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

The result of the debate was reverse redirects

---

Trying to get all the geo-stubs consistent... as with BiH a few days back, these could probably benefit with reversing the redirects (or creating new names) so that the full name is that used on the "main" name. Given that lots of upmerged country-specific stubs are in process, it seems that these should be dealt with ASAP. In several cases, there are probably other related stub types that will also need fixing as well, but since all the redirects will be kept, if no-one minds I'll take this as a blanket nomination:

• ((UAE-geo-stub)) → ((UnitedArabEmirates-geo-stub)) (there's also a plain UAE-stub and a UAE-bio-stub to be similarly dealt with)
• ((NI-geo-stub)) → ((NorthernIreland-geo-stub)) (several others [1] including the deletable NI-sub (sic))
• ((PRC-geo-stub)) → ((PRChina-geo-stub)) (several others [2])
• ((CotedIvoire-geo-stub)) → ((Côted'Ivoire-geo-stub)). (one redirect also [3])
• ((Czech-geo-stub)) → ((CzechR-geo-stub)) ((CzechRepublic-geo-stub)) (see note below) (several others [4])
• ((NZ-geo-stub)) → ((NewZealand-geo-stub)) (several others [5])

That will leave UK and US as the only non-standard names. Finally. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my take:

• UAE and PRC are both commonly enough used for their respective countries that they are direct redirects. Definite keep as at least redirects, but no objection if moved.
• Agree with getting rid of both NI and NZ as ambiguous.
• Need to keep the unaccented version of Côted'Ivoire for the accent averse as at least a redirect, but do we really need to get rid of the "'"?
• No argument with Czech, and since apparently even the Czech government has given up on it, we might consider removing the redirect ((Czechia-geo-stub)) as well.

Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think you misunderstand me - I'm not talking about deleting anything other than the malformed "NI-sub". It's simply a case of moving the 'target' name where the template actually resides to a name that's uniform with the other names we use, and keeping the current names as redirects. BTW, I would argue about NZ being ambiguous - unless we're about to have a stub type for Novaya Zemlya, I can't think of anything else it could possibly be but New Zealand, and - as with UAE and PRC - it is a standard name for the country used both here and overseas (see NZ). NI, you're possibly right about the ambiguity (it's the code for Nicaragua, IIRC), but the others are fine to keep as redirects. Grutness...wha? 06:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the first thing I think of when I see NZ without context is neutral zone, not New Zealand. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Hadn't heard of an abbreviation for a neutral zone before (other than DMZ). FWIW, I googled:

• "Neutral Zone" + NZ -"New Zealand" = 18,700 ghits
• "New Zealand" + NZ -"Neutral Zone" = 25,500,000 ghits.

A ratio of about 1:1400. So it is used, but I doubt it would cause any confusion, going by those figures. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've sped ((NI-sub)); the other reversals look OK to me, and should certainly fix the "target redlinks", if nothing else. Alai 16:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE - I've just realised that the correct name for the Czech one sould be ((CzechRepublic-geo-stub)) (to match the other "Foo Republic" types, not the "Republic of Foo" types). A redirect at CzechR-geo-stub probably wouldn't hurt either. Alai, Caerwine - does that make any difference to your comments? Grutness...wha? 10:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Not me. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Close enough for geographical work. Alai 00:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete

---

Created a couple of months ago in what I suspect is a case of wires-getting-crossed (proposal was to created Vojvodina geography stubs and the same for, eh, a certain other alleged autonomous province of Serbia. (Which we should frankly go ahead with, since failing to bite the bullet on this leads to much greater silliness that doing so, such as double-stubbing with Kosovo- and Serbia-.) Never used. Alai 22:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, a "K-word"-geo-stub does exist, but only as a redirect to Euro-geo-stub, since the "It's in Serbia" and "It's not in Serbia" factions could at least agree on a continent (it seems to be about all the can agree on). mThe main concern is the lack of stubs, though we've bent the rules for the Palestinian teritories for similar reasons in the past. Perhaps creating an undersized Cat:Kosovo geography stubs prootected as a subcat of the Serbian one, is the best we can hope for until the UN, Russia, NATO, the locals and whoever else agrees what happens with this place. As fo Vojvodina-stub, if it's never been used and was created accidentally, then a quiet deletion may be the best solution. Grutness...wha? 00:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the original discussion, and here's the recap, after which I created both the Voj & the Voj-geo stub types. Have at it. Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do realize the template exists, hence the comment about the prevalence of double-stubbing Kosovo- and Serbia-, which obviously arises because the current scheme is far from agreeable to everyone (i.e. needs to be "Serbianed up", in the eyes of some). I didn't think there was an issue about size; I'll double-check that (though I hesitate to start populating the upmerged template, for obvious reasons): there seems to be about 50 in the Serbia cat, plus a number using the template (though there's the overlap to take account of). I'll double-check that, and take it to /P if I can confirm 60. If we go ahead, I'd suggest that it be double-parented with Serbia and Europe, in an attempt to hedge both POVs. Protection of both template and category may well be sensible. Alai 02:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

