Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, but seems a sensible scope for a template at least. Currently only a couple of stubs, so upmerging may be an option if that doesn't change drastically. Category also needs some work (no parents, a single article link as the description, etc). Grutness...wha? 01:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Brazil-scientist-stub is based on the French template. I thought, in creating the new template, that this would be standard across countries, and I did not know about the need for prior proposal. The parent category should be Brazilian scientists. With few exceptions, these biographies are stubs and need work. I can think of at least 30 top Brazilian biologists whose bios will have to start out as stubs until we can fill an Infobox scientist. --Wloveral (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)--Wloveral (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposals are useful (both to double-check that they are made properly - including things like adding parent categories - and also, how else are stub sorters to know what stub types to use?). Also, there are set thresholds for the number of stubs currently existing before a category is created - unless there is a specific WikiProject relating directly to brazilian scientists, the threshold is 60 stubs. If you can find 60 articles tha will fit the category, then all well and good; if not, it may need upmerging (i.e., keeping the template but pointing it at a more general category like Cat:Scientist stubs unil the number of stubs grows). I've fixed the category with appropriate permcat and stubcat parents, BTW. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is upmerged it should be upmerged to Cat:Brazilian people stubs and Cat:Scientist stubs. Waacstats (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The highly diverse List of Brazilian scientists includes well over 60 Brazilian scientists who are notable but yet without biographies on Wikipedia. Many of the existing biographies of Brazilian scientists are, in fact, stubs, albeit without a proper Brazilian scientist-stub template. In due time, I would like to contribute biographies of Brazilian zoologists and reduce the red links on this list. --Wloveral (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC) corrected --Wloveral (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Once they are made, there will be no problem having a stub category. Until there are, there is no indication that there are 60 stubs. Stub categories are created based on current need and current stub numbers - not on potential future numbers. Almost every soublecy theoretically could have 60 stubs created for it, but unless it actually has those stubs the category is just clutter. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

How much time do I have to write 60 scientific biographies? There are already 19 on the "Category:Brazilian scientist stubs" page. Maybe by the end of the week... Cheers, --Wloveral (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Correction: we have 22. --Wloveral (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no immediate hurry - items often hang around here on the discovery page for some time. If there's no change in the category for a month or so, it's likely to be proposed for deletion at WP:SFD, but if it's clearly growing it'll be likely left here until it either stops growing or reaches threshold. Grutness...wha? 07:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the information. We are at 29. --Wloveral (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC). Correction: 44. --Wloveral (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC). Update: over 60! --Wloveral (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In which case, it looks like a keeper. Good work :) Grutness...wha? 02:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep Unproposed, but looks pretty useful and already half-way to threshold. May need upmerging if it doesn't grow any further, but looks reasonable as things stand. Grutness...wha? 11:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The number of echinoderm stubs is astounding. Most of them are still categorized under Category:Invertebrate stubs, and some were categorized under Category:Aquatic Invertebrate stubs, but I have already put the tag on many echinoderm stubs. The term "invertebrate" is far too broad without subcategories (such as arthropod stubs and mollusc stubs, which already exist). (From the creator of the stub). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this template, plus a large number of other animal phylum stub templates has been proposed, because the invertebrate stubs are getting too large and unwieldy. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK - fair enough. I'd missed the original proposal. As I said in my original comment on this, it looked likely that it's be useful and reach threshold, so there's not likely to have been much of a problem anyway. Grutness...wha? 21:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Listed at Category:Optics stubs, but not at WP:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types/Science#Physical_sciences - is that OK, or should it be explicit on the stubtype list? PamD (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this one's been around a long time, so there's no reason it isn't on the big list. It may have been put into another section somewhere (like art stubs or miscellaneous), but it should also be under optics. Grutness...wha?

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

This stub cat exists, with 179 entries, but I can't find it on the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/Sports. I found it eventually while trying to stubsort Painter (rope). (If there's anywhere more appropriate for stuff about a part of a boat, I couldn't find it!) I'm new to stubsorting, but am enjoying the intriguing puzzles. PamD (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It was proposed and accepted properly back in 2006, but apparently was never added to the list, which does happen sometimes. I'll get it and the other two added to the list shortly. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

No template, malformed, uncategorized, created yesterday. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• OFCOL! This user has proposed this stub type twice and been kindly but firmly informed that it is currently unneeded (and that his/her stub code was incorrect). Maybe this is just his/her "working list", in which case it should be a user sub-page. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• I'm taking this one straight to SFD. Grutness...wha? 22:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, but well-formed and well populated. Could do with better parent cats, though. Grutness...wha? 20:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was take to sfr

Unproposed, but looks well formed in all regards. Problem is whether it will reach threshold. If not, upmerging mat be necessary. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• This stub was created after a careful consideration of request from a project member who seems to be working well on Pakistan geography and history related articles. The stub type does not overlap with any other and appears promising in inviting attention of editors towards relevant articles, most of which are expected to be stubs.--IslesCape^Talk 13:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no sign of any request at WP:WSS/P, which is where requests for new stub types are made. And there is still the likelihood that it may need upmerging if it doesn't meet the required thresholds. Grutness...wha? 23:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was take to sfd

Nope, not an unstub to be enjoyed whilst sipping the uncola, but a recreated redirect for {{UN-stub}} which I discovered whilst recategorizing some security council resolutions to their year specific categories. Probably an innocent recreation done a year ago of a redirect deleted two years ago. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's re-created, surely it can be speedied... though the 23 articles which move it would need to be un-stubbed then UN-stubbed first. Grutness...wha? 22:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this still an active discussion? It does not look like anything has been done about it. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Because there are so few of us doing most of the administrative work for WP:WSS, and so much that needs doing on this project, discoveries often sit around for three or four months before much is actively done with them. If you want to hurry this one up, then taking it to WP:SFD would get it resolved pretty quickly one way or the other. That's probably what would happen to it anyway, given time. Grutness...wha? 05:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

No record of approval, not in the right category, only 31 stubs. Aelfthrytha (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Werll, the category name certainly needs changing, but the mantra of "populate or upmerge" is probably appropriate here. Grutness...wha? 21:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, but seems a sensible template at least. Category either needs to be populated or upmerged. Probably enough articles for it (there are about 400 1950s albums with articles, by the looks of it, and quite a number of these are likely to be stubs). Grutness...wha? 22:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know I'm a not a complete crazy for creating this one for use in Three Ragas (a Ravi Shankar album). I honestly had no idea I needed to propose it beforehand. Sorry, everyone, for the inconvenience.

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

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Unproposed; there are 42 pages total in all of the Cat:Plan 9 from Bell Labs sub-cats, 14 of which are in the abovementioned stub cat. There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Plan 9, but still...! Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• The template is pretty horribly named, too - not only is there no {{9-stub}} for it to be a subtype of, but to many people, "Plan 9" refers primarily to a certain notorious movie. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed - seems a standard format, but it's upmerged into the wrong category (the 90s were not part of the 80s!). A keeper, I'd say, but upmerged differently. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

Unproposed, and although it contains 38 stubs, it is questionable whether it will reach threshold (there are in total 101 articles in Cat:London Overground - it would need 60% of them to be stubs to reach threshold). The template name also distinctly needs changing - not only is this not a subtype of overground-stub (which doesn't exist), but the name is also a proper noun (there is no such thing as London overground). It should thus be {{LondonOverground-stub}} if this is to be kept. Grutness...wha? 23:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Mea Culpa, I didn't propose it first. Basically because this is a refining of a previous stub type (London Railway stations) due to the recent transfer of four lines to the new London Overground. It is both logical and obvious to transfer them to such a 'better' stub subgroup, alongside the pre-existing London Underground stubs. As to the naming, Cat:London-tube-stub is used to produce the underground ones, so Cat:London-overground-stub is a logical name for the overground services also run by TfL. --AlisonW (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

ps. I am still going through the current articles relating to LOG; so far I had only checked all the station ones. --AlisonW (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Basically, London-tube-stub is called that because it's a subtype of metro-stub - it's just that the "Metro" in London is known to most people as the tube. London Overground is a distinct company, though, so would normally get the company's name camel case and unhyphenated. Grutness...wha? 00:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that London Overground is not a distinct company; it is a brand of Transport for London's services, just as London Underground, DLR, etc are. I'm not especially bothered by the exact textual linkname, but given that is a 'stub' for articles about 'London overground' then it does seem rather logical!. btw, of the 100-odd articles, I reckon 49 (ie half) are stubs - and that is before I've gone through the articles on the extensions under construction or planned. That is a lot of work to be done and the new stub cat makes improving them easier to locate within what had previously been a very large stub-sort. --AlisonW (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Now links to 48 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, with no indication that it could get close to threshold, though the (unlisted) permcat seems to suggest it will. (Actually, the permcat has its own problems, recursiveness being one of them, but that is another matter). Enormous template icon, too. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahhj skip it - I've found the proposal. I'll reduce the icon size, though. Grutness...wha? 00:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted

orphaned, so I put it in Category:Wikipedia stubs, but otherwise unchecked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Um... you may not realise this BHG, but Cat:Wikipedia stubs is for stubs about Wikipedia. So, unless StarCraft is part of Wikimedia/Wikipedia, it doesn't belong there. The category is also misnamed ("Stubs" should be l.c.). See also below, where the similarly unproposed template is listed. Grutness...wha? 23:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. My my aim in categorising it there was to put it some place where was likely to be noticed by stub specialists, and next time I'll know which root sub categ to use. The note below that the stub was "well-formed" suggested to me that the orphaned category with its incorrec t capitalisation may not have been noticed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It was added later - when I reported the template, it was upmerged into a general fighting games stub category (as well as about three other categories - see here). Rather than replace the redundant categories with this one, though, it's simply been added on the end, so the template's even messier than before. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Good thing I listed it, then :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted

Unproposed, but reasonably well formed and upmerged, though it seems to link to far too many categories. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

I don't know enough about annonaceae to know whether this stub would be viable in terms of the stub hierarchy (it certainly looks viable in terms of size if Cat:Annonaceae is anything to go by) - but I do know that the template needs serious work if it's to be kept. No links, no category. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Twas part of a discussion in August; I'll go tinker with it if no one else has done yet. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, right. I checked October and November, but didn't look as far back as August. Grutness...wha? 22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was take British- types to sfd

It appears that we have picked up a number of variations here

• Cat:United Kingdom film stubs / {{British-film-stub}} & {{UK-film-stub}} as a redirect
• Cat:British film stubs

I don't think we need both. The easiest solution, i think, would be to delete the British cat and reverse the redirects on the Uk cat. Waacstats 16:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the British cat and the "British-" template, too (we don't have any other "British-x-stub" redirects, and it's adjectival which is non-standard). The UK pair are fine and standardly named. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

Upmerged, and looks a sensible enough template type, though i question the name - do we normally abbreviate to RC? Grutness...wha? 01:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm sorry but I didn't knew that policy. I created that stub template in good faith just because there where already: {{RC-bishop-stub}} and {{RC-clergy-stub}}, and because with the new consistory for the creation of new cardinals should be added to the new biographies, as I did. ;) --Nicola Romani 10:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not a policy, but it is a strong recommendation - since we're the ones who sort stubs, we need to know what categories they're being sorted into, and often new stub templates and categories don't conform to standard naming and other similar features. Proposal first makes sure there aren't any things overlooked by stub creators (prevention of glitches is usually far easier than cure!). In the case of this stub, given that the bishops and clergy use "RC", there's probably no problem, as long as this reaches a useful usage level (a category with fewer than 60 or so stubs is usually more work than helpful). It seems likely this will reach that level, given the number of cardinals there are likely to be articles for. Grutness...wha? 11:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The template looks fine and so does its name but it needs to be populated better. In the unlikely event that it doesn't populate properly, we can always keep the template and upmerge it. Valentinian ^{T / C} 10:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Now has 24 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, but upmerged and seems in keeping with other similar stubs. Grutness...wha? 02:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Update: links to 17 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

