Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

This page only deals with the deletion of stub types, which consist of a template and a category, and are intended to be used for sorting stubs. Stub templates that are missing categories and stub categories without associated templates are also appropriate here. All other templates or categories nominated for deletion have to be put on WP:TFD or WP:CFD, respectively.

About this page

This page is for the proposal, discussion, and voting on deletion of stub categories, stub templates, and stub redirects. By having the vote on these three closely related matters centralised on one page, it reduced the need for repeating identical arguments on several different Wikipedia deletion pages (WP:CFD, WP:TFD, and WP:RFD) and also reduces the workload on those pages.

Putting a stub type on SfD, and what happens afterwards

• Mark the affected pages:
  • For deletion:
    • Put {{sfd-t}} on stub templates
    • Put {{sfd-c}} on stub categories
    • Put {{sfd-r}} on stub redirects, and include the redirect target after it (see below for details)
  • For renaming:
    • Put {{sfr-t|New-name}} (parameter optional) on stub templates
    • Put {{sfr-c|New name}} (parameter optional) on stub categories
• List the stub type below in a new subsection at the top of the section which has the current date. If that section does not yet exist, create it.
  • Mention all affected pages in the subheading, like this:
    

    ==== {{tl|banana stub}} / [[:Category:Banana stubs]] / {{tl|YellowCurvyFruit-stub}} (redirect) ====

  • Also mention how many articles currently use the template, and if it is listed anywhere else.
  • Of course, state your reason for nominating the stub type for deletion!
• After a voting period of seven days, action will be taken if there is consensus on the fate of the stub type. Please do not act before this period is over.
• Archived discussions are logged per the instructions at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log, and are located at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted and Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Not deleted. If the decision is to rename the category or template, the discussion is logged on the "deleted" page, since the stub's name, at least, has been deleted.

Putting {{sfd-r}} on redirects

Given that the {{sfd-r}} template breaks redirection, it is necessary to change a stub redirect when adding the template, as follows:

#Redirect [[Template:foo-stub]] should be changed to:

{{sfd-r}}{{foo-stub}}

Possible reasons for the deletion of a stub type

• They are not used in any article, and their category is empty
• They overlap with other stub categories, or duplicate them outright
• Their scope is too limited - As a rule of thumb, there should be at least 50 appropriate stubs in existence
• The stub category or template is misnamed. In this case, make this clear when nominating and propose a new category or template name. Note that - in the case of a template but not a category - it may be more appropriate to make it into a redirect
• They are malformed, misnamed, or deprecated redirects

What this page is not for

• Patently nonsensical or insulting stub types - they may be speedily deleted
• Empty categories with no corresponding template - they maybe speedily deleted (after 24 hours)
• Malformed stub types to which no further deletion reasons apply - fix them or tell the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting
• Stub templates that were not approved by the WikiProject Stub sorting (again, unless other reasons apply) - list those on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries. From there, they may later be taken to this page
• Stub categories that are too large - these are not deleted, even if they get subdivided

Typical voting options

• Keep (do not delete or modify)
• Delete (delete template and category)
• Merge with xx-stub (Delete category, redirect template to xx-stub)
• Merge with xx-stub without redirect (delete category and template, put xx-stub on all articles that use it)
• Change scope (reword the template, typically giving it a larger scope. Usually also means renaming the category)
• BJAODN (add to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, then delete)

When voting, please try to give a more substantial reason than simply "I like it/find it useful" or "I dislike it/don't find it useful"

Listings

December 27th

Four Ancient Egypt stub types

Proposed today and created today. Unfortunately, between the time of proposal and creation, debate was clearly heading towards three of these being unnecessary and the fourth being made with another name. What's more, none of these have dedicated categories.

{{Ancient-Egypt-military-stub}}

If needed, it should be Ancient-Egypt-mil-stub, but with only 350 Ancient Egypt stubs, it's unnecessary. At least rename it and give it a category, but preferably delete. Grutness...wha? 11:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

{{Ancient-Egypt-building-stub}}

If needed, it should be Egypt-struct-stub, but at last count there were only 12 Egyptian structures, ancient or modern, with stubs, it's unnecessary. At least rename it and give it a category, but preferably delete. Grutness...wha? 11:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

{{Ancient-Egypt-bio-stub}}

Greece-bio-stub covers both ancient and modern Greece adequately with no problems. Egypt-bio-stub - which already exists - covers both ancient and modern Egypt with no problems. Delete this one. Grutness...wha? 11:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

{{Ancient-Egypt-mythology-stub}}

The only one which I'd vote to keep, but since we have Rome-myth-stub, Greece-myth-stub etc, this should simply be Egypt-myth-stub. Rename, and give it a dedicated category. Grutness...wha? 11:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

December 24th

Category:Television biographical stubs to Category:Television biography stubs

Proposed name follows the [noun]-stub model. Aecis ^praatpaal 00:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• support. makes sense to keep it consistent Grutness...wha? 00:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Je crois que c'est rationnel. --Thorri 12:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support I also agree that it makes sense. ( Davehard 12:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC) )

December 23rd

{{US-northeast-geo-stub}} and Category:Northeastern US geography stubs

every state in the US NE now has its own =geotemplat and no stubs use this template any more. so why do we need it? delete BL kiss the lizard 07:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

An alternative would be to redefine the northeast for the purposes of stub sorting. While we have been using the Census Bureau's split, that was likely because map images showing the regions were already on the wiki. There are other splits out there that would include Maryland, Delaware, and DC. Delaware and DC don't yet have geo stubs of their own, so making the move would keep this stub as viable and bring the southern geo stubs down to a single page. On the other hand, making this change would involve a good deal more work. Either change scope or delete. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Lordy, it is empty! Yet another possibility might be to keep the category as a holding pen for those states, but delete the template. That would mean 1) no states in among the regions in the main US geo-stub category; 2) no constant emptying of US northeast into separate state categories. That would be a reasonable temporary solution until such times as all US states have categories (but given that Delaware has five geo-stubs, that may still be a while away). Grutness...wha? 01:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

{{New Hampshire politician-stub}}

another karmafist special. unused. misnamed. unneccesary. delete. BL kiss the lizard 06:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

(rolls eyes) delete. Grutness...wha? 06:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, useful redirect. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • whats the point in having rules for naming things if we keep templates which dont follow those rules? BL kiss the lizard 07:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This doesn't violate any naming conventions; there are no naming conventions for redirects. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a stub type. there are naming rules for stub types. BL kiss the lizard 09:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a useful redirect. Please take redirects to WP:RFD, their proper place. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 16:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • this is the proper place for stub redirects not rfd. BL kiss the lizard 22:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - created to prove a point. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 13:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

{{Tolkienstub}} to {{tolkien-stub}}

The stub template name needs a hyphen. This is a move that has already been requested at requested moves back in June, but nothing was done with that request. Another thing that might need fixing is the parent category, Category:Tolkien stubs. It lists Category:Tolkien stub as a subcategory, which is simply a redirect to Category:Tolkien stubs. I don't believe this circular categorization is what we need. Aecis ^praatpaal 00:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• sounds completely reasonable. support. And category redirects don't work anyway, so there's no real need to have the Category:Tolkien stub redirect at all. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the resulting template redirect. --SPUI (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• move and delete the incorrectly named tolkienstub. BL kiss the lizard 06:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

December 22nd

{{world-music-song-stub}} → {{worldmusic-song-stub}}

Rename misnamed template. --Bruce1ee 09:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• keep - naming fits due to existance of article at world music.Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

{{American Football-stub}}

Karmafist strikes again. Delete this misnamed unused redirect. Grutness...wha? 07:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• At least this time he picked a worthy target. {{Amfootball-stub}} doesn't follow the naming guidelines 100% because of the abreviated American and it gets worse when you consider that instead of {{Amfootballbio-stub}} the associated biography stub is {{Amfootbio-stub}} instead. That said having a template that doesn't follow the naming guidelines 100% doesn't call for adding a redirect that violates them worse. Delete per nom. Caerwine Caerwhine 13:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete {{American Football-stub}} and {{Amfootball-stub}}, and replace them with {{AmericanFootball-stub}}. Aecis ^praatpaal 22:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • On second thoughts, that's a far better solution. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You mean {{Americanfootball-stub}} don't you? The football here isn't a proper noun, which is as it should be, since the rest of the world keeps telling us that there is nothing proper about our football. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
      • oops - right you are gov. Yes, it was {{Americanfootball-stub}} that I meant. Grutness...wha? 06:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
      • You're absolutely right, Caerwine: there's nothing proper about your football ;) I don't see why the template should be renamed to {{Americanfootball-stub}} though. Aecis ^praatpaal 00:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Because the naming guidelines call for avoiding abbreviations, except those on out exceptions list. We don't use "Am" as a abbreviation for the United States, nor should we, It's an inobvious abbreviation that only a lover of jargon could love. At best I could see using an abbrevated version of "Americanfootball" to form combination stubs, but at the root level for the topic, the unabbreviated version should be available to those who don't memorize the stublist. Ideally, no one should be forced to consult the stub list to find a proper name for single hyphen stub that exists and follows the basic naming conventions. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I know, that's why I suggested unabbreviating it to {{AmericanFootball-stub}}. But I don't see why Grutness would want to rename it to {{Americanfootball-stub}} (with a minor f). Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 14:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
      • This one might be a bit too non-intuitive, but in some countries (such as NZ & Australia) the sport is called gridiron. We have hoops-stub for basketball... how would gridiron-stub do? Yeah, okay, I know - bad idea. Grutness...wha? 06:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
        • While I think that term is fairly well-known in the US, gridiron football indicates that it's used to also refer to Canadian football. So it might not be the best choice... --Mairi 06:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Except for a few minor rule differences, the two games are essentially the same, much as rugby union and rugby league are essentially the same game. Having {{gridiron-stub}} as a redirect (or even the base stub) would be fine with me. Caerwine Caerwhine 07:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete If it's unused then why bother keeping it. --Thorri 12:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

{{Television-stub}}

Karmafist strikes again. At least this one is better named, but weak delete, since it's still unnecessary. Grutness...wha? 07:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep as a redirect from an alternate name. Caerwine Caerwhine 13:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I honestly don't see why stub redirects get deleted - Newcomers and people like myself logically think that an article about television should go under this stub. It's doing nobody any harm. Hedley 19:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • theyre deleted because they put extra strain on the servers. the less template redirects are used the less strain and the more likely wikipedia will work. thats why people go around replacing redirect links with direct links too. BL kiss the lizard 22:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; no reason to delete. --SPUI (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep No need for deletion methinks. --Thorri 12:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

December 21st

Category:Short films stubs → Category:Short film stubs

From plural to singular. Aecis ^praatpaal 16:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• yup. Grutness...wha? 06:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

{{Looney-tunes-stub}} → {{LooneyTunes-stub}}

No hyphen, capital T, per similar names. Aecis ^praatpaal 16:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• yup. But do it vewwy vewwy qwietly. Grutness...wha? 06:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Suffering succotash! Go ahead and rename that mouse stub. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

December 20th

{{hardware-cvg-stub}} → {{cvg-hardware-stub}}

While we do have stub templates of both the form *-cvg-stub and cvg-*-stub, the former are all used for genres and the pattern has been to place the cvg component where it would in ordinary language. Since this is for CVG hardware and not for "hardware computer and video games" I recommend we rename the template and delete the original. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Rename and delete. Thunderbrand 00:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

{{film-awards-stub}} / Category:Film awards stubs → {{film-award-stub}} / Category:Film award stubs

From plural to singular. Aecis ^praatpaal 14:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Rename both template and category per Aecis. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

{{Canadian-bio-stub}}

Unnecessary and unused bio-stub redirect. Created two days ago. By karmafist. Sigh. Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Grutness. Aecis ^praatpaal 12:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mindmatrix 18:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as contrary to the naming guidelines. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• {{Canada-bio-stub}} already exists, so this is merely an unnecessary duplication. Delete. Bearcat 19:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnecessary duplication. --GrantNeufeld 19:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Old business