((Vojvodina-geo-stub)) seems ok, but I am no fan of ((Vojvodina-stub)). I don't think it is a good idea to have generic templates for non-sovereign areas. around but still. (That said, a template like ((Scotland-stub)) seems well-reasoned, although most people here on the mainland, consider Wales and Scotland to be "standard" provinces in the UK.) Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No opinion either way, but my wounded pride behooves me to say that both the previous discussions seemed to (at least cautiously) support the ((Vojvodina-stub)). It was not created accidentally, nor was it a case of crossed wires. If I misunderstood, someone should have made it clear at the time. Harumph. Her Pegship (tis herself) 14:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say "crossed wires" because it was created at around the same time as the -geo-stub, seemingly (I thought) on foot of a proposal for latter, only (together with Kosovo-geo-). If it was created on the basis of the earlier discussion, then I have to say that that discussion (repeatedly) raised the issue of size, but reached no conclusion on same whatsoever (and indeed no information at all on that was offered). Though it might argue for upmerger rather than deletion, which I wouldn't necessarily object to, if size was the only concern. Maybe we should ask the original proposal if he still feels the need for such an entity, given the lack of other action by way of creating it himself, or using it. Alai 01:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that ((Vojvodina-stub)) is an unnecessary extra. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with ((Kosovo-geo-stub)) (with the category being a subcat of Serbian one), but I think it would be underpopulated, glancing over the Category:Serbia geography stubs. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem even with ((Kosovo-stub)) but I guess that some people would. Duja► 14:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main problem, Duja, is that rightly or wrongly a lot of editors do have problems with it - especially with relation to whether it should be a subtype of the Serbian category. There was a flurry of edit warring during the short time kosovo-geo-stub existed as a separate template rather than a redirect, and the main concern with a kosovo-stub would be the same. Personally I'd be happy to see them both as full templates, if their use could be "stabilised" in some way to prevent further edit warring. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Existence of Kosovo-geo-stub can be easily justified by the need to split the Serbia-geo-stub category, as well as on existence of Vojvodina-geo stub. As for Vojvodina-stub and Kosovo-stub, they would be fundamentally different in the field: since most of those stubs would fall into "bio" category, it is seldom a case that a person from Vojvodina would be fundamentally tied to Vojvodina only (and not to the rest of Serbia); in Kosovo case, both editors, and likely the subjects, of articles on Kosovo Albanian people would certainly refuse to have anything to do with Serbia. But I guess that my opinion would be a minority one.
      Back to Kosovo-geo-stub question, if created, the category should likely be protected to prevent edit warring; but the protection would be limited to one page.
      In addition, I'm considering (still far from realization) making a bot that would populate quite a number of stubs from List of settlements in Serbia based on census results. I will certainly let you know when/if it's ready, but that would make ~2000 stubs. And there you'll have a clasification problem. Duja► 07:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note I am closing this on the basis that it is undersized. That is the main thing that I took into consideration. Just so you know. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete catfish cat, keep both templates, with siluriformes redirecting to catfish

---

I created the latter, to follow the existing permcat Cat:Siluriformes, not noticing the existing Cat:catfish stubs. I've redirected the template, to follow the article (catfish), but for consistency the cat (as it were) should probably follow the taxonomic name. (Otherwise, I'll delete the latter.) Alai 04:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I think catfish stub is a valid name for siluriform fish articles just like Cat:shark stubs is for shark articles (not Selachimorpha stubs). Unlike cypriniformes or characiformes, the common name of this order is widely recognized. I'm pretty sure there are many editors contributing to various catfish articles who can't even remember the latin name. As the article is titled "catfish" not "Siluriformes", the stub should be "catfish stub" not "Siluriformes stub". (PS. the Latin name vs. common name has been and is still a debate in WP:FISH and many other wikiprojects. We spent weeks discussing about this and finally came up with a policy of mixed use of the names, case by case basis. I think there's no reason not to apply the well-thought WP:FISH policy to stubs as well.)--Melanochromis 11:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But "mixed" is exactly what I'm suggesting: template at ((catfish-stub)) (with a redirect from ((Siluriformes-stub))), to match catfish; category at Cat:Siluriformes stubs, to match Cat:Siluriformes. Note that there's no Cat:catfish, unlike the sharks, where both the article and category are at shark / Cat:sharks. Alai 18:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If there are problems with it being siluriformes when the article is at catfish, perhaps the permcat should be moved from Cat:Siluriformes, but that is beyond the scope of SFD. Keeping the stubcat names as similar as possible to the permcat names is preferable, and therefore moving this cat(fish)egory makes sense. Having both template names available is a good idea. (Note - if the permcat name is proposed for renaming, this sfd nomination should wait until the outcome of that is known.) Grutness...wha? 00:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was upmerge to "Church of England bishop stubs"

