Jump to content

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted/October 2005

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 1st[edit]

{{Elec-stub}} (redirect)[edit]

An unused redirect of {{electro-stub}} (created from a page move in April). However, it could just as easily refer to elections, or undoubtedly other things. Delete. --Mairi 04:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair. Elec is ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 04:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 2nd[edit]

Australian city stubs, part 1[edit]

As per discussion at WP:WSS/P, the various Australian city-specific stubs should be renamed for consistency.

Adelaide[edit]

In the case of Adelaide, this also means deleting the separate transport stub and merging it and adelstub into a new Adelaide-stub (each has only about 30 stubs). Grutness...wha? 00:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as to australia-struct-stub, I did propose it a couple of weeks back and it was rejected, but I suspect there are now more than enough stubs for it to pass. Grutness...wha? 06:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hobart[edit]

In the case of Hobart, this proposal supersedes the proposed deletion of this stub type further down the page. This one also needs a category. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Grutness...wha? 06:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra[edit]

In this case, ACT-geo-stub would also be a viable option, since over 95% of the A.C.T.'s geo-stubs relate to Canberra. Either that or Canberra-geo-stub can be used for the name, with the template message making it clear that it can be used for the entire capital territory. (I'd favour the latter option). Grutness...wha? 00:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I oppose deleting cat:canberra_suburb_stubs. I think it should be kept as a subcategory of either cat:canberra_related_stubs or cat:canberra_geo_stubs (or both). There are a LOT of canberra suburb stubs, and I think a lot of other stubs will get lots in all the noise if they are all put into the same category (such as the lakes and ponds, mountains and hills and significant parks). Adz 12:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with very slight variation:

Grutness...wha? 06:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Historical Fiction book stubs -> Category:Historical fiction book stubs[edit]

More standard capitalization. And easier to do while it's still relatively new. --Mairi 21:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CFD would regard this as a speedy rename. Though we don't have set rules for speedying here, I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be counted in the same way. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{HRF-bio-stub}}[edit]

Apparently for people who recieve the title Hero of the Russian Federation. Which cuts across standard categories, seems not particularly useful, and has very few suitable articles. Delete. --Mairi 04:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How does it cut across standard categories? Zach (Sound Off) 04:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC) (creator of the stub template)[reply]
The standard is to divide by occupation (such as writier, politician and military being common) after dividing by country, and this isn't specific to any occupation. --Mairi 05:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That I can agree on. While most of the awardings went to Chechnya veterans or cosmonauts, atheletes and some writters recieved the title. The main reason why I created the template is that not only this is only showing that it is not only a subject that relates to Russia, but it (mainly) establishes notability, which is very picky on here. If there was a central website, like with the Order of Canada, that lists everyone who got the hero title, I would have used that instead. Zach (Sound Off) 05:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is the woefully incomplete List of heroes of the Russian Federation. Establishing notability would also be accomplished by mentioning the title in the article. It's possible there'd be enough articles for a stub relating to Russian military, or the space program (I don't follow bio stubs closely enough to know). --Mairi 05:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am checking that now, and I also happened to create that list. Once it gets to a good size, it will be transwikied (hopefully). Zach (Sound Off) 05:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But since this is a keep/delete situation, I personally will side (and this should not be a big shock), but keep. I will happy to see this go after a while, but I am going to create these type stubs in the next few years, so they should meet Grutness's 50 article rule. Zach (Sound Off) 06:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It only has 10 stubs now and it doesn't fit into our existing schemes. However, if there were a WikiProject associated with the Heroes of the Russian Federation, I could see keeping it. There are other ways of keeping track of articles about the Heroes of the Russian Federation that need work, such as Category:Hero of the Russian Federation or List of heroes of the Russian Federation if it is a purely personal endeavour. Caerwine 01:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 3rd[edit]

{{Dynamic}}[edit]

A "dynamic" stub template. Which'd cause so many problems if it were used (fortunately it isn't). Strong delete. --Mairi 02:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete post-haste. Agreed - this is far more likely to do harm than good. Grutness...wha? 04:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How is this different from {{metastub}} which is mentioned on WP:STUB? Should that be deleted as well? I actually prefer the wording in this template than the metastub one. --TheParanoidOne 09:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the name and the initial edit summary ("Dynamic stub. I am not searching for existing ones."), I interpreted it as for being used on articles, in place of a specific stub. This edit shows it being used as such (altho that's as much a problem with the individual user). I agree that the metastub wording could be better, tho. --Mairi 20:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete!!! BlankVerse ∅ 11:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 4th[edit]

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:UK geography stubs and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:US geography stubs[edit]

In both cases, these have largely been emptied into subcategories, so it's a good time to rename both to wiki-standard, i.e., as ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:United Kingdom geography stubs and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:United States geography stubs. Grutness...wha? 10:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

European Union stubs and European Union-related stubs[edit]

One of these needs to go. Both of them make reference tu {{EU-stub}} but the template feeds into the second. The first is empty but it is my understanding that the outcome of the "x-related" debates was that the "x-related" categories were to be scrapped. --TheParanoidOne 15:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is, although that decision was primarily for specific countries. I'd definitely be in favour of removing it from all stub categories, though, to bring the stub cat names more in line with the general cat names - so I'd favour the former name listed above. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well since I created the {{EU-stub}} so I may as well weigh in. It was initially created as European Union stubs however I hadn't been around long at the time I didn't follow proper procedures, like proposing it first &c. Now I wonder if it would not be better named Category:European Union operations stubs as it was created to be for articles relating specifically to operations of the European Union as a political entity as opposed just anything relating to the countries of the EU. I've tried to explain it at the top of the cat and in the template, I keep an eye on it and to be fair it's not that often that other articles end up in it but this might be an opportunity to change it if anyone thinks it appropriate? If not than I go for the former as -related makes it even less clear what it's specifically for. -- Lochaber 15:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 5th[edit]

Category:Liberal related stubs to Category:Liberalism stubs[edit]

I think the proposed name meets the naming guidelines better. Aecis 22:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Phillipine literature stubs[edit]

I have corrected the typo in {{phil-lit-stub}} that led to the creation of this category and created the proper category at Category:Philippine literature stubs, but three articles continue to show up in this category. Why? NatusRoma 07:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They showed up because of a caching problem regarding categories on templates. Any edits (including null edits) on the affected articles fix the problem. It's now empty, so speedy delete once it's been empty for 24 hours. --Mairi 03:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the same problem none of the articles with the template currently feed into the correct category and will need null edits. However, none of them qualify as Philippines literature stubs (they're all Philippines writer stubs), so it should not be on any of them anyway. Also the name of the template is completely wrong (as - by WSS naming - it would refer to literature about philosophy). The stub type is currently under discussion at WP:WSS/D, and it is likely that it will be proposed for deletion soon. Grutness...wha? 06:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Pentalog-stub}} / Category:Pentalog-related stubs[edit]

Pentalog is apparently a French IT company. With no signs of having more than 2 related articles on Wikipedia (the template is on both). Delete. --Mairi 01:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Pt-footyclub-stub}}[edit]

For Portuguese football clubs. This wasn't one of the ones mentioned in the recent footyclub split; and for good reason: Category:Portuguese football clubs includes 29 articles, and List of football clubs in Portugal has a handful of additional relevant articles. Currently feeds into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:European football club stubs, and used on 6 articles. Delete. --Mairi 01:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 6th[edit]

Rename {{TN-geo-stub}}[edit]