December 18th

{{VD and BE-geo-stubs}} / Category:Vaud and Berne geography stubs

For 2 geography stubs from two different Swiss cantons (Vaud and Bern). And while cantons are the logical way of splitting {{Switzerland-geo-stub}}, at < 600 articles it hardly needs splitting. And even so, I'm not sure why we'd want to combine these two, and we certainly wouldn't want that template name. Delete. --Mairi 04:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

totally unnecessary, and if we were going to split Switzerland we'd do it by individual cantons, not pairs of them. 'delete. This isn't the by the same editor who made that horrible grisons-stub a few months back is it? Grutness...wha? 09:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

December 17

{{Caucasus-geo-stub}}

A redirect now to georgia-geo-stub, this hasn't been used since Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia all got their own geo-stubs. delete. Grutness...wha? 22:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Lectonar 12:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Valentinian 15:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

{{US-Mil-hist-stub}}

From the discoveries page. A miscapitalized redirect of {{US-mil-hist-stub}}. Delete Caerwine Caerwhine 22:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

one of the less useful miscapitalisations. delete. Grutness...wha? 22:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

{{auto-stub}}

This stub is confusing since 'auto' is commonly used as an abbreviation for 'automatic.' An inexperience user, having only viewed automobile articles and encountered only auto-stub stubs, may create an article of their own and use auto-stub thinking that this will automagically create the appropriate stub. Delete and rename to automotive-stub or something less ambiguous. CMJ 08:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• I hadn't considered that, but it's a good point. I'd favour "Automobile-stub" if we're going to change it (I must admit I usually use the car-stub redirect...yeah, I know, I shouldn't use a redirect...) Grutness...wha? 10:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there any evidence that this is anything more than an academic objection? I wouldn't mind adding {{automobile-stub}} as a redirect. but Keep {{auto-stub}} as is. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

{{P2P-stub}}

No category, recently created, unused. For peer-to-peer file sharing, which doesn't even have a main category. Delete; perhaps rename to {{filesharing-stub}} (or such) if that'd be viable. --Mairi 05:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete At 402 stubs {{compu-network-stub}} is not overful and it doesn't have many P2P stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

{{pro-life-stub}} / Category:Pro-life stubs

Newly created and added to 10 articles. Inherently POV and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Delete —Slicing (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

an easy POV-target. I'd be inclined to delete them, too... but these are redlinks. What's the real names? Grutness...wha? 05:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality deleted them one minute after I posted the listing here. —Slicing (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

no problem, then :) Grutness...wha? 05:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I've undeleted them temporarily, because of an out of process deletion. That said, Delete.--Sean|Black 05:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Neutrality has deleted them again. Aecis ^praatpaal 17:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete with extreme prejudice. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 05:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete with prejudice. (I wouldn't've minded seeing them stay deleted either, regardless of how out-of-process it was.) --Mairi 05:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, Delete, please, and stay deleted, IAR-time. Bishonen | talk 14:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete: The contributor seems to be up to no good, and we are not in the business of inherently POV articles, stubby or long. Geogre 14:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete At best this should be {{abortion-stub}} for articles relating to any of the sides in this contentious issue, but it really should be brought to the prooposals page considering the potential

Delete, delete, delete. Per all delete votes above. Encourages ignoring WP:NPOV. (Or move the category to be under Category:Pages to be deleted? No, don't.) FreplySpang (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Abort. The term itself is POV as it's a propaganda term used instead of the slighty less POV "anti-abortion". --carlb 05:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

{{Mexican-American/Chicano Stub}} / Category:Mexican-American/Chicano Stubs; {{La Raza-stub}} (redirect) Category:La Raza stubs (old cat)

This has the same problems as {{AfricanAmerican-stub}} below about being applied to people, which is what the current name would suggest. Furthermore, the current name is pretty awful, between the space, capital Stub and using two alternate names in the template name. And while there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexican-Americans/Chicanos, that suggests even more that this is intended for people. Delete --Mairi 04:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

delete as with the African-American one, we don't split by race, we don't use ambiguous names, and this cuts across all sorts of categories. And speedy delete Category:La Raza stubs if its already deprecated (what the <eth>; is La Raza anyway?). Grutness...wha? 05:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete {{La Raza-stub}} & Category:La Raza stubs. La Raza is a term used by some Hispanics, especially Mexicans to refer to themselves. It alludes specifically to their mestizo heritage, but it is of such unstable meaning right now it isn't a good stub name. It is a term that has crossed over into American English, most notably in the name of the National Council of La Raza and in the slogans used by several professional wrestlers. (Caerwine Caerwhine 06:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Why did I forget to sign earlier?)

thanks for that - I hadn't heard of that, and my small Spanish dictionary seems to suggest that "raza" means "breed", which didn't help much. Grutness...wha? 22:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep The La Raza stub will be deleted soon enough, and is only serving as a redirect for pages that were created before the name change. The stub is not used for people who are Mexican-American or Chicano, but rather for topics related to Mexican-American and Chicano issues (the reason for the two terms is that there is a distinct difference for many people, although your dictionary may not mention it). I feel seperate categories for issues relating to history, music, art, language, etc would be great, but unfortunately, there are only a handful of articles dealing with topics relevant to Chicanos and Mexican-Americans on Wikipedia currently. If anything, maybe the existence of this template should be taken as incentive to write more articles! --Bfraga 00:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps to keep people out of it, the template should say "This non-biographical Mexican-American/Chicano-related article...", with a note on the category that it's not for people? If it's to be kept, it could use a shorter name. Given that the main category is Category:Mexican Americans, I'd suggest using that for the template and category, if it's kept. --Mairi 06:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete spliting stubs by race is going to cut across too many catagoiries and make a mess of things. BL kiss the lizard 04:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

In response, there are too few articles to justify your statement that it will "make a mess of things." Once a good number of articles relating to Chicano and Mexican-American topics are written, more specific stubs will be written. But until them, it only makes addding to Chicano/Mexican-American articles difficult. --Bfraga 05:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

then delete it becuase it hasnt enough stubs. if it had more it would definately cross the heirarchy as i said (and others did too). BL kiss the lizard 05:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

But if it doesn't have enough stubs to cause an issue, then how could it be...causing...an...issue...? --Bfraga 23:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

For a stub category to be useful for editors, it needs to have a reasonable population of stubs - that's why no new categories are created until there are at least a few dozen stubs for them (the usual threshold for creation is about 60). Yet, as the AfricanAmerican category below shows, this sort of category can cut across the hierarchy quite badly with less than ten stubs. If this category had enough stubs to be viable in terms of numbers, it would clash basly with existing categories. If it had few enough not to clash badly, it wouldn't have enough to be useful to editors. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There are many articles that should have this stub tag that do not. If I were to mark them all, the category would be quite populous. Shall I? FWIW, I think the Mex-Am./Chic stub may be helpful for the members of WikiProject Mexican-Americans/Chicanos.--Rockero420 18:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, if you do, it'll clash badly with existing categories and cause a lot of problems with stub-sorting in general. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep -- this is part of an ongoing WikiProject. Joaquin Murietta 14:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see where this will clash any more strongly than the proposed stub for Aboriginal Canadians. I'm not at all happy with the name of the stub template but that's a separate problem from the existence of this stub. Since the non stub category is simply Category:Mexican Americans rename to {{MexicanAmerican-stub}} & Category:Mexican American stubs with potential redirects from the alternate names {{Chicano-stub}} and/or {{Mexican-American/Chicano-stub}} if the WikiProject wants them. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Not the same thing. That one is for ethnic groups throughout Canada, and therefore can fit quite well within the current Canadian categories. This is for one specific ethnic group which crosses national boundaries 'and for the individual people within it. I would have no objection to a US-ethnic-stub to cover all ethnic groups within the United States, but there is a suggestion with this stub that (a) it would also deal with individual people (crossing the various occupation categories) and also - in the case of La Raza - would deal with people outside the US. If the scope of this stub was modified, it might be usable, but in its present form it's a bit too messy. Grutness...wha? 06:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

{{college-stub}}

college-stub redirects to university-stub but college can mean high school as well. its ambiguous and isnt being used (no articles have it) so should be deleted. BL kiss the lizard 10:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral In modern American English it is unambiguously a school of tertiary education when used in the context of education, which is the main context the word is used. I won't vote to delete it, but I wouldn't fight to save it from those who consider it too ambiguous either. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

here its just as likely to mean a high school. the nearest high schools to where i live are kavanagh college and kaikorai college. BL kiss the lizard 18:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree - In New Zealand "college" can simply mean a "more posh" high school (a collegiate school) - the same's true in Australia IIRC. It is a bit ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 22:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete: If 1) nothing uses it and 2) it redirects, then losing it hurts nothing, and the people making the redirect already realized the problem of ambiguity. In the US, it currently means post-secondary education, but it didn't used to (hence the 2nd oldest public high school in the US is Baltimore City College). We gain nothing by the stub, and we contribute to confusion. Geogre 10:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

December 16th

{{AfricanAmerican-stub}} / Category:African American stubs

No category, created today and used once. While a stub for African-American history might be useful, a general stub like this cuts across many categories, particularly when it gets applied to people. There are also no existing stub types for individual ethnic groups. Delete --Mairi 08:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The template now has category too. --Mairi 04:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• delete not at all useful, for the reasons mentioned. Grutness...wha? 09:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• I can see where a stub for African American topics (history, politics, religion, organisations, etc.) could be useful, but the stub name should not be {{AfricanAmerican-stub}}, which would logically be only applied to people. I cannot think of a better name, but I'm sure there is one. The usefulness of the stub would be dependent on how many (and what type) of articles to which it could be applied. As for this stub name, delete it. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 13:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Lectonar 13:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this is a notable subject that is bound to have many stubs associated with it.--Revolución (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete spliting by race cuts across too many catagories. BL kiss the lizard 04:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as with the articles relating to mexican-americans/chicanos, there are too few articles to divide it up on any basis other than race. Don't use a desire to not categorize things on racial lines to justify making it difficult to coordinate articles dealing with ethnic groups underrepresented on Wikipedia. You can't think of a better name because there isn't one. Believe me, it would be used. --Bfraga 05:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • not quite sure what you mean by "too few to split apart from by race" - the only stub currently marked with this is a US-poli-stub. The Chicano category contains a US-poli-stub, a US-newspaper-stub, a US-struct-stub, and a US-writer-stub. In other words, it has already cut across four categories and only has four stubs! Of these, if split further, one would be split by type of writer and one by location of structure, in keeping with other similar categories. Grutness...wha? 05:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is not a tree and neither are categories and stubs. Frankly this cutting across categories complaint sounds more liek a reason to keep, not a reason to delete. The topic itself is well defined, has interested people, and is not well served by existing categories. I'm not 100% happy with the name, but I can't think of a better one that wouldn't be totally artificial and created solely to satisfy the hyper-treeists such as {{US-ethno-Africa-stub}} (Yuuch!) Caerwine Caerwhine 15:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

{{Kosovo-geo-stub}} / Category:Kosovo geography stubs

We've recently twice deleted variations on a Kosovo-stub, so I doubt we want this more specific one. Also unlikely to be of sufficient size. Delete --Mairi 08:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

delete for all the same reasons that we deleted {{Kosovo-stub}}. Category:Montenegro geography stubs is woefully undersized - this one would be far worse. Grutness...wha? 09:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for probably chronic undersizing. I don't know if I'd be opposed to this one if this were brought to the threshold level though (provided users stick by Kosovo and Metohija as it is). Aecis ^praatpaal 15:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment At 202 stubs, Serbia-geo-stub is hardly oversized, but with only two autonomous provinces (Kosovo and Vojvodina) I wouldn't be surprised if either had the necessary 60 stubs. However, I would ask that the usual 60 stubs be shown if we're to keep it. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • According to google, there are roughly 30 to 40 stubs in the category. There are probably quite a few red links relating to Kosovo out there, so this one might become viable. Aecis ^praatpaal 16:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I only noticed about 15-20 while I was swapping over the SM-geo-stub to the two separate stubs a couple of weeks ago. That google count is probably high (several of the non-Kosovo locations mentioned the place in their articles). Grutness...wha? 05:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
      • True. It could include Serbian towns that border Kosovo, for instance. Aecis ^praatpaal 09:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

December 15th

{{Search-engine-optimization-stub}}

No category, no indication it's ever been used either. Complex name, though not malnamed. But would we ever get anywhere near enough stubs to make this worthwhile? A search-engine-stub would probably struggle to reach threshold. But a search-engine-optimisation-stub? Delete. Grutness...wha? 10:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

{{ethnic-stub}} (redirect) Category:Ethnicity stubs & {{ethno-stub}}

The first two need at the very least to have some cleanup done with them, even if kept. As can be seen here the trouble began back around June, but it never did get completely cleared up. There are 44 stubs in Category:Ethnicity stubs that with a null edit would be added to Category:Ethnic group stubs instead and only three articles that use {{ethnic-stub}}. Category:Ethnicity is the parent of Category:Ethnic groups in the non stub categories but the two stub categories have no linkage. With the proposed {{ethno-activist-stub}} ready to be created, I discovered this situation as I was looking around to make certain I gave it the appropriate non-stub parent. Category:Ethnicity stubs would seem to me to be a better parent for Category:Minority rights activist stubs than Category:Ethnic group stubs so I favor keeping the cat either with or wothout a stub template. However I see several alternatives here about what to do with {{ethno-stub}} none of which I have a preference for at this time, but with the first two being discussed, it seemed approporiate to discuss it now.