---

Small, and dodgily named. I suggest, for preference, upmerging to Cat:Church of England bishop stubs (which I've just mooted on the proposals page), or failing which, renaming to Cat:Bishop of Durham stubs. Alai 01:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete

---

'Discovered' back in June 05 currnetly not used on any articles and seriously ambiguous, as was stated at its discovery we don't use ISO abbreviations. Currently redirecting to the correctly named ((Maldives-stub)) I propose this be deleted. Waacstats 12:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides which, "Mv" isn't the ISO code, "MV" is. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, excessively cryptic and ambiguous. Alai 03:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Yamakiri on Firefox 23:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename

---

We're a little fast and loose about the distinction between Ireland and the Republic of Ireland for stub-scoping purposes -- though then again, so's Ireland, for many purposes -- but this one is pretty clear-cut: the scoping statement links to politics of the Republic of Ireland, and the permcat parent is Cat:politics of the Republic of Ireland. Alai 00:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see this being used. Plus, the official name of the republic is just "Ireland"--Phoenix 15 11:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

---

As well as being pointlessly cryptic, these categories are both under-sized. I realize this is something of a Hong Kong stub type tradition, but one I don't see much point in continuing with. Upmerge to Cat:Hong Kong rapid transit stubs, which would be both a more standard name, and a reasonable size. (Keep the existing templates, for the sake of sentiment.) Alai 00:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/merge per nom. Did a prime mover of these, perchance, have a username beginning with I? Grutness...wha? 00:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically not the actual demiurge, since someone else created the original template (only), but more than one or two fingerprints on it. To be fair, I think at least one of these was at one point larger, but I see no need to keep them separate at this point. Alai 02:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was keep

---

propose the above category and template be deleted, currently not used on any articles. The text states that these are for figure skaters or speed skaters and we have seperate categories for both of these. The only problem is the existance of Cat:United States skating biography stubs, as this has a figure skating category that can be moved to Cat:United States winter sports biography stubs and Cat:figure skater stubs categories and the current template rescoped to just US-speed-skaters and upmerged to Cat:United States winter sports biography stubs and Cat:speed skater stubs. Waacstats 15:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't it potentially useful to have this as a container, and a template to catch speculative stub-sorting of the "this person's a skater, I'll tag them as such"? No strong feelings either way, though. Alai 02:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about deleting the cateory and upmerging the template? Waacstats 07:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it's got three subcats, so it's (somewhat) useful as a container, as well as giving the template a "natural" target... Alai 16:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rescope to include all skating

---

propose the above category be deleted, currently contains 1 subcat Cat:skating biography stubs (although Cat:figure skating stubs should be here as well) and no articles. see no reason why any articles could not be placed in Cat:Winter sports stubs. Waacstats 15:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're proposing upmerger, essentially? That seems fair enough, since there's no need for a container for one subcat... Alai 02:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree, as you've already identified a second stub category and the scope of the permcat Cat:Skating includes roller skating, a non winter sport. There's at least one potential stub British Federation of Roller Skating and probably others as well that didn't get ((skating-stub)) applied because its text specifies figure and speed skating only. Change the text of the template and apply it to roller skating stubs as well. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair point. Alai 12:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to the stub category text and the stub itself the scope of the stub cat is narrower at just speed skating and figure skating. however I will withdraw the nomination and rethink.Waacstats 19:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but CW's proposed action would change those, bringing them in line with skating and Cat:skating, which seems pretty logical. Alai 18:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename and rescope

