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 suggest rename to: {{textile-arts-stub}} and Cat:Textile arts stubs.

Halfway through sorting decorative art stubs (I was tagging the textile arts with textile-stubs), I found this unlisted "crafts" template and category full of 60 textile arts, like knitting and weaving. It was not in the stub table of contents so its a discovery. Having a "craft" category could cause a conflict in scoping decorative art from crafts for others since they cover almost the same art medium when looking at the permanent categories. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with word crafts but it overlaps the category "decorative arts" almost entirely in scope, and that was not really what was inside. Here are 60 articles on textile arts (and there are more under textile-stubs). I have more tagged with textile-stub. I suggest to rename this what it is, textile arts, and change it's parent to "textile arts" rather than "arts and crafts". In our table of contents for stubs it could be added under decorative art as a subcategory of art. Goldenrowley 18:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• That's not just a rename, it's a "downscope", which is a slightly odd way to be going, but granted it does seem to accurately describe the current contents. If renamed, we should certainly eliminate the old template name, lest confusion become rampant. Alai 16:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Whoever made this category had a limited scope, they were very concentrated on knitting. Anyway we need a textile arts category and this is what I found to start it off with. Goldenrowley 16:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• The category was labelled as a speedy deletion, it did not fit the criteria, and I removed the tag. An admin responsible for closing discussions here should deal with it. Ansell 06:17, 10 October 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
The names of most stub categories are in the format: "Singular noun stubs". Cat:Buildings and structures stubs and its country or continent children obviously are not. Rename to Cat:Building and structure stubs. Here's a complete list (hopefully) of all of them:

• Cat:Buildings and structures stubs
  • Cat:Africa buildings and structures stubs
  • Cat:Asia buildings and structures stubs
    • Cat:Mainland China buildings and structures stubs
    • Cat:Hong Kong buildings and structures stubs
    • Cat:Middle East buildings and structures stubs
    • Cat:India buildings and structures stubs
    • Cat:Japan buildings and structures stubs
  • Cat:Canada buildings and structures stubs
  • Cat:Europe buildings and structures stubs
    • Cat:France buildings and structures stubs
    • Cat:Germany buildings and structures stubs
    • Cat:Greece buildings and structures stubs
    • Cat:Irish buildings and structures stubs
    • Cat:Italy buildings and structures stubs
    • Cat:Norway buildings and structures stubs
    • Cat:Polish buildings and structures stubs
    • Cat:United Kingdom buildings and structures stubs
      • Cat:London buildings and structures stubs
      • Cat:Merseyside buildings and structures stubs
      • Cat:Scotland buildings and structures stubs´
      • Cat:Wales buildings and structures stubs
      • Cat:West Midlands buildings and structures stubs
  • Cat:Oceania buildings and structures stubs
    • Cat:Australia buildings and structures stubs
  • Cat:United States buildings and structures stubs
    • Cat:Southern United States buildings and structures stubs
    • Cat:Northeastern United States buildings and structures stubs
      • Cat:New York City buildings and structures stubs
    • Cat:Midwestern United States buildings and structures stubs
    • Cat:Western United States buildings and structures stubs
      • Cat:California buildings and structures stubs
  • Cat:Religious buildings and structures stubs

I hope I got all of them. Feel free to add any I missed.--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 14:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think that's the lot. Support - I'm always getting caught out by this one (it's probably my fault in the first place that they're named this way). BTW, I note that Polish is Polish and all the others are noun forms. At the risk of opening a big can of worms, there should be consistency one way or the other. Grutness...wha? 23:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support singularisations. While we're at it, change the country names to adjectives, or to reasonable attributives where an adjective is non-existant, awkward, or problematic in scope, and rename "Mainland China" to "Chinese", "China" or "People's Republic of China", to correspond to the permcat's scope, which is simply "China". Alai 00:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• • I think "adjective building and structure stubs" would be best, but then the geo-stubs would have to be changed as well. I would also prefer {{China-struct-stub}} to include all of the PRC, {{HK-struct-stub}} would be a child category and Macau would be included in the China cat.--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 15:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Support and agree with Alai, but please note that a proposal to create individual templates and categories for the U.S. states has just been passed. This proposal used the plural form! However, it doesn't seem like anybody has had the time to create any more categories. What do we do? The proposal is closed, but it would seem logical to update it to the new name, or at least to add a note against creating any new categories for a week. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 17:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment - I've just remembered a recent accepted proposal which included separate types for Denmark, Ireland, Russia, Spain, and Sweden. None of these appear to have been made yet, but the proposed category names should match whatever is decided here. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who proposed it and I decided to bring this issue here before creating them. I'll definately wait until this discussion is closed and hope noone else will create them because they're not aware of the discussion here.--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 15:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: I posted an alert on Proposals to whoever is watching that item. Her Pegship 17:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - There's a comprehensive list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Stub categories there's a few above that are missing - Cat:Irish buildings and structures stubs for one. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That's the only one there that's not listed. And it wasn't listed (well, it is now), because it wasn't proposed and wasn't named properly, so we never spotted it. Ironically it has recently been proposed with the proper name, but the current template needs deletion (see separate nomination above). Grutness...wha? 22:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Apologies Grutness - with such a long list I assumed there would be more - slack of me. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support because the change will be much easier to read and say, without so many plurals... thank you Goldenrowley 02:37, 10 October 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
I noticed Lace has 30 articles, and with such a limited scope the category that is never going to be a deal breaking amount of stubs. I suggest rename them as {{textile-arts-stub}}.... Or at least I could make them a small subcategory under Cat:textile arts stubs, rather than leaving them as a miscellaneous category at the end of stub table. Goldenrowley 02:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

