something marked in the main part of Cat:Molluscs if they're in a subcategory of it. Currently it appears that orthogastropoda articles are in Cat:Gastropods, which is a subcat of Cat:Molluscs.
3. The guidlines ask: Is there a stub for this topic already? - yes there is - Cat:Mollusc stubs, which is far from needing a split. It is not normally the case that a stub category is split if there are only about 300 stubs in it (though I'll admit that point isn't spelt out at WP:Stub, where it perhaps should be).
4. As to it being a guideline rather than policy, yes it is, but guidelines are there for a very good reason, and I stand by my comment that new stub types should be proposed prior to creation because of that fact. Most people consider making new stub types a form of being bold, not realising that being bold is actively discouraged when it comes to templates and categories, since they take considerable work to fix if there are any problems with them. Problems such as, for instance, making a stub type which may at first seem reasonable but which on closer inspection has problems with its format or scope (such as creating a subtype rather than a more useful, more broadly scoped type, or accidentally creating a stub template with the wrong name and having to move it to a new name. Or making sure that the new stub category has a parallel permanent category associated with it). Consider, too, that the people who need to know about stub types in order to be able to use them are the people who do the stub-sorting work. Without knowing that a particular stub type exists, a parallel type could easily have been proposed and created by someone at WP:WSS, leading to even more work setting things straight once your stub type was discovered. And without knowing about orthogastropoda-stub, how would we be expected to use it for stub-splitting in the first place?

Grutness...wha? 04:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Point taken Nashville Monkey 04:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As to your point #1 the Stub page is where I got it, after you pointed me to it. Nashville Monkey 04:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Grutness...wha? 11:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• With 75+ stubs you've identified, there certainly is a case to be made for a {{gastropod-stub}} if you're willing to take the time populate it. So while {{Mollusc-stub}} is not in dire need of splitting, but there is no problem if as in this case, someone is willing to take the time to populate it. Rather the question is whether going directly to the subclass and bypassing the class is desirable here. Given that the other existing subtype of {{mollusc-stub}} is {{cephalopod-stub}} which is at the class rather than the subclass level, I'd say it would make more sense to start with the class and break that into smaller groups if needed. Given what is already done, I'd recommend making the primary stub here be {{gastropod-stub}} / Cat:Gastropod stubs with {{orthogastropoda-stub}} feeding into Cat:Gastropod stubs as either a redirect of {{gastropod-stub}} or as independent template upmerged to share the same category as its parent until such time as there are enough to stubs to have both {{gastropod-stub}} and {{{orthogastropoda-stub}} be well populated. Given the way the gastropods are organized and their current state of flux in that organization, I'm not certain that breaking up the class at the subclass level instead of the order level if future splitting should be needed (which given the number of gastropod species is certainly a possibility). Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay Caerwine, what do I need to do now? Nashville Monkey 07:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• I can live with that, too. Grutness...wha? 11:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the stub types' creator agrees to the changes, theoretically it can be speedied - but I'll wait a day or so in case there are any objections (if so, make them here!) It just means reversing the redirect, making a new category and deleting the old one. Grutness...wha? 11:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hopefully I haven't screwed things up, I've already reversed the redirect and made a new category: {{gastropod-stub}} / Cat:Gastropod stubs so all that is needed will be for {{Orthogastropoda-stub}} /Cat:Orthogastropoda stubs to be deleted. Nashville Monkey 11:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, that's fair enough. The 24 hours was just in case - to be honest, I doubt anyone will object. Grutness...wha? 12:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Completely done with the sorting, 188 stubs retagged as "Gastopod-stub" thanks for the patience. Nashville Monkey 19:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • S'alright - sorry for grumbling in the first place! The orthogastropoda stubs category's gone now, BTW. Grutness...wha? 04:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Is it too soon to get it listed at WP:STUBS? Nashville Monkey 07:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Given that the stub has been amended after debate here to something which the members of WP:WSS (or at least those who took part in the discussion) find appropriate as a stub type, I don't see anything wrong with listing it. Go for it :) Grutness...wha? 11:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Done deal. Nashville Monkey 16:44, 17 March 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Unproposed. Mismatch of category and template names, permcat parent for the category that the template is really named for has only seven articles, so getting the required 60 stubs seems a remote hope, to say the least. What's more, Cat:Hip hop stubs is pretty well split as it is, with no cat or subcat of it with over about 160 stubs. Likely deletion material. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Prior to this circumstance I was unaware of the proposal policy for stubs. If you truly think there is no need for the stub, then you can delete it, but there are many Christian hip-hop groups on wikipedia, and I am sure that many of them are likely stubs. --Merond e 13:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Empty category. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:29, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

A nascent WikiProject's first act - make a stub template. Unproposed, of course, and with all the usual problems associated with state-road-stub naming. Strangely, the edit summary says this was created in lieu of creating a WikiProject page, which makes little sense. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I'd like to apologize for not going through the normal proposal protocol. Honestly, this is my first time developing a new WikiProject page, so I wasn't aware of the issue with that. In regards to its usefulness, there are over 100 Delaware State Routes, many of whom, while not created as of yet, will be part of the new WikiProject's job to upkeep and manage. (hence the "in lieu of" statement). See, there is no WikiProject Delaware yet (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Delaware), and I'm in the process of creating one. Since this type of article would fall under this project's jurisdiction, it would be necessary to identify its place as a stub of our project. Template:Maryland-State-Highway-stub and Template:New-Jersey-road-stub are just a few examples of other State WikiProjects (and sub-projects) having their own stub templates for their highway systems. I just felt it appropriate, seeing as there is none currently in existance, for one to be created for Delaware. If anyone objects, please let me know why. Otherwise, while I once again apologize for not following the correct procedure (and please check my contributions, as this is the first stub template I've ever made) and won't make that mistake again, I definitely feel this temp is warranted and necessary if the WikiProject's to become successful in fulfilling its goal of maintaining all Delaware-related articles. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 02:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I should have said "in prep of"...that was bad grammar on my part, so again I apologize for the confusion. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 13:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem with not knowing the procedures is probably because you made the stub before you made the WikiProject (all the details about coming here first are in {{wikiproject}}). As far as problems with the template, it's just that we have a hotch-potch of state-road-stubs and State-Highway-stubs which we've been trying (without too much success) to rationalise and make into a uniform system. If there are likely to be enough articles (30+, since there's a Wikiproject), there shouldn't be too much of a problem with having some form of stub for Delaware's roads, though you might want to consider a WP-specific talk-page template, since they are often more use to individual wikiprojects. I wondered about the "in prep/lieu of" :) Grutness...wha? 04:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool; thanks for the understanding and the tips. This WikiProject's just getting underway, so it'll be a little while before we get our act together, but it'll definitely be 30+, so it'll be worth it. And I'll be sure to take your advice about setting up the secondary project. Let's just get off the ground first, though ;-) EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 13:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 1 item, upmerges to Cat:United States road stubs. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Now links to 53 articles and is nicely upmerged to Cat:Southern United States road stubs. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:38, 27 October 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge

Newly created. never proposed. Considering that Cat:Lingayatism has only 16 articles, there is scant chance of this getting within cooee of threshold. Links into an odd stub category (Cat:Karnataka stubs, rather than a religion one). Grutness...wha? 05:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I didnt know there was a process to go through before creating stub templates. Yes, I know there are not many articles at the moment, but potentially there can be many more. Please let me know what the threshold is. Sarvagnya 09:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The usual threshold is 60 currently existing stub articles (see the top of WP:WSS/P). Grutness...wha? 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Now contains 11 items; permcat has 17. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Update: Cat:Lingayatism now has 18 articles, 11 of which are in Cat:Lingayatism stubs. I suggest the template be upmerged to Cat:Hinduism stubs. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:54, 17 May 2008 (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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete or upmerge

Newly created, unproposed. Links to a non-existent category (which is named "British" rather than "United Kingdom"). At least there is a reasonable chance of this one reaching threshold, though since Cat:Explorer stubs has only 270 unsubcategorised stubs in total, it'll be a close-run thing. Grutness...wha? 05:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

• The category name is perfectly sensible despite the aversion some here have about using the standard used on the permcats for categories about people. After all it will be child of Cat:British people stubs and of Cat:British explorers. It is way past time we stop the petulant, childish, stub sorting snobbishness of asserting that the permcat conventions are absolutely wrong, but rather than trying to change them, we'll just do things our own way here because we know best. Can this project expect others to adhere to its standards concerning naming when we pointedly refuse to abide by those of the whole Wiki where applicable? Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Hm. A couple of points there: Firstly, I did not realise the parent was at British people stubs - I thought it was at united Kingdom people, hence my initial comment. Secondly, as to your other comments, which strike me as a little harsh, may I point out that I am one of several Wikipedians who have been trying to change many of the permcats over. "British" is wrong - it implies that people from Northern Ireland (who are not "British") should not be included. Similarly, "Amerian" is wrong, though in common (incorrect) usage, since it implies that anyone from the Americas can be included, which they clearly cannot. Both United States and United Kingdom are commonly used as adjectival terms as well as noun terms, and there is no reason why these cannot be used for both permcats and stub cats. This is one of several reasons why more and more permcats are changing over to "X of Foo" style as opposed to the older "Fooian X" style. "X of Foo stubs" does not, however, make for a grammatically satisfying name, hence our usage at WP:WSS of Fooian, where this is unambiguous, or simply Foo X where such a term is an acceptable alternative adjectival usage. Grutness...wha? 07:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I am an American, not a United States. I'll grant that using American as an adjective where concepts other than nationality are involved can be ambiguous, but that's not the case for how we generally indicate people. I have no insight as to how the Northern Irish view being considered British other than it's likely tied up in the same idiocy of Unionist/Republican that affects so many other issues there. As for X of Foo stubs it is grammatical, and while needing context to settle the issue of what Foo modifies, I doubt anyone would interpret Explorers of the United Kingdom stubs as a category for Wikipedians who search though the United Kingdom stubs for articles to improve and the same can be said of other stub categories that could potentially use the X of Foo stubs form. Also to my ears is not as grating as using "United Kingdom" as an adjective, which to me sounds like an unnatural effort to find something to use instead of "British" despite the obvious logical parallel with "United States" which would not grate my ears to the same extent. But since we're talking about English and not Loglan, applying rules of logic that would also lead to France musicians, Germany geography, and Asia history instead of French musicians, German geography, and Asian history is off point. Lastly, while I realize now my earlier reply may sound as if it was directed towards you with its somewhat churlish tone, that was not the intent as I had a different target in mind for my churl, but in an attempt at semi-civility, I chose to not include a specific name,tho I suspect the target I had in mind will recognize my intent. Caerwine Caer’s whines 08:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - fair enough about the aim of your comments. As to the N.I. point, I should point out that Great Britain is the island which contains England, Scotland, and Wales, hence the problem with "British". Even unionists might have concerns with that description. And I'd hardly say that you can say that logically you'd need to use France, Germany, etc as adjectives, any more than saying that if you use American and German then you should logically use Britannian and Francan. Since "United States" is an accepted adjectival form - as is, albeit to a lesser extent, United Kingdom - then there's nothing to stop it being used. France and Germany are not used adjectivally in the same way. Let's face it, it's perfectly reasonable to have something named the US Navy or the UK Independence Party, but I'd find it unlikely that you would have the France Air Force or the Germany Football League. Grutness...wha? 09:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links only to WPSS discussions; still no category. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Update: still unused & redlinked. It appears the creator is OK with the possibility of its demise, so I propose we delete it and take up the naming issue when the need arises. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:58, 17 May 2008 (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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed - created and populated within the last 24 hours, to the tune of 48 stubs. Possibly useful, though the category needs shaping up (no parents of any type, stub or permcat). Could be useful, though Cat:Bowed-string musician stubs is hardly over-full. A likely keeper, but an upmerge is still plausible. Grutness...wha? 04:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• A definite keep on the template, and I suspect that there will be enough violinists who aren't notable for playing other stringed instruments to make the category a keeper. However a quick look indicates that the creator has been adding rather replacing the bowed-string template to stub articles. No way an article should have both templates. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Update: Now contains 73 items; keep. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:33, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