---

Two minorish naming issues with this long-standing stub type: firstly, "U.S." should be expanded to "United States", by any testing of naming consistency and precedent; secondly, the stated scope and template name (SCOTUS cases) doesn't correspond to the category name. Assuming we keep that scope, rename to Cat:United States Supreme Court case stubs; if the wider scope implied by its current name, rescope and rename to ((SCOTUS-stub)) / Cat:United States Supreme Court stubs, keeping the existing template name as a redirect (or as an upmerged template). Alai 16:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was keep

---

The title says it all. Anynobody 08:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As someone else who performs variously maintenance chores based on special pages, which then inevitably get clogged up by "floaters" it's not possible to get rid of, I feel your pain, but I have to say keep on the basis of symmetry of having the complete(?) set of per-Games templates, significant past usage, and possible future use. Alai 10:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Alai (It doesn't happen often, but it does happen :). FWIW, there are quite a few stub templates which have been created to "complete the set" which don't have much - or any - current usage on articles. There is only one article tagged with VaticanCity-geo-stub, for instance. Stub templates tend to buck the "unused template deletion" protocol, simply because there's no saying when one of them will find itself needed. Grutness...wha? 11:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article added. therfore no longer unused so keep Waacstats 20:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was upscope

---

A problem that has lurked unseen for some time - mainly because articles are entered by hand (there is no template!). This one causes a handful of probems, but its size suggests renaming and fixing may be an option.

• Problem 1: It is clearly for geo-stubs - it is a subcategory of Cat:Karnataka geography stubs and almost all of its articles are geographical (there's an odd struct-stub or two in there, too, but I'd say 95% of the articles are geo-stubs). So if kept it will need renaming to Cat:Dakshina Kannada and Udupi geography stubs
• Problem 2: It is for two separate districts within the state. If we were splitting the state up, we would have separate templates (and in the larger cases, categories) for individual districts, not for pairs of them. As such, separate DakshinaKannada-geo-stub and Udupi-geo-stub templates, either feeding to separate categories or upmerged into the Karnataka one, should be used, not a combined category.
• Problem 3: Districts aren't the next level of geographical hierarchy after states anyway - Divisions are. Both of these districts are part of the Mysore Division of Karnataka state.
• Problem 4: The most obvious problem - there is no template.

Size suggests that the best solution here is to upscope this category to Cat:Mysore Division geography stubs, and add in the stubs from the other six districts in that division. It may also be worthwhile splitting the remaining three divisions out of the Karnataka state geo-stub category. And - above all, a template (or one per district) would need to be made. Grutness...wha? 01:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upscope per nom; on the precedent of other India-geo provincial resplits, favour district templates, and divisional category. Alai 02:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

---

Potentially speediable as re-creation of deleted stub type, but technology moves on and there may be more use for this now. Personally, it still looks deletable to me, given the seemingly small number of stubs on podcasting (and the fact that the small handful of articles marked with this could be easily classified with other existing templates) but I've brought it here to see how others feel. Grutness...wha? 03:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd probably be inclined to upmerge. Would a scope such as Cat:internet broadcasting stubs be numerically viable? Alai 05:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Cat:internet broadcasting stubs per Alai. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I would only say that Podcasting is a rising field and there would be far more articles on future than they are now. Please retain if possible. Let Wikipedia be more about creation than deletion (No offense, but I had noticed this more than often. Once one of my articles was marked for deletion withing seconds I created it. Even creating an article and saving it takes few minutes how can anybody expect to have a flawless article created in such a short time? But I guess most editors are interested in displaying their speed than their accuracy.) --Bebaak 02:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that stub types are created when there are enough existing articles on a subject, not as a hedge against future articles. Note too that upmerging would allow for the re-creation (or in this case, just the creation) of a separate category when there is judged to be enough articles using it. As for being about creation rather than deletion, a large part of the purpose of the stub-sorting project is to deal with the abundant creation of new articles - there have been the best part of a million added in the last year. Adding articles is frequent and common practice. Templates and categories, however, need to have slightly stricter control since they deal with many articles, and this is especially true with stub templates and categories, which we try to keep in some logical pattern and usage practice. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (absent-minded edit conflict) Can we please keep this on topic? Firstly, upmerger keeps the template, so if it does grow dramatically (as it shows no signs of doing, since the last deletion); secondly, given the redlink category, and tiny current size, this is far from useful as it stands, so clearly action of some sort is strongly indicated. Alai 01:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did what seemed right to me, I leave the decision to you. Thanks. --Bebaak 02:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default to keep

