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

The result of the debate was delete

Unproposed. The template is incorrectly named, and stubs are - with a very few exceptions - split by current nation-state, not by former states. Currently only used on one stub, and I have strong doubts about whether this would reach the threshold level of 60 stubs. What's more, there is no permcat parent Category:Greater Colombia. There is nothing here which could not better be served either by a Ecuador, Venezuela, Colombia or Panama stub, or by SouthAm-hist-stub. Grutness... wha? 23:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment well I think the southam-hist-stub is too general (is there a template:northam-hist-stub? NO), if you check what links to that template you'll see hundreds of unsorted articles. Why do you need to tag a single article with three or four stub templates, when one can do the work of those four? (and its category actually links directly to the present-day countries) Greater Colombia was formed by the three countries, but it should be treated as a country, as what it actually was. I think its own template will classify stubs from that period better. My apologies that I didn't propose it, but I would like to know what you think about this to go throught the right chanels or simply delete it. -- I am greener than you! ^{(Lima - Charlie - Over)} 01:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

There are only three countries in north america and each has significant numbers of history stubs. There are far fewer than threshold for most individual South American countries, hence the obviation of grouping. As to your "hundreds of stubs", there are seventy-two - only a little over the threshold for a stub category, and certainly far too few to consider splitting. Grutness... wha? 02:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply

just to make my point, should we delete this template: {{ Template:Soviet-stub}} and use instead the Russia-stub?? they eventually will become complete articles, what happens after there are no longer 60 stubs? delete the template? is that number some type of wikipedia guideline? -- I am greener than you! ^{(Lima - Charlie - Over)} 04:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Again, there are many stubs for the Soviet Union (about 360 - five times as many as for South American history as a whole), and the country had far greater global significance, existed for far longer, and covered a far greater number of countries. If necessary, and stub dealing with the whole of greater Colombia could have all the individual country stubs added with no ill effects. Having fifteen separate stub templates (one for each country) for anything dealing with the Soviet Union as a whole would be a major setback. As to what happens when there are no longer 60 stubs, the template gets upmerged into a larger category - as has happened with some stub templates. In practice, however, since Wikipedia is constantly expanding, the number of stubs in a stub category rarely decreases - for every ten expanded, more than ten new ones get added in. Grutness... wha? 02:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply

M.m., for every ten expanded, thirty new ones... Alai 15:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I forgot to add - to address your question about the number of articles, to quote Wikipedia:Stub#Creating_stub_types: Will there be a significant number of existing stubs in this category? (Ideally, a newly-created stub type has 100-300 articles. In general, any new stub category should have a minimum of 60 articles.).

Where are these hundreds of unsorted articles? And do they relate to the history of Greater Columbia as an entity, or would this be relating to the individual histories of its components? (Soviet-stub is used on the former only, and not the latter, which is why we have it.) Alai 05:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Given that Category:South American history stubs isn't much over threshold itself, delete, pending evidence of this alleged stub-berg of articles relating to the history of GC, during its twelve year existence. Alai 06:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete. Too little material. Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:42, 3 May 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 using 2LA

{{ Colombia-geo-stub}} is in need of splitting. However it too has a first order subdivision named Amazonas (as do Venezuela and Peru as well). Rename to disambiguate as Category:Amazonas (Brazilian state) geography stubs and the template as either {{ AmazonasBRA-geo-stub}} if we're going to start using the alpha3 codes per the KurdistanIran-geo-stub discussion below or {{ AmazonasBR-geo-stub}} if we're going to keep using the alpha2 codes for this sort of disambiguation. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Seems OK to me; possibly a slight case of "following the permcat off a cliff" (or tepui, perhaps) on my part. I was briefly tempted to suggest speedying, but the permcat CFR and the 2LA/3LA issue probably argues against that. I think I'd marginally favour the 2s, with a view to spelling out in full if that's too confusing, obscure, or contextually ambiguous. Alai 07:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Let's stick to the two letter abbreviations as long as this doesn't cause confusion. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

No objection here. 2LA except if there's likely to be confusion. Grutness... wha? 02:09, 3 May 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 delete

Unproposed. Even if we ignore, for the moment, the complete lack of adherence to standard stub template naming, this is simply not the sort of axis on which stubs are split. Sportspeople are split by sport and nationality, never by team, for the good and simple reason that many players end up playing for a multitude of teams whereas very few play more than one sport or for more than one country. If kept, which I hope is extremely unlikely, it would need to be renamed to be in keeping with other stub types (to T:StanfordCardinals-bio-stub and C:Stanford Cardinals sportspeople stubs), but there's no way this should exist in the first place, so Delete. Grutness... wha? 23:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete This would set a dangerous precedent. Having spent plenty of time in the sport cats I've seen football (soccer) players with 9 categories for teams that would mean a total of 10 stub cats, No thankyou. Waacstats 00:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete. I note that some of the individual university stub types are in serious danger of being (mis)used in this way. Alai 00:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete. This is will be a very problematic way of splitting. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:10, 6 May 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

