The result of the debate was rename
Moved from CfD
The result of the debate was rescope to upmerged Ancient-Thrace-stub
Unproposed, and for the most part we don't split by no-longer-extant countries. Sure, there are a couple of exceptions - big ones with loads of articles. Note that the combined total size of the categories Cat:Thracian people and Cat:Thracian kings is 20 articles. There's no way that the threshold level of 60 stubs could be reached from that. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was upmerge
Unproposed, and with a badly-capitalised category. Maybe this could be useful, but if so, it should follow the permcat and be Cat:Reggae song stubs, with a template that matches that. Either delete or rename. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete
Unproposed, odd redlink category of Cat:European Union politician. EU politicians are almost always specifically linked to one member nation, and as such are covered by specific country-politician-stub types and - in many cases - MEP-stub. This is therefore unnecessary. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(resetting indent). We already have ((Euro-politician-stub)), ((MEP-stub)) and ((EU-org-bio-stub)) so we don't need any more templates. Despite the dreams of some Eurocrats, the EU is not a nation, and we sort politicians by country or continent. The EU is neither. In any case, the politicial stubs should always include a relevant national template. Delete. Valentinian T / C 17:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was reverse redirect to point to rugbyunion-stub
Per discussion over at WPSS/P, lower case "union" would be more appropriate. Not sure about the hyphenation; feel free to revise as needed. (The category name is OK as is.) Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename cat to "New York City transportation stubs", rename template to "NYC-transport-stub", keep redirect "NYCS-stub", delete redirect "NYCT-stub
When the WikiProject New York City Subway expanded its scope to become WikiProject New York City Public Transportation, the stub template ((NYCS-stub)) was moved to ((NYCT-stub)), but the corresponding category was not moved. Rename to the above or Category:New York City public transportation stubs. Tinlinkin 03:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete
Never proposed, cryptically named, no category. This is actually for Cape Cod Transit - and Cat:Cape Cod Transit has precisely three articles. The chance of sixty of those three being stubs is not high. Utterly useless. Delete. Grutness...wha? 07:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep and clean up
Never proposed, misleadingly named, no category, non-standard name. This is actually for stubs relating to the Salem witch trials, not for Salem itself. Cat:Salem witch trials has 40 articles (don't be misled by the subcategory - many of the articles are in both it and the main cat). Wikiproject? Yes and no - there is a "working party", part of a larger Wikiproject which already has a main dedicated stub template. Even if there had been a fully-=fledged SWT WikiProject, this would require considerable re-working and would need 75% of the articles to be stubs for it to be worthwhile. I can't see much future for this one. Grutness...wha? 07:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator of the stub type of course i will say keep.-- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 22:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the one of the creaters of the The Salem Witch Trials Task Force, I of course say "Keep". Psdubow 22:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete; recreation of previously deleted Kurdistan-stub
Same reasons as Assyrian-stub nom on this page. I find this creation disruptive. -- Cat chi? 18:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was speedy update
1930s template has hit threshold, and I'll be splitting it out. Update to reflect proper categorization. --fuzzy510 04:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep
Was nominated before which was closed as a non-consensus: WP:SFD/16 January/Assyrian-stub
-- Cat chi? 00:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment We do have stubs for stateless ethnic groups, such as ((Roma-stub)), so long as they meet the normal guidelines on stub category size and content there is not a problem per se with this stub. However, quite a number these articles are not even up to stub standard. For example, the various one line unreferenced articles on the Assyrian kings that do no more than that should be turned back into redirects for King of Assyria. The stub has also been plastered on several bio articles that based on the minimal content included in the article is such that it does not meet the standard that has been applied to other ethnic groups with similar stubs. Merely being an ethnic Assyrian with a stub article is insufficient to apply this stub. The person has to be notable for something related to Assyria or Assyrian culture. For example, assuming this stub is kept, the stub would be appropriate on the Gabriel Asaad article because he is notable in connection with Assyrian culture. It is not appropriate on the George Issabeg article because he is notable for having represented Iran in Olympic boxing, and at least as far as the article indicates, he is not notable for anything specifically Assyrian. These stubs need some serious cleanup, and I intend to apply it and then see whether there are enough remaining stubs to warrant a stub type. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (after edit conflict) : Stub sorting is not based on ethnicity or race, but on specific scopes (normally rather narrowly defined) that must be uncontroversial to avoid edit warring spreading to the stub templates. When WP:WSS considers it necessary to break a large category into smaller units this is done according to either continent or an internationally recognized border. Example: a giant category for "history" would be impossible to use, but a category for German history makes sense due to the size issue, and the scope is relatively easy to define. We've been through this discussion before with similar controversial material (the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", Ossetia, Kosovo, Kurdistan etc.) If we begin deviating from this line, it will be impossible to avoid future templates that will be even more controverisal, e.g. a template for Republika Srpska would be a really bad idea. According to normal