1. Leave {{ethno-stub}} where it is and have Category:Ethnicity stubs be a templateless stub category.
2. Leave {{ethno-stub}} where it is and give Category:Ethnicity stubs a template of its very own.
3. Rescope {{ethno-stub}} to be the stub template of Category:Ethnicity stubs and give Category:Ethnic group stubs a new stub template such as {{ethno-group-stub}}

I'm neutral about what to do with {{ethnic-stub}} but I figured this was an appropriate time to discuss whether to officially bring it in out of the cold and add it to the list of approved redirects or to extinguish it. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hang on a minute... Ethno-stub used to link to Category:Ethnicity stubs. I thought it still did. Who changed it and why? Revert ethno-stub to its proper category and create a new ethno-group stub. Grutness...wha? 23:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It was changed by Stevertigo on June 9th this year. [1] Aecis ^praatpaal 09:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree, there should be an ethno-group stub. -- SwissCelt 06:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Explanation from Ste|vertigo: Ethnicity cat should contain ethnic groups within it, but be reserved for concepts and topics in the science of "ethnicity." Having the groups list separate is vital, IMHO, and mixing them is bad organization. Sincerely -Ste|vertigo 19:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In which case, {{Ethno-stub}} → Category:Ethnicity stubs, with subcat/template of {{ethno-group-stub}} and Category:Ethnic groups stubs would probably be the way to go (i.e., option 3 from above). Sound reasonable? Grutness...wha? 09:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Option 3 as per above. --Mairi 00:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Join 'em. Fewer is better in this case. Peter ^Isotalo 02:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

December 14th

Category:Rock-album stubs

Only real problem with this is that the hyphen meeds to go. Rename to Category:Rock album stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. --Interiot 00:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy rename. --Mairi 07:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• rename Grutness...wha? 10:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

December 13th

{{Custom Stub}}

someones made a fix-all and confuse-everyone stub again. no catagory and this could give us several tens of thousands oif different types of catagory if it did have. luckily it was only used once. delete. can it be speedied as a recreation of something very similar thats been made before? BL kiss the lizard 05:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

hooboy yes, this one is a big mess of worms. delete thoroughly. Grutness...wha? 09:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I don't see how this could be used in any correct way. So people add {{Custom Stub|veeblefetzer}} at the end of an article, and then what? How is anyone going to find a list of veeblefetzer stubs? There's no category for them, and "what links here" from {{Custom Stub}} finds every other custom stub as well. This is useless. — JIP | Talk 12:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Not the worst of ones, as it does file all its stubs into Category:Stubs and only customizes the text. (It uses includeonly to keep the template itself out of the category.) I've done the same thing on occassion, but by substing the stub template and commenting the change (see Peter of Spain). That said, non-standard template name, likely to confuse, blah, blah, delete. Caerwine Caerwhine 12:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and I am the one who created the ill advised stub, Mea Culpa, I have seen the error of my ways. I would favor it being speedily removed. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 14:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

{{New Mexico-politician-stub}}, {{South Carolina-politician-stub}}

These templates should lose the space in their names:

• {{New Mexico-politician-stub}} -> {{NewMexico-politician-stub}}
• {{South Carolina-politician-stub}} -> {{SouthCarolina-politician-stub}}

Conscious 14:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• 'Rename per nom. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• ditto. BL kiss the lizard 09:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

December 11th

Rename of Law-related biographical stub categories

Both Category:Law-related biographical stubs and the newly created Category:American law-related biographical stubs have a small problem of parentage which I noticed as I created the latter for the {{US-law-bio-stub}}. Namely what non-stub category should be its parent? The stub text suggests that Category:Jurists would be approporiate (whihc includes lawyers, judges, and law professors, but instead the stub category had Category:Law (which is too broad) as its non-stub parent. The parent was part of the the -related SFD of 24 November, but I've noted this nomination here. As named, the stub category would also seem to encompass non-jurists who have some relation to the law, but there do not exist non-stub categories that would correspond to that broader scope, while Category:Jurists, Category:American jurists and quite a number of cats in Category:Jurists by nationality already exist. Therefor I recommend that we:

Rename to Category:Jurist stubs and Category:American jurist stubs and limit the scope to just jurists. This is not intended to affect the variety of redirects to {{law-bio-stub}}. Jurist is not a common enough term that I would be comfortable with ditching the redirects from alternate names in this case. If the explict scoping is not felt to be appropriate then the previously planned rename to Category:Law biography stubs and Category:American law biography stubs should be carried out instead. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable to rename to something, but remember that "jurist" means something different in some countries (in commonwealth English it tends to mean someone who writes law books). Because of that, I'm not 100% convinced that that is the best name. Grutness...wha? 08:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but right now Category:Jurists serves as the parent to Category:Judges, Category:Law professors, Category:Lawyers, and Category:Legal writers, so the broader sense is what Wikipedia now uses in its categories, probably more for the lack of any better term as an alternative. In any case, the confusion between American and British is one reason why I favor keeping {{law-bio-stub}} as the primary and advertised template. Caerwine Caerwhine 14:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• In that case, I'll drop my objection. Grutness...wha? 09:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Rename of three Buildings and structures stub categories

Category:Scottish buildings and structures stubs, Category:UK buildings and structures stubs, and Category:US buildings and structures stubs should be renamed to follow the pattern of the other buildings and structures stub categories to be Category:Scotland buildings and structures stubs, Category:United Kingdom buildings and structures stubs, and Category:United States buildings and structures stubs. Not the most urgent of fixes, but as long as I noticed them while adding the new stub types for France, Italy, and Japan, I decided to bring them here. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• rename. Sounds perfectly reasonable. While we're at it, should we drop the "s" from both "buildings" and "structures"? Grutness...wha? 08:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If we do, we'll need to bring the other eleven stubs to SfD as well. but other than that I would have no objection. Caerwine Caerwhine 14:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Leave that for now, maybe, and just go for the renames you originally proposed - there's enough of a backlog of changes as it is. It looks like Mairi's on a wikibreak, so we're botless again :( Grutness...wha? 09:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm back now, and have the bot working away again. I probably won't have time for much other than bot work for the next week or so. --Mairi 18:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

December 10th

{{Denmark_bio-stub}} / Category:Denmark biographical stubs

Duplicate (except the word "Denmark" rather than "Danish") of {{Denmark-bio-stub}} and Category:Danish people stubs. Was only used by three articles, and I've assigned those to the correct stub.

• Delete per nom. --Valentinian 10:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It's too bad that this isn't speediable as a duplicate of an existing stub. Caerwine Caerwhine 10:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

{{Newhampshire-stub}} (redirect)

Guess who? Delete. This is getting ridiculous. Karmafist seems determined to single-handedly stop all stub-sorting by having spend all our time hunting for his new creations. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• I feel that your comment about Karmafist is unwarrented. This stub redirect was originally created on December 6, which is before the other NH stub redirect was nominated for deletion. It is not a new creation. At worst, it is merely an previously unknown part of the original case. That being said, Delete. I don't think we in the NH project need that many stubs. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 06:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Suggest nom read WP:DICK and change the tone of his comments and nominations in the future. —Locke Cole 10:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • • comment. having heard more of the story than you probably have i think it is karmafist who needs to read that. and delete btw. BL kiss the lizard 04:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • And since the "WP:OWNers" of the stub system can't get consensus on a stub deletion(see below, they tried deleting this redirect yesterday and failed, they're trying again. I'm merging this attempt to the still open attempt, which they've failed at, as evidence of their hypocrisy. karmafist 17:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh please, Karmafist, grow up. This redirect wasn't up for deletion yesterday. That one was {{New Hampshire-stub}}, this one is {{newhampshire-stub}}. See the difference? Secondly, that nomination hasn't failed yet, because (read this) a nomination for deletion requires a seven day waiting period. Aecis ^praatpaal 18:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh wow, big difference there. One letter was capitalized. It's the exact same thing, and that's ultimately why I created it. I assume at this point I did create it since naming guidelines are obtuse to the frustrating several people i'm talking to on IRC have stopped bothering with anything other that {{stub}} at all. karmafist 18:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, it's quite a big difference. You said that we, and I quote, "tried deleting this redirect yesterday and failed", and that we are now "trying again." Which is bullshit. This redirect wasn't nominated for deletion. Make sure you know what you're saying, or keep your big mouth shut. You were proven wrong, and there's no way you can wiggle your way out of this. Aecis ^praatpaal 19:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Could I possibly suggest that every in the NH and DC stubs votes take some time and cool down? Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 19:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nom. DES ^(talk) 00:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• 'comment I've just re-edited the 30 or so non-stub geography articles that karmafist added this redirect to in the last few days - articles of the size of Barrington, New Hampshire. He seems to have done the same with {{New Hampshire-stub}}. More fun and games. Grutness...wha? 10:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a redirect. --SPUI (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

{{District of Columbia-stub}}

Not a redirect - a duplicate. Karmafist clearly decided we needed more work on this page, so there's this incorrectly named template to delete as well. If anyone wants to start an RFC against karmafist, let me know, because he's inching towards one... Grutness...wha? 23:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Duplicate of what? Either way, it seems like we should keep this as a redirect to the template it duplicates; natural redirects are useful for editors. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • A stub template redirect that violates the naming guidelines does not strike me as a "natural" redirect. In any case, both it and the stub that it duplicates were created without being proposed. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Um, "name of thing"-"stub" seems pretty natural to me, in the same way that "name" would be a natural title for an article. And certainly proposing a page isn't a requirement for it to be created. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The stub guidelines recommend proposing stubs on the proposals page first, not only so that the naming guidelines to be applied, but also to ensure that there are enough stubs that would use the proposed new stub. While the naming guidlines may need revising, they currently call for the stub to be named {{DistrictofColumbia-stub}}. Revision to the naming guidlines should be done by a proposal, not by creating stub templates that violate that policy. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I know you and Karmafist don't see eye to eye on these stub issues, but once again this is not a case of him creating new stubs just to annoy you. This stub was created on December 8, which was before the other DC stub was nominated. This is part of the original issue, not a new one. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 06:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • comment so what was the real estate stub that he created on december 9 after he knew not to create new stubs without proposing them? grutness and caerwine are right hes being a pain. (delete) BL kiss the lizard 04:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't see any reference to a real estate stub. Could you point it out to me? I still think that too many people are assuming bad faith on the part of others. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 06:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • on WSS/D BL kiss the lizard 07:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you are reaching a bit with that argument. The same people in this discussion decided that it was a useful, but misnamed stub. They gave it the correct name and that was that. If he had created another misnamed redirect stub after the 9th, then I would agree with you. All of the MRS's had been created before the initial nomination, so accusations of deliberate sabotage are unfounded. All I am seeing is frustration on both sides which is why I suggested taking time to cool down. Accusations of POINTism and OWNerism will not help resolve this. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 07:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Before the nomination, yes, but after karmafist was informed on his user talk page that stub types had to be proposed first. Add to that karmafist's comment on my user talk page that he intends to continue creating redirects to stub templates (presumably irrespective of the naming guidelines or any decisions on these ones) and is it any wonder there's frustration? His message suggests that he will continue to do so "until stub naming becomes simple and intuitive" - presumably against the wishes of WP:WSS, whose naming guidelines are simple and intuitive. His redirects, by going against these naming guidelines, make the situation less simple and less intuitive. Grutness...wha? 07:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't see that before. I've pretty much said all I wanted to anyway. Delete on the basis of Darkwikianism (as I understand it). Even if the stub process is not good, it is the best promoted by consensus to date and should be followed. I hope this dispute can be resolved without further escalation. Honestly, it's been like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 08:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Tell me about it :/ Grutness...wha? 08:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
      • and, a week later, Karmafist starts creating pointless redirects contravening the naming guidelines again (see "Canadian-bio-stub", "American Football-stub" and "Television-stub" at the top of the page). It's getting harder and harder to see this as anything other than malicious. Grutness...wha? 06:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nom. DES ^(talk) 00:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a redirect. --SPUI (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

