Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/October

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

October 1

{{craft-stub}} and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Craft stubs

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


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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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.

October 3

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Buildings and structures stubs and children

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". ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Buildings and structures stubs and its country or continent children obviously are not. Rename to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Building and structure stubs. Here's a complete list (hopefully) of all of them:

I hope I got all of them. Feel free to add any I missed.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 14:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 15:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

October 10

{{lace-stub}} and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:lace stubs

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 ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:textile arts stubs, rather than leaving them as a miscellaneous category at the end of stub table. Goldenrowley 02:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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.

{{Irish-struct-stub}} → {{Ireland-struct-stub}}

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)[reply]

Support --Mcginnly | Natter 09:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thadius856 00:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support thank you for catching things such as this Goldenrowley 02:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

October 11

{{US-bassist-stub}} / Category:United States bassist stubs / {{US-bass-guitarist-stub}} ( Category:United States bass guitarist stubs

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)[reply]

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.

various categories left over from upmerging

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


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)[reply]

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.

various cvg sub-cats

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.

Delete all ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • ... 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]

Here's what I see:

If there are no major objections, I will close this later today. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

October 12

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Hyogo geography stubs / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Kochi geography stubs /‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Hokkaido geography stubs

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


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.

October 13

Ancient Rome

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
{{Ancient-Rome-geo-stub}}/‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Ancient Rome geographic stubs
{{Ancient-Rome-town-stub}}/‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category: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)[reply]

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)[reply]
{{Ancient-Rome-arch-stub}}/‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category: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)[reply]


{{Ancient-Rome-reli-stub}}/‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Ancient Roman religion stubs

Never proposed, severely undersized, and duplicates ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Ancient Roman mythology stubs. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Roman-Britain-stub}}/‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category: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)[reply]

{{Rome-ethno-group-stub}}/‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category: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)[reply]

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)[reply]
{{Ancient-Rome-law-stub}}/‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Ancient Rome law stubs

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

{{Ancient-Rome-lit-stub}}/‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category: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)[reply]

Well, not if it was also in Category:Latin literature which includes both types.
‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category: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)[reply]
{{AncientRome-war-stub}}/‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category: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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.

October 14

{{Etruscan-stub}}/‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Etruscan stubs

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)[reply]

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

October 16

{{Richmond-ca-stub}}

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)[reply]

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.

{{Palestine-stub}}s

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)[reply]
Ehmm, there was no pre-1948 state called Palestine... --Leifern 21:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I take it you're planning to nominate the Palestine (mandate) article as a hoax, then? Grutness...wha? 00:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. TewfikTalk 02:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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. TewfikTalk 02:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom Isarig 05:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination --Leifern 21:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support per nom.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Shamir1 -- Avi 23:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --tickle me 23:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.Opiner 00:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Support per nom and my comments above, TewfikTalk 02:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per Grutness above.These names are loaded with POV issues. --- Skapur 03:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support per nom. Kuratowski's Ghost 05:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category: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)[reply]
    • 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, TewfikTalk 13:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

