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
Per May 2007 Discoveries discussion, delete; used on 23 items, no growth since May 2007, and unproposed. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per pegship. Waacstats (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - there was plenty of growth in many of the articles, though... nearly half of the articles marked with this aren't stubs. Grutness...wha? 22:57, 17 October 2008 (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
Per May 2007 Discoveries discussion, delete; only 7 items in it, and the creator concurs with deletion. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not needed. Waacstats (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2008 (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

for some reason, we didn't finalise the naming of the new categories for dams, and as such the naming's gone a little awry. we have:

• Cat:Dam building and structure stubs
• Cat:United States dam building and structure stubs
• Cat:Japanese dam building and structure stubs
• Cat:Indian dam building and structure stubs, and
• Cat:Asian dam building and structure stubs

Unfortunately, the permcat is simply Cat:Dams, so these should really be

• Cat:Dam stubs
• Cat:United States dam stubs
• Cat:Japanese dam stubs
• Cat:Indian dam stubs, and
• Cat:Asian dam stubs respectively.

Rename all. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Also, shouldn't the templates simply be at ((dam-stub)), etc, given that equally, the article's at dam? (Feel free to keep redirects if those are felt to be useful.) Alai (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thrown off guard by the system for bridges. Bridge-struct-stub etc and bridge building and structure stubs. I guess this was only to avoid being confused with the game bridge. The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed so. ((Church-stub)) and its ilk may have been a better style to use. I support Alai's idea of moving the templates and keeping the current names as redirects, BTW - I wondered about that at the time but thought the categories were the more obvious thing to fix. Grutness...wha? 23:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably the bridge-structs should likewise be at bridge-stub, on the basis that the article bridge is about those, with just a hatnote on the game, so it has a decent claim to be the primary sense. Probably be more trouble than it's worth to change that one at this stage, though. Alai (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2008 (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

Two new unproposed templates, both upmerged into Cat:Archbishop of Canterbury stubs, of all places. No need for either of these - Cat:deans of Manchester and Cat:Deans of Exeter have fewer than 20 articles between them, and Cat:United Kingdom Christian clergy stubs is nowhere near there being a need to consider a split. Seems unlikely to be useful, especially since several of the articles which could use these are more effectively covered by ((UK-bishop-stub)). Grutness...wha? 00:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is likely to be more confusing than useful, especially if it's applied -- as at present -- to people more notable for being bishops, as Grutness points out, or naturalists, etc. If there's a missing slot in the already-extensive clerical stub hierarchy it would be be for ((UK-Anglican-clergy-stub))s, but even that might be a solution looking for a problem at present. Alai (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as below the normal thresholds with no hope of reaching same. - Dravecky (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2008 (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

• Cat:Japanese sports stubs
• Cat:Movie stubs
• Cat:India sports stubs
• Cat:Decapod stubs
• Cat:South Korea university stubs

Since stub categories are populated by templates, I think that we don't need category redirects for these, so I think we should delete them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not quite sure why these exist. Grutness...wha? 00:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Completely agree. Delete. Alai (talk) 05:01, 19 October 2008 (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 upmerged to star stubs

This is unproposed. Someone else tried to speedy this, but it was declined. This is not a stub template, though it claims to be one. There is no associated category, and it is not supported by the appropriate WikiProjects. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. It is a stub template, but incorrectly links to a permcat rather than a stub cat. It was listed in WP:WSS/D last month, where comments suggested that it was a reasonable addition, but if WP:Astronomy doesn't want it, then fair enough. Grutness...wha? 20:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Whachamean, "not supported"? WPSS decided to split the stars by luminosity class, hence Cat:giant star stubs, etc. Upmerge to Cat:star stubs, until such time as it has a viable population. Alai (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going by the comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy it's not well-liked over there. Grutness...wha? 23:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What comments exactly? Where? Do they want some other split? No split? Triple-tagging, as some (I'd assumed rogue) user has been doing? Let's try and keep these sorted on some sort of consistent basis, and not be rowing in several different directions at once. Alai (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops - sorry: make that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects - specifically here, where it's clear that there was a proposal to speedily delete the template which failed. Looks like the template 's creator has been causing some problems for WP:AO one way and another with questionable edits and creations. If it's useful to WP:A and to WP:WSS, then I've no objection to it being kept, so I'm definitely willing to change my !vote. Grutness...wha? 05:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll check by there in due course: in any case, there's a shedload of cleanup work required in Cat:star stubs -- mostly caused by the same editor that created this, unfortunately -- so before destroying a little bit more of my soul in doing so, and then finding someone else heaving in the opposite direction, I'll see if there's (still) support for this axis of split. Alai (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Currently the template links to 7 articles, with no visible growth. I suggest we upmerge it until it looks like somebody wants to use it. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand its usage. There might be more stubs that need this template. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 20:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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, and with several problems. First, Cat:Greek Catholic churches has only three articles, so getting this up to 60 stubs will be problematical, to say the least. Second, the template not only has a very un-NC name, but also has no text at all. It's also worth noting that not only is there no category for Cat:Greek Catholicism, but Greek Catholicism is a redirect to Eastern Catholic churches. Seems less than unnecessary. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 18 October 2008 (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 Category:Prehistoric reptile stubs