Newly created, refers to Tamil Nadu, India. Probably much needed, but also definitely needs a new name, as TN is also the postal abbreviation for Tennessee, and an ISO code for Tunisia. Rename to {{TamilNadu-geo-stub}}. --Mairi 02:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O.K.--SivaKumar 04:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SivaKumar went ahead and created {{TamilNadu-geo-stub}}; I redirected TN-geo-stub to there. The redirect should be still deleted. Mairi 00:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Shan-stub}}[edit]

Created 2 days ago, unused. There is a new wikiproject, but it has one contributor. Furthermore, there's most likely less than 10 articles related to the author, not all of which are stubs. Delete. --Mairi 02:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Palau-stub}} / Palau-related stubs[edit]

Time to prune the stub list a bit, methinks. This category has had less than 10 entries for several months now, as per this diff. I propose this be deleted, and the stubs merged into its parent, {{oceania-stub}}. --TheParanoidOne 21:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although I can see the worth of having individual stubs for every county, some of them - like these - will never get close to a viable population of stubs. And since Oceania-stub is hardly overburdened, I agree with delete. These can always be revived later if the need ever arises, anyway. Grutness...wha? 23:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Tuvalu-stub}} / Tuvalu-related stubs[edit]

Another one for pruning. This category has also had less than 10 entries for several months now, as per this diff. I propose this be deleted, and the stubs merged into its parent, {{oceania-stub}}. --TheParanoidOne 21:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Football (soccer) player stubs to Category:Football (soccer) biography stubs[edit]

This category contains more biographies than just player biographies. As the category itself says, "while the category was originally envisioned only for players, non-playing personnel (managers, coaches, chairmen, executives) can also be included in this category, as long as they are directly connected to the sport." I think a rename is needed to better fit the articles in this category.. Aecis 11:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming for stub categories must be directed to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from WP:CFD missed it earlier. ∞Who?¿? 04:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Perhaps it would be better to keep this category, plus create additional related and daughter stubs+categories. If you look at the category, the first page doesn't even get all the way through the letter A. Someone more familiar with fútbol will have to suggest the best way to divide up the articles. BlankVerse ∅ 11:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that would be an obvious one, I'd say - by nationality, in much the same way as the clubs are in the process of being divided. A large proportion of the managers and coaches are former players, but there are still some that aren't, and I'd be happier if they were kept in with the main category since the same editors are likely to know about them. I'd go ahead with the proposed move, but consider tallying up what nationalities can be split off. There are some that would just about be guaranteed (England, Italy, France, Germany, Brazil, and Argentina, to name just six). Grutness...wha? 11:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've gone through about 15% of the stubs (not particularly randomly), and found: English 59; Scottish 21; Norwegian, Australian 12; Northern Irish 10; Belgian, German, Turkish, Guinean, Brazilian 9; Argentinian 8 (out of 333 checked, of 2206 total). I'd say English and Scottish are fair enough, but the rest are only just big enough to warrant their own stub types. It might be best to split most by continent instead of country: I counted Europe 214 (including Eng/Scot), Africa 54, South America 24, and about 15 for each of the others. This way, the estimated totals for each category would be about: England 400, Scotland 140, Rest of Europe 900 (with possible further splits once we see exactly how many there are of each), Africa 350, South America 170, North America/Asia/Oceania 100 each. (Phew!) sjorford #£@%&$?! 13:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, those sound fair splits to me (by continent, plus the England and Scotland ones) - take this over to WP:WSS/P and run it past everyone there! Grutness...<font color=green>wha? 22:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Eng-club-stub}} to {{England-footyclub-stub}}[edit]

This category should be renamed, according to the guidelines set by WP:WSS/P. Aecis 18:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 7th[edit]

{{Canada-place-stub}}[edit]

A long-deprecated redirect to {{Canada-geo-stub}}. Only two redirects use the "place" coding - this and Ireland-place-stub, which should also be deleted but is still fairly heavily populated. This one was taken to WP:TFD way back in January 2005 and moved to canada-geo-stub - back then it was in use, but it hasn't been since at least June, so has the time now come for its deletion? Grutness...wha? 11:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Fo-stub}}[edit]

Unused redirect to Faroe-stub (for the Faroe Islands). The category has only a couple of dozen stubs, and it definitely doesn't need an ambiguous template redirect. Grutness...wha? 10:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Mairi 19:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only for extra-solar planets, according to the template text. However, Category:Extrasolar planets has 79 articles, and by far most of those are about stars, which then either have a section or mention of an extrasolar planet. Not likely to have sufficient use. Delete. --Mairi 04:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough use to warrant a stub template. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ISTR standard procedure at the astronomical objects wikiproject is to list extrasolar panets as sections on the articles about the stars they circle, since very little is known about any of them yet. No doubt in time astronomers will find out more and separate articles will be made, but at the moment this stub type isn't needed. Grutness...wha? 07:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Grutness. DeleteA2Kafir 22:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Boom-stub}}[edit]

For "exploding animal-related articles". Delete. --Mairi 02:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very limited scope; doesn't have near 50 existing appropriate articles. Mairi 04:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, an actual answer. Thank you. But if you don't mind my asking, why is that a problem anyways? Wikipedia is not paper, after all. Plus, there really isn't a good category to put the articles in--they were previously placed in Template:Biology-stub or Template:Weapon-stub, neither of which is anywhere near as accurate a moniker as the exploding animals one. Matt Yeager 05:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stub categories are not like ordinary categories - they have a completely different purpose. Whereas ordinary categories are for readers looking for other articles on the same subject, stub categories are specifically for editors who know about a particular subjects and can expand articles. For editors, having to sort through a stub category with thousands of articles is a hassle, since they may well overlook some they can actually deal with. Similarly, there's no point in having a stub category with only one or two articles, since it would soon be emptied by diligent editors. For that reason - ideally - a stub category should have between abouit 60 and 600 articles: enough for editors to really get their teeth into, but no so many as to be daunting or a hassle. Any stub types that are too general (and therefore have lots of articles) get split into more specific topics that will have fewer stubs. Any which are too specific, though, are likely to be deleted. It's all a balancing act, and - along with physically changing stub templates on articles - is the main job of the stub sorting WikiProject. (Oh, and that's a delete by the way). Grutness...wha? 07:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, conceded. (I still think it was hilarious.) Matt Yeager 23:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(NOTE: this stub has actually been vandalized. Take a look if you don't believe it!) Matt Yeager 06:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 8th[edit]

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Afghanistan-related stubs to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Afghanistan stubs[edit]

New guideline for country-related stub categories does away with *-related. Aecis 10:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 10th[edit]

{{WV-road-stub}}[edit]

Pretty sure this one wasn't debated - if it had been, it would have been at {{WestVirginia-road-stub}}, the name to which I've redirected it. Since it's now at the new name, this incorrectly named one can be deleted. Grutness...wha? 07:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I hadn't noticed the original proposal (that page is just so damn big I'm bound to miss a few) - but the name's not a good one anyway, so... XX-State-Highway-Stub would limit it to state highways, whereas XX-road-stub allows for urban raods and streets as well, so it's a bit more all inclusive. In any case, I still think that all the XX-State-Highway-Stub names need renaming (that would be such a long job, though, that I'm not ready to propose it any time soon). Grutness...wha? 03:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Party related stubs → ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Political party stubs[edit]