Looks promising.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty small though - the category may need monitoring, though the template's fine. Grutness...wha? 23:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The permcat is only up to 30 and that's including a child category, so it is rather small. Template's fine though. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirected to rutaceae-stub

New, never-proposed stub type. Looks like a reasonable split (though those more connected with the plant stubs splits might know better). Size is a concern, though - at only about 300 stubs, Cat:Fruit stubs isn't in need of a split, and there must be some doubt as to whether this will reach threshold. If it doesn't, an upmerger may be in order. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how this stub type could fill out the necessary 60 articles. Might be a reasonable split when more articles. --Rkitko ^(talk) 05:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The name of this stub is poorly chosen. Citrus refers to a family of plants, a genus of plants, and a food type that includes more than the genus but less than the family. There is now a Cat:Rutaceae stubs / {{Rutaceae-stub}} for the family, and it should include all the items in Cat:Citrus stubs. --EncycloPetey 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

So useful as an upmerged template that I discovered it when I went to propose it. Requires categories but thats easy enough. Keep? Waacstats 12:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It is already approaching 50. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Go on, have a guess. 30 stubs. Alai 07:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If I didn't have a friend who works in Urbana, i wuldn' have had a clue. Didn't we decide it was better to do universities by state rather than institution some time back? if so, an illinois-university-stub would be a better (and wider-scoped) option. Grutness...wha? 23:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

This was created as a result of a discussion in July 2006 in the context of the deletion of {{bodypiercing-stub}} (which somehow wasn't deleted at the time). Somehow, it never made it to the main list.--Pharos 04:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Populate if possible, and if so list. Alai 07:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, but well-formed. Certainly seems sensible and well-populated. Just a shame that its creator didn't think to tell the people who'd be using it that she was considering making it... Grutness...wha? 00:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad you agree that it's a good idea. This one seemed so clearly useful according to the usual criteria that there seemed little point in going through the bureaucracy of a five-day delay. I had just been through all the relevant articles for other categorisation purposes, and knew that while many of the articles were stubs, few were stub-tagged. I had time today to do another AWB run to stub tag these categories, so I decided to be WP:BOLD, to go ahead and created the stub tag rather than tag them with less specific stub.

Anyway, there are probably at least 100 more Irish road articles which don't have any stub tag and await this one, so I'll get on with that tomorrow. It's just a shame that someone who puts in the work of tagging hundreds of untagged stubs gets growled at, but that's life :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What bureaucracy of a five-day delay? It's a speediable type, so once it was double-checked to make sure it wasn't going to cause problems (such as "is this for the whole of Ireland or just for the Republic?"), it could have been created immediately. Grutness...wha? 22:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Has it caused problems? If not, then I'm not sure what the difficulty is.

When I read the speedy section, it didn't seem to me to indicate that this applied to the category, just to the template. If I misunderstood that, sorry, but it does seem to me that WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY is relevant here. I can see scope for plenty of Irish stub types which would involve judgment calls and do need checking, but this works. Why not save the discussion for where it's needed rather than complaining that someone did the right thing in what may be a slightly wrong way? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't caused any problems yet - but potentially it could, and it's always better to get things straight before they happen than have to work fast when they do happen. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY does apply to some extent, but only to some extent - remeber the important caveat in its sentence: "If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them." Causing problems down the track isn't an improvement to the encyclopedia. As far as the current stub type is concerned, there have been problems with the coverage of Ireland-X-stub types in the past, and there's no reason to suppose this one will be immune from those problems. As such, a far better guildeine to look at is WP:BOLD#Non-article namespaces. Grutness...wha? 01:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think this is getting rather silly. What potential problems are there with this stub type which could have been avoided by prior discussion? (other than the Republic/NorthernIreland scope question, which is simply a question of whether a Northern Ireland stub is needed as subtype). I'm sorry, but I stick to my original point: this was a simple case, and it has been done without problems. Other potential stub-types for which I saw a need raised more issues, which is why I proposed them first.

WP:BOLD#Non-article namespaces says "but do not be reckless", and it's quite right. There is no recklessness here, just a useful and well-populate stub type which fits in well with other stub types. Sometimes, I fear that some people prefer process over outcomes, which is why I draw your attention again to WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The same problems could occur with this as with the edit-warring which occurred with the use of Ireland-geo-stub - where there was considerable argument as top whether it should be used purely for the epublic (the original intention) or should also include northern ireland (which was categorised according to internationally accepted nationa boundaries, i.e., as part of UK-geo-stub). The same problem is likely to occur here - as tacitly suggested by you with your asssumption that a Northern Ireland type should be a subtype of this. Note also the discussion on ireland-law-stub and ireland-school-stub, which relates directly to this point - Ireland-school-stub, as pointed out, should be merely for the republic, law-stub causes problems as to its scope. Similarly here, many roads cross the border between the two countries. some keep the same designation on both sides, others don't. How should these be handled? I agree that this is getting rather silly, but it seems that most of the fuss about this is coming from your protestation that not following accepted guidelines suggesting that debate may be needed prior to action isis perfectly aceptable, l even in cases which are clearly open to debate. The guidelines are there for a good reason, which is why it's better to stck to them. I again refer you to WP:BOLD#Non-article namespaces - specifically the comment (which you seem to have ignored) Before editing templates or categories, consider proposing any changes on the associated talk pages and announcing the proposed change on pages of appropriate WikiProjects. Grutness...wha? 22:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, but seems sensible and - if the articles currently using it are all kosher autism-related articles - there may be enough for a category. Grutness...wha? 00:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• I was going to propose the creation of the category. The reason I created the template was to see if the category is going to have atleast 65 articles. It does. The Category:Psychology stubs has grown very large. It would help if the category gets split into sub-categories. I propose Category:Autism stubs be created to collect Autism related stubs for improvement. In the future, I will make sure to propose new stub templates. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Fair enough, though it doesn't explain why the template wasn't proposed before creation! Grutness...wha? 23:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Update: Now links to 57 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed . This would possibly be useful - if it had any text! other than two category links, this is an empty template, so is theoretically probably speediable, but if it's of any use it could (should?) be cleaned up. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The {pakistan-stub} is looking a bit overpopulated, could do with some more new stubbs (in my opinion) Pahari Sahib , 07:00, 5th October 2007 (GMT)

In stub-sorting parlance "overpopulated' means over 800 stubs - this currently has about 650, and many of those are simply undersorted (they should be in the existing subcategories). In any case, an upmerged template isn't going to reduce the category - it would have been far better to find some other subtype that would reach a suitable splitting level (a quick glance at the category suggests several more likely possibilities - Pakistan-corp-stub might get near threshold on energy companies alone, and there seem to be a lot of Pakistan-newspaper-stubs. Moving any pakistan-geo-stubs, pakistan-university-stubs, and pakistan-bio-stubs out of Cat:Pakistan stubs and into its subcategories would considerably lower the size of it, though. Grutness...wha? 10:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Update: now links to 37 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Now links to 46 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

Unproposed, small, and - given the size of Cat:1980s heavy metal album stubs - not needed to split an oversized category. Upmerging might be an option, but is it even needed at that level? Grutness...wha? 00:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'd favour upmerger if this doesn't grow, rather than deletion: this split has proved necessary for other decades, so it seems desirable to avoid has-this-decade-been-split-or-not second-guessing. And it's not that far off growing to technical viability. Specifically, I'd double-upmerge to the above and a new Cat:death metal album stubs. Alai 07:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Unproposed. As with San Francisco stubs (end of September), and with all the same inherent problems. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Only used on less than 20 articles, no category and the name doesn't conform with the naming system. Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Dollars to doughnuts its mixing geo-stubs, bio-stubs and general stubs, too. Doesn't look at all helpful. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm - no geos, but yes, there are bios in there. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Category actually does exist now: Category:San Francisco stubs, and it's got 45 articles in it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was cat renamed

Unproposed, newly created stub template and category. While the template appears in line with other similar types made, there are major problems with the category, since it is for West Midlands region, whereas most stub categories starting "West Midlands" are for the county. At the very least, this category will need a rename to something that will not cause later confusion - possibly to Cat:West Midlands Region school stubs. Grutness...wha? 22:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise that stubs needed to be agreed before being created. It looked like an obvious omission to me and was in line with the set up for other counties and regions. ~ Scribble Monkey 08:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems you're not the only one - there are now new templates for Warwickshire schools and West Midlands schools. The latter just emphasises the problem with the category name though (which would have been pointed out if there had been the proposal - that's why there's a proposal process, to stop problems like that developing. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just following on from the Herefordshire template to attempt to get the Coventry & Warwickshire schools in the correct category. Did not know there was a process for these templates to go through. It seem sensible for all of the areas to have templates putting the schools in their regions category rather than the top level UK School stubs category. Keith D 08:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, although you could argue that the each county should have its own category and then they should all be included in the regional one. ~ Scribble Monkey 11:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Presumably we should create templates for Shropshire, Staffordshire and Worcestershire too? I take your point about the West Midlands category being ambiguous, although you could equally argue that all the county ones should be renamed "West Midlands (county)" to be in line with the article. ~ Scribble Monkey

Templates would make some sense (as long as they follow standard naming - comparing the equivalent geo-stubs will sort out the odd ones), but definitely not separate categories yet - most counties wouldn't pass the standard stub-sorting threshold at present. Once they do, proposing separate categories should go without hassle, but for now the regional categories are good enough. As for renaming the county categories, that's something that could be proposed at WP:SFD, but we tend to follow the permanent categories, and Cat:West Midlands is for the county. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. What's the process for proposing the creation of the new templates? ~ Scribble Monkey 08:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Head to this page's partner page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, and follow the instructions at the top of the page. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the regional splits are pretty well-established by now, and we could cry "speedy" to all remaining upmerged templates. (I've just been creating them piecemeal as size demands.) Alai 03:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

Well-formed, but never proposed and seemingly unlikely to reach threshold any time soon (Cat:Moldovan people stubs has fewer than 75 stubs in total, many of which are about footballers). Upmerging seems the best option, unless this is populated to threshold somehow. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of Moldovan singers not generally known; for example former O-Zone band members. Therefore, stub will be needed sooner or later. Petramis 06:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sooner or later, sure... but for all we know it may not be until much later. That's the reason stub categories are only made when there are sixty existing stubs that can use it - as mentioned at WP:STUB and at the top of WP:WSS/P. If there aren't, it becomes simply added clutter and actually impedes editing. also, since the basic Moldovan people stubs category has only about 75 stubs, there is no need to fragment it with subcategories - if by some chance 60 of them were singers, and therefore the singer category could reach threshold, the base category would then be far too small. Grutness...wha? 06:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Currently links to 8 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

Well-formed, but never proposed and seemingly unlikely to reach threshold (it currently has one stub. The unsubcategorised Cat:South American writer stubs has only about 85 articles, and Cat:Colombian writers and all its subcats have even fewer than that). The {{Colombia-bio-stubs are hardly in need of splitting, either (about 250 articles). Upmerging seems the best option, unless this is populated to threshold somehow. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep

Looks well-formed and well-populated, but it would have been nice if the creator of this had let us know (not the first time with this editor, either, so it's not like s/he's unaware of WP:WSS/P...) Grutness...wha? 00:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