This rings a faint bell, but I don't see it listed as a stub type, proposal, or discovery... Somewhat under-full. Alai 19:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If it had been proposed, surely the template would have been made camelcaps like the category? Grutness...wha? 21:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Now contains 53 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Update: and now down to 17 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:29, 19 March 2008 (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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Isn't listed at WP:WSS/ST. Used a lot. Ignorant of procedure here, so listing and leaving! Splash - tk 21:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It was proposed, but for some reason it wasn't added to the list when it was finally made. Grutness...wha? 21:52, 10 March 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename

Newly created (unproposed). Possibly useful, but the template will probably need renaming - at the moment it sounds like a very small stub... Grutness...wha? 22:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Stub about nanotechnology . --Altermike 22:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That's my point exactly. So surely it should be nanotech-stub, not nano-stub (which sounds like a very small stub). Grutness...wha? 02:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Grut. Also, there is only one article in this category... Altairnano. I'm sure there are plenty of other nanotech stubs out there, already listed as technology stubs, instead. I would suggest that AltairNano should probably be listed under business stubs, as well. This stub category seems like it may be useful, if someone would take the time to hunt for other nanotech stubs (probably not going to be me, however). Also, the picture for the template looks a little screwgy. It needs a size adjustment. Probably a better picture would be C60 (buckminsterfullerene), since the discovery of that compound set off the nanotech industry trend (some businesses have begun to use the nano- prefix even when they are indeed using macro- technology). Fuzzform 21:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Still only contains 1 article. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:35, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

There was a debate about splitting fest-stub a while back, to make a separate stub for holidays, but there was no decision taken at the time (partly because the number of separate stubs for holidays and festivals were difficult to extricate from each other). Now someone (well, User: Some thing, actually) has decided to make such a stub. Possibly useful, but we need to be able to ascertain where holidays finish and festivals start. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

i made this stub specifically, to aid in the efforts of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Holidays. holidays is a more umbrella term that can be inclusive of festivals but need not be posted on holiday articles that are obviously festivals, in which case one could use the festival stub, IMO.Some thing 09:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The main problem is with ovewrlap. I agree that splitting holidays out from festivals is a good move, if we can come up wityh some rationale that makes it clear which stubs go in which category. As I said, there was a proposal something to this effect last year, but we never canme up with an easy split IIRC. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

“a feast or festival is a set of celebrations” observing a cultural issue, while a holiday or “holy day” is a day of significant meaning. A festival can therefore be as short as an hour and as long as a month but a holiday will always be 24hrs and without necessity for outdoor celebration. The issue here is that holidays are sometimes observed with festivals so the names are used interchangeably. admitting that the majority of popular festivals are in observation of a holiday, i suggest in the case that the word “festival” is in a holiday intro as a central observation of the holiday that the festival-stub takes priority over the holiday-stub. Some thing 23:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

further more User talk:Maverick423/Wikiproject:Festivals has attempted to categorize festivals as exclusive of holidays altogether. "Includes Community festivals, State festivals, and National Festivals that are not considered holidays". in this case holiday stub would be given priority. Some thing 13:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Contains 25 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Update: contains 39 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:28, 19 March 2008 (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

One of two unproposed stubs created today by Willow. This one may be useful, if there are the required number of stubs - which is unlikely since there are only 37 articles in Cat:Archaea and its subcats. A more general prokaryote stub might be more useful and more likely to reach a sensible size. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Every day I'm amazed at the number of processes Wikipedians have managed to create. 'Required number'? Anyway, the MCB and microbiology projects are planning to substantially expand coverage of recognized taxa, so this will probably have many more articles in the near future. Opabinia regalis 03:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, required number. You did read WP:STUB, I take it? That mentions that there is a required number, and why. I'd still be inclined to upscope it to prokaryotes. If there will soon be more articles, all well and good - but if they don't eventuate, don't be surprised if this one gets nominated for deletion at some point. Grutness...wha? 05:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the general recommendations in that guideline. I suppose we've got our {{shrubbery}} now, but I don't know how it isn't obvious that a group of organisms with their own taxonomic domain ought to have a stub category. Opabinia regalis 01:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was either get the shrubbery or have lots of people going "Ni!" Sure, something with its own taxonomic domain deserves a stub type - assuming there are enough stubs. At the time this was brought here, not only were there only a handful of stubs, but there were only a handful of articles in total. It doesn't make sense to have stub categories cut down to unmanageably small sizes, for the sake of editors and for the sake of maintenance. Grutness...wha? 05:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Grutness, please let me apologize for having transgressed our community norms. I was innocently unaware of the proposal process; it never occurred to me that there would be a problem with making a much-needed stub. It was not an act of defiance, but of ignorance, and I hope that you will forgive me for it.

There is definitely a need for this stub. I've created Wikipedia pages for 151 Archaea taxa higher than species that are not presently in Wikipedia, which I'm about to start uploading. That falls within the 100-300 limit specified on WP:Stub, right? Once I start creating the archaeal species pages, that number will grow further. This stub fills a significant gap in the presently available taxonomic stubs; aside from the bacteria and the eukaryota, the archaea are the third major branch of life. Willow 06:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There are now 31 articles tagged with {{Archaea-stub}}, which exceeds the established threshold of 30 articles; this stub is associated with the Microbiology WikiProject. In addition, there are still 20 archaeal families to upload, plus a host of genera and species. I hope that these data satisfy the concerns about the usefulness of this stub-template; thanks! :) Willow 10:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Grutness, there are now 66 articles tagged with {{Archaea-stub}}, which exceeds the higher threshold of 60 articles for stubs that have no sponsoring WikiProject (which is not the case here). Please let me know whether your concerns have been addressed; thanks! :) Willow 20:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, given that there are now plenty of stubs, it seems reasonable to keep this (unless there are any objections). BTW, the 30 for a WikiProject is for a basic stub for that WP (in this case, that would be something like microbiology-stub). But since there are 60, there's no problem with that. Good work, BTW! Grutness...wha? 00:10, 15 March 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

The other of Willow's stubs, though, is far less likely to get within cooee of threshold. To be honest, I can't see any use for it at all, so unless there's something I've overlooked, this is potentially SFD material - especially if it is intended to cover what the category says (for any articles with a taxobox), which machetes its way straight through the stub hierarchy. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Some explanation is in order here, too. I created this stub before I hit upon the idea of making the more specific {{Archaea-stub}}. Its purpose was to give a "catch-all" for taxonomic stubs that weren't covered by other stubs and WikiProjects, rather than using the general {{biology-stub}}. I do not believe that our present taxonomic stubs — even with {{Archaea-stub}} — cover the whole tree of life, so it's convenient for, say, the hundreds of starfish or diatom species not yet in Wikipedia. If you insist on proof to avoid deleting this stub template, I will generate and upload >100 Wikipedia pages on starfish, but I'd much rather finish the Archaea first; will you grant me some time to do that? Thanks very much! :) Willow 06:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Starfish would be covered by {{invertebrate-stub}}, and diatoms by {{protist-stub}}. I believe the tree of life is sufficiently well covered by stub categories to enable what remains (if indeed there is anything) to be treated under {{biology-stub}}. --Stemonitis 09:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• I see the sense of that, Stemonitis, and thanks for alerting me to the appropriate stubs. It'd be helpful for me to know the maximum number of stubs in a category, before that category should be split. For example, suppose that there were roughly 900 starfish stubs sorted under {{invertebrate-stub}}; that might suggest that we should make an {{Echinoderm-stub}}, right? It would be nice if there were fixed quantitative criteria according to which one could make a sub-stub template without having to go through a week-long vetting process. For example, if there are over, say, 200 stubs in a single taxonomic phylum or class, can I assume that I'll be allowed to make a sub-stub template for them? Thanks for your time and thought on the issue, Willow 10:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Most likely, yes, though proposing it first is still recommended, just to see whether a better scope or naming is possible (and it's only five days now, not a week). Often, though, that process will just rubber-stamp anything that's an obvious split. The usual maximum for a category before we really look hard at splitting is about 600 stubs. Above that size and it begins to get difficult for editors to wade through. Having said that, we still have several stub categories well over the 1000 stub mark in the process of being split up. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Contains 9 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:44, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge

ISTR some talk about this one, but I'm pretty sure that it was rejected as a possible split, due to the lack of stubs. Yet here it is, created yesterday. Admittedly, excluding orders and medals Cat:Exonumia does have about 320 articles, but the questions remain as to how many of them are stubs and how many of them are already covered elsewhere. Currently has two stubs. Grutness...wha? 05:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Here's the discussion; there was no consensus, and the category now contains 22 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Now has only 17 items. I suggest we upmerge the template. Her Pegship (tis herself) 06:22, 25 December 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

Created a couple months ago, only 21 articles. Eli Falk 13:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• This was proposed and accepted in October. Waacstats 12:23, 19 March 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename metabolism-stub?

