This category is empty and does not contain a stub template. Its description is "This category is for stub articles relating to disability. You can help Wikipedia by expanding them." As a duplicate of Category:Disability stubs and its template ((Disability-stub)), this category should be deleted. Kurieeto 23:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Evidently sped, and rightly so. Alai 01:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• (after edit conflict) empty+duplicate+no template=speediable in most cases. Grutness...wha? 01:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main category Category:Publishers recently got rescoped to a parent of Category:Publishers (people) and a new category Category:Publishing companies. Rename the stub category to match the non-stub parent. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Alai 01:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

didn't we delete this recently? in any case it doesnt need capital s's. rename at least - if its a recreation deleting is also an option. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename. This was created as part of WikiProject Missouri, but I would agree abou the capitalization. Amalas =^_^= 14:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a recreation of Category:Missouri school stubs, of which this is just a badly capitalised variation. (Keep template and recat upwards, as I assume is implied by nomination of the category only.) The Wikiproject is neither here nor there: a wikiproject is not a licence to produce as many undersized (not to say unproposed) stub types as they like: they get a population discount on Category:Missouri stubs, and that's that. If this is seeing major traffic it'll doubtless be creatable on a proper basis soon enough. Alai 16:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per Alai. This template uses two categories. If / when the material breaks threshold, a category can be created (and properly named) but 40 is not 60+. Valentinian ^(talk) 20:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't noticed that, well-spotted. I've no objection to it using two, just not these two. (i.e., Category:Midwestern United States school stubs and Category:Missouri stubs would be fine.) Alai 05:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename. it has use, why do you people insist on deleting absolutly everything you can get your hands on?-- preschooler@heart 08:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to... the category name that was recently deleted? That, plus the lack of any rationale for your vote, and the gratuitous, sweeping ad hom, pretty much confirms my initial thought. I've edited the template to use "good standing" stub categories instead (and will request protection of said template if this sort of stuff keeps happening), and will delete the category as soon as it's emptied. Alai 16:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no corresponding cat. Created today to make a WP:POINT. Only 3 articles in Category:Natives of Orkney are stubs: StubSense. --Mais oui! 20:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs are sorted according to citizenship, not ethnicity and even if this was not the case, this one would be extremely unlikely to ever break 60+. Delete Valentinian ^(talk) 21:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Important to build an independent series of Orkney categories and stubs distinct from those of Scotland. The history and culture of Orkney (and Shetland) are quite distinct from that of Scotland, the islands maintain a close relationship with Norway and are often recognised as a part of Scandinavia. Nobody would think it reasonable for Wales to be covered by the English categories. (If citizenship is the criterion then all Scottish, English and Welsh categories would have to be subsumed under British.)Mallimak

Comment I am Danish so I am well aware of the history of Orkney and Shetland (or Ørkenøerne og Hjaltland to use the old Danish names). In Denmark the joke is occationally heard that the islands are Danish, and I'd be surprised if the Norwegians don't make similar jokes. But that's beside the point; stub templates and stub categories differ from ordinary categories. Ordinary categories can be specific to an ethnicity, but we base stub categories on citizenship. If a stub category becomes excessively big, we cut it down into smaller segments, and the UK belongs to this group. This is why Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have been singled out. But in order for Orkney to be singled out as well, we need 60+ existing stub articles for such a category to be considered big enough. I just can't imagine that this is currently the case for Orkney. Valentinian ^(talk) 21:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You may be aware of the history of Orkney and Shetland, but most Scots are not. Categorising Orkney and Shetland in with Scotland simply perpetuates this situation. I note that the Faroe islands have their own stub categories. Do they have 60+ stub articles? Mallimak

Category:Faroe Islands stubs has 47 stubs. Not the 60 you mention, but a reasonable number. More importantly it is the parent of Category:Faroe Islands geography stubs which has 105 stubs. --TheParanoidOne 22:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Faroes are 60+ now (sorting those had been on my to-do-list for ages!) Valentinian ^(talk) 23:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Likewise there is an Orkney-geo-stub. Why, therefore, should there not be an Orkney-bio-stub?Mallimak

The Orkney stub is not over- but seriously undersized. We use holder categories if a "child category" is 60+ and its "parent" is either 60+ or close to. ((Orkney-geo-stub)) is only used on 23 articles, so it does not need a "holder". Valentinian ^(talk) 00:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. sections of a country - even if theyve been historically seperate - dont get their own bio-stubs. bio-stubs are sorted by current country (except in very rare cases) and then by occupation. geo-stubs are completely different and are always split by subregion. The faroes are an autonomous territory so arent a fair (or fair isle) comparison so have their own stub types (and they dont, youll note, have a bio-stub). BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Valentian has now increased the number of Faroes stubs to over 60. I have started adding to the Orkney-bio stubs. It clearly makes sense to have a stub category in place ready to use. I see no sense in deleting the Orkney-bio stub I have created. It has a use and is being used. It obviously takes time to identify and/or create 60+ stubs.Mallimak

• It shouldn't take that long. Not when you're creating substubs of the Earls of Orkney that could just as well be redirects band adding stub notices to short but non-stub articles. I removed the stub tags from the three non-stubs, but left alone the substubs for now in hopes that you will improve them to at least stubs. As things stand now, delete, but I am persuadable if enough stubs can be found to populate it. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or upmerge, delete the "important series" of stub types if those are unproposed and undersized too, and remind creator of WP:STUB, with particular reference stub proposal, and to size as measured in terms of existing stubs, and proposal, the lack of validity of slippery-slope reasoning, and that Orkney has been part of Scotland longer than Scotland's been in the United Kingdom. If there's any viable number of Orcadian stubs, start with an all-inclusive ((Orkney-stub)), not with tiny candidate children. Sub-national splits of biographies are in any case problematic due to the difficulty in many cases of relating a person with a single such location, unless it relates clearly to their primary notability. (And yes, this does on occasion get fuzzy with regard to the "constituent countries" too, but there it's at least somewhat more distinct, and less likely to lead to massive multi-stubbing.) Alai 06:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per both BL and Alai. Note the discussion below as regards Cornwall We've recently had a very similar discussion about a Cornwall stub, which ended in its deletion. Counties - even ones with distinct historical differences from the country of which they are a part do not normally get their own stub types except for geo-stubs. Geo-stubs are split by national subdivision, which is the reason for the orkney-geo-stub. Bio-stubs and the like aren't - they are split primarily by nation and by occupation. The reason for this is clear, especially with modern biographies - geographical locations tend to stay in one place (seismic activity notwithstanding), but people move around. Someone like Mary Brunton, for instance, was Orcadian, but also spent much of her life in Edinburgh, and as such - if people were stubbed by subnational region - would need double stubbing. If she had lived in five different places, she would need five different stub templates, clearly overkill. Most people, however, are known for no more than two nationalities, and usually only for one occupation. Template overload becomes far less of a problem with the current system, and still makes the articles easy to find for editors. Grutness...wha? 12:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is the purpose of a stub category? Surely it is to list related stubs in one place. If I am an Orcadian, interested in expanding stubs of relevance to Orkney (in Orkney, it is not unlikely that I will be related to some of the "Orkney people"), am I really going to be bothered to trawl my way through massive British and Scotland stub lists trying to spot something of Orkney interest? I am concerned that the call for deletion has more to do with "category imperialism" than a genuine interest in adding knowledge to Wikipedia. (Mais oui! has been going through all my contributions changing every occurance of "Orcadian" to "Scottish", and will persist at it if I change them back again. What point is Mais oui! trying to make? Has s/he a problem with the concept of "Orcadian"?) Mallimak 19:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Mais_oui! has a history of going through articles changing "British" to "Scottish"- so it isn't very surprising he is opposing the changes you made. Astrotrain 19:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Mais_oui! has an obsession which is extremely unhelpful to those of us trying to write serious articles. I think the originator of an article is the best person to decide whether the subject is British, Orcadian, Scottish or whatever. I have lost patience trying to undo his changes (which is presumably what he is hoping).) Is there any way we can stop this guy? Mallimak 23:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I like Alai’s suggestion best. Judging by the number of publications published on Orkney and bought by Orcadians (yes, people living in Orkney) a more general Orkney stub collection is probably a more useful vehicle to grow a family of articles than merging the biographies with Scottish biographies and just having a tiny Orkney-geo collection. Gruelliebelkie 21:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Mallimak (talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mallimak. --Mais oui! 20:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI would find a merge of all Orkney-related stubs acceptable.Mallimak 23:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing Admin: the above contribution was the 2nd ever edit of User:Gruelliebelkie. --Mais oui! 22:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response Not quite true. Up to now I did any edits I made without having first created a Wikipedia identity, but I thought an IP address is just not good enough for joining into a discussion. I constantly find little things to correct but am slowly branching out into more ambitious stuff.

