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
Should be obvious. - R to r. Grutness...wha? 23:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Rename for obvious reasons of style. Crystallina 23:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 00:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename, fix category page, disclose the state secret of what the template is called, and get rid of that *%$£ wikiproject ad. Or rather, -d, throughout. Alai 01:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete
From WP:WSS/D. Um...? BJAODN? ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 19:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Seadog ^♪ 19:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename
Rename to Cat:Burkinabé people stubs to match the permcat and the similar material. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 19:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete
From WP:WSS/D. Too small. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Too small. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename & upmerge
From WP:WSS/D. Rename to {{Russia-university-stub}} and upmerge into Cat:Russia stubs. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 19:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom.__Seadog ^♪ 19:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename and double-upmerge to both natural parents. Alai 03:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename
Both Cat:Climatology - Meteorology stubs and Cat:Climatologist and meteorologist stubs are inelegantly named and the first also breaks the naming convention with the hyphen-minus and the capital M. Suggest renaming the categories to Cat:Atmospheric science stubs (as a child of Cat:Atmospheric sciences} and Cat:Atmospheric scientist stubs (as a child of Cat:Atmospheric scientists). The former non-stub category has been around a while serving as a parent for Cat:Climatology and Cat:Meteorology and I just now created Cat:Atmospheric scientists to do the same for Cat:Climatologists and Cat:Meteorologists. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support. We should really have cleaned this up more thoroughly when it came up a while ago... Alai 04:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Yeah, I started this stub in Feb. 05 and wasn't really happy with the dual name thing at the time. Need to fix it. Vsmith 04:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Finally a name that makes sense. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, but see no need to change the current templates. Grutness...wha? 22:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Neither do I, which is why I only nominated the categories. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete
A redirect of {{US-bio-stub}} that doesn't follow the naming guidelines. Other than that I have no real objection to it. By itself it is harmless enough, but the problems it could cause for confusion as to whether the vast number of US-*-stub 's have American-*-stub counterparts, leads me to suggest deletion. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - unnecessary and ambiguous, since "American" has a double meaning. Grutness...wha? 22:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not in heavy use, will save users confusion (and indeed typing) in the long run. Alai 06:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Redirects can do more harm than good. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 19:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete
Brought straight here for deletion without waiting for the discoveries page, as it's in the same vein as the other U.S. commercial television network stubs deleted back in October. Only 5 stubs, all station affiliates, 4 of them low power stations. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I thought I got all of them in October. Guess not. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 23:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete
Badly-named redirect, resulting from a move. Alai 23:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 01:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Her Pegship 21:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete at first I wondered what was going on but...per nom. — Seadog 04:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge
Despite the {{WPSS-cat}} banner on top, this was created unproposed from an upmerged template, and should have stayed upmerged: the template is only on 14 articles. Cat:Oregon building and structure stubs is also undersized and technically unproposed, but upmerging the sports venues will put it at 53, and there are airports that can be double-tagged to bring that number up some. Upmerge and delete. --CComMack (t–c) 18:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I did anything incorrectly, I merely noticed that someone had created the stub type (ostensibly to differentiate it from the similar Western States sports venue stub) and attempted to bring the thing into line with the other Oregon stubs. I see no problem with merging and deleting. I'll go remove the banner. Katr67 19:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's now failry standard practice to create upmerged stub templates with no individual categories when there is a natural stub parent and size would be a concern. Some of us add a commented note in the template, but it seems that not everyone does. Grutness...wha? 