This move would do three things: 1) Bring it in line with its non-stub parent ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Political parties; 2) remove that word "related"; 3) stop people potentially adding stubs about social get-togethers. Rename? Grutness...wha? 07:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could agree, but it will take a lot of work to do, since one has to visit all these stubs to rename the stub-category. Is there another solution. - Electionworld 08:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are two solutions - firstly a bot, since it's obvious which stubs need to be changed, and they would all simply need a null edit (in which case there would be virtually no work); secondly, I've put in a proposal at WP:WSS/P to split some subcategories off this, which would reduce the number of stubs in the category (in which case the articles would need re-stubbing anyway). Grutness...wha? 09:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Female-related stubs → ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Feminism stubs[edit]

The parentage and text of the category indicates that it's for feminism, while the template text, since June, says "female-related" (the template as had both wordings in the past). Almost all the marked articles are about feminism. Female-related poses several problems, including cutting across multiple existing categories (medicine, psychology, politics, etc). Rename (either way, the template/category need to be clarified). --Mairi 23:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 11th[edit]

{{Pennsylvania-stub}}[edit]

{{Pennsylvania-stub}} was discovered on 1 October 2005. It's unused, and it has no category. No wikiproject exists for Pennsylvania. Delete. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 15:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Australian city stubs, part 2[edit]

I left the two big cities until after the others were done, because they probably need a bot (I did the changeover of the others manually). These changes are as per recent discussions at WP:WSS/P#Australian cities

Melbourne[edit]

This has over 500 articles, so it will need a bot. Mind you, many of them should bein this second category, which currently has only 11 articles:

This would bring Melbourne into line with everywhere else on the planet as far as stub naming is concerned, and would be in line with recent changes to the Adelaide, Canberra, and Hobart stubs. Grutness...wha? 07:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rename as suggested. Consistency is good. Agnte 16:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Keeps most of Wiki's presentation up to scratch. --Tetsuya-san 00:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney[edit]

As above, this would bring Sydney into line with everywhere else on the planet as far as stub naming is concerned, and would be in line with recent changes to the Adelaide, Canberra, and Hobart stubs. This would also probably need a bot, since there are about 350 stubs. Grutness...wha? 07:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If my maths is correct then it will be in the region of 680 "Sydney suburb stub" articles now, since there was a push by myself and others to flesh out the missing suburbs. If a bot can do the changeover then I think it's a good idea, but if they have to be done by hand then I think it's a bad idea that's not worth it. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 07:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A shame that push wasn't left until after the changeover, but still (it was announced at the Sydney WikiProject that a change was likely very soon) - currently about 2000 japan-geo-stubs are being changed over by hand, so it would just be a bigger job without a bot, not impossible. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rename for both Melbourne and Sydney for consistency with the other Australian cities. If there are too many Sydney suburb stubs (now a complete set thanks to Nick and others) to rename, I suppose that could be kept as a subcat of the new {{Sydney-geo-stub}}, and dissolved once most suburb articles have grown beyond stub status. No {{Sydney-stub}}/‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Sydney stubs? --Scott Davis Talk 11:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rename both as suggested for consistency. --Alynna 00:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Melbourne is done - hopefully someone with access to a bot will be able to change the Sydney ones over. Grutness...wha? 11:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:United States television programme stubs → ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:United States television program stubs[edit]

(Was tagged with {{cfr}} by User:Jayc, but not listed on WP:CFD)
There's been some discussion on the talk page. "Program" is the common spelling in the US, and Manual of Style recommends using the relevant national variety of English for country-specific pages. And I can't think of any strong need for consistency in stub category names, unlike templates (although if there is, they could all be renamed to 'television series', which is used by most the main categories). Rename. -Mairi 05:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 12th[edit]

{{New Hampshire-stub}} (redirect)[edit]

Created as a new stub type by a new WikiProject, who didn't realise there were naming guidelines for stubs. It's now been moved to {{NewHampshire-stub}}, leaving this incorrectly named redirect which should be deleted. Grutness...wha? 06:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 13th[edit]

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

Delete. This was discussed jointly with the state park stub last month; let's discuss them one at a time. The ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:State forest stubs category is empty; in my opinion it should not exist because any state forest article stub in the future should go into the appropriate stub category for the geographic region. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 12:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Swedish-politician-stub}} → {{Sweden-politician-stub}}
‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Swedish politician stubs → ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Sweden politician stubs[edit]

We definitely follow a standard of always using a national noun rather than a national adjective in the stub template. The consensus seems that it would be a good idea to do the same with the categories, and since changing the stub will require restubbing anyway, it would be best to change the category at the same time if it is to be done. Caerwine 16:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A definite rename for the template. A weaker one for the category - we've got an awful lot of categories named like this, and "Sweden politician stubs" does sound a little stilted. Nouns seems a good way to go, though - although we also need to keep in mind the names of the main categories they're based on. I'm...just unsure. Grutness...wha? 23:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we could always follow the single example of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:People from Quebec stubs and go for something like ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Politicians from Sweden stubs if we value euphony over brevity. Caerwine 20:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely rename the template, but the category doesn't seem to do much harm as it is, and personally, I'd try to stay consistent with Category:Swedish politicians. Robert 00:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Swedish-politician-stub}} has been orphaned. Consensu semmed to be to keep ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Swedish politican stubs so I left it alone. Caerwine 03:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only the template was renamed; the category was kept as it was. Mairi 18:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:United States football club stubs to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:United States football (soccer) club stubs or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:United States soccer club stubs[edit]

I created this category in order to reduce the load of {{footy-stub}}. However, I forgot to take into consideration the problems with the term "football" in the American context. The current category name does not make it clear enough that the articles are about what in the US would be called soccer clubs, so I request a rename for this category. Aecis 23:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair... the non-stub category this relates to is "United States soccer clubs", so I'd probably go for that one. Then again... the original proposal had the parentheses... sigh. A rename is definite, but... which to? Grutness...wha? 10:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:United States soccer club stubs - "football (soccer)" is only really necessary if the category covers an area where both terms are used. sjorford #£@%&$?! 15:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would say ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:United States football (soccer) club stubs, for two reasons. Firstly because the article about the sport is called "football (soccer)", and not for instance Association Football (the official name of the sport), and secondly, because the category is a daughter of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Football (soccer) stubs. Aecis 20:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's not necessary - there are plenty of articles that say just "football" or "soccer" in the right context. The only ones that don't are those that cover football throughout the world, where either name might be used. See for example, Category:Football (soccer) by country - all use one term or the other (apart from Category:Canadian football (soccer), which probably ought to be changed). sjorford #£@%&$?! 19:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right about the use of football and/or soccer. And you're also right when you say that it's not really necessary to use the word football. Soccer in itself is clear and unambiguous enough. The category itself imo definitely needs soccer in the name, because it relates to the US of A. I still think that using the word "football" might be desirable though, if just for the sake of some consistency. Aecis 22:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 14th[edit]

{{kuwait-bio-stub}} / Kuwaiti people stubs[edit]

Another one for pruning. This category has had less than 10 entries for several months now, as per this diff. I propose this be deleted, and the stubs merged into its parent, {{MEast-bio-stub}} (which contains <100 stub articles). --TheParanoidOne 22:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. --Alynna 00:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{bike-stub}}[edit]

Delete - it duplicates {{cycling-stub}}. Used by 5 articles, it adds articles directly to Category:Transportation. --Vclaw 22:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 15th[edit]