Sounds like its scope is something akin to Category:Roman Catholic orders and societies, but in fact it's more like (its permcat parent) Category:Roman Catholicism in the world. Should possibly be renamed to better reflect that (perhaps simply to Category:Roman Catholicism in the world stubs), but at a minimum, to something involving the "Roman Catholic*", like every other RC stub cat (not to say permcat). Alai 23:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

How about Category:Roman Catholic organization stubs? If so, we'll want to rename the template as well to {{ RC-org-stub}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

That does seem to be largely what it consists of in practice, now that you mention it, but it isn't quite the stated scope, nor does it correspond to the current permcat parent, or any existing one that springs to mind. (But I did wonder if we should rename the template too, to something like RC-world-stub.) Alai 01:54, 7 May 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

Created several months ago, remains rather small. Should probably be upmerged. Alai 17:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• support upmerge to Category:Asian musician stubs + Category:Taiwanese people stubs. Monni 18:21, 7 May 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 merge with film-stub

The parent category, Category:Cult films, was deleted at CfD on April 11, so this stub category and template seem inappropriate. (The category was deleted because the lack of a clear definition of "cult" made it difficult to set proper inclusion criteria). I suggest merging to {{ film-stub}} / Category:Film stubs.

Category:Cult film stubs was nominated for deletion at today's CfD, but withdrawn to allow the discussion to be moved to SfD. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge with {{ film-stub}} without redirect. (Clarifying intention as nominator). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge - per nom. I nominated the cat originally at CFD. With the deletion of the Cult films category there is no logic in maintaining the stub category since, if un-stubified, there would be no cult film category to house the expanded articles. Otto4711 13:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment Do we even have 60 stub articles on films about cults? ;) Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:12, 8 May 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/delete

{{ Kabbalah-stub}} was created as an upmerged template this time last month, with the proviso that it would eventually get its own category when it proved to have enough stubs. A month on, someone has created the category although there are a mere 11 stubs. There is clearly no need for a separate category yet - even with a wikiproject a minimum of 30 stubs shuld be present before there is a category. reupmerge the template/delete the category. Grutness... wha? 00:49, 8 May 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 delete

Unproposed, cryptically named, no stub category (not even a redlink), unlikely to ever reach threshold, and adequately covered by other templates. Not needed. Delete. Grutness... wha? 02:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry, didn't know I had to propose, have done so now. Happy to have it deleted and start with a better name. NewTestamentPapyrusStub seems a little cumbersome, those who work with the New Testament know it as NT, hence Ntpapyrus stub. What is threshold? There are more than 100 NT papyruses, is that what you mean? 100 is not enough? Most importantly though, I simply don't know a stub category like it, or I'd have used one. Suggestions: papyrology stub, biblical manuscripts stub, new testament stubs. All these seem good, I can think of hundreds of articles for all of them, then again, this is my full time occupation in real life. Cheers. Alastair Haines 15:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Threshold is 60 existing stub articles with the designated scope (see WP:STUB). What about a broader {{ NewTestament-stub}} / Category:New Testament stubs? "NT" seems much too cryptic and ambiguous in general usage. Alai 16:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the clarification, indeed there are not 60 existing stubs (though I'll be producing almost that many). The max number would be about 100, so this stub definitely does have to go. I'll use the manuscript stub for the time being. Others will work out if we need to subdivide that class. Cheers. Alastair Haines 17:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Alternatively, you could have an upmerged template (that is, one that feeds into an existing category, or a new one with a broader scope, as above (New Testament, Bible in general, all MSs of that era, etc). But if so, do make the template name less mysterious. Alai 03:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete; already covered by {{ manuscript-stub}}, and the creator is OK with deletion (per discussion on Proposals page). Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:17, 10 May 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 delete

