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 discussion was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Undersized. Propose to delete category, upmerge template. No prejudice against recreating category once sufficient articles tagged. Dawynn ( talk) 12:48, 30 December 2011 (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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Category filled. Dawynn ( talk) 03:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC) – Dawynn ( talk) 03:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Undersized. Propose to delete category, upmerge template. No prejudice against recreating category once sufficient articles tagged. Dawynn ( talk) 12:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Keep - now populated (56 articles), with some more still to come. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 07:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Nomination withdrawn. As indicated, just needed to be filled. Now has more than 60. Dawynn ( talk) 03:36, 9 January 2012 (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 discussion was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Undersized. Propose to delete category, upmerge template. Dawynn ( talk) 11:40, 30 December 2011 (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 discussion was Delete category, rename template. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I have requested full categories for the 1910s and 1920s articles. Once those are built, this will have just 5 articles. And it will be inappropriately named. I suggest deleting the category. Rename the template to {{ aero-pre1900-stub}}. Upmerge the new template, along with {{ aero-1900s-stub}} to Cat:Aircraft stubs. Dawynn ( talk) 15:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Support the above split, but keep the categories by decade. There is no need other than WP:BUREAUCRACY to have some decades with categories and some not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Support TheLongTone ( talk) 08:48, 7 February 2012 (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 discussion was Upmerge per nom. Ruslik_ Zero 18:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Attempted to fill, but still undersized. Delete category, upmerge template. No prejudice against recreating category once sufficient articles tagged. Dawynn ( talk) 04:12, 29 December 2011 (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 discussion was Upmerge all as undersized. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose deleting the following small categories. Upmerge the templates to Cat:Afghanistan geography stubs. No prejudice against recreation once sufficient articles can be found.

• Cat:Farah Province geography stubs‎ (20 P)
• Cat:Faryab Province geography stubs‎ (18 P)
• Cat:Ghazni Province geography stubs‎ (37 P)
• Cat:Ghōr Province geography stubs‎ (23 P)
• Cat:Helmand Province geography stubs‎ (38 P)
• Cat:Herat Province geography stubs‎ (43 P)
• Cat:Samangan Province geography stubs‎ (19 P)

Dawynn ( talk) 03:00, 29 December 2011 (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 discussion was Upmerge. Ruslik_ Zero 18:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Undersized, although it contains most of the permcat articles. Delete category, upmerge template, with no prejudice against recreating category once sufficient articles exist. Dawynn ( talk) 02:56, 29 December 2011 (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 discussion was Upmerge to Category:Chile_geography_stubs. Ruslik_ Zero 11:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Undersized. Delete category, upmerge template, with no prejudice against recreating category once sufficient articles tagged. Dawynn ( talk) 18:27, 28 December 2011 (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 discussion was Delete. Ruslik_ Zero 16:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply

While reviewing templates to vet, I found this. See original discussion. According to the original discussion, this was strongly opposed. My feeling is to delete based on the original discussion. Feel free to discuss again. Dawynn ( talk) 12:41, 28 December 2011 (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 discussion was Upmerge to Cat:Ray-finned fish stubs. Ruslik_ Zero 18:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Undersized. Delete category, upmerge template. No prejudice against recreating category once sufficient articles tagged. Dawynn ( talk) 12:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Keep : Matches sub-cats for other orders within Cat:Ray-finned fish stubs and has close to the number of required members. Additionally, upmerging to Cat:Ray-finned fish stubs would just make that cat harder to clean up.

