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

The result of the debate was delete all

• {{ Angel-episode-stub}} / Cat:Angel episode stubs
• {{ Buffy-episode-stub}} / Cat:Buffy episode stubs
• {{ Whedon-stub}}

Every article that was tagged with the -episode-stub was NOT a stub, so I removed the tags. whedon-stub is a redirect to {{ Buffyverse-stub}}, so it should probably just be deleted. WP:BUFFY has been notified. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Now that there are no articles for that topic that are stubs, the templates should be deleted. However, if there is a sudden upsurge of buffy episode stubs etc (which I doubt there would be), the stub templates should be allowed to be recreated... But again, that shouldn't happen. Spawn Man 01:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Perhaps in 20 years' time, when Some Spotty Kid(TM) "reimagines" same... Alai 05:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• I just want to clarify that I am NOT advocating deleting {{ Buffyverse-stub}}. WP:BUFFY uses that one and I don't see the need to get rid of it. Just making sure I'm clear. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 21:52, 8 November 2006 (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

Should be respectively expanded and de-capsed in line with recent treatment of MMA-stub. I shall draw a veil of this type being unproposed, having a huge image, and being a line and half long due to a spammy wikiproject ad (or at least, not dwell on those aspects too much). Alai 00:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. hateless 02:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• support per nom. heqs 21:26, 9 November 2006 (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

• Cat:Canada television stubs → Cat:Canadian television stubs
• Cat:Canada television program stubs → Cat:Canadian television program stubs
• Cat:Canada television station stubs → Cat:Canadian television station stubs

Fix "WSS grammar" in each case. Alai 00:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. I wonder how that slipped through. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Per nom - Probably some American... ;) Spawn Man 01:56, 8 November 2006 (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

Per logical scope of the type, and names of both its perm parent, and the long-approved but only recently created UK-tv-stub (potential) parent. Alai 00:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Per nom - Seems logical... Spawn Man 01:55, 8 November 2006 (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

Per sibling cats, and tradition of avoiding propositions with 'stubs' suffixed in the category names. (Unproposed, a but small, but nothing that'll kill us.) Alai 23:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• redirect Cat:Sport in Belgium stubs → Cat:Belgian sport stubs -- ¿Exir? ¡Kamalabadi! 05:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • given that stubs are categorised by way of template, there's no need to use the fairly clunky category redirect method. Simply deleting this category and creating a new one does the job more effectively and only requires one template edit (oh, delete/rename per nom, BTW). Grutness... wha? 09:11, 7 November 2006 (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

• {{ Dinobird-stub}} / Cat:Dinobird stubs

Delete as this was created and (ab)used by a single user and has met with much scorn on the Dinosaur project talk page. Dysmorodrepanis 04:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Erk - I'm not surprised. Does anyone, anywhere use that horrible term? These are already covered by paleo-bird-stub anyway, so why is it needed? BTW, you may be interested in joining in a proposal I'm about to initiate at WP:WSS/P... Grutness... wha? 05:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Make extinct. Alai 06:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I think I hear a meteor approaching ... Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 09:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete. Created by a user unfamiliar with formal scientific naming conventions. Wikipedia needs to present a professional appearance, even in template space. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete What? No wonder a lot of researchers dislike Wikipedia as a reference source. Dinobirds... -- ¿Exir? ¡Kamalabadi! 05:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Speedy Speedy Delete per above. -- Bob 18:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete - This user is quite, um, shall we say unfamiliar with the dinosaur world & has been giving us trouble for a while now. Delete the template as per nom. Spawn Man 02:00, 8 November 2006 (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

More work from User:Robertjohnsonrj: no template and surprisingly enough no contents (other than a category, which wasn't a stub category and has now been moved to somewhere more appropriate). Never proposed. Speediable in a couple of days if it remains empty, but I'm going through the formal process here just in case. Delete. Grutness... wha? 21:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Wait before deletion - If you say this user has been very active in the last 24 hours, then maybe he has plans for this category. By all means, if no work or linking to has occurred in a few days, then speedy it. Spawn Man 02:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete. (He's been active in creating categories, seemingly on the basis of spurious redlinks -- someone should really rename "Wanted categories" -- not contents for same.) Alai 04:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Also religion is one item that it's not really logical to split by country - splitting it by religion is much more sensible, and that is how other reli-stub subcats are split. Grutness... wha? 05:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per the above. Agree with Alai that "Wanted categories" should be renamed. It would also be a great idea to add a little notice saying that in some cases these categories have been deliberately deleted. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 14:38, 8 November 2006 (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. MER-C 08:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Recently renamed to Cat:Building and structure stubs and recreated (I hope in good faith) by User:Robertjohnsonrj, who has been VERY busy the last 24 hours. Pegship 12:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I've speedied it as a re-creation. He has been busy, hasn't he... There are a couple more possible SFD's in there (see above). Grutness... wha? 21:59, 7 November 2006 (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

Not for stubs for little green multitentacled extraterrestrials, but for stubs relating to the planet Mars. Main category is Cat:Mars, and - depite the logical reasons for suggesting using an adjectival form for countries on earth - the noun form is probably preferable here. Grutness... wha? 09:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Move as per nom - Would make it easier to find etc... Spawn Man 02:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom, and naming guidelines. (BTW, I see no difference in interplanetary treatment here: "Martian crater stubs" and "France stubs" would both be logical and conventional, but this, and likewise "French stubs", would not be.) Alai 04:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Good point - I hadn't considered that. Grutness... wha? 05:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per above. MER-C 10:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• SUPPORT-- aceslead 18:16, 9 November 2006 (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

If correct, too narrow a scope; delete. If a typo, rename (possibly actor stubs by country?). Pegship 20:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete as empty. Alai 23:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete per Alai. So tagged. MER-C 09:14, 9 November 2006 (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

Or at the least, to something else without spaces, per the naming guidelines. Alai 17:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Didn't we decide a while ago that stub types for individual universities was a bad idea? Sure, this has a Wikiproject, but it also has just 11 stubs - and would therefore be better handled by a list than a stub category. I've no objection to a Virginia-university-stub, to cover all universities in Virginia, but I'd suggest deleting this, not renaming it. Grutness... wha? 05:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

correction - some of the articles marked with this were clearly not stubs - articles like Wahoos, for instance. There are effectively only six stubs which use this template. Grutness... wha? 06:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Followup - I note that the wikiproject is currently on MFD, too... Grutness... wha? 23:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• The MFD was closed as userfy so this stub should be deleted. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:29, 15 November 2006 (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. MER-C 05:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete; another re-creation from the earnest perusers of Special:Wantedcategories. *sigh* Pegship 00:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedied, for the second time in three days. Talking of days, it's now the 11th. :) Alai 00:35, 11 November 2006 (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 rename

Speedy rename; correct case. Not WPSS-approved, but quite decently populated and no comment made on the Discoveries page. The template is fine: {{ Finland-artist-stub}}. Pegship 17:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Renamed, will speedy the old cat once the job queue catches up. It's a bit small, so I'm not sure it's a dead cert at /D. Alai 23:19, 10 November 2006 (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. Film stubs are sorted by country or genre, not language; we have an {{ India-film-stub}}; and the syntax is incorrect anyway. The template ({{ Indian Punjabi-language films-stub}}) doesn't exist, so no action necessary there. Pegship 17:28, 10 November 2006 (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