Gruelliebelkie 22:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Mallimak (talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mallimak. --Mais oui! 20:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This stub category has now well passed the threshold of 60 entries, and there are more to come! Mallimak 08:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... most of which really ought to be smooshed together to make a List of Earls of Orkney, being as they're not just one-liners, but ten-worders. Far from speedying, I'm inclined to say we should wait (or else revisit in a month or so) to see if any of these have survived this exercise in category-padding for long. Is that three times you've voted now, btw? Alai 08:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annihilate Orkney-nat-cruft. —Nightstallion (?) 09:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if we keep this stub, are we going to go off and create all of the following? (cos these could easily pass the 60 mark without creating a whole load of spurious substubs):

((London-bio-stub))

((Fife-bio-stub))

((Glasgow-bio-stub))

((Edinburgh-bio-stub))

((Yorkshire-bio-stub))

((Stockholm-bio-stub))

((Ohio-bio-stub))

((Bavaria-bio-stub))

((Tuscany-bio-stub))

((Java-bio-stub))

((Scicily-bio-stub))

((Oxford-bio-stub))

No: of course we're not! cos we are not (despite appearances) completely off our rockers here at Stub sorting. Just cos we can create a stub doesn't mean that it is always a good idea. In this case it is plain daft. Any of the above redlinks would be a far better candidate than Orkney, if we were to actually start down the crazy subdivisions bio stubs route. --Mais oui! 12:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have the template for this proposed here, but User:Kitia seems to have created the template ((Bhutan-stub)) and cat Category:Bhutan Stubs without following proper procedure. Please speedy delete both of these and I will recreate them only if they pass in WP:WSS/P. Amalas =^_^= 20:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure it's technically speediable, and it's a bit pointless to delete a template, just to recreate it: that'd be in the category of "things we can fix by editing". Speedy the category as "empty" in four days if it remains that way (and give someone a smack on the head if it doesn't), point the template to the correct capitalisation, which create in seven. Alai 20:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've populated the template so no problem there. It is over 75+ now and a definite keep. The category should be renamed when possible. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, done. Seems pointless to have a red cat page with 77 articles for a week, and an empty cat with a wonky name... Alai 00:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