December 9th

Rename Category:Pub stub

As with the Nazi stub below, the category needs a rename to end in the standard " stubs" as Category:Pub stubs Caerwine Caerwhine 04:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Do we even need Category:Pub stubs? It's only ever had a few dozen stubs, and if the London ones were in Category:London buildings and structures stubs (where they'd probably see more action) it would reduce it to about 40 stubs in total. I wouldn't object if this one was deleted. But failing that, yes, a rename would be useful. Grutness...wha? 14:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this already covered by the bars in {{restaurant-stub}}? Aecis ^praatpaal 19:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

There 59 stubs in this category. Weak delete, but rename if kept. Conscious 15:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Rename as per nom. Alai 04:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

{{District Of Columbia-stub}}

While we can argue the pros and cons of whether we should have specific state-stubs (or in this case, district-stub) without WikiProjects, this does need a rename. User:Karmafist merrily created this and Virginia-stub without reference to WP:WSS/P, and the redirect below. Personally, I'm definitely softening on the "no project, no stub" stance" (and have called for debate at the foot of WP:WSS/P about it) but this needs a rename. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• There's also the problem of the capital "O". This stub needs a possibly lengthy discussion on the proposals page before it gets approved. Simply delete this one now until we can decide whether to name this {{DistrictofColumbia-stub}} or {{WashingtonDC-stub}}. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Yes Grutness, I sang a little song on my merry little way. La la la...
  

I have no problem with renaming it, but let's make a redirect there to whatever the new stub is. The newcomers and non-cruftinators will be turned off to putting stubs on articles as guideposts to let others know that they're small and need to be improved, which is their only purpose anyway other than perhaps methods of categorization.
There's no need to propose anything when it can just be done. karmafist 03:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• • As long as you remember to not be reckless. Creating new stub types is just the type of thing the be bold page advises editors to be cautious about as it is an action with widespread effects. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • If there are any issues, then something like the proposal page is warranted to gain consensus on what needs to be done to fix any problems. This little stub isn't hurting anybody, and it doesn't hurt to have it at least as a redirect to the actual stub for the newbies/people who don't regularly stub articles related to it and will find something else to do if it's too complicated. karmafist 16:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Consensus has already been established and is reflected in the naming guidelines for stubs. Changing that guideline requires a proposal not the arbitrary creation of stubs that ignore those guidelines. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Where was this consensus? When was it recognized? How many people agreed to it? Was it assumed to be in a well trafficked area of Wikipedia so other Wikipedians had notice that an attempt at consensus was being acquired? I don't know it, but I can bet you that it's not at the level of WP:AFD or WP:RFA or the ilk, which I consider acceptable. Please. Let me feel like this isn't being decided in some dark smoke filled room somewhere and that I won't have to jump through a large series of hoops or be stomped upon by some bureaucracy to help the articles that interest me. karmafist 00:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It's on Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If that's not a prominent enough place, where would you prefer, the Main Page, perhaps? Grutness...wha? 03:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
        • And who decided what the naming conventions are, hmmm? karmafist 17:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
          • anyone who came along to discus them when it was advertised on the naming convention page that it was going on. lots of people did but you obviously werent intrested then. BL <small>kiss the lizard 04:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
            • If it's at all like the 12 people who decided to create WP:SFD, you'll forgive me if I'm non-plussed. —Locke Cole 08:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Presumably not many people debated that simply because no-one objected to it. If the stub naming guidelines are as contentious as some people seem to suggest, there would surely have been loads of objections. Consider too how many people use these naming guidelines. There are over 100 people in the stub-sorting wikiproject alone, not to mention countless others in other wikiprojects around wikipedia who are more than happy to abide by them. Grutness...wha? 08:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per my explanation above. If the systems needs to be reformed, then reform it rather than ignore it. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 08:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per User:Jokermage. DES ^(talk) 18:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a redirect. --SPUI (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

{{New Hampshire-stub}} (redirect)

At the same time as the above, Karmafist also made this redirect which runs contrary to naming practice. Delete this, at least. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per my DC stub argument above. Please, just make a standard and move on, and make anything that could be miscontrued at first glance as the same thing without going into cruftland as a redirect. karmafist 03:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Question. So long as those of us working on New Hampshire articles do have a NH stub we can use, I'm not really concerned. Would deleting this stub remove all New Hampshire stubs and the New Hampshire stub category? Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 04:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This nomination just concerns the redirect {{New Hampshire-stub}}; regardless of the outcome of this, {{NewHampshire-stub}} and Category:New Hampshire stubs would stay (unless someone nominates them seperately). There's also a discussion at the bottom of WP:WSS/P about the general idea of stubs for US states, which might be of interest. Mairi 04:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for clarifying this. I'm going to be Neutral on this then. I can see reasons for keeping and reasons for deleting. Personally, I would prefer an alternate New Hamphshire stub to be {{NH-stub}} or {{NHUS-stub}}. I'd only want one of these because they are several letters less to type. I don't know much about the stub rules or naming conventions, so I don't know if these are possible. Sorry for rambling. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 12:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Not really. Many abbreviations are likely to be ambiguous, so we try to avoid them except in very rare circumstances. NH-stub could just as easily refer to National Highways, for instance. WP:WSS/NG has the naming conventions. Grutness...wha? 14:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
        • In the US, NH is almost always New Hampshire. Outside of the US, it is either New Hampshire or a chain of international hotels. A search of the English Language Wikipedia on NH gives New Hampshire related results more often than not. So I would say that NH is not very ambiguious. I stand corrected, but I'm still getting the feeling that this is probably off topic or getting off topic for the deletion vote. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 14:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
          • NH is indeed used for New Hampshire, but it's also used for the hotel chain and for North Holland. That is at least three possible uses of one letter combination, so at least three grounds for confusion and ambiguity. So in my view, nh-stub is definitely not an option. Neutral on the nomination, btw. Aecis ^praatpaal 19:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
        • here in new zealand it always means North Harbour, New Zealand. delete. BL kiss the lizard 23:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as it seems to be helping editors in the New Hampshire project keep track of the work. - DavidWBrooks 14:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above, this stub helps us organize articles that need to be expanded as part of the New Hampshire project. - SailorfromNH 15:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Don't see why this needs to be deleted, I think it is better to actually keep this stub in order to make oversight and work easier. Gryffindor 16:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep No reason not to have stubs for states, regardless of whether there happens to be a project or not. Specific stubs help sort stub articles specifically, thereby helping contributors interested in a specific topic to find stub articles to improve. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 17:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Per Evilphoenix. Banes 17:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: there seems to be some confusion. This discussion, based on Grutness's nomination, is not about whether or not to have stub type for New Hampshire. It is about whether to delete the redirect {{New Hampshire-stub}}. --Mairi 17:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've already voted - and yes, I did misunderstand. But what's the problem with keeping a misspelled redirect? There are TONS of misspelled wiki pages that redirect to the correct page (e.g., no cap letter in a person's last name). Does this get in anybody's way? - DavidWBrooks 19:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree as well. Yes, there was some confusion. I reread the proposal however again, and I still don't see anything wrong with having a redirect. I thought redirects are here to help the users, to facilitate navigation? If this helps.... well then why should it be gotten rid off? Gryffindor 23:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • because it hurts the servers! any way if it was useful it would have been used by now but nothing uses it except a bunch of user pages. BL kiss the lizard 23:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
      • You must be talking about another redirect then, I don't understand how a redirect that is a few kilobytes is going to take up any serious space on the servers. karmafist 23:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • aiui all template redirects hurt the servers because they need double calls on them. thats why we try to not have stub redirects more than we have to. BL kiss the lizard 00:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Then "The Experts" can move the redirects into the main stubs one by one. Whoever puts the stubs on shouldn't be concerned about it when they're down in the trenches. karmafist 00:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
        • So you favor having more edits, tying up the time of stub sorters, and hoping that we don't have problems like we have had at times with the software that have made a mess of being certain of identifying template redirects as being preferable to following a consistent set of naming guidelines. I don't see any problem with holding editors to a higher standard than readers. If doing so drives away a few editors who are unwilling to engage in some minimal effort, I see that as a positive, not a negative. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Not only that, but (s)he also favours keeping the redirects as temporary "holding warehouses" only. It's like saying that if you write an article you can call it whatever you want, because someone is bound to come along and correct the title later. What kind of madness is that? One group of stub sorters add them only in order for another set to replace them. Twice as much work for no gain, more strain for the servers, inability to easily tell what a template's name should be because of redirects that go against naming guidelines... Grutness...wha? 03:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the redirect as per nomination. Conscious 08:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems like a reasonable and useful redirect, makes life easier for editors unfamiliar with the relevant naming conventions, which are fairly arcane. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete there is already a NH stub template for the WP, see Template:NewHampshire-stub. The current one up for deletion was deleted back in October 2005 due to my creation of it without going through the proper process. This one is only on one Article page, what is the harm in deleting it. Assawyer 04:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Changing my vote to Delete as per Assawyer's argument. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 06:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep —Locke Cole 10:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• speedy delete its already been deleted once and is redundent and doesnt follow the correct naming. BL kiss the lizard 04:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per the nomination. DES ^(talk) 00:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm absolutely speechless. What on earth are redirects here for if not for cases like this? Matt Yeager 04:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Template redirects are considered more harmful than article redirects, because they cause double loading whenever any page with that stub tag on it is loaded. Article redirects only cause double loading when that redirect is actually clicked on. sjorford (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Changing my vote to delete. Aecis ^praatpaal 12:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a redirect. --SPUI (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

December 8th

{{UT-stub}}, {{UT-bio-stub}}, and {{UT-geo-stub}} (Redirects)

These are all redirects to stubs from the Utah WikiProject, and said project doesn't even mention them (save on the talk page thereof). We don't need and shouldn't want a postal abbreviation here as a special case, so delete all three. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

A case could be made for the ease of using an abbreviation for Massachusetts or North Carolina, due to the name's length - but even then it would be against stub naming guidelines. But Utah? Make them type an extra two letters! Grutness...wha? 05:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep; no reason to delete. --SPUI (talk) 07:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete no reason to keep and reasons not to UT could be utrehct (sp?) or united states territories or tanzania (officialy United Tanzania). BL kiss the lizard 07:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Utrecht, BL ;) Delete btw. Aecis ^praatpaal 12:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • i was close :) BL kiss the lizard 04:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Alai 04:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