Unproposed, badly named, badly formatted, inappropriate wikiproject message, no category at all. Moderately-well populated, but I'd wonder if it doesn't cut across existing stub types. Then again, all plans to reduce {{biochem-stub}} in size are worth considering... Alai 19:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly a subset of the intersection of Cat:Biochemistry stubs and Cat:Cell biology stubs, so I wouldn't mind placing it a child of those two. It marks only 33 stubs at present, but luckily since there is an associated wikiproject it needs only 30, so take this to SFD for renaming and give it an appropriate parentage (including existing permcat Cat:Metabolic pathways). If it weren't for the wikiproject I'd suggest upscoping to Cat:Metabolism stubs, but maybe a discussion with the WP would get them to consider upscoping their project as well. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 32 articles, but still badly named and doesn't link to any category. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:50, 30 July 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 taken to SfD

Never proposed, some issues with the way the category is formed, but seems quite reasonable, if there are enough stubs 9which at the moment, is still doubtful). Grutness...wha? 06:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 11 items; I have proposed a change at SfD. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:51, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Created one month ago. This template was below the 60 mark, but an editor has given it a distinct category anyway. It is at 45+ so I doubt it is worth the while upmerging it again. Valentinian ^{T / C} 12:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Contains 52 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:51, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, but probably useful, if there are the required number of stubs, which - judging by Cat:Syria stubs - there may well be. The category will need renaming, though (should be "Syrian people stubs"). Grutness...wha? 04:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Trust me, there are a lot of stubs for this category. Stub-related work is not my thing, but I created this as part of WP:SY and I believe it is a vital stub category and is used widely in other countries ({{Germany-bio-stub}}, {{Scotland-bio-stub}}). You're right about the category though, I've created another category and tagged this one for speedy deletion. Give it sometime and this category will be filled with stubs. - Anas ^talk? 11:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • OK - I've speedied the earlier one. Be warned, if this doesn't get to a reasonable population in the next couple of months it may yet be proposed for deletion, but I'm pretty sure you're right, there seem to be quite a few Syrian bio-stubs around. Grutness...wha? 12:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Don't worry — I'll make sure it gets populated by tomorrow. Thank you! :-) - Anas ^talk? 12:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It is 70+ now. Keep. Valentinian ^{T / C} 07:53, 30 March 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was reverse redir or rename

Can anyone here guess what this is for? Why its a stub for British royalty. What's that you say? We already have one? No, we had one. {{UK-royal-stub}} got moved eight months ago to this by a member of Wikiproject British Royalty and left as a redirect. Now to be fair WP:BRoy is in the habit of using BRoy at the start of the templates it uses. But this one violates the naming guidelines for stubs in several ways. By the way, a quick glance indicates that there appear to be enough pre-Jamesian stubs here to warrant an {{England-royal-stub}} if anyone is so inclined. I'll leave Grutness and Alai to fight over the category name if they want, but since the permcats here use British rather than United Kingdom, I'm inclined to leave the category as it is and send this to SFD to be set aright after gently informing BRoy of the alternatives. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Contains 179 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:52, 30 July 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 listed

Proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2007/March#Juggling. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

...in which case, it's hardly a discovery! Why did you list it here? Grutness...wha? 06:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, um, I thought it was the thing to do. Sorry then. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

S'alright. This page is for templates and categories discovered by WP:WSS that hadn't been proposed and which need discussing to see whether they need any tidying up. Grutness...wha? 22:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 27 March 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed. I almost sfd'd this, thinking it was a duplicate of a stub type we already had. On closer inspection of WP:WSS/ST, though, it looks like geophysics is, surprisingly, an area we haven't a specific stub type for. If this reaches threshold, it will almost certainly be worth keeping - but the category issue certainly needs tidying up - at the moment, it feeds into three categories 9of which two are redlinks) - definite overkill. Grutness...wha? 04:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 4 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:54, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Presumably this was created as a result of this SFD - my comment "when it gets to [threshold] size, propose [a Frasier-stub] at WP:WSS/P" somehow must have been interpreted as "make a Frasier-stub now!". Needs work - no category of any kind. Grutness...wha? 01:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Correction - this seems to be the coincidental work of a completely different editor. Grutness...wha? 01:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 2 articles; category has been created as Cat:Frasier Stubs. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:55, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, but well-populated and seems well-scoped. And unless we count the 80 pixel image, well-formed. Alai 04:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Now holds 84 articles. I suggest we keep. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:10, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

I'd say this was poorly formatted, but that would imply that it was formatted at all, which it isn't really. No cat, no links, no anything. And then there's the space in the template name... might possibly be a useful split, though I'm a little dubious, and if it is we've just about got to start over from scratch with this one. Grutness...wha? 23:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be in use, and the creator this stub type hasn't responded (as best I can) to the posting on his talk page more than two weeks ago. Why don't you just start the process of getting it deleted? -- John Broughton (??) 04:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Still languishing, nothing links there, no cleanup. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:53, 29 June 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge to Euro tv stubs

Newly created category. Unfortunately, the Norwegian material is very small in this respect, so an upmerge looks like the logical conclusion. Valentinian ^{T / C} 15:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

agreed, we decided to upmerge all those stubs for a reason before. Not much changed. TheDJ (talk ? contribs ? WikiProject Television) 19:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Currently used on 11 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:53, 29 June 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

A reasonable split - one of the Spanish autonomous regions which hasn't had a stub type up until now... The template seems fine, but the category is very small - there's far from any guarantee of 60 stubs. A possible upmerging candidate until we're sure there are enough. Grutness...wha? 08:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Now used on 74 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:54, 29 June 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge gender-stub & masc-stub to gender-studies-stub

Two new stub types for gender studies and men's studies (redlinked categories). At the moment these are covered by sex-stub and sociology-stub. Cat:Sex stubs isn't really big enough to split, but its name does suggest things not entirely compatible with gender studies... perhaps the best solution might be deleting masc-stub (it would be automatically covered by gender-stub if kept), but keep gender-stub, and direct both it and sex-stub to a re-named category covering both aspects of this topic? Grutness...wha? 01:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for not proposing these stub types. Its a 100% case of my not reading policy first - sorry. Grutness makes a good point about the name of Gender-stub and about deleting masc-stub. However, I wouldn't really favour a conflation of sexuality stubs and gender studies stubs because they are very different areas. A feminism stub already exists, perhaps a merge of gender-stub and {{fem-stub}} would be more appropriate since feminism would also be covered by a Gender studies stub?--Cailil 01:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

{{fem-stub}} and {{fem-activist stub}} currently cover feminism and feminists (as well as the opposition and opponents respectively). Feminism is only one aspect that women's studies covers (or at least it's supposed to be) and while neither existing stub is close to being overlarge, I can't see upmerging them as appropriate here. The sex/gender distinction is a bit on the subtle side, so how about we consider upmerging and deleting both {{gender-stub}} and {{masc-stub}} to a {{gender-studies-stub}} (child of a hypothetical {{studies-stub}} for the social/cultural studies that could serve as the parent of such stubs as {{Asia-studies-stub}} et cetera. The -studies- stem would serve to indicate that the stubs are for those aspects of the topic that attract academic attention or are used in academic discussion. Caerwine Caer?s whines 03:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I see the benefits in your points Caerwine. The creation of a parent (even if hypothetical) social/cultural-studies stub for academic issues. But what effect would excluding {{fem-stub}} from such a {{gender-studies-stub}} mean for its use? Currently {{fem-stub}} is used on articles about feminist theory and other feminist academic and women's studies pages as well as on pages about activists. I would worry that excluding it would lead to confusion - unless guidlines for use of both stubs were clarly drawn up.--Cailil 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The Feminism stubs don't currently have have a parent, so making Cat:Feminism stubs a child of Cat:Gender studies stubs is probably best, at least as a first step. The activists themselves should have {{fem-activist-stub}} instead of {{fem-stub}} in any case. Caerwine Caer?s whines 18:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If we were to strictly follow the permcats, we'd have Cat:gender stubs with Cat:feminism stubs as a sub-type, and Cat:male-studies-stubs being upmerged to the former on the basis of a) size, and b) there being no permcat at all for that at present. (Cat:Feminism is a child of Cat:gender and a sibling cat of Cat:gender studies, and Cat:feminist theory is a child of both.) None of that would be set in stone, of course. Alai 00:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I like Caerwine's solution. Mind you, it still leaves the problem of the numbers... ISTR there is also a LBGT-stub and LGBT-activist-stub, which would also make suitable child categories of this. Grutness...wha? 04:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update: {{gender-stub}} links to 2 items; {{masc-stub}} 0 (and has no cat); {{fem-stub}} 155. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:57, 29 June 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

A self-discovery/true life confession, but on the pattern of other decade-based splits, of a perennially-oversized parent (even after botting about 300 of them tonight). It's a little undersized at present, but there's a pre-existing sub-type. Alai 06:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Now holds 69 articles and has a sub-cat. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:10, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Another unproposed stub type. Misnamed (should be Cat:Irish Republican Army stubs), but yet again it has the problem of one side in a civil conflict so probably should be deleted (unlike the last case, hopefully no-one will accuse this son of the O'Duibhgeannains of being racist!). This one has a WikiProject, which does make a little difference, but it's still not clear there'd be sufficient stubs for it. A WP-specific talk page template is probably a better solution. Grutness...wha? 06:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need a stub for Individual Retirement Accounts? If needed, would {{NI-paramilitary-org-stub}} and/or {{Ireland-paramilitary-org-stub}} as a child of {{paramilitary-org-stub}} suffice? Caerwine Caer's whines 06:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I made the template. I just stole the Ireland stub temp. and replaced the image, basically. I thought it'd be a good idea to help the project identify and keep track of stub articles which fall within the scope of our article. I wasn't aware I was supposed to propose a stub; I've been following WP:BB. I'm not sure how many stubs there should be within the scope of a given topic to warrant a stub template/category of its own, but as it stands we have very few articles on individuals of significant length, and once you get away from the men who fought the Wars of Independence, your chances of finding an article of substance get even lower. Almost all of the articles listed in any of the various IRAs' membership categories are stubs.

We have one of those talk page banners; how could we use that to keep track of stubs? Erin Go Bragh^talk 08:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Including following "be bold" where it says "be bold in updating articles" (emph. added) and "Exceptions: Categories and templates"? There should be about 30; if there's not likely to be, then I suggest keeping the template, upmerged (and thus deleting the category), and as Grutness says, using a WP-specific talk page template as associated category (c.f. Cat:Stub-Class Assyrian articles, for example). Alai 10:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I have no doubt there will be at least 30. It's just hard to get around to them all! I apologize if I've done something I'm not supposed to; I am new. I'll do my best in the next few days to sort through our various categories. I need to do so, anyway! Erin Go Bragh^talk 09:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

One possible compromise might be an Ireland-hist-stub, Ireland-mil-stub or similar. The problem is what proportion of IRA-related articles are RoI and what proportion are NI - many of them will be in that grey area between the two. Mind you, a NI-mil-hist-stub (or similar) might solve one problem in that it will accept stubs for both republican and loyalist factions, increasing the number of stubs and allowing the same editors access to twice as many articles that they would have some skill in editing (assuming good faith WRT POV). Grutness...wha? 22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

One of my big motivations for creating these categories was that they were not reliant on being either RoI or NI; being associated with the IRA is one thing you can apply to many people. I'm really not too knowledgable about how the stub category system works. I just want some method of grouping IRA-related stub articles for our WikiProject. If the stub temp. gets deleted, then I would really appreciate help in setting up an alternative. Erin Go Bragh^talk 09:52, 7 February 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Looks pretty good to me (aside from the horrific stub template coding, which I've just changed), but after adding the WSS template, I realized it wasn't listed. Alai 09:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Now holds 64 articles. Keep. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:11, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

One article. Alai 12:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Contains 2 articles, a template and a WikiProject.