---

To match the main article, at Nord-Pas de Calais. See also this CFR for the perm parent. Incidentally, I've also moved the template ((PasdeCalais-geo-stub)) to ((NordPasdeCalais-geo-stub)), as I'm going to have to turn the former into a distinct template for the department of that name. Alai 04:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename - speedily if possible. Grutness...wha? 05:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait for CfD result, but the present name is probably correct (as per French WP) & the article should be renamed. Johnbod 15:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops - I misunderstood that this had been through CFR. In that case, yes, wait for the result. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The CFR was closed as "no consensus". I'm assuming that means a default to "keep as is", yes? ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Mind you, I don't see anyone rushing to conform the article... Alai 02:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename to eventoedungulate-stub, keeping redirect

---

Non-standard, non-NG name - this is not a subtype of ((Toed-ungulate-stub)) (all ungulates have toes, AFAIK) - yet the name suggests that it would be. Rename to ((Eventoed-ungulate-stub)). Grutness...wha? 00:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To be picky -- dare I say, even pickier -- it's not a subtype of ((ungulate-stub)) either, since that doesn't exist. Though it could be, and would be if that actually existed. There's a lot of such issues lurking out there, that one could tie oneself in knots thinking about, and could cause a lot of frustration when trying to play 'guess the template' if one is doing it "from cold", rather than in a batch from the parent. I'm inclined to say move to ((eventoedungulate-stub)), but keep redirect, to avoid such unnecessary second-guessing. And maybe create an additional one at ((eventoed-ungulate-stub)), by much the same token. Alai 02:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• We should move it up the hierarchy of stubs to ((ungulate-stub)) since that would prove most useful to the categorization of mammals. Ungulates have two main sub-groups, even-toed ungulates & odd-toed ungulates, but the number of even-toed species dwarf the odd-toed to such an extent that it's really not worth having a distinction. — Scientizzle 15:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename to leafnosed-bat-stub

---

Non-standard, non-NG name - this is not a subtype of ((Nosed-bat-stub)) (all bats have noses, AFAIK) - yet the name suggests that it would be. Rename to ((Leafnosed-bat-stub)). Grutness...wha? 00:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is different from ((even-toed-ungulate-stub)), which isn't a kind of toed-ungulate-stub. Od Mishehu 21:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted - that's a non-standard as well, now listed above. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. -- Amalas 14:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

See previous discussion here. Category now has 58 items. I have no opinion; I just want to close out the Discoveries section. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Still the same mess it was before, with a load of disparate articles only linked tenuously by their connection to rastafarianism - in many cases a very weak link indeed. Many of the articles in here would be far better served by a reggae-musician-stub or reggae-band-stub. Having them in here is similar to adding judaism-stub to Kletzmer groups. If we needed a rasta-stub, it would be for the rastafarian faith itself, not for music connected to it. Grutness...wha? 05:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was upmerge PR-company-stub, delete rest

---

Only 11 items among them since January. Delete for now. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge PR-company-stub to company stub, either delete "PR-stub" or upmerge to advertisement stubs and upscope it to advertising stubs, delete the others. Grutness...wha? 05:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Are you nominating just the templates, or also the category? Currently, none seem to actually be tagged. Grutness's plan sounds about right, though. Alai 06:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops. Both. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

---

Has had only 9 articles since June. Upmerge. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. Grutness...wha? 05:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge. Very few articles and the area covered is too narrow. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 19:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete

---

Redundant to ((Delaware-road-stub)). --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - must have been one we forgot ;) master son^{T - C} 01:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Also a redlink category, and apparently long-standing unused. Could be speedied, especially given the earlier "umbrella" deletion. Alai 05:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Slash and burn with a stick...er, delete per nom. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete spacey redirect; rename cat

---

Two different naming issues here. Firstly, the template has been on a spurious journey to non-NG names, and I've moved it to ((CastileLeón-geo-stub)), keep the original name at ((CastileLeon-geo-stub)) (now a cut'n'paste move over yet another redirect). It's currently unused, but admittedly only because the category is now almost empty: one bot populated it heavily, and another user went on a spree of twiddling transclusions from one form to the other. But I doubt the general populace will miss it, at least if a version with the correct spellng exists. If anyone wants to insist on ((CastileandLeón-geo-stub)), perhaps fair enough, but a move towards dropping lower-case non-substantiative words from camel-case templates would seem like a good idea to me. At any rate, delete the spacey version. Secondly, rename the category to follow the permcat, Cat:Castile and León. Alai 05:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The spacey redirect should definitely go, and yes, the cat should follow the permcat name. I think a reasonable case could be made for a redirect at ((Castile-geo-stub)) (per the likes of ((Newfoundland-geo-stub)) and ((Trinidad-geo-stub))), but doubt that CastileandLéon-geo-stub would be a goer. Grutness...wha? 23:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ((Castile-geo-stub)) would be somewhat confusing, given ((CastileLaMancha-geo-stub)) -- which is another biggie, to boot. Alai 15:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah - forgot that one. Fine - no castile-geo-stub then :) Grutness...wha? 23:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

