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 all

• {{Angel-episode-stub}} / Cat:Angel episode stubs
• {{Buffy-episode-stub}} / Cat:Buffy episode stubs
• {{Whedon-stub}}

Every article that was tagged with the -episode-stub was NOT a stub, so I removed the tags. whedon-stub is a redirect to {{Buffyverse-stub}}, so it should probably just be deleted. WP:BUFFY has been notified. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Now that there are no articles for that topic that are stubs, the templates should be deleted. However, if there is a sudden upsurge of buffy episode stubs etc (which I doubt there would be), the stub templates should be allowed to be recreated... But again, that shouldn't happen. Spawn Man 01:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps in 20 years' time, when Some Spotty Kid(TM) "reimagines" same... Alai 05:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• I just want to clarify that I am NOT advocating deleting {{Buffyverse-stub}}. WP:BUFFY uses that one and I don't see the need to get rid of it. Just making sure I'm clear. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 21:52, 8 November 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
Should be respectively expanded and de-capsed in line with recent treatment of MMA-stub. I shall draw a veil of this type being unproposed, having a huge image, and being a line and half long due to a spammy wikiproject ad (or at least, not dwell on those aspects too much). Alai 00:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nom. hateless 02:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• support per nom. heqs 21:26, 9 November 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

• Cat:Canada television stubs → Cat:Canadian television stubs
• Cat:Canada television program stubs → Cat:Canadian television program stubs
• Cat:Canada television station stubs → Cat:Canadian television station stubs

Fix "WSS grammar" in each case. Alai 00:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. I wonder how that slipped through. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Per nom - Probably some American... ;) Spawn Man 01:56, 8 November 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
Per logical scope of the type, and names of both its perm parent, and the long-approved but only recently created UK-tv-stub (potential) parent. Alai 00:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Per nom - Seems logical... Spawn Man 01:55, 8 November 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
Per sibling cats, and tradition of avoiding propositions with 'stubs' suffixed in the category names. (Unproposed, a but small, but nothing that'll kill us.) Alai 23:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• redirect Cat:Sport in Belgium stubs → Cat:Belgian sport stubs --¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 05:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • given that stubs are categorised by way of template, there's no need to use the fairly clunky category redirect method. Simply deleting this category and creating a new one does the job more effectively and only requires one template edit (oh, delete/rename per nom, BTW). Grutness...wha? 09:11, 7 November 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