practice, articles like Ankawa would be tagged simply with ((Iraq-geo-stub)). Otherwise, we might as well also add ((MEast-hist-stub)), ((Ancient-Rome-stub)), ((Byzantine-stub)), ((Ottoman-stub)) etc. since the region has belonged to many different nations. Surely, such an approach would not be practical. I have absolutely no problem with an ((Assyria-hist-stub)) (if needs be, using the Cat:Middle Eastern history stubs category if we have 60 relevant articles for this one). The project banner used on talk pages is fine as well, but the stub template cuts through the existing system. I have no idea why ((Roma-stub)) was approved in the first place, but it looks like a bad idea. We had similar debates regarding Kurdish, Ossetian, and other controverisial topics in the past, so this debate is not a new one. ((Roma-stub)) might have scraped through because people figured that material about Romas would be very unlikely to stir up controversy. Unfortunately, this is not the case for most issues relating to Iraq or the Middle East. Just for comparison: if we begin tagging material relating to the Balkans based on ethnicity or historical allegiance it would be deeply controversial, and it is a core value on WP:WSS to keep controversy out of the stub templates. Consequently, the flag is also problematic since it seems that it can be interpreted as a political statement. An image of a famous figure from Assyrian history wouldn't pose the same problem. And for the record, smears against other editors based on their ethnicity or religion is completely unacceptable, Elias. Calling White Cat a racist just because he disagrees with you, is not allowed under Wikipedia policies. I suggest you read WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and abstain from making similar comments in the future. Valentinian T / C 13:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete
-- Cat chi? 12:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was do not rename
Per rationale below: to correspond to parent, and we don't sort people by religion, but by religious notability. Alai 23:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was do not rename
This type's seeing what looks to me like excessive use ("this person's a known Christian"), and I wonder if the category name is partly to blame. Rename to match the immediate parent, Cat:religious biography stubs. Alai 16:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename/re-scope and upmerge
Unproposed and badly misnamed. Arch-stub was the term used for architecture stubs until earlier this year, when it was deemed to be too ambiguous. This shows in what way it can be - this should, if kept, be ((Peru-archaeology-stub)), and should have been pointed at Cat:Peruvian archaeology stubs. However, the category is not needed, and splitting by individual countries when we haven't even really begun to split by continent is strange and potentially difficult for editors. Pre-Columbian peoples spread far across current borders, so a more logical early split would have been ((SouthAm-archaeology-stub)). It's worth noting that between them Cat:Archaeology of Peru and Cat:Archaeological sites in Peru have fewer than 50 articles in total - so there's little chance of the required 60 current stubs for a separate category. A split of Cat:Archaeology stubs by continent is probably about due (Europe has already been split out, and there are 430 other stubs), but by country? Not for quite a while yet, at least not for South America. Delete the category, rename/rescope the template to (a possibly upmerged) ((SouthAm-archaeology-stub)). Grutness...wha? 01:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete all
Even if you disregard for a moment the ridiculous category name, there's no denying that this unproposed stub type does little more than duplicate the long-established ((NapoleonicWars-stub)) and Cat:Napoleonic Wars (1792-1815) stubs. Delete. Grutness...wha? 02:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename
Current name is misleading as to scope, and doesn't follow the permcat. Alai 18:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy closed. Wrong place. Best to keep the discussion in one place. -- Cat chi? 21:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was create Judaism-hist as a redirect to Jewish-hist
I propose a rename of Jewish-hist-stub to Judaism-hist-stub
-- Cat chi? 15:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete
Yet another attempt at a parameterised metastubtemplate, and probably speediable for that alone, since such things have been discussed and quickly rejected many times in the past. This one also fails by making the incorrect assumption that any country-stub for country X will automatically have X's flag as an icon (which isn't true since it is sometimes politically divisive, such as in the case of ((Cyprus stub))) and also that it will then have a category called Cat:X related stubs. As to what ((provstub)) is, your guess is as good as mine, but one thing is for sure - it isn't a stub template and therefore shouldn't have a name ending in stub. It also uses ((country flagstub)) as part of its construction (which is why I didn't consider speedying ((country flagstub))). Superstrong delete for the first, delete or at least rename for the second, depending on its intended purpose. Grutness...wha? 02:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete
Unproposed, created (according to edit summary) for the one article found - hardly an indication of enough articles to warrant this stub type, especially since, though it is an unlikely theory, classifying this article as pseudoscience violates NPOV. Unnecessary - delete. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete
Unproposed, naming-guideline-violating duplicate of long standing EU-stub. Totally unnecessary - delete. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
t/c: 06:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete
Unproposed, malformed template (with no category link), again violating naming guidelines. And not needed, since web games are adequately covered byother stub types. No articles use this template - delete. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nominator --BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 21:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename cat, rename template to "TrentinoAltoAdige-geo-stub", with redirects at "Südtirol-geo-stub" and "TrentinoSouthTyrol-geo-stub"
