Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/January

January 1[edit]

{{ESA-stub}}/‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:European Space Agency stubs, also ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:NASA stubs[edit]

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

Relisting this, since it was closed as "no consensus" - something rarely if ever done at SFD. The original debate is at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/August/17. The earlier debate ended with two calls for keeping and three of upmerging. The situation has changed little since that time - in tyhe last five months neither category has moved close to meeting the required threshold for a stub category (the larger of them is at only 41 stubs). We also now have the very first - and hopefully only ever - stub category redirect, since the original category of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:ESA stubs was perplexingly made into a redirect. I repeat my earlier suggestion, to keep {{ESA-stub}} and {{NASA-stub}} but to upmerge them into a new category of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Space program stubs, at least until such time as they are big enough to stand alone - something which they have not achieved even after five months of scrutiny. Grutness...wha? 04:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support sounds like a great plan. Waacstats (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge until they reach the required threshold. twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 22:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 5[edit]

{{Squash-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Squash stubs, {{Squash-bio-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Squash biography stubs[edit]

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 squash, keep squash-bio

Seems like a reasonable idea to have templates for this sport, though the categories may well be premature - there's no sign that these are likely to reach threshold at the moment - even given the presence of a WikiProject - so they may need to be upmerged. There is, however, a major problem. Squash is a dab page, so the template should not be called {{Squash-stub}}. Suggest renaming the templates (and not keeping the current names as redirects) to {{Squash-sport-stub}} and {{Squash-sport-bio-stub}} and - unless the required number of stubs can be found quickly, upmerging both. If kept, the parenting of the categories will need massive improvement, too. BTW, {{Squash-stub}} also uses that horrible Asbox thing, so will need recoded properly. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, The sport seems to be the primary topic, so i've mvoed the article there. No need to rename the templates, but there still may be a need to upmerge them. Grutness...wha? 01:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though the -stub mey not yet get any where near threshold. 91.110.88.4 (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? That boils down to "Keep despite meeting the criteria for deletion"! Grutness...wha? 00:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 20:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Squash biography stubs could quite easily be brought up to size, the ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Squash stubs may be more difficult. Waacstats (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make that a strong keep of the bio cat as it has over 60 articles. Waacstats (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Arteyu (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - that one's fine, then - it's just ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Squash stubs that's a concern now. Grutness...wha? 05:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say keep but I've been through the category and I can't find anymore articles that would be suitable for a stub tag so Upmerge till we get close to 30 (wikiproject and child cat) which given that it is a new wikiproject might not be that long. Waacstats (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Orienteering-org-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Orienteering organization stubs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete - superseded by new proposed types

Unproposed, and of very limited use. The piping on the template is bewildering and the category needs better parents, but the main problems are the lack of suitable parents. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Sports organization stubs is not oversized}}, we don't even have an ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Orienteering stubs, and there is no such category as ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Orienteering organizations (with either spelling). The nearest appropriate permcat parent is ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Orienteering clubs, and even if everything in that category was a stub it still wouldn't meet threshold. Just not needed or practical. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Create, and shift this to, Orienteering-stub, if that is supportable; otherwise delete. Radagast (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not fully aware of policy when creating it and did not know that a formal proposal had to be initiated I agree with moving it to Orienteering-stub as suggested above .安東尼 TALK ^圣诞快乐 18:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A stub template for WikiProject Orienteering might be useful, but this template is a very narrow subset. I think its purpose would be better served using the CategoryIntersect tool.[1] (For the record, I do not approve of creating Wikipedia articles for every orienteering club, especially not stub articles; that is too close to using Wikipedia as a directory.) --Una Smith (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- As a follow-up to this nomination, I've proposed an orienteering-stub at WP:WSS/P. I doubt there'll be much (if any) objection to it. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - support deletion of this (having already supported -stub and -bio-stub}. 91.110.88.4 (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 20:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

{{Dalit-stub}} (no category)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was 'delete'--Aervanath (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unproposed, and definitely seems to be an inappropriate way to split stubs. If the Dalits were an ethnic group, it would be questionable but borderline, but this is a split for an Indian caste. The first paragraph of the article Dalit tells you instantly why it would be very problematical to have this as a stub: a self-designated name for "a mixed population of numerous caste groups [who] speak various languages [and who are] impossible to differentiate [...] on the basis of phenotypes or genetics alone" We don't have separate stub types for individual social groups in general, especially not self-designated ones - it would run directly across the stub hierarchy and make for multi-stubbing for the sake of multi-stubbing. Most of the things that this stub could possibly be used on have far more appropriate stub types available. What's more, the template itself is a problem, with no stub category of any kind (it links to a permcat) and with an inappropriate link in its text. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:First of all, sorry, I was unaware that formal proposal has to presented and accepted before a stub type gets created. I have learned that now and would follow the same in future. multi-stubbing for the sake of multi-stubbing was definitely not my intention, but to help improve the coverage of Dalit articles. Dalits are not ethnic groups in India but a huge section of society that is not properly sorted on WP. Indian caste is such a huge grouping that it would be impossible to properly sort articles under them. Also, it is not at all difficult to differentiate if an organization or individual is a dalit or not. It is not at all ambiguous - but quite clear. This would not create confusion, but instead clear up the idea for any reader. I have also corrected the category problem mentioned by you by creating a sub-category Category:Dalit community stubs. This would put the articles under Category:Dalit > Category:Dalit community > Category:Dalit community stubs. The Dalit category page currently does not have any sub-category of stub articles. Hope this helps and let me know if anything else needs to be corrected. --GP Pande 07:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; though an important topic, not suitable for a stub type, mainly because stub types follow clearly definable geographic or cultural guidelines, rather than caste or social status; you are right in saying that Dalits are part of many cultures and regions. If this area of WP needs organization, I suggest you use the permanent categories for now. Also, may I observe that though the definition of what/who is Dalit may be clear to you and many others, there are enough people whose opinions differ on the topic to make this a difficult type to assign and sort. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said - it is an important topic and stub types follow clearly definable cultural guidelines which both qualify to "keep" this stub-type. There are so many bio & organization stub articles on Wikipedia which are not categorized as Dalit-stubs because there simply isn't any category. You did not explain why to delete? You said definition of Dalit is clear to me and many others - but enough people otherwise. It is very rare to find 100% consensus on any matter in Wikipedia. You suggested me to use existing categories but did not explain why the stub-type should be deleted? The concern regarding category has also been addressed. --GP Pande 07:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was saying that I agree that the topic is important, but since that isn't a criterion for stub type creation, it is "not suitable for a stub type, mainly because stub types follow clearly definable geographic or cultural guidelines, rather than caste or social status". Sorry for any misunderstanding. Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um yes she did. Dalit makes it clear that this is not a clearly definable geographic or cultural group in stub terms. She also pointed out that the definition is hazy enough that definitions would differ between different individuals - making this a very difficult stub type to work with. Peg also said: "Dalits are part of many different cultures and regions", which is true. As such, this stub type would be difficult to maintain and would run contrary to the way stub types are normally split. Those two reasons in themselves are enough reasons why this stub type shouldn't exist. Grutness...wha? 23:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per the criterion -

Is there a stub type for this topic already? (Check Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types.) Answer:No
Will the new type be well-defined? (Stub categories are a tool used by editors to expand articles. Good topic definition makes stubs easier to sort accurately.)Answer:Yes, Category dalit is well defined. Use similar logic for sorting stub articles of Dalit.
Does the new stub type cover ground not covered by other type? Answer: Yes
Will there be a significant number of existing stubs in this category? (Ideally, a newly-created stub type has 100-300 articles. In general, any new stub category should have a minimum of 60 articles. This threshold is modified in the case of the main stub category used by a WikiProject.) Answer: Yes, if we categories articles we should surely exceed 100. Someone needs to spend time and add category to various pages.
Would your new stub type overlap with other stub types? (Stub types form a hierarchy and as such are usually split in specific ways. Compare other stub splits at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types.) Answer: This stub type clearly fits into the hierarchy and does not have any overlap.
If you are breaking a subtype out of an existing type, will the new creation reduce the size of the parent by a significant amount? (This is not an absolute necessity, but is often a catalyst for the creation of stub categories. Stub categories containing over 800 articles are typically considered to be "over-sized", and in need of such sub-types.) Answer: Not applicable as no existing subtype category has been split.

I hope I clarified all concerns with regards to rules. --GP Pande 08:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does clarify that you still don't see some of the problems:

2. Will the new type be well-defined? Definitely not. The article Dalit makes it clear that there is no simple definition of Dalit and that Dalit people are self-defined. I could call myself a Dalit. So could you. Someone who is considered Dalit by you might not regard themselves as such.

3. Does the new stub type cover ground not covered by other type? No. All the articles which could be covered by this stub type are already covered by other stubs.

4. Will there be a significant number of existing stubs in this category?: No way of telling at present, but it seems highly unlikely. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Dalit and all its subcategories only contain 127 articles (including redirects). A random sampling of these indicates that only 30-40% are stubs. that would give far fewer than the 60 required stubs for a stub type.

5. Would your new stub type overlap with other stub types? (Stub types form a hierarchy and as such are usually split in specific ways. Compare other stub splits at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types.) Very clearly and very strongly. Dalit-stub would, by the looks of it, cover a large number of nation-specific bio-stub, poli-stub, party-stub, history-stub, and reli-stub types.

6. If you are breaking a subtype out of an existing type, will the new creation reduce the size of the parent by a significant amount? These are not part of an existing stub category, as stub types are not split according to social hierarchical type - examination of the stub types indicated in point 5 should show this clearly. Splitting on such an axis runs contrary to normal stub-splitting practice.

If you think you have satisfied these guidelines, it is highly recommended that you propose the new stub type at stub type proposals page. This allows for debate on matters relating to the stub type that may not have occurred to the proposer, and also allows for objections if the split does not satisfy stub guidelines. If there are no objections within five days, you may create the new stub type. No such proposal and debate took place. if it had done, there would undoubtedly have been strong opposition to it for the reasons given above.