• {{Dinobird-stub}} / Cat:Dinobird stubs

Delete as this was created and (ab)used by a single user and has met with much scorn on the Dinosaur project talk page. Dysmorodrepanis 04:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Erk - I'm not surprised. Does anyone, anywhere use that horrible term? These are already covered by paleo-bird-stub anyway, so why is it needed? BTW, you may be interested in joining in a proposal I'm about to initiate at WP:WSS/P... Grutness...wha? 05:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Make extinct. Alai 06:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I hear a meteor approaching ... Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 09:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Created by a user unfamiliar with formal scientific naming conventions. Wikipedia needs to present a professional appearance, even in template space. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete What? No wonder a lot of researchers dislike Wikipedia as a reference source. Dinobirds... --¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 05:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Speedy Delete per above. --Bob 18:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - This user is quite, um, shall we say unfamiliar with the dinosaur world & has been giving us trouble for a while now. Delete the template as per nom. Spawn Man 02:00, 8 November 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
More work from User:Robertjohnsonrj: no template and surprisingly enough no contents (other than a category, which wasn't a stub category and has now been moved to somewhere more appropriate). Never proposed. Speediable in a couple of days if it remains empty, but I'm going through the formal process here just in case. Delete. Grutness...wha? 21:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Wait before deletion - If you say this user has been very active in the last 24 hours, then maybe he has plans for this category. By all means, if no work or linking to has occurred in a few days, then speedy it. Spawn Man 02:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. (He's been active in creating categories, seemingly on the basis of spurious redlinks -- someone should really rename "Wanted categories" -- not contents for same.) Alai 04:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Also religion is one item that it's not really logical to split by country - splitting it by religion is much more sensible, and that is how other reli-stub subcats are split. Grutness...wha? 05:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. Agree with Alai that "Wanted categories" should be renamed. It would also be a great idea to add a little notice saying that in some cases these categories have been deliberately deleted. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 14:38, 8 November 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 delete. MER-C 08:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Recently renamed to Cat:Building and structure stubs and recreated (I hope in good faith) by User:Robertjohnsonrj, who has been VERY busy the last 24 hours. Pegship 12:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've speedied it as a re-creation. He has been busy, hasn't he... There are a couple more possible SFD's in there (see above). Grutness...wha? 21:59, 7 November 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
Not for stubs for little green multitentacled extraterrestrials, but for stubs relating to the planet Mars. Main category is Cat:Mars, and - depite the logical reasons for suggesting using an adjectival form for countries on earth - the noun form is probably preferable here. Grutness...wha? 09:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Move as per nom - Would make it easier to find etc... Spawn Man 02:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom, and naming guidelines. (BTW, I see no difference in interplanetary treatment here: "Martian crater stubs" and "France stubs" would both be logical and conventional, but this, and likewise "French stubs", would not be.) Alai 04:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point - I hadn't considered that. Grutness...wha? 05:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per above. MER-C 10:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• SUPPORT--aceslead 18:16, 9 November 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 delete
If correct, too narrow a scope; delete. If a typo, rename (possibly actor stubs by country?). Pegship 20:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as empty. Alai 23:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Alai. So tagged. MER-C 09:14, 9 November 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
Or at the least, to something else without spaces, per the naming guidelines. Alai 17:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Didn't we decide a while ago that stub types for individual universities was a bad idea? Sure, this has a Wikiproject, but it also has just 11 stubs - and would therefore be better handled by a list than a stub category. I've no objection to a Virginia-university-stub, to cover all universities in Virginia, but I'd suggest deleting this, not renaming it. Grutness...wha? 05:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

correction - some of the articles marked with this were clearly not stubs - articles like Wahoos, for instance. There are effectively only six stubs which use this template. Grutness...wha? 06:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Followup - I note that the wikiproject is currently on MFD, too... Grutness...wha? 23:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• The MFD was closed as userfy so this stub should be deleted. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:29, 15 November 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 delete. MER-C 05:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete; another re-creation from the earnest perusers of Special:Wantedcategories. *sigh* Pegship 00:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedied, for the second time in three days. Talking of days, it's now the 11th. :) Alai 00:35, 11 November 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 rename
Speedy rename; correct case. Not WPSS-approved, but quite decently populated and no comment made on the Discoveries page. The template is fine: {{Finland-artist-stub}}. Pegship 17:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Renamed, will speedy the old cat once the job queue catches up. It's a bit small, so I'm not sure it's a dead cert at /D. Alai 23:19, 10 November 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
Delete. Film stubs are sorted by country or genre, not language; we have an {{India-film-stub}}; and the syntax is incorrect anyway. The template ({{Indian Punjabi-language films-stub}}) doesn't exist, so no action necessary there. Pegship 17:28, 10 November 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 doesn't follow the naming guidelines; category is distinctly confusing. Alai 09:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

hows that confusing? --Dan027 11:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support move The confusion arises because some editors (like myself) see "Victorian" and their first thought is Victorian era. Slambo (Speak) 11:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

thats why it says "This category is for stub articles relating to Rail transport in Victoria. You can help Wikipedia by expanding them." im not stiring anyone up here, but i just dont like the sound of "Victoria-rail-stub", sounds like broken english. --Dan027 11:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you checked the Stub naming guidelines? Or similar stub types like Victoria-geo-stub (Cat:Victoria geography stubs)? Rename per nom. Grutness...wha? 22:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Rename per nom. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 00:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. --CComMack (t–c) 03:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename - per nom. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:28, 15 November 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 #-style redirect, no entries, linked from one talk page. Alai 08:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Seriously, I've never seen any stub that is a redirect before --¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 06:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • My first time too. :) Alai 06:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't redirects like that fall under the criteria for speedy deletion? --Ohms law 17:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Strange.. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:26, 15 November 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
As below, but emphasis on the "noun phrase" part this time. Alai 04:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

above u are asking for a change of plural to singular, and here your asking for the opposite, why? --Dan027 11:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

