Contents

November 1st

{{Scottish-geo-stub}} (redirect)

unused redirect to the correctly-named {{Scotland-geo-stub}}. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

November 2nd

{{State park-stub}} / Category:State park stubs

This category may have been useful at one time before the split of the mammoth {{US-geo-stub}}, but now it cuts across the other subcategories of Category:United States geography stubs. Delete and sort the articles into their appropriate subcategories. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 16:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. If it's kept, rename to US-statepark-stub (or anything else indicating it's just for US ones). --Mairi 20:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The articles are all far better sorted by state. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per nom BL kiss the lizard 05:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment to Mairi - if (as looks likely) this is deleted, it would probably be best to 'bot these all over to US-geo-stub, and we can sort them from there. That way the category and template can be deleted quickly. Grutness...wha? 06:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, that's what I'll do now then. Not that deletions normally happen quickly around here ;) --Mairi 04:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

{{China-military-stub}} (no category)

Bad name, feeds into main rather than dedicated category. Useful though. Rename to {{China-mil-stub}} and delete the original. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy fix. Aecis 11:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Possibly substantially overlaps with {{china-hist-stub}}, and to a certain extent {{china-bio-stub}}. — Instantnood 20:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy fix Alai 20:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Though is this going to be above threshold? I didn't count very many in mil-stub. Alai 21:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Has just noticed it's already linked to category:military of the People's Republic of China (note: not a stub category). I suppose clarification is necessary on whether its scope is extended to PRC's predecessors. — Instantnood 21:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Move and redirect {{Macao-stub}} to {{Macau-stub}}; delete Cat:Macao stubs