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Do you think you could look over the other Oregon stubs and see if any of the rest of these need to upmerged/unscrewed up? I had created the buildings and structures and schools stub categories a while ago, seeing that there were other individual states within the Western states cats. Sorry I didn't realize size was an issue. What's the guideline? I wish I had seen a note... Katr67 22:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for not having a commented note; I didn't know that was the current practice, but it makes a lot of sense. Grutness, is there an example of a template containing such a note that you could point me to for future reference? —CComMack (t–c) 21:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Usual size guidelines are 60 current stubs, but reduced to 30-40 if there's an active wikiproject directly relating to the stub type. It's explained at WP:STUB, and also at the top of the Stubsorting WikiProject's proposal page (where all new categories should be proposed prior to creation anyway. Grutness...wha? 23:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Katr67 23:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the other stubs, given CComMac's comments above about upmerging the sports venues into struct-stub, the only stub that's likely to be a problem is Oregon-bio-stub. We don't generally stub people by subnational region since people tend to move around a lot. The exception is politicians, who are usually automatically associated with one place. everything else looks pretty much OK, though the stub category tree is a bit askew in places (all of these stub categories should have Cat:Oregon stubs for a parent, to start with). Grutness...wha? 23:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it out. I'll try to get around to fixing up the mess today. And as long as I've got your attention, is there any way to keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon *out* of the stub categories without taking the examples off the project page? Or is there a reason it should be there? Katr67 23:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The simplest way to remove it is to "subst" the template, and then remove the category. (Of course, that means you then have a copy of the template code, not a live transclusion, but probably close enough for most purposes.) WSS strongly prefers that the template appears in the category, but I don't think much minds either way about project-space inclusions. Alai 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Katr67 20:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was PRC becomes umbrella cat for Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau

• Cat:Mainland China geography stubs → Cat:People's Republic of China geography stubs -- upmerge and upscope
• Cat:Mainland China building and structure stubs → Cat:People's Republic of China building and structure stubs -- rename and rescope

My reading of this discussion is that there's very little basis, and certainly no consensus for the current structure, which is in any event both internally inconsistent (in one case having a PRC umbrella, and the other keeping the "Mainland" and the SARs entirely separate), and with the permcats, which don't use this organisation at all. Alai 07:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• While I agree in principle to what you say, you may or may not recall that the current structure was the result of some fairly vigorous wrangling from certain wikipedians whom I find it nood-less, erm, needless to name at this point. In the case of the geo-stubs, there are separate categories for mainland China and Hong Kong within the PRC category, while the Macau geo-stubs are currently loose in the parent. Unless there is a suggestion to create a (heavily underpropulated) Macau-geo-stub category, this may reopen old wounds. A similar case is true with the struct-stubs - there are HK and mainland China struct-stubs, but no Macau-struct-stub, and if one were created it would be severely undersized. One option which would be handy but which probably wouldn't go down well with anyone would be to combine templates for HK and Macau into one geo and one struct category covering both SARs but - as I say - this probably wouldn't meet with much approval. Grutness...wha? 09:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm personally happy with either option you've alluded to for Macau ('rattling', and a "Hong Kong and Macau"/SARs cat). This may or may not amount to re-opening old wounds, but the current situation is far from satisfactory, much less "healed". As I say, it doesn't map to the permcats, in the case of the structs, it doesn't correspond to the "scope" of the present-day sovereign state in its internationally recognised borders (a bit like the Israel stubs situation in reverse), and it's been cited as a precedent for rescoping every (proposed) China type to "Mainland China", and splitting off an (unproposed) Hong Kong version -- which then gets taken to SFD, at which point there's recrimination, shameless padding of the category, and general suppuration. It's in short, pretty much repeatedly poking WSS in the eye on every organisational principle we claim to have. Normally we run a mile at giving special status to "disputed" regions -- and Hong Kong and Macau aren't even disputed (in any meaninful sense), they're part of the PRC. Alai 17:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

    Grutness, there isn't a problem with creating a new stubcat for any Chinese division that would require one - "Mainland" is not a division, but Shanghai and Hong Kong are. There is no problem having the Macau stubs floating in the general china cat, Macau is part of China. Nor would there really be a problem with creating a Shanghai stub-category if there were enough of them to form one. SchmuckyTheCat 20:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

    There would be problems for Macau. With a separate cat, there would be problems of size. Macau does not have enough stubs to comfortably have its own stub categories (only about a dozen geo-stubs, for instance). And yet there are speecific editors who particularly look for Macau stubs, which would be very hard to find if mixed in with all other Chinese stubs. I'd forgotten that Shanghai is also a SAR, but I don't see a problem with adding that into such a category. This may yet be a reasonable compromise solution. Grutness...wha? 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

    • I'm afraid Shanghai isn't an SAR. It's a city (note: rather different from western usage) placed at province-level. — Instantnood 23:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
