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, no stub or permcat parents, but plenty of stubs. Or, rather, plenty of articles - a few of these don't seem to be stubs. Wouldn't have been my choice for a split, but then again the term reggaeton is rarely used (and the style rarely heard) in this part of the world. A case of clearing out any non-stubs and seeing what we have left, by the looks of it. Grutness... wha? 02:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Now contains 149 items! Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:44, 6 May 2008 (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 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, no stub or permcat parents, no stubs currently, but this is at least a logical split. Probably a case of sorting and if necessary upmerging. Grutness... wha? 02:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello, I created this stub tag because there are other ones such as {{ Theatre-stub}}, {{ US-theat-stub}} and others for individual countries/nations so I thinks its acceptable for the United Kingdom to have one, I apologise for creating this without consensus as I didnt realise they have to be discussed here. Regards -- The Sunshine Man 14:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

It is a logical split in terms of subject matter - the main concern is size. Unlike permanent categories, which can be of any size, there's a threshold level before a stub category is created of 60 current stubs (due to the different purposes of stub categoriues from main categories). I'm sure there won't be any problems with this one if it reaches 60 stubs - which it's likely to - but if it falls short of that it might not be worth having a separate category. The category also needs a bit of tidying up, as I noted earlier. Grutness... wha? 01:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

We should have the template at least (though probably canonicalise it to {{ UK-theat-stub}}, leaving the redirect). This might require some work to populate, since existing article are likely to be scattered hither and yon (theat-, euro-theat-, <county>-geo-, etc), but I'm sure it's in theory doable. If it's not happening in practice, upmerge. Alai 16:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply

They're not likely to be among the geo-stubs, A. struct-stubs, maybe. Grutness... wha? 00:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh, you'd be surprised... Alai 13:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC) reply

As theatre stubs had creeped into the oversized bracket, I populated this from Category:Theatre in the United Kingdom. That's scoping on the basis of 'the theatre' though, as distinct from just 'theatres'. Alai 13:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Update: Now contains 74 items and the template has been properly redirected. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:59, 31 October 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 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-formed (it even has proper category parents, which makes a nice change!). Only 20 stubs though. Probably useful, but looks like a case of "populate or upmerge". Grutness... wha? 10:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hm - seems I was wrong about the well-formed bit - Valentinian has pointed out to me that it should be Category:Malaysian school stubs. Yet again, this is something that actual proposal would have sorted out. Grutness... wha? 00:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC) reply

There are many articles about schools in Malaysia which are stubs. Not much proper information are provided in these articles. So I figure a new stub category would be really helpful to improve these articles. Horacenew 10:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge template, delete category until it reaches threshold (it's at 41 now). Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
• Update: Now at 51 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep, now at 57 articles that is almost 60. Let's finish this case. -- Kslotte ( talk) 15:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment, now at 60 articles with help of intersection scan with Asia. -- Kslotte ( talk) 15:42, 20 September 2009 (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 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 seems a reasonable split - already has 80 stubs. Unfortunately, the category is badly named (note the capital C). If kept (which, as I said, seems reasonable) it will need a (probably speediable) renaming. The cat also has no non-stub parents, but that's easily fixable. Grutness... wha? 00:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi. I created this stub. I didn't realise I should have proposed it first, sorry. There were (and still are, I haven't moved everyone yet) lots and lots of articles about companies in the regular Fashion stubs category, making it harder to distinguish between these and those that deal with some piece of clothing etc. Also, I wanted to be able to link a category like this to the Company stub category too. I fix the capital C. - *Ulla* 01:22, 17 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.