Created with "Macao" spelling against a clear consensus on WP:WSS/P. (And against all existing Wikipedia practice, and common English usage.) Existing {{Macau-stub}} "redirect"; created as a transclusion, which I just tried to fix to be an actual template, immediately turned into an actual redirect by Instantnood. Speedy fix of counter-consensus creation. Alai 20:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: As mentioned at WP:WSS/P, the Macanese government, as in common English usage, uses both, but it prefers Macao when used in English. An example would be the cover of its passports. (In Portuguese, which is one of the official languages there, Macau is the only spelling, however.) Although Macao vs. Macau is not a British-American difference, I suppose the same rule for dealing with spelling variants readily applies. See also the interesting exchange at talk:Macau. For vote counting purpose, please count this as an objection to the proposal. — Instantnood 21:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • This was all dealt with on the proposal page. Please refer to Wikipedia's policy on most common names, not most official ones. No evidence has been presented that "Macao" is the most common spelling in any English-speaking country, and existing article and category names predominantly use "Macau", by a wide margin. Having a template and category with a different name, using that variant in their text, and linking to the redirect Macao seems to be rowing against clearly established practice and consensus. Given the on-going arbitration case and mediation involving you and these very types of issue, I find this all extremely disappointing. Alai 21:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The spelling of Macau is not related and irrelevant to what the ArbCom case and the mediation are about. Although Macau is relatively more common, since both spellings are in common use, I do not agree to have any preference over any of them. (I believe organization stubs and international organization stubs were not the result of -z- being the more common spelling.) — Instantnood 21:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree Stub sorting is not the place to decide between the two spellings. Since the article is Macau and the associated category is Cat:Macau, then until and unless those are changed to Macao we should use Cat:Macau stubs. Caerwine 23:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree as per nominator and Caerwine. I warned instantnood against creating any stub on macau/macau given the on-going naming dispute, and he went ahead anyway despite objections here as well over its naming. This is clearly an attempt to contravene concensus, and an underhand tactic in getting things his way. The ArbCom and mediation processes talks precisely about the way instantnood behaves in wikipedia, and similar patterns has been observed. Saying "macau/macao" is not part of the dispute is irrelevant and woefully irresponsible, because the ArbCom is not supposed to be talking about content edits anyway. It talks about behavior, and it is his behavior now which is deplorable. Instantnood has tried to use the categorisation system to promote his viewpoints without consensus (see how many categories he created with "macao" in its name, despite the mother category being spelt "Macau"). His efforts has been spreading to the stub system, and this latest exercise appears too much to be part of it, just as his agressive usage and promotion of the Mainland China stub in another related dispute over the usage of that term.--Huaiwei 04:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: The Google count gives 4 440 000 for Côte d'Ivoire and 18 800 000 for Ivory Coast. If the consensus were to call the country Ivory Coast and never Côte d'Ivoire on Wikipedia, is it the behavioural problem of those who prefer Côte d'Ivoire? — Instantnood 07:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Instantnood has this love for bringing in every other example in wikipedia to support his viewpoints, as thou we cannot evaluate each case individually, and cannot make exceptions. Côte d'Ivoire was an obvious exception. Why do you not call for East Timor to be renamed as Timor-Leste [1]?--Huaiwei 07:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Timor-Leste is member of the UN and many other organisations under the name "Timor-Leste". But since the difference of "Timor-Leste" and "East Timor" in English is so remarkable (1 630 000 versus 35 700 000) it may not be wise to do so at the time being. Even if it has to be done, it's much better to make sure every single article and category is redirected from its another name. — Instantnood 07:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
          • How hypocritical. What happened to your insistance that names reflect governmental regulations? Where is your consistent thought when you demand wikipedia remain consistent?--Huaiwei 09:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Of course we're not only talking about the government usage. But since the difference between "Timor-Leste" and "East Timor" is much more remarkable comparing to Macao vs. Macau or Côte d'Ivoire vs. Ivory Coast, it has to be handled with greater care. As for the ArbCom case, if it did matter here, please read also what was said about Huaiwei. — Instantnood 10:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
              • So if you can include factors beyond government usage, why your insistance in keeping to the spelling of Macao when you only major point seems to be that fact that the Chinese government uses it at odds with the rest of the English speaking world? What do you mean by "differences is much more remarkable" with regards to East Timor? Explain in detail why East Timor is "more remarkable" compared to the other two cases if you are able. The arbcom case is relevant, and yes, feel free to ask everyone to read what they have to say about me. Quite unlike you, I dont deny any sense of truth in what they have to say. Do you?--Huaiwei 01:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
                • You can tell from the difference between "East Timor" and "Timor-Leste" from the Google count, and compare to that of Côte d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast and Macao/Macau. As for the spelling of Macau in the English-speaking world, see [2] [3] , [4] [5] for instance. — Instantnood 06:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Policy note. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies#Criteria and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Categories_by_country. Conclusion: speediable as a matter of policy (as well as acclaim, previously established consensus, and common sense...) Alai 00:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Categories_by_country has no provision on how Macau should be written, unlike East Timor and Côte d'Ivoire do. — Instantnood 06:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I quote from said conventions: For "of country" and "in country" categories, the name of the country should appear as it does in the name of of the article about that country [...] (Bold as per original.) Now, one might argue that Macau is a former colony and current Chinese SAR (and one would be right), but the principle seems both clear, and applicable. Alai 07:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Alright.. There were actually calls to move the article to -o. If it is moved, we'd have to change the stub type too. — Instantnood 08:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree I am from Macau. The spelling of MacaU is fixed to the every Macau resident's mind. In Macau, you can easily see Macau everywhere but Macao is not. You can see Macau on the banknotes, coins, street and in the Macau East Asian Games, etc. I believe that almost all the people in Macau prefer Macau to Macao. - HeiChon~XiJun 03:47, November 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'm afraid that's only because English is not an official language in Macao/u. English is not printed on bank notes and coins. Macau is the sole spelling in Portuguese since a spelling reform last century. — Instantnood 10:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless the category is also moved. Deryck C. 09:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The category would be changed. Category:Macau stubs already exists, which is probably why it wasn't mentioned... --Mairi 06:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • That was my intention, yes. I was trying to be precise, but perhaps didn't succeed in being very clear... I didn't mention it as, yes, the category already exists, having created it myself, to attempt a 'speedy fix'(!), and because categories aren't strictly renamable, though I suppose we generally speak in terms of doing so. Alai 07:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree as per nominator and Caerwine. --Mairi 06:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I personally think that "Macao" (the traditional English spelling that has been somehow resurrected by the official use of the PRC and Macao authorities in English) should be preferred to "Macau" when writing in English. After the official Chinese endorsement of the "o" spelling, I think it is a bit absurd to stick to a modern Portuguese form that has been around for less than 100 years in Portuguese and for barely two or three decades in English. If the PRC sticks to "Macao" as the official English name, it is only a matter of time before the mass media start using the traditional English form again. After all, it was official pressure from the PRC which made the English-language media abandon established English spellings like "Peking" or "Tientsin". I will abstain from casting a vote, though, since I think it is important to be consistent and the current article on the place currently has the title "Macau". --AngelRiesgo 14:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: A little thing to clarify: There's little evidence from which we can actually tell whether the Macanese government, or the PRC government in Beijing, is the one who's preferring Macao over Macau in English. And a piece of relevant information, Angel did in the past express his opinion that the current article should be moved (see talk:Macau). :-) — Instantnood 14:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: While it appears that the PRC govt has been fairly consistent in writing "Macao" in English, I am not so sure if you can say the Macau authorities are doing the same thing. Look, for example, at the "About Macau" page in Macau 2005, 4th East Asian Games official site. Macau and Macao appears even in the same paragraph, a situation which would have appeared extremely unprofessional under any other cirsumstance. Whatever the case, wikipedia is not a cystalball. There was opposition in the renaming of Chinese-related articles (Laozi, for eg) to Pinyin on claims that in contemporary usage, non-pinyin versions prevails and saying the "expected predominance of pinyin" is a speculation and not fact. The same thing applies here. Macau is the established spelling in the English mass media and the general English literary world, and unless Macao ever manages to superceed it, the most common spelling should prevail. With or without Chinese pressure.--Huaiwei 15:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Although there is not evidence that the PRC goverment "forced" the media to use the spelling of Macao, as a Macanese, I can feel that this is a truth. In Macau, media having close relationship to Mainland China prefer the spelling of -o. The typical one is Macao daily, see its Website(in Chinese). Media in mainland China prefer Macao to Macau too. Anyway, I just want to say I do not like the spelling of Macao, haha~--HeiChon~XiJun 19:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Personally, I think the PRC authorities failed to understand how English spelling works (or rather doesn't work) when they tried to mandate Macao. Phonetically speaking, Macao is closer in English (due to the fact that English vowels are different than most European languages) than Macau to representing how the place is pronounced, but English spelling generally considers phonetic differences secondary to the source spelling. It's one of the fundamental things to keep in mind about our quirky spelling. Since English borrowed that name for Macau from the Portugese, it prefers to keep the Portugese spelling instead of what may arguably be a more phonetically correct spelling. It would be far liklier for English to adopt Aomen than Macao as how to spell the place, and even that would require the Chinese authorities to start pushing the Pinyin name instead of the Portugese name. Caerwine 06:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
      • " Since English borrowed that name for Macau from the Portugese, it prefers to keep the Portugese spelling.. " The old Portuguese spelling Macao had already been borrowed into English before the Portuguese spelling reform that changed everything -ao- to -au-. It's in fact an anomaly if it's the PRC government to prefer and advocate different spellings (i.e. Macau for Portuguese, Macao for English), since normally it uses the Pinyin spelling for almost all roman letter-based languages. — Instantnood 07:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree with Instantnood here. "Macao" is the original Portuguese spelling, and it is only very recently that the English-language media started using "Macau". In fact, I think "Macao" is still much more common in the literature about China in English. I've just checked my own copies of Jonathan D. Spence's "The Search for Modern China" and Immanuel C. Y. Hsü's "The Rise of Modern China", and both use the "o" spelling. Besides, an interesting book about Macao in English is "Macao Remembers", published by Oxford University Press in Hong Kong briefly before the handover of sovereignty. It is true that the media (BBC, Reuters, CNN and so on) have favoured the Portuguese spelling during the last few years, but I very much doubt it that anyone can produce any English text printed before 1980 that uses the "u" spelling. That's why I prefer to use "Macao" in English. It's the name that has been used for centuries in English and now the PRC also uses it officially, so I can't see the rationale for using a Portuguese modern spelling that has become common in the press only for twenty years or so. Although this is not really relevant here, the Portuguese name changed from "Macáo" to "Macau" in the spelling reform approved by the Portuguese government in 1911, and which took a few years to catch on (in fact, I think the Brazilians didn't adopt the changes until the Portuguese-Brazilian spelling accords of 1931). You can see the old Portuguese spelling "Macáo" in this Portuguese text, which uses pre-1911 orthography.--AngelRiesgo 11:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Never assume. I have a 1961 National Geographic map of Southeast Asia (19 years before your putative doubt) that uses Macau three separate times, once on the main map, once for the city on an inset of Macau and Hong Kong, and once again for the whole colony on that same inset. Caerwine 16:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Fair enough, my 1980 date was just a guess. It would be interesting to know when the main newspapers in the English-speaking world changed from one spelling to the other. Anyway, I don't think this issue is so important. The main reason why I have taken part in the debate on the spelling of Macao/u is because some people here seem to think that "Macau" with a u is a centuries-old spelling in English, and I just wanted to point out that this is not the case at all. --AngelRiesgo 18:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Further than that, English is among the few exceptions of roman-letter based languages that the spelling of Macao/u has been influenced by the 1910 Portuguese spelling reform. — Instantnood 20:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The discussion over the spelling variants of category:colour and category:color is relevant here, and may apply as a precedance. — Instantnood 17:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Why would this be a precedent for this instance? Color is the invariable use in the US, an English-speaking country; colour the invariable spelling in the UK (and many others), also an English-speaking country. A convention exists to preserve such usages, not to validate variance in usage in cases like this: a region in which English is not an official language, and where the prevalent usage in English is clearly in the other direction. Alai 07:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Spelling variants do not necessarily follow political boundaries, though they do very often. — Instantnood 08:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • How is this relevant? If the template and category had been created according to procedure, they would have been created as {{Macau-stub}} and Cat:Macau stubs. Clearly we should not adopt any convention that rewards people in name disputes who act contrary to settled policy over how stub creation should proceed. Caerwine 07:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • That may be procedurally correct superficially, but it fails to handle the matter of spelling variants in an appropriate manner. Even worse many of the arguments were based on not entirely true assumptions. — Instantnood 08:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Note to whoever closes this debate: the vote as at 08:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC) is Macau 5, Macao 1, with one abstention from someone who seems to favour the Macao spelling. Whether this is regarded as 5-1 or 5-2, it is still enough to make Macau-stub the name. Re-voting should be reconsidered iff the article name is changed to Macao (as has been suggested). Grutness...wha? 08:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