      • In that case ignore the last lines of my comment. The rest still applies and it still sounds a reasonable idea for HK and Mo. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
        • You may perhaps be interested to take a look at the webpages posted at Wikipedia talk:categorisation. :-) — Instantnood 18:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: User:SchmuckyTheCat turned the perm cats empty or almost empty, and blocked whatever attempts to revert him. Therefore they were deleted. As a result the perm cat structure isn't actually an indicator. — Instantnood 19:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. — Instantnood 19:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support flatten all Chinese sub-categories. Any first level administrative division of China, whether it be a first-level city, an autonomous region, a province, or the SARS that has enough stubs should have a child stub-cat. This mirrors what is going on with non-stub categories. SchmuckyTheCat 21:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: SARs ≠ SARS. Deletion of perm categories has not been justified in the first place. — Instantnood 21:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I do hope Schmucky just has a problem with his caps key (must be hard typing with paws, after all), and isn't suggesting that Hong Kong and Macau are dangerously infectious... (One could perhaps argue about the free-market capitalism aspect...) Alai 01:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• 'Keep. Different meanings. Michael G. Davis 22:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm aware they have a different meaning; the question is, are the "Mainland China" level of organisation appropriate to have, as well as -- or in the latter case, currently instead of -- the PRC ones? We don't have a separate category for the "Mainland" of every country that has one, most obviously. Alai 15:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Is it usual for countries to have similar arrangements of separation? Michael G. Davis 19:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• To clarify my comments a little, since this got quite messy over time, my first choice would be to merge HK and Macao stub categories into one SAR stub category, this cat to be a subcat of a PRC stub category, in much the same way that the SARs are a specific special part of the PRC: within the country but separate. Similar measures could be taken with stub subtypes such as geo-stubs and bio-stubs. In the case of geo-stubs, the Chinese category is getting close to the point of splitting by province anyway, and having the SARs as a subcat at the same level as provinces would make sense. Under this scheme there would be no need for a separate "Mainland" subcat, as those stubs not connected with the SARs (of those provinces with their own stubs) could float free in the main PRC category. In the case of the bio-stubs, politician-stubs, general stubsand other types, the SARs would have their own subcat of the equivalent PRC stub type, with all other stubs floating free in the main PRC-whatever-stub cat. This would work in the same way that (to use a fairly weak, but useful analogy) stubs for many Oceanian countries with small numbers of stubs float free in the Oceania stubs category while the larger/more obvious splits (in that case Australia, New Zealand, PNG, and Fiji) have their own subcats. Grutness...wha? 10:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy
Used in only one article (Highville Mustard Seed Charter School), where I have removed it; this is actually not a stub template at all, but a misappropriation of the namespace. Suggest deletion. —TangentCube /c /t  21:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've speedied this as nonsense, above and beyond the run-of-the-mill such misappropriation (for which see below). Alai 00:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep
From WP:WSS/D. A mite small. Might need resorting. Also open to upmerging. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• A definite keep on the template, indifferent on the category Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both--D-Boy 23:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep --Amir85 23:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, we only have 21 articles but a WikiProject does exist. Definite keep for the template, but since we have a WP, shouldn't we keep the category as well simply for simplicity's sake in the hope that this material grows? Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 00:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, didn't know about the WikiProject. I probably should have looked a little harder. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Zoroastrianism is a major religion. ITs is also one of the oldest religions. The cat should stay because of the fact that Zoroastrianism articles are here on wiki. I will see if I can find stubs on Parsis to add to this and enlarge the number.Bakaman 01:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Articles on persons (Zoroastrians or otherwise) should be tagged with the appropriate xxx-bio-stub, and not with a {religion}-stub. Unless of course the article is on a person that is relevant to history/development/scholarship/etc of that religion (eg Kardir, Manek Dhalla etc). -- Fullstop 09:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, small even for a WPJified type, though. And populate, please. Alai 02:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is up to 27 articles now. Close enough. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 02:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Alai 02:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep for the stub template. The category is less important but nonetheless useful since it allows for a quick check of which articles need development. -- Fullstop 09:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect supernatural to paranormal-stub, upmerge cryptozoology
From WP:WSS/D. Related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal (which has been notified).