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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge

I thought this had already been discussed, but I can't find it listed anyplace. Sensible-sounding, but currently small. Alai 14:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Currently contains 15 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:00, 29 June 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Previously proposed, so not a discovery

Unproposed, very small. Well enough formatted, but we don't split by country of origin or language (perhaps we should?) Grutness...wha? 01:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops - my apologies - there was a proposal after all! Grutness...wha? 01:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I can remove the subcat from Category:Literature stubs if we should not be splitting by country/language; because, that wasn't discussed in the original proposal. I added it 'cause it seemed like a good idea; but, maybe not? Neier 01:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah - it's probably fine the way it is - they are, after all, a subtype of literature stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 7 February 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Unproposed, redlinked category, very small. Spain's tubs are at least partly split by regions but this one may struggle to get close to threshold. Grutness...wha? 01:14 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no count at hand, but Navarre was formerly an independent kingdom. Its borders didn't match those of the the current province, but perhaps we have material relating to the history of this region? Valentinian ^{T / C} 10:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I created the stub because some other autonomous communities of Spain have their stub template, as Template:Galicia-stub. I created a stub Parliament of Navarre and needed a template... maybe a stupid action. Delete it if you think so. --Neigel von Teighen 11:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Linked to 1 item, still no cat. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:10, 29 June 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Unproposed, but seems a reasonable split and is well-enough formatted, even though the category name is slightly non-standard ("Pakistani sportspeople stubs" is, IIRC, more in line with what we'd normally use). Grutness...wha? 01:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this template is a much needed one because cricket, being the most popular sport in Pakistan, has its own separate stub template, however, I have not found any Pakistan related stub template which could cover all other sports biographies and I believe there are plenty of Pakistan related sports-bio-stub articles which could really use this template. As far as category name goes, I copied it from another template which I found to be extensively in use. Please correct the category name if you find it odd. Thanks! Szhaider 12:03, 7 February 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was take to sfd for rename

The work of a WikiProject. Very small and the name reminds me of something else. Valentinian ^{T / C} 10:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"This article related to dodgy hairstyles of the 1970s is a stub..." Hm. Quite. Certainly if kept it would need a renaming, and, to be honest, I'd say the category is just too vague as well - what humans living anywhere except in Africa are not the result of an African diaspora? This one seem unlikely to well fit in with other stub types. Grutness...wha? 04:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The intent is clear, the Africans dispersed due to slave trading and in which describing the prefix "Afro-" is the one usually used, e.g. Afro-Ecuadorian people and Afro-Mexican so except for the ambiguity with the hair style its clear enough. Perhaps {{Afro--stub}}? Caerwine Caer?s whines 01:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, by way of contrast with that, Afro-American is no longer used, and African American is now seen as the correct form. And since I can foresee eventual Polynesian diaspora, Jewish diaspora, Scottish diaspora and Chinese diaspora stubs (among others), wouldn't it make more sense to start with a name that can be paralleled with all of these, such as African-diaspora-stub? Grutness...wha? 03:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a viable stub coming from this. Besides, shouldn't we be stubbing by nation, not culutre?--Thomas.macmillan 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that one. SFD? Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Used on 14 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:11, 29 June 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Unproposed, and Brazil's geo-stubs do need a split, but... note the upper case D! This should have been at {{RioGrandedoSul-geo-stub}}. Also, there's no guarantee of 60 stubs, so unless there are 60, the category should be upmerged. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 9 February 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to gametheory-stub; allow joint custody under psych stubs, math stubs, and game stubs

Never proposed, potentially useful but currently very small 9with no guarantee it would get to required size. Parentage is also troublesome - this is currently listed as a child of Cat:Economics and finance stubs, but Game theory covers a wide range of possible parents, from Cat:Sociology stubs to Cat:Philosophy stubs. Template also should probably be at {{Gametheory-stub}}, since we're unlikely to have lots of parallel X-theory-stub types or any parent {{theory-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 03:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Pick whatever name you like if the hyphen is a problem. For potential entries, just check Category:Game theory or Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Game theory ? tons of unmarked short articles from first glance. The parentage is certainly a problem, very few game theory models fit nicely within one or the other academic discipline. Which is why I created it in the first place. ~ trialsanderrors 03:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I may be biased, but to me, it's a branch of mathematics. Trying to say it fits in one particular applied discipline would be like trying to decide whether calculus belongs to physics, economics, or engineering. Caerwine Caer?s whines 05:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • • My bias is obviously different to yours - to me it's a branch of psychology :) Grutness...wha? 22:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Well the originating book was called Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, but that's neither here nor there. Not sure what the point of this exercise is. ~ trialsanderrors 07:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, if, as seems probable, this is kept (possibly with slightly altered template name) then the category needs to be properly parented. A permcat parent is easy - Cat:Game theory. A stub cat parent is a bit more open to question. Grutness...wha? 22:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Going by the perm cat's parents, it looks like there are four appropriate parents Cat:Applied mathematics stubs, Cat:Economics and finance stubs, Cat:Game stubs, and Cat:Psychology stubsCaerwine Caer?s whines 23:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Game theory is about as relevant to psychology as it is to comparative religious studies. Let's not get carried away. There are any number of sciences that use game theory, but the two that have a fundamental claim to it are mathematics and economics. ~ trialsanderrors 08:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Um, with due respect, you clearly don't have much knowledge of the study of psychology. game Theory is an extremely important part of many branches of it, most notably behavioural research. Grutness...wha? 04:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
              • I'm pretty comfortable with my knowledge of game theory as a tool in psychology, but I don't think you got my point. In any case, is there a purpose to this discussion? ~ trialsanderrors 00:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Update: Currently contains 14 items. The permcat Cat:Game theory contains 164 items and several sub-cats. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Update: Now holds 24 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:12, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename cricket-comps-stub, cricket-terms-stub, let the rest lie

We've suddenly acquired a slips cordon of stub types relating to cricket:

• {{Cricket-history-stub}} - Cat:Cricket history stubs (28 stubs)
• {{Cricket-admin-stub}} - Cat:Cricket administration stubs (32 stubs)
• {{Cricket-comps-stub}} - Cat:Cricket competitions stubs (not computing, and a badly named cat - 47 stubs)
• {{Cricket-media-stub}} - Cat:Cricket media stubs (11 stubs)
• {{Cricket-terms-stub}} - Cat:Cricket terminology stubs (badly named template - 30 stubs)

None of these was proposed, two of the templates and one of the categories are incorrectly named, and several of them are woefully small. On the upside, it completely empties Cat:Cricket stubs into subcategories, but that also means that the small ones (in one case fewer than a dozen stubs) have little opportunity for expansion to anywhere close to a reasonable threshold. Grutness...wha? 01:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The project page states that stub sorting is important so that articles are more likely to be edited to a higher standard. I believe that the new stubs have taken a large step towards helping those editors with an interest in cricket to find articles which they can improve.

I don't see why a stub category requires a certain number of articles to be 'reasonable'. Surely it is easier for an editor interested in improving coverage of the cricket media, for example, to work through a category of those articles, rather than having to look through a longer list of mixed articles and pick out the ones that involve the media? I can see there being a lower limit of three or four articles being to some extent helpful, but eleven doesn't strike me as too small. The next smallest is 28, and that certainly is of a decent size.

Of course, I have no objections to renaming some of them. ?Ollie (talk ? contribs) 22:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Taken from users Grutness's talk - "Would you please explain exactly what is your problem with these stub categories and where it says I must first propose their creation? What I have done is yet another example of bold editing where no one else can be bothered.

I am probably the most prolific contributor to the cricket project and the one who was entirely responsible, with very little help from other members, for the creation of a project structure in terms of domestic and international cricket in particular. There has for a long time been a need to impose some sort of order onto the cricket stub articles and this task was begun by User:Alai in respect of season reviews, tour reviews and venues. There already was a separate bio-stub categorisation.

By splitting the stubs out into sub-categories it enables the project to recognise the scale of the main task that confronts it, which is to develop all 5600+ stubs into finished articles. From this, members should feel able to pick out batches of stubs which they will be responsible for (in theory).

This is the third time in a week that I have encountered someone who evidently thinks all of these stubs have to become articles NOW and therefore cannot see the proverbial wood for the proverbial trees. What does it matter if one of the stub categories currently has only 12 members? What does it matter? There are plenty of article categories throughout the site that have less members than that and never will increase.

Why not allow the project to develop these stubs over a period of time so that the work is done in an enjoyable and relaxed way, thereby achieving better results in the long term. What is it with this site that no matter what anyone does to try and improve a project when others are not showing interest, that there is always someone who has to come along quoting this procedure and that process and completely losing sight of the big picture.BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)"

I say Keep them per Blackjacks points--Thugchildz

Ollie and Thugchildz, this is my reply to Blackjack. You may find it worth reading, since it covers all the points you both raise:

Would you please explain exactly what is your problem with these stub categories and where it says I must first propose their creation? What I have done is yet another example of bold editing where no one else can be bothered.

Please read WP:BOLD - read in particular the bit which says that it applies to articles but not to categories or templates. Please also note the template at the top of Cat:Cricket stubs and the information listed on WP:STUB. The main problems (plural) are with the names of one category and two templates, and the size of the categories - none of them are at the standard 60 stubs needed to split and one is at a fairly shocking eleven stubs. prior to this, they were in one category with some 160 stubs - well within the standard accepted size for stub categories. See below for reasons why these sizes are used.

I am probably the most prolific contributor to the cricket project and the one who was entirely responsible, with very little help from other members, for the creation of a project structure in terms of domestic and international cricket in particular. There has for a long time been a need to impose some sort of order onto the cricket stub articles and this task was begun by User:Alai in respect of season reviews, tour reviews and venues. There already was a separate bio-stub categorisation.

Actually, ISTR it was begun by me - I'm pretty sure I was the one who started the bio-stub organisation.

By splitting the stubs out into sub-categories it enables the project to recognise the scale of the main task that confronts it, which is to develop all 5600+ stubs into finished articles. From this, members should feel able to pick out batches of stubs which they will be responsible for (in theory).

Exactly, and that is the reason for stub sorting in general.Without stub sorting, all stubs would be in one large category of several hundred thousand articles. This is clearly not suitable, and, in fact, over a long period it has become clear that stub categories with more than about 600 articles and less than about 60 articles are of little use to editors. Any more than 600, and int becomes too difficult to wade through all the articles to find the ones an editor may be able to edit. Any fewer than 60, and an edito has to search a far larger number of categories for articles, a task which not only slows editors down but is disheartening for many editors. From the stub sorting point of view, 60 articles as a minum is also useful, as the number of stub categories is already closing in on 4000 - lowering the threshold number would make an already busy system too cumbersome for any stub sorters to keep track of. Allowances are made for one base-level stub category for wikiprojects (a reduction in the threshold is considered appropriate in this case), but not for a plethora of different stub categories for any one project.

This is the third time in a week that I have encountered someone who evidently thinks all of these stubs have to become articles NOW and therefore cannot see the proverbial wood for the proverbial trees. What does it matter if one of the stub categories currently has only 12 members? What does it matter? There are plenty of article categories throughout the site that have less members than that and never will increase.

It matters for the reasons listed above. A stub category that small is useless - and even discouraging - for editors, and sets a precedent which could see the demise of stub sorting as a whole if it were to become the norm. I certainly do not think "all stubs should be expanded now" It would be nice if some were, but it certainly is nothing to do with the reason why I pointed out the problems with what you have done.

Why not allow the project to develop these stubs over a period of time so that the work is done in an enjoyable and relaxed way, thereby achieving better results in the long term.

That is exactly what I want to happen.

What is it with this site that no matter what anyone does to try and improve a project when others are not showing interest, that there is always someone who has to come along quoting this procedure and that process and completely losing sight of the big picture.

The big picture, as I have pointed out above, is problems for all stub types across the whole of Wikipedia if there is no threshold.