Hopefully, this clarifies why, according to WP:STUB, this stub type shouldn't exist. Grutness...wha? 10:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that my good faith efforts are not justified. You guys are the gurus in area so I would not further discuss this. Just wanted to say sorry for the trouble it may have caused and withdraw. I would take prior permission before creating stub types in future. --GP Pande 19:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 9[edit]

Canoer → Canoeist[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename

Per recent changes at CFD, which saw all "canoers" categories renamed to the more widely-used term "canoeists", rename:

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Canoer stubs → ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Canoeist stubs
‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:German canoer stubs → ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:German canoeist stubs
‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Hungarian canoer stubs → ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Hungarian canoeist stubs

Grutness...wha? 06:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename All per nom. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T^C 20:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thought we had already changed these, never mind Support. Waacstats (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 11[edit]

{{Japan-sci-stub}} (upmerged)[edit]

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 deleted by author

Unproposed and split along an un-useful axis. We don't split science stubs by the location of the science - science is worldwide and - theoretically at least - crosses all national borders. Instead, we split by the (topical) area of study. Unless there's a specific scientific topic which relates only to Japan, it makes no sense to have this stub type. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you don't like the name of it, then propose a new one. WP:JA needs a way to differentiate between Japan-related stubs, and this one deals with science topics in Japan. See what it's being used for and you'll see. Just because you aren't going to use it doesn't mean WP:JA won't use it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The name's no problem. It's the template itself which is the problem, which is why proposing a new name for it would be no use whatsoever. Perhaps if WP:JA had proposed it in the proper way, better solutions would have been suggested, such as a specific talk-page template specifically for the use of that WikiProject - which is a far more sensible solution, since not just stubs but all articles relating to science in japan could be marked by it for work by your project. Simply creating it as an unnecessary stub type (which it is, given that these items can easily be marked with the hardly overtaxed {{Japan-stub}}) is not the way to go about things. This is still redundant to existing stubs - especially since it's an upmerged type - and therefore unnecessary. As to "it's okay, WP:JA will use it", that's not an explanation of why a stub type should be part of the overarching stub system for all editors. Use by members of a WikiProject alone is another indication that you should be using a talk-page template instead. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: (ec x ∞) As you noted, this stub feeds into Category:Japan stubs. However, upmerged stubs are hardly unnecessary and hardly redundant. It is being used to sort those stubs into more useful groupings. And your comment about "use by members of a WikiProject alone" is an invalid argument. WP:JA members are likely 95% of those using this and related Japan templates. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's exactly my point. If WP:JA are the people using this template, but it's not being used across Wikipedia by all editors, it doesn't belong in the stub scheme. The stub-templates are not WikiProject-specific. I repeat - if only your WikiProject is using them, (unlike most of the Japan-related stub templates, BTW) then you'd find that talk-page templates are far more useful to you than stub template. That's why such talk-page templates exist. If something is primarily used by just one WikiProject, then it should be in the form of a WikiProject-specific talk page template, not a stub template. Grutness...wha? 00:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Where do you get off owning stubs? If a project wants to use a stub to sort things, I see no reason to smack them down. And I fail to see how a talk page template could be any more or less useful than a stub template. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Excuse me, but it is you who seem to be claiming you own this stub - 95% of the users of the stub type will be from WP:JA? That is not what stub templates are. They are for use by all editors, across all of Wikipedia - they're not the pet property of your project. As for you failing to see how a template that can rate all related articles - stub, start, C, B, A, and FA - for your project is more useful than one which can only mark stubs, well, if you can't see that, then I'm sorry. Grutness...wha? 05:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I never said no one else could use them. Rather, I said that 95% of those using them would be from WP:JA. I'm not failing to see anything. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Good - I'm glad you're no longer failing to see anything, because in your earlier comments you clearly did. After all, a stub template marks stubs and may or may not move them into a stub category - no more, no less; a talk page template marks all articles related to a subject, can move them into a group of separate categories depending on the status of the articles, can be accompanied by annotations detailing what work is needed to be done on each, and can be tailored to the specifications of different work-groups within a WikiProject. Under the circumstances I'd be amazed if you hadn't realised how much more useful one would be. But now that you no longer fail to see how much more useful a talk page template would be for your project, perhaps you'll agree that this can be deleted. Grutness...wha? 21:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Stop being an arrogant ass. A talk page template would become far too complicated if it had to handle all the possibilities presented by all the related stub templates. It would be insane to program them all into one template, and that's why stub templates exist. If everything handled by stub templates could be handled by talk page project templates, then we wouldn't have any stub templates. It is much better to use small stub templates to sort stub articles than to use unnecessarily-large talk page project templates to attempt the same feat. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Calm down a minute and look. You said you could see failed to see an advantage. I pointed out loads of advantages. You then said you're not failing to see anything. The only possible conclusion from that is that you now see the things you failed to before. No-one has said these things need to be programmed into one all-encompassing individual template. Nor is there any justification whatsoever for the idea that stub templates only exist because wikiproject-specific templates don't cover all eventualities. If you think that, you completely fail to grasp the difference between templates intended for use primarily by individual wikiprojects (i.e., the talk page ones) and those which deliberately remain independent of specific-wikiprojects (i.e., stub templates). Your confounding of the two seems to be at the root of your failure to understand why creation of this particular template was incorrect and unnecessary. Grutness...wha? 22:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I can see it's useless trying to explain my thinking behind it as you can't seem to grasp anything I say as it is. The stub has now been deleted as there's no point in continuing this discussion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a departure from stub hierarchy, which is indeed by discipline; this would set a confusing precedent. Perhaps {{Japan-scientist-stub}} could be used for some of these. Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for pointing that one out. I hadn't been aware of it before. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you'd proposed this, someone would have pointed it out. Grutness...wha? 22:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even knowing about it now, I don't see how there would be any overlap. I never thought scientists should be included under this stub anyway, and I never placed this stub on any scientist articles as far as I remember. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Phraseology-stub}} (redlink) --> {{vocab-stub}}[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete

basically an unproposed duplicate of {{vocab-stub}}. Redlinked category, and both the article whioch use this are borderline AfD material for moving to Wiktionary anyway. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 22:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Geographical term stubs → ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Geography terminology stubs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename

Straightforward rename to match both the parent permcat and other "Foo terminology stubs" categories. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 12[edit]

{{Hero-of-Russia-stub}}[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete--Aervanath (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An unproposed stub type, with a non-standard name (this is not a subtype of {{Of-Russia-stub}}). Also, similar types have either been deleted or opposed prior to creation in the past (ISTR Zscout390 proposing this particular stub type about two years back), since being awarded an honour isn't necessarily a good way to split stubs (it makes far more sense to split them by occupation, which is how country-bio-stubs are normally split). At the very least this needs a rename to {{Hero-Russia-stub}} or similar, but outridght deletion is also probably worth considering. Grutness...wha? 22:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't split by award so delete. Waacstats (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I am working on User:Russavia/Hero at the moment, in getting a complete list of all 750 Hero of the Russian Federation recipients onto WP. Every single one of these people is notable, and in many cases their notability comes from being given this title. And every single one of them has a story to tell, above and beyond the title they have received. Not all recipients are military personnel, and not all recipients are Russian -- there are Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Ukrainian and even American people who have had this award conferred upon them. As one can see from this list, a vast majority of these articles do not yet exist, however, this is changing. User:Ellol has created some stubs already, and in talking to him, he has said that he will be helping with creating more as time goes on. And I will also be doing so. Given that there is a massive amount of articles to be created on this single topic, with 750 articles in total, the stub type is absolutely valid. Stub types are there first and foremost to assist editors. Others may not agree, but for editors who wish to edit in this area, now and in the future, the stub type is absolutely essential in helping editors to identify which of these are stubs and need expanding. Usefulness to editors who are editing in this area is more important than any stub guidelines, which by the way does not state that we don't stub by awards, or anything else. How useful the stub type is to editors is the only factor which should be taken into account. Renaming to {{Hero-Russia-stub}} is fine, but I absolutely oppose deletion on the basis of wikibureaucratical nonsense. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definite keep There's a giant massive of information on Heroes of Russia, and it may well be supposed as this information gets introduced into Wikipedia, at some point there would be tens complete articles and hundreds stubs. A template for Heroes of Russia stubs (whatever the name of template) is quite essential because it will be vitally important to help the editors navigate across perhaps hundreds of articles. ellol (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- That soubnds like every good reasons to have a WikiProject and associated talk page assessment systems in place. It's not, necessarily a good reason to have a stub template, and certainly not a good reason to have a stub template that crosses just about every category of Russian biography, nor to have one thaat sets a precedent for other astub types based on specific awards. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Russavia and Ellol. KNewman (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support creation of permcat and/or assessment template; delete stub type per Grutness & Waacstats. Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Grutness, Waacstats and stub sorters across the globe.--TM 02:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While classifying people by award seems to be (and is!) a logical approach on its own, it is, however, simply not compatible with the way the stub sorting project works. First of all, implementing a new stub type without first proposing it may fly when the logic is obvious and in line with the rest of the stub sorting scheme, but here we obviously have an example of a new stub type that, while logical in its own right, does not work well as a part of the big picture. Second, we should not be forgetting that the stub sorting project covers the entire Wikipedia, and that it aims to facilitate the stub maintenance, not to serve as a parallel tool for the classification of articles (for that, we have categories, lists, assessment notes, etc.). Finally, I should note that here we have a well-defined, fairly stable set of articles (750 of them). While 750 is a large enough number to substantiate a category, a (properly defined) stub type, etc., we should not be forgetting that stub sorting is not a goal in itself. Of 750 articles in scope, a great number of them are still red links. Yes, this is changing, but if one is planning to work on this area, the number of the actual stubs will be changing as well as articles get expanded. Surely the intent isn't to have 750 stubs forever? They will grow, and at any given time only a certain subset of them is going to be sortable stubs. In the meanwhile, classification of stubs using existing means (by occupation?) works just as well, without having to compromise the integrity of the stub sorting system.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:54, January 21, 2009 (UTC)

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

{{Manchester-hospital-stub}} → {{GreaterManchester-hospital-stub}}[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename

One of those terrible right hand doesn't know what the left hand's doing things. Waay back when, this was a discovery - at {{GreaterManchester-health-stub}}. Back then, standard stub naming was "Manchester-x-stub", so it was renamed. Since then, we've changed all other stub types to "GreraterManchester-x-stub"...so this one needs to move again. Luckily it's only used on a handful of articles! Rename, preferably losing the redirect. Grutness...wha? 06:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename may be worth keeping original as redirect but not particularly fussed. Waacstats (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Manchester-school-stub}} → {{GreaterManchester-school-stub}}[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename

As above - standard is now to use "GreaterManchester-foo-stub". Rename, preferably losing the redirect. Grutness...wha? 07:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename may be worth keeping original as redirect but not particularly fussed. Waacstats (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 13[edit]

Central Africa stubs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename per nom

"Central African" can mean "of the Central African Republic", in the same way "South African" can mean "of the Republic of South Africa". However, all of these stub categories refer to the region known as Central Africa, not to CAR specifically (though CAR is in Central Africa). To clarify the meaning of these and to differentiate them from the CAR stub categories, these should be renamed to "Central Africa XXX stubs", in the way that Central Africa geography stubs is already named. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Makes sense. A bit of a fudge, but given that the demonym for CAR is officially "Central African", either this or a change to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Central African (region) Foo would be a good move. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Washington stubs and others[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename

All non-stub categories that refer to the U.S. state of Washington were recently renamed at CfD from the format "Washington" to "Washington (U.S. state)". Now nominating relevant stubs in Category:Washington (U.S. state) to conform with this format as well. I don't see a need to change the template names, but others who know more about stubbing may have better opinions than mine about this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would make sense to keep it consistant. It should be noted that this would be the second state in this format, the first was Category:Georgia (U.S. state) school stubs with the template format being {{GeorgiaUS-school-stub}} Dbiel ^(Talk) 22:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the only reason the template name is likje that is to distinguish it from a Georgia not in the US. If we were to do something similar with the templates here, {{WashingtonState-X-stub}} would be a more sensible way to go about it, and in line with similar overseas distinclions (e.g., {{BaselCity-geo-stub}}). IKt might be worthwhile changing those over as well, but it's less important than the categories, IMO. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, the conflict here is Washington State and Washington DC Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move as nominated I don't like the move, and I really don't think it's necessary, but it's definitely not a big deal (definitely not against policy :-), and why keep the stub categories named differently than everything else? Most importantly, move because there's a consensus that the category names should be changed, and I'm loth to say that the decisions reached at CFD should have no effect on categories discussed here. Nyttend (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Ornithischian-stub}}/‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Ornithischian stubs and {{Sauropodomorph-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Sauropodomorph stubs[edit]

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 sauropoda, del ornithischian as undersized, not required, & misformed

For once, beign unproposed is actually a major reason for something being here, rather than just mentioned in passing. {{Ornithischia-stub}} (the name at which {{Ornithischian-stub}} would be if it were correctly named) was opposed when it was proposed for creation two years ago, for good reasons which still apply. The ambiguity of the fossil evidence is a major factor in particular why the Orinithischian stub type is likely to be a problem - certainly enough of a problem that it needs serious debate before any suggestion of it being created - it would certainly need a visit to WP:WSS/P rather than a unilateral creation.

The sauropodomorph category I've largely listed here because it was created by the same editor at the same time, so it makes sense to bundle them together for debate, though it too has problems, as mentioned below.

As to the mechanics of the stubs, the templates seem fine, but the categories are severely lacking (no permcat parents, only one stub cat parent, and no listing in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Stub categories). The one parent, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Dinosaur stubs is not in need of splitting in terms of size, though there is at least some indication in the 320 articles in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Ornithischians that it may have some use if there are enough stubs (which has yet to be proven). There is, however, no ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Sauropodomorpha, which is perhaps surprising - it's two main subtypes, sauropoda and prosauropoda both have their own categories, so it would make sense if there were (a stub type for it would also be in line with the existing one for theropods). Perhaps the solution here is mroe a non-stub one, in the creation of such a permcat. Without it, there shouldn't be a stub type, but I'd like some input from WP:WikiProject Palaeontology and other related groups before creating in. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but from what I can tell most of your objections are problems you could have solved with considerably less effort than it took to list those templates here in the first place. To respond to your points, though:

If the ornithischian stub template is improperly named, why didn't you move it?
I didn't see any compelling arguments there. One of the big ones was that people would have a hard time spelling "ornithischian." Honestly if you can't spell ornithischian you shouldn't be editing dinosaur articles here anyway, and I assume the reason we sort stubs is to make it easier for editors to potentially destub them, correct?
Just because not all dinosaurs can be easily, with 100% confidence classified as a Saurischian or Ornithischian does not negate the fact that hundreds and hundreds of them can. I would say that easily 95% of them could be. The dinostub cat isn't going anywhere, there's no reason not to list more basal or chimerical forms there, especially considering how few there would be.
If the stub templates need some categories why didn't you just add them?
There were nearly 350 articles in the dino-stub category. That strikes me as enough to split considering that the stub proposal says that new stub types can be proposed for pages with one fifth of that quantity and implies that even smaller stub types wouldn't be forbidden.
There are more than enough stubs to justify their creation, considering that most of the more than 200 remaining dino stubs will end up in one category or the other.
I had no idea there wasn't a sauropodomorph category. I've started it, though, so it doesn't really matter.

Sorry if I sounded grouchy, but I really would have liked to have finished this, or come close to doing so, before the day was up. Abyssal (talk) 07:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to your points one by one:

The renaming would normally require the deletion of the old name. that isn't done without consensus for such a deletion at WP:SFD.
The fact that such a stub template has been rejected in the past is in itself a reason why it should not have been created. Admittedly the spelling reason is not a particularly good reason, but the other reasons are weighty enough.
The fact that "hundreds and hundreds" of dinosaurs can be allocated with some certainty of an ornithischian category does not mean it can automatically be created wsithout debate, especially since - as pointed out - it has been rejected in the past.
There is no point adding stub categories or other categories if they are likely to be deleted. They will be added if the consensus is to keep them.
The standard stub category size before splitting is deemed appropriate is 800 stubs. A minimum of 600 stubs is usually needed before splitting is contemplated, as is explained at WP:STUB.
Emptying the basic stub category to populate subtypes is not in itself a good reason to create thise subtypes, especially when, as pointed out, the basic category is nowhere near the size at which splitting is normally considered useful.
I hope you consulted otgher people working in the area of dinosaur-related articles before creating the Suropodomorpha category - as pointed out at WP:BOLD, extreme caution should be taken before creating new categories.

I am also sorry if I sound grouchy, but following standard procedures on this sort of thing saves a lot of effortfor others in the long run, and it would have been very useful if you'd done so. Grutness...wha? 10:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Good number means about 60 articles or more, or 30 or more if it is the primary stub type of a WikiProject, though this figure may vary from case to case." Sounds like my "hundreds and hundreds" would have fit the bill just fine. Abyssal (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Hundreds and hundreds of dinosaurs" is not the same as "hundreds and hundreds of existing stubs which do not already have a more acceptable stub designation." In any case, the number of stubs is irrelevant if the other points aren't met. It would be perfectly reasonable - to take an extreme example - to say that since we have hundreds (no, tens of thousands) of stubs with names beginning with A, we should have {{A-stub}} for them. Numbers alone are not sufficient reason for a stub type. Grutness...wha? 23:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs starting with A is not a useful or natural grouping. The ornithischia and sauropodomorpha are both. Your argument was a straw man. If you don't want the category to be split, fine, I give up, you can revert the changes. I don't care, I was just trying to split it up so that the groupings would be smaller, more specific and thus better suited for potential editors to form goals aimed at destubbing them. If you think that leaving the category as a bloated amalgamation of several hundred articles on ecologically and anatomically very different animals is more conducive to their being destubbed, then I will defer to your wisdom, however mysterious it may seem to me. Abyssal (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying I don't want it split up. In fact, I was the one who proposed ornithischia-stub when it was previously proposed. B ut that proposal was rejected, and as such this requires debate. As to the category being "bloated", standard stub categories are,m as stated at WP:STUB optimally at between 60 and 800 articles in length. This isn't a bloated category by some distance. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Let's see if anyone else has any comments. :) Abyssal (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 14[edit]

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Book art stubs[edit]

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 withdrawn nom - keep

The template has existed quite happily for a year and a half and has garnered nearly 20 articles in that time. Today, someone decided - without proposal and despite the fact that 60 is the required minimum - that there were enough stubs to de-upmerge the template and create a new category. Delete category and re-upmerge template. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've been hoping someone would find enough items to give this its own category. There are now 61 items and a sub-cat; please may we keep? Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wheee. 0 to 20 in 18 months, 20 to 60 in a few hours. OK, seems like someone's decided to work backwards and make a category then fill itl rather than populating the template then proposing a new category. In that case, a keep looks far more sensible. Grutness...wha? 23:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Translink-stub}}[edit]

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 del per nom

Incorrectly named, unproposed, redlinked template for stub articles relating to TransLink (South East Queensland). - a subject which has no dedicated permcat and which, judging by the article's whatlinkshere (and removing all the - already properly stubbed stations), is going to struggle mightily to get to the required threshold. Note:In the unlikely even of this being kept, it will need moving to a more apprporiate name, such as {{TransLinkQLD-stub}}, given that the company is not called Translink and Translink is a dab page. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i would like to see this stub type kept so it can be used to easily sorted articles that are stubs as part of Wikipedia:Translink mattythebatty (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC) ps.sorry for not proposing[reply]

Delete As per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Translink. SEO⁷⁵ ^[talk] 12:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Other related categories to Rail and Buses can easily sort this. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 00:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep help catorgize with the new wikiproject about translink and keep the existing catorgies aswell to make it easy to stub the articles about translink 144.131.194.66 (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC) — 144.131.194.66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. i could also just implement this template to be housed off wikiproject page mattman (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC) sory for forgeting to log on[reply]
- No you couldn't - it's a stub template., They're not part of wikiprojects, they're for use across the entirety of Wikipedia. BTW, please don't !vote twice. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no what i mean is other projects have stubs linked to them like wikiproject brisbane and australia mattman (talk) 07:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Those projects may use the {{Australia-stub}} & related templates, but they were created independently of their projects. If they create their own talk-page banners, that's independent of the stub-sorting project. Delete as related to project space, not article space. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is what i mean to have that stub for that type of stub for the translink seq articles also another coment is that the rail and bus stubs are too general as it covers the whole of australia not just queensland or southeast queensland mattman (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 15[edit]

{{Europe-museum-stub}}[edit]

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

When ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:European museum stubs was created, it was deliberately created as a parent-only type, taking stubs from country-specific templates. Unfortunately, an editor has decided that a europe-specific template is needed, despite the fact that it would get virtually no use (are there any museums in Europe that aren't in a European country?), and was deliberately not created earlier. ~~Delete~~. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep for the time being, but renominate at a later date. This will at least make a useful template temporarily, until such time as templates are made for all separate countries. The long-term aim should still be to make it redundant to individual country-specific templates, however. Grutness...wha? 23:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of museum stubs that deal with museums that are in Europe, so "no use" is a ridiculous claim. Are all European museums in France, Greece, or the UK? I think not. This was simply common sense- I will populate the category if you should wish; you might do so yourself if deleting weren't the easier decision. I have a user name, you know, and as such I find your tone offensive. Lithoderm 00:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no intention of deleting the category. There is an intention of only of deleting the template because it was specifically NOT to be created. At one time WP:WSS did create continent-wide templates, but we found out the hard way that these were not useful, and that it saved a considerable amount of work to create templates by country and not by continent. Once such templates are created, this template will indeed have no use, except for those museums which are in more than four countries in Europe (since up to four individual stub templates may be used on an article). I would be interested to know how many stub articles we have on museums in five or more European countries.