S/he/it did use WP:WSS/P; see here. A bit precipitate, perhaps, but apparently useful. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah - fair enough, I must've missed that discussion. Looks like a keeper anyway. Grutness...wha? 03:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep

Well-formed, logical split - in terms of scope, if not size. Currently has only a couple of stubs. Needs either populating or upmerging. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Has 36 now that I've been slogging through the musician stubs. Let's keep it. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

70+ now. Keep Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep

The following were not listed, but exist:

• Cat:Bufonidae stubs {{Bufonidae-stub}}
• Cat:Caecilian stubs {{Caecilian-stub}}
• Cat:Glass frog stubs {{Centrolenidae-stub}}
• Cat:Hylidae stubs {{Hylidae-stub}}
• Cat:Hyperoliidae stubs {{Hyperoliidae-stub}}
• Cat:Leptodactylidae stubs {{Leptodactylidae-stub}}
• Cat:Mantellidae stubs {{Mantellidae-stub}}
• Cat:Megophryidae stubs {{Megophryidae-stub}}
• Cat:Microhylidae stubs {{Microhylidae-stub}}
• Cat:Petropedetidae stubs {{Petropedetidae-stub}}
• Cat:Poison dart frog stubs {{Dendrobatidae-stub}}
• Cat:Rhacophoridae stubs {{Rhacophoridae-stub}}
• Cat:Salamander stubs {{Salamander-stub}}
• Cat:True frog stubs {{Ranidae-stub}}

—Preceding unsigned comment added by EncycloPetey (talk • contribs)

They were approved here; they are all listed properly in the "science" portion of the stubs list. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep

The following were not listed, but exist:

• Cat:Turtle stubs {{turtle-stub}}
• Cat:Prehistoric reptile stubs {{paleo-reptile-stub}}

—Preceding unsigned comment added by EncycloPetey (talk • contribs)

They are listed properly in the "science" portion of the stubs list. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Templates have been created for a load of Romanian counties, all upmerged. Can't find any sign of debate on it, but it seems like a good move - the Romania geography stubs category is pretty full (8 pages). "Plaintext" (non-0diacvritical) redirects may be useful for some of these. Grutness...wha? 03:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Finally found something related which could certainly be construed as "tacit approval". Shall we keep? Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep

Unproposed creation, with potential for being seriously undersized. Possibly a case of wait and see, and if it doesn't get to a viable threshold, upmerging. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies on the lack of proposal. This stub is already up to 30 articles and that will grow significantly as I continue cleaning out the generic radio-station-stub category. Again, sorry about the presumption. I'll be sure to go through the process next time. - Dravecky 03:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to follow up, after a sweep of radio-station-stub and Australia-bcast-stub there are now 88 unique article stubs properly using this stub. That number may go up a bit as I continue to comb through categories as part of the Radio Stations project. - Dravecky 06:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

88 is well above the usual threshold for a separate stub category (60), and it does look to be a reasonable way to split these (paralleling similar nation-station types (hm... nice rhyme), so this looks like a likely keeper. Grutness...wha? 09:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was renamed and kept

Probably a fairly useful upmerged template, but oh the name! If - like me - you haven't a clue what an omed is, this is for osteopathic medicine. Probably a keeper, but with a new name (Osteopathy-stub would be good). Grutness...wha? 01:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for educating me a bit on how this process works. One thing to initiate the discussion, osteopathy does not equal osteopathic medicine.OsteopathicFreak 01:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

How about {{Osteo-med-stub}}, then? Would that cover it better? As I said, as an upmerged stub type it sounds quite a reasonable split, so the main thing (at least IMHO) is changing the current unintuitive name. Grutness...wha? 02:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

{{Osteo-med-stub}} sounds great to me! Can I go ahead and edit the template and start using that? Or is there a process I should wait for first? OsteopathicFreak 02:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd wait a couple of days - just in case someone objects or comes up with a better idea. I must admit I don't know the hierarchy of med stubs that well, it could be that osteopathic medicine is better covered by an existing stub. if no-one objects, though, go ahead and move it (note also that WP:WSS practice is that the older, non-convention-compliant name will be deleted rather than used as a redirect once it's been orphaned). Grutness...wha? 13:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

New and unproposed. Currently has 24 stubs, but the size of the permcat parent (78 articles in total) makes it look as if it's unlikely to get to the required 60-stub threshold any time soon. Looks like a text-book upmerge candidate... Grutness...wha? 09:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

With a little time to populate the stub category, it'll have at least 60 stubs. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Stub category has now been populated with 92 articles at the time of this comment. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, it's almost certainly OK. I've given it the other required parent categories. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that we generally split by genre and release decade, rather than by country of origin, the main exception being Japan. Is Hong Kong a sufficiently distinct market to be another such exceptional case? Alai 15:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe so. The music produced there is consumed all over the Greater China Area, as well as by Overseas Chinese all over the world. One thing that makes the HK music industry unique is that it is (to the best of my knowledge) the only industry that produces Cantonese-language music. One of the motivations for me tagging these articles specifically as "Hong Kong album stubs" is for us over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Hong Kong to find which articles need development, and most of the articles on albums produced in Hong Kong so far seem to be either stubs or otherwise need expansion. Also there is talk over at WikiProject China about possibly starting a new taskforce specifically for Chinese music[1], so I think this stub template and the associated category are definitely helpful. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If the rationale is largely WPJ-driven, a talk page "stub class article" category might be the better solution. If the marketplace is "Greater China", wouldn't something along the lines of "Chinese albums stubs" (scoped either geographically or linguistically) be a more generally useful type? It's not terrible, but it's cross-cat enough that prior discussion would have been a sensible step (which it is in general, come to that). Alai 15:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Good points. I didn't mean to convey that it was some WikiProject-based initiative to create stub these articles, but I mentioned the Hong Kong WikiProject because it's a group of editors interested in editing HK-related topics. What I should have said was that my motivation was for editors interested in editing Hong Kong-related topics to know that they are HK-album stubs - it wasn't just for the benefit of those who specifically joined the Hong Kong WikiProject. The Hong Kong stubs category is badly in need of sub-categorising as it is, and I didn't want to just throw a whole bunch of articles into that category when they clearly form their own subset. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed discovery today. It has 50 stubs, which is almost up to the threshold, but we rarely split mass media stubs by company (and have deleted several similar ones in the past, such as ABC-stub and NBC-stub), since it crosses the hierarchy, including TV and radio stations and programmes. May need watching, at the evry leasy, but it's likely to be less than helpful overall. Grutness...wha? 03:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• List; now contains 92 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerged to university stubs & Mexico stubs

Unproposed, and no real sign of it reaching threshold any time soon. No objection to an upmerged template, but it's fill or delete as far as the category goes. And if it stays, it will need to be formatted! Grutness...wha? 02:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoops! It didn't even occur to me when I was going through the WP:UNI page today that my edit was creating a new stub (though I suppose it should have, duh). It was redlinked in a list of other stubs, so I just opened it up, copied and pasted from another stub, and saved it. You guys do whatever you need to with it. I don't have any feelings one way or the other. :) Esrever 03:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

On a related topic: Cat:Mexico education stubs seems to be very small and shouldn't it have been "Mexican ..." ? Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirected to Serbia-politician-stub

Unproposed, and hardly necessary since there are only 75 stubs on Serbian politicians overall. Mostly harmless, I suppose, since it's upmerged - although if it sets a precedent for splitting Serbian politicians by region it may prove messy further south... Grutness...wha? 01:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Splitting by national subdivision is not my favourite cup of tea, although the U.K. material is indeed split this way. I'm moderately negative towards this one, but I don't think it'll cause any actual harm. We should avoid templates for Kosovo until the situation there clears up. Leaving the political / NPOV issue aside, the Kosovo material is far below the size threshold. Valentinian ^{T / C} 15:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi everybody! Sorry but I didn't know that I should propose the creation of a new stub. I have made this stub to avoid ambiguity. In Eastern Europe national identity is usualy equal to ethnical identity. Because of that if someone said that someone is a Serbian-Hungarian person people in Serbia would think that his or her father is an ethnic Serb and his or her mother is an ethnic Hungarian person. And to say that someone is a Serbian-Croatian or a Croatian-Serbian is more risky than to say Vojvodina-Serbian or Vojvodina-Croatian. So I thought that would be a good idea to put these people into two stub-cathegories. One should refer to the region where they live and another should refer to the ethnicity (or nationality) of the person. About Kosovo: Don't you find ridiculous that all politicians from Kosovo is categegorised as European politicians? This is I think the total political paralysis. Most of them are ethnic Albanians from Serbia. The best solution of this problem would be a Kosovo politician stub. AND MY FINAL PRO ARGUMENT: IF THERE ARE NON-STUB VOJVODINA AND KOSOVO POLITICIAN CATHEGORIES WHY DO YOU FIND MAKING STUB ONES A BAD IDEA?--HunTheGoaT 17:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, to take your three points separately - first, as far as stub categories are concerned, national and regional boundaries is all: we don't divide people by ethnicity. A "Serbian politician" is one who is a politician within Serbia or who was born in Serbia. The same thing applies to other biography stub subtypes, too. As such - to answer your second comment - Kosovan politicians, since they are politicians within part of Serbia - should be marked with Serbia-politician-stub. That they are not is due to edit-warring on those articles - the only solution which all sides could afgree on was that these politicians were European. technically, they should be marked with Serbia-politician-stub, but if anyone was to change the template on the articles, I would guarantee that other editors would change it straight back. This brings use to the third point. Permanent categories are added to articles by literally adding the category. Stubs are added by template. As we have found in the past, some stub templates are susceptible to edit wars, and edit wars on templates have far wider ramifications than edit wars on articles, as they can affect large numbers of articles at any one time. We used to have a simple Kosovo-stub, and it caused an immense amount of problems due to edit wars. For that reason, we don't have stub templates relating to either countries that are not internationally recognised or regions of countries where those regions are undergoing likely constitutional change. If and when a permanent agreement is reached on the future of Kosovo, either as part of Serbia or independent from it, Kosovo stub types will be a reasonable idea. Until then, though, they would be edit-war targets. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, newly created... currently has one stub. There might be another 59 to reach threshold, but if not an upmerge is probably in order. Grutness...wha? 01:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

as a bit of a newbie, I was unaware that there was a procedure for proposing one. It seems a bit 'unanarchistic' to have one. Nevertheless, excuse the mistake. There is a stub for every other kind of ice hockey related topic, except for league, so I assumed it was a bit of an oversight and added one. I would never expect it to be a stub with a lot in it, but it would be useful for catching the new league artices. Alaney2k 00:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alaney2k - there are good reasons why there is a specific proposal process for stubs - it's a bit long-winded to go into here (though a search of the site should find them). To cut a long story short, having an upper and lower limit on the size of stub categories makes it easier for stub sorters to sort stubs easily and also helps editors to find articles on specific topics without being swamped with thousands of articles or having to pick through dozens of nearly empty categories. In the case of this stub type, though, it's possible that there are enough stubs to warrant a separate stub category (60 is the standard threshold in these sorts of cases, hence my comments earlier). Grutness...wha? 01:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: now contains 76 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

No cat, handful of stubs, wikiproject. Alai 00:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