• {{Supernatural-stub}} / no cat - on 8 articles
• {{Cryptozoology-stub}} / Cat:Cryptozoology stubs - on 44 articles

Delete. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete {{Supernatural-stub}} but keep {{Cryptozoology-stub}} with a possible merge with {{legendary-creature-stub}} given the nature of most such animals. Another possibility would be to upmerge to {{Cryptid-stub}} or {{Cryptobiology-stub}} so as to include plants as well as animals. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Why did you put your comment out of order? Anyway... Cryptozoology distinctly diffrent then mythology. While, it may be a grey area when it comes to Bigfoot, the Cyclops is clearly not part of Cryptozoology. ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Important, used by project paranormal. I don't see a policy reason given why these should be deleted, nor is a stub template given as a suitable replacement. Keep both until more explanation is given. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • supernatural-stub is clearly not being used by the project, because it's only on 8 articles. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete supernatural-stub - clearly not widely enough used and badly formed to boot. Cryptozoology... I'd weakly favour keeping as a separate item, though I can see some sense in the suggested merge with legendary-creature-stub. Grutness...wha? 05:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: (supernatural-stub) Every project needs a stub category. It is an important tool for editors looking for new projects for improvement. Unless a policy can be stated for its deletion (and under use is not acceptable because that is down to the education of users, not the validity of the stub), there is no reason to delete this cat at all. perfectblue 07:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If "every project needs its own stub category" is your reason for keeping, then it's a novel one, considering the number of Wikiproject-specific stub types have been deleted in the past. If a stub category is too small, it's not kept, whether there's a wikiproject or not - it's a perfectly "valid excuse", as you put it, as explained at WP:STUB (with regards to size considerations when a stub category is created) and at the top of this page (see here). What you're describing is what Wikiproject talk page templates are for (for example the ones on Talk:Day Tripper, Talk:Sodium, and Talk:Canadian pale), not what stub templates are for. Such a project template would be far more use for your project than a stub template would. Grutness...wha? 10:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing a policy reason to delete actively used stub templates... and their are other unanswered questions... What stub templates should be used in the place of these two? I'm ok with stub-reorganisation, but I need more information before I can support this deletion. ---J.S ^(T/C) 15:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, supernatural isn't actively being used because it's only on 8 articles. There should be about 60 articles (or 30 in the case of a WP) for there too be a category. 8 falls far short of either of those numbers. Also as said above, cryptozoology overlaps with legendary-creature a bit, so you could use that instead. Or possibly have cryptozoology also feed into the legendary creature cat (one cat, two templates)? ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Cryprozoology is very different then mythology... I can see the two templates feeding to one cat as reasonable, assuming the cat-name was general enough. But our project doesn't deal with legendary creatures, so it's nice to have cryptoids separate.