Why don't you indicate that in the category? What was I supposed to think of this:

This category is for stub articles relating to museums in Europe. You can help by expanding them.
To add an article to this category, use {{Europe-museum-stub}} instead of {{stub}}.

when the link to the template was red? Shouldn't it have been something more like this:

This category is for stub articles relating to church buildings in Europe. You can help by expanding them.

Not everyone spends all of their time here tagging stubs. If you don't make these things clearer in the categories, you're just setting yourself up to be misunderstood. As I have said below, I will follow your arcane procedures in the future, if I sort any more stubs at all. Lithoderm 19:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gah. That damned bot that changed the category headings is a menace. Most of them are picked up with Special:Missing templates - somehow that one must have got missed. In any case, the box above that one says:

This category is maintained by WikiProject Stub sorting.
Please propose new stub templates and categories here before creation.

... which should have made it clear that new templates should be proposed, to confirm that there are no concerns with them. Grutness...wha? 22:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you had proposed this template, it would have been turned down flat, since the standard current way of creating such templates for a continental category is to create specific by-country templates. Check other similar categories, such as ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:European church stubs, and the subcategories of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:European sports venue stubs. Similar splits have recently been proposed to extend the by-country stub types for films, scientists, business biographies, and military personnel, among others. These do in one or two cases have euro-specific templates, but these were old, early templates and are no longer used on many or any articles. Instead, standard practice now is NOT to have such templates, since they eventually create more work, as they inevitably mean an article will be restubbed twice rather than just once. If you wish to propose country-specific templates, then they will be far more useful and save considerable amounts of work both for yourself and for other stub sorters. Certainly the idea of populating the category with this template is an extremely foolish one, as every article that is marked with it will have to have it removed and replaced by a country-specific template as soon as such templates are proposed and approved - something likely to happen in the not-too-distant future. As to my tone, I don't know why you would consider it offensive - it would surely have been far more offensive if I had called you out by name and said here who it was who had created this, rather than leave your name anonymous. It also made no difference to the nomination who had created it, so why name you? Grutness...wha? 12:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've only gotten through K so far, but there are more than enough articles in the category to justify keeping the template. Lithoderm 01:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE STOP!!! This is not the way to add stub templates to articles on specific things within one country in a continent, as all of these are - all you are doing is making a ton of extra work for yourself that you would be better off expending elsewhere. In cases like museums - and similar structures - we rarely if ever have continent specific templates. We have country specific templates, and a range of these should be proposed (indeed, they would likely be speediable, as similar templates have already been made for several countries. Unless you can show me good evidence that any single one of the museums marked is in more than one country, there is no need for a continent specifiic template and - as pointed out in this nomination - one was specifically not made when the category was approved. All you are doing by adding this template to articles is creating extra work for yourself, by adding what will only bee a temporary stub type to each article. Consider this - Johnbod has suggested a German stub type. Fine, one would very likely be approved quickly, since splitting by country is a standard way of splitting museum stubs. Any German museum stubs you have marked with Europe-museum-stub will have that removed and Germany-museum-stub added. Any you do not mark will similarly have Germany-museum-stub added. The only difference between the two is that the work you expended on the first one would have been a waste of time. Grutness...wha? 12:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, even if no other templates were created, you've already wasted a considerable amount of your time - quite a number of the stubs you marked with {{Europe-museum-stub}} are now correctly marked with {{Spain-museum-stub}} or {{Belgium-museum-stub}}. If you'd used the existing country-specific types in the first place, you';d have saved some unnecessary effort. Grutness...wha? 12:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why weren't these categorized under Category:European museum stubs? I might have found them, had they been categorized correctly. I support your proposal as outlined WP:STUBSORT. Please stop treating me like a criminal- had I done nothing, then, well, nothing would have been done, and the country-specific stubs would not have been created. Why was there a redlink to the template in Category:European museum stubs, yet no explanation of why-- and why must this be so arcane? I understand the procedure now, and will follow it in the future. Lithoderm 19:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not treating you like a criminal - I'm simply trying to stop you making extra work for yourself and for others. Yes, you're right that nothing might have been done - now, though it would have been at a future datee. And there's more than one wway to get work moving on a project. Pointing out the problem at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting would have had the same effect but without much of the work or any of the conflict. The redlink I've explained above. As to why some of those stubs hadn't been sorted over yet, there are 150 stub sorters - there are some 500,000 stubs. Have a look at the project's to-do list. It should be easy to work out why some haven't yet been sorted. Grutness...wha? 22:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a Keep to me, though a German category would remove a good number. But I never understand stubs. Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And indeed a German category - and a German template - would have been a very good proposal. Far better than a continent-wide template which will be redundant as soon as country-specific templates are proposed and created. Grutness...wha? 11:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need categories and/or templates for all European countries? There is likely to be a long wait for that. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates, yes - that's the eventual aim, same as has already been done with generic, geography, and some other stub types. Categories, very unlikely. Most will remain upmerged. Grutness...wha? 22:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 20[edit]

{{US-actor/dancer-stub}} and {{US-singer-model-stub}}[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete

Two unproposed types created yesterday, both with non-convention-compliant names, neither with linked stub categories, both with problems with scope, neither with similarly-named permcats, both unnecessary, neither proposed. Delete both (keep neither). Grutness...wha? 01:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Santiago-Metro-stub}}[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete

This unproposed stub type sounds like a reasonable idea at first, but there are some significant problems with it. The template's redlinked. There's no equivalent permcat for ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Santiago Metro. No sign whatsoever that this will reach threshold - without a permcat, it's difficult to tell, but given that the metro's article Santiago Metro seems to have nothing but redlinks and links to fewer than 40 articles, it would appear that there are nowhere near the required number of stubs to go with it. Some form of upmerge into a more general South American rapid transit category might be reasonable, but outright deletion remains an option. Grutness...wha? 01:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 22[edit]

{{Eberron-stub}} / Category:Eberron stubs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete

Recently depopulated through merges, no longer needed. Pagra shtak 16:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair, so long as the depopulation wasn't controversial. I can't find any details of the depopulation on WikiProject talk pages, but if this is genuinely of no further use, then delete. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I depopulated the cat by merging the articles into World of Eberron, so the vast majority of the content was retained. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{NYCapitalDistrictStub}}[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete

I found just one article with this template Fort Nassau (North River) and {{AlbanyCountyNY-geo-stub}} covered that well enough. --Salix (talk): 18:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long time since we've seen a stub that defies the naming conventions quite as comprehensively as this: sections run together without hyphens, incorrect use of abbreviation, capital S in stub. Not a bad assortment for just one template. Add to that that it appears to be being used as a geo-stub (the only items this was on were geo-stubs already correctly marked as such). Unproposed, with a redlink category and split by an ill-defined section of the state (which the article on the subject describes as "an imprecise regional definition") - a state which has its own accepted stub types ({{NewYork-stub}} and its subtypes). While I can see the possibility of splitting geo-stubs, possibly with a geo-stub for the city itself to reduce strain on the state category (which would be a reasonable proposal, given that ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New York geography stubs is pretty large), the need for a separate stub type of this nature is questionable, to say the least. Appears to be connected to a brand new WikiProject - one whose creator may need to read the section on WP:STUB about why WikiProjects are better off with talk-page templates. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I don't think I've ever been treated so poorly before on Wikipedia. One of the most blatant WP:BITE violations that I think I've encountered personally. I say that because I've never made a stub template before; I didn't even know people cared enough to categorize stubs to this extent. Yes, you were correct in your assessment of me starting a new WikiProject, and since that adds to the project in general, I'd think another user would respect that: I'm bringing together other like-minded users to categorize, quantify, and improve upon articles that we all have interests in. Honestly, your assessment above should bring you shame - you're here to help others, not demean them and I'm nothing short of embarrassed by you. While I admit I've never looked at the criteria for a stub, I am putting forth my time and effort to start a WikiProject (no small endeavor, I assure you) and a stub seemed like a logical thing to include as a template offering in the project. Feel free to delete, but I believe that it can be useful since it includes the fact that it's an area in New York, and therefore a subset of WikiProject New York, which has its own stub template; this is just a more specific reason really. I hope you don't treat everyone like this. Mocking people and being sarcastic in a negative way surprises me, especially from an administrator. Do what you want - I'm now disheartened. You seem to expect only the most experienced stub writers to create them and if that were the Wikipedia way, well, there would be no Wikipedia. I also corrected all your spelling and grammar errors above; you're welcome. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You've been on Wikipedia since August 2006 - I don't really think you qualify under WP:BITE. If you hadn't made a stub template before, surely you had enough experience here and good sense to read up about them before making a template. I know that starting a WikiProject is no small enterprise - it's one that takes time, effort and dedication, but should also take a close observance of how it should be done. As I suggested above, please check out the section of WP:STUB that relates to WikiProjects - which I offered as help to you since it explains why having a stub template is not an ideal solution to the problems of organising articles which fall within the scope of a WikiProject. That is one reason why it is spelt out in {{Wikiproject}} - the framework template you would have used to start your WikiProject - that stub templates should be handled with care and that there are better alternatives. I would suggest several other places to look for information on the differences between stub templates and talk-page assessment templates, and a host of examples of the latter to show their usage within wikiprojects ({{WPBeatles}} is a good example). I'm sorry that you feel embarrassed by what I wrote, although I'm at a loss to see why - all I did was correctly describe the template and the usage to which it was being put, which I did accurately, as it is almost a copybook example of poor naming and of dubious scope. I also offered help by suggesting an alternative way of reducing the size of the category this is being split from. As to whom I expect to create stub templates, the answer is anyone - as long as they have had them checked to make sure there are no problems with them, and as long as the instructions are followed to make sure they're created properly. As to the spelling errors, that's what arthritis does for my typing ability, I'm afraid. The "grammatical errors" you mention I've restored; they were deliberate stylistic licence in informal writing. Grutness...wha? 23:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, Wadester, that's a lot of assumptions. No one is attacking you personally. G is evaluating the template at face value without assuming any intentions, feelings, or abilities on your part; while he may sound acerbic, his suggestions are essentially useful. There are several stub types approved for creation to diffuse ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New York geography stubs, which will happen as soon as I'm done with Texas' 254 county stub templates. And if this is the worst you've been treated on WP, you obviously haven't been as downtrodden as most of the WikiGnomes on this project. Her Pegship (tis herself) 11:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's really not a lot of assumptions. I'm saying that I was openly mocked for trying to help the project. The first half of the original statement made is all about rubbing into common knowledge the unintentional mistakes I made. Oops-I didn't mean them. It most definitely could have been worded more carefully. I really could care less if this stub exists or not; I just thought it was a useful addition to the WikiProject I'm working on. I appreciate critical comments (I really do - see my other contributions), but not in the manner presented. I don't take back what I said - I still feel disenfranchised by this user and I'm disappointed that my product has been essentially satirized by the original statement. I'm not concerned about WikiGnomes because I respect them - they do a lot of what I do to begin with, so they get little sympathy from me; I rarely (if ever?) get attacked for WikiGnome-like efforts (they are typically greatly - if not silently - appreciated). Maybe I just deal with overall nicer people than you do? Either way, this treatment is not typical of the Wikipedia way in my mind. I understand your disagreements, but based on your arguments, I very much disagree with your points. Probably time to agree to disagree and move on. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 07:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's a huge amount of assumptions. You were not mocked at all. All I did was point out that this was one of the most pooorly-named stub templates which we've had here for a long time (which is a fact), tht it had major problems as far as its ucurrent usage was concerned (also a fact), and that its scope was ambiguous (also a fact). You say you rarely get attacked for WikiGnome efforts - perhaps you should return the compliment by not attacking me for making perfectly reasonable statements as regards the template. Note too that the comments were directed at the template, not at you - the only comment I made about you was a suggestion as to where to find the relevant guidelines for stub templates and wikiprojects. Perhaps it's about time you stopped having "little sympathy for WikiGnomes" and started treating them with a bit more respect. Grutness...wha? 20:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Step back and reread your initial comments from the view of somebody that has never read them before. I'll AGF that you didn't mean it the way I interpreted, but it can't be denied that much of that statement can be viewed as sarcastic and demeaning (even if unintentional). I'm aware of the rule of "don't take things personally" but to be honest, I've always viewed that as an easy way to hide from blame in situations where intentions are questioned and called out (like this); insulting my work in a sarcastic manner really is insulting me no matter what the Gods of Wikipedia say. Nobody's going to change my views on that. As I said before, do what you want with this; I really don't care that much about it. On a side note, the aforementioned red links should no longer be red links. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 21:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, lets cool down and think about this. I'm not here to pass blame or even do conflict resolution. You both got out of hand and then a third person intervened with preconcieved notions taking sides instead of pointing out both sides needed to cool off, it is never good for a third party to come in and be seen as "taking sides", that simply makes one party more defencive and creates a hostile environment for resolution of the conflict. First off, G, you could have opened with something a bit nicer than "Long time since we've seen a stub that defies the naming conventions quite as comprehensively as this", that is blatantly inflamatory and perhaps you had a bad day and normally are more tactful, that's what "good faith" is all about and I'm going to use my good faith to believe that about you. Yes, the individual things you mention right after that sentence are wrong and needing to be corrected, as W stated you ARE here to HELP not criticize or mock. If you are think it is ok to be here to mock and you dont think you have to help anyone with anything when you point out something is wrong then you really need to not point out what is wrong with other people's contributions. But as I said I believe you are not that type of person and simply worded things a bit too harsh. W did overreact and take offence (as we all are guilty of, myself almost every day). Which put you in defence mode. Tempers got hot. As for your respect comment- respect is a two way street and being an admin. or having been on wikipedia longer or any other reason one may think they demand respect in the world automatically, does not automatically demand respect from anyone on wikipedia, wikipedia is probably the purest form of democracy that has ever existed, man woman gay straight black white 16 yr old or 81 we all have an equal voice and able to put our opinions out there to be counted equally to anyone elses, there are no intermediary representatives, its truly "one person, one vote" or in this case "one opinion". Where else in history do you see that? If you want respect earn it. If you want my opinion on wikiproject capital district and your statements about its geography boundaries being inexact and things not going through the nomination process, I would like to remind you that nominating wikiprojects to be formed instead of just forming them is preferred BUT NOT mandatory and there is no reason that geographically exact boundaries must be made for a wikiproject that is based on geography of a region. Also, the stub template happened to be put only on geo stubs but that is coincidence and not due to a lack of stubs from other categories that deserve capital district labelling, including people, buildings, bridges, roads, historical events, battles, what have you. The capital district has been continously inhabited by europeans for 400 years, I think W and others can find plenty of stubs related to the CD that arent geostubs. That doesnt mean I agree the stub template needs to be created, not the point I'm making.Camelbinky (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

again, there was no intention to mock, and, re-reading the comments as suggested, I find no evidence of having done so. All I have done is pointed out that the stub type is one of the worst seen here in a long time, which is very much the case, and pointed out where the respective guidelines are. In response, Wadester accused me of WP:BITE, which appeared to me to be trying to hide the fact that - rather than a newbie to whom WP:BITE would apply, he has sizeable experience on Wikipedia. Why he should want to hide that, I do not know, but it degraded his response to me significantly. If he had argued to the points I raised, this would not have got out of hand, but instead he decided that the perfectly valid points I raised were some form of ad hominem attack, and decided to reply in kind. I still do not see why he should have done this rather than defend the template or make suggestions as to how it could be improved. My "respect comment" was a direct response to what definitely appeared to be a lack of respect to WikiGnomes in general on Wadester's part with his line "they get little sympathy from me", something which I found rather appalling. I see he's since removed it from his comments, and can only assume he's thought twice about a comment made, as you put it, in the heat of temper. I do respect Wadester's work on Wikipedia - I was shocked that he even considered my comments some form of attack on him, and still fail to understand how he could be embarrassed by them.

You do seem to greatly misunderstand many of my points about the stub type with your comment: If you want my opinion on wikiproject capital district and your statements about its geography boundaries being inexact and things not going through the nomination process, I would like to remind you that nominating wikiprojects to be formed instead of just forming them is preferred. I have no opinion whatsoever on the WikiProject, other than to say that if there are a group of editors who wish to work on articles about the Capital District, more strength to them. My comments on proposals are only related to the stub type, which is not connected to the wikiproject other than covering the same geographic region. Stub types do require geographically exact boundaries, and there have been many instances in the past of nutting out exactly how stub types should be split to accommodate this fact - as indeed there has been with New York State in the past. All this has taken place during the proposal process for stub types, and has nothing to do with the proposal process or lack of it for wikiprojects. Furthermore, putting the stub tag onto geo-stubs is not a coincidence - it is simply incorrect stubbing. No geographic article should be stubbed with a generic stub tag like this; geo-stub templates only should be used on geo-stubs. My points stand - this is an incorrectly formed stub template for an ambiguously scoped area. As such, it should not exist. If there is a WikiProject working on articles on this topic, they are far better off using a talk-page template as a primary means of categorising their articles, not a stub type. This is all explained at Wikipedia:STUB#Stub_types.2C_WikiProjects.2C_and_Assessment_templates, as I pointed out to Wadester in my initial nomination. Grutness...wha? 23:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I am not a stub person. I note this discussion here, has partly to do with the definition of the wikiproject, which is sort of under discussion with an after-the-fact proposal put up by Wadester in response to my request (Proposal under discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Capital District). It does seem to me to indicate that the borders of the wikiproject's scope should be settled, in particularly with regards to WikiProject Hudson Valley, which claims most but not all of the same territory. Perhaps the borders discussion should be taken forward with the Hudson Valley people (some of them are now members of the new wikiproject and I would think it shouldn't be too difficult to get them to redraw their borders). And drop the stub for now, to be revisited after borders get settled?