never proposed, only one stub, and one of the worst formed stub types ive ever seen. ive fixed up the template although its still got a rotten name - as for the category it feeds into both itself and Category:Stubs but not into Category:Stub categories. thi sneeds putting out of its misery by deletion. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• yeeeuch. This one doesn't look particularly useful and it's certainly a mess the way it is. Mind you, the same is true of the parent Category:Oriental Orthodoxy, which seems to be thoroughly fragmented into far too many categories - but let's not go there... Delete this unless it can be populated to threshold - if it can, then sandblast and sluice what's here to try to turn it into something approaching normal stub type standards. Grutness...wha? 07:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one might actually be a good idea. What seems to be the problem is that ((Orthodoxy-stub)) feeds into Category:Eastern Orthodoxy stubs (Eastern Orthodoxy = e.g. the church in Greece or Russia). The problem is that the Coptic, Ethiopian and Antiochean churches also call themselves "Orthodox" but have existed separately from the "mainstream" Chalcedonian churches for 1500 years (= Oriental Ortodoxy.) The St. Thomas Christians in India fall into this category as well. Perhaps it would have been better if the original template had been named ((EasternOrthodoxy-stub)). The Coptic church has many stub articles and they are often badly stubbed (with ((reli-bio-stub)) or ((Pope-stub)) which is only confusing, see List of Coptic Popes) The Armenian church has a few stubs as well, so I think I'll give it a shot populating this one. Anyway, the template needs to lose the space, but the category name is consistent with the parent category (which might be a mess, but is correctly named). Valentinian ^(talk) 09:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename the template to ((OrientalOrthodoxy-stub)). Going through the Coptic Popes ( = Patriarchs of Alexandria) brought this one to 80+, and more material exists. I've been really annoyed that these were mixed in with the Popes in Rome or Avignon. The name of the category is ok. Btw, this template needs a better image, but preferably one which cannot be confused with other templates. All ideas are welcome. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a lotta popes. Keep, rename, per V., to whom kudos. Alai 00:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Rename per Valentinian. - Bobet 12:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename per Valentinian. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of stubs in this stub from the discoveries page, but both the template and the category need renaming, which by the naming guidelines would be ((ArchbishopofCanterbury-stub)) and Category:Archbishop of Canterbury stubs respectively. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, probably keeping the template redirect for the duration, since hyphens are not exactly one of our most crystal clear areas to date. Alai 05:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Valentinian ^(talk) 18:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the one person WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Secondary Schools in Noida (a town of 500,000 people; there are so far only two articles about Noida schools, both of which are stubs, but neither are stub-tagged). No stub category. TheGrappler 13:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know if I am sounding offended, atleast I don't mean to but Noida is no longer a town. It, along with Gurgaon were called city centres without a city around them but they are now more than those now. I know this stub doesn't qualify because even if articles on all Secondary Schools in Noida are started and they can be categorised as stubs , there still won't be more 26 articles which qualify for this stub marking. However, I am now planning to change this stub template to schools in NCR. I hope that's acceptable. Unitedroad 14:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to ((India-school-stub)) unless there are 60 or more for an ((UttarPradesh-school-stub)). The NCR is too informally defined in its extent for it to be normally used for stub types. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Now seemingly moved to ((India-Sec-School-Stub)), which is somewhat more sensible, but badly capitalised (to the tune of three S's), currently unused, and with no category. Delete that, delete redirect, start from scratch with a proposal for Category:Indian secondary school stubs (sic), if really required (which it doesn't seem to be, < 1 page of Indian schools total. Wikiproject should be able to work from that, and its own talk-page template, for the foreseeable future. Alai 03:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete both and upmerge per Caerwine. Due to the overlapping secondary/intermediate/tertiary schools in many countries, it makes far more sense to split schools on a regional level than by grade - as has already been done to some extent with the US. If we were to split Indian school stubs, I would suggest that it would be more sensible to do the same here. At the moment, though, that seems unnecessary. Grutness...wha? 05:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A re-creation of the previously deleted ((BG-stub)). Still unsure? Battlestar Galactica. This one was never proposed and has been used on a mammoth 13 articles since its (re)creation two and a half weeks ago. No category. Delete Grutness...wha? 08:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per G. (At least the name was slightly better this time. In Denmark, BG is a major bank.) Valentinian ^(talk) 15:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the Galacticia stub by your command. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--68.73.203.108 20:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as recreation, with what's for my money a somewhat worse name. Alai 23:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fair use logos in templates are not allowed. Invitatious (talk)
• Keep Maybe it should be renamed, and it would need to be redone to have a category and get rid of the logo, but I do think that a Galactica stub category would be useful, and would populate once its category was subcatted in Category:Battlestar Galactica and Category:Science fiction stubs so that it was visible to users. I think the same about Babylon 5. However, if you don't feel there's enough stubs to break them out by series, I think something like a ((sf-tv-stub)) to compliment the sf-novel and sf-book substubs would be useful. (There might be some confusion about how to handle novelizations, merchandising, and other tie-ins, though). --Groggy Dice 05:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think sf-tv-stub's a pretty good idea: StubSense finds 112 tagged with sf-stub alone in the categories rooted at Category:Science fiction television series, so viability seems assured. Alai 06:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've looked at some of the bsg-stub articles, and frankly, I think most of them have outgrown the stub stage and should be destubbed. On the other hand, checking with StubSense, it reports 41 sf-stubs in Category:Battlestar Galactica.[1] There may be other stub articles that haven't been slotted under Battlestar Galactica yet, or are unstubbed, so we could be talking 50+ potential stubs. Not a slam-dunk keep, but more than the 14 stubs that have been referred to. I considered bsg-stubbing some of these articles to bring the count up (as well as changing the logo graphic and editing the stub's category into existence), but decided it wasn't worth it for a stub that looked likely to be deleted. (I did leave a note on the creator's page two days ago, to give him a chance to make his case.) I'd like to get this resolved one way or another, so I know what to do with Galactica articles when sf-tv-stub is created. If my keep vote is what's kept this debate from being resolved, I'll withdraw it. --Groggy Dice 19:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking personally, I'd say it's a fairly clear "delete", and all that's stopping it being implemented as such is a) the usual sporadic backlog issues, and b) perhaps waiting for sf-tv-stub to be created, so as to give a useful target. Alai 22:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• a late delete vote from someone whos been away on holiday :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A re-creation of the previously deleted ((pakistan-actor-stub)) (which at least had a NG-compliant name). Nearly two months old, two articles. No category. Delete. Grutness...wha? 08:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Cut but don't print this stub. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not going to be useful in a long while. - Bobet 09:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And so it goes. Not proposed that I can see - two articles in three months, serious category problems (feeds into a nonexistent stub category with a poor name and an existing main category). Delete. Grutness...wha? 08:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Viable if there were enough stubs, but StubSense reports only 35 stubs in Category:Gnosticism and there is no associated Wikiproject. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even as a Kiwi I see this one as never getting near threshold. One stub in two and a half months. Never proposed, no category. Delete. Grutness...wha? 08:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Grutness. Valentinian ^(talk) 15:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A possible upscope to a ((Oceania-radio-station-stub)) if there are enough articles, otherwise, delete. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never proposed, feeds into miscapitalised and non-existent category, malformed name, one stub in four months, crosses existing stub categories. Never going to fly - delete. Grutness...wha? 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete asap. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one was created more than a month ago. Not used at all and feeds into Category:Maldives stubs. Delete Valentinian ^(talk) 21:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - speedily if possible Grutness...wha? 05:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Missing a hyphen, as well as 60 stubs to apply it to, but a very pretty template. Delete. Alai 02:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sense that getting a simple answer to the "biography or biographical" question may prove elusive, but here's another data point, at any rate. Similar argument as below. Other possible permutations would be Category:Politics biography stubs or Category:Political people stubs (each of which strikes me as poorer). Alai 07:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that there is a Category:Political people, a Category:Political people stubs strikes me as the best choice, altho if I were judging purely by euphony, I'd agree with you. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fairly easy either/any way on this one, though I'd like a degree of "horizontal" consistency, so if we go with the "people" option, there's a lot of "biography stubs" to be renamed, too. Alai 03:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like horizontal consistency is a long way off, and no further input, so let's call this one a sale at CW's bid. Alai 20:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another "specimen count". We flip-flop rather arbitrary between "biographical stubs" and "biography stubs". The latter seem to be more common, and fit the more general pattern of "[noun phrase] stubs", rather than making the whole prefix an adjectival phrase. (Shall I wait for CW's counter-proposal, or just oppose it now?) Alai 03:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Split and delete These have been getting numerous enough that I was thinking of proposing Category:Crime victim stubs, Category:Criminal stubs, and Category:Police officer stubs. Between the lack of an approprate parent category and the fact that with these and the already proposed Category:Criminologist stubs there would be few if any remaining crime bio stubs, so I wouldn't be at all adverse to getting rid of the category and making ((crime-bio-stub)) simply feed into Category:Crime stubs. Sometimes the simplest answer is to avoid the question. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resorting two entire categories, and delaying and/or complicating further per-country splits is some novel type of "simplest". (One of the "charms" of SFD is definitely tagging something for a rename, and people voting "delete"...) Alai 06:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viable enough size-wise (with over 90 stubs), but the template name is mysterious to casual observers, to say the least, and the category makes no mention of the fact that these are sites in the United Kingdom. Neither is there any link between this category and the UK's geography stub category. Never proposed, though probably of some use. The template should be renamed to something less cryptic, though. Grutness...wha? 02:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• ((UK-SSSI-geo-stub)) perhaps? It would still be cryptic, but at least clear that it's about a UK location. Caerwine Caerwhine 09:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responsible for this - apologies for not going through the proposal route. The size is likely to grow significantly as I progress my work on adding SSSI articles to Wikipedia. Biological SSSIs, which I know about, will end up with full-size articles. I'm not a geologist though so the best I can do with geological SSSIs is to create stubs, and there are a lot (thousands!) of geological SSSIs. We can add some text to the category to explain what these are in more detail. Perhaps we should make this a subcat of UK-geo-stub? No probs at all with a rename. SP-KP 09:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OK... a couple of comments here. Normally we don't have stub types for specific types of land form (we go by location alone), but protected areas are the one exception. There is a Category:Protected area stubs, which could act as a parent for this, as could the United Kingdom geography stubs category, as you suggest. A compromise name might simply be UK-SSSI-stub, since sites of scientific interest are automatically geography locations. I'd be very keen to see these continue to be double-stubbed with specific county/country-stubs, too, since many editors edit places they know ("this is a local stub, for local people!"). Some of them might even be triple-stubbable if the relate to specific types of sites (with geology-stub or archaeology-stub, for instance). I'd also suggest widening the scope slightly to include Northern Ireland's ASSIs. BTW, the only reason I discovered this stub is because a batch of stubs for SSSIs in Avon were marked with UK-geo-stub (I sift them into counties regularly). As far as stubs are concerned - and also much of the rest of Wikipedia - English locations are categorised by ceremonial county or current administrative county, so if you use "SSSIs in Avon" as a main category it's likely to end up on CFD at some point! Grutness...wha? 05:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I've just had another thought about this: protected-area-stub is getting fairly desperately in need of splitting (hopefully someone who knows how to use stubsense can see what the biggest splits would be)... expanding the current stub to cover all UK protected areas and changing its name to UK-protected-area-stub would kill two birds with one stone. Grutness...wha? 07:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds plausible to me. While definitions and terminology doubtless differs vastly, an initial split by country seems likely to be the most sensible course, as said defs and terms are likely to vary by country. Alai 17:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A few questions/comments:
      • 1. What other UK protected area types are represented within the protected areas stub category and how many of each are there? This should influence what we do - e.g. if there are 150 listed building stubs, and 65 Environmentally sensitive area stubs, it makes sense to have separate categories for different protected area types.
      • 2. Splitting protected area up by country sounds like a sensible move regardless of what we do with this stub/category, so I think we should do that anyway
      • 3. If we do stick with a reference to SSSI in the name, UK-SSSI-stub is preferable to anything with -geo- in the name as that might mislead people into thinking that the category is only for geological SSSIs, and not biological ones. SP-KP 18:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 4. The Avon question has also been aired elsewhere. You're right, it needs a discussion. I suggest we do that somewhere other than here though, so we can concentrate just on the issue of what we do with this stub type for now. SP-KP 18:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 5. I agree with you on Northern Ireland - I'm intending to treat ASSIs in the same way as SSSIs, but I've started with England and that will keep me busy for a while :-).
      • SP-KP 18:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hrm. Very few existing protected-area-stubs seem to be in the UK; quite a few in the Category:Protected areas of the United Kingdom hierarchy are stubs of some sort, but that seems to be largely down to nonsensical supercatting, giving us "lots of things related to parks of some sort". Listed buildings should not in any case be in the protected areas hierarchy at all. -geo- pretty consistently means "geography"/locations, not geology, though I think UK-geo-SSSI- would be clearer than the other permutation. I suggest we keep the existing template in some form, at least until it's determined whether there's a large pop of other PAs, but feeding into a single category, Category:United Kingdom protected area stubs. If uses of the distinct template ((UK-protected-area-stub)) passes the threshold separately, we can then readily re-split. Alai 18:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To answer SP-KP's points (although Alai has touched on a few of them):
    • 1. I would only expect it for geographical places (as we define them for stub sorting) and not buildings, which would still be marked with UK-struct-stub or one of its varieties. If a building is worth an article, chances are it is either of current or historical important, so there's quite a bit of overlap if we start including buildings in the new category. Also, geographical articles tend often to get different editors to buildings. The one problem area is when there is a historic house surrounded by garens or parkland, but then the house usually gets preference for stubbing unless they have separate articles.
    • 2. cool
    • 3. Geo refers to geography in terms of stub templates, not geology. Forests get geo-stubs, for instance. I agree that the abbreviation is a bit ambiguous, but it would require an enormous amount of work to get fixed (I'd estimate there are 300 geo-stub templates and 100,000 geography stubs).
    • 4-5. fine - just thought I'd mention it in case you hadn't thought about it. :)
    • And you're right, Alai, there are very few UK ones in the protected area stubcat, but with the 90 or so in the SSSI cat which would be added to them, they'll be well above threshold. The current template could be used either directly (preferably renamed) or as a redirect to a UK-protected-area-stub. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's somewhat in the category of "that and three euros will get you a cup of coffee"; the existing type is already numerically viable, so clearly merging it with anything else will still be so, but doesn't really argue strongly for such a move. Alai 05:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• First, OK, forget I mentioned listed buildings, bad choice of example. However, it looks like neither of you were led too far off down a blind alley by that one - my point, as you picked up, was about types & numbers. As types are few / numbers are low, I'd agree it makes sense not to have further subcategories of UK-protected-area-stub (not yet, anyway). On whether "-geo-" is misleading, I think you've missed my point a little - what I'm getting is not how this prefix is used here at Wikipedia, but how it is used by people who work with SSSIs. If you asked 10 conservation-type people what "UK-geo-SSSI" means, I can pretty much guarantee that the vast majority would say "a geological SSSI in the United Kingdom", so I still think geo in this context is a bad idea (but only in this context, I'm completely fine with all other geo-stubs). However, I think you've come up with the right answer in suggesting a redirect - that way, SSSI-stub can continue to be added to SSSI articles which are stubs, and if we ever get to the stage where we want to split SSSI stubs off from UK protected area stubs, the task is much easier. Are there any disadvantages I might not have though of? SP-KP 00:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only think i can think of is that the template's name isn't that obvious. UK-SSSI-stub would be better, and even then, "SSSI" is a bit obscure (though perhaps I'm in a minority there). You've got a point about "geo-SSSI", though. Grutness...wha? 08:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look towards the bottom of WP:WSS/D you'll see the various problems that arose recently with fashion-stub and clothing-stub. originally, clothing-stub existed as a redirect to fashion-stub, both feeding into Cat:Fashion stubs. A new unproposed category (Cat:Clothing stubs) was created, along with two new templetes, fashionstub (which duplicated fashion-stub) and clothingstub. I've emptied and speedied fashionstub as a direct duplicate, and redirected clothing-stub to the new category (the Fashion stub category was definitely large enough for a split and this is an obvious one). I propose deleting clothingstub as malnamed, but keeping the separate clothing stubs category. Grutness...wha? 02:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Caerwine Caerwhine 09:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • does that include keeping the new cat? Grutness...wha? 05:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you only nominated deleting ((clothingstub)) that's all I addressed. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Hrm. I'm OK with the cat iff someone makes a clear scoping statement about the distinction between the two, and sorts them accordingly. The distinction looks unclear and ad hoc at present. Delete the badly-named directs, in either case. Alai 17:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment it is, but that's because the fashion-stub template and its redirect clothing-stub were being used indiscriminately. They require sorting out (and I've left a broad hint with the creator of the new category that someone needs to do this), but I think the scopes of the two can be distinguished well enough - a lot of fashion-related items are nothing to do with clothing; a lot of clothing has nothing to do with fashion. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've a wardrobeful of clothing that has nothing to do with fashion, believe you me. I don't say the scopes couldn't be distinguished, but rather that they should be, and the contents aligned therewith. If this isn't done, and they're left as-in, we don't have a split, we have a mess, and we'd be better off merging the two back together, as per the previous situation, until such time as someone is willing to "make good". Alai 06:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