After going through the first two levels of parent categories (Cat:Prehistoric reptile stubs and Cat:Reptile stubs), I have only found 13 stubs for this category. I think we should upmerge it. While there may be a few higher up in the stub category tree, I find it unlikely that there is a significant number of them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look through Cat:Ichthyosaurs, buyt if it doesn't get much further then , yes, upmerging looks the best option. Grutness...wha? 21:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh - skip that, even if everything in that category and its subcat were a stub it still wouldn't get near threshold, so upmerge is best. Grutness...wha? 21:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went through that, and even including ichthyopterygia (which is a questionable inclusion, perhaps) it only got to about 22 stubs. Grutness...wha? 21:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge and note under "it seemed a good idea at the time"; this was proposed during a discussion of dinosaur- and paleo-stubs back in 2006. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:55, 27 October 2008 (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 stub type. Incorrectly named (should be -mil-) and inappropriately scoped, given that - with very rare exceptions - stub types are for currently existing nations. Severely undersized category too - a category which has no stub parents. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 20 October 2008 (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

As above, with the added problem that YW is primarily a Spanish airline, and this clearly has nothing to do with that. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 20 October 2008 (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

And another. Unproposed stub type. Inappropriately scoped, given that - with very rare exceptions - stub types are for currently existing nations. Category currently empty, with no guarantee that it would reach threshold. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 20 October 2008 (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

Again. Unproposed stub type. Inappropriately scoped, given that - with very rare exceptions - stub types are for currently existing nations. Category currently empty, with no guarantee that it would reach threshold. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 20 October 2008 (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

And finally... Unproposed stub type. Inappropriately scoped, given that - with very rare exceptions - stub types are for currently existing nations. Category currently empty, with no guarantee that it would reach threshold. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 20 October 2008 (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, non-standard named stub type that is of no use whatsoever for stub sorting. Cat:Einstein Family contains only 20 pages, a staggering seven of which are portal and template-related (i.e., there are only 13 actual articles). Of those 13, several are not stubs, and several of the remainder are likely deletable (under the "notability is not inherited" guidelines). Inappropriately upmerged to Cat:Writer stubs, though none of the articles on members of the Einstein Family are primarily about writers. No way on Heaven or earth this will get anywhere near needing to be split out as a separate stub type, and even if it were a dozen times its current size it still wouldn't be a sensible way to split bio-stubs up. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 23 October 2008 (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

• ((Cont-african-artist-stub))
• ((Cont-africa-artist-stub))
• ((Contemporary-artist-stub))

None proposed, the first two of them incorrectly named, and none of them even close to being usable in their current malformed state. Not surprisingly, none of them are in use. Given the two conflicting meanings of the word "contemporary" and the often conflicting definitions of the description "contemporary art", the third is also a poor choice for a split. Schools and styles of art are not, in any case, a standard method for splitting artist stubs, given the often overlapping nature of the styles and the different styles which individual artists may use during their careers (and if we were, "contemporary" art still wouldn't be one of them, given that it's a grab-bag agglomeration of several different styles and schools which we would be better off splitting individually) - we use nationality as the primary way of splitting them. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:27, 24 October 2008 (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 (again)