To add to the concerns, Youngstown is a dab page. Let's face it, this is a city of 80,000 people - what would stub sorting be like if every city of that size had a separate stub type. How many stub types would that be for the US alone? Surely the Wikiproject would be better served with a talk-page banner, and this would be best sent to SFD. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, no stub or permcat parents, but plenty of stubs. Or, rather, plenty of articles - a few of these don't seem to be stubs. Wouldn't have been my choice for a split, but then again the term reggaeton is rarely used (and the style rarely heard) in this part of the world. A case of clearing out any non-stubs and seeing what we have left, by the looks of it. Grutness...wha? 02:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Now contains 149 items! Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, no stub or permcat parents, no stubs currently, but this is at least a logical split. Probably a case of sorting and if necessary upmerging. Grutness...wha? 02:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I created this stub tag because there are other ones such as {{Theatre-stub}}, {{US-theat-stub}} and others for individual countries/nations so I thinks its acceptable for the United Kingdom to have one, I apologise for creating this without consensus as I didnt realise they have to be discussed here. Regards --The Sunshine Man 14:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a logical split in terms of subject matter - the main concern is size. Unlike permanent categories, which can be of any size, there's a threshold level before a stub category is created of 60 current stubs (due to the different purposes of stub categoriues from main categories). I'm sure there won't be any problems with this one if it reaches 60 stubs - which it's likely to - but if it falls short of that it might not be worth having a separate category. The category also needs a bit of tidying up, as I noted earlier. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We should have the template at least (though probably canonicalise it to {{UK-theat-stub}}, leaving the redirect). This might require some work to populate, since existing article are likely to be scattered hither and yon (theat-, euro-theat-, <county>-geo-, etc), but I'm sure it's in theory doable. If it's not happening in practice, upmerge. Alai 16:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

They're not likely to be among the geo-stubs, A. struct-stubs, maybe. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you'd be surprised... Alai 13:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As theatre stubs had creeped into the oversized bracket, I populated this from Cat:theatre in the United Kingdom. That's scoping on the basis of 'the theatre' though, as distinct from just 'theatres'. Alai 13:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Now contains 74 items and the template has been properly redirected. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirected to ElectronicArts-stub

Never proposed, currently has three stubs. A whole host of parent categories to this cat, though surprisingly not Cat:Maxis, which I would have thought was the obvious one. Looking in Cat:Maxis reveals only 67 articles in total, so this would require 90% of those articles to be stubs before the stub category reached the required level. Looks like a clear case of upmerging to me... Grutness...wha? 01:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I am sorry I created this stub without proposing. I didn't know that was needed, and I saw other stub types like for instance the Doom Stub, so I figured a Maxis stub was possible to.

Again I am sorry for any inconvenience :-) --Jort227 15:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've proposed to rename this and {{Doom-stub}} at Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2007/July/16, to {{ElectronicArts-stub}} and {{IdSoftware-stub}} (respectively) JohnnyMrNinja 08:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

We already tried and failed to delete some of the flakier templates associated with this, but so far as I know we've never considered this unproposed four article cat itself. (Someone explain to me why sensibly-sized anime sub-types are proposed, the WPJ locals poo-poo them en masse as being "too many stub types", and then we get stuff like this.) Alai 20:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

...and at the vey least get the ridiculous template name changed. Four stubs in over six months, though. It's clearly useless. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Might have had quite a few more stubs not too long ago. The individual episodes used to have articles (one shared a title with a Joe McDoakes short which is why I noticed) but then they got either merged or deleted by a mass AfD. Still, that was then this is now and five stubs is way too few. Delete Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK, that makes sense. Now, if someone would only do the same for about 1000 more anime stubs (and keep on doing it, as required). Alai 13:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If that's so, then it's not quite as useless as I though. No longer needed, though, by the looks... upmerge and corrct the template names? Grutness...wha? 10:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a "canonical" template, {{Sailor-Moon-stub}} (well, canonical give or take a hyphen, anyway), you just wouldn't think it to look at it. The template you're objecting to is one of those we previously considered, as noted above. Alai 13:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Rather small, obvious NG issues. Perhaps rename to {{Paris-street-stub}}, and upmerge to Cat:Île-de-France geography stubs, or indeed split out the Paris département into its own geography cat. Alai 04:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Standard would be {{Paris-road-stub}}, since road is used for both urban roads and rural streets (or vice versa) due to different naming standards in different countries. And if we were going to upmerge it, I'd suggest a separate Cat:France road stubs or Cat:French road stubs (depending on standard naming) that it could go into, rather than mixing it in with geo-stubs (road stubs aren't really part of the geo-stub hierarchy). Grutness...wha? 01:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals#New_Stub for details, and for an example of how not to propose a stub :/ Grutness...wha? 01:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like a candidate for upmerger to Cat:alternative medicine stubs. Alai 04:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Only 6 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, but seems a reasonable split - already has 80 stubs. Unfortunately, the category is badly named (note the capital C). If kept (which, as I said, seems reasonable) it will need a (probably speediable) renaming. The cat also has no non-stub parents, but that's easily fixable. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I created this stub. I didn't realise I should have proposed it first, sorry. There were (and still are, I haven't moved everyone yet) lots and lots of articles about companies in the regular Fashion stubs category, making it harder to distinguish between these and those that deal with some piece of clothing etc. Also, I wanted to be able to link a category like this to the Company stub category too. I fix the capital C. -*Ulla* 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed stub type which is never likely to get more than 78 articles, even if every card is a stub (and they aren't - I extended a couple well beyond stub status myself). Also more than adequately covered by other stub types. At best, this should be upmerged but given that currently accepted stub types aren't exactly in need of splitting and this is hardly likely to stay close to split size for long or ever get there again, perhaps it's not needed at all. Grutness...wha? 02:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• A lot of these stubs look marginal in and of themselves: put me in the post-AFD "merge" camp, at least for the ones that are very short, repeat information between themselves, etc. Since these articles seem to be largely about the divination aspect, upmerge the template to Cat:occult stubs. (Which technically we don't need to take to SFD, since the cat's a redlink.) Alai 03:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I must admit I was surprised to see separate articles on each card - the pip cards at least could be merged per suit for now at least. But that's not really within the scope of us here. I realise that a lot of the articles could eventually be expanded considerably (as I said, i did so myself on a couple of the major arcana cards articles), but it would take some effort with some of the minor pips. Grutness...wha? 03:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not really for or against this particular stub category, but thought I'd mention a few things. It's not clear that this is "never likely to get more than 78 articles" as the "proposer" of this unproposed stub type (i.e. User:Smiloid) has already used it to tag other pages like Visconti-Sforza tarot deck, Bonifacio Bembo, and Pamela Colman Smith. I have in the past personally deleted the {{card-game-stub}} tags that appeared on the minor arcana card articles as I didn't think that tag was suitable for them. I didn't believe that there was much more to add to those articles that would further justify the removal of that tag. (It is already mentioned that tarot cards are used to play Tarot card games in each of those articles. I don't, for example, see what could possibly be inserted into the "Game Usage" section of Eight of Coins or many of the other cards. The only particular card with a special function seems to be The Fool). I don't wish to put words into Smiloid's mouth, but he seems to believe that tagging the tarot card articles with {{occult-stub}} somehow violates WP:NPOV, and I think this is why he wanted to create a new stub for use on tarot card related articles. Craw-daddy 09:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • • I think to deny that tarot cards are playing cards is POV. If we put "occult" stubs on the minor card articles, we should also have "playing card" or some similar stub. It is user User:Ptdecker who started puting the "card game" stubs to address POV concerns. This tarot stub that I've created is designed to be suitable for any tarot related article whether it is occult or card game related. I've chosen the Marseilles Fool as the image as the Marseilles tarot pertains to both tarot as a divinatory practice as well as a type of card game. It should also be upmerged to card game or playing card categories because tarot is not the exclusive property of the occult.Smiloid 00:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm certainly not denying that tarot cards are playing cards. When have I said that? However, there's a perfectly valid category, namely [[Category: Playing cards]] that can be used to (help) classify these articles. Why not use that? As I've said, I can't see the justification for the {{card-game-stub}} tag as I don't think there's much to add to the articles that would later justify the removal of that particular stub tag. We shouldn't try to counteract (alleged or perceived) POV by using some other inappropriate stub tag that isn't fit for purpose in this case. It's the old "Two wrongs" argument that I'm stating here. Craw-daddy 23:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Is there a playing card stub? I would agree this might be betterSmiloid 04:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
          • No, I don't believe there is a playing card stub. My suggestion, assuming something like this tarot card stub is okayed, is to have something like in Five of Wands, i.e. the tarot card stub tag and the [[Category:Playing cards]] category marker. This is essentially what I meant in my previous remark above. Craw-daddy 10:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I noticed that too. Still, it seems a little small at present, unless there's a large number of in-scope but untagged articles out there, so I'd still favour upmerging now, without prejudice to consideration of a separate category at a later date. Hopefully an upmerged tag is less objectionable than actual retagging. Alai 17:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • No it's a good template. I support keeping it. Previously the articles in question were marked as "magic-stubs" and I think it is POV to merge Tarot with Occult. Tarot is tarot, and not all divination is of an occult nature. I'm not an expert on the occult of course, but it seems to me that calling Tarot "occult" is like saying wicca is "witchcraft". Many people use tarot and other divinatory practices such as dowsing (for example) in day-to-day life, and I think if it needs a category it might be considered by some as witchcraft and some as something more akin to intuitive reading etc... I think merging it to a category is useless and potentially wasteful of discussion time. Tarot is certainly tarot, however you could have a big argument on whether it is occult practice or intuition. User:Pedant 22:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The articles should, if anything, have been marked kabbalah-stub, due the the very strong links between Tarot and other kabbalistic . Certainly Tarot should not be marked with card-game stub, and occult-stub is highly questionable. Still, unless there are plans to create stubs for different Tarot decks - something which hasn't happened yet (and remember that stub templates are for existing stubs) - there is no way that this stub type will get the required number of stubs for a separate template/category combination. As such, it needs to be upmerged somewhere. As such, it is not merging it which is a potential waste of discussion time (check the standards required for new stub types at the top of WP:WSS/P). Blessed be, Grutness...wha? 05:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Paint me pink and call me a hard-core naturalist, but I don't see how "divination" of any sort isn't necessarily "occult". But what Grutness and Maggie Thatcher said: the status quo isn't an option. Would either Cat:parapsychology stubs or Cat:paranormal stubs be acceptable as an upmerger target? (By "upmerger" let's be clear that we would be keeping the template, just giving it a category that's a) blue, and b) is over the size threshold.) Alai 19:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
          • • However not all of tarot is connected with divination or the occult. This tarot stub was devised to cover any tarot article whether or not it involves the occult. I have plans to start three tarot related articles; French suited tarot cards, Grosstarock, and tarocchi appropriati all of which have little if anything to do with the occult.Smiloid 07:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The links between tarot and Kabbalah are open to debate. A.E. Waite is quoted in Taropedia as expressing disbelief in the correspondence between the tarot trumps and the Hebrew letters.Smiloid 00:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Cat was created, now holds 58 items; parent of permcat is "divination". Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirected to ElectronicArts-stub

Unproposed, created on 6 Jun 2007, has two articles. Pagrashtak 20:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
...and is already noted further up this page :) Grutness...wha? 01:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

An odd one this - a templat has just been made for one of our "parent-only" stub categories. It could potentially be useful, but I think upmerged country-sport-bio-stubs might be more so. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ideally we'd get rid of all the templates which feed into "upmerger target" stub categories with no corresponding permcats, but it must be said there's quite a lot of existing ones on the same pattern. Perhaps we should try to systematically replace and deprecate them all as a first step. Alai 18:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Per a lot of precedent at WP:CFD, there is no good rational for categorizing by continent instead of by nationality. It makes a lot more sense simply to have a stubs and probably bio stubs category/template for every country, and have country-specific sport-bio, politician, etc., ones when the number of stubs justifies them. A categorization of "European" is pretty useless. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerged

Unproposed, and used on 17 articles. There is a Wikiproject Tajikistan, but this is far from their primary stub type (given that there are T-geo, T-bio, and T-standard), so 60 would be the threshold. The bio-stub categpory's nowhere near needing splitting, either (only 76 stubs). Probably useful double-upmerged, but not with a stand-alone category. Grutness...wha? 05:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy upmerge, due to aforementioned present categorylessness. Alai 18:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Y Done I've cleaned up the code and it links to the proper categories now. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerged

Yipes. Television stubs have been sorted according to genre, people, episodes, stations, countries, etc. but never by "type of technology on which it appears". Unproposed, only 1 article in it. I don't like it One Bit. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• And it's listed earlier on this page, as of March 2007. Oops. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge Unproposed, redlink category. Seems a reasonable idea, though, given the size of Cat:Databases. Mind you, that doesn't guarantee 60 stubs (well, 30, since there seems to be a nascent WikiProject - the same person who created that created this stub type ten minutes later, surprise, surprise). May well be a case of fixing it up and seeing whether or not it grows. If it does, fine. if not, there's still SFD... Grutness...wha? 01:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Might be worth upmerging to {{database-software-stub}} or seeing if there are articles tagged with that stub that aren't about specific programs. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it. There are literally dozens of Cat:Databases articles that are naught but stubs. Use {{database-software-stub}} on all database stubs, even those that are unrelated to database software. BTW, the nascent WikiProject was suggested a week ago (Look It Up, surprise, surprise). For an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit, you bureaucrats sure give hell to people who are trying to do the right thing. Delete the stub, delete the project, do whatever you really feel like doing. Enough of this nonsense, trying to improve Wikipedia by wasting ridiculous amounts of my time bringing articles like Null (SQL) from a one-paragraph stub up to Good Article status, and trying to help bring some badly needed attention to the extreme lack of good, solid database-related articles on this thing. Be Bold! Right? Apparently it only applies to vandals, and not to people trying to do the right thing. You need to get rid of that God Awful article since that's not how it works in reality. If it's not there already, you should add Wikipedia as a prime example of Bureaucracy. Please feel free to remove it all, there are way too many bureaucrats and dictators running around for me to try to do anything more. Peace. SqlPac 02:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Read WP:BOLD. It makes it clear that it applies to articles, but not to templates or categories. The nascent Wikiproject may have been suggested a week ago, but no stub type was, and that is what we are discussing here. We are not bureaucrats, nor are we dictators; we are people trying to keep track of what stub types are available and sort stub articles accordingly. unproposed stub types do nothing to help with that - in fact, they can seriously hinder the work of editors on wikipedia. You =might also want toread WP:CIVIL. Grutness...wha? 02:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Get rid of the stuff I've done, and you and I are through WP:CIVIL. BTW, here are a couple of Database-related stubs for you. Many are already indicated as stubs under a very wide variety of labels, a few are not currently labeled stubs even though they are stubs. Some are software-specific, some are not. Some do not currently exist. You might want to get crackin' on those. Update (SQL), Merge (SQL), Create (SQL), Drop (SQL), Begin work (SQL), Commit (data management), Rollback (data management), Truncate (SQL), Alter (SQL), View (database), Table (database), Index (database), Partition (database), Database storage structures, MyISAM, Deductive database, Distributed database management system, Relational_calculus, Database normalization, Referential integrity, Relational database management system, Superkey, Candidate key, List of object-oriented database management systems, Online transaction processing, Data Mining Extensions, SuprTool, Molecular Query Language, SPARQL, CODASYL, QUEL query languages, Object Query Language, Poliqarp Query Language, Data Definition Language, Data Manipulation Language, Data Control Language, Bulk Load, SQL:1999, SQL-92, SQL-96, SQL:2003, SQL:2006, Order by (SQL), Group by (SQL), Having (SQL), Where (SQL), From (SQL), PL/pgSQL. Peace. SqlPac 03:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • What are you so angry about? The only person here who has suggested deletion as a first course is you - and presumably you were being sarcastic. Both I and Caerwine have suggested that it may be worth keeping in some form. The 41 existing stubs listed would be quite enough to qualify for a stub type, given that there is a wikiproject. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
      • What am I so angry about? Because Ignore All Rules and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy are patent lies. You are enforcing an apparently non-existent Bureaucracy which I don't have time nor interest in dealing with. Don't presume. I'm not being sarcastic, you can honestly do whatever you like with all of my contributions so far. Though I would prefer you just delete all my contributions and be done with it. I've removed myself from trying to do anything beyond spell-checking an occasional article, and I couldn't care less (surprise, surprise) what you do with stubs or anything else beyond that. Those 41 existing stubs were located in the course of a 10 minute search. There are literally hundreds of database stubs that could potentially be categorized as such (I located over 100 on my first search a few weeks ago, as well as about 3 dozen articles that haven't even been created yet), but I'm not interested in continuing to document, organize, create new articles, or having anything else to do with these items. I'll continue making occasional edits to correct spelling errors in articles, but I have no reason to put myself in a position where I can be called to task for trying to contribute anything more to your Wikipedia. In the meantime, please delete the stub and let someone who understands/cares about the Bureaucracy do this type of thing in the future. I've come to the conclusion that beyond spell-checking an occasional article, Wikipedia is not interested in attracting subject matter experts and writers. It appears that recruitment efforts should be aimed at attracting the bureaucrats so desperately needed to avoid stepping on people's toes around here. Be Afraid!. SqlPac 17:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

This material is now 60+ so I've been bold and given the template a category right away to cut the Asian category down a bit. The category is parented by both Cat:Asian politician stubs and Cat:European politician stubs as agreed back in November 2006.[2] Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Serbia is above the mark as well, so I'm listing both categories on WP:WSS/ST. Valentinian ^{T / C} 09:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Never proposed, not really needed, except maybe as a parent for the {{india-university-stub}} and {{india-school-stub}} types which have been in long and continual use. Grutness...wha? 02:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly could use the category Cat:India(n) education stubs more than the template as a parent for the university and school stubs. Probably worth keeping and catting assuming we can agree on the name for the cat. We have Cat:Japanese education stubs and Cat:Mexico education stubs so we don't have consistency in the existing sub categories (without even considering the British / United Kingdom issue). Caerwine Caer’s whines 14:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was take to sfr

Unproposed. Not about the car, but about Austin, Texas (and should therefore be named as such). Currently has one stub, which is also (correctly) marked as a Texas-geo-stub. Might be able to get to the threshold of 60 stubs for this one, but will need renaming to t:AustinTX-stub/c:Austin, Texas stubs for reasons which should be obvious if you look at Austin. Category will also need tidying, since it has no parent categories, stub or perm. Probably a "wait and see" for whether it should be kept or not. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's now been moved by its creator to {{Austin-TX-stub}} - another incorrect name :( At least the category now has a stub parent... Grutness...wha? 02:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Should this name stay the same, or would you like to change it to {{AustinTX-stub}}? There are now 60 stubs categorized under it, with more to come I'm sure. Joe I 04:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Give us a chance! :) Not everyone checks this page every day. I'd continue using the current names for nowGiven that there are 60 stubs, it seems likely to be worth keeping under some name, so it will be simply a matter of using a bot to do any necessary changeover. Grutness...wha? 01:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 88 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Unproposed... not really sure about this one. Certainly the permcat parent has a lot of articles, but I can't see where it would fit on the stub tree (and there are no stubcat parents, so clearly its creator wasn't sure either). Grutness...wha? 01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The conspiracy stub, as [:category:conspiracy], is categorizable under a few different categories; I just didn't feel the stub needed to be categorized under anything except the conspiracy category. Conspiracy can fall under politics, pseudohistory/history, paranormal, spiritual, etc. However, I have since categorized it under a couple stub categories. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 03:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 5 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerged

Two new unproposed templates, both feeding into Cat:Chinese radio station stubs (also unproposed). The category has some problems (recursive, and no perm or stub parents other than itself), and it seeems pretty small at present. Perhaps tidying it up and seeing if it reaches threshold is a reasonable move, though the combining of Taiwan and China into one category opens up "ye olde canne of wyrms" (or dragons, at least). Grutness...wha? 06:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Update: China-radio-station-stub links to 26 articles; Taiwan-radio-station-stub links to 4. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Numbers are still the same, although I did correct the category problem(s). Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename & upmerge

Unproposed, but potentially useful. This one sort of nibbles at the boundaries of toy stubs and aircraft stubs without fitting comfortably into either. Size is the one potential worry - I'm not sure it will come close to threshold. Perhaps a wait and see approach? Will need to be renamed, though - should be at {{Kite-stub}} (singular). Grutness...wha? 03:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I must first appologise as I didn't realise there was procedure for creating stub-categories. I have been working on many kite related articles, to get them up to scratch. As mentioned, kites don't fit comfortably into a toys stub, especially when you consider large traction kites that require training to use they are more 'sports equipment' than toys. On the other hand certain types of kite are made by hobbyists and would not fit into a sports category. This was the reason for creating the category. Richard Thompson (Talk! | Contribs) 08:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

How about a category for hobby stubs, and upmerge kite-stub into it?Goldenrowley 04:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Would this cover the traction kites used for sports? I use kites for kitesurfing so don't see it as a hobby more of a sport equipment. This is why I created the stub in the first place, because kites fall into more than one general category outside hobbies, sports and toys. Richard Thompson (Talk! | Contribs) 17:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Having seen some really neat kitesurfing the other day I tend to agree that hobby sounds a little lame but thats the only permenant category I saw chosen? Goldenrowley 03:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC).. Okay I followed the kitesurfing categories and kitesurfing is too small but it is part of the larger category of "Recreation" which seems to fit for all kites? Goldenrowley 03:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Richard Thompson (Talk! | Contribs) 12:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. Kites are used in both hobby and sporting/recreation arenas. Peter Campbell 22:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 12 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

This template had a short life being upmerged. Less than a day in fact, until an editor gave it a category. I'll clean it up, but it probably won't be worth the effort to delete it again. We have c. 55 relevant articles, and Yushchenko has just called an election, so it is likely this material will grow. Should we add it to WP:WSS/ST ? Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I would assume 55 articles "plus an election promise" is a keeper. Goldenrowley 04:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say 55 articles plus an election promise is worth about... 55 articles. :) (Around here, maybe a good deal less.) Alai 06:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Now up to 59 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

Unproposed - not too sure there'd be the threshold stubs for it. Can't complain about a lack of parent categories though - this one has ten (!) including the potential SFD-bait Cat:Forensics stubs (which has garnered about 30 stubs since last November), Cat:Criminologist stubs (a clear case of parent/child reversal), and Cat:Crime biography stubs (inappropriate). Possibly a "wait and see, tidy and populate or upmerge", though there are enough stub types relating to this topic that one more might just add to the confusion. Grutness...wha? 01:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The stub was recently proposed but we did not reach a clear consensus? See: proposal archive Goldenrowley 04:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry about creating it unproposed, this category is mostly suitable for academic criminology, penology and victimology articles. Also, it can be used for investigative tools, forensic psychology and related subjects. Thanks.