Unproposed. Upmerged, but astonishingly badly named. A very bad idea, too - geo-stubs are always split by current national boundaries - the reason for which should be obvious (consider a 2000-year old settlement in Croatia, and how many different stubs it might require). Delete. Grutness... wha? 02:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep Please see the talk page for the template itself and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine page. The template is to be used only for villages listed at List of villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. The geographical region as this time was known as Palestine, it is dated appropriately and the byline circumscribes its application. This was created to replace Template:Palestine-geo-stub which is currently locked and is not appropriate as is for placement on articles of this kind since the byline reads This geography of the Palestinian National Authority article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. These are depopulated villages that no longer exist and if they did, most would be located inside what is now Israel. (PS: I made the template and did not propose because I wasn't aware that I had to. Please forgive the oversight and reconsider this proposal for deletion.) Tiamut 02:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• The villages in question - or the locations where they were, are currently within the boundaries of israel, and as such israel-geo-stub is the only appropriate geo-stub for them. Separate geo-stubs based on specific time are completel;y inappropriate as I pointed out in my nomination. If you want a stub type for articles relating to historical entities within palestine, i would suggest proposing a Palestine-hist-stub. The current stub type, thouygh, should most definitely and certainly be deleted. Grutness... wha? 02:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Grutness, can you create a Palestine-hist-stub? I think that is the best solution. -- Abnn 03:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I've proposed one at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2007/May#History of Palestine. Hopefully there shouldn't be any opposition to one. Feel free to add any comments there. Grutness... wha? 05:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete I think Grutness' point was that geo-stub tagging should be limited to the two governments currently extant in that area, as trying to then document other historical layers will only end in dozens of templates that will quickly become devoid of any utility. The category will suffice in allowing organisation. Tewfik ^Talk 02:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Exactly. Consider my point re Croatia. A precedent set by a stub for the boundaries of a country at some point in the past would create the possibility of one village having Croatia-geo-stub, Yugoslavia-geo-stub, GrossDeutschReich-geo-stub, AustriaHungary-geo-stub, Illyria-geo-stub, Pannonia-geo-stub, RomanEmpire-geo-stub, Ostrogoth-geo-stub, VeniceRepublic-geo-stub, HungarianKingdom-geo-stub and Byzantium-geo-stub. It would become unmanageable very quickly. I realise some special circumstances are involvd with the situation re:Palestine, but they aren't sufficient to create this type of precedent. As I pointed out, there is nothing to stop you proposing a Palestine-hist-stub for articles relating to the history of Palestine, which could be used as an addiional stub template on this type of article. Grutness... wha? 03:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom and the excellent example of why this is a bad idea. Isarig 04:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete per Grutness. Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete, per the "recognised boundaries of modern states" convention. (On which basis, some of the {{ Israel-geo-stub}}s are rather... iffy.) And the naming guidelines. Alai 16:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom and Tewfik. 6SJ7 20:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Grutness. -- Ynhockey ^{( Talk)} 16:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom Bulldog123 03:52, 13 May 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

Unproposed. Upmerged, and maybe a reasonable idea, but the name used doesn't follow the naming guidelines. Rename to {{ Canada-country-band-stub}}. Grutness... wha? 02:09, 9 May 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 delete

Unproposed duplicate of {{ Mil-stub}} - not a redirect, a duplicate. Most of what is theoretically covered by a "war stub" is covered by other stubs of all varieties, such as battle-stub, WWI-stub, WWII-stub, etc, and not by the general military stub that is mil-stub. So this is both an unnecessary duplicate and misleadingly misnamed. Delete. Grutness... wha? 06:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete, or else redirect if someone really insists on this somehow staying blue. Alai 06:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. Valentinian ^{T / C} 12:13, 17 May 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 delete

Unproposed. We split television by country, by subtopic (such as programme, people), and very, very occasionally by network. Splitting it by means of broadcast seems to be counterproductive and somewhat inappropriate given the standard ways of splitting tv stubs. And then there are the obvious problems with the "non-compliant" template name... Delete. Grutness... wha? 01:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete I could possibly see a stub about the technology involved in cablecasting, but not for the channels, which is what this stub is being used for. Given the inevitable confusion, if we did want such a stub {{ tv-tech-stub}} would seem the place to start. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete. I could see the possible logic of a {{ US-tv-channel-stub}}, though. (Though don't ask me to try to disentangle the "channels" from the "stations".) Alai 04:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC) reply

In the context of the U.S. at least, we'd probably want to distinguish between "networks" and "stations", both of which show up on different "channels" on divers cable systems. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep Please excuse my tone if I sound a little harsh because I do not understand the objections and they do not make sense; I want to understand and I'd like to argue the reasons why I think this is correct. I created this stub because there is no method available to distinguish items related to non-broadcast television entries. I looked for something else related to the issue. There was nothing. The issues involved with cable and satellite TV transmission are different from and do not have the same aspects as over-the-air television. If someone puts up a stub for a non-broadcast network, what should be used to mark it? {{tv-stub}}? What about specific encryption for non-broadcast issues? Issues over HD TV via cable and standard over-the-air? Further, this creates a specific stub that can be used to mark articles (through category) which are related to this form of technology as opposed to television in general. It is not counterproductive because the issues are not the same. Nor, based on the templates I have seen, does it appear to be inaccurately named, as I will explain.

The issues involved in ordinary 'television' are not the same for plain 'television' and such issues as cable-tv, satelite-tv, HD-tv, internet-based-tv, are different from each other, and articles which are related to these separate issues should be marked. For example, general broadcast TV, by law is forbidden to be encrypted. Almost all satelite-based transmissions are encrypted. Further, having a cable-tv and/or satellite stub allows adding of the category related to this issue as opposed to it being categorized as something else which isn't adequate, and maybe allows fixing of articles.

You don't like this? Give me an alternative. Tell me what now exists now - other than this template stub - that can be now be used to adequately identify the content. You don't like it, fine, give me a replacement to use. Otherwise you're simply saying to remove a stub because you don't like it and not because it is inaccurate or fails to correctly identify the subject matter in question. That's all that this comes down to. You don't like it because you don't like it, but you have no alternative to propose to solve the problem. All I have heard from people is their negative comments about they don't like it, but not one comment about what can be used now, as an adequate substitute.