I absolutely refuse to visit WP:WSS/D or whatever it's called. If you are so pedantic that you must interfere in this project to suit your own blinkered view of the way that information is created and categorised for the benefit of the readers, then you will no doubt go ahead and do whatever you are going to do anyway and I will just be wasting valuable time getting involved.

I have no objection to you creating permcats for the benefit of readers. But, as I pointed out, stub categories are not designed for the benefit of readers they re for the benefit of editors.

I seem to have been free of this sort of political interference for a few months lately but, sure enough, three times in one week, here we go again. Frankly, I really don't know why I bother.

You bother because you care about cricket and you care about Wikipedia. You bother because you have information that you want to share with others. You bother because overall you see Wikipedia as a good thing, even though occasionally you rinun ito other people working on Wikipedia with views different to you. Wikipedia is not anarchy - it has set rules and guidelines. Working within them means that in doing your editing you are not harming the work of others. Your stub categories and templates could well harm the work of many other editors. I can understand why you have made them, but please understand why they are not necessarily the best way to have gone about things. Grutness...wha? 05:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comprehensive reply Grutness. I do feel that small stub category sizes are of benefit to me, as an editor. Over at Wikiproject Cricket, I volunteered to "look after" one of these stub categories (Cricket Terminology). I can honestly say that the specificity (is that a word?) and small size of the category encouraged me to do so. So small size does not always discourage editors! I do understand all of your points however, and will leave this project to determine what to do with the stub types. I have decided to copy the cats that interest me to my user space in case you decide to delete. ?Ollie (talk ? contribs) 05:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The most likely thing - going on past cases - would be keeping the templates and categories for any with above about 40-45 stubs, and keeping the templates for the others but redirecting them back to the main Cat:Cricket stubs until they get to a size where they are a more reasonable size. That would leave the competitions one and putting everything else back in the main cricket stubs cat (which would then have about 100 stubs - hardly a huge problem for finding articles for editing). The competition one's template name will probably be changed, though - since comp is used for computing in stub templates, comps is perhaps a little too close to that for comfort. Grutness...wha? 06:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that the pointless intervention by Grutness into the running of the cricket project has gone nowhere at all and achieved nothing other than to alienate one of the main contributors to the cricket project. Going back to Grutness' original entry above, I do not suppose anyone cares what names the categories are given but I am amazed by the other point which is:

the small ones (in one case fewer than a dozen stubs) have little opportunity for expansion to anywhere close to a reasonable threshold

What on Earth is he on about? Surely if a project is managing its stubs it is seeking to reduce and eliminate them!? Why would anyone wish to expand stub categories? I have seen some real twaddle on Wikipedia by these procedure wallahs but I think this one takes the biscuit.

I stongly suggest in agreement with the project members who have written about this already that the discussion is closed and that the cricket project is left to run its own affairs without interference from people who do not contribute to the project. Or to anything else for that matter. --GeorgeWilliams 14:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Current counts:

• {{Cricket-history-stub}} - Cat:Cricket history stubs (15 stubs)
• {{Cricket-admin-stub}} - Cat:Cricket administration stubs (31 stubs)
• {{Cricket-comps-stub}} - upmerged to Cat:Cricket stubs (33 stubs)
• {{Cricket-media-stub}} - Cat:Cricket media stubs (12 stubs)
• {{Cricket-terms-stub}} - Cat:Cricket terminology stubs (22 stubs)

Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:17, 29 June 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

We've spoken to Wikkscrlt about stub types for the WP Mixed Drinks before now, but he clearly hasn't fully got it yet. This is... an unusual template, to say the least. Words fail me as to how to describe it, really. Grutness...wha? 01:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"Unusual" is not the word ... Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 3 items. I think it should be renamed to "Template:WP Bartending" since (with the documentation) it can be used more like a talk-page template than a stub template. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:20, 29 June 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

The surreptitious split of Spanish stubs by region continues... unproposed, but looks well formed. Depending on the number of stubs it may need to be upmerged - I suppose that's a "wait and see". Grutness...wha? 01:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, I've too fast creating the stub for the Asturian related articles, I'm so sorry. Anyway, I've noticed there's no specific stub category covering various general stuff related to asturias (art, education, economy, images, etc...), so I think it coulbe a good idea to create a generic one: Cat:Asturias stubs, a category that could even upmerge other stub-categories related to Asturias that are maybe too specific for a region with 1,076,896 pop --  ? Ravenloft ?  ^{? (talk) ?} 10:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... well, the only subtype of it there should be at the moment is the geo-stub one, and a lot of places have geo-stub categories but not general stub categories (also, see the note on bio-stubs on the proposal page!). It really does mainly depend on the numbers. if there are 60 or so stubs, there's no real problem with this - fewer than that, and keeping the template but directing it to the larger Spanish stub cat is probably the best way, at least until such time as there are 60 stubs. Grutness...wha? 05:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I think you have point. If we look at the cold numbers, you're right. There's no real need to upmerge right now, as there aren't so many subtypes. But to have this general category and upmerge the geo-stub one could still be a good idea. --  ? Ravenloft ?  ^{? (talk) ?} 16:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why {{asturias-geo-stub}} would need to be upmerged, it has enough articles to have own category, and if we decide to keep the generic one, the geography category becomes child of it. Monni 05:39, 7 March 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

This one looks moderately useful, despite the lack of proposal - already has some 30 stubs. Could probably do with some better parent stub cats, but other than that, not too bad. May need upmerging if size doesn't increase, but if it's got 30 already, that probably won't be a problem. Grutness...wha? 06:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This was original proposed as a phytopathology-stub but it was decided to call it a plant-disesase-stub, see [[3]]

Ah - apologies. I missed that one. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 16 February 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

One article, no scope given, not on the list. Oops, I mean, the list.Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedied - a re-creation of a previous deletion. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 17 February 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Created for stub articles pertaining to the cvg company SNK Playmore, unproposed & ill-made. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Currently contains 35 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:24, 29 June 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Originally linking to Wikipedia:WikiProject Bluegrass Region, I have changed this to link to the Bluegrass region. Not on the approved list and no link to it from any WP:WSS page. mattbr³⁰ 22:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I give up - what's that got to do with British Rail? Grutness...wha? 23:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. It's obviously about White Pine Blister Rust instead. Caerwine Caer�s whines 02:26, 17 February 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was take to sfd for renaming

seems like someone has supplied the "missing" categories for the upmerged NZ-geo-stub subtypes. One or two of them are close to threshold, but others are nowhere near, especially:

• Cat:Gisborne, New Zealand geography stubs (16 articles, and also misnamed - should be Cat:Gisborne Region geography stubs)
• Cat:Nelson, New Zealand geography stubs (17 articles - should be Cat:Nelson District geography stubs)
• Cat:Tasman, New Zealand geography stubs (37 articles - should be Cat:Tasman District geography stubs)
• Cat:Hawke's Bay geography stubs (27 articles)
• Cat:Taranaki geography stubs (21 articles)

The others created (for Bay of plenty, Northland and Marlborough) are all of reasonable size (45+ stubs), though again there are name problems with Cat:Marlborough, New Zealand geography stubs (should be Cat:Marlborough Region geography stubs), but the five above probably need re-upmerging and sfd'ing. Grutness...wha? 23:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update:
  • Cat:Gisborne, New Zealand geography stubs (21 articles)
  • Cat:Nelson, New Zealand geography stubs (25 articles
  • Cat:Tasman, New Zealand geography stubs (41 articles
  • Cat:Hawke's Bay geography stubs (31 articles)
  • Cat:Taranaki geography stubs (30 articles)
  • Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:15, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Created on Feb. 16 by Vladimir2008 (talk · contribs). Currently used on 14 politicians. Should probably be merged into Cat:Turkmenistan stubs.--Carabinieri 23:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Not a current country, and even if we did want to keep this, then we'd want to lose the space in the template name. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Delete this one and tag with {{Turkmenistan-stub}} and {{Soviet-stub}}. Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:02, 23 February 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Unproposed, but potentially useful. Not sure that it would have 60 stubs though. perhaps keep the template but upmerge it into Cat:Sociology stubs (which curently covers discrimination)? Grutness...wha? 01:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Currently links to only 2 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:16, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Nastily named, with gaps and a capital S, so even if kept it would need a severe renaming. I don't know enough about the sport to know whether this would be useful - what say you American Football types? Grutness...wha? 01:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Marginal Arena football does not get played in special purpose arenas, so I can't see stubs for those. The team articles, even for defunct teams are mostly past the stub stage, and the players are former regular football players who in most cases will be more notable for that reason than what they did in the AFL. Possibly as an upmerged template for arena football (so as to also cover the af2 minor league) or indoor American football to cover all the indoor variants and not just arena football. Another possibility would be to get the newly formed WikiProject Arena Football League (6 members) to use a talk page template instead so as to feed articles into Cat:Stub-class Arena Football League articles, Cat:Start-class Arena Football League articles, etc. using the WP 1.0 assessment classes. Caerwine Caer�s whines 01:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Dammit, let me speak (edit conflicts) as for the past prime NFL players, that is wrong. There are rookies out of college that play directly into the Arena Football League. The stub template was going to be used on current players with very little information (less than 2 paragraphs). As for the naming, it could be moved I have no objection to that so as long as someone is notified. The stub template is not currently in use in any article. --ROASTYTOAST 02:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there were any colleges that played arena football (or any other indoor version) so my comment about AFL players being generally more notable for playing regular American football still stands. Division I football is far more notable than arena football. Caerwine Caer�s whines 02:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

In a sense football is football. Players can readjust to the different codes. But, pending approval, It would be used on Arena football league related stubs and player bios which qulify as stubs. Plus the arena football league has a patent on some of its rules --ROASTYTOAST 02:45, 17 February 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

A new creation (literally, just a few minutes ago), so not populated. Badly named (should be {{Italy-swimming-bio-stub}} and Cat:Italian swimming biography stubs). Never proposed, and given that Cat:European swimming biography stubs has only some 250 articles, I doubt it would reach threshold. At the very least needs a rename - possible needs more than that. Grutness...wha? 08:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware about policies regarding the creation of stubs. Sorry.

This stub will never reach the threshold, it can be deleted at any time. Marra 12:12, 17 February 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Unproposed, only one stub, and its logical parent (Cat:European law stubs) only has 140 articles. Unlikely it will get anywhere near threhold at present but may be useful later. Suggest we upmerge the template into both the Euro parent and into Cat:Germany stubs and delete the category. Grutness...wha? 06:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Now contains 24 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:17, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, though size may be a problem. One of the categories (the Gospel music one) has no permcat parents and recursion problems - there also seem to be scoping problems with it, since it contains nothing but musicians, which is what a Gospel musician stub category (not a Gospel music category) would be for, if we had one. Seems to be a new associated WikiProject. A WP-specific talk-page template may suit them better? Grutness...wha? 00:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This stub is related to the Gospel music WikiProject. Several gospel albums and songs are listed in other music genres. Correctly stubbing these articles will assist in maintenance by the WikiProject members.
Absolon S. Kent 03:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Part of my point is that whoever's been populating these hasn't been stubbing articles properly with it. Several of the articles marked with these templates aren't stubs, and quite a few musicians have been marked as being music-stubs - which they're not - they're musician-stubs. Stubbing is to aid in maintenance by all Wikipedians, not just individual WikiProjects - if you want something to help maintenance by a specific WikiProject, you'll be far better off using a WP-specific talk-page template. Grutness...wha? 04:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Gospel music stubs now contains 51 items; Gospel album stubs has 37. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:18, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, will possibly struggle to reach threshold (though maybe not). Main problem, though, is the category - the name should be Cat:Weightlifting biography stubs or similar, to make it clear that it includes coaches. Also, one of the permcat parents doesn't seem to exist. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble. Is it OK if I fix the problems stated? CeeGee 06:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Not yet - wait iuntil it's been debated to see whether we need it. Then, if we do it will need to go to SFD for renaming. Grutness...wha?