{{Europe-mil-stub}}

Somehow, when this one was made, it was made with "Europe" rather than the standard "Euro"". Rename to the more standard {{Euro-mil-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 10:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• We might wish to get into a debate over whether we should be using a four letter abbreviation for a six letter word, but that should be handled at the bottom of the proposals page, not here. Delete Caerwine Caerwhine 15:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think we need an extra stub to add to a thousand pages. --Valentinian 22:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as per nom. Also, totally confused as to why we have two delete votes on a rename nom. Obviously a case of write-in democracy in action, but makes actual consensus bogglingly hard to determine if it stays like this. (Not to say, argues for separate sfd/sfr templates...) Possibly keep redirect. Alai 05:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • What I meant was Rename to {{Euro-mil-stub}} and Delete the redirect. Caerwine Caerwhine 12:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah! Alai 06:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

{{hist-book-stub}} & Category:Historical fiction book stubs

While taking a look at whether the proposed {{hist-film-stub}} would be worth creating, I discovered that its parent cat would be Category:Period films. It then struck me that by using "period fiction" instead of "historical fiction" for this stub type, we would be able to have a stub type about history books without having to resort to the {{hist-text-stub}} that Grutness has been suggesting without much enthusiasm from others. Therefore I propose that we:

Rename to {{period-book-stub}} & Category:Period fiction book stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• sounds like a far better solution. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment FWIW the current parent category of this is Category:Historical novels. --Mairi 00:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

True, and "historical fiction" is by far more used as a term than "period fiction". Without the other potential use of the stub template for non-fiction hostory books, I wouldn't have even proposed this one. If there were some other way to break the log jam that has kept the non fiction book stubs from being split despite the fact that they need to be, I'd take it, but the other suggested method ("-text-") has not received much favor on the proposals page. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps rename the template to {{hist-fict-stub}} (or any variation on the abbreviations) or {{hist-novel-stub}}? --Mairi 04:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

{{histfict-book-stub}} might be a possibility, but between the abbreviations and the fact that {{histfict-film-stub}} would be far less obvious than {{period-film-stub}} makes me slightly leery, but not so leery that I'd out and out oppose it if others favored it. Caerwine Caerwhine 11:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment I could be wrong, but doesn't "historical fiction" refer to a fictional work concerning a real event or person (such as the movie Amadeus is a fictional work about a historically important person: Mozart) whereas "period fiction" concerns a story at a differnt time, but not about historical events or people? I'm not completely sure, but it's what I've always understood about it.Rt66lt 22:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• I use &quot;Historical fiction" for both -- for example i call the Horatio Hornblower books historical fiction. I would call Pride and Prejudice histoprical fiction if it had been written recently. DES ^(talk) 05:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

December 6th

{{ST-ep-stub}}

I believe that this one, albeit poetic, is a bit too ambiguous. ST isn't just the abbreviation of Star Trek, it's also the ISO country code for São Tomé and Príncipe, the ISO language code for Sesotho and the NATO country code for Saint Lucia. EP is usually used for the European parliament or extended play music recordings. I propose renaming this to {{StarTrek-episode-stub}}. Aecis ^praatpaal 23:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm half inclined to suggest that we up merge this one into {{ST-stub}} instead (which also needs a rename) At around 400 stubs the combined stub type would not be overlarge. All the Star Trek episode stubs have "(X episode)" [where X refers to the particular series] at the end of the article name so it's not as if the episodes need a separate stub stype to be distinguishable and no other series has a seperate episode stub type. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• upmerging would indeed be a reasonable thing to do. If not, then definitely rename Grutness...wha? 01:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • On a second glance, the size of these categories is fairly substantial - 250 and 140 articles for St and ST-ep respectively. Perhaps a simple rename is the better option after all. Grutness...wha? 10:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Normally, I would agree with you except that every single Star Trek episode stub ends with " episode)" in the article title, as is specified by the naming convention for episode articles of the Star Trek WikiProject. With the distinction being already made obvious, I personally would only see a reason to split off the episodes if the category were {verylarge} which at 400 stubs it is not. I've left a note on the Star Trek WikiProject talk page about this, so hopefuly we'll get some response about this from those who would be most likely to use these stubs for the intended purpose of finding articles that need improvement. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• upmerge to a renamed StarTrek-Stub as per User:Caerwine. DES ^(talk) 18:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• upmerge BL kiss the lizard 11:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

{{ITC Entertainment Productions-stub}} and Category:ITC Entertainment stubs

Barely used, doesn't really seem viable, cuts right across the existing hierarchy. Has a Wikiproject, but doesn't have enough articles for a Wikiproject to get its own stub. Aecis ^praatpaal 17:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This is a newish Wikiproject, still getting off the ground. In the last three days alone, Man of the World, Seaway, The Sentimental Agent, Cannonball (series), The Buccaneers (series), The Des O'Connor Show, Bonkers!, Diver Dan, Espionage (series), The Forest Rangers, The Four Just Men and From a Bird's Eye View have all been added as stubs. These stubs are detailed but need further work - Phase 2 of the ITC Wikiproject. The stubs are distinct from other relevant stubs (TV programmes in general, for instance) as they are all for non-contemporary shows that have a distinct specialist audience (in other words, there are distinct "fans" of ITC programming). I can provide web references for whole websites devoted to ITC programming. Also, please see this list of productions that will be using the ITC stub in the near future. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as noted, this project is still getting off the ground. Will eventually have dozens of articles (in fact already does). 23skidoo 19:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral on the category as it now has 29 stubs, but the template definitely needs a rename to fit in with the naming guidelines which specifically call for using hyphens and not spaces between the components. I'd favour {{ITC-tv-stub}} since ITC was a television production company and thus stubs relating to it and its shows belong a subtype of {{tv-stub}} and possibly {{UK-tv-stub}}. That's another reason why you should have proposed first and created second, so as to get the stub properly named and placed in the stub heirarchy. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• At the very least rename. Why don't new WikiProjects follow the rules??? Grutness...wha? 01:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - for reasons already given. As for "new WikiProjects [not] following the rules".... perhaps if they were not so difficult to find (especially for new(ish) members who just want to get on and start helping, then perhaps they would be followed more often. HowardBerry 08:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Emphatic second of that -- it can be hard enough to find a Wikiproject that you know exists, let alone find clear directions on how to go about starting a new one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to {{ITC-tv-stub}}. I think the Wikiproject will find this template name much more convenient. Conscious 14:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The rename option isn't that helpful to the project - if you look at this list you'll see that ITC did more than TV series. If we rename, it will simply spawn 1 or 2 more stubs to make up for the productions the stub doesn't cover. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 15:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • {{ITC-stub}} is too ambiguous, so that is not an option. {{ITC-Entertainment-stub}} I suppose would be an option and it would parallel the main article ITC Entertainment while following the naming guidelines. Probably should join {{Disney-stub}} as a child of {{corp-stub}} with the expanded scope. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • • Regarding Redvers' comment above: I completely agree that renaming this to be a TV stub is not going to work/be productive. ITC did more than television productions - they were also a film production company and a distribution company. A more suitable rename would not include TV or Film, but rename it to something relevant to media in general. HowardBerry 16:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you think of a template name that would comply with naming guidelines, be precise and descriptive, and as convenient as possible? I don't like the current name - it's too long, and not standard. What about {{ITCEntertainmentProductions-stub}} or {{ITCEntertainment-stub}}?
    • Perhaps {{ITCDistributions-stub}} would be acceptable? HowardBerry 20:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep, with support for renaming Template:ITV-stub or an agreed short version if necessary. -- Cjmarsicano 20:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I'd go for {{ITCDistributions-stub}} or {{ITC-Distributions-stub}}. I don't know where Template:ITV-stub came from, though: ITC shows were specifically not ITV shows; they just happened to usually (but by no means always) be shown on ITV in the UK thanks to ATV's ownership of ITC. In the main, they were produced in order to sell them into syndication in the United States - the UK sales were a by-product. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the category has it has more than enough now for a Wikiproject stub. Rename to {{ITCEntertainment-stub}}. (Where is "ITC Distributions" coming from as an idea for a name? That doesn't even exist as a redirect in Wikipedia?) Caerwine Caerwhine 10:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. ITC Distributions is the description we're using in the Wikiproject. The project started as being about ITC productions, but once the can was open, the worms got everywhere: ITC was a producer, financer and distributor and the line is rarely very clear. The term "An ITC World-Wide Distribution" is seen on a lot of ITC and ATV programmes - it was a phrase carefully chosen by the Independent Television Authority to ensure that ITC stuff was held at arms-length from ATV's stuff. All of this is very complex and very difficult to explain (that's why there's no article explaining it). It's also not a particularly likely search term for readers - and many editors here have an embolism if you create a redirect that they don't think it's likely anyone will search for - whether they know the subject or not. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 11:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not one to have embolisms over redirects in article space. (In template space I might, but not article space.) About the only ones I worry about there are those which correct multiple mistakes at the same time. That said, I wouldn't favor {{ITCDistributions-stub}} unless the cat were also changed to Category:ITC Distributions stubs Don't really care what you decide to call yourselves or the stub type as long as the stub follows the naming guidelines and is not ambiguous. As noted, {{ITC-stub}} would be too ambiguous. Caerwine Caerwhine 11:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm all for changing it all to follow the ITC Distributions name as standard. Howie ☎ 13:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but would also support shortening the stub's name to something more convenient. The JPS 14:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't know how this process completes, but if no one has any objections, would it now be ok to rename this stub and category (and any relevant pages (if any)) to follow the name ITC Distributions as standard? Howie ☎ 15:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • SFD is supposed to take a week (it sometimes take longer due to lag or lack of consensus, but the latter at least doesn't seem to apply here.) Since the nomination was on the 6th, the change can be done starting on the 13th. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Excellent! Thanks very much. I'll change the names now! Howie ☎ 02:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note that Category:ITC Entertainment stubs now needs to be deleted, as a page move was not possible. It has been replaced with Category:ITC Distributions stubs as discussed above. Howie ☎ 03:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

December 2nd

*-related stub categories resolution

This is a series of separate SfD's to which individual problems or objections of simply removing the -related from the stub category were made.

{{RC-stub}} & Category:Catholic-related stubs

It was suggested that both the template and the category be renamed.

• Rename to {{RomanCatholic-stub}} & Category:Roman Catholic Church stubs Caerwine 21:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Either rename as per Caerwine or expand scope and rename simply as catholic-stub. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as per Caerwine. Oppose a rescope, without being much clearer about what the new scope would be. Alai 06:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Either Rename to Catholic-stub per Grutness if acceptable (see objections claiming that secular understanding includes all other sects claiming 'Catholic' name), else Retain as is. But, seriously, how long will this vote be? Be quick, this is looking awkward! WikiSceptic 14:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as per Caerwine --SockpuppetSamuelson 14:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Retain {{RC-stub}} and rename Category:Roman Catholic stubs The scope of this should be as it is now, Catholic Church related stubs, not other Catholic sects or offshoots. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • rename Category:Roman Catholic Church stubs Caerwine explained the reasoning. I can live with it. RC-stub is easy to type though. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep RC-stub but create sub-stub like Catholic texts, Catholic theologian, Catholic buildings, etc. -- Psy guy ^Talk 20:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the stub name as there are over 800 pages that have used it. Rename the category if there is an automated/bot way of fixing up the pages. -- Fplay 13:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

{{Nauru-stub}} & Category:Nauru-related stubs

It was suggested that the stub be deleted instead.

• Delete With close to a year of existence, it has only 24 stubs, which is below the recommendation even if it had a WikiProject. There's also not much potential for more stubs given that the nation consists of only one small island, making it the smallest independ republic in terms of both area and population. Caerwine 21:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and restub to the hardly overpopulated oceania-stub. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment after some stub searching, it's now up to 42 stubs. --Mairi 04:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm very impressed - that's one stub for every 150 people in the country! Grutness...wha? 05:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It has quite a few stubs, and it bugs me that systemic bias issues are so regularly ignored on this page. Ambi 03:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's hardly systemic bias that this country only has 6000 people, and therefore not very many articles. It makes far more sense for editors who are able to expand articles on Pacific islands in general to be able to find them in one go. It makes a lot of sense to have individual main categories for every country, but not for individual countries to have their own stub categories, simply because stub categories are aimed at helping editors, and editors who know about some PI nations are very likely to know about others too. As it happens, there are probably enough stubs here for this category to survive, but if there hadn't been, it would have made far more sense to upmerge it. Grutness...wha? 03:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep In concurrence with Ambi, believing the nation should get its own stub. --Allstar86 06:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

{{Azerbaijan-stub}} & Category:Azerbaijan-related stubs

It was suggested that the stub be deleted instead.