If there is a published standard on the creation of stub templates, please show me the page name so I can understand.

Consider the issue, what can be used? Neither Tv-cable-stub nor Television-cable-stub exist. Neither do Television-satellite-stub. Further, common usage is 'cable-tv' or 'satellite-tv' not 'television-cable' or 'television-satellite'. Thus I would think 'cable-tv-stub' or 'satellite-tv-stub' would be appropriate. But again, if you don't like it, give me a reasonable alternative now available. I don't think 'television' as the prefix would work because the terms involved never use it that way.

I looked for something to use before creating this because there were two alternatives. Create a stub article (because I didn't have enough information at this time to add more) or not create an article at all. Given the choice, I could create a stub article with no mark indicating it was a stub, or create one with a stub. Okay, so I wanted to mark it as a stub article. Now, what could I use? I looked, and looked, and found nothing. Television alone is too broad an issue. There was nothing about Cable TV. Nothing beginning with 'Satellite'. In fact, having created this one, I put in a redirect template for 'Satelite-tv-stub' to point to this one. There is nothing available to indicate stubs relating to this subject other than television in general and that's too large an entry to cover this issue. You wouldn't include organic chemistry and general chemistry together in the same stub, just by only having a chemistry stub alone; the fields are too large and there are different issues involved. (I looked, there is a separate organic chemistry stub from the general 'chemistry-stub'.)

Further more, all I've seen in stub formats which exist now consist of subject-stub, e.g. {{Book-stub}}, {{Movie stub}} and {{Movie-stub}}, {{Television-bio-stub}}. Thus as far as I can tell this was correctly named in view of all the other stubs. If it's not, please be so kind as to explain where, in a simple, easily understood and well publicized place, are the normal standards to be used for the creation of stubs so in the future I will know what the standards are and be able to comply with them. Otherwise, you're again saying it should be deleted because you don't like it and not because of an easily understandable standard defining exactly what should be used. And you want it deleted despite the fact that it does serve a useful purpose and there is no substitute. Unless you want to claim that broadcast television and satellite/cable-tv are the same or that differentiating them is not a useful purpose. If differentiating between broadcast and non-broadcast television are a valid activity, then the stub should stand.

But, if despite there being a valid reason to differentiate between television in general and non-broadcast television, you think this stub should be deleted - and if you can offer a explanation as to why there should not be a differentiation between television as a general class and non-broadcast television, please do so - then that's the way you want it then the only answer I can see is to discontinue marking things as stubs since apparently if it's something you don't like and there's no alternative, all you can do is say that it should be thrown out with nothing to stand in its place, and your standards are nothing but subjective whim which have no basis in reason.

But again, show me something. Teach me that I may understand. Allow me to learn why it is inappropriate to differentiate between television in general and non-broadcast television. Show me the reasons why I was wrong OTHER than you simply don't like it. Allow me to know so I can do things right. I've been here for three years. and I've edited thousands of articles. Look at my user page and my talk page; people have even praised some of my edits. I'm not stupid (at least I don't think I am, maybe you can convince me :) ), and if I am wrong, show me the standards. Show me how I can understand so I don't make the same mistake in the future. I await your replies. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 14:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Much of your question requires a fairly lengthy answer about the reasoning behind the way stubs are split.I'll try to summarise it, so apologies if I miss some of your points as I write this. Stubs are split primarily to be of most use to as many editors as possible, yet also in a way that makes such splits clearcut and non-overlapping. This is to stop stub articles having a large number of vague stub templates, but instead keeping them to a maximum of three or four stub types. To do this, we look at how editors are likely to want to look up articles on subjects that they can deal with, and also look to split broadly along one axis, subdividing by a second. Thus, for example, buildings might be split by location and by type of building, so we get UK-church-stub, US-museum-stub, etc. There's also a thin line walked to make sure that stub types are both specific enough for editors but also general enough to not create micro-categories. It is for this reason that thresholds have been set for the optimal sizes of stub categories.

In the case of broadcasting, the primary broad split is by medium - television, film, book, magazine. The second split relates to the branch of that medium - technology, writing, individual episode, etc. Splitting by cable/non-cable makes little sense from the twin ideals of non-vagueness and editor-friendliness - individual programmes screened on cable in one country are often free-to-air on others, some cable networks also offer free-to-air services, and much of the technology used on cable television would be editable by the same editors who can expand articles on the technology of other television systems.

Also, in order to aid stub sorters in their handling of the nearly two thousand different stub templates, we try to keep the naming consistent, as explained at WP:WSS/NG. For that reason, even if this stub type were to be kept, it would need to be renamed.