Support wider scope. Monni 05:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Re-named category Cat:Weightlifting biography stubs contains 130 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:18, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Unproposed, not likely to get close to threshold (the parent Asian television stub category has under 120 articles, so the chances of this getting to 60 stubs are remote. Seems pretty well-formed, though. Upmerging is possibly the best option (the parent stub cat has several such upmerged templates). Grutness...wha? 05:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Currently used on 49 articles. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Now contains 54 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:19, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed but possibly useful. Currently has one stub and inadequate parent cats. other than that may be useful (not sure about he numbers, though...) Grutness...wha? 05:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe making proposals for stub creation is only a guideline, not an official policy, per WP:STUB. As such, I think the usefulness of this stub is pretty self-evident. I have added one more category to the stub, and have added the template to more articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Now contains 77 items. Suggest we keep. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:19, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Seems that CeeGee didn't learn from the previous non-proposal (about three further up this page)... unproposed, no idea as to whether it will reach threshold - at least this one is properly named. Grutness...wha? 05:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Now contains 6 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:20, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerged

Unproposed, and I'd say very unlikely to reach 60 stubs. Upmerging could be the best option. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Currently only one page transcludes the stub, and the permcat has < 30 pages. I'd favor SFD and change the one page to {{band-stub}} (Maybe {{Euro-band-stub}} would be a good catchall for various small European countries?) — jmorgan (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support creating {{euro-band-stub}} / Cat:European musical group stubs and upmerging {{Estonia-band-stub}} to that. Monni 17:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Update: Now links to 16 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:25, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Unproposed, and splits bios by subnational region, something strongly discouraged here in the past. A likely sfds candidate, I'd say. Grutness...wha? 02:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• SFD - Zero transclusions from articles, I'm guessing this was made for Wikipedia:WikiProject Idaho. — jmorgan (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a stub created specifically for Wikipedia:WikiProject Idaho. I am unsure why it was created by the individual who did so. It is not a high priority catagory in my tiny mind. The basic Category for Idaho stubs is fine. --Robbie Giles 13:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Of note, Cat:Idaho politician stubs has about 80 relevant members (which would not be retagged {{Idaho-bio-stub}}) — jmorgan (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 2 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:26, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, but looks well constructed, and is a logical stub type to have. the one concern is size - if it doesn't get close to 60 stubs then upmerging may be the best solution, but perhaps it needs a "wait and see" for now... Grutness...wha? 11:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Upmerge - The permcat and its subcats only have 63 articles total, so the chance of this stub reaching 60 is remote. — jmorgan (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Upmerge - not enough non-stub articles. Monni 18:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Update: Now contains 38 items. Suggest we keep as the Films WikiProject is usually pretty diligent at keeping these up. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:26, 30 July 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was taken to sfd for further discussion

Never proposed, only about ten stubs, no clear indication as to whether this is for biographies of rastafarians (not a good idea, since we split people by nationality and occupation, not beliefs0 or for things connected with rastafarianism 9in which case the template is badly named). Currently contains a mix of the two. No indication this would reach threshold - gut feeling is that this is SFD material. Grutness...wha? 02:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have to ask permission to make a new stub type? What a shame. This is for stub articles related to Rastafari (the way of life), not articles on individual practitioners. I thought it would be only fair since every other kind of religions and lifestyles are allowed to have a stub, but I guess this means there is still a long way to go before ALL religions and lifestyles find acceptance in this world. I included a few practitioners who are notable in the study of the Rastafari movement, but other articles on people who just happen to be Rastas were not included. I patterned the name rasta-stub after reli-stub; I think it is a good name, as rastafari-stub would be too long and 'rastafarianism' is considered pejorative by those who are rasta themselves. This would have helped the users who have knowledge or expertise in the area to quickly locate the topics that need expansion. Sorry if I was too presumptuous, sir. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• I think given there is a Christian-denomination-stub there should also be a Rastafari stub, it certainly strikes me as more valid than almost the others if not all of those listed here right now and would rapidly expand once it had been identified and made of use of more substantially, SqueakBox 04:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• The point isn't "all the others have, so this one should have" (which isn't true anyway) - there's simply no point in creating stub templates and categories unless they are fairly heavily populated, which is why there is a threshold level set before new types are consideed. if this one can be shown to have 60 stubs that will take the template, then fair enough (though, as I said before, it shouldn't be for people who are rastafarian unless their occupation is directly connected to the faith). If it's not going to reach 60, then - like other faiths where this is the case (and here are many) - it shouldn't really have a separate stub type. As for rastafari-stub being too long a name, I shudder to think what you'd make of things like WesternAustralia-geo-stub or Archbishop-of-Canterbury-stub! Grutness...wha? 07:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well if reggae musicians can be considered to have Rastafari in their job description (and if they are singing about Rastafari then they should). I can work on this creating 60 stubs but practuically it would be difficult before the weekend. I dont care what the name is, ie Rasta-Stub woul;d be fine by me, SqueakBox 16:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, they clearly cannot. Reggae singers are primarily reggae musicians and stubbed as such. Note that christian bio-stubs are only used for people who are officers in or saints of the christian church - similar standards should be used on bios of other faiths. And rasta-stub is clearly also too ambiguous because there is no way of thelling from it whether it is for rastas - i.e., rastafarians - or rasta - i.e., the rastafarian faith. Grutness...wha? 04:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• I confess I do not understand the reasons for having such a rigid policy of requiring 60 stubs for a dedicated stub template category. As long as its purpose is to help editors with expertise in a given subject locate all the articles for expansion in that area, why should it matter if there are 50, 20, or 10? It can't be to save bandwidth, as this procedure uses up more just talking about it, than it would if you let people freely create stub templates. The only criterion should be that it is a valid field or area of expertise, and not duplicating another type; the 60 article rule just seems purely arbitrary to me. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• The reason for the limit is to keep the stub sorting manageable for those who sort articles into the individual stub types. There are thousands of stub types now and the limit is intended as a means to keep the number of stub types down to a manageable size. A stub type is useless for its intended purpose of having others bring stub articles to the attention of knowledgeable editors if only those editors know that it exists. If what you are looking for is a way to keep track of Rastafari articles, there are other ways besides stub templates for doing so. As for your "non-duplication" argument, Rasta-stub is a sub type of reli-stub and as such is only useful to the stub sorting project if it will have enough articles in it to justify the effort of having to keep track of yet another bin. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Also -as explained frequently (and as explained on quite a few stub related pages around Wikipedia), there is a difference between stub categories and standard categories in their usage. Standard "permcats" are for readers looking for one specific article. Stub categories are used by editors looking for any article they can expand. As such, there is an optimum size for stub categories. Too large, and they are of little use to editors, since there's simply too many articles on too broad a subject to wade through. too small, and editors have to search through a large number of finely-tuned categories before finding a few articles they may be able to enlarge. The optimum size is a couple of hundred articles - enough that any editor looking into a fairly general topic will be able to find some articles to expand, but nt so many as for them to be overwhelmed. it is for this reason and for the one Caerwine mentions above that we use optimum sizes for stub categories. ven with these thresholds, there are some 4000 categories - more than enough for editors to be able to home in onn a specialist subject, and enough that it is a virtually full-time job keeping them correctly sorted. Even dropping the threshold slightly would see an increase in work for editors looking for articles and a considerable increase in work keeping the categories correctly sorted. Having no limits at all on size would see the whole stub-sorting system collapse, and would be worthless from an editorial point of view even if it could be kept under control (which it couldn't). Grutness...wha? 04:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• We are 29 so far, I would certainly appreciate a week's grace to get that number up to 60 (work commitments and all that) but I am convinced that I can, SqueakBox 01:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• We now have 61, so it should stay, am I correct? or wrong? I believe I can get this to a couple of hundred and the stubs are either people working in disseminating Rastafari or articles about Rastafari or articles abouit items that promote or strongly contain Rastafari, eg albums with a definite Rastafari message. The number of rastafarian stubs where the individual isnt promoting Rastafari are zero, in my considered opinion, you dont get an article for embracing Rastafari, SqueakBox 19:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• 61 is enough, but the remaining issue (which I suspect would tend to be exacerbated if you continued to populate along the lines you suggest) is whether all the articles therein are actually primarily related to Rasta. In particular, if their relevance to Rasta is entirely via reggae, it would be much more appropriate to tag it as the latter. (A reggae-stub was proposed, and I think there was broad agreement in favour of it, but it never seems to have been created.) There's something profoundly amiss when several articles have reggae permcats, and a rasta stub tag; but contrarily no Rastafari permcat, and no reggae stub type. Stub tags should be used more restrictively than permcats, not more liberally. (If what you want is a resource for "things marginally related to rasta that we're working on", a talk-page template and category (associated with a wikiproject or otherwise) would be more appropriate, I think.) Alai 23:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• There isnt a single article that I have stub tagged that is, IMO, "marginally related to rasta", and while there is an argument for tagging these primarily as reggae I think the argument is wrong. Would you describe religious Christian books as book stubs or Christian stubs? Raggae containsd Rasta and non Rasta music and the intention of this stub has nothing directly to do with reggae or music but with Rastafari, something I could source on a case by case basis, SqueakBox 00:14, 13 January 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep

• Template:Canada-org-stub
• Category:Canadian organization stubs

Not proposed, but sounds like a sensible idea, assuming there are 60 stubs. The cat now has parent categories, both perm and stub (which it didn't have at creation). Grutness...wha? 08:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. There are plenty of stubs that would fit into this stub category, and I just went forward. I ask you to Keep. Just H 17:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely convinced this stub is necessary, but am open to persuation. In looking for stub articles to populate this category of stubs, I've found that the existing stub templates are more than sufficient. Most articles that would bear this template are already listed under the appropriate province or federal stub category, and again by the type of organization (i.e. company stub, charity stub, youth stub, etc.). This new stub would in many cases become a third or fourth stub placed on an article. Agent 86 19:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems uneven that some places have substubs while others don't. I'd prefer if there were a standardized formula(there are the same geographic parameters before all "double hyphen" stubs like the org-stubs). In the meantime though, there are plenty of Canada related org-stubs. Just H 02:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Carry that thought through to its logical conclusion - do you think we really need, say, a Pitcairn-org-stub, or a Nauru-struct-stub? How about a VaticanCity-geo-stub? Admittedly Canada is large enough that it might be worthwhile, but - as pointed out - a lot of it is split by individual provinces anyway, so it simply adds another level of sorting. Grutness...wha? 04:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Considering the size of the organization stubs category I definately think this stub is a good idea.--Carabinieri 20:17, 11 January 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep

Having proposed and then created the templates for 5 countries and categories for 3 of these some one came along and created not only the categories for the remaining two DRCongo and South africa and also template and category for Algeria. All seem well formed and contain over 60 articles. Waacstats 23:53, 4 January 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Just received the following at my usertalk page... Grutness...wha? 09:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I had a bit of a think about our previous discussion. Before our chat I didn't know that WP:STUB was endeavouring to track all stubs in existence. I still don't like the idea of having to ask permission to create a stub, but in future I will at least let the project know of my intentions/actions, so you can maintain your lists. In that spirit I thought I should mention the two other stubs that I am guilty of creating:

1. I created {{Proteaceae-stub}} and Category:Proteaceae stubs. The category currently has 152 entries, which compares favourably to the other plant family stubs.
2. I created {{Banksia-stub}} and Category:Banksia stubs on behalf of WP:BANKSIA, a very active WikiProject of which I am a member. It currently contains 61 articles, and has not much potential to grow, as we've only identified about 50 Banksia articles yet to be created. At one point it have about 100 articles, but the trend has been for the population to shrink, as we are improving our stubs at a greater rate than we create new ones. Seeing as there is no precedent for the creation of plant stubs at genus level, and WP:BANKSIA has the capacity to monitor our stubs through the talk page tag {{WP Banksia|class=Stub...}}, I won't object if WP:STUB sentences it to be cast into the belly of Proteaceae-stub.