He's doing no such thing. Hhe's arguing for a change from the adjectival form to the noun form, as stated in the stub naming guidelines. "Winter Olympics" is not a plural - or can you point out to me exactly what a "Winter Olympic" is? Grutness...wha? 22:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

PS - that's a rename, BTW. Grutness...wha? 22:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

go take your stress out on someone else mate, i was asking Alai the question not Grutness.

Perhaps you should post your question to Alai on Alai's talk page, then. Pegship 17:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. --Ohms law 17:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename - per nom. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:27, 15 November 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
Per the 'singular noun phrase' doctrine. Alai 04:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Pegship 04:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. --Ohms law 17:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI: I cahnged the template on the current page to sfr. --Ohms law 17:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Rename - per nom. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:27, 15 November 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 phil template/cat (and possibly clarify scope), redirect charity template, delete charity cat
Looking at the stub type list, we somehow seem to have both {{charity-org-stub}} (Cat:Charitable organization stubs) and {{philanthropy-org-stub}} (Cat:Philanthropic organization stubs) , which seem to me to cover almost identical ground. Surely we don't need both? I propose deleting one of Cat:Charitable organization stubs or Cat:Philanthropic organization stubs and redirecting one of the two templates, so that these two types are merged. No real preference, though perhaps the philanthropic one has a slightly wider coverage and so should be the keeper. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• The somehow being this proposal. The scopes seem significantly different to me (see the permcats), if the issue is size, and the phils aren't separately viable (I haven't re-checked), certainly keep both templates, without redirection. Alai 05:31, 12 November 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
What follows is the discussion as it was occurring at WP:TFD - it is quite clear from some of the discussion that the people commenting were unsure of stub guidelines as regards disputed territories, which is that they should not have stubs. Furthermore, no discussion had taken place as regards the category which this template fed into, and as such, there could be a horrible refactoring of discussion if it was added in at this stage. As such, I've preserved the comments below which should be taken into consideration in any debate, rather than simply allowing the debate to take its course and potentially causing problems if the result was delete as regards the un-mentioned category. Grutness...wha? 22:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete for several reasons:

1. as per precedent on disputed territories and unrecognised countries - compare the delete decisions for Ossetia, Chechnya, TRNC, Transdniestria et al in the past;
2. for size reasons - there are fewer than 40 articles in the category, nowhere near the threshold requirement for a stub category - and several of those are not stubs;
3. for permcat reasons - there is no Cat:Nagorno-Karabakh, and as such the stub category should not exist. There is, however a Cat:Nagorno Karabakh, so iff the vdecision is to keep this, it will need renaming.

To answer some of the specific comments above:

1. California is a recognised subnational unit, and it is those that are used for naming stub categories.
2. Stub types for other similar regions have always been deleted in the past with only two exceptions - those for Taiwan, which is internationally recognised by several nations and has been internationally recognised by many others in the past, and Palestine, a stub type that was created after long, hard debate with the agreement of wikipedia editors from both the Palestinian Territories and Israel and which even so has been the subject of considerable controversy since (including SFD debates).
3. Whether having a Nagorno-Karabakh-stub helps organise articles on Wikipedia is a moot point. the number of stubs contained within the category is below the threshold number considered optimal for sorting articles, and the categories which has been split from were within the optimal range. As such, having this as a separate stub category may well cause more effort for editors.