Some of this is covered at WP:STUB, but much of it is not simply due to the requirements of space on that page. We're not saying you're a bad editor, or anything like that - quite the opposite, I've seen your work before and it is good work. And there is no compulsion to have stub types passed by WP:WSS/P before creation - but it is a very useful process to go through to check whether a particular stub type would be as useful and specific as you believe. I can see where you';re coming from with this particular stub type, but feel that a tv-tech-stub would be more useful for the technology of cable television and other stubs like tv-series-stub and tv-network-stub would be more useful for these aspects of cable television. I hope that answers some of your questions. Grutness... wha? 00:41, 15 May 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, upmerge

Delete. Author requests immediate deletion. As pointed out, there is already a {{ Database-software-stub}} which is just dandy for database-software-related articles. At this point, the author does not intend to make use of this stub to categorize the potentially hundreds of database-related articles. Considering no one else has organized these articles properly up to this point, there's no expectation that anyone else will do this at this time. Therefore the stub is moot. This no longer concerns me. SqlPac 21:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• weak keep. As the nominator points out, there are potentially quite a large number of stubs that this could be used on. The fact that no-one has subdivided them further than they already are is not an indication that they should not be split further - neither is the fact that the creator of the template does not intend to use the template him/herself any indication that it could not be useful to others. There would be nothing wrong in keeping this at least as an upmerged template, as suggested at WP:WSS/D. Grutness... wha? 01:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• strong delete. The fact that no one has bothered to properly categorize these articles to date, and the fact that they exist in the nether regions of Wikipedia, unable to recruit or attract subject matter experts to give them the attention they deserve is a very strong indication that this stub is not needed anyway. Currently many of these items are categorized (in some cases mis-categorized) under a wide variety of stub types. AFAIC, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Also, this template was created in support of the previously proposed Database Project; a proposal I am planning to withdraw ASAP. As was pointed out as WP:WSS/D, the stub was created only in support of this project; and since the project proposal is about to be withdrawn, there is no reason to keep this stub. Further, this stub was not proposed in full and total compliance with all the rules and regulations (signed in triplicate) as required by Wikipedia and the stakeholders of its various projects. As pointed out by the stub sorters, the mere existence of this stub causes many problems for editors, stub sorters, and the Wikipowers-that-be. To eliminate all potential problems, grief, and heartache, this stub should be abolished from existence immediately. Be Afraid! SqlPac 03:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Stub types aren't automatically tied to subject-specific wikiprojects - they are for use across the whole of wikipedia. Having a wikiproject dedicated to a particular subject is irrelevvant when it comes to whether or not a particular stub type is useful. The only difference with having a wikiproject is that it changes the requirements prior to having a stub category. It's interesting that you claim that many of these articles are uncategorised or incorrectly categorised, then in the next sentence say that things ain't broke. Grutness... wha? 05:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Many of the articles are uncategorised or incorrectly categorised. The vast majority have been that way since they were created, or shortly thereafter. Saying "things ain't broke" does not mean that I think this is how it should be. It's a simple acceptance of the fact that Wikipedia makes it much, much easier to just maintain the status quo and "go with the flow" than to try to do anything about it. If the fact that many of the articles were uncategorised or incorrectly categorised were of any consequence, one would think that some entrenched Wiki-crat, who knows how to navigate this thing without stepping on everyone's toes, would have already said it was "broke". Further, one would think that someone would have submitted all the required forms, etc., to have it fixed. SqlPac 17:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • By the way, I like how you sidestepped the other facts I pointed out: 1) That the stub type was created outside of the Bureacracy, without the full approval of everyone who needs to bless it, an argument which should sound vaguely familiar to you. As you pointed out on the WP:WSS/D page and previously on my talk page, this stub simply makes life harder for editors, stub sorters, and all the other moving parts of the machine. Deleting it should make life easier for a lot of people. 2) The fact that no one has seen a need for this stub to date might be a strong indication that it's just not necessary. Regardless of what I think, you and Her Pegship (tis herself) do whatever you feel needs to be done. So long as we understand this has nothing to do with me anymore; I've no interest. SqlPac 17:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep despite nom's tantrums, per potential use as described by Grut. I think the Librarian WikiProject might make some use of this. Her Pegship (tis herself) 14:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I simply pointed out why I felt it should be removed - nothing more, nothing less. I do not understand all of the Wikipedia Bureaucracy, nor do I care to. But I would like to thank you so much for the personal attack, Her Pegship (tis herself). It's so very much appreciated Her Pegship (tis herself). SqlPac 18:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I'm sure SqlPac is a lovely person who's having a bad day, but it's still a tantrum, unsigned user. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • And I'm sure that Her Pegship (tis herself) is a wonderful person doesn't go around personally attacking everyone she disagrees with. As I have said, this subject, this discussion, and the wonderful people involved really don't hold any interest for me. So you have yourself a wonderful rest of the day Her Pegship (tis herself). SqlPac 18:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Gosh, maybe if it doesn't concern you, you should quit checking this page for comments and let others get on with the work. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC) reply