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

In the twelve weeks since this was created it has been used three times. I doubt that even a gereral smoking stub would be useful - this one far less so. Delete. Grutness...wha? 05:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete stub it out BL kiss the lizard 08:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Australian city stubs, part 3[edit]

Perth[edit]

Given Mairi's comment under "Sydney" (below) about a stub I didn't know about, I'll add

Anyone going to find a previously unknown Brisbane stub now? :/ Grutness...wha? 04:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support both. And as far as I can tell, there isn't a Brisbane stub... --Mairi 19:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This might just about be speediable. This category/template pair is used on a healthy 58 articles. Like to guess how many are geo-stubs? 58. That's right - this is really BurkinaFaso-geo-stub masquerading as a standard stub. With that many stubs (and a reasonable number still marked AfricaW-geo-stub) there shouldn't be any problem with it reaching threshold, but it desperately needs a rename. Grutness...wha? 09:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC) (PS - sorry to have added so much here today!)[reply]

Rename. BL kiss the lizard 08:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Currently used on 14 articles. However, there's already {{crustacean-stub}}, which is used on 100 articles. And given the small number of crab stubs there (<10 in the first half), it seems doubtful this will get near 60 stubs. Delete --Mairi 03:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. it could grow, but Crustacean-stub doesn't really need splitting. Yet. Grutness...wha? 13:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

In the ten weeks since this was created it has been used twice. Useless. Delete. Grutness...wha? 05:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a viable sub type of {{agri-stub}}, especially since the Agronomy article is marked with the {{agri-stub}} template! I doubt if this could be raised to the >60 range, but it looks like it could certainly be raised to >25 by restubbing from {{agri-stub}}. This would also bring that category from just over 200 aticles to under 200 articles making it a one-page category which would be desirable. Caerwine 16:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. we can always make it again if we need it and 200s not too many BL kiss the lizard 02:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Belize-bio-stub}} / Belizean people stubs[edit]

Another one for pruning. Less than 10 entries for several months, as per this diff. I propose this be deleted, and the stubs merged into its parent, {{CentralAm-bio-stub}} (which contains <10 stub articles). --TheParanoidOne 11:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. prune away. This one serves no useful purpose. Grutness...wha? 13:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename {{Phil-lit-stub}} and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Philippine literature stubs[edit]

The current template name would imply it's for philosophy literature. Furthermore, all 31 articles it's used on are writers. Rename to {{Philippine-writer-stub}} (or some other more suitable name). --Mairi 03:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was some talk of a {{Philippine-bio-stub}} when this was first discovered... Is that necessary, or just the writer-specific one, or both? Rename to something, anyway. --Alynna 03:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't that be {{Philippines-writer-stub}} or {{Philippines-bio-stub}} with an 's' at the end?
Yes, it should. Mairi 05:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Rename' to {{Philippines-writer-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 13:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia and Montenegro[edit]

Currently, due to abbreviation and un-debated creation, this whole section is a bit of a mess. Currently we have:

As far as I see it:

  • the "-related"s have to go.
  • We don't need separate Serbia and Serbia and Montenegro categories
  • There shouldn't be any spaces in the template name
  • For obvious reasons, SM-stub is probably not a good idea.

I propose combining the first two into {{SerbiaMontenegro-stub}} and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Serbia and Montenegro stubs, and keeping the third category but renaming the template as {{SerbiaMontenegro-geo-stub}}. Alternatively, we could have separate Serbia-stub, Serbia-geo-stub, Montenegro-stub and Montenegro-geo-stub templates and equivalent categories. Grutness...wha? 05:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd prefer the four-way split option. Works better for back-projection onto historical articles (ie, pre-Yugoslavian Serbia, Serbian culture etc.) and it ought to be easier to redistribute the latter two categories than the first. ALso, there seems to be a strong sense that Serbia and Montenegro's days as a political entity are numbered, with a Montenegrin independence referendum likely to pass next year. -The Tom 05:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The political split may be imminent, but as long as it hasn't occurred, it shouldn't matter in stub sorting. I suggest {{SerbiaMontenegro-stub}} and {{SerbiaMontenegro-geo-stub}} for articles about the nation as a whole, and {{Serbia-stub}}/{{Serbia-geo-stub}} / {{Montenegro-stub}}/{{Montenegro-geo-stub}} for articles relating to either of the constituent parts of Serbia-Montenegro (iff there are enough articles, the same might be considered for Vojvodina and Kosovo). This mirrors what has been done in {{UK-geo-stub}}: daughters for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and granddaughters for the counties (right?). Aecis 11:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any problem with this. Have the categories renamed to omit the "-related", and two sets of stubs for each republic (even if they decide to remain the same country, chances are that it will still be a group of two distinct countries as it is today). --Joy [shallot] 00:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only problem is the same one with all the categories that are almost totally subdivided - they have to be regularly emptied into their subcategories. otherwise eeverything that should be in the subcats will end up only being put into the main category (I bail about twelve stubs a day from ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Geography stubs alone into its subcats). Grutness...wha? 05:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think there is any need for a top SCG geo-stub category, because relatively very few geographical features exist in both Serbia and Montenegro, and those that do can and should be double-stubbed with those two. The top SCG stub category might be useful for non-geographical issues that are shared. --Joy [shallot] 11:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that better solution is the first mentioned, combining stubs into SM stub. Serbia and Montenegro today is one country, wether you like it or not, and you have no right to anticipate future political events.. it is a politization of Wikipedia and it is very malicious. -- Obradović Goran (talk 19:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Goran. The first choice seems like the most acceptable one and there is really no place for political clairvoyance here. This is a cultural project and whether Serbia and Montenegro will split one day is beside the point. --Dungo (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also agree with Goran and Dungodung --Jovanvb 19:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And just to add.. I think that it is unfair to discuss matters concerning Serbia or Serbia and Montenegro without informing someone from Serbian community - when you're pushing your own political agendas, it is only fair to invite all parties concerned to give their oppinions. -- Obradović Goran (talk 19:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to be able to use all of {yugoslavia-stub}, {serbia-stub}, {montenegro-stub} and their geo variants. What category they are linked to is immaterial and subject to change as needed. And null edits could probably be done by a bot, however sorting could not. --MarSch 11:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, there's a couple of things here. Firstly what you're suggesting goes against the whole practice of stub-sorting as it is done, that is, stub types useful to editors each with their own dedicated stub category. Secondly, some of those templates would be ridiculous. What point is there in a Yugoslavia-geo-stub, for instance, when there is no such place as Yugoslavia now and all the lands which were part of it have their own dedicated stubs categories? You might as well talk of a Kievian Rus geo-stub and get rid of the Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, etc geography categories. Thirdly, this is under "old business" which means that discussion on it is finished anyway, and some of the changes have started being made. Grutness...wha? 11:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was always going to be a tricky one - and "general consensus" is non existent. Taking all the points on board, I have been bold and created separate Serbia and Montenegro categories, each of them feeding into a parent Serbia and Montenegro category, for both standard and geography stubs. This is in line with similar splits for places like the United Kingdom, where the separate parts each have subcategories of the main. It in no way indicates any political views that the two entities should split, any more than having {{Scotland-stub}}, {{Catalonia-stub}}, or {{Tibet-stub}} indicate a political agenda. It simply reflects the fact that there are items which some editors would likely be more able to edit. Grutness...wha? 01:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC) To do:[reply]

  • creation of Serbia-geo-stub and category, plus move of stubs
  • creation of Montenegro-geo-stub and category, plus move of stubs
  • rename Serbia category and move stubs (can be done by bot)