8 articles seems reasonable when a stub is adopted by a project. ---J.S ^(T/C) 16:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also, it seems like J.S' question wasn't answered. If these two were deleted, what stub templates should be used in their place? --Careax 19:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

8 articles isn't really reasonable. I already said "There should be about 60 articles (or 30 in the case of a WP)". Also, I already said "cryptozoology overlaps with legendary-creature a bit, so you could use that instead". How am I not answering your questions? ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What stub templates should be used in their place? Specifically in place of the supernatural stub? --Careax 20:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It depends on the nature of those 8 articles. WP Paranormal has some other stub templates listed ({{myth-stub}} and {{para-stub}}) and there's also an {{occult-stub}}, so maybe one of those would work. Also, if you're looking for a stub that is solely for your WikiProject, you could always propose a {{Paranormal-stub}} that would encompass all of this. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of the existing stubs would work for specific articles, but some articles aren't really applicable to any of them. But a new general paranormal stub might do it. Thanks for the response. --Careax 23:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Supernatural, Keep Cryptozoology. --InShaneee 19:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Upmerge or redirect to a {{paranormal-stub}}, split out more specific topics only when numbers genuinely justify this. And keep wikiproject links out of article-space templates, please. Alai 02:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• comment: I've merged Template:Supernatural-stub to Template:Para-stub, and expanded para-stub's language to be open enough for all the sup-stubs. ---J.S ^(T/C) 03:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That's getting there, but the template name is a little cryptic, and the category name is too narrow. {{paranormal-stub}} / Cat:paranormal stubs would surely be much clearer, and scope exactly in line with your 'project. Alai 03:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • So is it just a case of switching the cat name and moving the template? I can run though with AWB and switch out the templates. ---J.S ^(T/C) 15:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes. (Or I can do it by bot, though as it's not exactly huge...) Alai 01:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename
Either rename to {{icehockey-arena-stub}}/{{icehockey-stadium-stub}}/{{icehockey-venue-stub}} or just delete. Most of these are double-tagged by state, so I'm not sure an additional by-sport template is really necessary. Also brings up problems of multi-sport arenas (which is why they're split by state, I assume). As a side note, we might need a {{Canada-sports-venue-stub}}, just based on the contents of this category. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Indifferent Flibirigit 20:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Get rid of the hockey references if kept. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename. Many of these aren't even solely sports venues, but it's still possible to identify a primary use and/or form of structure. Alai 03:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was lots of stuff happened - see final solution by Amalas
From WP:WSS/D. Previously deleted. Overlaps existing {{cell-biology-stub}}. Awful template name. The associated WikiProject has been notified. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom as re-creation. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Don't delete yet - WP:MCB is trying to gain a consensus view of the best way to reorganise the relevant cell, molecular, and protein stubs. A speedy deletion would not be helpful here. Dr Aaron 08:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have also left comments on the WP:MCB talk page Dr Aaron 08:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Don't delete yet. The subjects covered by this stub are not all cell biology, so the overlap is only partial. TimVickers 19:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. In theory this can be speedily deleted as a re-creation, but it's probably not a good idea since there is reorganisation going on at the WikiProject. It should definitely go though - it crosses other categories horribly and is painfully named. Grutness...wha? 20:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Yes, we have been notified, but I must say I take some minor exception to the tone of the notice. If you want us to change it, there are much nicer ways of going about it. After all, not everybody is familiar with your guidelines. I request however that you stay deletion at least long enough to let us change everything over to the stub name that you like. – ClockworkSoul 23:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I do apologize for the tone. I was putting a number of things up for deletion and after awhile, my notifications and descriptions get more and more terse. I do often forget that not everyone knows about the guidelines (I've been here awhile, so it happens), but that's also why I linked to them in the notification. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 23:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly merge both into Cat:molecular and cellular biology stubs if there's a scoping difficulty with the existing type. If an additional template is required, please make it NG-compliant: perhaps {{molecular-biology-stub}}, for those that are not precisely {{cell-biology-stub}}s. Don't worry about these being 'cast adrift': if there's an identifiable destination, they can and will be 'botted over at the close of the discussion. Alai 02:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I've done this, with the agreement of the wikiproject. Basically this seems to be the root cat for quite a large hierarchy, and might ultimately help attend to matters such as the biochems, which have been more or less projectless to this point, so it seems to be basically sensible as regards scope. Alai 22:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Here's the updated hierarchy, based on the permcats:
  • {{biochem-stub}} / Cat:Biochemistry stubs
    • {{enzyme-stub}} / Cat:Enzyme stubs
    • {{molecular-cell-biology-stub}} / Cat:Molecular and cellular biology stubs
      • {{molecular-biology-stub}}
      • {{cell-biology-stub}} / Cat:Cell biology stubs
      • {{protein-stub}} / Cat:Protein stubs

I think this covers everything and this can now be closed. Hopefully. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename
This is part of a large group nomination at WP:CFD. Under those circumstances, please comment there rather than here. Grutness...wha? 10:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename template(s) by country and/or city, upmerge
I was going to put this on WSS/D, but then found it had already been discussed with the consensus to send it here in early September. Seeing no further discussion in the September logs, here it is. The category currently contains 26 articles. Propose upmerge to {{Metro-stub}}/Category:Rapid transit stubs. Slambo (Speak) 21:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose What's wrong with the category, we have stub categories that are empty and fill in and out due to how fast people edit them. I see nothing wrong with that. The only point is that instead of creating stubs, we usually leave the artilce red-linked and put it in complete, but if you want that category to grow exponentially I can create at least a hundred FSU metro stubs. --Kuban Cossack 23:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and upmerge. May be needed later, but if so, it should have a far better name and a better scope. FSU does not have a metro system. Neither does the FSU, or FSU. In any case, except in very rare circumstances, we use current national boundaries, so a stub type covering 15 countries which no longer form a cohesive unit and split across two continents is not the most sensible split, especially since I doubt that any of these metro systems have individual lines crossing current national borders. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Grutness. Poor scoped, poorly named, small. Alai 01:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The scope is very far from normal, agree, but could this be because of a WikiProject / taskforce or similar? Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 01:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment to Comments. Although FSU is an abstract term, one needs not to realise that it does refer to the ex-Soviet countries...Now I personally find this category very helpful, because I do happen to operate in the seven ex-Soviet countries that have a rapid-transit system. If anybody doubts that statement, my full list of Metro contributions. As for poor management, then on the contrary, in my opinion its better not to create stubs, but instead to write complete articles from start. However, one of my key associates in the effort User:DDima, at times uses the stub function... However whenever he does so, I know exactly when such an article would come up by viewing that category. ... I think the only fair compromise that I propose here is that after we complete the 500+ articles on Metro stations, then I myself will put this stub category and template for deletion...However, at present, our rate is not excatly fast, as one thing is to create a hundred stubs another is to write 500 articles, roughly to the standard equivalent of Vyrlitsa. --Kuban Cossack 02:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the current contents of 25 articles, almost all from the Moscow metro, and all of them from only three countries, I think your suggested "compromise" of "wait another 500 articles" is indistinguisable from your original unqualified opposition. I instead suggest that this be replaced with a {{Russia-metro-stub}}, a {{Ukraine-metro-stub}} and a {{Belarus-metro-stub}}, all upmerged to Cat:rapid transit stubs, or the proposed (I believe) Cat:European rapid transit stubs. If it's really necessary to "split up Europe", we should try to stick to standard modern definitions, like the UN subregions. Alai 04:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete There are other and better ways besides stubs to keep track of small numbers of articles that need improvement. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I really do not see any problem with it... It is helpful and the topic is of wide range. If consensus is to delete them, perhaps we can only delete the category and still keep the stub temp, so the articles will go into the Metro stubs category... Or if some do not like the name, we can rename it to smthing like Eastern European Metro stub... —dmytro/s-ko/ 19:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep of course per user:DDima. --Irpen 20:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. FSU abbreviation stands for different terms, as Grutness pointed out (above). I should either be country-specific, like {{Ukraine-metro-stub}}, {{Russia-metro-stub}}, as Alai suggested (above), or even city specific. Or just {{Metro-stub}}. At the end, it's just a stub. --KPbIC 21:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • By city is theoretically sensible as upmerged templates, but we're a looooong way off anything aside from {{Moscow-metro-stub}} being separately viable (and we're some way off that). Might as well go for the more specific template at least in that case, though. Alai 02:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, rename
