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

The result of the debate was delete in favor of EU-org-bio-stub

Unproposed and redundant - exactly duplicates {{ Euro-politician-stub}}, and misleadingly uses the term EU when its wording indicates that is is for Europe as a whole. Delete. Grutness... wha? 23:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Sorry, didn't realised needed proposing. Created for EU specific politicans rather than generic European or specific national. - JLogan 16:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete, given that it feeds into the same category as the above, and that there's already a separate {{ MEP-stub}} for the actual EU-politicos. Alai 17:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, EU-politician-stub wasn't a bad name, but yes, delete. Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

MEP is different from a Commission official, which is who I used it for. Didn't seem right to use a national stub as said person spent most of their time in the Commission with no real presence in national politics. - JLogan 18:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

They still have a nationality, though admittedly they're not national politicians as such. There is a permcat ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Political office-holders in the European Union, so a scope along those lines isn't entirely unreasonable, I suppose, if it can be made a bit clearer that's what it's intended for. Alai 19:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

We have {{ US-gov-bio-stub}} for the non-elected officials of the United States Government, so a {{ EU-gov-bio-stub}} or perhaps simply a {{ EU-bio-stub}} would be appropriate if appropriately scoped. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The persons in question should still be tagged with their nationality. Not sure it is a good idea but in order to avoid people from across the pond simply lumping everything from the Old World together under the EU heading, {{ EU-gov-bio-stub}} {{ EU-org-bio-stub}} would probably be the best name. However, I don't think we have 60 relevant articles for this split. The MEPs should not be included here. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Caerwine's suggestion below is even better. Changing support to that one. Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Of course, actual Commissioners are still politicians, though I doubt few of those are still stubs. Commission employees are indeed analogous to civil servants, but they're not working for a -gov- in the strict sense... Alai 22:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

If the EU is not a government then neither was the US under the Articles of Confederation nor the HRE after the Peace of Westphalia. The only other alternative I can think of would be {{ EU-org-bio-stub}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Good idea. I'll buy that one. Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

That seams to work for me, unless we get to a state of elected Commissioners but that is ages away, cross that bridge when we get to it so to speak. - JLogan 14:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

{{ Syria-hist-stub}} was created - unproposed - along with this category, which currently contains nothing other than four geo-stubs (which should be categorised as such). The unsubcategorised part of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Syria stubs totals only 83 articles - waay too few to begin to think about splitting them up further. Keeping the template and upmerging it into both ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Syria stubs and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Middle Eastern history stubs would seem to be the most sensible option. Grutness... wha? 23:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Support nominator. Keep stub template, but under Cat:Syria stubs. Must. ^{T C} 17:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename

This stub about Thelema (for which the number 93 is apparently significant) just barely meets the 30 stub threshold for a stub with an associated Wikiproject, but the template violates the stub type naming guidelines. Rename to a standard {{ Thelema-stub}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename (and remove (ungrammatical) WPJ link, and get rid of the what's-the-point-of-sorting-to-this-when-it's-double-catted-with-its-parent aspect...). Alai 02:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename and reword per above. Mind you - 29 stubs is mighty thin, even with a WikiProject. Perhaps this one needs watching for possible further action? Grutness... wha? 22:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete

Delete Unproposed empty stub type about a minor U.S. political party too small to even be considered a third party and maybe not a fourth party. Definitely no chance of it having the minimum 60 stubs for a stub type. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Empty (aside from the template, and... itself), unlinked to, so may be speediable. Alai 02:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

It has been around for two months and is still empty, so a speedy probably won't hurt anybody. Valentinian ^{T / C} 07:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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, rename cat

Unproposed, has about 25 stubs, but at present seems unlikely to meet threshold. At the very least, the category needs a name change, but an upmerge may well be more to the point. Grutness... wha? 00:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Resorting ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Pies has brought this up to 64 stubs, so I suggest we consider this stub type to be a boy and after renaming the cat to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Pie stubs let it out of the corner and onto the stub list. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

A further difficulty is that this is catted as a subtype of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:dessert stubs, which would make more sense if it were permparented with ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:sweet pies (shouldn't ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:tarts be a subcat thereof?), and renamed accordingly. Pies in general seems a less useful scope for splitting purposes (in theory all the "dessert pies" would have to be double-stubbed). Suddenly I feel hungry. Alai 02:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

While tarts are usually sweet, in theory they could be savory since whether a pie is a tart has nothing to do with what the filling is. The pie stubs are roughly half sweet pies and half savory pies, so narrowing the scope would make this stub type too small to be useful. As for the stubparents, they parallel the parents of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Pies, though one can (as Alai has) argue that only ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Sweet pies should have ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Desserts as a parent with ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Deserts as a parent for ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Overbaked pies. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I've never heard quiches described as tarts, as that article does: must be another "divided by the same language" thing. (Come to that, I've come across quite a few "apple tarts" with lids, though that seems likely to be a separate instance of linguistic drift.) OK, rather than over-splitting, over-merging, or getting into undue transpondian punchups, the status quo seems like the best option. Alai 18:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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