Template doesn't follow the naming guidelines; category is distinctly confusing. Alai 09:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

hows that confusing? -- Dan027 11:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support move The confusion arises because some editors (like myself) see "Victorian" and their first thought is Victorian era. Slambo (Speak) 11:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

thats why it says "This category is for stub articles relating to Rail transport in Victoria. You can help Wikipedia by expanding them." im not stiring anyone up here, but i just dont like the sound of "Victoria-rail-stub", sounds like broken english. -- Dan027 11:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Have you checked the Stub naming guidelines? Or similar stub types like Victoria-geo-stub (Cat:Victoria geography stubs)? Rename per nom. Grutness... wha? 22:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename per nom. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 00:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. -- CComMack ( t– c) 03:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename - per nom. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:28, 15 November 2006 (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

A #-style redirect, no entries, linked from one talk page. Alai 08:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Seriously, I've never seen any stub that is a redirect before -- ¿Exir? ¡Kamalabadi! 06:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • My first time too. :) Alai 06:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Don't redirects like that fall under the criteria for speedy deletion? -- Ohms law 17:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Strange.. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:26, 15 November 2006 (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

As below, but emphasis on the "noun phrase" part this time. Alai 04:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

above u are asking for a change of plural to singular, and here your asking for the opposite, why? -- Dan027 11:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

He's doing no such thing. Hhe's arguing for a change from the adjectival form to the noun form, as stated in the stub naming guidelines. "Winter Olympics" is not a plural - or can you point out to me exactly what a "Winter Olympic" is? Grutness... wha? 22:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

PS - that's a rename, BTW. Grutness... wha? 22:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

go take your stress out on someone else mate, i was asking Alai the question not Grutness.

Perhaps you should post your question to Alai on Alai's talk page, then. Pegship 17:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. -- Ohms law 17:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename - per nom. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:27, 15 November 2006 (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

Per the 'singular noun phrase' doctrine. Alai 04:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Pegship 04:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- Ohms law 17:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

FYI: I cahnged the template on the current page to sfr. -- Ohms law 17:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename - per nom. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:27, 15 November 2006 (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 phil template/cat (and possibly clarify scope), redirect charity template, delete charity cat

Looking at the stub type list, we somehow seem to have both {{ charity-org-stub}} ( Cat:Charitable organization stubs) and {{ philanthropy-org-stub}} ( Cat:Philanthropic organization stubs) , which seem to me to cover almost identical ground. Surely we don't need both? I propose deleting one of Cat:Charitable organization stubs or Cat:Philanthropic organization stubs and redirecting one of the two templates, so that these two types are merged. No real preference, though perhaps the philanthropic one has a slightly wider coverage and so should be the keeper. Grutness... wha? 23:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• The somehow being this proposal. The scopes seem significantly different to me (see the permcats), if the issue is size, and the phils aren't separately viable (I haven't re-checked), certainly keep both templates, without redirection. Alai 05:31, 12 November 2006 (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

What follows is the discussion as it was occurring at WP:TFD - it is quite clear from some of the discussion that the people commenting were unsure of stub guidelines as regards disputed territories, which is that they should not have stubs. Furthermore, no discussion had taken place as regards the category which this template fed into, and as such, there could be a horrible refactoring of discussion if it was added in at this stage. As such, I've preserved the comments below which should be taken into consideration in any debate, rather than simply allowing the debate to take its course and potentially causing problems if the result was delete as regards the un-mentioned category. Grutness... wha? 22:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Strong delete for several reasons:

1. as per precedent on disputed territories and unrecognised countries - compare the delete decisions for Ossetia, Chechnya, TRNC, Transdniestria et al in the past;
2. for size reasons - there are fewer than 40 articles in the category, nowhere near the threshold requirement for a stub category - and several of those are not stubs;
3. for permcat reasons - there is no Cat:Nagorno-Karabakh, and as such the stub category should not exist. There is, however a Cat:Nagorno Karabakh, so iff the vdecision is to keep this, it will need renaming.

To answer some of the specific comments above:

1. California is a recognised subnational unit, and it is those that are used for naming stub categories.
2. Stub types for other similar regions have always been deleted in the past with only two exceptions - those for Taiwan, which is internationally recognised by several nations and has been internationally recognised by many others in the past, and Palestine, a stub type that was created after long, hard debate with the agreement of wikipedia editors from both the Palestinian Territories and Israel and which even so has been the subject of considerable controversy since (including SFD debates).
3. Whether having a Nagorno-Karabakh-stub helps organise articles on Wikipedia is a moot point. the number of stubs contained within the category is below the threshold number considered optimal for sorting articles, and the categories which has been split from were within the optimal range. As such, having this as a separate stub category may well cause more effort for editors.

Grutness... wha? 22:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

On the name: the permcat seems to depart from the name used in the main article, so I've nominated it for renaming. Alai 05:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Strong Delete per the arguments presented by Grutness. This template is controversial, it fails the criteria for size, and it will strongly empty Cat:Armenia stubs and/or Cat:Azerbaijan stubs, both of which are hardly full. I have sorted the South Caucasian material several times and it was pretty problematic just finding enough material to argue for even "one" template per country. These categories are still pretty empty and both are way below the number of articles normally required to split a category in two (500-800 stub articles is a good guideline). The political side of this issue has been discussed for many other entities in the past and the short story is that Nagorno-Karabakh / Artsakh / Qarabaq is a controversial entity and we should only have stub templates for internationally recognized entities that we can be pretty sure will not lead to neverending revert wars / stub wars. Having controversial templates around presents a strong risk for such a scenario; One editor will no doubt add a flag that another editor considers controversial and / or add such a template to some article(s) others will consider improper to include. Both situations have a high risk of ending in stubs being continuously added to / removed from articles and templates being changed back and forth between a flag version, a no-flag version and possibly other versions as well. Precedent has so far been to avoid any such situations completely. We shouldn't have distinct templates for any hotspot in the world, including Abkhazia, Chechnya, Republika Srpska, Kosovo, TRNC etc. etc. I have never been a great fan of both {{ Palestine-stub}} and {{ Taiwan-stub}} either. Although the situation is different for the latter two, both still smack of the same problem. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 00:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete but only on grounds of size. The idea that we can avoid controversy by fiat is fallacious, soliphistic, nonsense. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, now that I am aware of the precedent and special criteria relating to stub tags, disregard my earlier comments during the TFD discussion. Neil916 ( Talk) 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Wikimedia is not a propaganda machine nor a battleground, if we keep this then we are gonna have to accept stubs from other unregonized territories as, Northern Turkish Republic of Cyprus, Taiwan, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, etcetc. NKR is not regonized in the world. 85.146.213.29 20:18, 14 November 2006 (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

I missed this one from the earlier nom, until I mistakenly edited its /ST listing, instead of the one I'd actually just moved. But I've recatted these now anyway, for the sake of consistency, and the pointlessness of changing it back, so unless anyone yelps, I'll speedy the now-empty original. Alai 08:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Also Cat:Canada radio station stubs, a subcat, now likewise emptied. Alai 12:31, 14 November 2006 (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 proposal withdrawn

I came belatedly to this discussion while trying to organize the literature stubs. Can we keep this and rename it {{ Latin-lang-lit-stub}} / Cat:Latin-language literature stubs (or some such)? There are many lit-stub articles which are non-fiction, written in Latin, and therefore don't go in poetry, drama, or mythology, and they're not necessarily books per se, so {{ nonfiction-book-stub}} doesn't fly either. I'll get a count when I can. Her Pegship 20:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

A Latin lit stub mught be useful, although there'd be an obvious overlap with whatever template we use for Roman Catholic texts. I've definitely no objection to a keep with new template (deleting the original template), asssuming the numbers add up. Grutness... wha? 01:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Note: this has already been discussed further down the page: Ancient Rome discussion. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Hm, only around 25 that are strictly Latin. I'm going over to Proposals to propose a classical-lit-stub, so never mind. Suggestion withdrawn... Her Pegship 14:49, 15 November 2006 (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