From WP:WSS/D. 8 articles. Delete both and retag articles with {{CP-stub}}. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• delete per above nom. Grutness...wha? 23:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 01:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed to weak keep, see below. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep. The template is not widely used at the moment, but there are several more articles to which it could be used. Rather than deletion, its usage could be promoted. --Soman 07:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; badly named, much too small. Alai 18:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but should also get {{youth-org-stub}} Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. At this point used in 50 articles, with potential for wider use. Subcat to both 'CP' and 'youth org' stubcategories. I think there is a problem with to much of multiple stubs (many articles have 3-4 different stub templates, looking a bit crowded). This template fills a function. --Soman 09:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I make that 48, which is still small. But I'll stretch to a weak keep, provided the template is renamed to something semi-comprehensible (I'm open to offers). Alai 02:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • {{CP-youth-org-stub}} if we're not going to try and rename the cryptic {{CP-stub}} and {{Euro-CP-stub}}. If we try top rename the other two then {{communist-youth-org-stub}}, {{communist-party-stub}}, and {{Euro-communist-party-stub}} would be sensible in my opinion. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, the existing less-than-obvious templates were partly why I forebore from making any specific suggestions. (CP's more "highly ambiguous", than "totally obscure", to my mind, though.) I'd be OK with any of the above. Alai 05:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd be in favour of changing the lot as per Caerwine's suggestions. Have a quick look at CP! Grutness...wha? 10:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, weak keep since it has grown so much. Agree that the lot should be changed per Caerwine's suggestions. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge/rename
From WP:WSS/D. 18 articles. At the very least needs a rename to...something. It is associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Oklahoma. They also have plans for a {{OKState-stub}} it seems. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Favor an upmerge to {{Oklahoma-university-stub}} which would include Oklahoma State and other tertiary institutions located in the Sooner State. Otherwise I favor deletion given the small size. If kept the category should be renamed to Cat:University of Oklahoma stubs and the template could be renamed to {{UOklahoma-stub}} to parallel {{UTexas-stub}}. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• I think the best thing is to rename to {{UOklahoma-stub}} to parallel {{UTexas-stub}}. Johntex\^talk 23:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Upmerge as per Caerwine. Same should be done with the Texas one, as has been mooted in the past. Everyone knows that OU is Oxford, anyway - even someone like me who went to Otago U. Grutness...wha? 23:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Or Odense U. :) Per Caerwine. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 01:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Everyone knows the Open University is the OU. Waacstats 23:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Upscope, per CW, without a separate OU-stub template. (Which I'd also oppose were it used in the way Grutness implies (not that I'm suggesting he's suggesting this). Even as a Brit, it makes me think a) that could be almost anything, and b) even given the large hint that it's a university type, I'd probably think first of the Open University, especially given its logo, rather than Oxford (the OUP not withstanding). So in short, massively ambiguous.) Alai 18:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge/rename
From WP:WSS/D. At the very least, rename to {{QuebecCity-stub}} / Cat:Quebec City stubs. A mite small at 22 articles, but Cat:Quebec stubs has about 150, so maybe there are more floating around in there. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - note that some 75% of the articles in here are actually Quebec-geo-stubs. If there's going to be a QuebecCity-stub (the correct name, as pointed out), it's be good to know whether that is what is wanted or whether a QuebecCity-geo-stub is actually what is required. Especially since several of the other items marked are bios, which we don't usually even divide by province, let alone city. Grutness...wha? 23:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral for rename / Oppose for deletion - I really don't mind if the stub template is Quebec-City-Stub or QuebecCity-Stub, but the a stub template is necessary for this section... it's not because we have a small number of articles in it that we should delete the template. Normally when an article is identified as a stub, it's not just put in a category, we also put a stub template, and if we can, a specific stub template. --Deenoe 11:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Cat:Quebec stubs is for stubs related to the province of Quebec. --Deenoe 12:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I am aware of that, but since Quebec City is in the province of Quebec, if we were to upmerge it, that's where it would go. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename and upmerge (keeping template). Alai 18:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete any cats not above 40, upmerge templates