while on the subject of fashion stubs... this as far as I know was never proposed, and is tiny - 15 stubs in four months. I suggest deleting it, though the creation of a more widely-scoped jewellery-stub may be worthwhile. Grutness...wha? 02:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Upscope to ((bodymodification-stub)) / Category:Body modification stubs Stub sense reports 124 stubs in Category:Body modification and its sub cats, and while some may be false positives. I don't think it'll be so many as to make it fall below 60. At the same time, keep ((bodypiercing-stub)) as a feeder template or redirect and add a ((tattoo-stub)) as well. Caerwine Caerwhine 09:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a fair compromise to me. Grutness...wha? 05:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete both as they are identical and are superfluous given existence of widely used ((philately-stub)); also the icon is entirely inappropriate. --Jack 18:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the icon of Hitler (if this was a joke it was a very poor one). Strong Delete to both of them: redundant, not needed, and badly named. (The Hitler image speaks for itself. I was expecting stubs about Dr. Phil.) Valentinian ^(talk) 22:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete both as redundant duplicates, neither of which are in line with naming conventions. In one case it's ambiguous enough that we actually used to have a phil-stub... for philosophy stubs. That was deleted because of ambiguity, why should this one survive? As to "phil', the less said the better. Grutness...wha? 05:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete only one stub needed and these are offensive too --AlbertMW 15:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to suggest splitting churches by location (as is done with all other building types), when I noticed that we have not only the well-populated Catholic church stubs (for Roman Catholic churches, BTW - so it will need renaming at the very least) and also this. Neither have been proposed, doubly badly named (as they also use the plural), and the Cathedrals one only has ten stubs. We certainly don't need both so delete the Cathedrals one and upmerge it if we keep the churches one, at the very least. As far as the churches one goes it's well-populated, but it would make considerably more sense to split by location than denomination: quite a number of churches are used multi-denominationally, it's more likely that editors would know about local churches than one denomination worldwide, and - importantly - this is how other structures are split, so weak delete there, too. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Multi-denominational churches? More the exception that rule over here in the States. Of course, we don't have the European syndrome of having Roman Catholic facilities being appropriated by other churches during the Reformation, so that may explain that. Caerwine Caerwhine 08:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, this ones was indeed proposed, though my advice about pluralisation seems to only have been partially heeded. Keep both templates, rename and merge to Category:Roman Catholic church stubs, with a clear scoping statement addressing the "Church vs church" issue. Alai 01:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • mea culpa. Still think having things like US-church-stub and UK-church-stub would be more useful though. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there could be a utility argument either way, and I certainly wouldn't be opposed to double-stubbing with both where appropriate. Alai 02:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I had originally listed these at WP:CFD, I see now that this was in error, forgive me for finding deletion/renaming practices here a bit confusing. Anyway, the reason I listed them in the first place was that I feel the categories have unnecessary pluralization. Therefore, I ask for a rename of the categories to the singular forms "church" and "cathedral". That said, I would also support Alai's proposal. —Mira 01:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Someone has actually failed to notice that the cathedral stub template is very new. In fact, I created it just 10 days ago. It will of course take time to populate it. And, given the number of RCC archdioceses in the world, there will definitely be some population. Grutness, I believe it is far easier and relevant to sort churches by their denomination, rather than location. After all, churches are mainly about their religion and teachings, while their location is more of a tourist concern and a simple physical characteristic. Multi-denominational churches would just fall under the general Church stub. Keep and rename. Ariedartin JECJY 05:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone failed to notice (or failed to care) that there's a proposals page for new stub types; one of the reasons for this is to ensure that unnecessarily small stub categories aren't created. It's a bit rich to suggest that skipping this process should somehow prevent deletion of such types. If there's not 60 stub existing articles on cathedrals, this is not a viable type; if there are, then 10 days, plus a week's discussion period, should be plenty of time to find them. Alai 05:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Didn't fail to notice the age of the stub at all. It's irrelevant. Was the stub type proposed? No. Would it have been accepted if proposed? Probably not. With under 200 church stubs, a separate cathedral stub is not one that would have gained much support at all. As to which would be a more useful split, most of the information which would go into a church article concerns the building, not the religion and teachings of the church. As such, it makes far more sense for churches to be sorted in the same way as other buildings. I can easily go along with the suggestion of a two-way split by denomination and location, as suggested by Alai, but a split between churches, cathedrals, chapels, basilica, and other forms of church seems only likely tocause confusion, especially since stub categories are designed for use by editors, and the same group of editors would be most likely to beinvolved in the expansion of the articles in both these categories. Oh, and MiraLuka - no problems with putting this in the wrong place... it happens quite a lot :) Grutness...wha? 07:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've speedily renamed the "church" category, on the grounds that it would have been such at CFD, if eligible (but left the tag as in theory we could still decide to delete it). Alai 06:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Near as I can figure out, this got created as a byproduct of this CFD that renamed all the automobile manufacturer categories to motor vehicle maufacturer categories. ((auto-company-stub)) had its category moved by the person who closed out the CFD from Category:Automotive company stubs to Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers to Category:Motor vehicle stubs which they then created. I've reverted both ((auto-company-stub)) and Category:Automotive company stubs save for making the non-stub parent Category:Automotive companies, as should have been the case even before the CFD, but wasn't. Now, since there is no Category:Motor vehicles, I say delete this cat, possibly speedily once the template revert refills Category:Automotive company stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like unfinished business from the CFD. Rename to Category:Motor vehicle company stubs, CFR the remainder of the hierarchy on similar lines. Alai 23:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Partly my fault, since I was involved in that CFR but didn't notice a stub type was involved as well. Snce the standard has become motor vehicle manufacturers for the main categories, I'd rename as per Alai's suggestion. Might also be worth having a template redirect at motor-company-stub, but that's far less important. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The CFR didn't list the stub category, it got changed by someone who was over enthusiastic. More importantly, the current parent non-stub category, Category:Automotive companies wasn't part of the CFR. Looking at the histories. The complete timeline seems to be as follows.
    1. Oct 2005 {auto-corp-stub} / Cat:Automotive corporation stubs are created and given as its non-stub parent the closest category available at the time: Cat:Automobile manufacturers even tho it had a somewat broader mandate.
    2. Dec 2005 Cat:Automotive companies is created, but the non-stub parent of the stub was not changed.
    3. Feb 2006 As part of the corp-stub -> company-stub SFD the stub is switched to {auto-company-stub} / Cat:Automotive company stubs, but the non-stub parent of the stub was not changed.
    4. Jun 2006 Cat:Automobile manufacturers is changed to Cat:Motor vehicle manufacturers as part of a blanket CFR for it and its children. An overenthusiatic changer also changes the stub type as noted above.
    5. Jul 2006 I came across a mergeto notice on the by then empty Cat:Automotive company stubs and undertook the actions noted above, which finally led to the placement of 'Cat:Automotive company stubs in Cat:Automotive companies some 7 months after the latter was created.

    Note that the appropriate parent cat Cat:Automotive corporations and other categories further up the food chain continue to use Automobile and automotive, and given the existance of Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles, which look after them I doubt if they are going to change any time soon. I don't support doing anything beyond a simple delete at this point. Stub sense doesn't even report any stubs in Cat:Motor vehicle manufacturers, tho that's probably due to undercategorization of the stubs with permanent categories. Still, I'd leave creating a Motor vehicle manufacturer stub up to a proponent willing to find the necessary 60 stubs rather than creating it by fiat, since the automotive company stub is not in need of a split on the basis of size. Caerwine Caerwhine 07:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not proposing a split. Alai 16:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that one of the parent categories is currently on CFD. I doubt that its name will be changed, but the CFD vote should probably be taken into consideration before anything's decided here. Grutness...wha? 06:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why does this seem especially unlikely? Note that a shedload of children of this category were recently renamed from "... automobile companies..." to "... motor vehicle companies...". Given that "automobiles" is really only a NAmer term, and that even they seemt to be entirely inconsistent in its use (e.g. whether trucks are included), in theory this should be an easy one. Alai 08:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just a "feeling in my bones". I agree it should be changed, but whether it will or not is another matter. In any case, since it has a bearing on this sfd, we should bide our time till it's decided. Grutness...wha? 08:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This unproposed and horrifically small stub type bears the boilerplate claiming that "This category is maintained by WikiProject: Stub sorting.", which I recommend we do by deleting it. Alai 16:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• horribly named, too. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No arguing here. Valentinian ^(talk) 17:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of pedantic nit-picking, BTW - you can't maintain something by deleting it :) Grutness...wha? 08:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next you'll be telling me you can't "play" a cricket ball by gazing at it in a Zen-like manner, and making no perceptible motion of bat towards the object in question. (Dare I mention the Maori sidestep?) Alai 08:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I did leave a note on the creator's talk page, informing him that his stub was up for deletion and about the 60-stub issue. His page also noted that he was going on break until August 15. Here is what he wrote back:

Thanks for the heads up--Guess it doesn't pay to plan ahead. This will reach far more if anyone starts doing characters and such. Shrug- I'm on break. // FrankB 23:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Groggy Dice 19:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Double Thanks to Groggy Dice.
• Keep This is a large rapidly growing collaborative fiction series rapidly approaching the amount of work published in Honorverse, for example. There are at least five additional hardcovers scheduled for publication in the next calendar year. The Grantville Gazettes are being published at a target rate of 3-4 per year alone. Other longer works had lagged while the milieu was being hammered into a canon which is now available on line for it's many [http:/www.1632.org writers], so the pace is going to explode, and will likely also reach best seller status as the works have done since 1632 (novel). The number of published works is past ten, just since the first sequels in late 2002. I'd modeled the stubs on their names, and added them to the stub list. When I get back from vacation, we'll be kicking off a formal subproject on the series, as we are revitalizing the stale WP:WikiProject Fictional series. You want to delete it, I created it unwittingly with respect to the '50' article arbitrary guideline, and can only submit, such would be a waste of time. Discounting the rich character set, just the articles in the short fiction (one per title) will easily eclipse twice that just counting up through Grantville Gazette VII— I haven't seen whether GG-VIII has come out on schedule yet. Shrug.

Comment '-verse' is common parlence in SF for universe. I just copied the Honorverse sub-project people. I didn't pick the novel title either <g>. Did pick ((1632 covers)), but not ((1632 series)) or 1632 series. It's a great read by the way, if you like historical settings or alternate history. The first is free via the Baen Free Library. I'd not start it, unless you have time to finish it though. It's engaging and fun. Sorry if planning ahead seems to be alien behavior on wikipedia. // FrankB 05:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A possible compromise: We don't really want a huge proliferation of stub types for different book series, but perhaps an alternative-history stub would be a useful split of science fiction books. There are numerous series which straddle the gap between historical fiction, science fiction, and fantasy, from Too Many Magicians to The Great War Trilogy. Grutness...wha? 06:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current template is still way too small, but I'll buy Grutness' suggestion. Valentinian ^(talk) 08:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me Tooo0000—was very suprised there wasn't since is such a vigorous and active sub-field of SF, my interest is that there be a managably small administrative 'To-Do' list category for such projects, not more. This works fine for me. Thanks for clear thinking 'V' and 'G'! // FrankB 15:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, haven't we pretty much sown this one up? I'm not really sure about the most correct name for the broader template; ((Alt-hist-stub)) perhaps? Valentinian ^(talk) 16:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Alt" takes care of the altenate/alternative problem, too. Should it have a "fict" in there somewhere, though? Grutness...wha? 00:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that we recently deleted an alt-hist-stub of some sort (alt-hist-novel-stub or some such?) as too small, so that should really be proposed with a reasonable guess at a count, rather than just renaming and rescoping, and ending up with being not a great deal larger. I certainly also don't want this one to run unresolved much longer, either... Alai 20:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moved from WP:TFD. Grutness...wha? 23:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cust-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Cust2-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

With the vast number of stub tags, I see no need for these "customizable" stub tags. They compromise the standard system of categorizing stubs. Pagrashtak 04:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. This sort of scheme has been brought up frequently in the past, and there are good and strong reasons why it is not used. Delete - possibly speedily. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've sped these on the grounds of being "empty stub types", though my main concern is that it's a hazard to navigation, for the reasons Grutness alludes to. Alai 04:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well undersized. --Mais oui! 17:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Category now has more articles added. It doesn't need to be deleted.

GarryMc 18:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a redirect: ((SMG-stub)) Valentinian ^(talk) 18:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even if all the articles in Category:SMG were added, this stub type would be well below the 60 stubs needed for a stub type. Besides, the templates are way too ambiguous. My first thought was that someone had created a stub for British submachineguns. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see the relevance of this. Sometimes corporation stubs are useful -- such as the BBC -- but this could lead to a whole range of spin-offs. UK-radio does the trick. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Caerwine Valentinian ^(talk) 20:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dang - I thought this was going to be another Buffy stub. Clearly won't reach 60 stubs, either. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, cryptic, ambiguous name, and too narrow in scope. Alai 04:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(posting both here and in proposals, as advised, since it's a complex issue)

There were recently a series of split stubs created off of ((Poland-geo-stub))(Stub proposal discussion archive). However, the Polish editor who created them, created some with the Polish names for each of the regions, which is against the consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland, where it was determined that English/Latinized names should be used, instead of Polish.

I am not asking to have the Polish-language stubs deleted, but additional English-language stubs/categories should be created, as follows:

• ((KujawskoPomorskie-geo-stub))/Category:Kujawsko-Pomorskie geography stubs
  • Additional stub/cat: ((KuyavianPomeranian-geo-stub))/Category:Kuyavian-Pomeranian geography stubs
• ((Małopolska-geo-stub))/Category:Małopolska geography stubs
  • Additional stub/cat: ((LesserPoland-geo-stub))/Category:Lesser Poland geography stubs
• ((Mazowsze-geo-stub))/Category:Mazowsze geography stubs
  • Additional stub/cat: ((Masovian-geo-stub))/Category:Masovian geography stubs
• ((Podkarpacie-geo-stub))/Category:Podkarpacie geography stubs
  • Additional stub/cat: ((Subcarpathian-geo-stub))/Category:Subcarpathian geography stubs
• ((Podlasie-geo-stub))/Category:Podlasie geography stubs
  • Additional stub/cat: ((Podlachian-geo-stub))/Category:Podlachian geography stubs
• ((Pomorze-geo-stub))/Category:Pomorze geography stubs
  • Additional stub/cat: ((Pomeranian-geo-stub))/Category:Pomeranian geography stubs
• ((Wielkopolska-geo-stub))/Category:Wielkopolska geography stubs
  • Additional stub/cat: ((GreaterPoland-geo-stub))/Category:Greater Poland geography stubs

Assuming that this is approved, the English stubs can be created, the Polish-language stubs can be set to be redirects to the English-language versions, and the Polish-language stub categories can be deleted. --Elonka 00:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Proposer has already moved the categories and created redirects. 1) This is rather early. 2) The original categories should be deleted. Valentinian ^(talk) 09:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important update: Please note that we now have a duplicate set of templates. As soon as we agree on one of them, we should redirect it to the other name! Valentinian ^(talk) 21:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about jumping the gun... I was in the middle of taking care of a large CFR (moving many categories from Voivodship to Voivodeship), and it made sense to take care of some of the stubs at the same time since they were children of the affected categories. Since there appeared to be no opposition, I decided to be bold and do it all at once. I'll admit that I wasn't sure how to handle the duplicate stubs. For now, I created them separately, but I can easily change them to redirects. Any advice on how they should be listed at WP:STUBS is appreciated.  :) This has been a very complex project for my first venture into stub-land! --Elonka 00:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects created, WP:STUBS updated. The one thing I can't do is delete the leftover stub categories, so if someone could take care of deleting these, I would appreciate it:

* Category:Wielkopolska geography stubs

* Category:Kujawsko-Pomorskie geography stubs

* Category:Małopolska geography stubs

* Category:Mazowsze geography stubs

* Category:Pomorze geography stubs

* Category:Podkarpacie geography stubs

Thanks, Elonka 01:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since they were empty, I nuked them. Morwen - Talk 14:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Morwen.  :) --Elonka 17:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that there still aren't 60 stubs using ((Oklahoma-school-stub)) or ((Vermont-school-stub)), these categories have been recreated. Speedy delete the cats as a recreation and reconfigure the templates to feed 29 stubs into both Category:Oklahoma stubs and Category:Southern United States school stubs and 7 stubs into Category:Vermont stubs Category:Northeastern United States school stubsrespectively. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy if possible. Perhaps a note should be added to the relevant U.S. pages not to recreate categories before they have 60+ stub articles. Most of this problem with recreations seems related to the U.S. material. Valentinian ^(talk) 16:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sped. This seems to happen rather often with the schools, and a lot with wikiprojects creating half a dozen (your puny size thresholds don't apply to us, we're... a wikiproject!). I think I'll tweak the wording on WP:STUB a bit... Alai 18:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three new sub types of Category:Spanish writer stubs got added directly to the stub list today without being proposed first.