--Cyril Thomas 12:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

These seem reasonable to me, in fact, I like that there is a stub for "the study of crime". What if we merged forensic-stubs and crime-stbs into crimology-stubs, since it is the logical umbrella term? Goldenrowley 04:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me as far as the forensics one is concerned, and it would get it to a reasonable 40-50 odd stubs - as I implied above, it's likely that forensics stubs would have need looking at sometime anyway. A merging of the two would reach a reasonable size. Not too sure about merging crime-stub in to it, though - that might be a more useful parent category for it and various other subcats (like the crime-bio one) as well. Grutness...wha? 03:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think the parent category should stay as it is, criminology is definitely fit to an umbrella term for many categories, still, it's better to seperate forensic science and medicine from the criminology category. Of course, criminology stub could be used as a secondary stub for those articles, including articles deals with forensic psychiatry and psychology, even criminal law, though criminology often acknowledges the descipline is the non-legal aspects of crime. Still, there are many divisions of arts and science criminology tag perfectly fits into, like victimology, correctional administration, police science, penology, law enforcement, criminological psychology, research on crime etc. Thanks for the supporting views.--Cyril Thomas 02:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to keep on the basis of the subcats-that-should-be, but this Needs Work. Alai 06:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 19 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Not sure if this quite qualifies as a stub template... Probably speediable as strange and unused. Alai 02:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's speediable, and if not, definitely SFD fodder. Any page which simply has {{stub}} needs "placing a more exact stub template where the stub currently exists in this article", so it's redundant. Also the pedant in me rankles at "I.E." Grutness...wha? 02:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, attached to a WikiProject - in fact, the only category this one has is a WikiProject category, so it at the very least needs a stub category. Currently has eight stubs, of which about half are bio-stubs. Certainly not currently at the viable stage even with WikiProject presence. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 10 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Update: Now links to 52 articles. Seems decent enough as there's a Project. Keep. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

Empty, unproposed, stub type that would be a subtype of Cat:clothing stubs, which at ~500 stubs is splittable, but not badly in need of splitting. Suggest we take this to SFD to upmerge to a somewhat broader {{footwear-stub}} / Cat:Footwear stubs if we want to split clothing by the categories of Cat:Types of clothing, as I'm not certain if shoes will have 60 stubs but I am fairly certain that footwear will at the vey least be close to 60.

Is that you, CW :)? Upmerging seems to be a good idea. Grutness...wha? 09:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There's 30 on the basis of permcatting, so could actually be populable. Upmerge if no one manages/bothers. Alai 06:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 4 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Update: Links to 10 articles. Kathleen.wright5 22:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC). Now that it has been Stub-Sorted there are now 31 articles Kathleen.wright5 23:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Unproposed, redlink category, used on just two articles - seems like overkill and is badly named too (we don't have single-stubs, we have song-stubs, and we also don't divide out "indie" songs from the rest, as the dividing line of this subgenre is just too subjective). Looks remarkably like SFD-bait... Grutness...wha? 02:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• No, we also have {{single-stub}}s; oversized cats of them, in fact. And we split albums into {{indie-rock-album-stub}}, etc. Keep if popula/ble/ted, upmerge if not. Alai 06:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected. Odd - why would we have both song-stub and single-stub? Seems like the two cover very much the same ground. Yes, I realise not all songs are released as singles, but it still sounds like the sort of articles which would attract the same groups of editors - and many of the "single" permcats have been subsumed into "song" ones over the last few months. Grutness...wha? 05:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure there's any deep thinking behind it; we've ended up with both, hence we've started splitting both. (The original single-stub was created by someone who never even ended up with a talk page, and it went to SFD at the start of 2006 and survived.) WikiProjectwise they'd both be covered by the Songs people, we could ask them if they have any feelings on that. Of course, if we merged them both we'd have yet more re-splitting by decade, genre, and whatever else to do, but other than that... Alai 00:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Update: Links only to userpage and WPSS discussions. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

Seems quite a reasonable split - if there are the numbers for it (which there may be, though the current one stub there doesn't necessarily guarantee that it will be followed by 59 more. At least the parent cat has enough articles to suggest that it's likely). The template has the largest stub icon I think I've ever seen, and the category has no valid parents, stub or otherwise (apparently, the category is a template, but that's all it is!). If kept, those items will need tidying up, but an upmerge may well be in order anyway. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Biggest stub template image I ever did see: 75px... on the short side. Shouldn't that be -ism, rather than -ist, to match the cat? Other than that, and the "small matters" G. mentions, sensible enough in principle. Cleanup, move, and possibly upmerge. Alai 00:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I wondered about the -ist/-ism thing, too - but it looks like most of our religion templates work that way (T:Anglican-stub/C:Anglicanism stubs, etc). Grutness...wha? 06:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Update: Links to 2 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Probably a reasonable idea for a stub type, if there are the necessary number of stubs. Would be nice if it had a category, though... Unproposed, and currently used on just one article. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Never proposed, no category. I can't see any way this is going to get within cooee of threshold - Cat:Newspapers published in Afghanistan has only four articles, so I doubt there are 60 stubs. May be better to upmerge it than to delete it outright, though. Grutness...wha? 10:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if its only 4 newspapers from Afghanista, then a generic Newspaper stub should be used. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I created that stub template. I'm sorry, I didn't know that there was any formal procedure for making them. Basicly, I saw the "Asian-Newspaper-stub" template and modified it for Afghanistan. Go ahead and delete it if I did something wrong.--Kirby♥time 00:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 3 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Created today, 22 April 2007, as a subcategory of Category:Aromatic compound stubs. Currently populated with 4 stubs (there are 56 in the parent category). I don't know anything about aromatic compounds, so I can't speak to this category's potential, but I'm bringing it here for your consideration. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 4 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

• {{Scotland-footy-goalkeeper-stub}}
• {{Scotland-footy-striker-stub}}
• {{Scotland-footy-midfielder-stub}}
• {{Scotland-footy-defender-stub}}

All created in the last 24 hours, along with their respective categories, shortly after Italy was split in this way. Italy was proposed for this split since the parent category was very oversized, and it must be admitted that the Scottish equivalent is also fairly large. Probably a good split. Grutness...wha? 07:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep We've recently split France and Italy this way with a proposal to split Brazil the same way currently unoppsed and all three categories were/are smaller than this one is. Waacstats 12:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep - category is larger than Brazil etc. WATP  15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The categories look rather small to me. Three of them have a mere 20-30 stubs. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Update:
• {{Scotland-footy-goalkeeper-stub}} - 59 articles
• {{Scotland-footy-striker-stub}} - 103 articles
• {{Scotland-footy-midfielder-stub}} - 160 articles
• {{Scotland-footy-defender-stub}} - 171 articles
• Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, though a logical split. Not convinced yet that it will reach threshold - if it doesn't upmerging of the template and deletion of the category would make sense. Grutness...wha? 07:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction - it seems that it already has over 50 stubs, so threshold worries seem assuaged. Looks like a keeper. Grutness...wha? 07:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

Created earlier today without proposal, and has 28 stubs. I'm pretty sure that a similar stub type has been rejected in the past, though - though not with this exact title - since it was already satisfactorily covered by {{Med-org-stub}}. Suggest an upmerge, with a deletion of the category. Grutness...wha? 07:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Contains 28 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerged

Unproposed. Currently redlinked and used on just one article. An upmerge candidate, most likely... Grutness...wha? 01:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and upmerged it. Not much work really since the creator never gave it a proper category. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Contains 9 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was taken to sfd for deletion or upmerge

Unproposed, redlinked category. We normally split tertiary institutions by location, though we do have {{Lawschool-stub}} and {{Seminary-stub}}. This is part of that second-dimension of splits, and may be quite a reasonable one, but if kept, it should probably be renamed to {[tl|Businessschool-stub}}, since X-school-stub is used exclusively for schools - i.e., primary, intermediate, and secondary institutions. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the point on format, I agree that it should be reformatted to read Businessschool-stub instead of business-school-stub. The only reason I did not set it up like that originally was that it had so many s's in a row. Business schools are professional schools, comparable to law school or medical school, and would help to coordinate schools of a similar nature. I'm not sure how to formally submit this for review, could you guide me as to how to submit this for review and change the format to businessschool-stub? Thanks! Muchris 13:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This stub has been to SFD twice before in January 2006 and March 2006. The first one ended as no consensus and the second time it was deleted due to its small size. Things have improved in a year, but it's still marginal according to Stub Sense. It reports 121 stubs in the first 500 articles (with no more stubs found if one increases to the max 4000), but once one eliminates false positives from faculty, there's only around 50 business school stubs. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 2 items and is upmerged to Cat:Business stubs. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Update: still upmerged, unused. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Created around a month ago. I've cleaned up the code. Potentially useful I guess. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and create cat - A quick look at transclusions for {{Palestine-bio-stub}} shows about 25 relevant articles. I also see about 75 articles currently tagged as {{Palestine-stub}} that are actually biographies. That would put about 100 articles in Category:Palestinian people stubs, leave 100 in Category:Palestine stubs, and leave 250 in Category:Middle Eastern people stubs. There are undoubtedly {{MEast-bio-stub}}s that could be restubbed as well. So, I propose full stub and category. — jmorgan (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Mentioned by the creator on the stub list talk page. Currently used on three stubs. Well formed template which effectively acts as a custom redirect for {{horror-novel-stub}}. I'm a little leery of the small size, as the parent has only 120 stubs, but the scope is clearly defined and Cat:Horror does have subcats for zombies and vampires in fiction. Recommend that we keep and list as a redirect. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Doesn't look well-formed to me (like most of the "novels" templates, in fact), and there's no Cat:Zombie novels. I'd be more inclined to delete. Alai 16:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• I would agree that it should go - but for reasons of volume - I don't think this will ever be large enough to be warrented. Also I don't know that many consider this a separate genre. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirected to gastropod-stub

Newly created, and a bit of a case of putting the cart before the horse. Mollusc-stub isn't yet at a stage where it requires further splitting, and if it was, surely creating Cat:Gastropod stubs would make far more sense than leaping in to create a subtype of it. There is, BTW, a gastropod-stub - it was created then moved to this "correct name" and now redirects to orthogastropoda-stub. There also isn't a Cat:Orthogastropoda - there is, however, a Cat:Gastropods. If we want to split the molluscs, then I suggest that deleting this and replacing it with a more widely-scoped gastropod-stub would be the way to proceed. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• My apologies, I wasn't aware of the "new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals" ruling. I created the gastropod-stub, then moved it when I realised I was only working with Orthogastropodas and not also Eogastropodas. As there has been a trend lately to remove the Cat:Molluscs from Orthogastropoda pages I assumed people didn't want them appearing in the mollusc category so was doing what I could to change the situation. There are numerous articles, with more coming, in the Subclass Orthogastropoda so was doing some forward thinking.