November 3rd

{{Geelong-stub}} / Cat:Geelong stubs

Created today without going through process. Had over 60 stubs, but once those which should have been marked Victoria-geo-stub (which is hardly big enough to split) were removed, it was down to seven, all of which were easily classifiable elsewhere. No wikiproject, and as such the precedent of US cities and states, UK counties, etc, with no wikiprojects should apply. In other words, delete. Grutness...wha? 05:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

  • del we got rid of delaware-stub and all the other aussie places have projects. BL kiss the lizard 05:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:Monaco-related stubs

Empty. All stubs are in Category:Monaco stubs. --TheParanoidOne 20:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Can be speedied in 24 hours' time, then :) Grutness...wha? 00:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

{{Hebrides-geo-stub}} / Cat:Hebrides geography stubs

Created out of process, this cuts across several categories and will be empty very shortly. This category covers both the Inner and Outer Hebrides - the Outer Hebrides are covered by {{WesternIsles-geo-stub}} and the Inner Hebrides are all covered by either {{Argyll-geo-stub}} or {{Inverness-geo-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 13:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep since it is not always easy to work out which of these it fits into. There are literally hundreds of Hebridean islands, and however many else on there. The inner Hebrides are NOT all covered by Inverness and Argyll, but that's another matter. --MacRusgail 16:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • According to the article on Inverness-shire it covers all the Inner Hebrides that aren't part of Argyll and Bute. Which ones aren't covered? Grutness...wha? 23:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (for now) Hebrides is a highly logical and universally understood geographic designation, unlike the cats that are proposed to replace it. Point of Information: The following are not part of the Lieutenancy area of Inverness-shire or Argyll and Bute (see Lieutenancy areas of Scotland):

I assume that the confusion has arisen because the map Grutness inserted at Category:Scotland geography stubs is not of Lieutenancy areas, but of the so-called "traditional counties". I repeat: this whole exercise in using the (highly obscure) lieutenancy areas is bound to cause confusion. It is just so archaic. Your average Scot will not even have heard of the existence of a Lord Lieutenant, and they will certainly not know or care which lieutenancy area they are in, especially as they do not correspond to any system of local government that has ever existed, at any time..

I can assure you that absolutely no-one in a certain part of "Inverness-shire" (sic) lieutenancy area would ever use that descriptor for their districts: Ardnamurchan, Sunart, Ardgour and Morvern - all split off long-ago from Argyll. In fact the same goes for the whole of Lochaber: people in Fort William, Scotland, Kinlochleven, Mallaig etc say they are from Lochaber, not "Inverness-shire". And the same is even more true in Badenoch and Strathspey: Kingussie people would think you mad if you dared to describe their district as part of "Inverness-shire" (have you ever had a shinty stick wrapped around your head?).

The modern highlander thinks rather in terms of the 8 area committees of Highland Council (which are just a continuation of the District Councils, 1975-1996):

But as these are too small at the moment, then I propose that we split Scotland by the modern 32 unitary authorities, which are universally understood: Subdivisions of Scotland.