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 stub type which is never likely to get more than 78 articles, even if every card is a stub (and they aren't - I extended a couple well beyond stub status myself). Also more than adequately covered by other stub types. At best, this should be upmerged but given that currently accepted stub types aren't exactly in need of splitting and this is hardly likely to stay close to split size for long or ever get there again, perhaps it's not needed at all. Grutness... wha? 02:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• A lot of these stubs look marginal in and of themselves: put me in the post-AFD "merge" camp, at least for the ones that are very short, repeat information between themselves, etc. Since these articles seem to be largely about the divination aspect, upmerge the template to Category:Occult stubs. (Which technically we don't need to take to SFD, since the cat's a redlink.) Alai 03:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I must admit I was surprised to see separate articles on each card - the pip cards at least could be merged per suit for now at least. But that's not really within the scope of us here. I realise that a lot of the articles could eventually be expanded considerably (as I said, i did so myself on a couple of the major arcana cards articles), but it would take some effort with some of the minor pips. Grutness... wha? 03:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I'm not really for or against this particular stub category, but thought I'd mention a few things. It's not clear that this is "never likely to get more than 78 articles" as the "proposer" of this unproposed stub type (i.e. User:Smiloid) has already used it to tag other pages like Visconti-Sforza tarot deck, Bonifacio Bembo, and Pamela Colman Smith. I have in the past personally deleted the {{card-game-stub}} tags that appeared on the minor arcana card articles as I didn't think that tag was suitable for them. I didn't believe that there was much more to add to those articles that would further justify the removal of that tag. (It is already mentioned that tarot cards are used to play Tarot card games in each of those articles. I don't, for example, see what could possibly be inserted into the "Game Usage" section of Eight of Coins or many of the other cards. The only particular card with a special function seems to be The Fool). I don't wish to put words into Smiloid's mouth, but he seems to believe that tagging the tarot card articles with {{occult-stub}} somehow violates WP:NPOV, and I think this is why he wanted to create a new stub for use on tarot card related articles. Craw-daddy 09:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • • I think to deny that tarot cards are playing cards is POV. If we put "occult" stubs on the minor card articles, we should also have "playing card" or some similar stub. It is user User:Ptdecker who started puting the "card game" stubs to address POV concerns. This tarot stub that I've created is designed to be suitable for any tarot related article whether it is occult or card game related. I've chosen the Marseilles Fool as the image as the Marseilles tarot pertains to both tarot as a divinatory practice as well as a type of card game. It should also be upmerged to card game or playing card categories because tarot is not the exclusive property of the occult. Smiloid 00:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply
      • I'm certainly not denying that tarot cards are playing cards. When have I said that? However, there's a perfectly valid category, namely [[Category:Playing cards]] that can be used to (help) classify these articles. Why not use that? As I've said, I can't see the justification for the {{card-game-stub}} tag as I don't think there's much to add to the articles that would later justify the removal of that particular stub tag. We shouldn't try to counteract (alleged or perceived) POV by using some other inappropriate stub tag that isn't fit for purpose in this case. It's the old "Two wrongs" argument that I'm stating here. Craw-daddy 23:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Is there a playing card stub? I would agree this might be better Smiloid 04:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply
          • No, I don't believe there is a playing card stub. My suggestion, assuming something like this tarot card stub is okayed, is to have something like in Five of Wands, i.e. the tarot card stub tag and the [[Category:Playing cards]] category marker. This is essentially what I meant in my previous remark above. Craw-daddy 10:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, I noticed that too. Still, it seems a little small at present, unless there's a large number of in-scope but untagged articles out there, so I'd still favour upmerging now, without prejudice to consideration of a separate category at a later date. Hopefully an upmerged tag is less objectionable than actual retagging. Alai 17:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply
    • No it's a good template. I support keeping it. Previously the articles in question were marked as "magic-stubs" and I think it is POV to merge Tarot with Occult. Tarot is tarot, and not all divination is of an occult nature. I'm not an expert on the occult of course, but it seems to me that calling Tarot "occult" is like saying wicca is "witchcraft". Many people use tarot and other divinatory practices such as dowsing (for example) in day-to-day life, and I think if it needs a category it might be considered by some as witchcraft and some as something more akin to intuitive reading etc... I think merging it to a category is useless and potentially wasteful of discussion time. Tarot is certainly tarot, however you could have a big argument on whether it is occult practice or intuition. User:Pedant 22:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply
      • The articles should, if anything, have been marked kabbalah-stub, due the the very strong links between Tarot and other kabbalistic . Certainly Tarot should not be marked with card-game stub, and occult-stub is highly questionable. Still, unless there are plans to create stubs for different Tarot decks - something which hasn't happened yet (and remember that stub templates are for existing stubs) - there is no way that this stub type will get the required number of stubs for a separate template/category combination. As such, it needs to be upmerged somewhere. As such, it is not merging it which is a potential waste of discussion time (check the standards required for new stub types at the top of WP:WSS/P). Blessed be, Grutness... wha? 05:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Paint me pink and call me a hard-core naturalist, but I don't see how "divination" of any sort isn't necessarily "occult". But what Grutness and Maggie Thatcher said: the status quo isn't an option. Would either Category:Parapsychology stubs or Category:Paranormal stubs be acceptable as an upmerger target? (By "upmerger" let's be clear that we would be keeping the template, just giving it a category that's a) blue, and b) is over the size threshold.) Alai 19:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply
          • • However not all of tarot is connected with divination or the occult. This tarot stub was devised to cover any tarot article whether or not it involves the occult. I have plans to start three tarot related articles; French suited tarot cards, Grosstarock, and tarocchi appropriati all of which have little if anything to do with the occult. Smiloid 07:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The links between tarot and Kabbalah are open to debate. A.E. Waite is quoted in Taropedia as expressing disbelief in the correspondence between the tarot trumps and the Hebrew letters. Smiloid 00:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Cat was created, now holds 58 items; parent of permcat is "divination". Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:40, 6 May 2008 (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 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 odd one this - a templat has just been made for one of our "parent-only" stub categories. It could potentially be useful, but I think upmerged country-sport-bio-stubs might be more so. Grutness... wha? 01:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Ideally we'd get rid of all the templates which feed into "upmerger target" stub categories with no corresponding permcats, but it must be said there's quite a lot of existing ones on the same pattern. Perhaps we should try to systematically replace and deprecate them all as a first step. Alai 18:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Per a lot of precedent at WP:CFD, there is no good rational for categorizing by continent instead of by nationality. It makes a lot more sense simply to have a stubs and probably bio stubs category/template for every country, and have country-specific sport-bio, politician, etc., ones when the number of stubs justifies them. A categorization of "European" is pretty useless. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:57, 20 February 2008 (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.