The guidlines ask:

1. Is there a stub for this topic already? *No
2. Will the new type be well-defined enough to help editors identify articles that they have the expertise to expand? *It will narrow the field from the generic Molluscs to the true snails which is a narrower field to concentrate on.
3. Does the new stub type cover ground not covered by other type, or create a well-defined subtype that does? *It creates a well-defined subtype that is not easily confused with the larger type.
4. Will there be a significant number of stubs in this category; are there enough article stubs to warrant this new type? *There are at least 75 articles currently classed under Category:Mollusc stubs that would fall under the new stub type.
5. Would your new stub type overlap with other stub types? *No
6. If you are breaking a subcategory out of a pre-existing category, will the new stub reduce the size of the parent category by a significant amount? *Absolutely

Again, my apologies. Good day. Nashville Monkey 03:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: just noticed that Wikipedia:Stub states

{{guideline}} so is not in fact a policy as I was led to believe... Just an observation on my part. Nashville Monkey 03:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oookaaay. let's tackle a few of your points one at a time:

1. My apologies, I wasn't aware of the "new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals" ruling - Apology accepted... but please note that much of what you quote above is in the very next paragraph on from the notice about proposing stub types, at Wikipedia:Stub#New stub types. It's also at several other places on the same page in big red letters, and at the top of most stub categories.
2. As there has been a trend lately to remove the Cat:Molluscs from Orthogastropoda pages I assumed people didn't want them appearing in the mollusc category - Well, did you consider that they have been removed from that main category because they are already in a subcategory of it? It is silly to have something marked in the main part of Cat:Molluscs if they're in a subcategory of it. Currently it appears that orthogastropoda articles are in Cat:Gastropods, which is a subcat of Cat:Molluscs.
3. The guidlines ask: Is there a stub for this topic already? - yes there is - Cat:Mollusc stubs, which is far from needing a split. It is not normally the case that a stub category is split if there are only about 300 stubs in it (though I'll admit that point isn't spelt out at WP:Stub, where it perhaps should be).
4. As to it being a guideline rather than policy, yes it is, but guidelines are there for a very good reason, and I stand by my comment that new stub types should be proposed prior to creation because of that fact. Most people consider making new stub types a form of being bold, not realising that being bold is actively discouraged when it comes to templates and categories, since they take considerable work to fix if there are any problems with them. Problems such as, for instance, making a stub type which may at first seem reasonable but which on closer inspection has problems with its format or scope (such as creating a subtype rather than a more useful, more broadly scoped type, or accidentally creating a stub template with the wrong name and having to move it to a new name. Or making sure that the new stub category has a parallel permanent category associated with it). Consider, too, that the people who need to know about stub types in order to be able to use them are the people who do the stub-sorting work. Without knowing that a particular stub type exists, a parallel type could easily have been proposed and created by someone at WP:WSS, leading to even more work setting things straight once your stub type was discovered. And without knowing about orthogastropoda-stub, how would we be expected to use it for stub-splitting in the first place?

Grutness...wha? 04:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Point taken Nashville Monkey 04:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As to your point #1 the Stub page is where I got it, after you pointed me to it. Nashville Monkey 04:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Grutness...wha? 11:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• With 75+ stubs you've identified, there certainly is a case to be made for a {{gastropod-stub}} if you're willing to take the time populate it. So while {{Mollusc-stub}} is not in dire need of splitting, but there is no problem if as in this case, someone is willing to take the time to populate it. Rather the question is whether going directly to the subclass and bypassing the class is desirable here. Given that the other existing subtype of {{mollusc-stub}} is {{cephalopod-stub}} which is at the class rather than the subclass level, I'd say it would make more sense to start with the class and break that into smaller groups if needed. Given what is already done, I'd recommend making the primary stub here be {{gastropod-stub}} / Cat:Gastropod stubs with {{orthogastropoda-stub}} feeding into Cat:Gastropod stubs as either a redirect of {{gastropod-stub}} or as independent template upmerged to share the same category as its parent until such time as there are enough to stubs to have both {{gastropod-stub}} and {{{orthogastropoda-stub}} be well populated. Given the way the gastropods are organized and their current state of flux in that organization, I'm not certain that breaking up the class at the subclass level instead of the order level if future splitting should be needed (which given the number of gastropod species is certainly a possibility). Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay Caerwine, what do I need to do now? Nashville Monkey 07:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• I can live with that, too. Grutness...wha? 11:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the stub types' creator agrees to the changes, theoretically it can be speedied - but I'll wait a day or so in case there are any objections (if so, make them here!) It just means reversing the redirect, making a new category and deleting the old one. Grutness...wha? 11:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hopefully I haven't screwed things up, I've already reversed the redirect and made a new category: {{gastropod-stub}} / Cat:Gastropod stubs so all that is needed will be for {{Orthogastropoda-stub}} /Cat:Orthogastropoda stubs to be deleted. Nashville Monkey 11:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, that's fair enough. The 24 hours was just in case - to be honest, I doubt anyone will object. Grutness...wha? 12:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Completely done with the sorting, 188 stubs retagged as "Gastopod-stub" thanks for the patience. Nashville Monkey 19:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • S'alright - sorry for grumbling in the first place! The orthogastropoda stubs category's gone now, BTW. Grutness...wha? 04:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Is it too soon to get it listed at WP:STUBS? Nashville Monkey 07:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Given that the stub has been amended after debate here to something which the members of WP:WSS (or at least those who took part in the discussion) find appropriate as a stub type, I don't see anything wrong with listing it. Go for it :) Grutness...wha? 11:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Done deal. Nashville Monkey 16:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

Unproposed. Mismatch of category and template names, permcat parent for the category that the template is really named for has only seven articles, so getting the required 60 stubs seems a remote hope, to say the least. What's more, Cat:Hip hop stubs is pretty well split as it is, with no cat or subcat of it with over about 160 stubs. Likely deletion material. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Prior to this circumstance I was unaware of the proposal policy for stubs. If you truly think there is no need for the stub, then you can delete it, but there are many Christian hip-hop groups on wikipedia, and I am sure that many of them are likely stubs. --Merond e 13:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Empty category. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

A nascent WikiProject's first act - make a stub template. Unproposed, of course, and with all the usual problems associated with state-road-stub naming. Strangely, the edit summary says this was created in lieu of creating a WikiProject page, which makes little sense. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I'd like to apologize for not going through the normal proposal protocol. Honestly, this is my first time developing a new WikiProject page, so I wasn't aware of the issue with that. In regards to its usefulness, there are over 100 Delaware State Routes, many of whom, while not created as of yet, will be part of the new WikiProject's job to upkeep and manage. (hence the "in lieu of" statement). See, there is no WikiProject Delaware yet (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Delaware), and I'm in the process of creating one. Since this type of article would fall under this project's jurisdiction, it would be necessary to identify its place as a stub of our project. Template:Maryland-State-Highway-stub and Template:New-Jersey-road-stub are just a few examples of other State WikiProjects (and sub-projects) having their own stub templates for their highway systems. I just felt it appropriate, seeing as there is none currently in existance, for one to be created for Delaware. If anyone objects, please let me know why. Otherwise, while I once again apologize for not following the correct procedure (and please check my contributions, as this is the first stub template I've ever made) and won't make that mistake again, I definitely feel this temp is warranted and necessary if the WikiProject's to become successful in fulfilling its goal of maintaining all Delaware-related articles. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 02:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I should have said "in prep of"...that was bad grammar on my part, so again I apologize for the confusion. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 13:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem with not knowing the procedures is probably because you made the stub before you made the WikiProject (all the details about coming here first are in {{wikiproject}}). As far as problems with the template, it's just that we have a hotch-potch of state-road-stubs and State-Highway-stubs which we've been trying (without too much success) to rationalise and make into a uniform system. If there are likely to be enough articles (30+, since there's a Wikiproject), there shouldn't be too much of a problem with having some form of stub for Delaware's roads, though you might want to consider a WP-specific talk-page template, since they are often more use to individual wikiprojects. I wondered about the "in prep/lieu of" :) Grutness...wha? 04:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool; thanks for the understanding and the tips. This WikiProject's just getting underway, so it'll be a little while before we get our act together, but it'll definitely be 30+, so it'll be worth it. And I'll be sure to take your advice about setting up the secondary project. Let's just get off the ground first, though ;-) EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 13:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 1 item, upmerges to Cat:United States road stubs. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Now links to 53 articles and is nicely upmerged to Cat:Southern United States road stubs. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

Newly created. never proposed. Considering that Cat:Lingayatism has only 16 articles, there is scant chance of this getting within cooee of threshold. Links into an odd stub category (Cat:Karnataka stubs, rather than a religion one). Grutness...wha? 05:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I didnt know there was a process to go through before creating stub templates. Yes, I know there are not many articles at the moment, but potentially there can be many more. Please let me know what the threshold is. Sarvagnya 09:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The usual threshold is 60 currently existing stub articles (see the top of WP:WSS/P). Grutness...wha? 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Now contains 11 items; permcat has 17. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Update: Cat:Lingayatism now has 18 articles, 11 of which are in Cat:Lingayatism stubs. I suggest the template be upmerged to Cat:Hinduism stubs. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete or upmerge

Newly created, unproposed. Links to a non-existent category (which is named "British" rather than "United Kingdom"). At least there is a reasonable chance of this one reaching threshold, though since Cat:Explorer stubs has only 270 unsubcategorised stubs in total, it'll be a close-run thing. Grutness...wha? 05:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

• The category name is perfectly sensible despite the aversion some here have about using the standard used on the permcats for categories about people. After all it will be child of Cat:British people stubs and of Cat:British explorers. It is way past time we stop the petulant, childish, stub sorting snobbishness of asserting that the permcat conventions are absolutely wrong, but rather than trying to change them, we'll just do things our own way here because we know best. Can this project expect others to adhere to its standards concerning naming when we pointedly refuse to abide by those of the whole Wiki where applicable? Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Hm. A couple of points there: Firstly, I did not realise the parent was at British people stubs - I thought it was at united Kingdom people, hence my initial comment. Secondly, as to your other comments, which strike me as a little harsh, may I point out that I am one of several Wikipedians who have been trying to change many of the permcats over. "British" is wrong - it implies that people from Northern Ireland (who are not "British") should not be included. Similarly, "Amerian" is wrong, though in common (incorrect) usage, since it implies that anyone from the Americas can be included, which they clearly cannot. Both United States and United Kingdom are commonly used as adjectival terms as well as noun terms, and there is no reason why these cannot be used for both permcats and stub cats. This is one of several reasons why more and more permcats are changing over to "X of Foo" style as opposed to the older "Fooian X" style. "X of Foo stubs" does not, however, make for a grammatically satisfying name, hence our usage at WP:WSS of Fooian, where this is unambiguous, or simply Foo X where such a term is an acceptable alternative adjectival usage. Grutness...wha? 07:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I am an American, not a United States. I'll grant that using American as an adjective where concepts other than nationality are involved can be ambiguous, but that's not the case for how we generally indicate people. I have no insight as to how the Northern Irish view being considered British other than it's likely tied up in the same idiocy of Unionist/Republican that affects so many other issues there. As for X of Foo stubs it is grammatical, and while needing context to settle the issue of what Foo modifies, I doubt anyone would interpret Explorers of the United Kingdom stubs as a category for Wikipedians who search though the United Kingdom stubs for articles to improve and the same can be said of other stub categories that could potentially use the X of Foo stubs form. Also to my ears is not as grating as using "United Kingdom" as an adjective, which to me sounds like an unnatural effort to find something to use instead of "British" despite the obvious logical parallel with "United States" which would not grate my ears to the same extent. But since we're talking about English and not Loglan, applying rules of logic that would also lead to France musicians, Germany geography, and Asia history instead of French musicians, German geography, and Asian history is off point. Lastly, while I realize now my earlier reply may sound as if it was directed towards you with its somewhat churlish tone, that was not the intent as I had a different target in mind for my churl, but in an attempt at semi-civility, I chose to not include a specific name,tho I suspect the target I had in mind will recognize my intent. Caerwine Caer’s whines 08:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - fair enough about the aim of your comments. As to the N.I. point, I should point out that Great Britain is the island which contains England, Scotland, and Wales, hence the problem with "British". Even unionists might have concerns with that description. And I'd hardly say that you can say that logically you'd need to use France, Germany, etc as adjectives, any more than saying that if you use American and German then you should logically use Britannian and Francan. Since "United States" is an accepted adjectival form - as is, albeit to a lesser extent, United Kingdom - then there's nothing to stop it being used. France and Germany are not used adjectivally in the same way. Let's face it, it's perfectly reasonable to have something named the US Navy or the UK Independence Party, but I'd find it unlikely that you would have the France Air Force or the Germany Football League. Grutness...wha? 09:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links only to WPSS discussions; still no category. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Update: still unused & redlinked. It appears the creator is OK with the possibility of its demise, so I propose we delete it and take up the naming issue when the need arises. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed - created and populated within the last 24 hours, to the tune of 48 stubs. Possibly useful, though the category needs shaping up (no parents of any type, stub or permcat). Could be useful, though Cat:Bowed-string musician stubs is hardly over-full. A likely keeper, but an upmerge is still plausible. Grutness...wha? 04:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• A definite keep on the template, and I suspect that there will be enough violinists who aren't notable for playing other stringed instruments to make the category a keeper. However a quick look indicates that the creator has been adding rather replacing the bowed-string template to stub articles. No way an article should have both templates. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Update: Now contains 73 items; keep. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