  • 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. TewfikTalk 13:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. TewfikTalk 17:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Goodness gracious, this isn't about deleting Palestine, it’s about changing it to Palestinian National Authority Chesdovi 15:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Kendrick7. --Sa.vakilian 18:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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 ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Here are some possible alternate pics: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] --Eliyak T·C 23:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose If i would choose one to call non-existent, it would'nt be Palestine. --Striver 20:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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). TewfikTalk 20:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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, TewfikTalk 23:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm afraid that's still not being at all clear, or answering most of the above questions.{{Palestinian-stub}} and/or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category: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, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category: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)[reply]
            • I don't quite understand your point. I would obviously (I think it may be obvious, but perhaps I'm missing something?) support changing the appropriate categories to be in line with whatever we rename the stub/s. As far as I can tell, everything in the Category:Palestine geography stubs would fit under a "PNA" template, and most of Category:Palestine stubs would as well, though all of them would certainly fit under a "Palestinian" template. As for "reality," I'm not sure what you meant about the Maoist position, but I don't believe that it is the position of international law that there is a state called "Palestine," nor that Israel doesn't exist (which is what my comments were directly responding to). Cheers, and let me know - TewfikTalk 04:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Let me try again.You can't (trust me on this) call a stub template {{PNA}} or {{Palestinian National Authority}}, nor a stub category ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:PNA or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Palestinian National Authority; thus I ask you to clarify (without reference to "per nom", which is as clear as mud, and takes about a "category", after tagged a template, and fails to include use of the word "stub" or "stubs" in the renaming proposal (I use he term loosely)) exactly a) which of them you're arguing be renamed, and b) to what?Tagging individual Palestinians with a {{PalestinianNationalAuthority-stub}} (let us say) seems a bit like tagging a (hypothetical) article on me with a {{Ireland-gov-stub}}, on the basis of where I live.The Maoist ("from the barrel of a gun") position would be that it doesn't matter what the status in international law of the WB&G, it matters whose guns are where, and thus we might as well call the portion of the WB under Israeli civil or military control "Israel" (or some other term of choice of the Israeli government), rather than in any sense being "Palestine" (or variations thereon).(Thus, the current tagging of Ma'ale Levona, Revava, etc, which cuts straight to the chase.)You weren't responding to any comment about Palestine as a state, nor obviously did I make one, either.Alai 05:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm sorry if I wasn't clear above, but I'm not suggesting that every entry be covered by some variation of PNA (obviously in the proper form), but rather only most. There would seem not to be any problem, for example, with changing "{{Palestine-geo-stub}}" to some variation of "{{Palestinian-Authority-geo-stub}}," since geography is in fact very specific to government. And while I believe that most of the articles tagged with the "{{Palestine-stub}}" would fit into a "{{Palestinian-Authority-stub}}," if you don't think that people/miscellaneous articles currently in {{Palestine-stub}} fit, and that they don't merit their own sub templates ("{{Palestinian-bio-stub}}" for instance), then a "{{Palestinian-stub}} would also do the job. I would not suggest putting you under {{Ireland-gov-stub}}, but if there was no {{Ireland-bio-stub}}, then {{Ireland-stub}} would make sense (Of course, I'm not sure why the name of the current Palestinian entity wouldn't be appropriate; East-Germans are listed under the modern Germany stub, and Soviets under the modern Russia stub - if Ireland changed its name, you would be listed under it, but this is all moot). As for the West Bank & Gaza Strip, they are the West Bank & Gaza Strip. They are not internationally held to be a state, nor is there "on the ground" a state. Palestine = [at minimum] the West Bank, Israel, & Gaza Strip. And while I didn't say you made the comments, I was certainly responding to them