Grutness...wha? 22:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

On the name: the permcat seems to depart from the name used in the main article, so I've nominated it for renaming. Alai 05:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete per the arguments presented by Grutness. This template is controversial, it fails the criteria for size, and it will strongly empty Cat:Armenia stubs and/or Cat:Azerbaijan stubs, both of which are hardly full. I have sorted the South Caucasian material several times and it was pretty problematic just finding enough material to argue for even "one" template per country. These categories are still pretty empty and both are way below the number of articles normally required to split a category in two (500-800 stub articles is a good guideline). The political side of this issue has been discussed for many other entities in the past and the short story is that Nagorno-Karabakh / Artsakh / Qarabaq is a controversial entity and we should only have stub templates for internationally recognized entities that we can be pretty sure will not lead to neverending revert wars / stub wars. Having controversial templates around presents a strong risk for such a scenario; One editor will no doubt add a flag that another editor considers controversial and / or add such a template to some article(s) others will consider improper to include. Both situations have a high risk of ending in stubs being continuously added to / removed from articles and templates being changed back and forth between a flag version, a no-flag version and possibly other versions as well. Precedent has so far been to avoid any such situations completely. We shouldn't have distinct templates for any hotspot in the world, including Abkhazia, Chechnya, Republika Srpska, Kosovo, TRNC etc. etc. I have never been a great fan of both {{Palestine-stub}} and {{Taiwan-stub}} either. Although the situation is different for the latter two, both still smack of the same problem. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 00:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete but only on grounds of size. The idea that we can avoid controversy by fiat is fallacious, soliphistic, nonsense. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, now that I am aware of the precedent and special criteria relating to stub tags, disregard my earlier comments during the TFD discussion. Neil916 (Talk) 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikimedia is not a propaganda machine nor a battleground, if we keep this then we are gonna have to accept stubs from other unregonized territories as, Northern Turkish Republic of Cyprus, Taiwan, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, etcetc. NKR is not regonized in the world. 85.146.213.29 20:18, 14 November 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
I missed this one from the earlier nom, until I mistakenly edited its /ST listing, instead of the one I'd actually just moved. But I've recatted these now anyway, for the sake of consistency, and the pointlessness of changing it back, so unless anyone yelps, I'll speedy the now-empty original. Alai 08:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Also Cat:Canada radio station stubs, a subcat, now likewise emptied. Alai 12:31, 14 November 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 proposal withdrawn
I came belatedly to this discussion while trying to organize the literature stubs. Can we keep this and rename it {{Latin-lang-lit-stub}} / Cat:Latin-language literature stubs (or some such)? There are many lit-stub articles which are non-fiction, written in Latin, and therefore don't go in poetry, drama, or mythology, and they're not necessarily books per se, so {{nonfiction-book-stub}} doesn't fly either. I'll get a count when I can. Her Pegship 20:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

A Latin lit stub mught be useful, although there'd be an obvious overlap with whatever template we use for Roman Catholic texts. I've definitely no objection to a keep with new template (deleting the original template), asssuming the numbers add up. Grutness...wha? 01:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note: this has already been discussed further down the page: Ancient Rome discussion. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Hm, only around 25 that are strictly Latin. I'm going over to Proposals to propose a classical-lit-stub, so never mind. Suggestion withdrawn... Her Pegship 14:49, 15 November 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
Yes, there is a WikiProject, but no, there are not the required 30 stubs. In fact, there are five, four of which are geo-stubs and therefore should, if anything, be marked with houston-geo-stub (if US geo-stubs were split that way rather than by county). Created with no proposal last week. Either populate - properly - or delete. Grutness...wha? 06:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Not enough appropriate articles for use. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:24, 15 November 2006

(UTC)