Yes, there is a WikiProject, but no, there are not the required 30 stubs. In fact, there are five, four of which are geo-stubs and therefore should, if anything, be marked with houston-geo-stub (if US geo-stubs were split that way rather than by county). Created with no proposal last week. Either populate - properly - or delete. Grutness... wha? 06:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Not enough appropriate articles for use. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:24, 15 November 2006

(UTC)

• Keep - >30 articles. Postoak 01:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep — RJN 04:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep. Not the axis we'd split on, it's true, but we have a history of humouring wikiprojects, and unless we're actually going to create {{ Houston-geo-stub}}, those are logically "upmerged" here (though they'll have to be double-stubbed with {{ Texas-geo-stub}}, of course). (Though arguably we might revise this in the light of the WPJ free-fire-zone that is the "Stub-Class article" talk-page category tree.) Alai 09:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I see more than 30 articles with this stub, and it serves a useful purpose. Mike Richardson 05:57, 20 November 2006 (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

No dedicated category, no stubs, and a naming format that would offend Jupiter himself. Plus no indication whether this is for mythologicalk creatures (which would use Ancient-Roman-myth-stub) or for real creatures (Incitatus, anyone?). Delete. Grutness... wha? 06:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete - As per nom. I doubt there would ever be much usage of this template. Spawn Man 09:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Per nom and above comments. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Smite with a lightning bolt. Alai 19:36, 16 November 2006 (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

A weird one, this one - possibly a viable split if done properly, but this category has been added to articles by hand (i.e., there is no template). If it looks like a viable stub type, then creation of the template is possible. if not, delete. Grutness... wha? 06:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Withdrawing, but it would be great if stub templates were actually shown in stub categories! Given that population of this seems likely, it seems a keeper. Grutness... wha? 21:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Entschuldigen Sie, mein Herr? The category didn't show any template but that's simply because it used incorrect code (I've fixed it). If you select one of the articles listed and click "edit this page" a template turns up alright. Think out of the box :) Oh yeah, Delete unless it gets a reasonable population. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

This seems to be one of the more coherently defined film-bio subcat possibilities (too many of the others are "multi-classed" writers/directors/producers), I'd be inclined to say keep pro temps and monitor. Come to that, populate: doing a permcar search, there seems to be 33 possibilities in the film-bios, and 37 in the US-film-bios, not even counting the other national subtypes. Alai 19:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Alai, and I'll populate. Cheers, Her Pegship 20:57, 16 November 2006 (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

This... is a really bizarre one. I wasn't sure whether to bring it here or to WP:MFD, since it's a WikiProject's subpage... but it's being used as a stub template! What's more, it's been created by someone who read one tiny part of WP:STUB and ignored the rest. If it wasn't so sad it'd be hilarous... it uses the hypothetical example shown on WP:STUB, and, as such, puts the articles which use this template into the non-existent Cat:B stubs. Silver Dollar City would never have near enough stub articles to warrant its own stub type anyway - there is no permcat, to start with, and appears to have at most some half a dozen articles in total. In any case this thing needs to be put out of its misery. Grutness... wha? 06:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete, at either venue or none. Alai 19:37, 16 November 2006 (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

"Noun phrase" convention, and consistency with descendents/siblings. Alai 19:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. Her Pegship 06:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom. Grutness... wha? 06:39, 23 November 2006 (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 no consensus

"Compu" is most prevelant, and is currently the recommended name for computer related stubs. {{ Compu-sci-stub}} aparently already has a redirect to {{ Comp-sci-stub}}, which seems backwards. -- Ohms law 16:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose compu-sci. CompSci is definitely the generally accepted short form of Computer Science. I'm not sure about the comp-eng one. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I agree, but the problem that I see is that all of the other templates are Compu-. see: Cat:Computer stubs for a list. If I had my way, eevry template would be Comp- rather than Compu-, but Compu- seems to be the predominate form so I'd think we would want to be consistant. -- Ohms law 17:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• There's obviously a certain tension here between the competing conventions. On balance, I'd suggest: move comp-eng- per nom, keeping new redirect (i.e., the old name); don't move comp-sci, keep existing redirect. Alai 19:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Shouldn't the redirect be reversed for {{ Comp-sci-stub}}? Is consistancy with other names more important, or is individual names more important? If someone does put in {{ Comp-sci-stub}} and sees that it is redirected to {{ Compu-sci-stub}}, that will instantly show them that all the computer stubs are names Compu-whatever-stub, which seems logical to me. -- Ohms law 15:09, 17 November 2006 (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

SPUI-like redirect from caps (created by FoN with characteristically friendly edit summary). I continue to think these create far more grief than they're ever likely to mitigate. Alai 12:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

delete (speedily if possible) as per precedent. Grutness... wha? 22:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

BTW, I hate to do this, but... [1] and... [2]. Sigh. Grutness... wha? 22:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 15:51, 26 November 2006 (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

Stub category created out of process for Venet... erm, that is, Venetian painters. Contains two stubs. Note that painters, as with 99% of other bio-stubs, are split by current-day countries, and since Cat:Italian painter stubs has under 120 stubs, it is hardly in need of splitting (although it is possible there is some undersorting there). This simply isn't useful , and just to rub salt in, Venet is a disambiguation page which gives as its main definitions pre-mediaeval peoples from various different parts of Europe. Note too that there is no permcat for Cat:Venet painters, nor, indeed, is there one for Cat:Venet, and the permcat for Cat:Venetian painters contains only some 20 items. Delete. Grutness... wha? 04:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 11:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Worse, it's a redirect to a disambig. Clear as mud as to what's intended is Venetian, Venetan, and by what definition, period, etc. And not needed. Delete. Alai 12:24, 20 November 2006 (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

Bringing it in line with naming conventions. (Brought me quite a surprise when trying to sort...) Crystallina 02:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. I take it it's big enough to survive with no fuss? Grutness... wha? 06:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Pretty sure it is. Canadian people stubs aren't fully sorted yet and it only has 15 or so to go. Crystallina 14:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom. Let's give it a chance to grow. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 08:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support, speedy if possible. Alai 11:16, 23 November 2006 (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 all, create Munich-stub

• {{ Munich-company-stub}} / Cat:Munich company stubs
• {{ Munich-hist-stub}} / Cat:Munich history stubs
• {{ Munich-bio-stub}} / Cat:Munich people stubs
• {{ Munich-footy-bio-stub}} / Cat:Munich football biography stubs
• {{ Munich-politician-stub}} / Cat:Munich politician stubs
• {{ Munich-university-stub}} / Cat:Munich university stubs
• {{ Munich-geo-stub}} / Cat:Munich geography stubs
• {{ Munich-struct-stub}} / Cat:Munich building and structure stubs

Relevant discussions:

• on Discoveries
• on user Nishkid64's talk page
• on WPSS talk page
• on user Kingjeff's talk page (also read the sections below in the link I provided)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Munich has been notified. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep - These are related to WikiProject Munich and are very relevent to Wikipedia's resources on Munich. I honestly don't care if anyone outside the project uses them. These templates do help WikiProject Munich. Kingjeff 16:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete of the people types: footballers and politicians "born in Munich" are not suitable scopes, being entirely unrelated to their primary notability. (As Grutness would say, "people move around too much".) People notable primarily in Munich politics, specifically, would be OK as a scope, but is almost certainly too narrow. If WPJM wants to keep track of everyone born in München, then that's lovely for them, but keep it to talk-page templates, please (as I already told the creator, to no avail). Delete or upmerge anything else that's undersized. Create a top-level {{ Munich-stub}} / Cat:Munich stubs, which is the logical place to start. Alai 16:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Oh, I forgot to mention in my intro that I am in favor of creating the {{ Munich-stub}} + cat, as Alai just mentioned. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: The relevent policy here is Ignore all rules policy. Wikipedia:WikiProject says, A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia. If any project was expected to follow every single little rule, then how would any project expect to succeed? The point is the stub templates and categories may be unconventional according to Wikipedia policy and guideline, but it serves the purpose of Wikipedia's goal of creating creating a free encyclopedia. Kingjeff 17:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This is exactly why many people think IAR is a silly "policy", since its effect is to negate all the others, given any person's view on what's "required" to serve WP's quality. (Of course in practice, some people are more effectively able to ignore the rules than others, another thing that's problematic about it.) I happen to think the stub guidelines make perfect sense in this case, and that a single person (let's be quite clear about this) creating multiple stub templates with tiny and inappropriate scopes is in fact counterproductive to said goal, for all the reasons normally rehearsed on such occasions. (Proliferation of numbers of stub types to maintain; tag and category clutter on each article; loss of "critical mass" in each stub type, potentially making them less likely to be expanded by people randomly happening across them.) Alai 17:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply

That's not a "silly" policy at all. The purpose of that policy is to avoid hindering Wikipedia's progress. It helps avoid members like yourself to game the system. Kingjeff 19:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I see my earlier suggestion to review WP:CIVIL was to little effect. (Or perhaps you're covering that with IAR, too.) You might want to consider WP:AGF, too. In what way am I "gaming the system"? I'm advocating following the stub guidelines because I think they are sensible, and because your stub types are not, for the reasons I've outlined. If you think I'm doing so because of some prior anti-Munich, anti-Wikiproject, or anti-yourself agenda, you're quite mistaken. IAR is indeed a silly "policy", since it's a) self-contradictory, and b) allows users like you to supposedly justify whatever actions pop into their heads, absent of any actual evidence that they're necessary to "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". Alai 21:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply

IAR is a perfectly senible policy - as long as the person ignoring the rules has read exactly what that page and the pnes linking from it have to say. You can Ignore all rules if you like, as long as you Wikipedia:Use common sense and aren't being a dick. Ignoring all rules for the benefit of Wikipedia is actually a good thing. But cases like this, where rules are being ignored and the result is disruption, fall foul of those other pages. Grutness... wha? 04:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply

But if one is already IARing, one can logically speaking "ignore" those rules too (even if they were of any objective use in the first place, which frankly they're not, but that's another day's work). Actually ignoring all rules for the objective benefit of Wikipedia would be a good thing, but having a "rule" to ignore all rules is entirely nonsensical, and only workable if either, there's general agreement as to what's "to the benefit of Wikipedia" in a particular instance (and IAR has been repeatedly reworded to indicate that's not the "official" interpretation, and currently makes no mention of consensus at all); or if there's an implicit pecking order as to who gets to determine the beneficence of a particular action (experience tells me this is the way it works in practice, and insofar as there's any real thought behind it at all, the way it's intended to work, especially given the route by which it became a "rule"). Alai 11:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete the people types as per Alai. Delete the -geo since the scope is clearly too narrow. Keep the U-Bahn template (not listed here, but just to get the full picture). Delete or upmerge the rest. Support a generic {{ Munich-stub}} (no skin off my nose if people prefer the name {{ München-stub}} for that matter.) Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment: Let me make some points on why to keep these templates.

1. These templates were well thought of. I could have had more then twice as many for WikiProject Munich.
2. Hopefully, by the time WikiProject is finished, there will be no Munich-related stubs. So, hopefully, these stub templates are temporary.
3. I didn't create them for everyone outside WikiProject Munich. Like I said in my previous point, I hope there will eventually be no Munich-related stubs. The whole point of this project is to cover the creation and editing of articles related to the City of Munich, its buroughs, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on. With good editing, like I said before, eventually will be no Munich-related stubs. So these templates will be no good after the project is done.
4. In a WikiProject like this, topics can be broad. Users in Wikipedia have different interests and will be interested in different areas about Munich. Kingjeff 23:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment "I didn't create them for everyone outside WikiProject Munich." By creating stub templates you are involving WikiProject Stub sorting. If you want to organize the articles that relate to Munich purely for the benefit of WikiProject Munich, there are other and indeed better ways of doing so that using stub notices. By creating stubs you are asking others outside your project to help that project. It just simply is not feasible for those involved in stub sorting to deal with tens of thousands of micro stub types, so that is why the guidelines call for minimum sizes. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete of the footy-bio and bio stubs, delete of the politician stub, and an upmerge of the others into a new {{ Munich-stub}}. Let me counter some points brought up above:

1. These templates were badly thought up and never proposed - no wikiproject of the size of this one needs more than one stub template - far larger wikiprojects all manage with three or fewer, and a new project like this one is making far more work for itself and everyone else by creating such a plethora of stub types. Long experience shows that too small a stub category will discourage rather than encourage editors, and that is exactly what is being done here.
2. Stub templates are never temporary - Wikipedia is growing exponentially, and I don't recall any stub template ever being retired unless it has been superseded by two or more subtypes.
3. No stub templates are WP:OWNed by any wikiproject. once they are created they are open for use by everyone, so keeping them in line with other stub templates helps the entire project.
4. In a WikiProject like this, topics can be broad. As such, it makes no sense to pigeo-hole a small number of stubs into such narrowly defined stub types when an overall Munich-stub is a more logical measure.

Grutness... wha? 04:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I totally disagree. They were well though out. If they were badly thought out then there would be more then double here. Kingjeff 04:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It is, of course, your prerogative to disagree, but I put it to you that if they had been well thought out, we wouldn't be discussing this on a deletion process page. Grutness... wha? 04:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Delete listed stub templates and categories and create {{ Munich-stub}}. As I might be away when that happens would someone remember to make Category:Munich U-Bahn stubs a subcategory of whichever Munich category will be created. Agathoclea 15:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Kingjeff, if the only point of this template would be aiding the WikiProject Munich, I'd suggest adding parameters, which allow you to sort articles as you want to, to the project banner.-- Carabinieri 00:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all of these stub types and create {{ Munich-stub}} in their place. The only one that comes close to have enough stubs to survive on its own is the footy-bio, and that's only because it includes a number of people that under the usual stub sorting rules would not be assigned Germany-footy-bio-stub, let alone Munich-footy-bio-stub under the usual rules of deciding where to place biography stubs geographically. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong Delete too regional, and they define which articles is related to Munich is no sense. Matthew _hk t c 15:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WPSS policy and Matthewhk. Her Pegship 05:15, 28 November 2006 (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 move/rename

To follow the permcat. Move template, keeping redirect, and rename category. Alai 03:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Sure, why not. Neater as joinrery is used for all kinds of woodworking stubs. Luigizanasi 05:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Actually there is a Cat:Joinery, but given that the Wikiproject is named Woodworking and the small size of the category, the rename makes sense. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• As long as we keep the redirect, I think this should be fine. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 13:56, 29 November 2006 (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

Basically, this is a copy of TRNC-stub, which was proposed and rejected in September (debate here. We do not split stub types by countries/regions that are disputed to the point of being only internationally recognised by one or two countries, for reasons of POV and potential accusations of bias. As such, similar stub types have been deleted in the past for places such as Transnistria and Kurdistan. To make matters worse, the stub template is very poorly named as regards stub naming guidelines, so even if it were to be kept it would need to be renamed. If that wasn't enough, this contains five stubs, of which four are actually cyprus-geo-stubs (Cyprus-X-stubs referring as they do to the entire island), so shouldn't be in a non geo-stub category anyway. Delete Grutness... wha? 23:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Actually, 've just nopted that the earlier debate took place after the creation of TRNC-stub, which was then deleted. As such, this can be speedily deleted as a re-creation. Grutness... wha? 23:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 15:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete, and make crystal-clear that {{ Cyprus-stub}} is pan-island in scope. Alai 18:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment, I am the creator of this template. At the date of creation, I was no aware of first template TRNC-stub and deletion process. I didnt aimed to create a new edit-rv war or any new dispute in wiki. Since there is a country-TRNC- (recognized or unrecognized no matter) and many stub articles related with this country, I wanted to collect these stubs in one category. Now, I am not insist to keep this template if community wiev is delete. Regards. Must ^TC 08:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