(see Striver's comments directly preceding mine). I hope that I was sufficiently clear, but I appreciate how this could be complex - let me know if you require further clarification. Cheers, TewfikTalk 06:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                  • The lack of clarity isn't related to the complexity of the subject, but to me asking one set of questions, and you giving a set of answers to different ones.And I did see Striver's comments, hence my description of them, and hence my italicision of the key "as a state" predicate, that you were making out of whole cloth.(I'll make sure to use bold, too, next time.)If someone asserts "Palestine exists", and you respond "there is no state of Palestine", you've not refuted the original claim, you've reframed it as a different one.And you then proceed to do the same to me:I made no statement about WB&G as a state, but quite the reverse.In international law, no part of the entirity of the West Bank (and Gaza) is part of any state.(Come to that, the situation isn't especially different for these purposes in Israeli law, as I understand it.)Thus I'd like to see an argument as to why we should scope part of the state-free West Bank as "PNA", and part of it as "Israel", that in any sense meets the criterion of WP:NPOV.We do at last get some acknowledgement, though, that this isn't just a rename, it's a rescope:thank you.(One I thought there might have been some nuance to, but given the tagging of the settlements, clearly not.)The point of my Ireland-gov-stub example is this:you're proposing to classify people without an established citizenship with the (quasi-)governmental entity they live under the (semi-)jurisdiction of, as distinct from either the citizenship they'd assert or claim, or the legal status of that territory, and the larger context in which it exists, which is indeed analogous to listing a non-Irish citizen with a "Government of Ireland" category.(BTW, Soviets are tagged with {{USSR-bio-stub}}, for the very good reason that they're not all "Russians", in one sense or another, though we're many digressions deep by that point.)Your re-suggestion of {{Palestinian-bio-stub}} only tells me you didn't avail of my earlier hint that would might want to read WP:WSS/NG:we don't have {{Israeli-bio-stub}}, {{Irish-bio-stub}}, or {{Panamanian-bio-stub}} (though if I say that loudly enough, SPUI will create redirects at all of them).A broader reading of "Palestine" than Palestinian territories is remarkably far-fetched, given the prevailing climate on wikipedia:are you going to tell me that there's some sort of occasion of sin for revert wars on Haifa between {{Israel-geo-stub}} and {{Palestine-geo-stub}}?Alai 07:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • A broader reading of Palestine than the West Bank & Gaza Strip would be far-fetched? Since when was the term limited to those areas? In the absence of the proposed state by the same name in those areas, the term only means those areas + Israel (and often more), and that yours is an original understanding of the term. And why must we ignore that there is a Palestinian autonomous entity that has jurisdiction over all the Palestinians in those areas (repeating the caveat about E. Jerusalem) - even if you deny their legitimacy for some reason, we are trying to represent what is, and not to engage in our own analysis of int'l law to state what should be (though I don't see how any of its statements preclude the PNA from operating)? And no, it isn't really a rescope, its a rename of a stub whose current name doesn't accurately represent its scope (there are minimal, if any articles, that deal with Mandatory Palestine, or with the "historical" region). As for the rest of your comments, I assure you that I read WP:WSS/NG several times, but it does not say that in the absence of a country name that fits the proper conjugation, we should make one up (as for the East German and Soviet - and I suggest you reread Striver's comments). Correct me if i misunderstand you, but it seems to be that you propose that "Palestine" is somehow the name of the "country" in which the Palestinian population/territory exists - this is simply nonfactual. TewfikTalk 14:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • A broader reading of Palestine than the West Bank & Gaza Strip would be far-fetched, in the context described.I repeat (I seem to have to do a lot of that in this thread), do you think that the naming of a template as "Palestine-geo-stub" makes it like people will apply it to locations in "Israel proper"?Or Benjamin Netanyahu as a Palestine-stub/Palestine-bio-stub?The imagined misapplication is ridiculous on its face (and besides, that's what template and category scoping text is for).I ask you once again to acknowledge in which direction the current cross-border template march is occuring.It's certainly much clearer in applicability than PNA-stub (do click, please), or PalestinianNationalAuthority-stub, which would be a prime example of using extra characters to make something less clear.I'm not suggesting Palestine can only be read as WB&G (that would be as absurd as your claim it's not a feasible one, which most assuredly flies in the face of the "reality" of the use of language), I'm simply saying it's not a problematic one when used in this way.The argument has nothing to do with the "legitimacy" of the PNA, or its status in law;the question is, how do we scope and describe that area between the eastern border of Israel, and the western border of Jordan?(By whichever definition you prefer for the former border for the purposes of this discussion;we can largely ignore East Jerusalem, or come to that the Golan.)Your analysis, while repeating "not a state!" at regular intervals, fails to apply the legal boundaries of recognised states with any consistency.Given that none of this area is part of any state, why does it make sense, under the "by states" principle, to sub-divide it into a one non-state, and one state that doesn't legally exist in said area?