October 16[edit]

{{DE-gov-stub}} (redirect)[edit]

Redirects to {{Delaware stub}}, as it was created and moved there today. Used on 1 article. However, DE is also the ISO code for Germany, and even a Delaware-gov-stub likely wouldn't get much use. Delete. --Mairi 03:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete. And now that {{delaware stub}} has been moved to {{delaware-stub}}, delete {{Delaware stub}}, too! Grutness...wha? 05:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Del. BL kiss the lizard 08:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete. I made it and once done realized I really wanted {{Delaware-stub}}. Just learning. Please leave {{Delaware stub}} as I will be using it more than some might think. stilltim 11:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with {{delaware stub}} is that it doesn't meet the formatting guidelines, because of the lack of a hyphen. The articles that use the {{delaware stub}} tag instead of the {{delaware-stub}} tag can easily be traced and appropriately edited. (this can be counted as a delete vote) Aecis 11:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete {{DE-gov-stub}}, {{delaware stub}} and {{delaware-stub}}. Not even close to viability threshold. Regional stub-cat is adequate until there are many more of these. Alai 01:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

I propose renaming the template to {{buddhism-stub}} (which currently is a redirect to {{buddhistub}}) and the category to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Buddhism stubs. Aecis 10:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{SA-stub}}[edit]

I propose renaming the abbreviated {{SA-stub}} to the unabbreviated {{SouthAfrica-stub}}. Aecis 22:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SA's one we've been turning a blind eye to... but you're probably right - and what about SA-geo-stub? Given that a saudi Arabia geo-split is likely soon (and there's already a South Australia geo-stub) it's probably a good idea. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename them both, and likewise, {{SA-mil-stub}}. Alai 01:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We have a {{Saudi-stub}}, so this isn't needed for disambiguation, but as long as it's done on all of the RSA stubs including {{SA-road-stub}}, I have no objections to a rename. Caerwine 23:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well technically {{Saudi-stub}}'s name implies that it's only for stubs about the royal family, so that needs a rename too. In any case, simply having Saudi-stub doesn't mean that people won't think SA-stub could be about Saudi Arabia. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename it, SA is just a wee bit too ambiguous. The fact that it doesn't match a country code for South Africa is what tips the scale for me. (Granted, for UK it doesn't either, but that's more entrenched.) --Joy [shallot] 16:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... rename is probably the only option worth considering, though it might take a while to change my habits (it's one of my most-used stub cats). I think SouthAfrica-stub and ZA-stub are the best options (I prefer ZA). Perhaps a redirect from the one to the other? --Taejo | Talk 15:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are two problems with ZA - first, the naming guidelines specifically say to avoid abbreviations, and second ZA could be every bit as confusing as SA. since it's a Foo-stub form, Foo doesn't necessarily refer to a country name, so ISO abbreviations are too ambiguous. AM-stub isn't about Armenia, for instance - it's about radio (and needs a rename). ZA is a recognised code for South Africa, Zambia, a Chinese language, and a region of Russia. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 17[edit]

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

Created at the beginning of the month. had four stubs 9two of which were geo-stubs). I added the category, just so that articles didn't get "lost" while this debate was going on. No known WikiProject. Delete, as per precedent of other such state-stubs. Grutness...wha? 09:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Music Video-stub}} → {{Music-video-stub}}[edit]

Only created today and used twice, but there is a wikiproject. Rename to standard capitalization and hyphenation, tho. --Mairi 04:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. Rename. Grutness...wha? 04:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 18th[edit]

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

Abit too specific for a stub category. Currently used on 1 article (only created today). Delete --Mairi 03:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, a website is a wiki, but a wiki is not only a website. I am only interested in wikis--Mac 09:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree... it's not "a bit too specific". it's a lot too specific. Delete. Grutness...wha? 12:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless, delete. Angela. 16:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Web is not wiki. This category is usefull for navigation.Don't delete--Nonaz 19:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What an interesting first edit. Angela. 20:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, because of be newbie (I don't live in Wikipedia, like others). I feel spied :( . --84.121.0.21 17:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
catagory:wikisite would be used for navigating anyway. A stubcat is for editors and nothing to do with navigation. Delete. BL kiss the lizard 22:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete template, delete category, and strong delete of sockpuppetry quite that blatent. Alai 02:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:RAF stubs to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Royal Air Force stubs[edit]

No need to have an abbreviation in the category name. --Mairi 17:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Alai 02:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The abbreviation's fine for the template, but categories should have full names where possible. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It can be listed at CFD. Alphax&nbsp;τεχ 03:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's done? Not the recategorisation, at any rate, which requires about 150 null edits. The source category needn't be cfd'd, that's why it's listed here. And please also note, from the intro to this page: After a voting period of seven days, action will be taken if there is consensus on the fate of the stub type. Please do not act before this period is over. Alai 03:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alphax - if you try listing this at CFD they'll tell you to take it to SFD. Stub categories are handled here, by the rules of this page. Those rules are there for a reason, so please follow them - including waiting before creating any replacement categories. If ten people suddently voted oppose to this category change (unlikely, but not impossible), we'd have to go through the whole thing again with your newly created category. As it is the old category can't be deleted until null-edits are performed on all the stubs in it, which won't be happening until the voting process is completed. I've (probably temporarily) reverted the template, as there is nothing worse than trying to sort our what needs changing from a whatlinkshere list if a category name has been changed over half way through a stub's use - or for editors to follow the category link on a template only to discover a nearly empty category. That's why we wait, and do the changeover as quickly as possible once the voting is over. Grutness...wha? 06:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{California County Routes Stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:California County Routes stubs[edit]

A recent discuvery missed out in the previous road discussions below. Is this one needed at all? If it is, surely California-road-stub is a better name... Grutness...wha? 23:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a WP that goes with this. Wikipedia:WikiProject California County Routes However it would be nice to make it singular. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is capitalized per WP:MOS and possibly add hyphens to placate the people who desire them if needed. It's attached to a wikiproject.Gateman1997 02:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename.. There is a WikiProject, and List of California County Routes shows a l-o-n-g list of non-yet-created, and not-yet-tagged California county route articles. The rename should add dashes, per WP:WSS, and county route should be singular and lower case, per WP:MOS. BlankVerse ∅ 02:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, maybe hyphens. California County Route is a specific classification. Just as a road could be maintained by the county (rural areas?) but still not be a County Route. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to California-county-route-stub, as there is a wikiproject. Definitely needs to be singular, hyphenated and 'stub' lowercased. --Mairi 02:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to either California-road-stub or California-county-route-stub; or if all else fails, as a matter of complete-red-line, do-we-have-to-have-a-formal-policy-to-say-it, "end your stub template names in '-stub'", California-County-Route-stub. There's some actual logic to this one, as there's two different road-stub-cats for California (as opposed to the ones that have come along since, which have only one per state, yet insist on being specific to "State Highways"). Alai 17:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to either California-county-route-stub or California-County-Route-stub. --Alynna 17:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to {{California-road-stub}} which can cover both state routes and county routes in California, It would also have the advantage of covering non state or county roads, and even stubs for Interstate highways and US highways in California can be marked with this in addition to {{UShighway-stub}} and {{Interstate-stub}}. And if not that, at least correct the capitalization to {{California-county-route-stub}} -Jeff 13:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a distinction between California County Route and California county route. The former is in the system; the other is just any ordinary route that runs in the county. Interstate 5 is a California county route but not a California County Route. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not what I get from county route. Interstates will presumably be sorted as such anyway: what roads are there that are "county routes" but not "County Routes" (by which I gather you mean, with that precise phrase in their names), that would be liable to be undesirably included in a lowercased name? I get the impression that either, a) there aren't any, or b) including them in the stub type would be organisationally useful. Alai 01:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, that was a really retarded example I gave. Here is another: Spruce Street is located out in the rural country, away from any major city. It is a residential street (residential because 2 people live on it). In fact, it is a dirt road. Would it be a county route? After all, it is maintained by the county... and it implies that people can write Wikipedia articles about their rural residential streets. Also, this stub goes with a WP- and the WP considers County Routes to be numbered. (A17, etc). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. :) Given the apparent state of my brain this evening, I can't really cast any stones. I would have thought it wasn't a "county route" in the sense of the county highway/county route/county road article, which uses exactly the definition you have in mind (as I understand it, at least), but doesn't capitalise it. Obviously in the case of simply -road-, what you say would be quite true, and seems to me to be broadly desirable. (If there ever got to be a lot of these, then re-splitting in more specific terms would start to make more sense.) Though I do think the existing, on-going WP should have a certain degree of latitude here in scope of definition, so I'm not gung-ho in favour of -road- in this case, though I'd personally mildly prefer it. Alai 03:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that case, Spruce Street would be considered a county road but not a county route. A county route is a numbered route, a county road is any road maintained by the county.-Jeff 13:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What was the consensus? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 19[edit]