Hesperian 05:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Update: proteaceae now has 81 stubs, banksia 145. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:02, 27 June 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Terrible name and only used on 18 articles. Looks like SFD. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 11:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

More than ffaintly ridiculous name, you're right. SFD looks like a likely destination for this light rail. 05:28, 8 January 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Used on 18 articles. Feeds into both Category:Northeastern United States building and structure stubs (91 articles) and Category:Rhode Island stubs (59 articles). Not referenced by any WSS page. --TheParanoidOne 17:17, 7 January 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep; category renamed

Horribly named category. This one at the very least needs to go to SFD for renaming, if not deletion or upmerging. Not close to threshold. Grutness...wha? 06:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• This was actually on the approved list, small size notwithstanding: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/November_2006#Cat:European_sports_venue_stubs_update. Rename would be speediable, really. Alai 06:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - I just found that out. Looks like the editor who created this (who isn't part of WP:WSS) saw it on the "To do" list and went ahead with it without knowing about the naming guidelines. Grutness...wha? 07:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Now used on 40 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:04, 27 June 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Upmerged but unproposed template, used on just one article. Suspect it will be useful, though. Grutness...wha? 03:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Should be useful just from the Ringo wannabes from the '60's Caerwine Caer’s whines 08:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I started to create this to be similar to the UK-guitarist-stub. Firstly, sorry for transgressing any protocol (this is the first stub I've created), and secondly, the English/British/UK categories can just confuse. I have no problem in this being deleted, and to use the English-drummer-stub instead. Drwhawkfan 18:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't create an English-drummer-stub template too! This seems OK though, I'd support de-upmerging this if and when it hits 60. Alai 02:29, 12 January 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was discussion taken to sfd

Small, unproposed, the usual... Seems to have been and gone from SFD without ever acquiring a category, which seems entirely strange... Alai 02:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Currently used on 21 articles and now has a cat. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Now has 26 articles and belongs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Moral Philosophy. Keep or upmerge? Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:34, 10 October 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

...and User Poulsen continues on his merry way creating stub types and categories without proposal. At least he makes sure that they are more or less well formed and populated before he does so, but it's still a pain in the arse. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Rude, but effective. At least it's a well-established pattern and axis on which to split. Alai 01:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If you saw the conversation the two of us have been haviong about this on user talk pages, it might make a little more sense. Grutness...wha? 00:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• • The template at least was proposed on 2 January along with a few others. looks to me like support for upmerged templates was the outcome. Waacstats 11:56, 14 January 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Created 12 Dec 2006. Not proposed. Used on 8 articles. Potentially useful parent to newly renamed Cat:Ceramic art and design stubs, but it's awfully vague. Populate/list or SFD? ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Try to populate. Eli Falk 18:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OOPS I submitted it below, separate, I would say its too vague, see my discussion at bottom of page. Goldenrowley 18:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:Move to delete: at the same time move to propose "graphic design" and "graphic designers" Goldenrowley 16:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep & populate. I Changed my mind after speaking with designer of design stub. Goldenrowley 05:37, 3 February 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename

Created without proposal - looks reasonable in terms of its scope, and already has over 30 stubs. But normally such a stub would be named {{Aviation-term-stub}}, not {{Aviation-terminology-stub}}. Suggest keep but rename. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with a rename. I however am very activley involved with WP:AIRCRAFT and felt this stub type appropriate. The stub {{aviation-stub}} and associated category are fairly large and diverse. Over the next few weeks I will probably be doing more work on sorting out this category. I do not know what the procedure is but I am much more comfterable running stub types by the project paricipants instead of throwing it on a list to be approved by somebody.(no offense, I am sure it is very important and i have seem some fairly bizzare probably worthless stub types out there). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposing's a very simple process and if a stub type's sensible (like this one) it's extremely un likely it'll be rejected. And it does reduce the possibility that - like this one - more work will be needed in restubbing things if a template name is changed. Basically, the amount of work would have been halved if this had been proposed first, and for a delay of only a handful of days. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 17 January 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Created 9 November 2006. Apparently created for use in just one article (mixoploidy). This seems a very narrow topic area as far as I can tell. --David Edgar 16:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

...and since that article now has a genetics-stub, this is definitely SFD-able. Grutness...wha? 04:28, 18 January 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Don't remember these ever being proposed... three upmerged templates: {{Latvia-tv-stub}}, {{Lithuania-tv-stub}}, and {{Estonia-tv-stub}}. Probably keepable, since they're upmerged. Grutness...wha? 06:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• This seems similar to this discussion regarding Asian tv stubs. As long as they're upmerged, I don't see a problem with them. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:33, 18 January 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Malformed category, name with a dash, created end of December with no discussion. Eli Falk 12:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• I checked out {{Caucasia-stub}}'s history, and I just can't figure it out. It's had all sorts of mis-named categories, including this one. Also, I'm pretty sure it's redundant to {{Caucasus-stub}} / Cat:Caucasus stubs. Probably SFD-able. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete. Poorly named since the correct English name is "Caucasus", and I don't see the point of this one at all. For a very long time, {{Caucasus-stub}} has been used on exactly 1 article, about a leading politician from Nagorno-Karabakh. We already have generic, -bio and -geo templates for both Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. The old {{Caucasus-stub}} should probably be deleted as well. This creation should be removed asap. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it was proposed in Nov 05, but at that time there weren't specific stubs for Georgia, etc. {{Caucasus-stub}} is currently being used on exactly 2 articles. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 21:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That number sounds right. Since then, I've sorted this material several times and proposed the missing templates, so I could empty {{Caucasus-stub}} and {{Caucasus-bio-stub}} into national categories. The material this template is used on is something of a grab-bag. An article about a bear should be tagged with something biological. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 12:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt we really need either of those stub types - and we certainly don't need this one. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the proposal was in November 04, and it was related to the original {{Caucasus-stub}} and {{Caucasus-bio-stub}}, not to this one which has been made by WikiProject Caucasia. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 15:47, 19 January 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

An other malformed stub category, created with no discussion. This one doesn't seem to have a template to go with it. Eli Falk 12:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sped as empty. Alai 05:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have risen from the grave. The template is {{collegebasketball-stub}} and it is used on 37 articles. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Update: But wait, there's more! It's now up to 40. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And it has a WPJ. I'm listing. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:29, 14 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Pr-stub, PR-stub, Pr-company-stub and PR-company-stub all feed into Cat:Public relations stubs, and have a mere six stubs between them. While a public relations stub type might be viable, there's yet to be any evidence of that, and certainly the names of these templates is pretty horrible, especially given that Pr is a fairly sizable dab page. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's probably at least the primary sense of "PR", but at the very least it should be capitalised. And populated. Alai 05:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • All points taken. For the record, the stubs were created to make the distinction between advertising agencies from PR firms. Of course, PR may be seen as a subset of advertising; however, I also considered lobbying – an activity not readily connected to advertising – as a subset of PR. While I assume that there are plenty of stub articles on PR which would warrant this category, having the tags deleted because the facts prove otherwise would be fine with me. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 20:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Update: used on just 1 article, and pr-stub has only 11. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:08, 27 June 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 Chinese, send Korea to sfd for upmerge

Cat:Korean musician stubs Cat:Chinese musician stubs Cat:Taiwanese musician stubs

Proposed but no consensus, upmerged boldly, so I guess listing boldly as per de facto consensus about having stub for all country musicians. Monni 17:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• What such consensus? We upmerge 'em if they're too small, as two of these are in acute danger of being. One has a sane-sized subcat, admittedly. Alai 04:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• • If you upmerge stubs which have sub-templates, it clutters the articles using them. Some articles did have 4 different stub templates and categories before me and a few others started making upmerged templates for musicians and singers (by nationality). This gets pretty messy especially if parent stub is upmerged and child stub isn't... With "de facto" consensus in this case I meant that people outside WP:WSS decided that it's better to boldly create categories out of process if it really helps cleaning up stub clutter in articles. Monni 08:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Update: Currently 7 articles in Korea-musician-stub, 70 in Chinese. Taiwanese seems to have disappeared. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:09, 27 June 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

Unproposed, vaguely defined (very few things about radio are not to do with communications), feeds directly into the Cat:Radio stubs. Is this needed? Grutness...wha? 22:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This stub type has to do with the use of radio for communications between parties, which is entirely different from its use in broadcasting. In broadcasting, radio is transmitted in a single direction and is intended to be received by a large audience. In contrast, in communications, two or more parties send radio signals back and forth, such as in ship-to-shore communications, airline transmissions, two-ways, etc. In addition, these communications may use special voice protocols, etc. Furthermore, in response to the post above, radio goes far beyond just communications, as can be seen by the radio article and by the hierarchy of stubs at WP:RADIO. The base radio-stub would need to cover a huge range of radio-related topics with communications only being one of them; therefore, I saw a communications-specific stub as necessary.

I checked through all of the radio stubs, and I did not find a single stub type dealing with radio communications. In fact, the main radio-stub had to deal with 'radio broadcasting'. Therefore, I also moved the old radio-stub to radio-broadcast-stub and made the new radio-stub as generic as possible.

I did not realize that I needed to propose new stubs beforehand, but, as can be seen from my post, the stub will cover an area that did not have adequate coverage, at least as far as I've been able to find. However, if an existing stub can be found that can properly cover the same material, I'll speedy delete this one. In addition, I have posted notes to both WP:RADIO and WP:WPRS, in order to dissuade other members of those projects from adding stub types without proposing them first. --PhantomS 02:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the list of stub types, there is a wireless-stub. However, it claims to be for wireless technologies, wireless service providers, and cell phones. Subsequently, all the articles that have been tagged with it have been about WiFI, cell phones, and wireless service providers. Articles about CB radios, two-ways, etc., since they do not really fall under this scope, have usually been tagged with radio-stub, originally a radio broadcasting stub. Therefore, by making the radio-stub tag generic to all of radio, all of these articles have become properly tagged, while stubs about radio broadcasting are still properly tagged.