---

Unproposed, and hopelessly tiny. The parent category (Cat:Subdwarf stars) has only six articles. If it can be populated to threshold, fine - if not, then at the very least it needs upmerging. Grutness...wha? 01:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, subdwarf stars is becoming more common as more subdwarf stars are discovered and known, and hence more articles are made about subdwarf stars. For example, I just created V391 Pegasi with a discovered planet. Subdwarf are not the same as main-sequence stars. I saw that under Groombridge 1830 article, I see ((main-star-stub)) instead of ((subdwarf-star-stub)). Groombridge is not a luminosity type V, but of luminosity type VI. BlueEarth 02:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Populate or upmerge. BlueEarth, I see you're able to use a lot of bold, but what I'm not getting is any actual response to the central point about current population, vis the stub size guidelines. Alai 05:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete

---

Redirect to the (sensibly-named, if wackily-coded) ((RC-diocese-stub)). Delete due to NG issues. Alai 18:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I've cleaned up the code for ((RC-diocese-stub)). Switches is a bad idea on stub templates. Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was do not rename

---

Listing here on behalf of a user who brought it to CfD. Original nomination text follows. the wub "?!" 18:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United Kingdom pop musical group stubs to Category:UNKNOWN

Nominator's rationale: I don't know exactly who must be renamed where, but there is a kind of disagreement: wikipedia has Category:British pop music groups but no corresponding stub. Alternatively, there is a stub categry, but no Category:United Kingdom pop musical groups. Is this intentional? Laudak 23:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No !vote from me. the wub "?!" 18:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So that's a !!vote, then? This is getting almost as bad as linear logic (or maybe chess notation, or something like that). Anyhoo, I'd strongly favour taking this to CFR, and renaming the permcat (and its various siblings). It's not usual practice for non-bios to use demonyms or toponyms, and much more so for them to use the noun and a preposition of some sort, which we then "minimally mangle" into the above form for the stub type. Of course, this might mean that some Stub Grammarians will want non-standard usages when we come to create Cat:Canadian pop musical group stubs, Cat:French pop musical group stubs, etc, but we can burn that bridge when we come to it. At any rate, accordingly oppose renaming of the stub category. Alai 00:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename, keep redirects for now

---

A short while ago, a template for Ancient Roman politicians was approved [6] but with the form "AncientRome-" rather than "Ancient-Rome-". Rename the rest per this example:

• ((Ancient-Rome-stub)) -> ((AncientRome-stub))
• ((Ancient-Rome-bio-stub)) -> ((AncientRome-bio-stub))
• ((Ancient-Rome-myth-stub)) -> ((AncientRome-myth-stub))
• ((Ancient-Rome-mil-stub)) -> ((AncientRome-mil-stub))
• ((Ancient-Greece-stub)) -> ((AncientGreece-stub))
• ((Ancient-Greece-bio-stub)) -> ((AncientGreece-bio-stub))
• ((Ancient-Greece-writer-stub)) -> ((AncientGreece-writer-stub))
• ((Ancient-Egypt-stub)) -> ((AncientEgypt-stub))

Note: ((AncientRome-battle-stub)) and ((AncientRome-politician-stub)) already use the proposed format. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't have strong opinions about it, but is it necessary? If only one or two templates don't conform to the others, perhaps they should be be changed back instead. — Zerida 19:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with Zerida. I admit I'm probably not as familiar with stub convention as I should be, but it seems to me a minor concern best served by making the shortest line between two points. Ford MF 19:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Comment I was unaware there was categorical significance to the hypen placement. Since AncientRome seems to be functionally different from Ancient-Rome, I think it probably should be moved. Ford MF 17:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename pr nom. It's not as clearcut as some such cases, but the naming conventions do suggest that using the hyphen indicates that these stub types are subtypes - e.g., Ancient-Rome-myth-stub is a subtype of Rome-myth-stub. In the case of the Egypt and Greece ones, this is less of a problem, since we do have similar stubs for the modern countries - but we're unlikely ever to have some of these types for modern Rome, and it would be misleading to suggest that the ancient ones were as straightforwardly connected if we did. For that reason, losing the extra hyphen does make sense. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per nom and naming guidelines (and the hierarchy); if people are attached to the current names, or feel that a change would cause undue confusion, then keep redirects, at least for the time being. Alai 02:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I agree with above, that the proposed standard format AncientRome or AncientEgypt is better than the format with the extra hyphen. So what if it takes a little extra work? In the long run I think it is the preferred format. Jeff Dahl 17:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a significant amount of work, just a handful (OK, slightly mutant handful) of moves (and a similar number of bot-runs and deletions, if the one names are to be expurgated, which as I say I wouldn't bother with, personally). Alai 02:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and keep redirects for now. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename

---

Propose rename to Cat:Chess biography stubs to match prety much all other bio-stub categories. Waacstats 12:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, by the 'noun phrase' rule-of-thumb. Alai 17:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete

---

Tiny permcat, no growth since February, and these would be quite happily sorted elsewhere, I think. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

---

Used on 18 articles, discovered in February and has actually shrunk since then. I suggest we keep ((India-protected-area-stub)), create Cat:Asian protected area stubs, and upmerge the former to the latter per Alai's suggestion on Discoveries. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. Much too small, and dwindling, by the sound of it. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename

---

All should be renamed to match the parent category Cat:Skating biography stubs and most other bio-stubs, such as <Location> figure skating biography stubs. Neier 12:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support also suggest that the templates are changed to match i.e ((figure-skating-bio-stub)) etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waacstats (talk • contribs)

Good point. And, on the newly created Japanese stub category, no category rename is necessary; although, ((japan-figure-skater-stub)) should be renamed to follow the convention you mentioned. Neier 22:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong preference for template/category consistency: if these are to be renamed (which seems fairly sensible), please tag the templates for renaming to match. But, keep the redirects from -skater-stub. Alai 02:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All categories above are tagged, since I forgot to do it originally; and all of the stub templates below are tagged Neier 03:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ((Speed-skater-stub))
• ((Figure-skater-stub))
• ((Asia-figure-skater-stub))
• ((Canada-figure-skater-stub))
• ((Euro-figure-skater-stub))
• ((US-figure-skater-stub))
• ((Russia-figure-skater-stub))
• ((USSR-figure-skater-stub))
• ((Japan-figure-skater-stub))

I'm unopposed to this change, although I'm not sure it's that necessary. Is it the standard to do it this way for stub templates? (And since the orig argument is changing many to suit the style of one, wouldn't it be easier to change one to suit the style of many? But, like I said, if this is the accepted style of doing things, then I bow to the great gods of standardization. *g*) Kolindigo 04:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the larger scheme of things, most biography stubs already use classification-bio-stub templates, and are in "classification biography stubs". The skating stubs are the exception. See Cat:Sportspeople_stubs_by_sport for just the sports stubs which are named that way. Neier 05:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was nom withdrawn

---

Ill-formed and unproposed. Main problem, though, is the scope. We deliberately don't have separate stubs for football managers, since the vast majority of them are ex -players, and as such are covered by the various player categories. For this reason, we don't even have a ((Footy-manager-stub)), let alone splitting off by individual nation. Grutness...wha? 01:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You did mention that at the time, but it was passed nevertheless. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm. I'd completely forgotten about that proposal. This creation doesn't seem to be connected with the original proposal, though (if it was, it would have been better formatted, I'm sure). I still think it's going to be a fairly difficult one to have in terms of its scope, due to the massive overlap (I'd say 90% of managers are ex-players, and the boundaries between manager and coach were, until recent years, very blurry). Given that there was a proposal, I'll withdraw the nom, BUT it will need tidying up, and don't be surprised if it needs to be revisited at some point. Grutness...wha? 06:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was redirect to soil-sci-stub

---

Unproposed, no category, unlikely to get close to threshold, and adequately covered by other stub types. Either delete or upmerge. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not quite clear how this differs from ((Soil-sci-stub)) in scope. Can the two be merged, in one direction or the other? Turning this into a redirect to the other would seem reasonable to me (and would also serve to get rid of the WPJ self-ref/spam). Alai 01:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything Soil is Soil Science and in fact the wikiproject for soil is trying to broaden the field to include other related aspects and dimensions. I didn't know that there was such a thing as stub police, I just try to edit and add value to topics in Wikipedia in which I have professional familiarity. I am now chastened and "in the know". Thanks, Drillerguy 15:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a reverse merge is in order, if all the current soil-sci-stubs would be accommodated happily enough by soil-stub? Grutness...wha? 23:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Widen to include what, exactly? There's no Cat:soil, and this isn't currently used anywhere, we're somewhat lacking either a formal or informal definition. (I'd be strongly opposed to scoping by 'whatever the soil WPJ says after the fact'.) Alai 00:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete

---

Unproposed, redlinked category. Seems to actually be being used for Montevideo-geo-stubs, so if kept some form of naming is in order. However, given that there are only some 70 Uruguay geo-stubs in total (and only about 160 general Uruguay-stubs), it seems unnecessary and inappropriate. There is also a degree of ambiguity as to whether this is for Montevideo city or montevideo Department. The latter would be far more in line with standard stub-splitting practice, but given that the current number of geo-stubs would see an average of four stubs per department, it would be a highly impractical split. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The template is made for all Montevideo-related stubs. I'm just not finished labelling them. --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 01:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's much clearer, thanks. Delete. Alai 02:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a slight inclination to say "rename and upmerge", since in theory we'll be (re)creating that and (re)sorting to it (with "geo" and "departmental" scope) in due course. OTOH, given the current small size, and the fact that a split is a factor of five away, it's much of a muchness. Alai 02:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There are currently 35 five stubs in the category. --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 02:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is still too few, even given the (highly undesirable) smooshing together of geos and non-geos. This'd mean all the geos would then have to be double-stubbed, to maintain any sort of tagging consistency. Alai 02:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 44 articles and I still have dozens of red links to fill in. Can I at least have some time to do that before you decide to delete the template? --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 03:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deletion discussions are generally left to run for a week, so don't worry too much on that particular score. But if it's the wrong axis to split on (as I argue above it is), then the size issue is secondary. Alai 03:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't doubt the creator's good intentions, but splits by city is not the best way to procede. Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename to "West Midlands region school stubs"

---

An unproposed addition to the British school stubs hierarchy. Probably a useful one, but... West Midlands is normally used in stub sorting to refer to the county, whereas this is for the region (which includes this and several other counties). Given that by-county splits are likely inevitably, this needs renaming, either to Cat:West Midlands (region) school stubs or to Cat:West Midlands Region school stubs. Personally, I'd prefer the former, but either is possible. Grutness...wha? 01:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, but with a preference for Cat:West Midlands region school stubs as target, given the awkwardness of (and lack of any point in) parenthical disambiguation in category names. (I'd cite several German regional cats with similar names, but modesty forbids... Oh, and laziness.) Alai 01:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - Quite happy with either name, and sorry to have caused the confusion in the first place. ~ Scribble Monkey 12:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename and upmerge

---

Unproposed, spacey template; unproposed, underpopulated category. Template name, by stub naming guidelines, should be ((LaRiojaES-geo-stub)) - and it should be either populated or upmerged. Grutness...wha? 01:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd convinced myself we already had templates for every autonomous community (without troubling to actually check, or indeed count), so I'm a little surprised we didn't already have a template for this, so I'm not too put-out by the 'unproposed' aspect. Rename, and populated or upmerge, on NG and "numerosity" grounds, per nom. Permcat is at Cat:La Rioja, btw, so I'd favour a rename either way to achieve some sort of consistency (though upmerging would make that moot as far as the stubcat is concerned). Alai 04:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another case of "permcat at one name, article at another". There is a La Rioja Province in Argentina, BTW, so perhaps the permcat needs changing. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a plausible theory of the case from where I'm sitting. Alai 16:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the permcat to CFD for renaming. Grutness...wha? 22:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename and upmerge

---

Both unproposed - and created at the same time, apparently - there are very very few Wallis and Futuna stubs - certainly nowhere near threshold - so, like other similar cases, this should be upmerged. As for the template, it needs renaming if kept, to the spaceless NG-standard ((WallisFutuna-bio-stub)). Grutness...wha? 01:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete

---

Never proposed, no category, very poorly formatted, incredibly oddly named, and split on an axis which stubs are not split (singers are subcategorised by nationality (e.g., Indian) or style (e.g., Jazz) - not by language). Note too that there is no permcat Cat:Hindi singers, and Cat:Indian singer stubs, from which the majority of Hindi singer stubs would come, is well below the splitting threshold with only about 160 stubs. Not useful and unsalvageable - delete. Grutness...wha? 23:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If we retag Neeraj Shridhar with ((India-singer-stub)), this could be speedied in 48. Otherwise, delete by any means necessary. Alai 17:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.