This thread and the preceding one have been very annoying to observe. SqlPac, you really should begin to assume good faith from the people around here. Being bold does not mean "Be reckless". Creating a template takes 10 seconds, and applying it to articles takes minutes, but deleting a template normally takes a full 7 days. This is why we try to get things right from the start. Why bother? Because Wikipedia uses thousands of different stub templates, so in order to allow such a big system to function effectively, we try to keep them a bit organized since this is the only way to allow editors and stub sorters to guess the names and scopes of the different templates. The stub templates are used on more than 200,000 articles - some say 400,000 articles, and had this naming / scoping system not been enforced this would not be possible. The completely unregulated system has been tried in the past and it didn't work, which is why this project came into existence. Have a nice day. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• There seems to be about 25 articles in Category:Computer stubs that are under Category:Databases (and largely not in "software" catst, either). Could be a lot more, uncatted or undercatted. Keep template and upmerge if it remains small, and create cat if/when it passes 60 (or given the subcat, even 30-40 for that matter). Alai 11:38, 19 May 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 delete

• Delete. Discovered early March, upmerged to Category:Horror novel stubs, no change since then. Used on 3 items, lovely image, but no permcat and apparently no urgent need. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:20, 15 May 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 delete

Found this while closing the related template discussion. Badly named and we don't need it since the template is upmerged. That's right, articles are placed into this cat manually. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:50, 16 May 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 to UK-navy-stub and Cat:United Kingdom navy stubs

New, unproposed, but potentially vey useful stub type for articles relating to the Royal Navy. And, indeed, the Royal Navy is known as the RN, but so are a large number of other things. As such, like USN-stub before it, this one needs its name changed, either to RoyalNavy-stub or - in keeping with the other one named, to UK-navy-stub (which would also allow for its potential use on a very very slightly wider group of stubs). The related category Category:Royal Navy stubs, BTW, needs clean-up, as it has no parents, no children, and virtually no stubs (these should all be remediable). Grutness... wha? 01:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• There's only a distinction in scope if one insists that the reserve and auxiliary fleets and services aren't part of the RN (AKA "the proper navy", as one reservist once put it to me). Technically that's correct, and it'd be quite a large difference in scope (there's a largeish cat of UK-aux-navy-ship-stubs), but it's a bit of an inobvious one. It'd also suggest renaming the cat to Category:United Kingdom Naval Service stubs, Category:United Kingdom navy stubs, or something to that effect. Rename one way or the other, with the other as either a redirect or separate template. Alai 11:16, 19 May 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 delete

From WP:WSS/D. Not needed and not used. Delete. Valentinian ^{T / C} 10:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete. All stubs need attention, and the purpose as explained on this template is identical in purpose to {{ stub}}. Grutness... wha? 00:24, 18 May 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

From WP:WSS/D. The scope is clear on this one, and we have almost 100 articles. However, the name should have been {{ RioGrandedoSul-geo-stub}} (with a lowercase "D") to conform with the similar templates. Rename. Valentinian ^{T / C} 10:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Tempting as it is to use CamelCase for clarity in such cases, it's not what precedent suggests. Rename. Alai 14:05, 19 May 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 delete

Unused, and non-standard name. I've no objection to keeping {{ Movie-stub}}, but don't see much point in keeping this one around. Grutness... wha? 01:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I created it as a redirect when I found that {{ Movie stub}} came up red. I don't see the harm. This isn't a separate stub type. Mango juice ^talk 02:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep - Actually it is used quite often, albeit incorrectly according to naming conventions, by those unfamiliar with those conventions. It has an added benefit, as when it pops up in the Category:Film stubs, its a clue to the members there that it probably needs other work as well. No harm in keeping it as is - rather this than back to a null link. SkierRMH 07:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete My bad - this is not the one I was thinking of - this one isn't used (it's the hyphenated one) and needs to go. SkierRMH 06:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC) reply

It never pops up in that category - the actual template to which this is a redirect (film-stub) does. The reason for proposing deletion of this redirect is that for ease of maintenance it is important to ensure that all stub templates and redirects have easily guessable forms to stub sorters, and to do that the easiest way is to keep their names uniform, as explained at WP:WSS/NG. This includes having the major components of the stub name separated by hyphens, with no spaces. Grutness... wha? 00:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete. All other stub templates use the hyphen, so keeping a few random redirects that are differently named will only be confusing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 10:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom & Valentinian. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:23, 17 May 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 delete

Unproposed, astoundingly named, and currently used for bio-stubs about players for one club, which is a long-established outright no-no. Certainly unlikely ever to get to 60 stubs about a particular club (players not included), even if this were nicely named. Strong delete. Grutness... wha? 02:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Dynamo had however many successful people and associations and therefore I imagined that I could manufacture an extra stub.--Kay Körner 18:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sportspeople are never stubbed according to clubs they have played for - they are sorted according to their nationality, role in the sport or (very occasionaly) era in which they played. If clubs each had their own stub then it would be p[ossiblke for one player to easily end up with a dozen stub templates, since players tend to be transferred between clubs. This would create very messy articles and quite a bit of difficulty for stub-sorters. And if you exclude the players for that reason it is extremely unlikely you would get to the threshold of 60 existing stub articles which could use the template. Both template and category are also very badly named (see WP:WSS/NG). There is also no permanent parent category Category:Sports Association Dynamo, usually a prerequisite for a stub category - since if a category for articles on a subject overall isn't though to be useful, thn sorting out the stubs for it is usually even less useful. Grutness... wha? 23:36, 18 May 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 delete, keeping upmerged template