• Delete Too few stubs. Caerwine 21:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Well, I suppose there are not that many stubs, because I created the category not a few weeks ago. Where I suppose to put Azebaijan-related stubs, that are not Category:Azerbaijan geography stubs? I suggest merging Category:Azerbaijan geography stubs into the Category:Azerbaijan-related stubs abakharev 23:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• There's also {{Azeri-stub}} (same scope, seperate template) and {{Azeri}} (redirect) which should go, regardless of what happens with this. --Mairi 00:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Azeri-stub and Azeri, redirect Azerbaijan-stub to {{caucasus-stub}} (which is the answer to your question, Alex!) Grutness...wha? 00:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. How are people supposed to fill gaps in our coverage of underrepresented countries such as Azerbaijan if they can't find said gaps? Ambi 03:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As with Nauru, above, the answer is that editors able to extend Azerbaijan articles are very likely to be able to also extend articles on Georgia and Armenia, and as such, having these articles in one moderately populated category rather than three sparsely populated categories helps them, as well as making in more rather than less likely that the articles will be edited, since an editor who - for example - knows a lot about Armenia but a slight amount about Azerbaijan would see these articles listed when they might not otherwise have seen them at all. Grutness...wha? 03:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete and merge with caucasus-stub. BL kiss the lizard 09:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

{{Guyana-stub}} & Category:Guyana-related stubs

It was suggested that the stub be deleted instead.

• Delete Too few stubs. Caerwine 21:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - SouthAm-stub can be used happily enough. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Comment -- The Guyana contingent of wikipedians is just beginning to trickle in and be more active. Guyana-stubs et al. should just be merged with the Caribbean-stubs since Guyana has nearly all of their ties to the Caribbean and precious little with the rest of South America. Their articles usually always are more Caribbean centric then South American and thus would be updated much faster as Caribbean-stubs and much less rapidly as South America Stubs. CaribDigita 02:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a bad idea to merge English-speaking countries in with Spanish-speaking areas, because different editors are able to expand them. Kappa 02:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment There are too few stubs at present to justify this stub type so Keep is not an option. Neither the South American nor the Caribbean stubs are particularly overloaded at present. With only Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguaym, Uruguay, and the Guianas lacking country level stubs at present, SouthAm-stub is not particularly crowded and has fewer stubs than Caribbean-stub. At most, I could see treating the Caribbean in a similar fashion as we do with the Middle East now and have stubs for the Guianas (Guyana, French Guiana, and Suriname) be double stubbed with both the Caribbean and the South American stub, just as stubs that would take {{Egypt-stub}} if it existed take {{Africa-stub}} and {{MEast-stub}} for now. Caerwine 05:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I see that Kappa has been busy finding and creating Guyana stubs. Keep this up and I'll probably have to change my vote, but only if you fix the Guyana Broadcasting Corporation article and any others that may have suffered the same problem of having content intended for another article. Caerwine 05:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• With 38 stubs now, the geo stub category, and the 8 in the bio-stub that unless it grows soon that I'll be nominating for an up merge when this one concludes, I'm switching from delete to no vote. However, if kept, the category definitely needs a rename to Category:Guyana stubs.
  • • • It don't think it can be change back to "Guyana stubs" there was some vote a a few months back that everything should be converted to "(placename)-related stubs". CaribDigita 01:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Quite the reverse, there a was a vote last month in favor of eliminating all of the "-related"s from all stub categories. Mairi has been been keeping Mairibot busy with that and hasn't finishied. This one was part of that discussion, but because of the possibility of deleting the stub entirely was referred to this separate SfD instead.

November 29th

Category:Islamic-scholar-stub; Category:Islamic scholar stubs; Category:Islamic theologian stubs; {{Islamic-theologian-stub}}; {{Islamic-scholar-stub}}

Template {{islamic-theologian-stub}} was moved to {{islamic-scholar-stub}} yesterday. The category it feeds into was changed to Category:Islamic-scholar-stub. I think the template should be at least reworded to feed into category according to guidelines. Also, (as far as I can see) the move was completed without any consultation here, so another question is, which one should be deleted, the theologian version, or the scholar version? Conscious 08:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• I vote to at least delete Category:Islamic-scholar-stub (of course, moving all articles to a properly named category). Conscious 08:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• I moved it to "Islamic-scholar-stub". Im sorry for doing such a poor job at it, it was my first try. "Islamic-scholar-stub" is better that "Islamic-theologian-stub", since it can also include non-Muslim scholars, and those do not fitt in "Islamic-theologian-stub". Delete "islamic-theologian-stub" and "Islamic scholar stubs". Im sorry for any inconvinience, i did it for the benefit of Wikipedia. --Striver 13:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well we'd want to keep a template and category with similar names, no matter what. The hyphenated category name should definitely go, to start with. Of the two remaining pairs, I think {{Islamic-theologian-stub}} and Category:Islamic theologian stubs is the better combination, since it reinforces the fact that the stubs are for people studying islam, rather than for moslems studying anything (and when you consider that many of the finest scientists of the middle ages were moslem, it makes a difference). But it's only a minor preference, so I won't be too disappointed if the -scholar- ones are used instead. Grutness...wha? 13:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• A strong delete on Category:Islamic-scholar-stub. That poorly named category ought to meet the speedy delete category for categories in general. I don't buy Striver's reasoning for the move at all. To me, both {{Islamic-theologian-stub}} and {{Islamic-scholar-stub}} carry the same degree of connotation that the person is a follower of Islam. However, that matters little to me. Most, if not all, people who specialize in the study of a single religion are going to do so in their own. The intent of the stub was to in part serve as a feeder stub into both {{Islam-bio-stub}} and {{theologian-stub}} (the intended replacement of the poorly named {{theologist-stub}}), so that argues in favor using the theologian form. I might could see broadening the scope somewhat, but if so, it should be to philosopher not scholar, since we already have non-stub categories Category:Christian philosophers, Category:Muslim philosophers, etc. So what else?
  Delete Category:Islamic scholar stubs and {{Islamic-scholar-stub}}.
  Keep Category:Islamic theologian stubs
  Weak keep on {{Islamic-theologian-stub}}, since I'm not convinced that we should be using the adjective "Islamic" instead of the noun "Islam" in the stub template. However as that issue also affects {{Christian-clergy-stub}} and {{Christian-theologian-stub}}, best to tackle that issue in a separate SfD once the scholar/theologian issue is settled here. Caerwine 14:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Now I think I see what's it all about. Striver, were you intending to broaden the scope of the template to include all scholars professing Islam, no matter what they study? If so, that's not what the template was created for (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals#.7B.7Breli-bio-stub.7D.7D_splits). It was purposed for people who study Islam specifically. If there's a stub about, say, Muslim physicist, it should be marked with {{physicist-stub}}, as religion hardly matters here. My vote is:
  • Delete Category:Islamic scholar stubs and {{Islamic-scholar-stub}}; keep Category:Islamic theologian stubs and {{Islamic-theologian-stub}}. Conscious 15:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

comment no, i dont intend to included scholars of random things in the category, only scholars that study about Islam, no matter what they profes. Islamic-theologian-stub denotes that they study theology, while there are other aspects, such as history. The theologian stub exludes the non-muslim scholars of Islamic history, and it is therefore i renamed it to Islamic-scholar-stub. I tried with Islamic-theologian-stub, but User:Zora angrily reverted me, saying "he is NOT a theologian" [2]. I personaly dont care all that much, as long as i can include both Muslim and non-Muslim students of Islamic theology and/or history in the category. Anyhow, i think Islamic-sholar-stub rhymes better with list of Islamic scholars.

• Delete, make one Islamic stub with all of them. Lincher 18:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete This is a problematic category and deserves more thought than it has been given. There are two SEPARATE scholarly traditions, the Islamic (ulema, mullah, imam, qadi) and the Western/secular/academic, and there is little overlap between them. I hope that there's going to be more overlap in the future, but at present, the ulema regard the academics as heretics and the academics regard the ulema as remnants of the Middle Ages. To be very blunt, as I usually am. It seems just WRONG to put them both under one template, when they don't accept each others' expertise. If we had two templates, I don't know how they could be phrased so as not to offend either group. Zora 21:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

comment "Muslim-Islamic-scholar-stub" & "Non-Muslim-Islamic-scholar-stub"... lol... --Striver 01:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

comment No, because of people like Reza Aslan, who is Muslim, but firmly in the Western academic tradition. I don't think he has taken any of the traditional Islamic curriculum. Zora 03:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Sounds like what is being sought is a stub for Islamicists, i.e., those who study the cultural and historical aspects of Islam without worrying about whether the Quran is revealed truth or not. {{Islamicist-stub}} might suffice, but until we have the 60 known stubs that are the recommended minimum, how about double-stubbing with {{Islam-stub}} and {{academic-bio-stub}} for now. Caerwine 03:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Just now got through with restubbing all the articles in Category:Islamic-scholar-stub so that the misnamed categorty could be removed, as it is sure to be regardless of whether the decision is to keep Category:Islamic scholar stubs, Category:Islamic theologian stubs, or both. Some ended up being placed in neither of the two categories, as while the person in question did do some Islamic studies, it was in the context of a broader area of interest, so a broader stub was more appropriate. Most ended up being placed in the scholar stub category as given a choice between the two it seemed the most approriate, tho that was skewed by several substubs that only said X was an Islamic scholar. If the sample was representative, we might want to rethink whether an Islamic theologian stub will actually be viable. On the other hand, I think most of the articles were stubbed by the proponent of the scholar stub, so it's not surprising that they would fit more easily in that classification. That said, I'm changing my preference.

• Keep {{Islamic-scholar-stub}} & Category:Islamic scholar stubs
• Delete {{Islamic-theologian-stub}} & Category:Islamic theologian stubs as it is not clear that there are 60 such stubs now. Caerwine Caerwhine 20:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

November 24th

The last of the -related's

There is still a truck load of -related stub categories. I say we fix these, to get it over with. Some of these may already be discussed below, and some stub categories I proposed already exist.
Geographical