• Keep - >30 articles. Postoak 01:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep —RJN 04:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Not the axis we'd split on, it's true, but we have a history of humouring wikiprojects, and unless we're actually going to create {{Houston-geo-stub}}, those are logically "upmerged" here (though they'll have to be double-stubbed with {{Texas-geo-stub}}, of course). (Though arguably we might revise this in the light of the WPJ free-fire-zone that is the "Stub-Class article" talk-page category tree.) Alai 09:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I see more than 30 articles with this stub, and it serves a useful purpose. Mike Richardson 05:57, 20 November 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
No dedicated category, no stubs, and a naming format that would offend Jupiter himself. Plus no indication whether this is for mythologicalk creatures (which would use Ancient-Roman-myth-stub) or for real creatures (Incitatus, anyone?). Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - As per nom. I doubt there would ever be much usage of this template. Spawn Man 09:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom and above comments. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Smite with a lightning bolt. Alai 19:36, 16 November 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
A weird one, this one - possibly a viable split if done properly, but this category has been added to articles by hand (i.e., there is no template). If it looks like a viable stub type, then creation of the template is possible. if not, delete. Grutness...wha? 06:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawing, but it would be great if stub templates were actually shown in stub categories! Given that population of this seems likely, it seems a keeper. Grutness...wha? 21:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Entschuldigen Sie, mein Herr? The category didn't show any template but that's simply because it used incorrect code (I've fixed it). If you select one of the articles listed and click "edit this page" a template turns up alright. Think out of the box :) Oh yeah, Delete unless it gets a reasonable population. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be one of the more coherently defined film-bio subcat possibilities (too many of the others are "multi-classed" writers/directors/producers), I'd be inclined to say keep pro temps and monitor. Come to that, populate: doing a permcar search, there seems to be 33 possibilities in the film-bios, and 37 in the US-film-bios, not even counting the other national subtypes. Alai 19:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Alai, and I'll populate. Cheers, Her Pegship 20:57, 16 November 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
This... is a really bizarre one. I wasn't sure whether to bring it here or to WP:MFD, since it's a WikiProject's subpage... but it's being used as a stub template! What's more, it's been created by someone who read one tiny part of WP:STUB and ignored the rest. If it wasn't so sad it'd be hilarous... it uses the hypothetical example shown on WP:STUB, and, as such, puts the articles which use this template into the non-existent Cat:B stubs. Silver Dollar City would never have near enough stub articles to warrant its own stub type anyway - there is no permcat, to start with, and appears to have at most some half a dozen articles in total. In any case this thing needs to be put out of its misery. Grutness...wha? 06:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, at either venue or none. Alai 19:37, 16 November 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
"Noun phrase" convention, and consistency with descendents/siblings. Alai 19:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Her Pegship 06:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Grutness...wha? 06:39, 23 November 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 no consensus

"Compu" is most prevelant, and is currently the recommended name for computer related stubs. {{Compu-sci-stub}} aparently already has a redirect to {{Comp-sci-stub}}, which seems backwards. --Ohms law 16:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose compu-sci. CompSci is definitely the generally accepted short form of Computer Science. I'm not sure about the comp-eng one. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, but the problem that I see is that all of the other templates are Compu-. see: Cat:Computer stubs for a list. If I had my way, eevry template would be Comp- rather than Compu-, but Compu- seems to be the predominate form so I'd think we would want to be consistant. --Ohms law 17:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• There's obviously a certain tension here between the competing conventions. On balance, I'd suggest: move comp-eng- per nom, keeping new redirect (i.e., the old name); don't move comp-sci, keep existing redirect. Alai 19:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the redirect be reversed for {{Comp-sci-stub}}? Is consistancy with other names more important, or is individual names more important? If someone does put in {{Comp-sci-stub}} and sees that it is redirected to {{Compu-sci-stub}}, that will instantly show them that all the computer stubs are names Compu-whatever-stub, which seems logical to me. --Ohms law 15:09, 17 November 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
SPUI-like redirect from caps (created by FoN with characteristically friendly edit summary). I continue to think these create far more grief than they're ever likely to mitigate. Alai 12:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