The Chechen template has been upmerged to Category:Russian people stubs and made more neutral. I'm still far from sure that it is a good idea keeping the template, but in any case, the category should go. Delete. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete this - and I agree that the template should probably be considered at some point. Similarly, I noticed an upmerged Somaliland-stub yesterday which might need reassessing. Grutness... wha? 23:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Agree with the Somaliland issue. Based on the experience from both Transnistria-stub and Somaliland-stub, people don't use these templates as supplements to the templates representing the internationally recognized owners of the territory, the "official" template is simply replaced. I don't see how this conforms with NPOV. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for wannabe nations. Regarding the template at hand, I'm already finding it less than perfect that politicians from Chechnya now get sorted into both Category:Russian politician stubs and Category:Russian people stubs (the -bio is due to the new template). Valentinian ^{T / C} 07:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• • As you have already mentioned, all references to the Chechen separatist movement have been removed; it is now completely neutral and can no longer be accused of being 'wannabe nation-propaganda'. It no longer deals with politics, but rather with Chechnya as a geographical entity. In the earlier discussion about this category and template it was pointed out why the Texas-bio-stub has a right to exist, and now that the template has been completely 'neutralized', I'd say the same goes for the Chechnya-bio template. ForrestSjap 15:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Note that the template's not up for deletion (despite some mutterings, above). Per my reasoning at /P, i.e. that there's not enough material for a cat, but the template is OK if "neutralised", delete cat (and keep template, as upmerged). Alai 19:54, 22 May 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 one is not excessively large by itself but it can be a holder for a Pakistani cricket bio category. The name should have been Category:Pakistani sportspeople stubs to conform with the similar material. Rename. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Grutness... wha? 23:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- Phoenix2 ^{( talk, review)} 17:27, 20 May 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 delete

From WP:WSS/D. This one was used on one tiny stub article of unclear notability. Delete unless we can find something useful to do with it. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete unless there's a chance of finding 60 stubs on global positioning, which seems a ittle unlikely. Grutness... wha? 23:21, 18 May 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 delete

An oddly named redirect to {{ US-bio-stub}}. Apparently the idea was that the creator intended it to be used on articles for people of presumed U.S. nationality. Not needed and not used. Delete Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete this oddity. Grutness... wha? 23:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete, weird... -- Phoenix2 ^{( talk, review)} 17:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• _ _ Comment. If not used, surely bcz someone determined the nationality (perhaps responding to my placing it) anywhere it was used. I don't recall where, but i wouldn't have created it, w/o the stimulus of a stub such as the nominator correctly inferred it was intended for. (The effect is like that of as of 2005: viewing the Rdr's What-lks-here is a means, for anyone who wants to work on checking nationalities of bios of figures making careers in US but who may or may not have been born there or naturalized, to find articles needing it.) As to NPH, indeed such usage would make much more sense if it occurred more often, i.e. if the practice of using redirects to "real" stub cats, on doubtfully sorted stubs, were discussed at an appropriate place.

_ _ Just FMI, should such stubs be tagged w/ {{ US-bio-stub}} or the dreaded {{ bio-stub}}, if my approach is deprecated? (I would fear that many editors would assume anyone placing {{ US-bio-stub}} knew the person was a citizen but didn't want to take time to add more than the stub-tag -- perhaps using an automated tool -- and that they would thus erroneously add the word "American" to the lead sent.
-- Jerzy• t 00:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC) reply

What's the "not invented here" crack in relation to? I think the problem is rather, "not a good idea". US-bio-stub is pretty dreaded too, often needing re-sorted itself; are we supposed to have "presumed" version of every sub-type of US-bio-, to say nothing of for every other nationality? If someone shows all signs of being an American, we shouldn't need verification of their U.S. citizenship just to tag them; if it's entirely unclear, sorted them by occupation only (ideally you'd be sorting them by occupation and nationality in the normal course, for the above-noted reasons). (Delete, btw.) Alai 20:02, 22 May 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 delete

Looks like a terminated experiment [1]. Delete (or change to something relating to music). Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Didn't realise this thing was still around - I thought it had been deleted ages back. Delete. Grutness... wha? 23:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete, for 'testing' it says? One of several 'under construction' templates should then be placed on it... -- Phoenix2 ^{( talk, review)} 17:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC) reply

The last edit to the template was two years ago and nothing links to it, so it looks dead to me. Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Certainly. -- Phoenix2 ^{( talk, review)} 05:40, 21 May 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 delete

Unproposed, badly named, and - well, considering that there are no stub types for Elvis Presley, the Rolling Stones, U2, Pink Floyd... in fact no rock group or performer other than the Beatles has its own stub type. The chances of Powderfinger being the likely contender for next cab off the rank is low, to say the least. There are a number of stubs in the category, it's true, but they are all either musician-stubs or song-stubs, and classifying them by band will do nothing that a WikiProject-specific talk-page template won't do 100 times better for the associated wikiproject. Given that this is a subcategory of Category:Stub-Class Powderfinger articles, it seems, the wikiproject involved in this is already using a talk-page WP-specific template, so they will gain nothing by this stub type, and neither will stub sorters or other editors. Delete as redundant. Grutness... wha? 00:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Grutness on this. We are fine with just the banner. Delete per nom G1 gg y ! 01:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom, the banner is sufficient. -- Phoenix2 ^{( talk, review)} 17:25, 20 May 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 delete