An alternative method you could use (one used by some smaller wikiprojects) is to keep a subpage of your user page with a list of articles on it. Given the number of stub articles on TRNC that might actually be more useful to you, since you could note what is needed for each article on it as well. Grutness... wha? 23:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Or, use a talk-page template of some kind. Conventionally, these are per-wikiproject, but at any rate there's less concern about multiply-tagging than there is in the article per se. Alai 23:36, 29 November 2006 (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 rename

Simple rename to match the usual capitalization rules and its non-stub parent Cat:Sport wrestlers. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• I'm going to speedy this, once the ludicrously-oversized job queue (WTH?) catches up with the recat edit. Alai 18:02, 27 November 2006 (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

Bewilderingly titled stub template for... guess. No? This Red Bull Air Race World Series related article is a stub.. No category (it feeds directly into Cat:Stubs. No articles, either. Mind you, when you consider that Cat:Red Bull Air Race World Series and its one subcat between them have only five articles (and four of them are biographies), and only two of them could be accurately dewscribed as stubs, it's not really suprising. Delete! Grutness... wha? 04:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. MER-C 06:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge to {{ air-sports-stub}} and delete the existing template. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Sorry, unaware of another stub category. But please keep. I am making a category for it now.-- Hamedog _Talk| ^@ 08:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If it were to be kept it would have to be renamed (have a look at the naming guidelines for stub templates. Also the threshold for a stub category is 60 articles - are there 60 articles on this subject? (a clue - there are only five articles on it in total, stub or otherwise, and even if you created separate articles for every pilot who has ever competed in this event, and separate articles for every year it has been competed, your woul have fewer than 20 articles). And as for creating the category... Grutness... wha? 11:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I've added the category mentioned above. No parent listed, stub or otherwise, only one stub article and that's a bio-stub. The creation of the category simply doubles the number of recommended deletions. Grutness... wha? 12:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, nothing at all wrong with using Cat:racing sports stubs and Cat:air sports stubs. Alai 17:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Actually, it was used on one article. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. -- Bob 16:30, 30 November 2006 (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 no consensus

From WP:WSS/D. Too small and improper axis. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose This is meant as a tool for the WikiProject Mexican-Americans. -- evrik ^{( talk)} 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Didn't we delete this before in some form? Strong delete per well-rehearsed arguments; race is not primary notability, and nownot how people should be 'sorted'. If wikiprojects happen to need "other axis" means to track 'their' articles, talk-page templates and categories should be used instead, or plain-old project-space lists. Alai 23:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This has never been deleted before. For those of us who don't visit this page too often, could you please show where these statements are actually wikipedia policy?
    • race is not primary notability and [not] how people should be 'sorted'
    • If wikiprojects happen to need "other axis" means to track 'their' articles, talk-page templates and categories should be used instead