delete (speedily if possible) as per precedent. Grutness...wha? 22:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I hate to do this, but... [1] and... [2]. Sigh. Grutness...wha? 22:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 15:51, 26 November 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
Stub category created out of process for Venet... erm, that is, Venetian painters. Contains two stubs. Note that painters, as with 99% of other bio-stubs, are split by current-day countries, and since Cat:Italian painter stubs has under 120 stubs, it is hardly in need of splitting (although it is possible there is some undersorting there). This simply isn't useful , and just to rub salt in, Venet is a disambiguation page which gives as its main definitions pre-mediaeval peoples from various different parts of Europe. Note too that there is no permcat for Cat:Venet painters, nor, indeed, is there one for Cat:Venet, and the permcat for Cat:Venetian painters contains only some 20 items. Delete. Grutness...wha? 04:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 11:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Worse, it's a redirect to a disambig. Clear as mud as to what's intended is Venetian, Venetan, and by what definition, period, etc. And not needed. Delete. Alai 12:24, 20 November 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
Bringing it in line with naming conventions. (Brought me quite a surprise when trying to sort...) Crystallina 02:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nom. I take it it's big enough to survive with no fuss? Grutness...wha? 06:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Pretty sure it is. Canadian people stubs aren't fully sorted yet and it only has 15 or so to go. Crystallina 14:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Let's give it a chance to grow. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 08:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, speedy if possible. Alai 11:16, 23 November 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 all, create Munich-stub

• {{Munich-company-stub}} / Cat:Munich company stubs
• {{Munich-hist-stub}} / Cat:Munich history stubs
• {{Munich-bio-stub}} / Cat:Munich people stubs
• {{Munich-footy-bio-stub}} / Cat:Munich football biography stubs
• {{Munich-politician-stub}} / Cat:Munich politician stubs
• {{Munich-university-stub}} / Cat:Munich university stubs
• {{Munich-geo-stub}} / Cat:Munich geography stubs
• {{Munich-struct-stub}} / Cat:Munich building and structure stubs

Relevant discussions:

• on Discoveries
• on user Nishkid64's talk page
• on WPSS talk page
• on user Kingjeff's talk page (also read the sections below in the link I provided)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Munich has been notified. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - These are related to WikiProject Munich and are very relevent to Wikipedia's resources on Munich. I honestly don't care if anyone outside the project uses them. These templates do help WikiProject Munich. Kingjeff 16:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete of the people types: footballers and politicians "born in Munich" are not suitable scopes, being entirely unrelated to their primary notability. (As Grutness would say, "people move around too much".) People notable primarily in Munich politics, specifically, would be OK as a scope, but is almost certainly too narrow. If WPJM wants to keep track of everyone born in München, then that's lovely for them, but keep it to talk-page templates, please (as I already told the creator, to no avail). Delete or upmerge anything else that's undersized. Create a top-level {{Munich-stub}} / Cat:Munich stubs, which is the logical place to start. Alai 16:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, I forgot to mention in my intro that I am in favor of creating the {{Munich-stub}} + cat, as Alai just mentioned. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The relevent policy here is Ignore all rules policy. Wikipedia:WikiProject says, A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia. If any project was expected to follow every single little rule, then how would any project expect to succeed? The point is the stub templates and categories may be unconventional according to Wikipedia policy and guideline, but it serves the purpose of Wikipedia's goal of creating creating a free encyclopedia. Kingjeff 17:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is exactly why many people think IAR is a silly "policy", since its effect is to negate all the others, given any person's view on what's "required" to serve WP's quality. (Of course in practice, some people are more effectively able to ignore the rules than others, another thing that's problematic about it.) I happen to think the stub guidelines make perfect sense in this case, and that a single person (let's be quite clear about this) creating multiple stub templates with tiny and inappropriate scopes is in fact counterproductive to said goal, for all the reasons normally rehearsed on such occasions. (Proliferation of numbers of stub types to maintain; tag and category clutter on each article; loss of "critical mass" in each stub type, potentially making them less likely to be expanded by people randomly happening across them.) Alai 17:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not a "silly" policy at all. The purpose of that policy is to avoid hindering Wikipedia's progress. It helps avoid members like yourself to game the system. Kingjeff 19:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I see my earlier suggestion to review WP:CIVIL was to little effect. (Or perhaps you're covering that with IAR, too.) You might want to consider WP:AGF, too. In what way am I "gaming the system"? I'm advocating following the stub guidelines because I think they are sensible, and because your stub types are not, for the reasons I've outlined. If you think I'm doing so because of some prior anti-Munich, anti-Wikiproject, or anti-yourself agenda, you're quite mistaken. IAR is indeed a silly "policy", since it's a) self-contradictory, and b) allows users like you to supposedly justify whatever actions pop into their heads, absent of any actual evidence that they're necessary to "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". Alai 21:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