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Melbourne suburbs (incomplete)[edit]

This is probably better here than at cfd - if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks, it's a stub category. Exactly duplicated the just-deleted/renamed ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Melbourne suburb stubs (now ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Melbourne geography stubs), except with a completely different set of suburbs. This should be deleted, since it's already perfectly well covered by ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Melbourne geography stubs. Grutness...wha? 02:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Created today along with the matching {{author-stub}}. I've redirected that to {{writer-stub}}, as the terms are insufficiently distinguishable. Delete the category, as it has no use. --Mairi 22:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{AU-depot-stub}} and {{Australia-depot-stub}} (both redirects)[edit]

Both of these currently redirect to {{Australia-rail-stub}}. I'm ambivalent about Australia-depot-stub, but the AU one should definitely go. It's currently fairly heavily used, but after the shifting-around of melbourne and Sydney stubs currently going on it should be a fairly manageable size for re-stubbing and Australia-depot-stub should be almost empty. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 20th[edit]

{{Ug-geo-stub}} (redirect)[edit]

While we're thinking about UGly redirect names, Ug-geo-stub - a largely unused redirect to uganda-geo-stub, fits that bill perfectly. Only three articles use it (two of which are actually university stubs). This one can also be deleted readily. Grutness...wha? 11:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC) (dammit I hate edit conflicts!)[reply]

space+stub redirects[edit]

These redirects:

all point to $1-stub, but all are listed at the stub redirects page as a redirect from an alternate name, which they actually aren't - the're just a remnant of a wrong naming convention. They need to be phased out in favor of the properly hyphenated name and deleted. --Joy [shallot] 10:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we also add {{Cricket stub}}? Grutness...wha? 11:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why? What's wrong with a redirect? Keep all. --SPUI (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete SPUI we dont mind redirects if theyre names are right but these ones the names are bad. Hyphens are used on all stub names. BL kiss the lizard 23:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, redirects are cheap and it's damned annoying having to check each one of these (and similar) for spaces and hyphens before you use it. However, if there is an established convention for hyphens, move all existing stubs with spaces in them to ones with hyphens. The point of redirects is to make it easier for links to get to their targets - if we start ditching all these redirects, why don't we remove Free links from Mediawiki while we're at it and only allow CamelCase? Alphax τεχ 02:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Delete then. Alphax τεχ 16:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, I think they're correctly listed here. If redirects to stub-types aren't stub-types for all practical, procedural purposes, I don't know what they are. If we want to cross the t's on this, we can make the wording on this explicit, and double-check with RfD that they're not going to feel horribly cheated thereby. On the merits of retaining them: I think on balance it's a good idea to get rid of them. They don't serve the same purpose as redirects in the article space, and in this case, they're just adding to the impression of stub naming conventions as an ad hoc mess. (It is "stub-stub"? "stub stub"? "stub-Stub"? etc.) Sooner we make these entirely consistent, and get people used to using the canonical sort, the better. There may be other cases in which there's a clearer case for retention, but frankly if they're removed over-zealously, it'll be stub-sorters that end up fixing it, so there's an "on our own heads be it" logic to this being decided here. And lastly, can we please not have edit wars on meta-pages, and come to that, gratuitous incivility? Alai 03:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • D'oh, the scope aspect is already covered explicitly on this page. I'll stop now before I start personally attacking myself. Alai 03:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added it yesterday when it became clear that not everyone knew the scope of this page yet. I'd assumed - since we've been dealing with redirects since this page started and no-one had complained - that everyone knew we'd been dealing with redirects as well. But apparently not, so (as I stated on the talk page) I clarified things. Grutness...wha? 05:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, it's here because Grutness just added it here. The point of this page was to combine discussions that had been split between TFD and CFD - a redirect does not have that problem. --SPUI (talk) 06:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was added because one editor in four months didn't understand how this page works and has worked since it started. Everyone else seems to understand it perfectly well. I decided to clarify things to stop someone else stumbling on the page in February 2006 and thinking something was wrong. Look at the page's earliest archive - we've been debating the deletion of redirects here since the day this page went live. That wouldn't have happened if it was only intended for categories and direct templates. And if it was, then there would have been complaints from those watching page deletions as soon as we started deleting redirects. There were none. Grutness...wha? 06:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nah, I think you're just too wrapped up in your stub sorting shit to realize that redirects are useful. Got that? Useful. --SPUI (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Grutness, seems a logical addition to me, as per my after-the-fact suggestion. I've left a message at RFD to check they don't consider their turf (or indeed toes) to be being trod on.
          • SPUI, the original motivation was in part to deal with said combinations, but now that we have this as a stand-alone process, it makes sense to consider stub categories without templates, and stub templates without categories, for the simple reason of having related discussion about the same "quasi-namespace" in the one place. If we started listing the former at WP:CFD, the latter at WP:TFD, and the redirects at WP:RFD, people would think we'd gone slightly mad. And then tell us to take it back here, as Grutness says. And again, can we please have a bit of civility of tone? Alai 15:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some redirects ar useful. Others aren't. If all redirects were useful, we wouldn't have an RFD page. But we do - because some redirects are not useful. For the same reason, not all stub redirects are deleted. We keep them if they're useful and worth keeping. You've even voted against a stub redirect yourself further down this page - so clearly not all stub redirects are useful. Grutness...wha? 10:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 05:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tedernst 07:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 21st[edit]

{{fictional-place stub}}[edit]

Weve got a fcit-location-stub and this looks... nasty. delete! BL kiss the lizard 22:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! Another of User:Maoririder's creations, by the looks of it! Get rid of it! Grutness...wha? 06:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here goes... now someone can write a article about jggjjfffjlgnflgnegnwghroghorgrhgnfgm,b df,bnfjgofigiorgjrgk,ergnreg and put the stub tag on it. Delete. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{bioinformatics-stub}}[edit]