• ((Spain-dramatist-stub)) / Category:Spanish dramatist and playwright stubs
• ((Spain-journalist-stub)) / Category:Spanish journalist stubs
• ((Spain-poet-stub)) / Category:Spanish poet stubs

The problem is that even including these three new stub types, there are slightly less than 100 stubs total in Category:Spanish writer stubs. A definite delete on the categories. ((Spain-dramatist-stub)) and ((Spain-poet-stub)) need either a delete or to be turned into redirects of ((Spain-writer-stub)). As for ((Spain-journalist-stub)), if kept, it should be as a dual catted template feeding into both Category:Spanish writer stubs and Category:European journalist stubs. A simple redirect would be inappropriate given that it would be replacing two stubs instead of merely being a more specific version of one. Caerwine Caerwhine 14:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created these stub types as part of the work I am doing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain/to do/Literature filling in the missing articles. It strikes me as silly in the extreme to duplicate effort by categorising all of these in Category:Spanish writer stubs until there are a certain arbitrary number of them and then going back and recategorising. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 14:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me as sillier in the extremer to expend effort in a way that's expressly contrary to long-standing guidelines, and then complain about it being "duplicated" when people suggest complying with same. Upmerge, keeping distinct templates (not redirects) on all three, on the off-chance WPJ comes through with the goods. The same dual-catting logic applies equally to all three. Alai 18:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't doubt the good intentions of the creator, but I can see problems with two of these. 1) The ((poet-stub)) is currently a redirect since the original template has been merged into ((writer-stub)). Second, the old template had no national children AFAIK. So we're effectively creating a child without a parent category. Is this wise? 2) The same is the case, only a bit worse, since we don't have a ((Dramatist-stub)) at all and never had one. Perhaps this issue should be debated first? I can see no problems with ((Spain-journalist-stub)) as precedent is established in this case (provided enough material exists, naturally). Valentinian ^(talk) 19:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I think we should indeed have parents for both, especially as we have US (or at least, American) instances of these. Or if not a dramatist-stub, at the least a ((theat-bio-stub)) as a biographical catch-all, which will hopefully see more consistent use than does theat-stub as applied to people. Alai 20:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the lack of a suitable second stub category is why I proposed keeping those two as only redirects if they are kept. Sorry of that wasn't clear. Caerwine Caerwhine 13:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. Even if we don't create such parents though, I'd still be inclined to double-cat with Category:Poetry stubs / Category:Theatre stubs. Alai 16:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just to note that, only two days after I created these new stub categories, Category:Spanish dramatist and playwright stubs already has the requisite 60 articles. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 16:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly consisting of about 600 words between them, by the looks of it. But I'm seen worse (Orkney springs to mind...), so exiguous keep for that cat. There are easier and better ways of doing this, however, as I've indicated. Alai 03:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the point of categorising them as stubs, surely? --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 08:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is? The question is, what's the point in creating articles like Joaquín Dicenta, which contains all of a name, dob and dod, a nationality, and a list of occupations... Followed by three stub tags, for the same three occupations. Smacks of padding out the category, don't you feel? (And completely defeats any supposed point in splitting the Spain-writer- type.) I fail to see why this couldn't have waited until there was an actual population of real stubs. Alai 10:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment about the length of the articles appeared to imply that because they were short they shouldn't be categorised as stubs. As to what the point is, it depends on whether or not you think stubs are useful articles or not, which is (a) not the point of WP:SFD and (b) a debate we've had out many times in the past anyway.

Personally I think that an article giving even the bare information of occupation, dob and dod is (a) better than nothing and (b) may encourage people to add information more than a redlink. Your mileage may vary, but I don't believe you can argue that having these articles harms the encyclopaedia, so what's the problem?