• Upmerge. Alai 03:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • do you mean change the stub template to put the articles on "textile arts stub" category page, then delete "lace stub" category page but retain REDIRECT the lace stub ? That would be fairly logical and agreeable for me. Goldenrowley 02:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • More or less, though I was thinking recatting the template, rather than redirecting. Alai 00:17, 16 October 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 nom
Discovered during the mass nomination for categories below, one misnamed template. only used on one stub article, but the properly named equivalent has been proposed, so this would be a simple case of rename, and delete the misnamed original. Grutness...wha? 22:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Support --Mcginnly | Natter 09:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Support Thadius856 00:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Support thank you for catching things such as this Goldenrowley 02:52, 13 October 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 bass guitarist cat, redirect template to bassist
I don't really see the distinction between a bassist and a bass guitarist, especially when the categories link to the exact same thing. One has roughly 60 articles, one has roughly 120. They should probably be merged. Crystallina 04:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Rogue split? Rename by stealth? As far as I can see, they're intended to cover exactly the same scope; perhaps the latter name is somewhat more explicit as to what that is, given the possible confusion/overlap with the double bass. Merge 'em, in some manner or other, I'm not too fussed which. Alai 15:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd guess bassists would be the one to keep, since bass guitarist redirects there. (Plus it's shorter.) Crystallina 23:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Good point. Delete United States bass guitarist stubs, redirect US-bass-guitarist-stub. Alai 01:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• delete/redirect as per Alai. FWIW, bassist covers a slightly greater area, since it includes double-bass players (of which there are several even in rock). Grutness...wha? 04:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merger, suggesting that category page should mention 'bass musicians' or 'bass guitarists' for people who do not know what a "bassist" is. Goldenrowley 03:00, 13 October 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

• Cat:Corsica geography stubs
• Cat:Limousin geography stubs
• Cat:Pakistani film stubs
• Cat:Turkish musical group stubs

These are all from discoveries (see Archive 16 for more details). They were recommended to be upmerged, so I did, leaving these categories behind. Should be a quick delete all. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all, once they've finished emptying. Alai 20:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Or maybe a little longer, e.g. four days after emptying... The job queue seems to be back in action, and null-editting the templates seemed to do the trick. BTW, Pakistani film stubs wasn't upmerged, so I went ahead and did that. Alai 22:13, 12 October 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 see last post by Amalas
Most of these are empty or nearly empty. I have notified the CVG WikiProject.

• no template / Cat:Computer and video game franchise stubs
• {{cvg-hardware-stub}} / Cat:Computer and video game hardware stubs
• {{speedrun-stub}} / Cat:Speedrun stubs
• {{MK-stub}} / Cat:Mortal Kombat stubs
• {{Zelda-stub}} / Cat:The Legend of Zelda stubs