No, there are only 22 articles -- not very close to 60 at all. And it is quite easy to tell what articles are connected to which template. Dawynn ( talk) 11:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Delete as nominated. There are curtrently fewer than 50 articles in the permcat's deep content. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:51, 24 January 2012 (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 discussion was Upmerge. Ruslik_ Zero 18:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Premature category. Permcat is still pretty small. Propose deleting category, upmerging template. No prejudice against recreating category once sufficient articles tagged. Dawynn ( talk) 12:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

To which category should it be upmerged? Ruslik_ Zero 11:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Upmerging completed. Please delete the category. Dawynn ( talk) 19:20, 30 January 2012 (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 discussion was Upmerge. Ruslik_ Zero 18:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Empty permcat. Propose deleting category, upmerging template. No prejudice against recreating category once sufficient articles tagged. Dawynn ( talk) 12:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

To which category should it be upmerged? Ruslik_ Zero 11:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Upmerging completed. Please delete the category. Dawynn ( talk) 19:19, 30 January 2012 (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 discussion was Upmerge to Category:Aromatic compound stubs. Ruslik_ Zero 11:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Seems to me that the permcat had more articles previously. Perhaps these are called something else now? Either way, both permcat and stub cat are seriously undersized. Delete category and upmerge template until sufficient articles found. Dawynn ( talk) 11:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This stub category and template are unnecessary, and part of a larger over-categorization of articles in this area of chemistry. ChemNerd ( talk) 12:29, 28 December 2011 (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 discussion was Upmerge to Cat:Aircraft stubs until the necessary number of stubs exists. Ruslik_ Zero 18:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Premature. Propose delete, with no prejudice against recreation once template reaches limit. Dawynn ( talk) 11:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep - is part of an established tree of stubs by decade - Cat:2000s aircraft stubs, Cat:1990s aircraft stubs, Cat:1980s aircraft stubs, etc. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep - agreed, there's no sense putting them all in the 2000s category just so effort can be expended to separate them later. Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I am only asking to delete the category. The template itself would not be removed, so no effort would be wasted. The template would upmerge to Cat:Aircraft stubs. As has been stated numerous times in these logs, stub categories are not to be built based on the number of articles eventually available, but those available now. And categories should be in the range of 60 - 800 articles. Until this template is used on 60 or more articles, it should not exist. (Note: I saw that most of the aircraft decade categories were undersized. I'm working on filling the older decades) Dawynn ( talk) 11:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    • That's a fair point, but isn't it confusing to readers to have some decades with categories, vs. others in the main cat? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Dawynn, categories should only exist when they are populated by at least 60 articles. The category should be deleted with no prejudice to recreation if/when the template is used on 60 articles. Severo ^{T C} 12:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I fail to see the reason for a stub category in the first place, who is interested, and why, and what practical use are they. Articles are classified stubs at the subjective view of an assessor and can be elevated or change class at the drop of a hat, and are listed at anyway. This view goes for the other year based stub categories. Petebutt ( talk) 18:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It was appropriate for this category and template to be created on 1 January 2010, and we are two years past that. There's no good reason whatever to delete this next logical step in a progression of categories: Category:2000s aircraft stubs, Category:1990s aircraft stubs, Category:1980s aircraft stubs, etc. Binksternet ( talk) 23:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply

  While the template may have been justifiable at the start of the decade, the category, as with all stub categories, was not viable without sufficient articles. Both template and category were created in early October 2011, with no record of a request for approval. Note that all the other decades have already fully passed into history, and are barely filling their respective stub categories. The 2010's have barely started. It's no wonder that we can't even muster 20 articles, and most of the ones we have tagged talk about aircraft that are still in design phase. Dawynn ( talk) 04:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• I understand that you are using 60–800 as the proper population range for a category but I disagree with that practice. I feel that supporting this artificially decided range creates needless double work for editors who must reorganize categories and recategorize articles after the threshold has been passed. Sensible practice for ease of editing would be to allow predictable categories such as this one to open up in advance of 60 members. Binksternet ( talk) 05:06, 2 January 2012 (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 discussion was Upmerge as underpopulated. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC) – עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Premature. Propose delete, with no prejudice against recreation once template reaches limit. Permcat only has about 12 non-alumni articles. Dawynn ( talk) 11:03, 28 December 2011 (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 discussion was Rename {{ mathapplied-stub}} to {{ applied-math-stub}}. Keep/No consensus for three others. Ruslik_ Zero 16:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply

At Proposals, it became clear that we use a few different stems for mathematics templates. The main one is at -math- so I propose to rename the following, leaving redirects:

1. {{ mathanalysis-stub}} → {{ math-analysis-stub}}
2. {{ mathlogic-stub}} → {{ math-logic-stub}}
3. {{ mathapplied-stub}} → {{ applied-math-stub}}
4. {{ mathematics-lit-stub}} → {{ math-lit-stub}} (reverse redirect)

Severo ^{T C} 09:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose. The mere addition of a hyphen doesn't make enough difference to make the change worthwhile. The mathematics project hasn't run into any problems with the current names. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 14:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Separately, I am going to notify the mathematics project about this, which should have been done when the nomination was made. Other people there may have better ideas about how to manage the templates that are used by the project. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 14:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment. If these are moved, existing pages bearing the template should be updated to point to the new template (as a courtesy to our servers). I don't see the point of leaving a bunch of redirects behind. I don't really have an opinion on whether or not this is worthwhile, as long as someone is actually willing to do the work. Creating redirects going one way or the other seems like a good idea though, regardless of the outcome of this particular discussion. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 14:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Oppose It is quite sufficient to add a redirect in the opposite direction if you (= the nom.) feel it's convenient. Although I understand the logic of the proposal, it is easy to find an equally convincing argument in the opposite direction, so, as Carl put it, the change is not worthwhile. Sasha ( talk) 15:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

1. Support move to {{ Analysis-math-stub}}
2. Support move to {{ Logic-math-stub}}
3. Support
4. Support move to {{ Lit-math-stub}}

As these respect the hierarchy in a sensible manner. Rich  Farmbrough, 16:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC). reply

"Logic-math-stub" doesn't make any sense for a move; the field is "mathematical logic" not "logic mathematics". The same goes for mathematical analysis. No math stub template has a prefix before "math", so there is no such hierarchy to respect. On the other hand it might make sense to move "mathapplied-stub" to "applied-math-stub". — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 16:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

That's no the way the stub hierarchy works. Of course in this case it is contrary to common usage, but I thought we'd established that in your world template names are just signifiers, and the semantics are irrelevant, so it looks like you are just taking a contrary position to preserve the status quo, as you do so often. Rich  Farmbrough, 22:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC). reply

There hierarchy for mathematics content stubs was quite clear: when they begin with "math", there is no hyphen: mathapplied-stub, mathanalysis-stub, mathlogic-stub are the only three. Two other ones (math-contest-stub and mathematics-lit-stub) are related to mathematics literature and mathematics competitions, rather than mathematics content. So the hierarchy for mathematics content stubs is already consistent in not using a hyphen. The status quo seems to be serving us perfectly well, I have seen no comments of complaints at the math project that our stub templates are problematic. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 22:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment. The only existing name that seems wrong to me is mathapplied-stub, which should be renamed to applied-math-stub or maybe more consistently appliedmath-stub. I don't see the point of adding hyphens, but it seems mostly harmless except for revrersing the otder of mathematical logic and mathematical analysis which is just wrong. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Hmm, I hadn't expected this much feedback in such a short space of time - if only we could encourage so many people to every stub discussion! It seems to me that not everyone is aware of the role of stub sorting. I brought these templates here for renaming because they fail the stub naming conventions. Stubs are named in a very specific way, using components in, or from, noun form. These components generally stay the same if they have the same meaning from one template to the next.

In these templates, I noticed that the main component (-math-) was not being used. I could not find a good naming reason why it wasn't being used, nor has one been presented here. (As a maths-related example of ignoring an existing component, I proposed that we should have {{ knottheory-stub}}, not {{ knot-theory-stub}}, even though the -theory- component exists, because knot theory is not the theory of knots.)

Therefore, as per the stub naming conventions, the component -math- should be retained as far as possible, and these templates should be renamed. Really it represents just a small change, just like the majority of edits on Wikipedia. Worthwhile? Only as far as any stub sorting is worthwhile!