So, in conclusion: no, I don't think it 'smacks of padding out the category': my list of articles to create at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain/to do/Literature existed before the category did, and I haven't created any articles that weren't in that list. I'm not sure why you appear to be so quick to assume bad faith on my part in this case. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 11:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow how my comment could bear the interpretation you propose; it's been quite a while since there was any defined minimum length for stubs, and nor was I proposing one. ("Sub-stub" is fair enough as a descriptor, but made very little sense as a separate categorisation.) And the issue isn't "are stubs useful articles?", so much as "are these useful stubs?" As they stand, I wouldn't be surprised if they had "importance" or "context" tags slapped on them en masse. And I'm still not sure why you were so quick to create 60 articles with minimal content, and tout it as demonstrating viability: would that be your normal pattern of editing? That plus the over-tagging certainly rise to the level of "not an especially good idea", in my judgement. (Were I so keen to suggest "bad faith" as such, I'd hardly be voting to keep, would I?) Alai 20:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm creating these articles because it's important that Wikipedia has articles on these people, and because a stub is better than nothing. I do intend to expand them over time, but if a stub is there for other Wikipedians to expand then that's a good thing. As to your accusation of 'over-tagging', I've tagged articles with more than one category if they belong to more than one category. There are plenty that are only tagged in one category. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall saying you over-tagged every such stub, but I specifically cited an example where you tagged a (one-line...) stub with three tags, corresponding to all of the splits you've carried out of ((Spain-writer-stub)). It should be extremely clear that that should have remained in the parent: the object of the exercise is to find a concise and appropriate set of tags to apply to a particular article, not to add every possible stub type that it could possibly belong to. Bear in mind these are stub types, and do not perform the same role as (permanent) categories in general. Alai 23:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, although I'd emphasise that there's no reason why these three should necessarily always be the only subcategories of ((Spain-writer-stub)), they're just the only three I need at the moment (since I'm currently going through a list of dramatists and poets). There may well be a need for a ((Spain-novelist-stub)) in the near future, for instance. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 08:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, though three sibling tags is still a lot, unless the parent is very much broader. Even then, it can be excessive when a geographical feature spanning multiple countries is tagged with each of them, for example, and is often preferrable to leave them in more general parent. We already have issues with having split actors by medium, horrendous amounts of multiple-tagging on many of the splittees (helping contribute to the sub-types themselves becoming oversized), for example. Alai 17:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Created out of process for WikiProject Brisbane. Needed, but not in this form - every other city uses the geo-stub form rather than a suburb-stub,. as it has a slightly wider scope (urban parks, hills, streams, lakes, etc can also be covered). In fact, we deleted suburb-stubs for Melbourne and Sydney earlier this year, replacing them with geo-stubs. What's more, this template does not have its own dedicated category (it feeds straight into Category:Brisbane stubs. There would, however, be enough stubs to easily pass threshold. I propose deleting this template and replacing it with ((Brisbane-geo-stub)), with its own category. Grutness...wha? 06:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I created this stub somewhat hastily. I agree with what Grutness has proposed. Sorry for the mix-up. (btw, the reason I didn't assign it a category is because I realised that I was potentialy creating a mess and thought I should stop before things got too messy) -- Adz|talk 07:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Plan. Though isn't that a lot like a rename, really? Alai 07:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well yes, it's a rename, but with a definite delete (rather than a redirect) on the existing template (which hasn't been used) and a creation of a category (which it hasn't got). And since it hasn't been used and the creator of it's agreed, it can probably be speedied. Grutness...wha? 08:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Created out of process, and thus given a non-standard name and no category. Seems to have enough potential stubs (51 plus a WikiProject, and Category:Scotland stubs does need thinning), but it would be better renamed with a standard name and its own category (with a deletion of the current name). Since "Clan" on its own could refer to anywhere from the ethnic clans in Rwanda and Burundi to The KKK in Alabama and Mississippi, the Scottish nature needs to be spelt out, too. Grutness...wha? 05:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. It needs a proper category as well. Valentinian ^(talk) 07:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. --Mais oui! 00:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Template name fails the TLA test: NPS. While we're about it, let's make the category name congruent with (what should be) the permanent parent (Category:National Parks of the United States). Alai 05:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to ((US-NationalParkService-stub)) (and Category:United States National Park Service stubs). I'm a person who uses this stub quite regularly. This will add a few extra characters of typing to my work, but it's worth it for standardization's sake. These stubs include places from the list of parks, and I don't think any are actually United States National Parks, hence my different choice of name. Nationalparks 12:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If anyone can come up with something shorter than ((US-NationalParkService-stub)), yet still conveys the same meaning, please share. Nationalparks 13:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't necessarily be dead-set against keeping the existing template as a redirect, or making ((US-NatPark-stub)) as an additional one (or even just ((NatPark-stub)) -- I imagine it'll be some time before any other countries are in danger of needing their own stub type; just as long as the "canonical" one is clear and unambiguous. Alai 15:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment What about ((US-NPS-stub))? Or is there some kind of guideline that prohibits acronyms in stub templates? --Nebular110 19:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment 7 out of the first 10 links in a Google search for "NPS" go to Park Service related websites. Nationalparks 19:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. The results of Google searches are affected greatly by the country in which your computer is sitting. Here in the UK, only 1 of the top 10 results relates to National Parks. The others are National Pony Society, National Points Series, National Probation Service, Naval Postgraduate School, National Philatelic Society and NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Road Wizard 19:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very small, never proposed that I recall, seems quite narrow; upmerge to the above type. Alai 05:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge as above or Keep. Nationalparks 12:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge and delete this category - far too specific. Is there an associated template (and if not, why not)? Grutness...wha? 06:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, ((Yosemite-stub)) Nationalparks 12:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I follow. If you're wondering why the template isn't tagged or appearing in the nomination, it's because I'm not proposing that it be deleted, just it be edited to perform said upmerged. (If anyone wants to delete it outright, obviously they should tag accordingly and note such here.) Alai 17:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • FYI, I would say keep if the template should come up for deletion. Nationalparks 17:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was wondering why the template wasn't here because even in the case of rescoping of templates when there is an upmerging the template is usually brought here (in fact, this is the only case I know of where it hasn't been). FWIW, if it was here I'd vote delete on that too - Yosemite will surely never get to threshold by itself and it's potentially opening the doorway to separate templates for all NPs. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's my practice to recommend upmerger of any "medium-sized" template (that's otherwise sanely scoped and named, so if I'm nominating such a case, I'm not personally inclined to tag for deletion something I'm going to then urge keeping (just don't ask me how often that's been, exactly). Never say never as regards the threshold: how many are we likely to have when we have 10 million articles, or if a WikiProject Yosemite starts up? (The templates have some utility by themselves, too, which inclindes me towards keeping them in such cases, even if the threshold doesn't seem in any immediate danger.) There might be a case for tagging the template for "publicity" reasons, but I feel it'd be somewhat misleading to do so. As I say, it seems reasonable to add a "follow-on" nom of the template if that's what anyone else wishes. (Ideally not on the sixth day of a seven day discussion, though, as obviously it should then strictly speaking run for seven days from the addition, and obviously time-stamped separately for the same reason.) Alai 02:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am the creator of this category and the corresponding template (Template:Yosemite-stub, which is listed on the category page). I was unaware that there was a procedure for creating stub categories, so I apologize for spitting in the face of protocal; I did not mean to. As far as content, the category is currently populated with the entries I found in about 10 minutes worth of work. I can think of at least 8 others that should be in the category as well (should I add them now, or wait for this business to finish up?). It seems that there are enough articles to fill this category... but what is considered enough, anyway? Also, Yosemite is one of the most popular and noteworthy of the national parks--allowing it to have its own category does not mean that Kobuk Valley National Park will get its own category too. — Chris ( t c ) — 08:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Enough" is about 60, unless there's a specific WikiProject Yosemite, and preferably the split is done when the parent stub category (in this case Category:National Park Service stubs has reached over 600 stubs. Grutness...wha? 09:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMO, add them anyway, if you're so inclined: since the template remains un-nominated, the sorting work will be preserved, and would facilitate recreation if it even does hit threshold. We have to set a threshold somewhere, otherwise there's every possibility that someone will show up and argue for keeping Category:Kobuk Valley National Park stubs, or something equivalently small and narrow, at least, which iterated sufficiently would prevent any effective management of the stub types at all (and infinitesimally degrades it at each such). Alai 18:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, talk of the devil. Didn't we delete this several times already? Or was it under some other name? At any rate, this is currently in very little use, and is far from ideal as a primary axis of sorting. If we split out by generic landform at all, we ought to do so on a per-country/per-region basis, certainly not a monolithic cat, and I'm dubious about even that. Alai 07:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• we did, at least twice - it was one of Maoririder's creations originally. Third time lucky perhaps? BTW, the four articles that were marked with this included one climbing-bio-stub and one article about five times the size of a stub. Grutness...wha? 07:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weird, I wasn't seeing the deleted edits, and I looked more than once... And what's very strange that this wasn't actually recreated, it was restored:
  • 13:20, 24 July 2006 1ne (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Template:Mountain-stub" (5 revisions restored: recreating, G4 doesn't apply because mine from October is a different version than Maoririder's)
  • Holy stub wheel war, Batman? Alai 07:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's hope not... (BTW, the last two stubs marked with this were in Wisconsin. No offence to Wisconsin, but does anything there really qualify as a mountain?) Grutness...wha? 08:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the basis of Timms Hill, I'd personally suspect not, but I know better than to get into a "mountain war" with misc. USians... Alai 08:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Someone's playing sillybuggers with this - I've just had to speedy it a second time. It may yet need protection. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the "someone" is an admin (and also removed the SFD notice with edit summary "no, it isn't" (?)) that wouldn't be a solution per se. Alai 17:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why Category:Antarctica geography stubs was going down so fast - here's the reason. A wikiproject has decided to create its own stub outside process and summarily remove the geo-stubs from all articles connected with glaciers. Admittedly there would be enough stubs for a separate glacier-stub - if we split by landform, which we don't. And if we did, these would be double-stubbed by location - as would have been clear if the wikiproject had followed stub-creation protocols. In any case, removing the location-specific stubs from all these articles goes directly against stub-sorting policy has has created a devil of a lot of work. Category:Antarctica geography stubs is - or rather was - getting close to the size for splitting, but as mentioned on WP:WSS/P a couple of months ago, a separate RossDependency-geo-stub would have produced a reasonable location-based category which would have effectively almost exactly halved the size. Splitting by landform is not the way to go. Delete - wikiproject or not, and number of stubs or not. Grutness...wha? 05:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Some types of "location" seem a little more distinctive, notable, and expansion-axis-prone than others -- villages and towns being at the low end, this at the high. I'm somewhat ambivalent about this one; if this is a real, active, meaningful wikiproject (evinced by say, signs of clearing up after their own messes...) I'd be inclined to keep; if these have been shoved in here just to languish and be admired, it'd be better to revert to the previous system entirely. Obviously I agree in either event about double-stubbing (and about proposals). Alai 05:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends what you mean by "real, active, meaningful". They've obviously done a lot of work with their stub (un-)sorting, but there are only two members of the project. Grutness...wha? 05:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reality is, I am the only active member of the project, as it is a new wikiproject. The stub is simply used on glaciers and glaciology articles and I don't see how adding the glacier stub to the article is removing the article from a geographical stub listing...explain that to me. I would also like to know what has been done that is out of process...maybe I did something wrong here, but for the life of me, I can't see it. So you think we should break stubs down to locations or continents that glaciers exist? I can't think of a single instance in which I removed any geo stubs while adding the glacier stub...so, of course, I Oppose deletion of the stub.--MONGO 06:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• By 'active', I had in mind activity, rather than membership per se. If MONGO has the strength of ten editors, like his Brooksian namesake, and is going to be doing significant organisation and/or expansion of these, then that's active enough for me. (Though if he's the only person using this stub category, a list might be argued to be adequate (admittedly it's rather large for that).) Grutness, I don't see the massive un-sorting here either: there were 599 in Category:Antarctica geography stubs at 2/7, 599 at 17/7, and there seems to be 596 at time of writing, so if there's been depopulation, it must have been rather modest. MONGO, please note Wikipedia:Stub#New_stub_categories, and the text of the boilerplate ((WSS-cat)) on existing stub categories, both of which request that proposals be run through WP:WSS/P, for the sakes of some sort of co-ordination of stub-sorting effort. Alai 06:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I see...I wasn't aware that stub templates and cats associated with them needed to be approved...so what is my next step? I mean, if this is causing havoc, I don't want to do that...do I need to revert my changes, get the stub and category approved and then re-add the stub if approved. I was merely trying to organize all glaciers and glaciology articles under one banner in an effort to make improvements to them if possible. I am also waiting for a prominent glaciologist to return from field research to join the project, but I doubt that the project is going to have a lot of members anytime soon. By a list, it that somehow linked from the stub template, and if so, how do I do that?--MONGO 06:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Nah, no need to do all that; if they're not proposed, they tend to end up either here or at the discoveries page, where much the same discussion then ensues anyway (albeit sometimes somewhat more grumpily). Or perhaps list it at /P if you wish, but reversion of all the taggings would be pointless, and more apt to cause said havoc than just leaving them in place while this (and/or that) discussion proceeds, especially if they end up being re-added. By a list, I meant instead of the template (and category), though clearly one can generate that from what-links-here from the template, as well as from the category at present. I wouldn't claim it's an ideal solution for this case, though (it's often suggested for wikiproject (or otherwise) stub categories that are too small to be such by the guidelines, but are still useful and valid to centrally co-ordinate). A "third way" would be a talk-page template and category of some sort; currently tres trendy seems to be the likes of Category:Stub-Class hurricane articles, which are specifically organised by wikiproject. (I have very mixed feelings on those too, though, as the whole "stub" vs. "stub-class" terminology is confusion and redundancy on a stick, but as there's 10,000 such taggings and rising, someone must like them...)