Thanks -- evrik ^{( talk)} 01:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• • • I hope you don't mind settling for guidelines and actual practice. I think it's pretty evident that race isn't primary notability: you won't find a guideline stating that people are notable just for having a particular ethnicity, but rather for their being notable as musicians, politicians, etc, and that "just happens" to also be how they're sorted at present. That stub types should follow primary notability follows from WP:STUB#New_stub_categories, in particular the "Would your new category overlap with other categories?" point. The use of talk page templates as an alternative is just a helpful (one can only hope) suggestion: you're not required to do so (just so long as you don't use a stub type). But see Cat:Stub-Class articles for precedent (you'll notice these are organised by specifically by wikiproject). Alai 17:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• I did manage to bring up a previous SFD discussion from January. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 01:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This fits in with the recommedation that the name be shortened, and here are more than 50 articles in th category. As for the last discussion (which i appreciate you finding) there ws only one person that voiced an opinion. -- evrik ^{( talk)} 02:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks, Amalas, that was the one I was thinking of. evrik, I think that one the contrary, the opinions of two people are pretty clear, given the detailed exposition of the nominator. Alai 17:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I think the relevant guideline here is Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, which permits such categories as long as the placement of people in them is NPOV and verifiable. Not sure, however, whether having such a stub category is a good idea (since stubs are often very weak on both WP:V and WP:NPOV). -- Visviva 01:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I've no objection to there being such (permanent) categories: categories can happily be about matters of secondary significance (or tertiary, or indeed about dodecary significance...). But not stub types, since we don't want to have an arbitrarily large number of stub tags per article, and nor do we want stubs to be "apparently sorted" if they're tagged only by ethnic group. (We subdivide people on nationality largely as a matter of practicality, on the basis that USians are more likely to be familiar with their own Z-list celebs than those of the UK, etc, but I don't think the argument fruitfully extends to ethnicity.) Alai 12:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• This is a stub, used by a wikiproject that focuses on a specific ethnic group. What is the problem with the stub being used for articls being tended by that wikiProject? -- evrik ^{( talk)} 03:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Very strong keep. Members of my project team, WikiProject Mexican-Americans use this page. If you are going to delete this stub then I suggest that one of you nominate the following for deletion as well: Ethnicity stubs, Ethnic group stubs, Ethnic group in Africa stubs, Ethnic group in Asia stubs, Indigenous peoples of Australia stubs, Indigenous peoples of North America stubs, Māori stubs, Pakistani ethnicity stubs, Roma stubs, and African American stubs. This list is by no means complete because I got tired. Regarding Alai's argument that USians are more likely to be familar with their own Z-list celebs but that the argument does not extend to ethnicity, lets use the Roma peoples (Gypsies) from the stub list above to illustrate my point. Here goes: Alai, please name 10 notable Gypsies in 60 seconds or less. If you can do it, you are probably a gypsy. Now let's go down the list with each ethnic group, finally reaching Mexican-American. Now, please name 10 notable Mexican-Americans in 60 seconds or less. I can do it with 25 seconds to spare. I am Mexican-American. Like Evik, I don't understand what the problem is. Just because this stub is not useful to any of you doesn't mean you have to delete it. Chicaneo 05:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Did you bother to look at most of those categories? Those are for ethnic groups, not people by ethnicity. Cat:African American stubs only exists because when we did SFD it, the majority to delete it was evidently insufficient (just as evidently most of WSS look to be giving up the ghost on this one). (That it's tagged with the WPSS-cat and listed on /ST is simply mistaken.) People are not notable for their race, and this is the only-moderately-thin end of a very thick wedge. (Doubtless we'll shortly be seeing all if the multiply-hyphenated-American-stubs in due course.) If Wikiprojects want to introduce arbitrary cross-categorisations like this, then fine, just don't do it unde the aegis of "stub sorting", which it quite blatantly is not. The key word in what I said was "fruitfully": the existence of some editors focused on a particular ethnicity does not supercede people's actual notability, and throwing in a stub tag for every possible axis of classification just leads to template- and category-clutter. Ah well, there's always (non-)deletion review... Alai 05:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Mexican-Americans are an ethnic group. One of the largest in the United States. The ethnicity and race of people is important. If what you have a problem with is the name, then I would support a move from {{ Chicano-stub}} to {{ Mexican-American stub}}. -- evrik ^{( talk)} 14:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Your use of the term "race" indicates to me that you do not understand that Mexican-Americans are of the White race, that Mexican-American is a type of Hispanic person, and Chicano is a sub-class of Mexican-Americans. These are all "ethnic" distinctions, not "race" distinctions. It seems to me that you are part of the systemic bias that Wikipedia is trying to eliminate. I'm really glad there is always non-delition review. 70.120.70.30 15:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC) aka Chicaneo - I forgot to log in. reply
    • Look at the stub categories that, well, I already suggested you look at. {{ ethno-group-stub}} tags articles such as Chagharzai that are about an ethnic group, not as a means of tagging people by ethnic group. I do realize Mexican-Americans are an ethnic group; have I not been sufficiently clear that's why this should be deleted? I have a problem with the "-stub" part of the name, as this scope is entirely inappropriate as a stub type, for the reasons already expounded at some length. If you want a {{ Chicano-bio}} talk-page template so as to be better able to track people by their ethnicity, irrespective of what they do for a living or are otherwise notable for, it's fine by me.
    • Chicaneo, your use of miscelleanous cobbled-together accusations indicates to me you've no interest in a discussion of whether this stub type conforms with stub-sorting custom and practice, and are just indulging in the time-dishonoured tactic of the "POV keep vote", with volleys of covering fire. What on earth is the "systematic bias" issue here? Wikipedia doesn't have enough articles on US businesspeople, actors and politicians (of any and all ethnicities), as against the rest of the world? You're correct however, the term "race" is not particularly accurate or useful, but that criticism is a little ironic, given we're discussion a stub-type that's applied to organisations with titles like Católicos por La Raza. Methinks linguistic imprecision isn't confined to . Then again, "white race" is not particularly useful or accurate either (in this discussion or in general), or come to that the term "race" at all. I should more precisely said "ethnicity" -- to exactly the same effect otherwise. Alai 05:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment Alai, while I share your concerns that this stub may be applied too broadly, the fact is that ethnicity is a significant factor in American culture, and there are people, organizations, and events whose primary notability come from that fact. Since you seem to feel that ethnicity is something we shouldn't be using for stub types, shall we do away with the Scottish and Welsh stub types, or do you have a geocentric bias when it comes to recognizing ethnicity as a factor in stubbing? OTOH, your concerns are not entirely without merit. Might it be possible that a {{ Chicano-activism-stub}} would satisfy the needs of the wikiproject or is its mandate broader than just the people, events, and organizations associated with Chicano civil rights? Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If there were any attempt whatsoever to scope and apply this only to people notable primarily in connection with their notability (civil rights activism, artists and musicians known in relation to Chicano culture, etc), it might indeed be defensible in that basis. That it's scoped to include "any Mexican-American whatsoever", applied in that manner, and bald-facedly defended as such makes it fairly clear that it in fact is not. Mexican-American content of first article in this category, quoted in full: "Garcia is of Mexican descent." I see not so much as a hint that intention was ever anything to do with primary notability, much less being confined to same. So far as I know, we're not tagging people with {{ Scotland-bio-stub}} and {{ Wales-bio-stub}} on the basis of those being "ethnic groups"; those 'nationalities' are admittedly a little fuzzier than those with actual citizenship, but along with other sub-sovereign-state-bio-types like {{ HongKong-bio-stub}} (which is somewhat formally better defined in some respects) is at least "citizenship-like" enough to pass the 'own national football team' test. (Perhaps I have a pro-Hong-Kong geographic bias too, though, despite Instantnood's attempts to condition me otherwise?) At any rate, you can hardly quibble with the scoping rationale for {{ MSP-stub}} or {{ Scotland-royal-stub}}, I'd think. (Mind you, the latter is undersized, and was it ever proposed?) Alai 05:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Alai, Caerwine is correct ethnicity is a significant factor in American culture. I'm glad you recognize that the term "Chicano" is an ethnic group. Regarding your claim that I have no interest in a discussion of whether this stub type conforms with stub-sorting custom and practice, I have not discussed this because I have no solutions. You have lots of objections, and can see that people are arguing against the deletion of this stub, but you have not offered any solutions. Since you seem to be the sub expert with specialities in sorting, typing, and conformity, then offer a solution here. Critizing without offering a solution is non-productive. You argue that I am indulging "POV keep vote" tactics, you argue that there aren't enough articles on political people of any ethnic group, you critize that the use of titles like Católicos por La Raza are a part of the stub, but fail to realize that Catolocios por La Raza is a political association founded to address the concerns of the Chicano community. Do you approve of policicians sorted by ethnicity but not political organizations sorted as such? You tell me that I am using "miscelleanous cobbled-together accusations", but it is you who are using miscellaneous, cobbled-together arguments and criticims. If you can not offer your expert advice and an expert solution, then go ahead and delete it. We will find a way to either get it back or get a similar replacement. Si se puede! Never mind, I see that you did offer a solution. Sorry. Chicaneo 13:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • My points about Catolocios por La Raza was simply that it illustrates the popularity of describing Mexican-Americans as a "race", despite the admitted problematic nature of doing so. (I shall go write 'ethnic group' 100 times.) I have no objection to a stub type being scoped in the way CW suggests (people and things 'notable in connection with Mexican-American culture, activism, etc'), which would obviously include just such articles. No failure of realization involved. Rather, what I object to is "sorting by ethnicity", for people who are notable for something else entirely, and "just happen" to be Chicano, such as the aforementioned Aimee Garcia. My 'POV keep' comment was probably not the most helpful, sorry, but arises from frustration with the tenor of this discussion. And on a side-note, am I missing some reason this is being used to tag Filipinos with no stated Mexican connection? ( Philip Vera Cruz) Alai 21:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• This will be my last post here, but I will come back to view your comments, if you have any. You may have the last word. First, regarding Catolocios por La Raza, The phrase La Raza does not translate "race" it is another way of saying "la gente" and "el pueblo" which translate to English as -> "the people". See also http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_701707079/La_Raza.html and http://www.answers.com/topic/la-raza and http://www.thefreedictionary.com/La+Raza. The single word "raza" does translate to the english word "race" but that is not the reference here. Regarding Aimee Garcia, popular actresses and actors who are Chicano, Mexican-American have never had starring roles in popular sitcoms on American TV prior to The George Lopez Show. Also, there have only been two sitcoms in the history of popular American TV that have depicted the life of Mexican Americans. The first one was in the '70 with an actor who took the stage name Freddie Prince and who starred in a sitcom named Chico and the Man, Freddie's co-star was of Russian/Polish descent and did not play a Mexican-American role. The star Freddie was not even Mexican American, although he played one, he was of Puerto Rican/German descent. The second sitcom occurred approx 20 years later. That sitcom was The George Lopez Show and actually had Mexican American Actors as the stars. There was one other show in the '50 that some mistakenly believe to be about Mexican Americans, named I Love Lucy. That one starred Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz. Desie, who was Cuban-American, played a Cuban-American on the show. So the reason Aimee Garcia is there is because she is part of Mexican-American history in the making. Regarding Philip Vera Cruz, he founded the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee, which later merged with the National Farm Workers Association to become United Farm Workers. United Farm Workers was co-founded by Cesar Chavez among others. Chavez is considered to be among the greatest civil rights leaders in American history along with Martin Luther King, Jr. (who fought for Black American civil rights) and other people. United Farm Workers, comprised other ethnic groups but mainly was made up of Mexican-American farm workers and was the first influencial minority labor union in US history. Vera Cruz is listed not because he is mistakenly believed to be Mexican-American, but because he was a major player in the history of the Mexican-American civil rights movement. For more information about the history of Mexican-Americans please see History of Mexican-Americans. As another person pointed out in a previous post, ethnicity is very important in American society. Thanks for "listening" to this very long post, Chicaneo 13:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