1. Category:Africa-related stubs --> Category:Africa stubs
2. Category:Albania-related stubs --> Category:Albania stubs
3. Category:Argentina-related stubs --> Category:Argentina stubs
4. Category:Australia-related stubs --> Category:Australia stubs
5. Category:Austria-related stubs --> Category:Austria stubs
6. Category:Azerbaijan-related stubs --> Category:Azerbaijan stubs (SEE NOTE BELOW)
7. Category:Bangladesh-related stubs --> Category:Bangladesh stubs
8. Category:Belgium-related stubs --> Category:Belgium stubs
9. Category:Brazil-related stubs --> Category:Brazil stubs
10. Category:Bulgaria-related stubs --> Category:Bulgaria stubs
11. Category:California-related stubs --> Category:California stubs
12. Category:Cambodia-related stubs --> Category:Cambodia stubs (SEE NOTE BELOW)
13. Category:Canada-related stubs --> Category:Canada stubs
14. Category:Caribbean-related stubs --> Category:Caribbean stubs
15. Category:Cayman Islands-related stubs --> Category:Cayman Islands stubs
16. Category:Central America-related stubs --> Category:Central America stubs
17. Category:Central Asia-related stubs --> Category:Central Asia stubs
18. Category:Chicago-related stubs --> Category:Chicago stubs
19. Category:Chile-related stubs --> Category:Chile stubs
20. Category:China-related stubs --> Category:China stubs
21. Category:Colombia-related stubs --> Category:Colombia stubs (SEE NOTE BELOW)
22. Category:Croatia-related stubs --> Category:Croatia stubs
23. Category:Denmark-related stubs --> Category:Denmark stubs
24. Category:Estonia-related stubs --> Category:Estonia stubs
25. Category:Fiji-related stubs --> Category:Fiji stubs
26. Category:Finland-related stubs --> Category:Finland stubs
27. Category:France-related stubs --> Category:France stubs
28. Category:Germany-related stubs --> Category:Germany stubs
29. Category:Greece-related stubs --> Category:Greece stubs
30. Category:Greenland-related stubs --> Category:Greenland stubs
31. Category:Guyana-related stubs --> Category:Guyana stubs (SEE NOTE BELOW)
32. Category:Hawaii-related stubs --> Category:Hawaii stubs
33. Category:Hong Kong-related stubs --> Category:Hong Kong stubs (SEE NOTE BELOW)
34. Category:Hungary-related stubs --> Category:Hungary stubs
35. Category:Iceland-related stubs --> Category:Iceland stubs (SEE NOTE BELOW)
36. Category:India-related stubs --> Category:India stubs
37. Category:Indonesia-related stubs --> Category:Indonesia stubs (SEE NOTE BELOW)
38. Category:Iran-related stubs --> Category:Iran stubs
39. Category:Iraq-related stubs --> Category:Iraq stubs
40. Category:Ireland-related stubs --> Category:Ireland stubs
41. Category:Israel-related stubs --> Category:Israel stubs
42. Category:Italy-related stubs --> Category:Italy stubs
43. Category:Japan-related stubs --> Category:Japan stubs
44. Category:Korea-related stubs --> Category:Korea stubs
45. Category:Laos-related stubs --> Category:Laos stubs
46. Category:Lithuania-related stubs --> Category:Lithuania stubs
47. Category:Maldives-related stubs --> Category:Maldives stubs
48. Category:Maryland-related stubs --> Category:Maryland stubs (SEE NOTE BELOW)
49. Category:Mexico-related stubs --> Category:Mexico stubs
50. Category:Middle East-related stubs --> Category:Middle East stubs
51. Category:Moldova-related stubs --> Category:Moldova stubs
52. Category:Morocco-related stubs --> Category:Morocco stubs
53. Category:Nauru-related stubs --> Category:Nauru stubs (SEE NOTE BELOW)
54. Category:Nepal-related stubs --> Category:Nepal stubs
55. Category:New York City-related stubs --> Category:New York City stubs
56. Category:New Zealand-related stubs --> Category:New Zealand stubs
57. Category:Norway-related stubs --> Category:Norway stubs
58. Category:Oceania-related stubs --> Category:Oceania stubs
59. Category:Ottawa-related stubs --> Category:Ottawa stubs
60. Category:Pakistan-related stubs --> Category:Pakistan stubs
61. Category:Palestine-related stubs --> Category:Palestine stubs
62. Category:Papua New Guinea-related stubs --> Category:Papua New Guinea stubs
63. Category:Peru-related stubs --> Category:Peru stubs
64. Category:Philadelphia-related stubs --> Category:Philadelphia stubs (SEE NOTE BELOW)
65. Category:Poland-related stubs --> Category:Poland stubs
66. Category:Portugal-related stubs --> Category:Portugal stubs
67. Category:Quebec-related stubs --> Category:Quebec stubs
68. Category:Romania-related stubs --> Category:Romania stubs
69. Category:Russia-related stubs --> Category:Russia stubs
70. Category:Rwanda-related stubs --> Category:Rwanda stubs
71. Category:Singapore-related stubs --> Category:Singapore stubs
72. Category:Slovakia-related stubs --> Category:Slovakia stubs
73. Category:South America-related stubs --> Category:South America stubs
74. Category:Spain-related stubs --> Category:Spain stubs
75. Category:Sri Lanka-related stubs --> Category:Sri Lanka stubs
76. Category:Suriname-related stubs --> Category:Suriname stubs
77. Category:Sweden-related stubs --> Category:Sweden stubs
78. Category:Switzerland-related stubs --> Category:Switzerland stubs
79. Category:Syria-related stubs --> Category:Syria stubs
80. Category:Taiwan-related stubs --> Category:Taiwan stubs
81. Category:Texas-related stubs --> Category:Texas stubs
82. Category:Thailand-related stubs --> Category:Thailand stubs
83. Category:Tibet-related stubs --> Category:Tibet stubs
84. Category:Turkey-related stubs --> Category:Turkey stubs
85. Category:Uganda-related stubs --> Category:Uganda stubs
86. Category:Ukraine-related stubs --> Category:Ukraine stubs
87. Category:United Kingdom-related stubs --> Category:United Kingdom stubs
88. Category:United States-related stubs --> Category:United States stubs
89. Category:Utah-related stubs --> Category:Utah stubs
90. Category:Venezuela-related stubs --> Category:Venezuela stubs

Non-geographical

1. Category:Anglican-related stubs --> Category:Anglicanism stubs
2. Category:Ayyavazhi-related stubs --> Category:Ayyavazhi stubs
3. Category:BDSM-related stubs --> Category:BDSM stubs
4. Category:Bahá'í-related stubs --> Category:Bahá'í stubs (SEE NOTE BELOW)
5. Category:Catholic-related stubs --> Category:Catholicism stubs (SEE NOTE BELOW)
6. Category:Christianity-related stubs --> Category:Christianity stubs
7. Category:Eastern Orthodox Christianity-related stubs --> Category:Eastern Orthodox Christianity stubs
8. Category:Fashion-related biographical stubs --> Category:Fashion biography stubs
9. Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh-related stubs --> Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh stubs
10. Category:Hinduism-related stubs --> Category:Hinduism stubs
11. Category:Jehovah's Witnesses-related stubs --> Category:Jehovah's Witnesses stubs
12. Category:Jewish history-related stubs --> Category:Jewish history stubs (SEE NOTE BELOW)
13. Category:Judaism-related stubs --> Category:Judaism stubs
14. Category:Law-related biographical stubs --> Category:Law biography stubs [See new Sfd above on 11 December]
15. Category:Lutheran-related stubs --> Category:Lutheranism stubs
16. Category:Pornography-related stubs --> Category:Pornography stubs
17. Category:Quaker-related stubs --> Category:Quakers stubs
18. Category:SEPTA-related stubs --> Category:SEPTA stubs

Aecis ^praatpaal 11:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• At first wink, those all look good to me. But perhaps it would be worthwhile "factoring out" the geographical ones, which are (hopefully) all of a particular pattern, from the ones that just happen to throw the word "related" in there someplace? Or at least, separating out all those where the proposal is not simply "remove '-related'". Alai 19:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I've separated the geographical stub categories from the non-geographical ones. Aecis ^praatpaal 20:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks very. All the geos look fine to me, rename all these, except as per the special cases, below. Likewise, all the "remove -related" ones. I discern only the following that deviate from that pattern:
      • Anglicanism
      • Lutheranism
      • Quakers
    • The first two seem perfectly logical, and pattern-conforming. Why Quakers, though, and not Category:Quaker stubs? Alai 01:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point - I hadn't noticed that one. I'd just make it Category:Quaker stubs (although that sounds like a breakfast cereal ;) Grutness...wha? 08:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• In general I agree with the moves, but several need special attention. Firstly, I've crossed out those which are listed below - several of which have specific problems which need to be separately addressed. Similarly I've added "see note below" to several which I've listed below under the heading "problem cases". These need more than a simple category change. Also, you're a bit premature about those being the last. We have a few more you haven't listed:
• Category:El Salvador-related stubs --> Category:El Salvador stubs
• Category:Election related stubs --> Category:Election stubs
• Category:Islam-related stubs --> Category:Islam stubs
• Category:Sex-related stubs --> Category:Sex stubs
• Category:Sikhism-related stubs --> Category:Sikhism stubs
• Category:Zen-related stubs --> Category:Zen stubs

Grutness...wha? 01:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Rename all these too. Alai 01:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• I seem to have omitted those. What I did was simply ctrl-f'ing Category:Stub categories. None of these categories are listed there apparently. Anyway, rename all these too. Aecis ^praatpaal 00:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I did the same, using the list at WP:WSS/ST - hence the discrepancies and the first set of "problem cases" below. Grutness...wha? 14:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Problem cases

(see my comment above) The following from the above list have specific problems:

• Category:Azerbaijan-related stubs
• Category:Cambodia-related stubs
• Category:Colombia-related stubs
• Category:Guyana-related stubs
• Category:Iceland-related stubs
• Category:Indonesia-related stubs

Minor problem with these - none of them are listed on WP:WSS/ST

• Category:Hong Kong-related stubs - {{Hong-Kong-stub}}
• Category:Catholic-related stubs - {{CP-stub}} {{RC-stub}}
• Category:Jewish history-related stubs - {{JewHist-stub}}

In these three cases, we might want to think about changing the template name at the same time

• Category:Maryland-related stubs
• Category:Nauru-related stubs
• Category:Philadelphia-related stubs

These three, I propose deletion of. There are no wikiprojects for Maryland or Philadelphia (AFAIK), so precedent would suggest deletion. And the nauru category is tiny and can easily be upmerged into Category:Oceania-related stubs Finally, if there's no objections, I'm going to make a redirect for {{Bahá'í-stub}} at {{Bahai-stub}}, simply for ease of use. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Azerbaijan, Guyana, MD, and Nauru as drastically undersized, keep and rename all other cats. What new template names are proposed for the middle group? (And CP-stub -- huh?) Alai 01:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Um... I was drastically wrong with CP-stub! Not sure how I did that - apologies all. It is, of course, {{RC-stub}}, but still needs renaming. I'd suggest {{HongKong-stub}}, {{Catholic-stub}}, and {{Jewish-hist-stub}}, respectively. What about Philadephia-stub? Grutness...wha? 04:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Sound good to me. Rename templates, too. I dunno, what about Philadephia-stub? Rename it, as per above. It's not even the smallest cat of the remainder of the above listings, much less the smallest stub category in the world. Is there some (other) reason to delete I'm missing? Alai 05:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The only other city stubs we have (NY, Chicago, Helsinki, Ottawa, London, and the Australian ones) have wikiprojects. And since we don't have state stubs where there's no wikiproject, why should we have city ones? Or is there a Philadelphia project? Grutness...wha? 08:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
        • There is a WikiProject Philadelphia with quite a few people signed up as participants, so {{Philadelphia-stub}} certainly passes the wikiproject test. Caerwine 18:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
          • But surely we don't in any case have a policy or established practice that these ought not to exist, even without a WPJ. Is this argument in effect that this is a cross-cutting-category of an existing splitting scheme? Alai 05:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
        • no, it doesn't, but we do have an established practice: we've been using the guideline of "no state-stub unless there's a state wikiproject" for several months here. Perhaps it should be revisited as a rule, though, given the proliferation of these things. In any case, given that there's a Philadeplhia WP, I withdraw the comments on that one, at least. Grutness...wha? 14:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • A definite no on {{Catholic-stub}} not all Catholics are Roman Catholics and I'm not in favor of broadening the scope since it would then overlap with the Anglo-Catholics under {{Anglican-stub}}. Caerwine 17:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

For the most part, I agree with the renames, here are the exceptions.

• Azerbaijan Too small. There is an existing proposal to create a {{Caucasus-stub}} which has passed the 7-day requirement, but hasn't yet been created. Go ahead and combine the two, and only have to do it once.
• Guyana Too small, even if you fold in the undersized Guyanese people stubs, its still too small.
• Laos Too small by itself, but if you fold in the undersized Laotian people stubs, it's still small, but not too small.
• Maryland Too small, and for US subdivisions, we've been following a rule of wanting a WikiProject for non-geo stub types.
• Nauru Too small, and not much likelihood of major expansion.
• Papua New Guinea Too small, but with some potential, and a subcat, still, with it being the same size as Nauru, I'd prefer that it be discussed separately.
• Anglican I'd prefer a Category:Anglican Communion stubs, but the parent cat is Category:Anglicanism so I can see where you're getting the name. Still, I'd prefer a fuller discussion, possibly even refering the name of the parent cat for a rename on CfD and then conforming the stub cat to that result.
• Catholic The parent cat is Category:Roman Catholic Church and there are some Catholics who are not Roman Catholics, so I'd prefer to see that reflected in the category name with either Category:Roman Catholic Church stubs, Category:Roman Catholicism stubs or Category:Roman Catholic stubs.
• Eastern Orthodox Christianity I say follow the parent cat Category:Eastern Orthodoxy and rename the category Category:Eastern Orthodoxy stubs instead.
• Quaker What's wrong with using Category:Quakerism stubs to parallel the existing Category:Quakerism?