Delete all ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep {{MK-stub}}, {{cvg-hardware-stub}}, and {{zelda-stub}}. The cvg-hardware-stub template is used by numerous articles (although, for whatever reason, it doesn't add the articles to the category). The MK-stub template is less used (6 pages), but I still think it is quite useful. The speedrun-stub and Zelda-stub templates, on the other hand, are used by a single article (and speedrunning doesn't have a dedicated WikiProject to address the stub issue, though Zelda does). EVula 18:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Addendum: I think that the Zelda-stub template and cat should be kept as well, as per CyberSkull's comments. EVula 18:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I fixed the problem with cvg-hardware. It didn't have the category on the template! I may withdraw that nomination if the category populates itself up to a reasonable number. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I just checked the "what links here" on the template, and there are definitely enough articles. We'll just have to wait for the category to properly fill up. I've withdrawn that nomination, but I'll leave the notice until this debate is concluded. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Cvg-hardware-stubs fixed last night by CyberSkull after my ham-fisted efforts at getting it working failed. - X201 08:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, as amended. The problems with the cvg-hardware template might related to the job queue problems I've been seeing elsewhere. I'll try some tinkering and/or null-editting if it continues to stay that way. Alai 20:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • ... and if by any chance "MK-stub" is kept, by dint of pile-on "I find it useful" 'votes', then rename as outrageously cryptic and ambiguous. (Per Virogtheconq, it really would be handy if people would read WP:STUB, and only a) apply stub tags to actual stubs, and b) only create stub tags where there's a reasonable number of stubs to apply them to.) Alai 02:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep {{MK-stub}}, very useful throughout all MK pages and the Mortal Kombat Wiki Project —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Haunted Angel (talk • contribs)
• Delete all, as amended - the MK stub really only applies to two articles: Taven and Devastation, which really isn't enough to qualify for an entire stub template (the other actual articles are either advanced enough to be stub-less, or will never evolve beyond a stub - ie, Noob-Smoke). Virogtheconq 00:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Daegon, List of Mortal Kombat Conquest episodes, and Mokap also have (and warrant) the stub tag. EVula 18:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all, as nominator. Combination 01:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the speedrun, keep the other 3. I have fixed the categorization issue on the hardware stub. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: next month there are going to be a bunch of new Zelda articles created, just to let you know. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• delete all as amended. Note that if the decision is to keep Cat:Mortal Kombat stubs the template should definitely be renamed, as MK is a widely used two-letter acronym for everything from the Republic of Macedonia to the Cornish nationalist movement. Grutness...wha? 04:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. If stubs aren't used much, they simply shouldn't exist. RobJ1981 18:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment What is wrong with having a stub tag handy in the event that an article is created that warrants it? Ideally, none of the articles would be stubs, I understand, but does that mean the stub tag can't be waiting, idle? If Wikipedia has unlimited space (well, more or less), having an unused maintenance template sitting around isn't harming anything. EVula 18:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The use of stub categories is different from the use of permanent categopries. They are there for editors, not readers. As such, their purpose is not to provide an aid to navigation that can quite happily work even if there are only a couple of articles in a category, they are there to provide a sorting system that is accurate enough for editors to find articles they can expand but also coarse enough that one dedicated editor won't quickly empty a category, and also coarse enough that one editor won't need to look in several categories for articles which they can expand. This is the reason why - for example - geography stub categories deal with countries and subnational regions rather than having individual templates and categories for every town. There is also the problem of patrolling categories and templates. Even with the coarse levels of sorting used, there are some 2000 stub templates and categories - enough that it's a full time job just trying to keep track of them all. Creating very finely-grained stub templates and categories is thus counterproductive - it paradoxically creates considerably more work and also make it harder for editors to expand stubs. To answer your comment directly, there are already stub tags handy for articles that warrant them, they are simply a little more coarsely-grained than the ones proposed for deletion here. Grutness...wha? 23:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Between reading up on the SFD rules and your response, I'm pretty sure I understand (and certainly agree that it would be counter-productive, for example, to have individual town stub types). I still think that it wouldn't hurt anything for it to stay (and am leaving my response as-is), and that stub categories that tie in to active WikiProjects (who, as far as I'm concerned, should be tasked to expand the stubs as part of their mere existence) should stay. On the other hand, there's a damn high probability that I'm just being overly-protective of a template and category that I created. :-) EVula 00:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
      • We do make some allowance for there being an active WPJ, but below a certain level it's still diminishing returns. Splitting out a tiny number of stubs into their own category tends to "isolate" them from the larger group they've been split off from, and therefore can, perversely decrease the attention they get. Where there's a middling number, it's sometimes a plan to upmerge the type (i.e., keeping the template, feeding into the parent category), which I wouldn't be unutterably opposed to here (if renamed). But when there's two actual stubs (tops), and a few more that the wikiproject wants to keep tabs on for some other reason or other, it's really going to be more efficient just to keep a list of them on the project page, or if you want to be over-engineered about it, a talk page template. Alai 04:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
        • This is where I'm torn. If the rules say that they have to go if not being used, then I'll say that the Zelda one should stay. But if they can be there for just when you need them, then they should all be allowed to stay. I do have a suggestion for EVula on the matter of loosing the template that you created: If you don't want to loose it, and if there is a day that we might need it again, then you should just copy it into your personal sandbox. ^---SilentRAGE! 20:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Actually, I'd move it into the MK project's namespace, though I'm not sure if that'd be kosher or not. Alai's rationale is certainly sound; if we could keep the visual appearance of the MK stub template (but renamed) but siphon the pages into a broader category, that would be best (in my opinion). EVula 21:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I see:

• • no template / Cat:Computer and video game franchise stubs - Delete
  • {{cvg-hardware-stub}} / Cat:Computer and video game hardware stubs - Keep
  • {{speedrun-stub}} / Cat:Speedrun stubs - Delete
  • {{MK-stub}} / Cat:Mortal Kombat stubs - Keep and rename template to {{MortalKombat-stub}}, upmerge into parent cat, delete MK cat
  • {{Zelda-stub}} / Cat:The Legend of Zelda stubs - Keep template and upmerge into parent cat, delete Zelda cat

If there are no major objections, I will close this later today. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 13:15, 18 October 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 as per permcats

• Propose rename to Cat:Hyōgo geography stubs / Cat:Kōchi geography stubs / Cat:Hokkaidō geography stubs in accordance with other pending CFD's and the Japanese manual of style.