Yes, this was nominated less than a month ago - the decision then was "delete", but this has been undeleted on the grounds that the creator of the stub type was never notified of the deletion process and therefore was unable to put his side of the argument. As such, this is a procedural re-listing. For my part, however, I have to say that this still does not look like a useful split - gived the small number of articles that were using this at the time of deletion (despite the fact that it had been in use for over a year), it does not appear to be a particularly useful split - delete. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that it was nominated in slightly different form in April last year. Decision then was to rename - no dcecision was made on the category, despite the majority of comments seeming to favour upmerging unless the category got to threshold (which it never seems to have). Grutness...wha? 00:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that I thoroughly have time to discuss this, I think this should be kept. The whole stub category process was entirely unnecessary when I originally created this grouping a year and a half ago. I understand that the only people who will be commenting here, other than me, are the people who solely focus on stub sorting and the stub proposal process, which is entirely skewed. The level of bureaucracy created here is entirely unnecessary, and while my comments here probably won't mean anything, I will just summarize with this: I am extremely dissatisfied with the nitpicking attitude of stub sorters, and that new categories and templates have to be approved before anything is done. Nowhere else is this done on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you perhaps concentrate on reasons you think the stub type needs saving, rather than simply launching an unprovoked attack on stub sorters? As to things being approved before anything else is done only here and nowhere else on Wikipedia, that is patently untrue - protected pages also require talk-page discussion before editing is done to them, and among those protected pages are high-use templates. Most stub templates are, by definition, high use, so requiring some form of approval before creation makes perfect sense. It also makes perfect sense for other reasons which i have explained on your talk page. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wanted to use the stub today when I found an article that fit in it. When I found it was deleted, I thought it was entirely unnecessary that these be deleted, and what you think is an attack, I call a criticism of this system. As I said, there is no where else on WIkipedia where you have to get something approved before you make the page. I know that this stub will have some use in the upcoming months when a new series and new articles relating to the subject.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since all of the articles currently marked with ((KamenRider-stub)) wouold be well covered by other stub types, I don't see that not having it would have been a problem. As to your other points, how is accusing stub sorters of being "nitpicking" an attack on the system? It is clearly an attack on individual editors. Furthermore, your automatic assumption that your "comments here probably won't mean anything" either indicates that you think that think your reasons for keeping the stub type are weak ones or that you think the process is some form of kangaroo court. If you meant the former, then your support of the stub is by implication poor; if you meant the latter, then it is an attack on anyone who would take part in the discussion process.

As for approval, what is "articles for creation" if not a process for getting approval before making a page? If there is some later point at which this stub type becomes useful, then it can always be re-proposed - until then, it has negligible current use, and as such should not be kept, especially when other stub types do the same work.

This SFD discussion was restarted so you could put your side of the argument - the stub type could quite easily have been speedily deleted as the re-creation of a page deleted after due formal process. As such, it would benefit everyone - and reflect far better on you - if you could argue why this stub type should be kept now - not why it could have some use at some future time, if and when more articles are written, not by railing against what you see as a perceived injustice or a "skewed process" in an attempt to justify why you never proposed the stub type in the first place, and not by attacking editors who are simply trying to improve Wikipedia by calling the nitpickers. You shouldn't need reminding that personal attacks (or at the very least gaming the system with mischaracterisation of other editors' actions), incivility (such as your heated comments on my talk page), and your seeming assumption of bad faith by the people taking part in this process - along with the re-creation of a template that had been deleted through due process - are all very WP:POINTY, and I'm more than a little concerned that an admin like you seems to be using such methods rather than keeping to the point of this debate in the first place. Grutness...wha? 08:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• May I gently point out that, between the time it was listed at Discoveries in May 2007 and the last update in September 2008, this stub was applied to only 22 items the entire time. It's currently applied to 21. I suggest that an alternative would be to upmerge the template, which I neither support nor oppose. Just saying. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, and strong censure of out-of-process undeletion, by a user who evidently has a strong interest here -- indeed, by all appearances, the only user with a strong interest here. Please, the very last thing WP needs is wheel wars on the basis of Oh Noes, They Deleted My Favourite Thing, I Shall Personally Restore It. If you feel the original closure and deletion were incorrect, then deletion review is thataway. Alai (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You stub sorters are all really touchy about your processes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we are, it's because we're doing a tremendous amount of work to support the organization of WP and getting little or no appreciation. And we certainly don't have a monopoly on touchiness. I don't think the fact that you disagree with WPSS is sufficient reason to nominate the entire project for deletion, though. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not the only reason I listed it for deletion. There are various issues at hand there, and in speaking with a few other users, they have similar feelings.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Objects to blatant, self-serving misuse of admin tools by a party to an editorial dispute equates to "really touchy about your processes", now? Frankly, this is utterly shameful behaviour in every respect. Alai (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as undersized, underutilized, and no rationale for keeping it has been offered beyond WP:ILIKEIT (which is no rationale at all). If other editors have a rationale for keeping these, as one respondent above indicates, then they should by all means weigh in here. There can be no consensus if the lurkers who support you in e-mail remain lurkers. - Dravecky (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Aside: this should really be at /P (which I'm happy to see is no longer listed at MFD...), but perhaps it would be more sensible to have a Cat:Tokusatsu stubs? There's a WPJ of that scope, and it might be numerically viable to have such a type (without recourse to padding the type out with article that aren't stubs (to say nothing of the article that aren't viable articles). Alai (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't find the whole proposal process necessary. If stubs relating to tokusatsu would be more useful, then if someone wants to propose it, then do so. I'm through with these processes for some time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since at no point have you participated in any such "process" in a constructive manner, the rest of us can only hope so. Alai (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2008 (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, and need I say not quite appropriately named by WP:WSS/NG? Churches are subcategorisedfor stubbing by country and by denomination - not by construction material, neither are world heritage sites normally given their own stub types (offhand, I cannot think of a single one that has been). In the case of the redlinked category, gikven that there are only five articles in Cat:Wooden Churches of Maramureş, there are unlikely to be the threshold 60 stubs for a stubcat. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, no chance of even being in the ballpark of the 60 stubs threshold. Icewedge (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lots. Alai (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete for all the reasons stated above and no sign this could ever reach 30, never mind 60. - Dravecky (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2008 (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, and unnecessary, as well as being poorly named. Not only is B&M a dab page, but there's a capital S in stub. we don't need this, though - not only is Cat:Amusement ride stubs not so full as to need splitting, but even if it was, we'd almost certainly split by location long before we considered splitting by construction company. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Alai (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as badly named, poorly conceived, and below the thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2008 (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 with "s"