Used once in two months, no cat, v. specialized. delete? BL kiss the lizard 22:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Mairi 18:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{South-Korea-bio-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:South Korean people stubs[edit]

{{North-Korea-bio-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:North Korean people stubs[edit]

Between these two stub types there are only some 90 articles, and considering that - with the exception of fifty years of Korea's exceptionally long history - the two parts have not been divided, it would make a certain amount of sense to merge these into a single {{Korea-bio-stub}} and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Korean people stubs. If the vote is to keep the current set up, I'd suggest losing the first hyphen of the templates and making it NorthKora- and SouthKorea-. Grutness...wha? 11:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created these and agree, a single korea-bio-stub is a better idea. I would have simply deleted these myself and created a unitary one, but I didn't want to bother having to get bureaucratic authorization to do so. Sarge Baldy 15:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletemergerename then, as creator agrees. Alai 04:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{papal-stub}} to {{pope-stub}}[edit]

Afaik, the general format for stub templates is [noun]-stub. Aecis 11:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is... so renaming looks like a good idea for this one. Grutness...wha? 11:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Grutness. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 5:18, 23 October 2005 (CDT)
Rename Alai 04:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Vermi 06:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(as if one needed more consensus) Rename. --AnOddName 00:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 22nd[edit]

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Catalonia-related stubs → ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Category:Catalonia stubs[edit]

Newly created as per WP:WSS/P, but the creator of it didn't realise we've been getting rid of the "-related"s. Rename now while it's still quite small. Grutness...wha? 07:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Too specific, rather doubtful there's near 60 stub articles. Delete --Mairi 01:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Woah. Um....yes. Delete. Why was this created in the first place? --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 5:35, 23 October 2005 (CDT)[reply]

{{Gib-stub}} & ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Gibraltar-related stubs[edit]

Badly undersized (21, and that's including some locations), not well-named, and has "-related" in the category name to boot. Can't find any trace of this on a criteria, proposals, or discoveries page (aside from Instantnood having just cited it as a precedent). Alai 21:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was listed somewhere, a long time ago (discoveries, I think - before SFD was up and running). At the very least both category and template need renaming, but unless it suddenly gets a flood of stubs, I'd be just as happy if it wasn't there at all. Grutness...wha? 22:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Just went through all the articles marked with ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Gibraltar or one of its subcats and managed to raise this to 40 stubs by marking stub articles with this stub. It's still marginal and I definitely would favor renaming to {{Gibraltar-stub}} & ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Gibraltar stubs but this is like Macau and China; by size it's a marginal stub category that would get swamped if absorbed by its parent. Caerwine 23:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, it doesn't really have a parent. We'd need a "British colonies and overseas territories stubs" category for that. Grutness...wha? 11:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a {{BritOT-geo-stub}}, so a {{BritOT-stub}} would be feasible as a parent for {{Gib-stub}}, {{Cayman-stub}}, about a dozen Anguila stubs in {{Caribbean-stub}} or even a replacement to send the stubs to if we get rid of {{Gib-stub}} and {{Cayman-stub}} (currently at 23 stubs). Caerwine 04:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeees, but BritOT-geo-stub is a bit of a kludge (and isn't well named, either). All but one of the stubs we had that didn't fit into continent categories was for a British colony (the last one, for St. Pierre, in St. Pierre and Miquelon, I expanded beyond stub level). Gibraltar's geo-stubs are normally found marked Euro-geo-stub. Most of the stubs in britOT are things like the Br. Indian Ocean Territories, the Falklands, and Tristan da Cunha. Grutness...wha? 05:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As St. Pierre and Miquellon is a French possession off the coast of Newfoundland, its stubs could have gone into a {{NorthAm-geo-stub}} if it existed. But back to Gibraltar, what's wrong with having ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Gibraltar stubs use ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:United Kingdom-related stubs as a parent? (Other than it should be ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:United Kingdom stubs that is.) It even shares an MEP district with the UK. After all, I don't think the Spanish irredentists will complain too much about using UK as a parent for Gibraltar. Caerwine 04:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
because it's not in the United Kingdom - it's one of its colonies. it would be like having Puerto Rico and Guam in the United States categories. Note, however, that BritOT-geo is a subcategory of UK-geo, although it's not a particularly good place for it. Grutness...wha? 10:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well since I happen to be of the opinion that Puerto Rico and Guam belong in the United States category, that's not a particularly effective argument to persuade me. They just happen to both have a second parent (Caribbean and Oceania respectively) for purposes of stub sorting. They really ought to add "Wikipedia is not a tree." to WP:NOT as far as I'm concerned. Caerwine 22:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
St. Pierre and Miquellon is an integral part of France, so it fits into both France-geo-stub and NorthAm-geo-stub. British overseas territories and crown dependencies are not part of the UK, but the relations of Guam and Puerto Rico to the US is more ambiguous. — Instantnood 06:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{War-stub}} → {{Mil-hist-stub}}[edit]

More likely to reach threshold with a broader scope, which would also handily serve as a super-cat for battle-, WWI- and WWII-. Note that there is a Wikiproject, but it's currently debating whether to merge itself, so this proposal seems in keeping with that spirit. :) Alai 04:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 23rd[edit]

{{Jersey-bcast-stub}} / Category:Jersey broadcasting stubs[edit]

Used on only 2 articles, even tho it was created 2 months ago. I rather doubt there's near 60 relevant articles. Delete. --Mairi

{{UN-stub}} and its redirect {{un-stub}}[edit]

One at a time:

  1. UN-stub used to be for the United Nations, but since February its scope has been broadened to International organisations in general (it feeds into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:International organization stubs. So why the old name? This should be renamed to {{International-org-stub}} or maybe {{intl-org-stub}}.
  2. un-stub is a very misleadingly named redirect now (does this mean it's been un-stubbed?) If UN-stub's name is changed it will be even worse. It's only used on about 10 articles, which can easily be re-stubbed - this one can be deleted (BTW, the old United nations stub category, recently rediscovered, was speedied since it had been empty for eight months) Grutness...wha? 09:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on both counts. Both names are misleading, for different reasons. --Alynna 23:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved UN-stub to int-org-stub. I ask that this stub not be botted, I'm doing a manual change so that I can also see whether there are enough UN specific stubs so as to be worth maintaining it as a separate stub type. Caerwine 16:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 24th[edit]

{{Aust-stub}} (redirect)[edit]

Austria? Australia? Austin? Australia, apparently. Made two months ago (without the knowledge of WSS, who would, I'm sure, have turned it down flat), and used seven times since then (three of them for things that weren't Australia-stubs anyway). delete. Grutness...wha? 10:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Canada-edu-stub}}[edit]

talked about on the discovery page. created as a redirect to canada-university-stub using the old name we dont use any more. BL kiss the lizard 22:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. This isn't speediable, because we haven't has a canada-edu-stub before, but all the other edu-stubs have gone as being too ambiguous (since they refer to universities, not education as a whole) so delete. Grutness...wha? 01:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; bad redirect created from patching move that should never have happened. --Mairi 02:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Plural names, which is a little unusual, to say the least. Rename to {{Fungus-stub}} (currently a redirect) and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Fungus stubs. Grutness...wha? 11:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Arch-stub}} (redirect)[edit]