(Incidentally Grutness: you asked on another page why I did not contribute to the Scotland-splitting debate in a more timely fashion, thus perhaps helping to prevent this dash down an obscure track. Answer: I was moving house. Sorry I did not submit an absence note.)--Mais oui! 09:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

    • Comment The map used at Category:Scotland geography stubs is a copy of the one at Lieutenancy areas of Scotland, to which I added the islands of Orkney and Shetland. I know this because I copied it myself. A quick glance at the boundary between Argyll & Bute and Inverness would show that, similarly the lack of boundary between Lewis and Harris. As far as what is too small and what is not, of the remaining un-subcategorised stubs, the largest section is for Ross and Cromarty, which is not far short of splittable size itself. There was confusion on my part, in that I looked up the Inverness-shire rather than Inverness article, but given that Skye and Raasay are not part of Inverness but rather part of Ross and Cromarty, that area is also likely to be of splittable size -hich should take care almost all the remaining Hebrides stubs. As to "no modern Higlander would describe themselves..." it must simply be that all the Highlanders I know are ancient. (and do, I haven't had a shinty stick wrapped around my head, but it's only a couple of years since I had one hit my shin, and it's bloody painful! Grutness...wha? 09:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Despite the above lack of consensus, this is now empty, aside from the template, so I'll go ahead and delete it (in a further 24 hours just to be ultra-safe), unless there are truly pointed objections. Alai 06:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

November 4th

Category:Pitcairn-related stubs

Empty. All stubs are in Category:Pitcairn stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete doktorb 08:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

{{Ireland-place-stub}} (redirect)

Since the deletion of Canada-place-stub, Ireland is now the only place in the world to have a "place-stub", albeit as a reidrect to the more regularly named {{Ireland-geo-stub}}. Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --Snalwibma 10:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are still tons of articles tagged with this place-stub. Anyone want to help empty it out so it's ready for this deletion? Tedernst 18:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • whats wrong with using the bot? BL kiss the lizard 05:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Hopefully nothing, as it's replacing them now. Including ones that humans would likely miss, unless they wanted to go thru everything on Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Ireland-geo-stub to check for ones that actually use Ireland-place-stub... --Mairi 01:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

{{The Simpsons stub}} and {{The Simpsons-stub}} (redirects)

Unused malformed redirect of {{Simpsons-stub}}. Simpsons-stub is useful enough, but this...? Delete Grutness...wha? 06:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Non standard name with those spaces, tho I could see having a {{TheSimpsons-stub}} since the actual title of the show is The Simpsons and not just Simpsons. Caerwine 17:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment There's also now the redirect {{The Simpsons-stub}} that, while slightly better, should probably share the same fate. --Mairi 01:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I've added that one, too. It's still badly formed, with a space. And it's not needed. We don't have {{The US-geo-stub}} or {{The NFL-stub}}, why should we have {{The Simpsons-stub}}? Grutness...wha? 05:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Delete both even though that's a poor comparison. The word "The" is an article that couples with the word "Simpsons" and not "stub". Because both the Portal and the main article begin with "The", the thinking followed that any variables from templates generated from those pages (like the WikiProject subst page) would auto-create the stub name {{The Simpsons-stub}}. But, looking back on the rules, the stub names don't follow the rules, and they're confusing, and people looking for the stub will just have to know the stub naming rules. Meanwhile, someone deleted the Bart icon on the real {{simpsons-stub}} because it was a copyright vio, which made me sad, and confused. And I know, I shouldn't have indented this paragraph, but it's both a vote and a reply. You all and your rules ;) —Fitch 05:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: The analogy I made also related the definite article to the subject of the stub, not to the stubs themselves. People don't live in United States and watch NFL - they live in the United States and watch the NFL. Grutness...wha? 06:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Comment but people don't watch the Simpsons, they watch The Simpsons. Caerwine 00:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

November 5th

Cat:Netherlands-related stubs -> Cat:Netherlands stubs

With the sorting out caused by the creation of {{Netherlands-hist-stub}}, this one's down to 24 stubs at the moment, so this would be a good time to change this. I know there's lots more these that could be proposed, but I'm only going to propose stuff I'm actually willing to do the restubbing on for now. Caerwine 04:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Go for. In fact, since the new names have already been agreed on, I don't think anyone would complain if you'd been bold and made the switch, then listed this as "empty" (note that there are several like that in this page...) Grutness...wha? 05:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I have enough stuff on my to do list that I'm perfectly willing to wait a week, so I didn't feel like being bold here. Caerwine 06:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As a Dutchman, I say go for it ;) Aecis praatpaal 00:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

New category is created, and the old one is depopulated. Caerwine 22:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

{{Tv-episode-stub}}

Used on <20 articles. Initially seems useful, to alleviate the overburdened Television stubs (at 13 pages) but it has many problems with it.