• Rename all per nom. Neier 05:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename, and add macronised template redirects, for the sake of consistency. Alai 06:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Given the equal-but-opposite interpretations of MOS-JA, and the lack of rationale for either, I'll see if this settles down to anything clearer. Follow what the permcats do, in any event. Alai 18:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, not in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) as claimed. Gene Nygaard 04:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: permcat was closed in favor of macron names, with redirects left at old name. Neier 14:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. From the Japanese MOS: Likewise, prefecture names should include macrons in all cases, except for Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto. The capitals of these three prefectures are well-known around the world already. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:20, 18 October 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
Ok, I take it all back, massive apologies to all, I entirely boo-booed, please delete all the below, put the pages back into Category:Ancient Rome stubs, and we'll start from a clean slate - or rather, I'll stay clear of stub categories for a while as I may now have stub-o-phobia! In lieu of those, I've instituted a list of the topics that suggested themselves to me at User:Neddyseagoon/Topics within Ancient Rome stubs, which keeps them all in the 'Ancient Rome stubs' category rather than my sub-categories, but makes it a bit easier to pick one's own interests out from the main list in the category - hope this will be a solution that is to everyone's satisfaction. User|Neddyseagoon 22:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ancient-Rome-stub and its category are not severely oversized,fuck yet User:Neddyseagoon seems to have taken it upon himself to split it into a large number of completely unnecessary subcategories, all of which need severe work and preferably removal. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, may I just put my side of it, as nobody else seems to be rushing to my defence, nor paying attention to the discussion of this on my talk page. Yes, I see I should have proposed them, my mistake, it's the first time I've done this kind of thing, but must you be so harsh? I know it's not severely oversized, but it is large enough (I think, as do many of the relevant taskforce) that it is posing very slow to empty, and it is impossible for a user to identify specific types of Roman stub article (eg towns, provinces, religion) that they have an interest in and could helpfully do work on. I was just trying to make that possible, modelling on Template:Ancient-Rome-bio-stub and Template:AncientRome-battle-stub - can you suggest a better way? And as for them being empty, it's because I've only just starting filling them, which is proving slow and rather belies it not being a large category! - trust me, they'll fill up! But I'll pause for now. "Take it upon myself"?! Honestly, I'm trying my best, we all make mistakes. User|Neddyseagoon 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A compromise way could easily be nutted out at WP:WSS/P, I'm sure, but in their current form these are pretty bad and need action. Certainly splitting off buildings, towns, and geographical locations is a very poor way of doing it. As for "severely oversized", a stub category should have 60 or so items in it for it to be viable, and oversized is usually taken as being 600+ stubs - in which case finding a way to reduce it one section at a time is the way to go - not splitting off seven or eight sections at once.

As to being harsh, when you split off the new categories, you added in the instructions for what to do to propose new categories - instructions which you ignored in doing so. If you had been ignorant of the procedures, then it would have been more understandable -but the instructions were there and you tacitly acknowledged that by copying them across. Under those circumstances, this isn't harsh at all. Grutness...wha? 22:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was ignorant - I somehow missed the instructions in the section I was copying (I was trying to work quickly), and only spotted when you pointed them out. User|Neddyseagoon 12:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll now explain what I was trying (albeit in a very imperfect manner) to do , under each sub-head. And whenever you say 'underpopulated', bear in mind that they were all at the embryonic stage and would have been much fuller had I got further through reclassifying the Ancient Rome stubs into them.User|Neddyseagoon 18:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay - I apologise if it seemed I was being harsh. As far as the "undersized" is concerned, coside that the main category was hardly in need of splitting into more than perhaps one or two sub-types, so populating ten up to a viable level is not likely. Grutness...wha? 05:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

{{Ancient-Rome-geo-stub}}/Cat:Ancient Rome geographic stubs

{{Ancient-Rome-town-stub}}/Cat:Ancient Rome town stubs

One of (two of) the more egregious attempts at stub types I've seen in my time working at WP:WSS. Where to start?

1. never proposed
2. severely undersized (neither category has even 25 stubs, let alone 60)
3. cuts directly through the stub hierarchy which is arranged by present-day location
4. vague (no explanation as to whether current towns based on former Roman towns are to be included)
5. one type, town stubs, is of a type specifically listed as being typed that should never be created
6. the other type has a misnamed category

These need to be deleted, quickly and thoroughly. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

So many of the province pages (and even more of the Roman town ones) are short, I just felt they could be better expanded by grouping the stubs together somehow. A 'Roman town in x country' might be better, to avoid clashes with the 'by present country' rule.

With this small a number of items 9and yes, I know, you were only part way through populating them) it would make more sense to list them as a subpage of your WikiProject's pages as a "to do" list. Grutness...wha? 05:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

{{Ancient-Rome-arch-stub}}/Cat:Ancient Roman building stubs

While we're at it, there's this problem. There was an attempt to at least partially fix this unproposed stub type, which was reverted. It would have only been a temporary fix anyway. The template is an arch-stub, that is, an architectural feature or style stub, yet the category says that it is for buildings. In fact, it's for buildings and structures, and should be so named if kept, and the template should be Ancient-Rome-struct-stub. BUT again, buildings and structures are categorised by present day location, not by whichever civilisation built them, and as such this should be deleted.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a combination of country-struct-stub and Ancient-Rome-stub for these items, in the same way as is done with other buildings and structures built by other civilisations. Grutness...wha? 23:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

{{Ancient-Rome-reli-stub}}/Cat:Ancient Roman religion stubs

Never proposed, severely undersized, and duplicates Cat:Ancient Roman mythology stubs. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

{{Roman-Britain-stub}}/Cat:Roman Britain stubs

Five stubs only, never proposed, and everything in it is better dealt with in other stub categories. Hideously big icon, too. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

{{Rome-ethno-group-stub}}/Cat:Roman ethnic group stubs

Severely undersized, never proposed, and fallaciously named. None of these are Roman ethnic groups. They are ethnic groups that lived at the time of the Ancient Roman civilisation and were described by them. Only the Latini and the Romans themselves could really be considered "Roman ethnic groups". Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's what the template says - 'of the Roman Empire' - I never claimed they were Roman groups. Better named, this could be a useful sub category of both the 'ethnic groups' and 'Rome' stubs.