Anyway, none of this is considering any potential stub name renamimg we might want to do at the same time, but I don't have time today to see of there any others besides what's been mentioned that should be brought to notice. Caerwine 08:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Fix all extcept the problems definately. fix philadelphia too since its not a problem. fix and change templates on the hongkong and jewish history ones. the rest need seperate debate BL kiss the lizard 22:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• El Salvador has another problem thatneeds fixing besides the -related. the template should be {{ElSalvador-stub}}, but instead it's {{Salvador-stub}}. Handle this one through a separate SfD so as to take care of both at the same time. Caerwine 04:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• "HK-stub" will do for {{Hong-Kong-stub}}. There's little if not no, ambiguity. — Instantnood 18:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

My vote would be to leave the {{RC-stub}} stub alone. Catholics generally don't call themselves "Roman Catholics". Note, for example the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Calling ourselves "Roman Cathlics" would exclude Eastern-rite Cathlics, whom we consider to be fully part of the Catholic Church. The term "Roman Catholic" is generally used by Anglicans, who want to emphasize their belief that the Anglican Church is part of the Catholic Church. Of course, to agree or to disagree would be POV, but that's not the point. (Although I never use "Roman Catholic" myself, I'm happy to go along with Wikipedia policy regarding the naming of articles, e.g. Roman Catholic Church, the main article, to which Catholic Church redirects.) But the difference in POV relates to whether or not Anglicans are Catholics. They believe that they are, but they do not believe that "Roman" Catholics are not. So, to have that stub on (Roman) Catholic articles such as Legion of Mary is perfectly appropriate, because there is no question about whether or not or not it's part of Catholicism. (People might disagree as to whether or not the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ, but that's a separate issue.) The Lambeth Conferences article currently has an {{anglican-stub}}. I personally think the article is too long to have a stub template, but I don't think there's any problem in calling it an Anglican-related stub. If a significant number of people argued that the Roman Catholic Church is not part of the Catholic Church, then a case could be made for getting rid of the "Catholic" template. Otherwise, I think it should be left as it is. AnnH ^(talk) 12:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

There are also the churches of the Utrecht Union which are Catholic, but not Roman, as well as a variety of minor schsms. In any case, I agree that there's enough here worth discussing for changes to not be made as part of this broad spectrum SfD, but rather a narrow one where just this stub type would be discussed. Caerwine 18:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

How many stub articles are there for which this issue is real?

Isn't just another push of the POV which asserts that there are many "Catholic Churches" other than the Catholic Church? There are hundreds of groups which claim for themselves to be a "Catholic Church" and have their own bishops. Does each of them merit their own special stub? patsw 18:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It's far less POV than it would be to imply that the Roman Catholic Church is the only Catholic church. (Incidentally, Catholic gives a nice summary of the various churches that consider themselves Catholic without recognizing the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.) That said, I'm not arguing here for stubs for other Catholic denominations. Those can and should be stubbed with {{Christianity-stub}} until such time as those other sects have 60 stub articles as would be the norm for any stub type. In any case, the controversy here is sufficent that I think it would be best to not change {{RC-stub}} & Category:Catholic-related stubs as a result of this SfD and instead have a separate SfD on the pair. Caerwine 20:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree as above that {{RC-stub}} should stay as is. FWIW. --Elliskev 21:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing my objections over the Anglicanism stub (for the time being) and Grutness withdrew his over the Philadelphia stub, so my count that leaves twelve stubs with -related in their stub category to be resolved. I've opened twelve separate SfD's on the remaining stubs to which dissatidfaction with doing just the category rename was registered. Caerwine 21:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Question: Category:Cambodia-related stubs, Category:Colombia-related stubs, Category:Iceland-related stubs and Category:Indonesia-related stubs have "SEE NOTE BELOW" next to them, and are listed in the Problem cases, but nothing more is said about them. Cambodia and Iceland are abit on the small side, but other than that I can't see anything wrong with them. What's the problem with those 4? --Mairi 04:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Answer They weren't on the stub list was the given problem. Cambodia has since been added, but the other three are still not on the list. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfinished business

To orphan

Stub types in this section have been deemed deletable and have to be removed from all articles using them, so that they can be deleted.

{{journal-stub}} & Category:Scientific journal stubs

The stub has been on the proposals page long enough that it was creatible, but the name of the template and the scope of the category don't match up with the discussion. I recommend that we rename the template to {{sci-journal-stub}} as was discussed in the proposal since the 128 stubs placed in the category clearly show that it is large enough and then create a new {{journal-stub}} → Category:Journal stubs → Category:Journals to serve for journals in the other academic disciplines. Caerwine 06:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree about moving {{journal-stub}} to {{sci-journal-stub}}. I will restub all the articles in the category. Bmdavll ^talk 06:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• I support Caerwine's suggestions. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Agree there's a mismatch here, but I'm not convinced we need a separate category for non-science peer-reviewed journals; would this even hit threshold? In the permanent categories, scientific journals are a large, hierarchical category, and the others are all teeny. What about, we rescope journal-stub to peer-reviewed journals in general, accordingly rename category to Category:Journal stubs (as per permie) or Category:Peer-reviewed journal stubs if we want to be super-clear. If these are larger than they appear after creation and sorting down, we can re-split at a later date. Alai 05:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I just did a census of the first column of the first page and found 6 stubs suitable for a general journal stub category and an additional one suitable for the science journal one. Assuming the rest of the category keeps that same rough proportion, it looks like there are about 70 non-science journal stubs. I won't promise 60 stubs, but it won't be too badly underpopulated in even a worst case. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

{{JewHist-stub}} & Category:Jewish history-related stubs

It was suggested that the template be renamed as well.

• A definite rename of the category to Category:Jewish history stubs so as match the parent catgeory. Could live with any of {{Jewish-history-stub}} {{Jewish-hist-stub}}, {{Hebrew-stub}}, or {{Hebrew-hist-stub}}. The latter two have a slight advantage of separating the ethnicity form the religion, but they also get a conontation for certain branches of Christian theology that would be both too narrow and too POV that could be problematic, so I have no firm opinon as to which if the three if any would be preferable. Caerwine 21:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Caerwine: You are mistaken, one huge problem with applying the word "Hebrew" is that it will be confused with the Hebrew language, so do NOT use "Hebrew" here no matter what you do! I am the original creator of this stub and based it on the fact that it begins with the article Jew, and Jews are both a religion and an ethnicity, so I do not understand your "worries" here. Also, If you must, then {{Jewish-hist-stub}} is better. IZAK 09:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• rename cat, and rename template to {{Jewish-hist-stub}}, since we use hist, not history. The other suggestions overlap too much with other template names in thsi confusing part of the stubbiverse. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Grutness, I do not understand what you say, what "category" should be "renamed"? What's wrong with Category:Jewish history-related stubs??? IZAK 09:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Like all other stub categories which contained the word "-related", it needs to be renamed to simply ""Jewish history stubs". And since all the other history stub templates use the form xxx-hist-stub, this should be Jewish-hist-stub. No-one is talking about getting rid of the category and stub, simply renaming them to be like all the others. Grutness...wha? 11:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Grutness's explanation now makes sense of this. IZAK 11:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep because the stub is fine, as explained in my comments to Caerwine and Grutness above. IZAK 09:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to {{Jewish-hist-stub}} (as I already partly-indicated above in my initial response in any case -- just that I was concerned about possible gross mishandling of this important stub). I am changing my vote, assured by Grutness's explanation to me at User talk:IZAK#JewHist-stub at SFD IZAK 11:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC) : "Hi IZAK - you seem to be confused about what is happening at SFD. No-one is talking about getting rid of the template and category, simply renaming them to be in line with the stub naming conventions. All that means is that {{JewHist-stub}} and Category:Jewish history-related stubs would become {{Jewish-hist-stub}} and Category:Jewish history stubs. It would be a bit silly having this category as "xxx-related stubs" when all the others are "xxx stubs" (which they will be within a week), or having "JewHist-stub" when all other history stub subcategory templates are of the form xxx-hist-stub. I'd ask you to please reconsider your vote. Grutness...wha? 11:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)" Thanks for the input. IZAK 11:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to Jewish history stubs. JFW | T@lk 10:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Clear keep, and Definite oppose to the deletion of the stubcat. I realize some people are hypersensitive about the use of "Jew" as an adjective...clearly neither IZAK nor I object to it, and we're two of the most recognizable of the Jew-POV-face of WP, so to the rest of youse, I say, "chill out already!" (and I'm not even ashkenazi!!!) Yeah, the stub name isn't politically correct, but it wasn't meant to be either politically correct or incorrect...it was meant to be used as a shorthand for NPOV editors of Jewish history related stubs and articles. Chill out w/ the hypersensitivity, leave the stub and its name alone, and leave the stub cat intact. Tomer^talk 10:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • • Changing to rename per Grutness' and Humus' responses to IZAK's recommendation. Tom<font color="#008000">er^talk 19:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Err, Tomer...I am not guilty of "Jew-POV-face" on WP -- I happen to be one of the best NPOV editors on WP of topics relating to Jews and Judaism, and I know that you are also that as well (so I will attribute your playful comments about me here to your inherently upbeat personality, and nothing else.) IZAK 10:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep your chin up.  :-D Tomer^talk 19:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Whatever you do, do not rename into Hebrews and do not attempt to separate ethnicity from religion for an ethno-religious group. I also don't have a problem with "Jew***". ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• I would tend to rename to {{Jewish-hist-stub}}, but {{JewHist-stub}} seems fine to me. Category seems fine to me as either Category:Jewish history-related stubs or Category:Jewish history stubs. Absolute no on "Hebrew" which in contemporary English mainly means the language, not the people. - Jmabel | Talk 19:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as per Grutness and Humus Sapiens. Jayjg ^{(talk)<;/sup> 23:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)}
• Rename as it makes the category names consistent with each other. gidonb 02:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

TODO: "JewHist-stub" -> "Jewish-hist-stub". --TheParanoidOne 20:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

update : Itlooks as though this discussion ended, and the necessary changes were made. Are there any loose ends, or can this discussion be archived? --EncycloPetey 06:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You can now. it still had to be orphaned and the original name deleted. That's now been done. Grutness...wha? 09:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The last of the -related's

Null edits needed on the following categories:

• Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh-related stubs
• Category:Portugal-related stubs
• Category:Quebec-related stubs
• Category:Romania-related stubs
• Category:Spain-related stubs
• Category:Suriname-related stubs
• Category:Sweden-related stubs
• Category:Switzerland-related stubs
• Category:Taiwan-related stubs
• Category:Thailand-related stubs
• Category:Tibet-related stubs
• Category:Ukraine-related stubs
• Category:Venezuela-related stubs
• Category:Christianity-related stubs
• Category:SEPTA-related stubs
• Category:Philadelphia-related stubs

Category:Australia biography stubs

Rename The usual form would be Category:Australian people stubs so as to parallel the non-stub parent Category:Australian people. Caerwine 01:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support--A Y Arktos 11:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• oppose, all the similar stubs (NZ, Fiji, etc) use the -bio- infix, so this stub shounld too. support - (I misread this initially). This action has been pending for over a month, and there are now five pages of stubs in this category. --EncycloPetey 05:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • well, nearly a month. That's the trouble with this page only having one bot, which is still busy going through the "-related" backlog. We'll get there. Grutness...wha? 05:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

TODO: Null edits on Category:Australia biography stubs. --TheParanoidOne 12:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

To delete

Stub types in this section have been orphaned and can be deleted.

Listings to log

Stub types with completed discussions which have not yet been logged; remove from this page entirely when logged. Anyone can do this, not just an admin; please see the directions at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log.