Archaeologist? Archaeology? Architect? Archbishop? Archduke? Archdeacon? Arches? No. This template redirects to {{Architecture-stub}}. I think this one is a bit too ambiguous. Aecis 12:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. ISTR I created this one, but you're right, it is ambiguous and should go (PS - it is used for arches! :) Grutness...wha? 12:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't arches be under {{struct-stub}}? ;) Aecis 21:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
no. strict-stubs for individual buildings and arch-stubs for features of buildings! BL kiss the lizard 22:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you miss Aecis's joke. Arches are under a lot of structures :) Grutness...wha? 01:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
gah. my brain must be on strike :) BL kiss the lizard 00:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 26th[edit]

{{Connecticut-stub}}[edit]

Created in June, unused at present. There is no Wikiproject for Connecticut either. Delete as we've done with other US state stubs. Also delete the awful trying-to-be-a-category {{Connecticut-Stub}}. --Mairi 03:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused stub templates from June. Holy smeg, delete templates that think they're categories. --Alynna 03:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per precedent of other non-WikiProject state-stubs. I think the "catemplategory" can be speedied as nonsense. Grutness...wha? 05:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Days-stub}}[edit]

I'm really not sure what this is for; I don't think any articles on days of the year or days of the week are stubs. It's unused and sufficiently malformed (including no category), that nothing there helps. Delete. --Mairi 02:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Alynna 03:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --TheParanoidOne 21:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Independance-stub}}[edit]

Vague scope, which cuts across numerous existing categories. Currently used on one article (which is about movies related to Indian independence). Delete. --Mairi 01:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, could this possibly get more vague? Or overlap with more categories? Delete, not useful --Alynna 01:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 27th[edit]

{{El Salvador-bcast-stub}} & ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:El Salvador broadcasting stubs
{{Guatemala-bcast-stub}} & ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Guatemala broadcasting stubs[edit]

The only thing more embaressing than the fact that someone created them is that its taken almost 3 months since they were discovered for someone to place them up for deletion. 2 articles in the El Salvador cat and 0 in the Guatemala. Caerwine 20:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Scotland-related stubs[edit]

I thought this could be sorted out without a formal listing, but it seems not... Was created without being proposed; no count of the number of appropriate stubs; doesn't follow the "don't use '-related' in category names" convention. This was seemingly originally created as an attempt at a redirect to along with (the also not proposed) Category:Scotland stubs (to which two of those objections also stand, but which on balance seems like a good idea to me). We seem to have ended up with this as the "real" category simply because User:Mais oui! has taken it upon himself to undo my attempt to fix this, single-handedly populate the category, and then complain at length at WP:CFD (of all places) about WP:WSS's high-handed assumption of power, or something. So much for fixing this up while it was still small, I suppose... Delete, restore and populate ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Scotland stubs, and point {{Scotland-stub}} there instead. Alai 23:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename {{compu-fs-stub}} & ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Computer file system stubs[edit]

With only 35 articles, this stub type is clearly too limited in scope. However, by expanding the scope to computer strage in general, articles about file formats and the like would clearly be within the stub type and would help to clean up the over large {{compu-stub}}. Examining the first page of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Computer stubs was enough to convince me that this change would bring the stub type over the 60 stub threshhold.

Thus I'm recommending a rename to {{compu-storage-stub}} & ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Computer storage stubs. Caerwine 19:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 29th[edit]

{{EastEndersStub}}[edit]

Until a few minutes ago this was the template for stubs relating to the British soap opera EastEnders. It now redirects to the correctly-named but probably unnecessary {{EastEnders-stub}}. EastEndersStub should be deleted, since it is badly named - if the replacement isn't used on a few more articles, it could well end up here too, eventually. Grutness...wha? 05:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{sw-stub}} to {{starwars-stub}} or {{StarWars-stub}}[edit]

I think the abbreviation is too ambiguous. Aecis 20:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 30th[edit]

{{CAmerical-stub}}[edit]

The history indicates this was a mispelling for {{CAmerica-stub}} that was caught by the creator only after it was done. If at all possible, speedy it. Caerwine 23:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This one could easily be pruned. It's existed for a long time now (nearly seven months), and in that time it's been used on 14 articles. Unnecessary. Delete. 08:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

{{Cambodia stub}}, {{Cambodia-stubs}}, {{Cambodia stubs}} (redirects)[edit]

All three are unused redirects of {{Cambodia-stub}} that don't follow the usual stub name conventions. Caerwine 19:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cuba Rev-stub}} (redirect)[edit]

unused redirect to {{Cuba-stub}}. Delete. Grutness...wha? 08:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Stub need image}}[edit]

No category. Reads "This article is a stub because it needs an image". Yet the addition of an image doesn't turn a stub into a non-stub - stubs are usually judged on what is in the text. Pointless and used on a massive two articles since creation two months ago. Delete. Grutness...wha? 08:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{film director-stub}} to {{film-director-stub}}[edit]

We usually have either no space or a hyphen and since I'm currently proposing on the proposals page a {{director-stub}}, I'm going to propose a formal rename to include a hyphen between "film" and "director" here. Caerwine 05:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the new template and updated the category. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 12:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And now I have Mairibot working on the renaming. --Mairi 18:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've further updated the category so that it now is a child of the new ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Director stubs.
I've also come across (now that Mairibot has cleared things up) a template {{Film director}} that has only served as a redirect to the film director stub template. I've put an sfd-r notice on it, but hopefully it can just be deleted without a separate sfd. Caerwine 05:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's been deleted too now... --Mairi 05:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Colombia-dep-stub}} (redirect)[edit]

the first of five from me from the new stub-berg (see WP:WSS/D) This one redirects to {{Colombia-geo-stub}} but is unnecessary. Delete. Grutness...wha? 08:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Invert-stub}} (redirect)[edit]

redirect to {{Invertebrate-stub}}, but it's a pretty ambiguous name. Delete. Grutness...wha? 08:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 31st[edit]

{{ma-stub}} → {{Martialarts-stub}}[edit]

Listed as part of the latest stub-berg not because it was unknown, but because it could do with a rename. ma-stub could be about any of dozens of things, and I doubt martial arts would be near the top of the list. Rename Grutness...wha? 01:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved stub template to {{martialart-stub}} and revised category text, now all we need is to orphan the old stub. I wouldn't mind having {{martialarts-stub}} as redirect, but I haven't created it either. Caerwine 17:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have Mairibot do this one, once it finishes the cleanup it's currently doing. --Mairi 17:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Hp-stub}} → {{HarryPotter-stub}}[edit]

Listed as part of the latest stub-berg not because it was unknown, but because it could do with a rename. In this case, not only could H be any of several things, but would Harry Potter naturally abbreviate to capitals anyway. Rename Grutness...wha? 01:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved stub template and revised category text, now all we need to do is orphan the old stub. Caerwine 17:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{AusLawStub}} → {{Australia-law-stub}}[edit]

Listed as part of the latest stub-berg not because it was unknown, but because it could do with a rename. If we need this one, which is questionable in itself, then it could definitely do with a better name. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved stub template and revised category text, now all we need to do is orphan the old stub. Caerwine 17:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{AU-politician-stub}}[edit]

For some reason {{Australia-politician-stub}} redirects to {{Australia-bio-stub}}. Something needs to be done here... preferably moving AU-politician-stub to Australia-politician-stub and deleting the original AU name. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{CAM-stub}} (rename)[edit]

Listed as part of the latest stub-berg not because it was unknown, but because it could do with a rename. Alt-medicine-stub would work for me, though it does use an abbreviation. Even so, it would be far more obvious than it is with the current name. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/October_2005&oldid=1088036467"