Trouble is, here, that ethnic groups are categorised by location, so here you have African, European, and Middle Eastern ethnic groups together in one category. Grutness...wha? 05:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

{{Ancient-Rome-law-stub}}/Cat:Ancient Rome law stubs

Severely undersized, never proposed, you know the routine by now. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

{{Ancient-Rome-lit-stub}}/Cat:Latin literature stubs

Again, never proposed, severely undersized. Seems to erroneously suggest that all literature in Latin is from Ancient Rome (tell that to the Catholics). Delete Grutness...wha? 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, not if it was also in Category:Latin literature which includes both types.

Cat:Latin literature is not a stub category, to start with. Also, literature is stubbed by type, not by language - you'd have religious texts, poetry, plays, and prose all mixed together. Having subcategories of these for classical literature in general might be a reasonable compromise if there are enough of them (e.g., Classical poetry stub for Greek and Roman poetry). That would be another possibility for proposal... Grutness...wha? 05:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

{{AncientRome-war-stub}}/Cat:Ancient Roman war stubs

Missed one - as above, undersized (six stubs), unproposed... everything here could go into the hardly-bulging ancient Rome battle or military stub categories - this one is completely unnecessary. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll put them there.

Speed Delete. If we need to divide ancient Rome and its oversized, you can propose some ideas for 7 days on stub Proposals where "helpful people" will turn up to check the proposals work in the overall direction being rolled out. An old saying applies: "Working fast is a recipe for disastor". Working fast is mentioned twice on these stubs. Goldenrowley 21:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete all (no opinion as to speedy or not). I don't think the Roman material is oversized, and if it is, splits need to be discussed better. And btw, Errare humanum est. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 00:45, 16 October 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 to you by the same user as all those Ancient Rome stub types. This one is used on two (count 'em!) articles. Never proposed, drastically undersized, unnecessary. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, trying to populate, blundered on not proposing, sorry, but do have patience. User|Neddyseagoon 21:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No harm done, but I honestly can't imagine finding 60 articles that will fit here (I would love if it were the case though). Alas, Delete unless it grows massively in size. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 00:47, 16 October 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
Not in use, not well-named, not remotely numerically viable, not popular when mooted at WSS/P.Alai 05:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Alai. Grutness...wha? 05:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support deletion - per above. N4nojohn 21:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, stick with the CA regional geo stub types Goldenrowley 00:10, 23 October 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. Unclear nomination, neither proposal or status quo in line with stub-sorting practice, suggestions of vote-stacking on both sides. Please agree a scope for this type, and then revisit the naming issue
Category:Palestine stubs Should change to Palestinian National Authority stubs per WP:NPOV and policy, or West Bank and Gaza or something of the sort. Palestine as a country doesn't exist but only as a region which corresponds also with Israel and possibly Jordan, portions of Syria and Egypt etc. Putting a "Palestine" stubs on articles is extremely misleading and inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoruso (talk • contribs)

• Oppose - keep as are. Palestine-stub deals with both the modern Palestinian Authority and the pre-1948 state of which it is the successor, as well as matters relating to Palestine and Palestinians which occurred in between these imes. To rename it would misrepresent what it is meant to deal with. Grutness...wha? 05:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ehmm, there was no pre-1948 state called Palestine... --Leifern 21:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he mean western Jordan? What is called Palestine was in Jordan until 1967. Only if actually talking about Israel is 1948 meaning anything and there is already a name for that country.Opiner 00:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I take it you're planning to nominate the Palestine (mandate) article as a hoax, then? Grutness...wha? 00:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