It's been awhile and it seems that this hasn't been sorted out yet. Here's what I see:

• Delete
  • Amalas (as nominator), per size & improper axis
  • Alai, per race not being primary notability
• Keep
  • Evrik, per WikiProject, also supports rename to {{ Mexican-American-stub}}
  • Chicaneo, per WikiProject
• Other
  • Visivia, neutral, but questions race/ethnicity being used in stubs ( WP:NPOV, WP:V)
  • Caerwhine, rename to {{ Chicano-activism-stub}}

So, basically, opinions are all over the place. Based on this, my personal suggestion would be to go with a WikiProject talk page template to track these stubs and other articles related to the project. That would allow for easy tracking for the WikiProject as well as keep POV out of stub categories. If there are any more opinions, please let me know. Thanks. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:49, 11 December 2006 (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. Waaaay too small. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 21:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete - you gotta be kidding me. - Patstuart ^{talk| edits} 13:57, 6 December 2006 (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 Armenia, Korea; upmerge Croatia, Serbia

From WP:WSS/D.

• {{ Croatia-hist-stub}} / Cat:Croatian history stubs
• {{ Serbia-hist-stub}} / Cat:Serbian history stubs
• {{ Armenia-hist-stub}} / Cat:Armenian history stubs
• {{ Korea-hist-stub}} / Cat:Korean history stubs

I recommend either deleting all or upmerging templates. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge Croatia, Serbia, and Korea, keeping the templates. Keep Armenia, as at 53 article while it's a bit light, it's not so light that I would have brought it to SFD. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I would have to agree with you about Armenia, but I thought I'd just keep all the -hist stubs from /D together. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• What Caerwine said. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Per CW. Alai 23:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Armenia and Korea, the latter currently has 67 articles -- an anon has been busy populating it -- and could easily have 600. Also has potential for synergy with the newly-formed Korean history working group. Weak delete for the others, which do not seem to have been so lucky. -- Visviva 01:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Korea now, given that it's been populated up to over 100 articles now. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Definitely keep Korea per Visviva. Armenia should be kept as well, and Crotia and Serbia should be upmerged.-- _MerkurIX ^{(이야기하세요!)} _(투고) 07:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Definitely Keep all - they're very useful, IMHO, even as a category. Even the Croatia-hist stub has about 70-something uses. how is that not helpful? - Patstuart ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Most of the recent additions were either not stubs or miscategorized biography stubs. Biographies never get a history stub for being biogries of historical people. After resorting the category, the 71 stubs are now back down to 33 stubs, too small for a category of its own. The template should be kept, and if someday it has 60 or more stubs associated with it that actually should have it, then and only then should it have a category of its own. Caerwine Caer’s whines 09:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    • OK, I guess that's livable. We keep the stub template, but merge it into Category:History of Croatia. That's quite livable, I'll strike my vote. The other ones are more notable, you guys should know what to do with them. - Patstuart ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply
      • No, it would actually be upmerged into Cat:Croatia stubs, which is the next higher level stub cat. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep all <country>-history stub-types. As time goes by, the history of every country grows. There will be more topics to write about. No point deleting and re-creating the history stub-type as Wikipedia's coverage grows. Someone may want to contact the specific country's portal/wikiproject to find out why the stub-type is under-used. A lack of personnel maybe ? Then, we should be giving them a hand rather than removing a useful tool. -- PFHLai 07:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep agree with User:PFHLai -- AW 21:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• RECAP:

1. Keep {{ Armenia-hist-stub}} / Cat:Armenian history stubs
2. Keep {{ Korea-hist-stub}} / Cat:Korean history stubs
3. Keep {{ Croatia-hist-stub}} and recat to Cat:Croatia stubs
4. Delete Cat:Croatian history stubs
5. Keep {{ Serbia-hist-stub}} and recat to Cat:Serbia stubs
6. Delete Cat:Serbian history stubs

If there are no objections to this, I will close this later today. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Serbia and Croatia are now double-catted with the listed above as well as Cat:European history stubs. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:38, 6 December 2006 (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 no consensus re:deletion, rename template

From WP:WSS/D. Not really the axis we want to split on, methinks. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

1. True, this axis is orthogonal to the type-of-software axis, but it's parallel to the existing ecosystem/platform axis, in that free software constitutes a cohesive ecosystem and platform distinct from the proprietary platforms.
2. Potential for wide breakout, with later subsplit into Linux, KDE, LAMP, etc.
3. Identification of expertise; a lot of contributors would rather (and are better placed to) contribute to articles on free software programs (etc.) than proprietary articles.

For the above, Keep. EdC 23:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• As for #2, there already is a {{ Linux-stub}}, {{ KDE-stub}}, and even a {{ GNOME-stub}}. However, these all fit nicely into say, Cat:Operating system stubs or Cat:Software stubs, based on functionality. We don't really need to add another layer declaring whether or not something is free. A computer expert is going to be more likely to be an expert in one type of software (graphics software, database software, etc) rather than in all types of free software. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 23:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Besides the axis concern, there's the size concern. There are less than 30 stubs despite having been around for over 8 months. As for EdC's point #3, I'd say that would apply more to a potential Cat:Open source software stubs than this one. While there is considerable overlap between free and open source, they ain't the same and I doubt the existence of much available expertise on non-open source but free software. Still would be the size problem tho. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • There is no closed source software that is also free, as "free" licenses require that the source be available. There are, however, non-free open source programs. function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage): Void 06:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
    • So, what is the difference between Windows and Linux. If free source, we can use the free source tag. If other difference, we can use the tag with other meaning . But there is a big difference between this operating systems. -- Mac 07:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage): Void 20:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Any news on this one? I see 1 keep and 1 delete other than me, so I'd like to get some more opinions on this. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• On size, I'm certain this is readily populable, based on number-crunching I did a while ago, and besides which, it has three sensible subcats (plus Cat:Linux distribution stubs -- huh?). On axis, I tend to agree it's indeed not ideal. Perhaps we should slightly rescope this to be "software for free (and/or open) platforms" (given that there's commercial software for free platforms, and indeed free software for commercial platforms). On the whole, put me down as a fence-sitter. Alai 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I could see a cat named Cat:Free or open source software stubs, but what about the template? Keep as {{ free-software-stub}}? ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC) (oh, and by keep, I mean rename to remove spaces) ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I wasn't suggesting that would necessarily be the name of the category, I was just hedging my bets given the earlier discussion (the distinctionsseems to be minimal in practice). I've no objection to a de-spaced version of the current template. Alai 17:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Due to no major objections to deletion, I think I will just list this (after renaming to remove spaces, of course). ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
        • I'm not sure it's necessary to list every type that we 'fail to delete'. At the risk of possible "process-churning", we might want to consider (re-)listing no consensus SFDs at /D. (Then again, as nominator, that's partly in your own hands.) Alai 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• (outdent)*sigh* I can see what you're saying, but the whole point of all these SFDs was to clear out /D. I think a lot of these are going to end up with "no consensus" and I'm just not sure where to go from there. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not suggest in every case, just where the discussion has a rather murky conclusion where further discussion may seem likely to be of use. But at any rate, I think it's not a good idea to list everything on the basis of there not being a consensus to delete it, rather than there having been a consensus to create it in the first instance. Alai 18:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Ah, I see what you are saying now. That makes sense. I'll just close this and keep the listing on /D (no need to re-list because it's already there). Thanks! ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:04, 7 December 2006 (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

Need I say more? Okay, I will. Used on two of the (seemingly) only four articles on Teletubbies on wikipedia. There is no Cat:Teletubbies, but that's presumably okay because this stub template doesn't have a dedicated category either - it's got no category at all in fact. Not to mention the space-ridden name. Never prposed, funnily enough. if it had been, I don't think we'd have had such a template. Delete. Grutness... wha? 01:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. MER-C 12:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 23:48, 29 November 2006 (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

Consistent with naming guidelines. The rest of the cats in the parent are in the format "Xian history stubs" - crz crztalk 23:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename per nom. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename per nom. Alai 03:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom.__ Seadog ^♪ 19:53, 2 December 2006 (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

See the related proposal. These 2 cats are too small and their templates will be upmerged.