IAR is a perfectly senible policy - as long as the person ignoring the rules has read exactly what that page and the pnes linking from it have to say. You can Ignore all rules if you like, as long as you Wikipedia:Use common sense andaren't being a dick. Ignoring all rules for the benefit of Wikipedia is actually a good thing. But cases like this, where rules are being ignored and the result is disruption, fall foul of those other pages. Grutness...wha? 04:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

But if one is already IARing, one can logically speaking "ignore" those rules too (even if they were of any objective use in the first place, which frankly they're not, but that's another day's work). Actually ignoring all rules for the objective benefit of Wikipedia would be a good thing, but having a "rule" to ignore all rules is entirely nonsensical, and only workable if either, there's general agreement as to what's "to the benefit of Wikipedia" in a particular instance (and IAR has been repeatedly reworded to indicate that's not the "official" interpretation, and currently makes no mention of consensus at all); or if there's an implicit pecking order as to who gets to determine the beneficence of a particular action (experience tells me this is the way it works in practice, and insofar as there's any real thought behind it at all, the way it's intended to work, especially given the route by which it became a "rule"). Alai 11:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete the people types as per Alai. Delete the -geo since the scope is clearly too narrow. Keep the U-Bahn template (not listed here, but just to get the full picture). Delete or upmerge the rest. Support a generic {{Munich-stub}} (no skin off my nose if people prefer the name {{München-stub}} for that matter.) Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Let me make some points on why to keep these templates.

1. These templates were well thought of. I could have had more then twice as many for WikiProject Munich.
2. Hopefully, by the time WikiProject is finished, there will be no Munich-related stubs. So, hopefully, these stub templates are temporary.
3. I didn't create them for everyone outside WikiProject Munich. Like I said in my previous point, I hope there will eventually be no Munich-related stubs. The whole point of this project is to cover the creation and editing of articles related to the City of Munich, its buroughs, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on. With good editing, like I said before, eventually will be no Munich-related stubs. So these templates will be no good after the project is done.
4. In a WikiProject like this, topics can be broad. Users in Wikipedia have different interests and will be interested in different areas about Munich. Kingjeff 23:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment "I didn't create them for everyone outside WikiProject Munich." By creating stub templates you are involving WikiProject Stub sorting. If you want to organize the articles that relate to Munich purely for the benefit of WikiProject Munich, there are other and indeed better ways of doing so that using stub notices. By creating stubs you are asking others outside your project to help that project. It just simply is not feasible for those involved in stub sorting to deal with tens of thousands of micro stub types, so that is why the guidelines call for minimum sizes. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete of the footy-bio and bio stubs, delete of the politician stub, and an upmerge of the others into a new {{Munich-stub}}. Let me counter some points brought up above:

1. These templates were badly thought up and never proposed - no wikiproject of the size of this one needs more than one stub template - far larger wikiprojects all manage with three or fewer, and a new project like this one is making far more work for itself and everyone else by creating such a plethora of stub types. Long experience shows that too small a stub category will discourage rather than encourage editors, and that is exactly what is being done here.
2. Stub templates are never temporary - Wikipedia is growing exponentially, and I don't recall any stub template ever being retired unless it has been superseded by two or more subtypes.
3. No stub templates are WP:OWNed by any wikiproject. once they are created they are open for use by everyone, so keeping them in line with other stub templates helps the entire project.
4. In a WikiProject like this, topics can be broad. As such, it makes no sense to pigeo-hole a small number of stubs into such narrowly defined stub types when an overall Munich-stub is a more logical measure.

Grutness...wha? 04:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I totally disagree. They were well though out. If they were badly thought out then there would be more then double here. Kingjeff 04:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It is, of course, your prerogative to disagree, but I put it to you that if they had been well thought out, we wouldn't be discussing this on a deletion process page.