For better or for worse, there has never been a modern state in the area known as Palestine, including the Palestine Mandate, with the exception of Israel, and the Jordanian and Egyptian occupations. Tewfik^Talk 02:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. AFAIK, the PNA has authority over the Gaza Strip and around 40-50% of the West Bank. Not counting (Trans-)Jordan, the remaining part of the old British mandate outside of Israel's 1949 border is - internationally speaking - not recognized as Israeli territory but as territory under Israeli occupation. These two things are not the same and to me the current name seems more neutral than having to find some way stub wise to refer to the rest of the West Bank as an "Israeli military zone on the West Bank" which would seem to be the logical conclusion. The text doesn't use the term "Palestine" as such, but "Palestinian" which is already a deviation from our standard practice. The current situation seems like the lesser of two evils to me. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 10:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Which Palestine? The region? Ottoman? British? Before? Jewish State? Arab State? Before 1917? After the Partition of Churchill? UN Partition? The territories? Transjordan? Modern-day Palestinians? It's all a different story. --Shamir1 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The stub type is supposed to cover items relating to all of these. To give it the name of any one of these would be highly misleading.The fact that few of the items in here relate to anything other than current Palestinian issues is a problem relating to systemic bias in Wikipedia, not to any problems with the stub name. Does the proposed new name successfull cover such stubs as Malhis. Lubya, or Fadwa Toukan? Grutness...wha? 00:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Malhis and Fadwa Toukan, being from Nablus, would be covered. Lubya, being in Israel, is not covered by either tag. Palestinians are not the only group with a diaspora, and as such we can organise the articles in the same way as any other territory - if the subject in question isn't covered by the general stub template, then there is a good chance it wouldn't be covered if it instead referred to Botswana either. And if categories or other strategies can be employed to organise Botswana articles, we can do so here as well. Tewfik^Talk 02:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom Isarig 05:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nomination --Leifern 21:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom; pray for a peaceful two state solution, but until then PA better than P.Elizmr
• Support per nom. Beit Or 21:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Shamir1 -- Avi 23:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --tickle me 23:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom.Opiner 00:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - the current names were chosen after a long series of discussions with Wikipedia editors from both Israel and the Palestinian Territories, and were seen as the best and most politically acceptable names to use, given the coverage intended for the items. If there are any suggestions of pro-Palestinian bias in the name, check the history of the template (you will see that much of the early work on it was done by User:IZAK, for instance - a leading member of the team working on Portal: Israel and Portal:Judaism). Given that there was considerable debate before deciding on the name, and this was the one name that seemed to satisfy most people, changing it would create more, not less, problems. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Counter-Comments to Grutness: You are misrepresenting me. Firstly, I have not been working on "Palestine" topics for over two years, in some instances going back three years and much has been discussed and changed. Could you please point to the exact places about anything you claim I may have agreed to? While I have not been actively editing in this area, a number of other anti-Israel editors seem to have been active (see examples below). I have nothing to say about this stub discussion/vote at this time, but I will clarify my views since you mention my name, and I will let others draw their own conclusions. Secondly, I seem to recall that the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) article was reserved solely for the entity by that name set up in recent years by the PLO as part of the Oslo accords, and was not meant to imply that it is the "successor" to anything and everything to do with "Palestine" or to all or anything in the History of Palestine article, which it isn't. For example, prior to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Palestinian Jews living in that place were called "Palestinians" so it is pure historical revisionism to now twist things around and say with a straight face that "oh, the PNA is now the "successor" to all things Palestinian, which it is not! Thirdly, about two years ago or longer, and when I last left this general area of discussion and its basic consensus, which was that there should be an article called Palestine (region) which was a NPOV solution designed to reconcile the various approaches to this disputed (geographic) area. Since then however, User:Zero0000 merged Palestine (region) into the plain Palestine article in Jan 2006 [1] which was even disputed by User:Leifern at the time. I knew nothing about this and would never have agreed to that merger. How much serious talk was there about that? Could someone revert that please! Zero0000 has destroyed an important neutral name for an article in a POV fashion favorable to the Arabs and against the Israelis, it's pretty obvious. If Zero0000 can do that, then there is nothing wrong in redirecting and merging the Palestine article to the Land of Israel article because the older and better known and established name is "The Land of Israel" (derived from the Hebrew Bible.) Fourthly, I once contributed to an article called British Mandate of Palestine, but in June 2006 User:Doright changed and redirected the name of the British Mandate of Palestine article (which is what it is universally called) to "Palestine (mandate)" when the name British Mandate of Palestine has most of the intra-wiki links to other articles [2]. This is another example of recent historical revisionism at work by an editor who decides that "British" & "Palestine" = "POV"! (a joke that we are supposed to take seriously): His "reasons" for the radical change : "The Mandate for Palestine is the proper legal name of the entity that is the subject of this article. British Mandate of Palestine is a POV term. No one in talk objected to proposed move)" [3] and changes it without worrying about past "consensus", how about if he took a look at how many other articles linked to that article's name/s [4] BEFORE making changes in such a volatile topic! How about reverting that please, because it is not "POV" to state that the British (and no other world power) had a mandate to GOVERN (or RULE) Palestine - it's about their role primarily, not just about what did or did not happen to "Palestine" - the British are as much "the subject" as is "Palestine" and it is very much POV to attach "(mandate)" to "Palestine" (neutering it of its British connection) and to deliberately swing the article, via its more "neutral sounding name" in the direction of a "build up" or "boost" for "Palestine" in general and the Palestinian National Authority in particular, but somehow not for the State of Israel. Prior to 1947/8 the BRITISH had all the power in Palestine and, after the 1947 UN Partition Plan, they handed over Palestine to BOTH the Jews and the Arabs - proof that the word, name, history and entity of "Palestine" does not belong to Arabs "only" but to the British, and before them the Turks, and before them the Mamluks, and the Crusaders, etc - and in 1947 it was handed back again to the JEWS (and to some local Arabs as well, after the greater part of Palestine aka Transjordan had been given to the Hashemites from Saudi Arabia after the Churchill White Paper, 1922 and not to the Jews as promised by the BRITISH in the Balfour Declaration, 1917.) Finally, c'mon anyone with a brain in their head can see that some anti-Israel editors on Wikipedia wish to delegitimize Israel's claim to anything associated with "Palestine," and hence its very right to exist, by stripping-down anything with the name "Palestine" on Wikipedia, be it the ancient history of that area, or as a complex region, or as the British mandate and thereby deny it as a legitimate homeland and base for the State of Israel. Formulations and presentations that falsely depict the Arabs in the so-called Israeli-occupied territories seem the "only" heirs of the word and historical entity known as "Palestine" are just a ploy and must be rejected because the facts of history, religion, and politics should not become the playthings of anti-Israel editors and apologists for the Arabs. To do so goes against Wikipedia:No original research as well as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thank you. IZAK 07:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom and my comments above, Tewfik^Talk 02:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per Grutness above.These names are loaded with POV issues. --- Skapur 03:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support per nom. Kuratowski's Ghost 05:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Always nice to see so many new faces at SFD. :/Now, if anyone can explain to me the nomination they're strongly supporting:if the category is being proposed for renaming, why is it not tagged, but the template is?What precisely is the proposed new name?(Hint:some lip service to the stub naming guidelines would be nice.)The parent category is Cat:Palestine:is that to be renamed too?Is it anticipated that this rename would involve a scope, and reparent?If so, to precisely what, in each case?Alai 06:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I would propose that the most neutral way to deal with the Categories is to change xyz of Palestine to Palestinian xyz, a convention already in place for more than half of them. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 13:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • This isn't a "xyz of Palestine" category, nor does seem to be consistent with the "nom" you're supporting "per".Nor do you address scope and parent.Please clarify.(See also WP:WSS/NG.)Alai 17:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Palestine is/was there for more than a thousan year. Temporary occupation doesn't change a thing. Also, if you say "there's no palestine" how can you say about "palestine territories"? Please note that many countries(most of the Israel's neighbors) do not think that "there's a country named Israel". They call it "occupied palestine". So, if someone starts removing articles start with Israel, what do you say to him/her? Please refine your POV, as it seems totally strange and agressive. In wikipedia we should assume good faith, unless it's obviously visible that it's not.