Feeds into two categories - Television stubs and the non-existent Television episode stubs. The latter could be created, but it has no associated non-stub category. This has existed in the past, but been deleted 4 times already. I say we put this out of its misery and delete it, and move the articles back to tv-stub. --TheParanoidOne 00:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually it's Cat:Television episodes that's been deleted, not Cat:Television episode stubs. In any case, this one probably isn't needed yet - the articles in it can be easily markjed with TV-program-stub or whatever it's called. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I guess my "This has existed ..." was a bit ambiguous. I was talking about the associated non-stub category ie. "Television episodes", as per the two links. --TheParanoidOne 10:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Articles about individual episodes often need attention somehow (they are often created by anon IPs) so this is a good way of bringing them to the attention of editors in this area. The JPS 09:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
del if a parent categorys not needed then a stub category shouldnt be either. BL kiss the lizard 01:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete; in addition to the above reasons, I wouldn't think there'd be too many editors who work just on articles about individual episodes, and not the series they're part of. --Mairi 01:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

XX-politician-stub renames

All use postal abbreviations for US states, and are ambiguous. Worth keeping given the size of {{US-politician-stub}} but rename:

--Mairi 02:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

More:

-Mairi 04:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree on all four approaching 50 - rename and delete originals. Also suggest getting rid of the {{MDpolitician-stub}} redirect at the same time. Someone needs to have a stern word with Alison9, too Grutness...wha? 03:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • And there's more: {{MO-politician-stub}}, {{WI-politician-stub}}, {{NJ-politician-stub}}, {{NV-politician-stub}}, {{LA-politician-stub}}, and well I could go on but it's probably easier if you just check the contribs of User:Alison9 or the growing list of subcats at Category:American politician stubs. HollyAm 03:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I've left hir a note about that, and I'll go tag those for renaming too... --Mairi 03:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename them all --Alynna 04:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename all Caerwine 04:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename all as noted. -- DS1953 talk 07:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename. Go for it! Deskana 09:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Do all of these have to be kept? Some have less than 10 stubs. — Instantnood 11:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Are there any specific ones you think would be too small? {{US-politician-stub}} is quite large (13 pages). Hawaii and Nevada are the oens I'd have the most doubts about, and after looking at just the size of the main categories (which is likely to be quite inaccurate), Hawaii seems possible and Nevada seems doubtful. But it's hard to tell what's in {{US-politician-stub}} right now, so I'd rather see them kept until we can get that split more and have a better idea. --Mairi 04:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • rename them all Jamie 10:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I have renamed the 21 items proposed by Mairi and moved this to the "To Orphan" section so that the redirects can be depopulated and deleted. --TheParanoidOne 13:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, there weren't that many, so I migrated all the redirects (except for NY), so they can be deleted. Given how small the categories are, though, I wouldn't be surprised to see them back here for complete deletion. --TheParanoidOne 11:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

{{UNMIK}}, {{Republik of Kosova}} / Cat:Kosovo stub

Irregularly named, controversial, used on 30 articles since April. Delete. Conscious 07:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The names are appalling, so at the very least a rename, but this would be messy and hard to keep npov. I can see articles being edit-warred back and forth between this, Serbia-stub and Albania-stub if it's kept. For that reason, i'd say delete. Can be revisited if it ever becomes independent. Grutness...wha? 10:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Where should the articled be moved after this stub type deletion, then? I'd slightly favour Serbia-stub (and Serbia-geo-stub). Conscious 13:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Technically, it is still part of Serbia, and the Kosovo categories are subcats of the Serbia categories (including the main Cat:Kosovo), so yes, that would be the plan. Grutness...wha? 04:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

November 7th

{{Fi;m-stub}} (redirect)

Currently unused. I can't see this being particularly useful, as mispelling "Film" as "Fi;m" would be rather obvious, if it even happens often. Delete --Mairi 05:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Support deletion. Deryck C. 09:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
speedy as typo. Aecis praatpaal 10:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it qualifies as a typo as it was created in the past couple days as a redirect. Altho I doubt there'd be much complaint if it did get speedied... --Mairi 19:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete It's an obvious type (and for me a fairly frequent typo). However, unlike article names, there's no reason to keep typo variants for any templates. Caerwine 20:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
delete, speedily if posible, as a speling misrake. Grutness...wha? 08:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy. Need I say more.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
delete, speedy even... Jamie 10:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, of course. Alai 18:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