This rings a faint bell, but I don't see it listed as a stub type, proposal, or discovery... Somewhat under-full. Alai 19:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If it had been proposed, surely the template would have been made camelcaps like the category? Grutness...wha? 21:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Now contains 53 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Update: and now down to 17 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Isn't listed at WP:WSS/ST. Used a lot. Ignorant of procedure here, so listing and leaving! Splash - tk 21:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It was proposed, but for some reason it wasn't added to the list when it was finally made. Grutness...wha? 21:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename

Newly created (unproposed). Possibly useful, but the template will probably need renaming - at the moment it sounds like a very small stub... Grutness...wha? 22:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Stub about nanotechnology . --Altermike 22:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That's my point exactly. So surely it should be nanotech-stub, not nano-stub (which sounds like a very small stub). Grutness...wha? 02:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Grut. Also, there is only one article in this category... Altairnano. I'm sure there are plenty of other nanotech stubs out there, already listed as technology stubs, instead. I would suggest that AltairNano should probably be listed under business stubs, as well. This stub category seems like it may be useful, if someone would take the time to hunt for other nanotech stubs (probably not going to be me, however). Also, the picture for the template looks a little screwgy. It needs a size adjustment. Probably a better picture would be C60 (buckminsterfullerene), since the discovery of that compound set off the nanotech industry trend (some businesses have begun to use the nano- prefix even when they are indeed using macro- technology). Fuzzform 21:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Still only contains 1 article. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

There was a debate about splitting fest-stub a while back, to make a separate stub for holidays, but there was no decision taken at the time (partly because the number of separate stubs for holidays and festivals were difficult to extricate from each other). Now someone (well, User: Some thing, actually) has decided to make such a stub. Possibly useful, but we need to be able to ascertain where holidays finish and festivals start. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

i made this stub specifically, to aid in the efforts of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Holidays. holidays is a more umbrella term that can be inclusive of festivals but need not be posted on holiday articles that are obviously festivals, in which case one could use the festival stub, IMO.Some thing 09:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The main problem is with ovewrlap. I agree that splitting holidays out from festivals is a good move, if we can come up wityh some rationale that makes it clear which stubs go in which category. As I said, there was a proposal something to this effect last year, but we never canme up with an easy split IIRC. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

“a feast or festival is a set of celebrations” observing a cultural issue, while a holiday or “holy day” is a day of significant meaning. A festival can therefore be as short as an hour and as long as a month but a holiday will always be 24hrs and without necessity for outdoor celebration. The issue here is that holidays are sometimes observed with festivals so the names are used interchangeably. admitting that the majority of popular festivals are in observation of a holiday, i suggest in the case that the word “festival” is in a holiday intro as a central observation of the holiday that the festival-stub takes priority over the holiday-stub. Some thing 23:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

further more User talk:Maverick423/Wikiproject:Festivals has attempted to categorize festivals as exclusive of holidays altogether. "Includes Community festivals, State festivals, and National Festivals that are not considered holidays". in this case holiday stub would be given priority. Some thing 13:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Contains 25 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Update: contains 39 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep One of two unproposed stubs created today by Willow. This one may be useful, if there are the required number of stubs - which is unlikely since there are only 37 articles in Cat:Archaea and its subcats. A more general prokaryote stub might be more useful and more likely to reach a sensible size. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Every day I'm amazed at the number of processes Wikipedians have managed to create. 'Required number'? Anyway, the MCB and microbiology projects are planning to substantially expand coverage of recognized taxa, so this will probably have many more articles in the near future. Opabinia regalis 03:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, required number. You did read WP:STUB, I take it? That mentions that there is a required number, and why. I'd still be inclined to upscope it to prokaryotes. If there will soon be more articles, all well and good - but if they don't eventuate, don't be surprised if this one gets nominated for deletion at some point. Grutness...wha? 05:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the general recommendations in that guideline. I suppose we've got our {{shrubbery}} now, but I don't know how it isn't obvious that a group of organisms with their own taxonomic domain ought to have a stub category. Opabinia regalis 01:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was either get the shrubbery or have lots of people going "Ni!" Sure, something with its own taxonomic domain deserves a stub type - assuming there are enough stubs. At the time this was brought here, not only were there only a handful of stubs, but there were only a handful of articles in total. It doesn't make sense to have stub categories cut down to unmanageably small sizes, for the sake of editors and for the sake of maintenance. Grutness...wha? 05:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Grutness, please let me apologize for having transgressed our community norms. I was innocently unaware of the proposal process; it never occurred to me that there would be a problem with making a much-needed stub. It was not an act of defiance, but of ignorance, and I hope that you will forgive me for it.

There is definitely a need for this stub. I've created Wikipedia pages for 151 Archaea taxa higher than species that are not presently in Wikipedia, which I'm about to start uploading. That falls within the 100-300 limit specified on WP:Stub, right? Once I start creating the archaeal species pages, that number will grow further. This stub fills a significant gap in the presently available taxonomic stubs; aside from the bacteria and the eukaryota, the archaea are the third major branch of life. Willow 06:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There are now 31 articles tagged with {{Archaea-stub}}, which exceeds the established threshold of 30 articles; this stub is associated with the Microbiology WikiProject. In addition, there are still 20 archaeal families to upload, plus a host of genera and species. I hope that these data satisfy the concerns about the usefulness of this stub-template; thanks! :) Willow 10:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Grutness, there are now 66 articles tagged with {{Archaea-stub}}, which exceeds the higher threshold of 60 articles for stubs that have no sponsoring WikiProject (which is not the case here). Please let me know whether your concerns have been addressed; thanks! :) Willow 20:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, given that there are now plenty of stubs, it seems reasonable to keep this (unless there are any objections). BTW, the 30 for a WikiProject is for a basic stub for that WP (in this case, that would be something like microbiology-stub). But since there are 60, there's no problem with that. Good work, BTW! Grutness...wha? 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was send to WP:SFD

The other of Willow's stubs, though, is far less likely to get within cooee of threshold. To be honest, I can't see any use for it at all, so unless there's something I've overlooked, this is potentially SFD material - especially if it is intended to cover what the category says (for any articles with a taxobox), which machetes its way straight through the stub hierarchy. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Some explanation is in order here, too. I created this stub before I hit upon the idea of making the more specific {{Archaea-stub}}. Its purpose was to give a "catch-all" for taxonomic stubs that weren't covered by other stubs and WikiProjects, rather than using the general {{biology-stub}}. I do not believe that our present taxonomic stubs — even with {{Archaea-stub}} — cover the whole tree of life, so it's convenient for, say, the hundreds of starfish or diatom species not yet in Wikipedia. If you insist on proof to avoid deleting this stub template, I will generate and upload >100 Wikipedia pages on starfish, but I'd much rather finish the Archaea first; will you grant me some time to do that? Thanks very much! :) Willow 06:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Starfish would be covered by {{invertebrate-stub}}, and diatoms by {{protist-stub}}. I believe the tree of life is sufficiently well covered by stub categories to enable what remains (if indeed there is anything) to be treated under {{biology-stub}}. --Stemonitis 09:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• I see the sense of that, Stemonitis, and thanks for alerting me to the appropriate stubs. It'd be helpful for me to know the maximum number of stubs in a category, before that category should be split. For example, suppose that there were roughly 900 starfish stubs sorted under {{invertebrate-stub}}; that might suggest that we should make an {{Echinoderm-stub}}, right? It would be nice if there were fixed quantitative criteria according to which one could make a sub-stub template without having to go through a week-long vetting process. For example, if there are over, say, 200 stubs in a single taxonomic phylum or class, can I assume that I'll be allowed to make a sub-stub template for them? Thanks for your time and thought on the issue, Willow 10:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Most likely, yes, though proposing it first is still recommended, just to see whether a better scope or naming is possible (and it's only five days now, not a week). Often, though, that process will just rubber-stamp anything that's an obvious split. The usual maximum for a category before we really look hard at splitting is about 600 stubs. Above that size and it begins to get difficult for editors to wade through. Having said that, we still have several stub categories well over the 1000 stub mark in the process of being split up. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Contains 9 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

ISTR some talk about this one, but I'm pretty sure that it was rejected as a possible split, due to the lack of stubs. Yet here it is, created yesterday. Admittedly, excluding orders and medals Cat:Exonumia does have about 320 articles, but the questions remain as to how many of them are stubs and how many of them are already covered elsewhere. Currently has two stubs. Grutness...wha? 05:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Here's the discussion; there was no consensus, and the category now contains 22 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Now has only 17 items. I suggest we upmerge the template. Her Pegship (tis herself) 06:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep Created a couple months ago, only 21 articles. Eli Falk 13:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• This was proposed and accepted in October. Waacstats 12:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename metabolism-stub?

Unproposed, badly named, badly formatted, inappropriate wikiproject message, no category at all. Moderately-well populated, but I'd wonder if it doesn't cut across existing stub types. Then again, all plans to reduce {{biochem-stub}} in size are worth considering... Alai 19:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly a subset of the intersection of Cat:Biochemistry stubs and Cat:Cell biology stubs, so I wouldn't mind placing it a child of those two. It marks only 33 stubs at present, but luckily since there is an associated wikiproject it needs only 30, so take this to SFD for renaming and give it an appropriate parentage (including existing permcat Cat:Metabolic pathways). If it weren't for the wikiproject I'd suggest upscoping to Cat:Metabolism stubs, but maybe a discussion with the WP would get them to consider upscoping their project as well. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 32 articles, but still badly named and doesn't link to any category. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was taken to SfD Never proposed, some issues with the way the category is formed, but seems quite reasonable, if there are enough stubs 9which at the moment, is still doubtful). Grutness...wha? 06:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 11 items; I have proposed a change at SfD. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Created one month ago. This template was below the 60 mark, but an editor has given it a distinct category anyway. It is at 45+ so I doubt it is worth the while upmerging it again. Valentinian ^{T / C} 12:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Contains 52 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was list on WP:STUBS

Unproposed, but probably useful, if there are the required number of stubs, which - judging by Cat:Syria stubs - there may well be. The category will need renaming, though (should be "Syrian people stubs"). Grutness...wha? 04:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Trust me, there are a lot of stubs for this category. Stub-related work is not my thing, but I created this as part of WP:SY and I believe it is a vital stub category and is used widely in other countries ({{Germany-bio-stub}}, {{Scotland-bio-stub}}). You're right about the category though, I've created another category and tagged this one for speedy deletion. Give it sometime and this category will be filled with stubs. - Anas ^talk? 11:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • OK - I've speedied the earlier one. Be warned, if this doesn't get to a reasonable population in the next couple of months it may yet be proposed for deletion, but I'm pretty sure you're right, there seem to be quite a few Syrian bio-stubs around. Grutness...wha? 12:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Don't worry — I'll make sure it gets populated by tomorrow. Thank you! :-) - Anas ^talk? 12:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It is 70+ now. Keep. Valentinian ^{T / C} 07:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was reverse redir or rename