Hossein.ir 12:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Palestine has existed for the milleniums whether the 10-12 editors that give Wikipedia its Likudnik slant continue to rule. As the founder of Citizendium opined, Wikipedia articles are often not by consensus but by the most persistent posters. And I would add organized. Are you listening, just look at the familiar names above? Best Wishes Will314159 12:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: Solicited vote.
  • I find your comments about other editors to be offensive and to lack WP:AGF, as well as being extremely ironic given your public calls for meatpuppets. Only if we focus on edits and not editors will we actually accomplish anything here. To the topic at hand, there is currently no state called 'Palestine,' nor has there ever been one. There is however a culture that identifies as Palestinian, as well as a quasi independent entity (PNA). Lets then try to reflect what is, as opposed to what we might think should be. Tewfik^Talk 13:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I find your taking offense at my call for more people to become involved and counterbalance your invidious POV not surprising Tewfik, the man of the thousand edits, and the owner of the July War article. For now, WP is your POV's playpen and you gang up on every article andhit people with the 3RR instead of reaching for valid, fair, and neutral positions. How many 3RR's have you done this month Tewfik? Best Wishes Will314159 15:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure when making 1,000 edits became something to be ashamed of, nor when enforcing policy became something to be censured. However, the types of comments that you've made about other editors and myself are not OK, nor are they making this a conducive atmosphere for collaboration. Please limit discussion to the issue at hand, and avoid further violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Tewfik^Talk 17:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support For millennium Palestine has referred to a region with constantly changing borders. In this day in age it is a wholly ambiguous term. Does it refer to the area including Israel, Jordan, Syria? If it is to refer to the West Bank & Gaza, Category:Palestine stubs is inappropriate, as a sovereign entity named Palestine doesn't exist. Chesdovi 13:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • And if rescoped to be something like, "places and matters under the control of the PNA", approximately how often does that change?Several orders of magnitude faster, it appears to me.Alai 17:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose What a provocative anti-Arab move. This is a very aggressive suggestion. To delete this stub is to delete any existence of Palestine. I find this whole suggestion very Israeli-Zionist orientated, If the Palestine Stub is to be deleted then the Israel Stub is to be deleted too. Palestine has existed for Millenniums and this threat of deletion to the Palestine stub shows the kind of place wikipedia is becoming. An outright POV is the proposal of deletion itself. So far I haven’t seen any neutral names that support this deletion. All the names supporting the deletion are from the usual pro-Israeli band wagon. A sad day it would be if this continuous unchecked.Palestine48 15:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: Solicited vote.

  Goodness gracious, this isn't about deleting Palestine, it’s about changing it to Palestinian National Authority Chesdovi 15:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per Palestine48. This would be another example of Israeli-POV taken as fact if the template is changed. BhaiSaab ^talk 15:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: Solicited vote.
  • Its not an 'Israeli POV' that there is no country called "Palestine." It is a fact that the closest thing to that country is currently the Palestinian National Authority. It isn't our place to describe something that should be, but only what currently is. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 17:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I really doubt that everything that fits under the template "Palestine" also would appropriately go under "Palestinian National Authority." BhaiSaab ^talk 18:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per BahiSaad. --- ابراهيم 16:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: Solicited vote.
• Support Per above. IronDuke 16:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose I have a hard enough time trying to guess at the right stub name for a new or unstubbed article as it is. There's a {{Korea-stub}}, even though there's no such place either. There's even a {{Taiwan-stub}}, even though a billion Chinese know there's no such place. And they'd be right, its actually called the Republic of China. There's also no such place as Lebanon (it's the Republic of Lebanon), but if {{Lebanon-stub}} was red-lined I'd be puzzled as to why.. Similarly, everytime someone takes a road trip through Palestine, I hope they don't actually need three footnote laden paragraphs about semi-Autonomous privisional governing authorities to explain where they've just been. -- Kendrick7 17:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: Solicited vote.
  • That's actually exactly what they'd need, as it is a far more complicated place then either of the Koreas or Taiwan. In any event, the 'short names' that you referred belong to independent states, whatever questions about their legitimacy may exist. There is no such analogy here. Tewfik^Talk 18:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is a proposal to eliminate the {{Palestine-stub}} template, nor is it even clear if it's being proposed to move it, and if so to what.In fact, the degree to which it's muddled really makes one wonder why people feel it's reasonable to turn up and say "support as above" (as opposed to say, making a coherent argument, or actually fixing the tagging to correspond to nomination and/or the naming guidelines).The phrase "co-ordinated vote-stacking" springs to mind for some reason I can't quite put my finger on.BTW, "Taiwan-stub" is a relatively safe choice, since no-one disputes that Taiwan exists, and the scope of Taiwan and (the modern) RoC are little different.Alai 19:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If you are concerned about "co-ordinated vote-stacking," you may find these solicitations to be of interest: Palestine48, Kendrick7, Will314159, Kosmopolis, Robin Hood 1212, Palmiro, BhaiSaab, Sa.vakilian, Ibrahimfaisal - while notifying interested users on a small scale is fine, I hope we all realise that this isn't a "vote," Tewfik^Talk 06:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Palestine48 has continued to WP:Spam with total disregard to the idea of consensus building: Anas Salloum, FayssalF, Mustaqbal, & Angry Ayrab. Tewfik^Talk 05:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Kendrick7. --Sa.vakilian 18:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: Solicited vote.
• Oppose, and oppose the general principle that decisions of this sort be taken by small armies of Wikipedians with similar views who simultaneously appear to vote the same way on them, whatever the topic.Palmiro | Talk 18:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: Solicited vote.
    • How ironic that you would oppose the general principle that decisions of this sort be taken by small armies of Wikipedians with similar views who simultaneously appear to vote the same way on them, whatever the topic when you, in fact, are one of them. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed I am not. I am disappointed in your apparent acquiescence in the "who's got the bigger army" method of decision making, which I consider disastrous and utterly wrong. Palmiro | Talk 00:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The stub should be used to include all topics relating to historical Palestine in all its forms, as per Grutness' comment above. As a result, the flag icon should be replaced.