• Cat:German organization stubs: doesn't follow spelling of permcat, rename to Cat:German organisation stubs
• Cat:Italian organization stubs: undersized, upmerge
• Cat:Norwegian organization stubs: doesn't follow spelling of permcat, rename to Cat:Norwegian organisation stubs
• Cat:Spanish organization stubs: highly undersized, upmerge

Lastly, given that English-speaking nations in Europe use the "organisation" spelling, and that all the subcats ought to be at the "organisation" spelling, rename Cat:European organization stubs to Cat:European organisation stubs. Alai (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support changes to international English. Also support upmerging, though of course would recommend trying to fill them first (less than 60 Italian or Spanish org-stubs? I would have expected there to be far more...) Grutness...wha? 22:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've no idea; the European cat is hardly huge itself, so finding them would be the usual magical mystery tour through the <country>-stubs (and perhaps elsewhere). Obviously if someone expends the effort in populating them, I'd be fine with renaming instead. Alai (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've gone through the first 1/3 of Cat:Italy stubs (which is grossly undersorted, BTW); the Italy-org-stub category's gone from 26 stubs to 51 so far - and that's despite the fact that I've ignored sports teams and companies. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Italy's up to 60 now, so keep but rename that one, too. Grutness...wha? 22:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've done the same with Spain, and that too is now up to 60 stubs - keep but rename that one too. Cat:Spain stubs, BTW, was almost enough to make a stub-sorter week. Grossly undersorted, some 50% of it wis geo-stubs, and that's nopthing compared to one or two of its subcats. Cat:Cantabria stubs would from from 80 to about 10 stubs if all the geo-stubs in it were correctly stubbed. Massive work needed here, methinks. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We have explicitly allowed for this non-consistency between English and American spelling. In particular, with respect to the Norwegian category, it should be noted that a perusal of Category:Organisations based in Norway shows there is no preference for one variant or the other. We should not attempt to streamline Wikipedia on an issue where consensus is not to do so. __meco (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's per Cat:Organisations based in Norway, not per Cat:Organizations based in Norway. Stub templates, wherever possible, follow permcat names (as is implied in the nomination). Grutness...wha? 11:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a ludicrous misconstrual of what's "explicitly allowed": we don't have inconsistency between parallel categories just for the fun of it. Discussion at /P already noted that the Norwegian type should be at "organisations": I find it very odd that you'd jump in, create it at a different title, and claim some sort of fait accompli. Alai (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it's not like I noticed this discrepancy as I created the stub category and decided to oppose it. I didn't. Also, I missed some of the rationale for the nom, so I am retracting my vote. __meco (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentatively Oppose. Before making it non-tenative, I'd like to know what the significance of the permcat criterion is. To Grutness: both spellings are international, so that isn't a factor. I live in Sweden, I see the z-spelling more often than the s-spelling. The z-spelling is what we're taught in school, and the s-spelling is thought of as "vulgar" (a sentiment with which I do not agree, BTW!) This change seems unnecessary, and will potentially needlessly upset many Europeans (esp. older ones). --Samuel Webster (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "International English" is a term widely used to describe traditional English English - i.e., non-American English. As such, I was using the term not to denote its use in those countries as to distinguish it from American English. Grutness...wha? 22:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the reply. I recommend looking at Wikipedia's article on International English! Most linguists I know think of "Int. English" more as a normative term -- a kind of English towards which we should strive, one that would be best in an international context. But that's neither here nor there, just "for the record"! Samuel Webster (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I know about that page - and it accurately describes a technical meaning as used by some linguists. But many people in general (not linguists specifically) use the term to refer to English as it is spoken in a large number of countries internationally - that is, "English English" - as distinct from the form of the language only spoken in a handful of countries. As with many things, the scientists and researchers who specialise in a particular field use a different set of terms for the subject to that which is used by the populace in general. But you're right, this has little to do with the topic in question. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I have dropped a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations, which I know did a major overhaul of these categories in the past year. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. __meco (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2008 (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.