• Cat:Brazilian record label stubs
• Cat:Austrian record label stubs
• Cat:Icelandic record label stubs

And many, many more... my morale levels aren't sufficient to tag them all just at the moment. The most annoying thing is that this makes my properly proposed Cat:European record label stubs completely pointless: all the stubs have been diverted off into 3-article categories, created without so much as a mention. Upmerge all, either to existing parents or new by-region categories. Alai 06:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Upmerge all per nom - and delete any templates which aren't actually being used, if any. Is this all the work of one creator? If so, someone might need to have a word... Grutness...wha? 08:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I've been doing some work on categorizing all the stubs from the main record-label-stub category. Previously there was only stub categories for UK, US and Canada. I really don't see any harm in having one for each country. I've only been adding in the countries as I find new stubs, IE - I've not been creating one for every single country in the world. Furthermore the Cat:European record label stubs didn't exist until 4am this morning! Some of them have also had quite a few entries in them already (France and Germany spring to mind). Lugnuts 12:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you aware of the stub size guidelines? (Or indeed the new stub type proposal page?) The Euro- type didn't exist until then because I actually waited for input on the proposals page before creating it (discovering these in the process), as opposed to steaming ahead and creating these willy-nilly. It's conceivable that Germany or France might be viable (and last time I looked Sweden and the Netherlands were in the same ballpark), but a) not demonstrated, and b) hardly a justification for the rest of the category-creation spree (or indeed a "strong keep" thereof. Alai 15:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Moan, moan, moan. I still stand by my original comments. If anything I think it'll help to get these articles expanded by people who edit Wikipedia from those countries, instead of them being lost in the pit that is just record-label-stubs. Lugnuts 20:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Are you aware of the stub size guidelines? You mean this bit then: The need for stub categories arose when the main Category:Stubs became so full that it got quite hard to find articles on a specific topic. Lugnuts 20:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I believe the part Alai was referring to was Ideally, a newly-created stub type will have between 100 and 300 articles. In general, any new stub category should have a minimum of 60 articles. This threshold is modified for the stub category for use by a WikiProject. (If a Wikiproject is associated with more than one stub type, normal size considerations apply.) but I may be mistaken. Currently these 3 categories have 5 articles between them, which is a far cry from 60 each. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 21:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
          • That would be the bit I had in mind, yes, thank you Amalas. (I guess if one is going to selectively apply WP:STUB, similar thinking might as well apply to WP:CIVIL, but both seem rather regretable to me.) The need for a split is why I proposed and created the Euro- type, which actually follows all of the guidelines -- including size, need, and the "actually proposed" part -- not just applying one bullet point in a way that contradicts the remainder. Alai 18:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Sorry, you just sound like an old woman! For Christ's sake, I was trying to improve it! I would understand if it was deliberate vandalism. I'm as passionate about this as the next guy, hence my input. I don't understand though why we need to have a discussion about stubs being created, but not for categories. This is where someone now points out that the latter is discussed before creation... Happy editing! Lugnuts 19:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
              • Let me be more direct: knock off the gratuitous incivility, please. Were your arguments intended to be purely rhetorical, if this is the way you react to counter-points to same? Or are we supposed to accept unchallenged your assertions about how great an idea these types are? It doesn't have to be "deliberate vandalism" to be "an extremely bad idea", which latter instance is pretty much precisely what we have deletion processes for (as opposed to just shooting non-guideline-compliant material on sight, much as that might actually spare us some grief in some instances). We 'need' to have (or at least would hope for) prior discussion for these in a general effort to co-ordinate stub-sorting effort; and as against the perm-cats, as for one thing, they have different purposes, and hence, there's different criteria for them to exist -- in particular in this case, size. (Of which you were evidently either unaware, or were choosing to ignore; given the nature of your comment, it's still not clear which.) And for another, because of people who create them on a completely inappropriate basis. (Unfortunately, those tend to be the people who just merrily ignore the proposals page, so it's questionable if that plan ever actually gets us anywhere.) Alai 20:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
              • gratuitous incivility - Oh dear. Maybe you should step out into the real world for 2 minutes. This is about as "gratuitous" as a church bring-and-buy sale! I've put my point across well and in good nature humour too.
                Or are we supposed to accept unchalle