Moving onto some of the other issues brought up here, not directly relevant to the renaming discussion:

Re: Carl (14:13, 28 December 2011), it is not standard practice to notify WikiProjects. I did forget to place the renaming nomination template on the stub templates (I'm always forgetting about it, it's nothing to do with mathematics). I have now placed them, and it would appear on the WikiProject watchlist and article alerts if the talk pages had been tagged by WikiProject Mathematics, which I notice they haven't.

Re: Sławomir Biały (14:22, 28 December 2011), perhaps you don't see the point in having template redirects, but they are a fixture of Wikipedia - there are thousands of template redirects in use. It is not considered good practice to update all pages that transclude a template when the template is renamed, indeed, making an edit to an article merely to update the template name is considered a frivolous edit, unnecessarily consuming resources and bloating the edit history of the article. WPSS adds templates to the AWB template redirects list in order to change the template call when other changes are being made.

Severo ^{T C} 13:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC) reply

If it has not been your common practice to notify wikiprojects when templates that they work with are under discussion, it should become your practice. Otherwise, nobody would have notice these discussions at all. Few editors have templates on their watchlists. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 23:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

As I commented, no WikiProject had tagged these templates using their WikiProject banner. If they had, the notification would appear through article alerts. Second, tagging the template gives a visual indicator to anyone reading or editing the articles they are used in. I don't think it's practical or desirable to notify WikiProjects in a different way from any other deletion discussion although really thats a discussion for another forum (i.e. Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion). Severo ^{T C} 07:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Support all four: if as Severo says it is not considered costly to leave existing articles as is and simply redirect the old stub name, I see no disadvantage, and it makes their position as a subcategory clearer. The originally suggested {{ math-lit-stub}} would be the better name, as checking {{ Science-book-stub}} reveals all similar categories put the field of study first. As for the order math-logic vs logic-math, I can see arguments for both, but I would tend towards the former as the main article for the field is at Mathematical logic. -- Qetuth ( talk) 07:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC) reply
  • It is not possible these days to "leave existing articles as is". If the templates are renamed, people using AWB will go through and change the names of the templates in all the articles. This sort of thing is built into AWB, even, to make it easier for them to do. So the question is whether the change of name is worth the editing of all the articles. I don't see that it is. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 23:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply
    • If a user were to use AWB solely to replace the template calls, it would almost definitely be an abuse of AWB. It is not built into AWB to make it easier to do, but rather because it is a minor task which can be completed in the AWB "general fixes" when something more worthwhile is being done. The existing articles would be left as they are - this is regular practice. Severo ^{T C} 18:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply
      • It is an abuse of AWB, but it happens with surprising regularity. I often see AWB users mass-change all uses of one template to another under the mistaken impression that, since AWB is able to make the change, the change should be made. In the end, it's inevitable that the existing uses would get replaced with the new name. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 20:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply
        • Are you referring to editors using "find and replace" or the template redirects facility? I have seen some editors use the find and replace when they move a template, but I have never seen a stub sorter do this with a stub template. The length of the list of stub templates on the AWB template redirect list is evidence that it's not routinely done. Either way, I don't think the possibility of people being a bit daft is a reason not to follow naming conventions. Severo ^{T C} 20:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• I support moving to {{ applied-math-stub}} but oppose moving the others. The first two aren't worthwhile (and may be worse). The fourth should probably be moved to something different altogether -- it's not clear what the template means (I had to click on it). CRGreathouse ( t | c) 17:29, 10 January 2012 (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 discussion was Delete both. Ruslik_ Zero 11:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Unused, unproposed, malformed. And considering that we already have a well-populated {{ HongKong-film-stub}} / Cat:Hong Kong film stubs, I don't see why we would want a "Cinema" category also. What differentiates these categories? Dawynn ( talk) 04:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Looking at perm cats, cinema seems to be used to talk about everything in relation to films, such as actors, directors, awards etc, so there could be some such usage for this style as a stub parent cat for those different stub categories. That said, this one doesn't do that job and both template and category are mal-named so I'm happy with a delete. Severo ^{T C} 09:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

"Film" is supposed to cover everything (as opposed to "films") (funnily enough both would exclude actual cinemas ). Rich  Farmbrough, 16:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC). reply

Redirect and replace. Rich  Farmbrough, 16:52, 28 December 2011 (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 discussion was Delete and rename per nom. Ruslik_ Zero 18:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC) – Ruslik_ Zero 18:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose deletion of category, upmerge of template, with no prejudice against category recreation once sufficient articles found (currently, 1).
• Propose rename of template to {{ IsleofMan-actor-stub}}. Templates do not typically use the demonym.