My comment still exists; I did not remove it. That comment clearly states I have no sympathy because in doing WikiGnome-like duties, I've never been trodden upon. Indeed even the most arduous tasks seem to be appreciated somehow. I also clearly stated that I claimed WP:BITE because I had never made a stub before (or WikiProject for that matter) and was new (and apparently clueless) to the process. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok...I ended up getting attacked by Grutness and he doesnt think anything was wrong. I will attempt ONE last time to get the point across. After this there is no need to rehash or bring it up again, if you choose to ignore it fine but I have no interest in hearing that you still refuse to understand wiki guidelines towards civility or good faith, I simply wish to stop it right here. While BITE does talk about "newbie" users it is to be used as a guideline for all users towards all users regardless of seniority. To quote from WP:BITE- (Quote) The principle "Ignorantia juris non excusat" (Latin for: "ignorance of the law does not excuse") is incompatible with the guidelines of not biting and assuming good faith. If you prosecute and judge people because they are ignorant of our policies and guidelines, you are in fact violating our policies and guidelines! (end quote) You clearly judged and prosecuted W for being ignorant. W did the right thing when he confronted you, though as I stated he did overreact a bit and did the wrong thing in dwelling on it after you refused to acknowledge your mistake, I most likely am guilty of the same thing by simply responding to you after you refused to listen to my suggestions on diffusing this issue. I say he did the right thing and the wrong thing for as in WP:BITE step 5 of what to do if you feel biten is to "Choose to point out in a reasoned manner any offense taken, and learn to recognize when the message cannot be received. The recipient may be unable or unwilling to accept fault, and it may be better to move on to other things than to dwell on the "bite". " Obviously you were unable or unwilling to find fault, which is why I stated that if you still choose not acknowledge (it doesnt have to be publicly, just in your head is fine) your responsibility in this then I dont wish to continue and I will drop it. This was, whether you see it or not, clearly from the begining to end what is written about in WP:BITE. While he is not new to wikipedia, he is new to this particular aspect and meant well, he did not do anything out of vandalism or laziness or sloppiness. As I stated, and you didnt respond about- YOU are here to HELP if you dont think thats your job then perhaps you should rethink being an admin., and when you claim in your response that you didnt mock even after I singled out your first sentence as mocking..I just cant understand. Your claim is that "its true therefore not mocking" is not only against common human decency of interaction in the real world worst of all it goes against good faith, the tenant of good faith is the cornerstone of a good working environment and good-will among all wikipedians new and old, if any wikipedia guideline is overaching all others it is the tenant of good faith. Both W and G may want to read Wikipedia:No angry mastodons, which is an essay and therefore not a guideline or hardfast rule, but still should be respected. And if anyone wants to end this in a humorous note read Wikipedia:Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them and Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you, both are essays meant as humor NOT as guidelines and are in fact the OPPOSITE of what you should do.Camelbinky (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are thousands of stub templates on obscure topics, and I don't see how this is any different. There's certainly a broad enough scope, and all issues with the template seem to have been addressed. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 05:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Juliancolton hit the nail on the head ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For balance on Juliancotton's vote. I think JulianCotton should support the definition of stubs or whatever for the new/proposed WikiProject New York Capital District or WikiProject Capital District by contributing to redefining boundaries so that WikiProject Hudson Valley does not overlap unnecessarily. doncram (talk) 07:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To unbalance Doncram's balancing Juliancolton's vote. And I still oppose changing the wikiproject name when no one from any other place that claims the Capital District name has complainedCamelbinky (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Doncram, you seem to think the name is JulianCotton when indeed there's a little more colton and a little less cotton. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 07:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh! Oops, sorry about that, Juliancolton. Well, the other issues remain. By the way, Wadester16, does your using NY in the proposed stub name, for clarity's sake here, does it not suggest that u should also revise, in the WikiProject proposal, that the name for the wikiproject should carry New York name also? You acknowledged somewhere that adding New York would be okay by you, but then you have not revised your proposal to note that would be acceptable. It would be nice to make progress somewhere in these multiple discussions. :) doncram (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps discussions over the wikiproject name should be addressed elsewhere, as well as personal issues about who said what to whom and whose feelings/pride were hurt. Meanwhile, please delete the {{NYCapitalDistrictStub}} from stub space, await the creation of geographically definite sub-stubs (like I said, once I finish with Texas), and suggest the wikiproject create a talk-page template to corral articles it deems pertinent. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Nothing against creator, but I really don't see how this stub template is helpful. If we need to split the state into regions, couldn't we just have regional categories with upmerged county-level stubs? I can see how it would be quite useful if there were no precedent for splitting states into regions, and (seeing that the creator apparently was unaware of the standard stub proposal process) I can't imagine that there's anything but good faith on the part of the creator, but given that we have a rather methodical system (i.e. what Pegship is working on for Texas), I also can't imagine how this is superior to such a system being applied here. I make this a "strong delete" simply because, if kept, I think it would put New York rather out of sync with other states that have been subdivided, including Texas. Nyttend (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is how one critically, fairly, and respectfully critiques the work of another person; thank you. In response, regions are very useful because, while I don't live in Albany County, I spend much time there. The 200+ year old border of counties puts me in one place, but economically and socially speaking, I spend much time crossing these borders. At the same time, all those border crossing are irrelevant when you consider I stayed within the Region the whole time. There are only nine regions in New York. Sen Schumer has a good graphic on his webpage, which I have uploaded and show here. Maybe we could create stubs for all nine? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 21:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the big picture of stub structure, the common (and most efficient) practice with country geography stubs is to create templates for each sub-national entity (in this case, counties). Then regional categories are created without template, and the county templates are upmerged to the regional category until each county sub-type is used on a sufficient number of articles to get a county category of its own. This was approved back in October, but no one has acted on it yet (as there is a huge backlog of stub work to be done). See, this is how one critically, fairly, and respectfully proposes templates that will be used across WP among editors in many different projects and interests. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently noticed the addition to an article the geo-stub of Albany County. As I work on many many many Albany and CD articles and have never seen a county level stub, are there now, or going to be soon, county level stubs for each county? If so I suggest leaving out Bronx, New York, Queens, Kings, and Richmond counties as they are coterminous with the five boroughs of the City and I do believe the city already has its own stub. Oh, and of course I have to ask- First, if these stubs ARE new where were they proposed and discussed before being made so I know where in the future to propose new stubs and comment on stubs? I assume that they werent just made first before going through the proper proposal, I would have liked to have commented on them, especially if ones were already made for the boroughs, as I think one for the City is enough instead of individual ones for the boroughs/counties. And second- Pegship mentioned once there are a sufficient number of county articles in county categories then a regional category without a template is made to include the county ones (if I understood her right), in which case can it be explained where to build this regional category for the CD to include the county stub template. I cant speak for Wadester but I can live with deleting the CD template IF and ONLY if this regional category is created to coral all the county stub templates.Camelbinky (talk) 05:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have found the New York City stub template along with stub templates for New York City transportation and New York City building/structure, so most definitely I hope if we are going to a county based geo-stub that it is kept in mind the 5 counties in NYC dont need them. Sometimes people from other states who are working on NY related articles dont always get that, as it seems to be rare in other states for a city to take up five ENTIRE counties, though there are cities that cross county borders (KC, Missouri goes into 6 I believe, but partially, not fully).Camelbinky (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think regional stubs are more useful than county stubs, especially if you defined them definitely, like in the map I included above. Maybe this is just a New York thing; Camelbinky's NYC reference is a good point: you shouldn't reference any of the counties in NYC in stubs. People would laugh at you. And if that's the case, why not do that for the whole state? 9 regional stubs rather than 62 county stubs. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 15:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As reported earlier, these were indeed approved back in October. I'm creating templates for all New York counties (in between slogging away at ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Texas geography stubs); they will all be upmerged to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New York geography stubs until such time as someone proposes a regional parent category at WSS/P. The 5 counties included in NYC have their own templates upmerged to both ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New York geography stubs and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New York City stubs. This is not a perfect solution, because ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New York City stubs is for all things NYC, not just geography. If we had a ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New York City geography stubs, the county templates would be upmerged there. Now as to the regional issue - no one has proposed that on WSS/P. Lastly, the NYC templates are named for the counties because those are their government designations, and in order to be objective, we tend to name templates and categories by their legal definitions, not by local usage. (P.S. How do you know I'm not from New York, or verily, NYC itself? And why would people laughing at me make any difference?) Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that sounded much harsher than what was intended; I was trying to be humorous, not degrading. I meant you more so in the plural you of all Wikipedians and Wikipedia in general, not you specifically. And I meant laugh more in the lines of "chuckle chuckle, this is so specific; somebody must have spent a lot of time creating all this". I didn't realize you were doing the counties in NY. I never would have expected that to be. B/c NYC works so well regionally, I just personally think the whole state works well regionally. I mean Wikipedia is hard pressed to find some dedicated user in Hamilton County, New York that is going to be writing non-stop on articles relating to that county, know what I mean? I'm going to step out of this discussion now; my vote still stands support. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pegship you have verified with your own statement that you most definitely are NOT from NYC and I doubt you are from New York. The statement I am referring to is- "Lastly, the NYC templates are named for the counties because those are their government designations, and in order to be objective, we tend to name templates and categories by their legal definitions, not by local usage." The reason this statement shows you are not a native of NYC or probably the state is that the counties of NYC are NOT governmental designations, there are NO county governments for those 5 counties, ALL state laws and constitutional requirements treat the city of New York's government as the government of authority for doing anything required by a county! Please read up on the articles on each county and on NYC and on the state. Plus as both Wadester and I have commented- the CD template is NOT A GEO-STUB! It is intended for ALL types of stubs in the CD. Until this CD template discussion is decided one way or the other PLEASE refrain from removing stub-templates on CD articles and replacing them with your county ones. The CD template is still valid until this discussion is ended in consensus. It is bad faith and against wikipedia guidelines to treat it as not valid while going through deletion request. I will not revert the ones you have done so far, but any that are done after today will be reverted to whatever stub template it had prior. Being from somewhere other than NY does not disqualify you from working on articles or templates in the state, but if you do not understand the municipal structure of New York perhaps you should let people who do know more latitude. Good luck when you try to do county based templates for New England! Seven counties in Massachussetts alone do not have governments of anytype and are only geographical designations, even the census bureau, which normally uses county boundaries in statistics for MSA's, use town and city boundaries instead because they dont recognize New England counties as legitimate government designations because those states do not either. The fabric of this nation is very very different when it comes to municipalities. Please remember that all consensus "rules" or "guidelines" on wikipedia come with the disclaimer roughly stating- this is commonly accepted guideline, of course there are exceptions and it should be used with common sense. This is a time when common sense instead of strict rules should be used. Oh, and I have never seen a Bronx, or Kings, Queens, or anything county stub anywhere, only the NYC stub template. Before you go and start changing those stub templates to the county ones, I suggest you first ask for discussion and consensus at wikiproject NYC, they are very organized and tend to be one of the strongest and most vocal wikiprojects in wikipedia, I personally wouldnt want to piss off that group.Camelbinky (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not removed {{NYCapitalDistrictStub}} from any article, nor have I made any comments or distinctions about it. I have not implied that it's a geo-stub. I have not changed any ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New York City stubs to to any other stub type; if you see new articles in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New York City stubs it's because I changed them from {{NewYork-geo-stub}} or {{NewYork-stub}} to {{FooCountyNY-geo-stub}} (as I just explained, I upmerged the NYC "county" templates to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New York City stubs). I have changed {{NewYork-geo-stub}} to {{FooCountyNY-geo-stub}} on a few dozen articles, per the discussion I cited (twice) previously. This is all according to the discussion that took place 3 months ago at WSS/P. Now, if you want the NYC template names changed, I suggest you (a) propose a ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New York City geography stubs at WSS/P and (b) a rename of the templates here, to be upmerged to that category. And it is not any of your business guessing at my place of origin based on your opinion of my edits. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you completly lost me on all that! I'm saying there is a NYC stub template, and one on transportation, and on buildings/structures that are used on NYC stub articles, I have never seen any with a county stub template, so please stop with the whole "upmerged" stuff. I do request that you bring any county templates for the five NYC boroughs to a discussion before they are created as I do not believe a consensus will be found in favor of creating them. Please understand THOSE FIVE COUNTIES ARE NOT COUNTIES. To prove my point go to Bronx Community Board 1 it has NYC-stub at on it, not any for The Bronx. Under your point of view it should have The Bronx stub template on it instead of the NYC one. You dont seem to be understanding that or just not believing me. You either didnt read all I wrote or dismissed it because your response had absolutely nothing with what I was trying to inform you about.Camelbinky (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't stop with the "whole upmerged stuff" because it's central to the discussion of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New York geography stubs. I did read all your comment, understood it completely, and am really, REALLY annoyed at being told over and over that I don't "get it". I do "get it", I just don't do it the way you want me to. It takes a lot to make me cry over something as trivial as WP editing and misunderstood stub sorting, but this takes the cake. Now see Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/January/27 and for crying out loud quit hammering at me. Over and out. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see what the January 27 link has to do with this. Please explain to me why there is a NYC stub template that is put on NYC stubs instead of using the county ones you claim should be used. Do you think the NYC stub template should be deleted then? I am not talking about upmerged CATEGORIES of templates, I am talking about stub templates, those things at the bottom of the article that say "This is an article about a stub in New York City, you can help expand it" blah blah blah under your point of view, if I correctly understand you is that it should say "The Bronx" instead of NYC. You have not addressed that very fundamental issue and that could be why you think I am "hammering at" you. I only ask you address issues that I bring up so I can fully understand your point of view. It makes me want to cry as well when I ask for clarification or ask a question or bring up a point and the other person ignores them and talks about something completely different. I would like to know about your point of view on the NYC stub and if it should go away in favor of ones for the individual counties and why you believe the counties should be used if you think that way. I have brought this issue to the wikiprojects NY and NYC, you may bring your explanation to those discussion pages if you wish so you can have your say and defend your point of view. I just want clarification and explanation, who knows maybe I will agree with you, but without all the facts that isnt possible.Camelbinky (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Jan 27 link proposes a rename of the (sorry) upmerged stub types already created, which addresses stated concerns over my "ignorance" of "proper" sub-state entity names. The ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New York City geography stubs would be an additional category, not a replacement, to which those county template would be upmerged. Replacing ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New York City stubs has never been a question, which is why its deletion has not been brought up. Your statement "I am not talking about upmerged CATEGORIES of templates," [there's no such thing as an upmerged CATEGORY], "I am talking about stub templates, those things at the bottom of the article that say "This is an article about a stub in New York City, you can help expand it" blah blah blah" [duh!! is that what we were talking about?!] "under your point of view, if I correctly understand you is that it should say "The Bronx" instead of NYC." " [nope, you don't understand me, it has nothing to do with anyone's POV and I don't know how to explain it more clearly] illustrates a number of misconceptions that I have already addressed. If you don't understand upmerging, which is a time-saving and useful practice, please see the WP glossary. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ARGH! ok, here is a hypothetical and I hope that if you answer this it answers my doubts- I have an article that is a stub, it is in Kings County (which is the Brooklyn borough in New York City), what stub template do I use? Do I put a stub template that says its a Kings County stub or do I put a NYC stub template? Currently people use the NYC stub template. Your opinion on what stub template should be used has been the question all along, I dont know why I dont seem to be understanding your answer. Just please make it a simple answer so I am not confused, for now I must simply assume I am the one not understanding you and I should have "good faith" that you are truly answering my question. Just a simple answer of "it should be the Kings county stub template" or "it should be the NYC stub template" will be good and then we can later get into why one or the other. Oh, and I must apologize for assuming it was you changing stub templates on articles I work on, the user name was "pegship", and with yours being "her pegship" you can see how I got confused. I assume you two are different people with just similiar names. Oh, and since you are proposing changing the names of the five NYC county templates to their borough names you should know that as a borough the name of "Bronx County" is "the Bronx", lower-case t. Please see the Bronx for further clarification.Camelbinky (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the language of the people, "oy." OK:

I have an article that is a stub, it is in Kings County (which is the Brooklyn borough in New York City), what stub template do I use? You use {{KingsCountyNY-geo-stub}}, which for the present will change the stub text to read "This article about a location in Kings County, New York is a stub", but the article lands in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New York geography stubs and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New York City stubs. This is the definition of an upmerged template. Once {{KingsCountyNY-geo-stub}} is used on 30+ articles (since there's an NYC project), a new category, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Kings County, New York stubs, will be formed and the articles will be sorted into that. (If the change on Jan 27 is approved it will be {{TheBronx-geo-stub}} and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:The Bronx, New York stubs. I'll change that accordingly in the nomination.)

the user name was "pegship", and with yours being "her pegship" you can see how I got confused. I assume you two are different people with just similiar names. Actually, they are both me; I changed my signature is all.

as a borough the name of "Bronx County" is "the Bronx", lower-case t. Yes, but in a stub template and category, as at the beginning of a sentence, the word "The" should be capitalized.

Any help? Pegship (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, first off on the advice of Doncram I apologize to Pegship if there has been any bad feelings about this, but I must point out it is ironic seeing as how when I defended Wadester about Grutness's impoliteness Pegship defended Grutness saying there was none, so now I got accused of doing the same thing to Pegship. Kharma and irony. Technically not irony, the definition of irony is not what most people think. Anyways.

Thank you Pegship for finally saying what I wanted said clearly. I understood everything about the categories and upmerging, despite being accused basically of stupidity. I wanted it said out clearly by you, and not me, that the county Kings in this case, should be used instead of the NYC stub template. BECAUSE as I have told you OVER AND OVER, the stub template being used on just about every stub in the NYC wikiproject is the NYC stub template created by the wikiproject, supported by the wikiproject, and promoted by the wikiproject. As I just wrote to Doncram stub templates relating to a topic in which there is a wikiproject should be under the direction and discussion of the wikiproject members and not a "stub expert" who may not understand the differences and divisions within a wikiproject, esp. one divided on geography and politics. This was evident in two very minor but noticeable mistakes made- 1- making the counties of NYC stubs, and 2- the misnaming of the Bronx. Despite what Grutness says the Bronx is not a "common" name, it is the OFFICIAL name. You say the boroughs should be used due to political divisions are used. Other than a Borough president and his staff there hasnt been a borough government or any borough used as a political entity since the US Supreme Court declared the Board of Estimate to be unconstitutional (1970's I believe?), the Borough president is pretty much like a lobbyist/chamber of commerce/promoter/cheerleader, no official duties, no executive/legislative duties. Fire districts, police districts, school districts, zip codes, ambulance districts, water districts, and NYC council districts all cross over borough lines constantly. Borough boundaries arent used or considered in drawing anything in the NYC, this can cause problems with labeling stubs of for example- a NYC councilman (sometimes called alderman) whose district includes area in both Manhattan and the Bronx. A stub on a former mayor of NYC. Their is and has been for a long time an appropriate stub template for the NYC that is being used. Why would you want to duplicate it with five others? The state of NY treats the city of New York as one county, why cant you is my new question.Camelbinky (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the {{NYC-stub}} was approved and created by the Stub Sorting project and is used by editors from all over WP, including your project. I was only addressing the technical aspects of template use & creation and corrected myself when you made it clear the names were inappropriate. If it's more acceptable to The WikiProject, certainly we could just create a {{NewYorkCity-geo-stub}} and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New York City geography stubs and skip the boroughs. As for why we would want 5 additional templates, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New York geography stubs is huge (over 900 articles) and needs to be broken down into manageable sub-categories, thus the county templates. Smaller stub categories are more attractive to stub expander types, as easier to navigate and tackle. (‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New York City stubs is also pretty big at 600+ articles.) In addition, as you may know, people from various parts of NYC are as alien to each other as we would be to (putative) Martians, and it's possible someone might want to "adopt" the Manhattan stubs (perhaps for a...Manhattan Project?!). And I wasn't implying you're stupid; quite the contrary, I was frustrated that someone with obvious intelligence was not understanding my explanations. Pax, Pegship (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now THAT was a great explanation as to why we should have five instead of one stubs and one that makes a good amount of sense! Thank you! For the record, it was not you (Pegship) who basically called me stupid, that was someone on my talk page, trying to defend you honorable but in actuality just insulting me, it is not my place to say their name, that is their decision. I have also been accused of using my opinions in this argument as facts, if I state something as a fact, IT IS A FACT. The example used in my talk page by that person was the Bronx as "the Bronx" versus "Bronx County" and as I stated it is Bronx County but as a borough the official name is "the Bronx", it is not my opinion it is fact, and one that is even mentioned in the Bronx article if it had been read completely. If something is my opinion, I will say so, if it is fact I will state it as fact. I dont know what other facts that person or anyone else may have thought was my opinion, but please look in wikipedia articles and other sources if anything that I put forth as a fact looks dubious first before assuming it is my opinion and not truly a fact. Pegship, I now agree with you that making stubs according to counties can be useful as it makes a smaller category of articles and smaller lists on the category pages. My only problem is that (unless I am wrong) it seems the policy is going to be to do ALL states by counties (or their equivalent by a different name, Alaska doesnt have counties FACT not opinion). Is this correct? If so has any decision or discussion been done about Virginia which has independent cities, some of which are quite small in both pop. and geography but are NOT within counties, do they get treated as counties for stubs of their own? (Similarly St Louis in Missouri is not a part of any county even though St Louis County surrounds it FACT not opinion) and 2- what about places within cities that cross partly into multiple counties? As stated before (and not my opinion, it is FACT) KC, Missouri goes into many counties and to have stubs based on counties would cause stub articles on places within that city to be categorized by the county in which they are in, and not in KC and since KC does not take up all the area in each county (like NYC does) it doesnt seem possibly to put the stubs into a higher category as that would pull in the articles in the individual counties that are outside of KC as well. I know all of this is irrelevant to the CD deletion argument (another complaint by your defender on my talk page) but might as well do this here instead going back and forth on our talk pages, I personally hate having to read my responses on one page and someone else's on another page (now THAT is an OPINION).Camelbinky (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I would rather deal with each state as it comes up. When ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Kansas geography stubs and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Missouri geography stubs need splitting I'm sure someone will come up with a good solution. As an aside, the split is generally by sub-state entity, so if a state doesn't have counties, or if the entities are called something else (parishes, for example), that nomenclature would probably be used. Pegship (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Buddy film}}[edit]

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 deleted

The article is NPOV innuendo (male friendship as a way of pushing women out?). It should be clearly labelled as a feminist film theory concept and probably merged into the longer articles on feminist theory.

Um... there doesn't seem to be a template with this name. If you're referring to the article, which you seemt o be, then you want WP:AFD, not here. Grutness...wha? 23:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 23[edit]

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Republic of China (Taiwan) geography stubs → ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Taiwan geography stubs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename

Not sure why, but this category is at a non-standard name. All other RoC-related categories, stub and otherwise, are simply at "Taiwan". Seems to be my fault, since I created the category several years ago - no excuse, I'm afraid :/ Grutness...wha? 05:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all other categories start with Taiwan, especially regarding non-politics. impact F =_{check this} 22:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 24[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete

Buckethead does not merit special pleading, {{2000s-rock-album-stub}}, {{2000s-metal-album-stub}} seem to be the most appropriate types. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guitarists/Buckethead task force informed ----

{{Buckethead-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Buckethead stubs[edit]