• Cat:Northern Irish football club stubs
• Cat:Welsh football club stubs

~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:34, 30 November 2006 (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 no consensus

From WP:WSS/D. I'm not sure if this is the right way to go. The articles should probably be resorted into things like {{ US-business-bio-stub}} or {{ software-stub}} or whatever. (As a side note, the category creator's user page is full-protected, so I was unable to notify) ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete__ Seadog ^♪ 19:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Just noticed that we also have {{ Windows-stub}} and Cat:Microsoft Windows stubs around. Anybody remember if they were proposed? Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, back when the template/cat was created, I don't think it was proposed, but there was a semi-approval for it in August 2006. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep; no good reason has been given to delete this stub. Neither {{ US-business-bio-stub}} nor {{ software-stub}} are appropriate destinations. We have some 70-odd articles tagged with this stub (somewhat up from the 20 claimed at WP:WSS/D), and it's actually extremely helpful for editors looking for work to have these things grouped together. We have several hundred articles covering Microsoft's products and technologies, a Wikiproject, 5 FAs, 4 GAs, and quite a number of regular contributors. Removing a useful method of keeping organised would be rather offensive. -/- Warren 19:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Any more opinions on this? I think I'm going to keep both this and Windows stub, so unless I hear otherwise, I will list them on WP:STUBS later today. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:56, 7 December 2006 (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 exoplanet, keep venus template & upmerge? to astrogeology, delete all other cats

• {{ exoplanet-stub}} / Cat:Exoplanet stubs
  • 50 articles, no known associated WP
  • Rename to {{ extrasolar-planet-stub}} / Cat:Extrasolar planet stubs

• {{ Venus-stub}} / Cat:Venus stubs
  • 12 articles, no known associated WP
  • Delete

• Cat:Planet stubs, Cat:Dwarf planet stubs, Cat:Giant planet stubs, Cat:Terrestrial planet stubs, Cat:Jupiter stubs, Cat:Mercury stubs, Cat:Neptune stubs, Cat:Saturn stubs, Cat:Uranus stubs
  • No articles, no associated templates
  • Probably a speedy delete for being empty

~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Isn't there also concern on the first that it's being used on articles about stars with planets? As nom on the rest; sped the latter eight. Alai 16:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not sure about that. I just took a quick look at a few of the articles, and it almost seems as if they could be split into two - one for the star and one for the planet (there is both a star infobox and a planet infobox). A few of the others could use to be resorted (I found one about a telescope...). We may want to create a {{ planet-stub}} to use the existing cat, and upmerge {{ extrasolar-planet-stub}} into it. This would still require the deletion of the exoplanet template/cat. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Splitting the articles in two would come under the aegis of the Astronomy WikiProject - we complain about other WPs stepping on our toes, I'm loath to do the same to one of them. As for the other ones listed above, I could see a case for renaming exoplanet stub, deleting the other individual planet ones, but possibly keeping the dwarf, giant and terrestrial ones as upmerged templates at least - it seems to be most logical way to split solar system planets up. Grutness... wha? 23:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Mind you, I wasn't suggesting that we split the articles, I was just trying to clarify why it seemed that a planet tag was being used on a seemingly star-related article. It's also moot at this point about dwarf, giant, and terrestrial because they've been speedied... ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 00:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    • In order to keep and upmerge the templates, they'd first have to be created... Wasn't the gist of the earlier suggestion to scope this as "solar systems"/"planetary systems"/"stars with planets", or something to that effect? Alai 03:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Interestingly enough, extrasolar planet is on the Main Page today... Here's my plan of action for later today, if no one objects:

1. rename exoplanet as nom, keeping cat
2. create {{ planet-stub}} to feed into Cat:Planet stubs
3. retag Venus articles w/ planet-stub if applicable
4. delete Venus template and cat

~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Okay, I've made it through step 1 of aforementioned plan, but I'm not sure that creating a {{ planet-stub}} is the way to go. Any suggestions on what to do with the Venus stubs and the Planet cat? ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• I'd replace them with {{ crater-stub}}. MER-C 04:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

That'd be rather misleading, since they're mostly mountains and coronae. What about keeping the template, and upmerging (sidewaysmerging?) to the target of the above, Cat:astrogeology stubs? And then, deleting the Cat:planet stubs as empty. Alai 05:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Done. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:43, 8 December 2006 (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. Unnecessary split of items already covered by Cat:London geography stubs. Certainly not a county, which is how England is split geographically - never proposed, and with only nine stubs (5 railstation-stubs, 3 struct-stubs and one genuine geo-stub). Not to mention the frankly ridiculously ambiguous template name (have you checked Richmond?). Delete. Grutness... wha? 04:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Too small. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 13:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• I agree on the name, and on the more-misused-than-used observation, but I'm pretty sure that splitting London by borough is something we'll be looking at doing before too long, unless the mythical point at which stub growth actually stops is reached. Alai 16:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. If needed, I'd rather see splits of London stubs by feature rather than location. MRSC • Talk 17:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Not entirely happy with that idea either, though a separate {{ london-road-stub}} and resorting the things that should be in {{ london-struct-stub}} would probably reduce the size of the cat considerably (I count over 40 roads and 15 mis-sorts on the first page of the category alone). If we were splitting the london geo-stubs into separate parts, I think a basic "north of the river"/"south of the river" would be a reasonable compromise. Though it's not used for permcats, it is the way that Londoners themselves tend to think of the city. If we were to split by feature, parks are the most liely by the looks of it. Grutness... wha? 23:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
    • In fact, I think I'll propose {{ london-road-stub}} - looks like there are nearly 100 of them... Grutness... wha? 23:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I'd have thought than "inner" and "outer" would be greatly preferably to "north" and "south", especially as the latter divides a borough (this one, as it happens), and the former does not. Alai 00:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Agree with feature split e.g. roads, not sure about inner/outer; what to do with Newham, Haringey and Greenwich...? Although an "executive decision" can be taken on where they should be included it will not be immediately obvious; and some people may not consider Roehampton for example to be "inner". MRSC • Talk 07:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply
        • I agree that those are inobvious, if not essentially arbitrary. However, if templatised on a per-borough basis, it's not something those doing the actual sorting would have to worry about. Alai 17:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply
          • That is quite innovative. It might be better to make the per-borough templates map to the five London_Plan#Sub_regions. We have quite a few contributors who stick to "their side" of London so it would provide a place them to look for new articles to edit. MRSC • Talk 19:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply
            • It's a fairly standard thing to do, we're just too lazy to update the stub guidlines to include it. :) I wasn't up on that particular Kennism: that does seem a useful division, if it scores reasonably on the "generally accepted" front. (I don't see permcats for any of these schemes for subdividing London/grouping boroughs, though...) Alai 20:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply
              • Agreed, I do not think it is useful to create categories for these either. For the purposes of dividing up the stubs it is nice and clear. MRSC • Talk 20:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete All London Boroughs should be handled the same way Regan123 21:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete__ Seadog ^♪ 19:55, 2 December 2006 (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.