November 8th

{{AM-stub}} & {{FM-stub}}

These two stubs currently feed independently into Cat:Broadcasting stubs. As part of a proposed reorganiztion of radio stubs, it is recommended that these two stubs be deleted and that ant articles using them be restubbed with {{radio-station-stub}}. Caerwine 21:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • agreed. Radio needs reorganising, and these two are past their use-by date. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Alai 04:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


Cat:Radio programme stubs

Currently the category that {{radio-stub}} feeds into. As part of a proposed reorganiztion of radio stubs, it is recommended that {{radio-stub}} feed into a new category Cat:Radio stubs and that existing stubs be restubbed either with a null edit or with {{radio-show-stub}}. Caerwine 21:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • good point. I created this without even thinking about the spelling (here in NZ, "program" always refers to computer software and nothing else). "Radio show" gets around that. And the template is much more general. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. Alai 04:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

{{.NET-stub}} / .NET stubs

Used on a grand total on one stub article. A Wikiproject exists but it doesn't seem to have been touched since towards the end of September. (It appears to have been created at the start of September). --TheParanoidOne 23:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: not useful, way underpopulated and not growing --Alynna 02:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Grutness...wha? 06:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; at least there is a second article that would go here: .NET Reflector. Courtland 05:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

{{Uruguay-bio-stub}}

No category. Only used on four articles. If deleted, articles should be moved to {{SouthAm-bio-stub}} (which has <25 articles). --TheParanoidOne 23:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. merge and delete. Grutness...wha? 06:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge and Delete --Mcsee 13:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

{{Manitoba-stub}}

Delete. Used on only one article and feeds into Category:Canada-related stubs rather than its own. --TheParanoidOne 23:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

  • 'Delete iff there is no Manitoba WikiProject. If there is, fix it. Grutness...wha? 06:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • there isnt so delete BL kiss the lizard 02:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Rename {{news-stub}} → {{newspaper-stub}}

The abreviation is a bit confusing since the stub deals only with newspapers and not TV news programs, news magazines, news events, etc. Cat:Journalism stubs was recently discovered and it along with a {{journalism-stub}} would be much better for a broader news stub. Caerwine 19:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Rename as proposed. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 20:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • rename Grutness...wha? 01:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • rename --Cyclopia 09:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename as proposed. jareha 18:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename --Michalis Famelis 18:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • rename I was actually just thinking that when I tried {{newspaper-stub}} and it didn't work. --W.marsh 01:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy renamed. Ral315 (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan stub categories

This one's a complex one, so bear with me...

  1. I've just manually changed over Cat:Kazakhstan-related stubs and Cat:Kyrgyzstan-related stubs to Cat:Kazakhstan stubs and Cat:Kyrgyzstan stubs, as per our policy on "-related" names. While doing that, I was bold and changed {{Kazakh-stub}} to {{Kazakhstan-stub}}, since Kazakh is the race, not the place. So we now have two empty categories and an unused redirect, which could easily be deteled.
  2. But do we need either category? In close to six months, Cat:Kazakhstan stubs has gained eight stubs, and Cat:Kyrgyzstan stubs has gained nine in nearly eight months. There is a very small Cat:Central Asia-related stubs category which wouldn't be swamped if we deleted both of these categories, too.

Grutness...wha? 09:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge into Central Asia. Caerwine 16:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It is not doing any other categories or stub categories any harm; indeed, it is very likely to do the articles themselves a lot of good.--Mais oui! 18:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • merge into central asia. a lot of the culture in that area overlaps the country borders anyway, so why not have it in one small catagory rather than several? BL kiss the lizard 04:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Central Asia. It's not at all likely to do the articles much good to be in a category this small -- out of sight, out of mind. That's the whole point of having a threshold for stub type creation. (And why I'd favour this being "hard coded" into stub deletion policy, so we don't have to re-debate it what seems like every other time.) Alai 04:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

November 9th

{{Docu-stub}} and its redirects

Before we start, let me state that I have no objection to their being a stub for documentaries. I would, however, like to see it renamed to {{Documentary-stub}} rather than {{Docu-stub}}, since the current name could just as easily refer to documents. What I object to, though, is not one, but seven redirects - {{Docu stub}}, {{Docu stubs}}, {{Docu-stubs}}, {{Documentary stub}}, {{Documentary-stub}}, {{Documentary-stubs}}, and {{Documentary stubs}}, which strikes me as carpet bombing. Rename the template to {{Documentary-stub}}, and erase the rest. Grutness...wha? 08:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreement on the renaming, Strong agreement on deleting the other six redirects, Neutral on deleting {{docu-stub}} once it's a redirect. I see the potential for confusion, but it's extremely minor in my opinion. Caerwine 16:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment; is this just for film documentaries, or does it include television (and radio) ones too? It's a child of Category:Film stubs which would suggest the former; but it's other parent is Category:Documentaries and not Category:Documentary films. I'd be inclined to go with just films, as then it doesn't cut across other categories. --Mairi 19:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Mmm. Good point. i'd assumed it was about television documentaries. Perhaps this needs to be looked at and considered for splitting. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete existing redirects, Rename, but keep the new redirect. Alai 04:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