As for the radio communications stub, it has a broader scope than the wireless-stub's scope, while having much less of a scope than the telecomm-stub's scope. Therefore, it covers a middle ground that was previously not well-covered.

As for the confusion pertaining to radio vs. wireless communications, it comes from the fact that the radio wikiproject is only about a month or so old. Originally, the only projects covering these types of articles were for amateur radio, telecommunications, and amateur radio, leaving a large number of radio articles without an associated wikiproject. With the founding of the radio project, the goal is to lessen the load on telecommunications, while also filling in the areas that the radio station and amateur radio projects can not cover because of their limited scope. As a result, radio categories need to be more than just broadcasting. --PhantomS 05:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no Cat:radio communications, so it's not entirely how this is to be scoped. OTOH, no deep reason there shouldn't be one... Alai 04:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Now used on 26 articles and has a proper category. And I agree with PhantomS. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:10, 27 June 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

{{Uttaranchal-geo-stub}} now leads to Cat:Uttarakhand geography stubs, and there is also a new {{Uttarakhand-geo-stub}}. Seems the state changed its name, and reather than going through the sensible process of renaming the stub type and deleting thed old category, someone decided to simply create a parallel stub type and depopulate and delete the old category. Grutness...wha? 02:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa. WP:SFD says it is for deleting, not renaming. Maybe the description for WP:SFD should be changed to explicitly say something about renaming. It was debated in [4] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump#New_category_speedy_rename_criterion --- Safemariner 02:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. Good point. The sfd templates say "deletion or renaming" - the page should as well. Grutness...wha? 02:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did the deleting part, since I didn't have the energy for the complaining at people part. However, if people keep re-adding wikiproject links to these templates, I'll find some from somewhere... Alai 05:07, 1 February 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 renamed

There is a brand new {{Hungary-history-stub}} and associated category. While the category is a reasonable idea and already has 30 stubs, the template has been incorrectly named (by the NGs it should be at {{Hungary-hist-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 02:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi! I created the aforementioned stub type because there were a large number of history stubs in the Hungary stub category. I'm sorry, I didn't know there was a rule and a whole wikiproject about this. I did it mostly because now that we finally got the Hungarian community together here in enwiki, I was planning to propose a de-stubbing month, to empty the stub categories by improving all of their articles to worthy ones. Sorting the stubs is only the first step in this. When the stub template was already created I realized that other countries have it in the "countryname-hist-stub" format, and was going to ask someone's bot to rename it but it was already late at night here so thought I'd do it later :) I was planning to have a Hungarian culture stub too, can we have that? – Alensha ^talk 15:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• We don't usually have "X-culture-stub" types, because there's a pretty vague definition of exactly what culture is and it crosses several other stub types like art, music, history, food and so on. Given that the main Cat:Hungary stubs has fewer than 200 stubs, a further split probably isn't that practical at the moment, especially since there's a bit of under-sorting of that into its subcategories. If it grows then other stub cats may well be worthwhiole, but probably not at the moment - especially if it's likely to shrink over the next month! Grutness...wha? 21:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Having a further look at that main stub cat, I'd say that quite a few of the stubs will go into the new history stubcat (it should reduce the main stubcat to about 160). Nothing really leaps out as a next split, though there are a surprising number of traditional Hungarian foods in there - just not enough for a really sensible split. Grutness...wha? 22:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, thanks :) – Alensha ^talk 12:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've taken this over to SFD for renaming. Grutness...wha? 23:26, 24 January 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was deleted with author's consent.

Never proposed, ill defined region listed as coverage, and no category, plus the usual problems of creating individual stub tyhpes for anywehere other than main centres (which Townsville ain't, with a population of only 1/6 of Brisbane's. If it wasn't for the WP Townsville, this one would have probably gone straight to SFD. Grutness...wha? 03:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh. If only it was always this simple! I had a chat with the creator of this, and he agreed that a talk page template would be more useful, then blanked the stub template. So this is a template we don't need to worry about! Grutness...wha? 06:59, 23 January 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was deleted with author's consent. Any Idea? I had to look up the template to find out. It's for Middle Tennessee State University. ISTR the current plan is using university stub templates on a state by state basis rather than for individulal universities, and even if it isn't, the five articles currently using this are more than a third of the 14 articles in total which exist about this university. Even if this was viable, the name of both the template and the category are horrible and need a serious overhaul. Grutness...wha? 03:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

wow! two in a row blanked for speedying... don't tell me the message is finally getting through... Grutness...wha? 21:55, 23 January 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep

This one was created less than an hour ago. I don't remember a proposal for this one, but it is nicely formed, correctly named and even upmerged correctly, so I don't see any problems with it except that it has not yet been used. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 17:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Still only used on 2 articles, despite there being a WikiProject Africa and WikiProject Zimbabwe.Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Update: No change. I'll post it at WPSS:To do and see if anyone bites. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi. I am working with WikiProject Zimbabwe and we are currently going through all Zimbabwe related articles and assessing them still. As I'm sure you can appreciate, this is a slow, long and arduous process and so if you were to bear with us we shall find the relevant articles in time to be used with this stub. We are a relevantly new WikiProject and have only really established our ground and things aren't as complete as we would like. Thank you in your understanding of the situation. Mangwanani 17:10, 15 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

I was called attention to this one created last month, very few in it. My trouble would be "designer" can be in many fields, there are graphic design, auto design, fashion design, engineering type mechanical design, interior design, architects....not to mention their own terminology in each field and products they design. I can imagine there MIGHT be a need to stub graphic designers as there are probably LOTS of graphic designers to be stubbed, but then we need to propose that as a occupatonal stub category. Goldenrowley 03:29, 24 January 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

A sensible enough split, and well formed, but the category hs no parents, stub or permcat. The only question really being as to the size of the category. Probably a keeper, but if it remains small (it currently has four stubs) it may need to be upmerged somewhere. Grutness...wha? 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've created parent categories of Sportspeople stubs, Stub categories and Sumo wrestlers. I anticipate several additions to this category as I and others add more sumo stubs. The template Sumo-wrestler-stub was a mistake and could be deleted if anyone knows how to do this. --Auximines 23:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That makes the wrestler redirect speediable (deletion requested by sole editor), so I can do that easily enough. Those are reasonable parent cats - as I said,that makes the size the main concern. It definitely seems to be a keeper for now, but if it remains small it may need looking at later. Grutness...wha? 05:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Populated to 55 now, so I suggest we adopt and list. And then persuade some people to stop making these the only articles on wikipedia using "Lastname firstname", especially when rikishi only ever use the "last name" of their shikona. Alai 04:52, 1 February 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 creation 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

This one was added to the official list without going trough the proper proces for listing it there. Moved here for discussion. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• See August 2006 proposals. Monni 21:26, 26 January 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Never proposed, no category, used on six articles. Permcat Cat:Pixar is pretty large, though, so it might be possible to get it up to threshold. Grutness...wha? 07:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Currently used on 9 articles. Pixar permcat has 11, Pixar characters 6, Pixar films 3. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Update: Status has not changed; upmerge or delete? Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:41, 12 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

very badly named and never proposed. Category is a redlink. AFAIK we have never split telecoms by individual country before, and the chances of finding 60 stubs on South African telecoms is fairly remote, to say the least. Currently used on two articles. There is no such permcat as Cat:South African telecoms, either, neither is there a similar permcat with any variant on that title that i could find. Grutness...wha? 07:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally found an equivalent permcat: Cat:Telecommunications companies of South Africa. It has five articles. What chance for there being 60 stubs? Grutness...wha? 08:02, 29 January 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

We seem to have just acquired these two:

• {{Ufologist-stub}} / Cat:Ufologist stubs (used on one article)
• {{Ufo-org-stub}} / Cat:Ufo organization stubs (used on one article)

Neither was proposed, and there are no such permcats as Cat:Ufologists and Cat:Ufo organizations. A combined UFO-stub might be reasonable (the main cat is at Cat:UFOs, and only then if there are enough stubs, but I doubt either of these is. Grutness...wha? 07:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, sorry bout that, I was the one who started both (I didnt not know about the registration part though) ... as for combining them, I would love the idea, unless we can keep them separate? I just feel its a really good stub that helps clarify the subject of the articles and that they can be expanded, thats all (:O)... cya -nima baghaei 15:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the capitalisation, the usage, and the whacky mini-essay coding, delete and do-over if required. Alai 05:04, 1 February 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Never proposed. Reasonable scope, but incorrectly named as Indian-xxx (should be "India-xxx") Category has no parents and has two stubs. If it grows significantly then this might be a keeper. If it grows significantly. Mind you, it looks like there is a WikiProject. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've preemptively moved it to the correct name and fixed the cat. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, i was not aware about the fact that for creating a stub it has to fist be proposed. Infact this stub will have lot of taker as there are more than 600 protected areas in India and mostly they are stub (almost 350-400). This stub category should be given permission for formal use. Amartyabag (Talk) 09:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

But it's harder to sort redlinks than it is to sort stubs. How many actual articles would take this? Currently seems to be used on zero. Alai 04:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the two which were marked with this, since both were much larger than could really be considered stubs. Might be worth looking through the India-geos to see what can be found. Grutness...wha? 05:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Now used on 20 articles, has its own cat. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And now shrinking again, if anything. Very small, even given the alleged Wikiproject. I suggest upmerging to a new Cat:Asian protected area stubs, if that would be viable, or to the existing parent, if not. Alai 12:10, 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Doesn't look much like a stub template. In fact, it has a template within it. Created by the same person who, a month or so back, brought you the since-deleted domotics-stub. Doubt this will get close to threshold - tempted to take it straight to SFD. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• This could be somewhat broadened to satnav in general, perhaps. Parent is certainly large. Otherwise, upmerge. Alai 04:39, 1 February 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 upmerged to "Church of England bishop stubs"

Not certain if this was proposed, if so I didn't find it. Only 46 stubs and at the least it needs its category, Cat:Bishops of Durham stubs sent to SFD for a rename to Cat:Bishop of Durham stubs. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

IIRC it wasn't proposed, but was brought here before with a variant name, then taken to SFD where at least the name was standardised. Not sure how useful it would be though. Grutness...wha? 02:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename would be speediable, or else I'd be about as happy with an upmerge at SFD. Alai 04:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Still 46 articles, no rename in progress for the cat. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:12, 27 June 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 creation 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 category

Someone seems to have noticed that we overlooked this one when all the other state-specific upmerged templates were made. No apparent problems with it. Grutness...wha? 03:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Dunno how I forgot that, it's the only one I have an uncle in. I may have skipped Alaska and Hawaii for less absent-minded reasons. Alai 04:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Update: Now applied to 37 articles, still upmerged. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Update: Now has over 80 articles. Category proposed at WPSS/P. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:57, 12 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 discovery of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Unused redirect of {{US-bio-stub}} with the following comment in the redirect: "presumably American but no verifying source known". Speediable as unused and unproposed, but might a stub type for people of unknown or uncertain nationality be worth considering? Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:47, 31 January 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.