Unproposed - with the one exception of the Beatles (which has a very active WikiProject) there are no separate stub categories for songs by artist, partly because songs are often known recorded by multiple artists, and partly because a split by decate is more useful to editors. This particular category (which has no parents, stub or otherwise) has very few articles (six), and several those which it has are not stubs. The logical parent permcat Category:The Carpenters songs has only 39 articles, so this will not currently meet the stub-sorting threshold of 60. Delete. Grutness... wha? 00:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I think they were a major enough band to have a stub type. Karen Carpenter's Biggest Fan 19:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Please read my reasons for nomination. Big though they may have been, they are not second only to the Beatles in terms of music or influence (were they as big as Elvis Presley?), and certainly do not have the WikiProject support that the Beatles articles do. Also it is impossible for a category with 39 articles to have 60 current stubs, and as such this stub type does not reach the necessary levels for a separate stub type. Grutness... wha? 00:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Grutness. Not notable enough for their own stub. G1 gg y ! 04:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The band itself is notable, as Cuyler91093 claimed, but, as Grutness presented, is not at the level to deserve their own stub template. hmwith talk 06:29, 29 May 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 delete

Unproposed stub category for a fantasy world location that is itself a stub. The entirety of Category:Nyeusigrube and its two subcategories is 16 articles - chances of there beig 60 current stubs, as per stub thresholds, is therefore nil. Delete. Grutness... wha? 00:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete per parent article, which is a stub, and which in itself may not be notable. G1 gg y ! 04:39, 23 May 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 delete

Only used on one article, scope too limited to warrant its own stub type. Pagra shtak 16:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per inactive WikiProject. Shame, since it would have a large scope... G1 gg y ! 04:26, 23 May 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 per author request

Unproposed, nowhere near the threshold number of stubs, poor category capitalisation, no such permcat as Category:Years in poetry. In general, there is nothing which suggests this would be a useful stub type. Delete. Grutness... wha? 02:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Um, actually there is Category:Years in poetry... ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hm. Must've made a typo while searching for it. Sorry about that. Grutness... wha? 01:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Those 19XX in foo articles are of the type to be perpetually tagged with {{ expand list}} or the like, and as such, I can't really say that they are ever going to appropriate for the stub template, except in the case where for certain in foo series for which there is an expected minimal content of section headings and nav templates that such an article should have and the article does not. In that case tho, the difference will only be apparent to someone knowledgeable about the series and it would be better if they went ahead and supplied that basic minimum than applying a stub template of any sort. Either revamp this over to {{ inc-poetry}} as a one of the List notification templates (a la {{ inc-lit}}) or delete. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete; per all. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Author Accepts Deletion - Having read the comments and apologised for not following the proceedure, I accept the deletion. Philipwhiuk 22:11, 24 May 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 delete

Utterly unnecessary unproposed and ambiguously-named duplicate of {{ baseball-bio-stub}} which could refer to any number of things (this list, not surprisingly, does not include baseball). Delete Grutness... wha? 01:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

K per nom. Caerwine Caer’s whines 13:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply

huh? My nom was for D, not K! Grutness... wha? 23:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply

K is the abbreviation used in baseball to indicate a strikeout while BB is the abbreviation used to indicate a base on balls. D isn't used at all as far as I know. Caerwine Caer’s whines 15:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Ah. Sorry - all I know about baseball is that it's a bit like softball and played in some overseas countries that aren't interested in the real sport, cricket :) Grutness... wha? 00:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete, per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mordicai ( talk • contribs)

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 clean up and upmerge

Probably speediable - this says it's a template, but it's trying to act like a category. Looks like it may have been made by someone who doesn't know how to make eithet templates or categories properly and... well, have a look. Unused, and unlikely that it could be used in its present form. Grutness... wha? 01:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I'd rather see it upmerged with proper coding. The editor that created the stub has been on an Egyptian sport-bio-stub binge ( Category:Egyptian football biography stubs went from 51-94 overnight). It looks like there are 11 stubs now, with probably more to come.-- Thomas.macmillan 01:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I'd be happy with that. It needs something done to it, and a proper upmerged template is probably a good idea. Grutness... wha? 05:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I've cleaned up the code. Valentinian ^{T / C} 09:04, 31 May 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

Stub categories use "Singular noun stubs" as their general naming format. Somehow, his one slipped through with an "s'. Rename. Grutness... wha? 23:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Also seems to be much too small to be worth the candle. Upmerge, or if that's shouted down by an angry mob from the cricket WPJ, rename per nom. Alai 23:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• yes move it Ajuk 12:38, 3 June 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.