{{Physiology-stub}}

No category. Used on only three stubs which seem to cut across the existing stub type hierarchy. --TheParanoidOne 23:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Potentially useful if enough stubs can be found, but you are correct in that it doesn't fall within our current kingdom based division of biology-stub. With only three stubs tagged and no category, delete until someone can do a proper proposal on it. Caerwine 05:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

From what I've seen in my short time on Wikipedia, most people work within the confines of a single biological kingdom, so each article gets a focus in one kingdom. It would be really nice to see more articles cut across these groups, particularly in areas of physiology, but I'm afraid it's unlikely to happen. If no one is using the stub, then there's not really a reason to have it. Pity, though. -- EncycloPetey 14:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
it can always be made again later if theres a need for it but at the moment its not that useful. BL kiss the lizard 02:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Redirect {{East-Slavic-History-stub}}

This redirect with the irregular capitalization was corrected to {{East-Slavic-history-stub}} the day of its creation back in March and is unused. We've left the latter alone to see if it will grow into something worthwhile, but the redirect is getting 0 use, so we might as well delete it now. Caerwine 20:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Actually, change the name of the other one to {{East-Slavic-hist-stub}}, while we're at it. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Tedernst 07:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and rename, respectively. Alai 04:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

November 10th

Category:Qatar-related stubs

Empty. All stubs in Category:Qatar stubs. --TheParanoidOne 21:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

this too can be speedied if it's been deprecated more than 24 hours. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

{{Ontario-gov-stub}} / Ontario government stubs

Contained two stubs when it was discovered in September. Still contains only two stubs. These two could easily be added to the parent {{Canada-gov-stub}}, even though it is at <800 stubs. --TheParanoidOne 21:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree about deletion, though something may eventually need to be done with the parent. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Alot of the ones in the parent still need to be sorted into {{Canada-constituency-stub}}. --Mairi 01:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Heavens no--redirect, don't just delete. It's a logical stub. Matt Yeager 06:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

{{Inca-stub}} / Inca-related stubs

Another one for pruning. This one has had <10 articles for at least 5 months, as per this diff and this diff. Where to put the articles is not as clear cut as the previously pruned stub types. They could go into the parent ({{ethno-stub}}) but that is currently at 5 pages, so some intermediate stub type might be more suitable. --TheParanoidOne 20:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete; the stubs it's used on aren't about ethnic groups, they're either provinces/regions, towns or a biography and could get stubbed as such. --Mairi 23:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Ah, that's good. I didn't look at the contents of the stubs in this case. I just went by the stub types hierarchy. --TheParanoidOne 06:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not needed now we've got {{Pre-columbian-stub}} (shouldn't that have a capital C?) Grutness...wha? 23:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete and {{pre-Columbian-stub}} is a redirect to {{pre-columbian-stub}} IIRC. Caerwine 23:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

{{Stub-stub}} / Category:Stub stubs

And the similar {{Stub-Stub}}. Probably created as joke; serves no useful purpose. Delete. --Mairi 23:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

remember that nonsense can be speedied... Grutness...wha? 23:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

{{Calif-stub}} and {{Calif-geo-stub}} (redirects)

{{Calif-stub}} is a redirect of {[tl|California-stub}} used by 80 articles; {{Calif-geo-stub}} is a no longer used redirect of {{California-geo-stub}}. Neither are needed - delete. Grutness...wha? 06:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Goodbye. BlankVerse 13:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I just removed the links from the last articles using {{Calif-stub}}. There are only non-article links now. Delete. Mike Dillon 07:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I just noticed that {{Calif-geo-stub}} is still being used although Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Calif-geo-stub doesn't show the pages. I just found the template used on San Diego Bay and Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. Looks like some kind of MediaWiki bug... Mike Dillon 08:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's a bug, it seems to be how all [template] redirects are handled now (I wonder if it also somewhat fixes the server-load problem of redirects); I'd mentioned it a few days ago on the talk page here. It's not too hard to find & replace all those by bot tho... --Mairi 08:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The strange thing is, Special:Whatlinkshere se