With one notable exception (The Beatles), we do not split music stubs by individual artists. The category has been thoroughly populated by a messy mix of articles, many of which have only a vague tangential connection to Buckethead (of the handful I checked, there were two for albums where he appeared as a guest guitarist on some tracks, for instance). This thoroughly cuts across the stub hierarchy, mixing albums, individual tracks, bands, and ghu knows what else. Another good example of a case where a talk-page WikiProject template is a good idea but a stub type is a bad idea. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Vague tangential connection" is plain wrong. The only one of more than 60 entries falling under this would be Mold (Praxis album). All other are albums, songs or bands directly connected to the guitarist. With up to 30 new albums each year (see Buckethead#2007–present: Continued solo and band work) and ever changing live and studio projects (see Buckethead#Buckethead's bands) I fear this list will grow faster than we can generate content.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 00:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avant-garde a clue may indeed be right. Have you checked out the section of WP:STUB which explains why you'd almost certainly find a talk-page template a better solution than cutting across stub hierarchies? If not, please do so - it will explain why, as i said above, this is a bad idea for a stub type. As to vaguely tangential connection being wrong, check out an article like Arc of the Testimony. Buckethead plays guitar on just three tracks. If we have a stub type for Buckethead on that article, then we should definitely have ones for Bill Laswell, Nicky Skopelitis, Tony Williams, Pharoah Sanders, Byard Lancaster and Arcana, and also possibly for the equally-involved Graham Haynes - not to mention the standard stub splits by genre and year. Do you really think that would be a sensible idea? Grutness...wha? 00:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, there is no WikiProject or Taskforce for Laswell or any of the other guys and WP:STUB tells me that each article can have up to three or four stub-tags. So what does harm you about some articles having a second one? "Wehret den Anfänge(r)n"? The Arcana one is the second least connected after Mold, though BH is considered a full member of the band for their second release. Man, I just wanted to ease our work a bit and not harm anybody, so please leave your sarcastic appointments at home. BTW: There are talkpage templates already on all of them, just have a look.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 01:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What "sarcastic appointments"? I reacted to your insult - that was all. You've implied with your last comment - twice now - that I haven't a clue. I simply pointed out that if you're going to go round insulting people like that you should get a clue yourself, and actually read up on the relevant guidelines. And what does having a wikiproject or a task force have to do with having a stub tag? Stub templates aren't in any way connected to the existence or otherwise of wikiprojects - they operate across the entirety of Wikipedia. If there's a template for Buckethead on the article I pointed out, then there should be ones for all the others, since they had more to do with the topic of the article than Buckethead did. It's nothing to do with whether one of them has a wikiproject and the others don't. And if there is already a talk-page template on the articles, then you certainly don't need to have a stub template on the article page as well. I don't see how having an extra template is going to ease your work either - it'll simply be adding one more thing to do to the articles. Grutness...wha? 20:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're a Beatles fan you should know the George Harrison quote [2] - man, it's my signature... Sarcastic? Have a look on your original post and then maybe one on this attack. As you seem to be the resident troll around here, I'd just say: "Live and Let Die".--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 20:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That "attack" as you call it is clearly an attack on the stub, not on the person making it. Perhaps if you didn't have such a confrontational signature, you wouldn't get people reacting to it as though it was a blatan t attack, which si what it seems to be. Grutness...wha?

Well, start writing sober comments and the discussions will center around the topic not the editors. I still don't see any harm but maybe some other people can contribute?--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 21:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, I thought this was a stub type about my husband. Delete as we really only have stub types for really, really significant, international, historically huge groups like The Beatles, and the one thing you both agree on is that a talk page template exists, which I think is sufficient. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP After several days of reconsidering I still don't see any harm at all. The category has more than 60 entries at the moment what clearly is enough to fulfill WP:STUB. Recent assessment has brought up more than 100 articles: Category:Stub-Class Buckethead articles, still growing.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 23:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You keep bringing up the word "harm", which is not an issue here; the issue is usefulness to anyone besides the Buckethead Project. Although the category contains 66 items now, there are accurate stub types available for all of those. Since a talk page banner exists (and will corral all the Buckethead articles for the project), I still don't see why a stub type is necessary, however harmless. Pegship (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, harm, what else? If it only harms Grutness' ego and reminds you of your husband - well, I don't see any problem at all.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 07:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is harm in cases like this (none of it to my ego, thank you) - and even if there wasn't WP:NOHARM is hardly a good reason to keep something. The harm is to the ability of stub sorters to actually be able to sort stubs, and to the workload of your WikiProject. There are already a huge number of stub categories, and they are all, as much as is humanly possible, arranged and split according to specific axes. This category not only doesn't follow those splits, it runds directly through a considerable number of them. It creates a precedent which, if followed by other similar stub types, would cause a huge amount of extra effort to a group of Wikipedians already under severe stress as far as their workload is concerned. Stub categories are designed to be used across the entirety of Wikipedia independently of WikiProjects - where a single project requires a way of sorting its articles, stub templates are not the primary means of doing this - assessment templates are. As you clearly indicate, there is already a Stub-Class assessment category for Buckethead articles. As such, all you're doing by having a stub template is doubling up your workload and increasing the workload on stub sorters. It doesn't help either Wikipedia in general or your Wikiproject - in fact it makes the job harder for both. The stub template is redundant to the assessment template, is useless in terms of covering ground already covered in other ways, and increases both your and our workload. As such, keeping it is far less beneficial to all concerned than deleting it. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, I installed that whole assessment department after you nominated the stub. Cost me last Saturday to do this, including the retagging of 250 pages. If you call that benefical, go on. You may call Bono or Sir Bob Geldof for a cup of tea, too. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 06:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, I see. If it takes any work to set up it can't be of any benefit to Wikipedia. I should have realised. In the long-run, this will save you and us a vast amount of work, but because of a Saturday's worth of martyrdom it is a waste of effort. I should have realised. Grutness...wha? 23:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Paleo-reptiliomorph-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Reptiliomorph stubs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete until definition becomes more solid

Hard on the heels of a recent unproposed split of paleontology stubs comes another one, also with considerable problems. The template name is one such - given that the only reptiliomorphs are prehistoric, there is no need whatsoever for the "Paleo" prefix. The category is unparented, stub or permcat, which would be simple to fix if this is kept, but given the size of the permanent category ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Reptiliomorphs, upmerging might be a more prudent option if the template is kept - there's no way on current article numbers that this will reach the necessary threshold for a stub category. A more serious problem, though, is the fact that the definition of reptiliomorph seems to be in a state of flux. The article indicates that there have been several definitions of the term over the years, and implies that two different ones are still in use. Given that there are already discussions underway about reducing the size of the parenmt ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Paleontology stubs - discussions which do not include a split-out of reptiliomorphs, deletion may be the best option. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 25[edit]

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Sex stubs / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Sex and sexuality stubs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename sexuality stubs

I hate reopening closed debates, but this time it seems to be necessary... A debate on renaming ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Sex stubs occurred here on December 29th, which resulted in the consensus of "rename". Unfortunately, by my reading of the discussion, the consensus was a rename to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Sexuality stubs, and the category got renamed ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Sex and sexuality stubs. Either point out that I'm wrong or rename correctly this time :) Grutness...wha? 23:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Years-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Years stubs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename

Unproposed, but may be a useful type. if kept, though, both the template and the category need renaming, since they should be singular, not plural ({{Year-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Year stubs). Rename, but don't keep the current name as a redirect. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the stub and I don't mind what it's called as long as it's meaningful to the WP:YEARS project so go ahead and rename it. It's plural because the project's name is plural. I have to say that this is all very pedantic and I don't particularly like the tone of the message on my talk page. --Orrelly Man (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Orrelly - the message on your talk page is a boilerplate notification message and nothing personal was meant. If it sounds pedantic, well, that's kind of the nature of stub sorting - unglamorous but necessary! Thanks for your participation, and I suggest we rename per nom & creator. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Orrelly Man has given assent to a renaming, and the project probably wants to start using this, could this perhaps be speedied? (I can't win this week - now I'm getting complaints for using a boilerplate message :( Grutness...wha? 23:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Battery-stub}}[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete

Unproposed, and frankly unlikely to see much use, if any. Malformed, with no category link, edit link, or link to WP:STUB. Delete unlesss some significant use can be demonstrated. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:United Arab Emirates structure stubs → ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:United Arab Emirates building and structure stubs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename

This one's a straightforward one, at least. They do have buildings in the UAE, so we shouldn't have missed them out when the category was named :) Grutness...wha? 00:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just came here to propose this one. rename to fit in with other similar categories. Waacstats (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 27[edit]

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New York City geography stubs & renamed templates[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename & create parent

We have ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:New York City stubs, but not a -geo- category. The upmerged -geo- templates I created for NYC apparently are formed contrary to popular opinion, so I also propose a rename of those:

{{KingsCountyNY-geo-stub}} → {{BrooklynNY-geo-stub}}
{{QueensCountyNY-geo-stub}} → {{QueensNY-geo-stub}}
{{BronxCountyNY-geo-stub}} → {{TheBronx-geo-stub}}
{{NewYorkCountyNY-geo-stub}} → {{Manhattan-geo-stub}}
{{RichmondCountyNY-geo-stub}} → {{StatenIsland-geo-stub}}

Normally the parent category would be proposed at WSS/P, but since it's part & parcel of the template naming issue I thought I'd better put it here. See Jan 22 discussion for more background. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though I'd personally prefer {{Bronx-geo-stub}}. If it's OK for Gambia-geo-stub, Netherlands-geo-stub, Yukon-geo-stub and many other types for places and things commonly known as "The...", I don't really see this one should be any different.Grutness...wha? 07:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, those places you mention are "commonly" referred to with "the", in the Bronx's case it is the OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT NAME. In my opinion that makes it differentCamelbinky (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn we're suppposed to be using official names better change UK-geo-stub to TheUnitedKingdomOfGreatBritainAndNorthernIreland-geo-stub, stub names are going to get long very quickly. Seriously, we use what places are commonly called not "OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT NAME". I think having one template and a redirect might be an idea. Waacstats (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to comment. FWIW, it is also the official government name of The Gambia and The Netherlands, Camelbinky - as is also the case with the places for which the geo-stubs are {{Bahamas-geo-stub}}, {{Caymans-geo-stub}}, {{Falklands-geo-stub}}, {{Solomons-geo-stub}}.... As such, there is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever in using {{Bronx-geo-stub}} - and indeed the precedent is that it should be used. As pointed out by Waacstats, we don't always use the full official government name anyway - there's no {{UnitedStatesofMexico-geo-stub}} or {{FederalDemocraticRepublicofNepal-geo-stub}}. And there is no need to SHOUT, thank you. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 31[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete

{{Yellowstone-geothermal-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Yellowstone geothermal stubs[edit]

Where to start? Unproposed, splitting out stubs for one type of feature (which we don't have and would be unlikely to have a parent type for) for one national park (and we don't have separate stubs for individual park, even big ones like Yellowstone). Distinctly undersized (the permcat only has 60 articles, and I can't for a moment believe that all of them would be stubs). Incorrectly parented category (these are geographical features, and as such would be geo-stubs, not generic stubs). And neither ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Wyoming geography stubs nor ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Montana geography stubs is anywhere close to being oversized (and if they were, we'd primarily split by county). Seems to be another case of a specific WikiProject (or in this case, not even a full project but a task force) overlooking the fact that talk-page assessment templates are more suited to individual projects that a Wiki-wide stub type. Delete. Grutness...wha? 22:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and retag pages with a talk page template (if it exists). Waacstats (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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