Dawynn ( talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Support upmerge and rename. Severo ^{T C} 09:44, 28 December 2011 (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 discussion was Redirect to {{ actor-model-stub}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC) – עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Currently, {{ actress-stub}} is a redirect to {{ actor-stub}}. Propose the same be done here. Keep {{ actress-model-stub}}, but make it redirect to {{ actor-model-stub}}. Dawynn ( talk) 04:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Support. Severo ^{T C} 09:44, 28 December 2011 (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 discussion was Keep. Ruslik_ Zero 11:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I see that this was officially approved, along with Cat:Queensland island stubs (which has not been created yet). I thought we had a long-standing policy of not breaking geography categories down by such structures. (A category for dams was also approved, but I think these are OK, classified under "buildings and structures"). Dawynn ( talk) 04:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I agree with you, but the problem is that there is not good sorting into permcats into sub-state levels, either regions or Local Government Areas. If anybody felt like a job of sorting into regional or LGA permcats, I'd not hesitate to support templates (and cats iff...) for them. Severo ^{T C} 09:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I might actually do this next week, 60-something LGAs, probably could take a template each and upmerged to regional cats. But I'll look into it and take any suggestions to Proposals. Severo ^{T C} 13:38, 29 December 2011 (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 discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC) – עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Unused stub type, unlike to be used as even EC 1.19 is a redirect Bulwersator ( talk) 08:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Severo ^{T C} 12:44, 23 December 2011 (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 discussion was Rename all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC) – עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Rename:

• Cat:Basque stubs → Cat:Basque Country stubs
• {{ Basque-stub}} → {{ BasqueCountry-stub}}
• {{ Basque-bio-stub}} → {{ BasqueCountry-bio-stub}}
• {{ Basque-geo-stub}} → {{ BasqueCountry-geo-stub}}

As per stub sorting norms, that is to say to use noun form of country/region name for templates and for the top-level cat here. I thought this was open and shut until I saw the geo stub has been at the original name since proposing in 2006 so I don't know if I've missed something or something was missed before. Severo ^{T C} 13:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Support. As the perm cat and article both use Basque Country. Dawynn ( talk) 11:42, 6 January 2012 (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 discussion was Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC) – עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Rename: Nonstandard naming: all other by country history stub cats use adjective form of country name; this one, approved last month without discussing the actual name, doesn't follow suit. Severo ^{T C} 17:12, 11 December 2011 (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 discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC) – עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Not approved, but created anyway. As per proposals page, not needed as split from {{ isotope-stub}}, not clear in scope and without permanent category. Currently unused. Severo ^{T C} 13:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete; recently created and essentially redundant to {{ isotope-stub}}. 28bytes ( talk) 16:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep It already exists in the article Fluorine-18. -- 3.14159265358pi ( talk) 23:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Well, not quite: you added it to Fluorine-18 (having failed to win support for it on the proposals page) and it was reverted almost immediately. Even if it were used there, we can't justify the use of a stub template in just one article. Severo ^{T C} 13:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment why not just redirect it to {{ isotope-stub}} ? 76.65.128.198 ( talk) 07:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Because it's not clear in scope and doesn't follow a permanent category. Severo ^{T C} 13:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per same reasoning I used in opposing its creation: "I'm not seeing any use-case for this that is not met already by {{ isotope-stub}}. Creating a fork of a small cat into one with a non-distinct meaning apart from the other one does not benefit wikipedia readers or editors." DMacks ( talk) 18:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per nom and per DMacks. -- Dэя- Бøяg 20:17, 18 December 2011 (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.