  I'm tending towards the feeling that this is basically sensible, but I do have the lingering anxiety that it'll lead, by way of precedent, to ever-more-rapid proposal and creation of ((mountain-stub)), ((lake-stub)), ((town-stub)), etc, which are incrementally less and less sensible, but become harder to rule out as a matter of general stragegy. Alai 07:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no problem reverting my changes to head off an argument, especially since I didn't follow protocol...it's not that big a deal, but will wait until the discussion concludes. I can link related articles via the messagebox. I don't create or modify templates as a rule, so I was ignorant of the procedure.--MONGO 07:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It may be a useful discussion to have at this point, lest the "no landform stubs" principle have become too much of a knee-jerk at this point... If it's to be removed, it's pretty easily done via 'bot at the end of the listing period, so unless you're planning on withdrawing the type entirely and not re-proposing for the time being, no need for doing it immediately. (If any geo-stubs have been removed, though, or were never there in the first place, it would handy if they were (re-)added.) Alai 07:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll delist it from the project pages and allow you guys to run a bot and remove the stub from articles if you wish. I cannot see any evidence that I removed a geo stub from any article I added a glacier stub to, but I may be incorrect.--MONGO 08:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe I can instead link all the related articles, stubs and what not, through a category that links from ((messagebox glaciers)) which I have been adding to the talk pages of articles related to the project...would that help matters?--MONGO 07:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  That sounds like a great way of doing this that heads off the whole problem, if it's OK with you. As to earlier comments, several of the stubs marked with glacier-stub and no other stub are on my spreadsheet as having been previously marked with Antarctica-geo-stub which seems to have been removed (hence the somewhat heated tone of my first comments for which I apologise). As to not knowing about the stub procedure, part of the problem is probably because you started your WikiProject page from scratch rather than using the ready-made ((WikiProject)), which explains all about making stub types. I'd suggest to whoever closes this one, whichever way it goes, that we need to look at all of the stubs in this category to see what location-geo-stub each one needs. It could well be that if - as your comments imply, most of the stubs in here are new or not previously marked - it will get the Antarctica geo-stub category over the splitting threshold. Grutness...wha? 07:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry for the confusion, and I understand your questioning. Yes, I started the project from scratch rather than using the wikiproject ready made...but again, I spend most of my time writing articles and stubbing, and categories, stubs and templates are not my forte...I now have Category:Articles of WikiProject Glaciers and that does just fine for the project, especially since it has all of two members! I support the deletion of the stub--MONGO 08:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Grutness, that's what I had in mind when I suggested (re-)adding stub tags, before the glacier-stub is removed; it wasn't at dig at MONGO, sorry if it came across in that manner, M. G., if you think your list covers most of these, could you fix them up from that? If it doesn't, I can try to run a db query to pick them up -- but it will have to be after the next dump, whenever that transpires to be. (They seem to be becoming a little more regular again, but I'm still not covering any bets.) Alai 15:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems on closer inspection there are only three or four which went from the list... but once it's certain this stub will go (which it looks like it is now, with MONGO agreeing and a new category in place) I'll start sifting the stubs back over (I'll make that my next task once I've finished the latest geo-stub count). Grutness...wha? 05:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feeds into Category:Colorado stubs, already have ((reqphotoin)). WikiProject has been notified. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

((Palestine-stub)) was moved to ((Palestinian-stub)), ostensibly because the place is officially The Palestinian Authority. unfortunately, "Palestinian" will instantly mbring to mind the people, not the place, and this isn't supposed to be a bio-stub. I've moved it back, but we've now got palestinian-stub as an ambiguous-sounding redirect. Delete? Grutness...wha? 11:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the redirect per nom. Valentinian ^(talk) 13:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• ((Luton-geo-stub)) / Category:Luton geography stubs (one stub)
• ((Middlesbrough-geo-stub)) / Category:Middlesbrough geography stubs (seven stubs)
• ((BlackburnwithDarwen-geo-stub)) / Category:Blackburn with Darwen geography stubs (two stubs)
• ((Darlington-geo-stub)) / Category:Darlington geography stubs (one stub)
• ((Blackpool-geo-stub)) / Category:Blackpool geography stubs (one stub)

None of them proposed, none of them needed, none of them splitting oversized categories, none of them following the ceremonial country boundaries used by all other Englih geography stubs (as explained in Category:England geography stubs. None of them should be kept. Delete all. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • None of them actually cut across ceremonial county boundaries either, do they? Delete unless demonstrated to be populable to 60. Alai 02:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that is true as far as I know. As to size, Luton's in Bedfordshire, and Category:Bedfordshire geography stubs has only 98 stubs - so if it does reach 60 that will cause problems for its parent. Both Blackpool and Blackburn are in Lancashire, which has just 196, so it's likely that there will be the same problem there. Darlington and Middlesbrough are in considerably larger categories (Co. Durham and North Yorkshire respectively, each with around 500 stubs), and are perhaps a little more plausible on that count. Grutness...wha? 04:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per G. Valentinian ^(talk) 08:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all stubs are pointless and unneccessary. Lancsalot 10:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:*Comment I'll search for more stubs that would fit these orphaned stubs. Attic Owl 16:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

• Merge the Luton stub with any Bedfordshire related stubs. Attic Owl 16:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the Middlesbrough one, merge the rest into their respective counties, per Grutness above. Attic Owl 16:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one is in eyeball-rolling territory... not only is it a worthless intermediate level between Euro-geo-stub and individual country stubs, it is only used on one page, which is... wait for it... a userpage. Delete with unnecessary force. Grutness...wha? 13:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Valentinian ^(talk) 13:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete please! ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a reasonable case for individual states having their own stubs (the case is still out on that). But intermediate sized cities? I think not. Try to imagine what the stub template list would look like if every city with 100,000 people and eleven stubs got its own stub type. According to a source have handy, in 1980 the US had 227 centres with a population of over 150,000. Add a few dozen for those between 100,000 and 150,000, then figure out how many it would be once you add in China, India, Europe... scary, isn't it? Nothing around which looks remotely like a WP Gary either. Delete quickly, before other people see it and do something similar. Grutness...wha? 13:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought this was a stub about people named Gary... Delete for confusion and size. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Indiana-stub and don't keep Gary-stub as a redirect. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per grut BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but ISTR that when it was proposed that India's geography stubs were split, we did the usual thing of saying yes to the templates but no to any separate categories that failed to reach threshold. If that's the case (and that's how these things are usually done), why have we got this category, with a total of 20 stubs, six of which are only now in the provcess of being created - and why have we had it in this forlorn state for over a month? Unless it reaches a reasonable total by the end of this debating period, it should surely be upmerged. Grutness...wha? 12:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support upmerging the category. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 13:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was one who originally proposed India's geography stubs. I had upmerged it to India-geo-cat as discussed. The change happened here. User:Danny came by and updated the stub template to the state category. - Ganeshk (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same happened here with Category:Manipur_geography_stubs. - Ganeshk (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• upmerge this one and the manipur one. And any others Danny has made that he shouldnt have. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 19:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as with all the smaller geo stubs for India. There are still four pages of Indian geography stubs. The articles relating to India are growing at an inordinately fast rate. Rather than lumping them all together in a single category that combines Sikkim and the Andamans, split them up so that people can concentrate on a particular region when expanding the articles. Danny 20:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes, but the categories created by this are all too small. Which is why the intermediate solution is used in cases like this - it's standard stub-sorting practice. The templates are made, all feeding into the main category until such time that any one category will pass the 65-stub threshold. There's no point splitting out categories early - it simply makes more work for th editors that the stub system is intended to help. This is why, when these stub types were proposed, it was agreed that the templates would be made but the categories would not. I'd suggest you look in the WP:WSS/P archives to see the discussion that took place at the time. Iff a state passes the threshold, it will gain a new category. Until then, these simply get in the way. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• upmerge BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• While I don't agree with Danny's actions in "down-unmerging" them all regardless of size and the earlier discussion, it looks to me like there's massive undersorting (and undertemplatising those that shouldn't necessarily be sorted as such) of the India-geo-stubs, given that there's 700 still using it. Let's try and sort these, and then assess viability of the separate categories. Alai 00:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly created by the folks in the Florida Wikiproject. Used on 56 articles, all of which are tagged with other stub tags. There's no precedent for general sports stubs by location, and I don't think that we want to go down this road, with multiple-tagged stubs that form groups that are parallel to everything else. --fuzzy510 21:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This one's going fast... first actual comment with a bold-faced keep, delete, or upmerge has it. :) Alai 22:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While preparing the ground for this country's geo-stub category, I noticed that almost all categories relating to it have (for political reasons) got "Republic of..." at the front of the name, as does the article on the place itself. I suggest that the stub category should follow suit. Rename. Grutness...wha? 02:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Valentinian ^(talk) 09:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is this only for RoM articles? or for any Macedonia aritcle? 132.205.45.148 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't for any article in particular. It's a simple rename of the stub category. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, upsides = consistency, and clarity of scope, downside = none. Alai 23:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Before we go ahead with this, though: what about Category:Macedonian people stubs? Alai 18:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That one has a non-stub parent of Category:Macedonian people. If that should be renamed to include "Republic of", we can worry about it then. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moved from WP:CFD BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Science-book stubs to Category:Science book stubs

• Rename, correct punctuation. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 03:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pegpegpegpegpeg... surely you know these should go to WP:SFD... :) Grutness...wha? 08:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, I was just, TESTING you, yeah, that's it. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 03:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. It is a category so it should be dealt with here. If the stubbers didn't maintain a separate system there wouldn't be so many stub categories with names that don't match the names used in the much more important main category system. Piccadilly 18:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename. picadilly obviously doesnt remember what the system was like before! BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per the stub naming guidelines (and the established scope of SFD, which it's hardly appropriate to suggest overriding, in an out-of-scope CFD listing). Note that this name has very little to do with "stubber"-induced inconsistency, since they were never brought to the proposal page (which is much more organised as a process than the main category "system", but is hardly our fault if it's then ignored by others). Alai 22:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moved from WP:CFD BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crime-book stubs to Category:Crime book stubs

• Rename, correct punctuation. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 03:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above. Allez au WP: Types des souches pour extermination! Grutness...wha? 08:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. It is a category so it should be dealt with here. If the stubbers didn't maintain a separate system there wouldn't be so many stub categories with names that don't match the names used in the much more important main category system. Piccadilly 18:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename, as above nom. Alai 22:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]