The article "Trentino-South Tyrol" was moved to Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. Also ((TrentinoAltoAdige-geo-stub)) is acceptable because it's shorter.--Supparluca 11:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete
A stub by any other name. All this does is say why a stub was written, then transclude the stub template. Given that ((stub)) is only used until such time as a more precie stub template can be added (hopefully within hours), this is worse than useless. Even if it did work, all it would do is divide stubs into groups according to why they were written, which isn't going to help a single editor. Pointless in the extreme. Delete. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<< (resetting indent) Comments. #1 Regarding the newbie issue: in fact his talk page archives aren't exactly full, so it could all have been written on one page. #2 I've updated ((Sfr-t)) and ((Sfd-t)) with a disclaimer similar to the one used on AFD process. #3 This entire template / category is nothing but a recreation of ((Substub)) which was deleted after an SFD debate two years ago. I don't see any reasons to overturn this decision. Valentinian T / C 09:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Elipongo for helping me. If you really think the template is useless feel free to delete it. Although it was not intended to be a new stub type!!! Next time I will do more research or consult a admin etc. Sorry for any trouble If you have any questions contact me I have no intent to vandalize wikipedia. Thedjatclubrock :) 10:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete
Old-time spacey redirect, contrary to naming guidelines, half a dozen usages out of 1000. (Both these numbers likely to fall, since I'm re-sorting the type at present.) Alai 22:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete
Unproposed, badly malformed, no category. Precedent is to split geo-stubs by location, and then by smaller division - so any split of TamilNadu-geo-stub would be by smaller administrative unit, not by the type of feature. Delete. Grutness...wha? 03:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename to Hasidic-Judaism
Unproposed, with badly named template. Not convinced of its need, though it does have about 40 stubs - although quite a number of those would be better served in Cat:Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism stubs. Delete, or at the very least Rename the template. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I have no objection to renaming; that is a far cry from deletion. Since Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism is a sub-catgory of Cat:Hasidic dynasties there is something to be said for absorbing the stub for the former in the stub for the latter. Hasidism-stub is probably not a good choice of name because (a) there is no Category:Hasidism and (b) the very term Hasidism engenders a great deal of heat among some editors. But there is Category:Hasidic Judaism, so would Hasidic-Judaism-stub meet the criteria? --Redaktor 10:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it was said that 60 is the threshold? There are now 60 Chabad stubs, making this whole discussion irrelevant. Yehoishophot Oliver 16:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete
Unnecessary. Unproposed template added to "parent only" stub category. All stubs which would be within it use one of the subtypes quite happily. Talking of which, those categories need a rename (see below). Delete. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was do not rename
The current titles are very clumsy. If the above suggestions are too ambiguous, perhaps Cat:Duke (Peerage of England) stubs +c or even just Cat:Duke (England) stubs +c would be better. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep
There is a lot of confusion about the difference between the Internet and the World Wide Web (roughly, WWW is stuff with http:// or https:// while Internet is everything on-line). As a result, Category:World Wide Web stubs has a lot of articles that should be in Category:Internet stubs, and a few vice versa. They have a total of about 800 stubs between them, many of which belong in subcategories. Web-stub is the narrower, and more confusing, stub type, so I feel it would be best Merged into ((Internet-stub)). -- kenb215 talk 00:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was upmerge 1,2,3,5; rename template 3,4; keep cat 4
Sadly, it seems to have been a busy day for user:Dl2000, who has created six new unproposed stubs, several of which need work at the very least:
There are numerous things wrong with these combinations. Firstly, no-one comes from anywhere stubs - there is no such place as "Saskatchewan stubs", for instance. Which is the reason why we use the combination "X people stubs". Thus, we instantly have three categories needing renaming. Similarly, it is standard practice for Newfoundland and Labrador stub templates to simply be ((Newfoundland-x-stub)), often with a redirect from ((Labrador-x-stub)). So that's two more renamings needed. Then we get to problems of size and scope. Subnational bio-stubs are, as long-standing stub-sorters are keenly aware, a major prolem due to the perambulatory nature of people. And none of those three stub types is used at all. Size is the next problem, and though it appears that the Saskatchewan and N/L politician stub types are fine as far as this is concerned, there are only 16 listed stubs for PEI politicians, though doubtless there may be more.
So, to summarise:
On inspection, no. 6 appears to be ok.
A lot of work could have been saved here simply by proposing the stub types... Grutness...wha? 01:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete
This one is, at least, a bit more straightforward. never proposed, oddly worded category, badly named template and redirect, and the whole of Cat:Coheed and Cambria contains only 2/3 of the number of articles that would be needed as stubs for this to be viable. Given that categories for individual bands are generally frowned upon (the parent should by rights go to cfd), a stub category is not generally desirable. And yet again we come back to the precedent - this would be the second musical act to have its own stub type, with the Beatles being the other (and that only for songs). Might I suggest that if band-specific stub types are going to become standard (which I sincerely hope they are not) a few other acts deserve a stub type a little more than Coheed and Cambria? Grutness...wha? 01:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]