As far as categories go, to be consistent, Category:Palestine should cover the same topics, with a subcategory (Category:Palestinian Arab People, or something like that) which will include all topics relating to the modern Palestinian Arabs, the PNA, and their conflict with Israel.

Actually, this would mean that Category:Israel should be in Category:Palestine (yikes! what have I got myself into?).

However, categories such as Category:Xxxxx of Palestine should be renamed to either Category:Palestine xxxxx or Category:Palestinian xxxxx, on a case-by case basis. For example, Category:Palestine geography but Category:Palestinian education. In general, Category:Palestine xxxxx would go under Category:Palestine but Category:Palestinian xxxxx would go under the "Modern Palestinians" subcategory. --Eliyak T·C 19:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A major split and/or restructuring is somewhat problematic to address in the context of this stand-alone nomination, since it'd mean rearranging assorted other categories, which would have to be done separately (and from our perspective preferably first), and because there's only 130ish articles to play with (aside from the locations), and the stub guidelines argue against creating lots of itsy-bitsy stub-cats, so separate sorting of "Historic Palestine" (much less one for Roman, one for Ottoman, one for British...), an "ethnic-Palestinian", a PNA, and a Palestinian-territories-not-under-PNA-control would be a bit much, to put it mildly.OTOH, a Cat:Palestinian-bio-stub is probably inevitable sooner or later, though strictly speaking it would be applied only to people who are PNA "citizens", or otherwise-stateless Palestinians.(Cf. the issue of applying {{Albania-stub}} on an ethnic basis.)Alai 20:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I still think that this stub tag should be for general Palestine topics (with an appropriate icon). --Eliyak T·C 23:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are some possible alternate pics: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] --Eliyak T·C 23:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• oppose If i would choose one to call non-existent, it would'nt be Palestine. --Striver 20:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: Solicited vote.
  • Again, this isn't a place to register opinions on what we'd like to be, but on what exists in reality. I don't think anyone here contends that there is a state called "Palestine" today (or in the past, for that matter). There is an autonomy called Palestinian National Authority - hence I'm puzzled by the opposition. Anything that wouldn't be covered under the new template probably doesn't belong under the current one anyways (things dealing with the Palestine Mandate for example, should be marked separately). Tewfik^Talk 20:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • New template?I ask again, what's being nominated (and what are you supporting) for renaming?The template?The category?Both?In either case, to what, precisely?And see my comments above about the several different types of non-PNA "Palestinian" topics, which there's not currently, and little prospect of, any means of 'marking separately'.How do you suggest we tag locations in the 60% of the West Bank (m.m., Judea and Samaria) not under PNA control, that's in international law not part of any state (much less a Palestinian one)?(I suppose there's always the Kosovo, or suggested Hong Kong 'solution', of tagging with the mysteriously non-specific {{MEast-geo-stub}}.Alai 21:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I apologise if I wasn't clear, but I am in favour of renaming at the very minimum, to "Palestinian." As an aside, I believe that upwards of 95% of Palestinians in the West Bank (excluding Jerusalem) are under PNA control, and I've yet to come across an entry that pose a problem. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 23:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm afraid that's still not being at all clear, or answering most of the above questions.{{Palestinian-stub}} and/or Cat:Palestinian stubs don't follow the stub naming guidelines, and would have no logical permanent category parent.Your carefully-phrased statement about the Palestinians in the WB is true, as I understand it, but only addresses the biographies, and not the remainder of the scope of the stub type, and its child cat, Cat:Palestine-geo-stub.(As to "reality", I suppose that depends if you're applying a definition from international law, or a more Maoist one.)Alai 02:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I don't quite understand your point. I would obviously (I think it ma