(Applying whichever body of the law you selected in earlier choice.)That has nothing to so with division into states, that's switching criteria to "facts on the ground".A systematic division into states within their generally recognised borders would leave several such in the area, surrounding one non-state "hole", which it makes sense to me to scope and tag as such, much as we do with {{Antarctica-stub}}, or {{WesternSahara-stub}}.Your statement about not being a rescope flatly contradicts your previous one, and all evidence that's plain to see at the template.Merely excluding subjects from a stated scope before attempting to formalise such a change does not make it "not a rescope".And the rescoping is key:I'd rather see some neocon euphemism for ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Palestinian territory stubs (I'm not sure what the currently prefered one would be in those circles) than to see an arbitrarily different scope.(Historical Palestine is not the key issue here.)OK, having read /NG, you might try applying it.Using an adjective, or an ethnic descriptor in a stub template goes against every precedent for such.Using the name of a quasi-governmental body of a non-sovereign and arbitarily-designated piece of territory as if it were the name of a "country" makes no logical or linguistic sense, even as metonymy.There's no need to "make up" a term:we're already oversupplied with them, it's just unfortunately the case that each protagonist in the political dispute naturally despises the other's preference."Palestine" is the only term that's at all suggestive and applicable with any concision appropriate for a template name, but there's ample scope for squabbling about the category name between the assorted descriptors.(Fans of ridiculous template names are free to argue in favour of {{PalestinianTerritories-geo-stub}}, {{IsraeliDisputedTerritories-geo-stub}}, {{JudeaandSamaria-geo-stub}} etc, of course, to match whatever category name they're shooting for, but I don't really see it, myself.)And yes, you misunderstand me:there's no such country, as I'd have thought I'd have made more than clear several times now.That does not make "Palestine" a non-applicable descriptor for the described non-state.It most certainly doesn't make "mostly Israel now" an applicable one, which I can only conclude is your desired outcome, absent any statement to the contrary as to how the "excluded middle" should be tagged.Alai 18:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Being that users on this very page have suggested putting Israel in the "Palestine" category, I think it is not far-fetched to be wary of that option. To your suggestion that calling WB&GS Palestine would be legitimate, I will again say "not a state" - Palestine refers to WB + GS + IL (at minimum, and/or the Mandate which is not really relevant) - and popular usage is not a substitute for reality. And considering the POV that there is an entity called "Palestine" (take a look at the Arabic-language Wikipedia), I don't understand how you wouldn't see the current name as being extremely confusing at best. As for the legal boundaries of states, I also repeat that it isn't for us to become interpreters of int'l law [despite your claim not to be doing so, that is exactly what any type of original formulation is], as while simply labelling everything in WB&GS as "WB&GS" might be technically factual, it seems ridiculous to ignore the autonomy of the Palestinian Authority over the vast majority of towns/people/institutions (and most everything included in the category), which is how the template/category is currently scoped (the only contradiction is between the current scoping and name of the template). So yes, "Palestine" is not an applicable descriptor for the described non-state, which is called "Palestinian National Authority." As an aside, after all your insinuations about my motivations here, I would hope that you would consider reexamining the attitude with which you've approached this matter to see if they are really necessary and conducive to a constructive discussion. Cheers, TewfikTalk 05:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which state or country is this template associated with? TewfikTalk 06:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back. No country there. It could, however, be used to associate either the State of Palestine or the region historically known as Palestine. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 06:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case please explain why does it carry the Palestinian Arab Flag? ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not take responsibility for the content of the stub, after all I did not make it. That flag can be changed. It is just that the name needs no conflict, as I have said before. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 17:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - intentionally or not, some users prefer to create the confusion between the geographic region (which includes Israel) and the PNA/proposed Palestinian State. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • People can have an unintentional preference?Sounds a little like an assumption of bad faith, with an AGF fig leaf attached.Your comment also appears to elide the distinction (or if you prefer, maintains the confusion) between a) whatever territory the PNA controls this week, b) the territory of a proposed Palestinian State (depending on whose/which proposal, of course), and c) the Palestinian territories (liberally tagged with {{Israel-geo-stub}} at present, as noted above, lest it be unclear in which direction the scope-creep is trending).Alai 10:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why don't we let the facts on the ground guide the organization of the encyclopedia rather than vice-versa???
        • Facts on the Ground are the cause of problems. I again repeat my cries of POV behind this deletion vote. This deletion vote is backed heavily by long established Israeli-Friendly members. I see no harm in the continuation of the Palestine stub and all stubs relating to it. If this deletion is carried then it will affect many articles and will decrease the quality of Wikipedia not increase it. Facts on the Ground has long been official Israeli policy. --Palestine48 21:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please make up your mind: if this is about the geographic region, then the PNA flag only is inappropriate; if this is about the PA/proposed Palestinian State, then rename and use the template only where it applies - in articles related to the PA/PS. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Humus sapiens, I don’t know where you got the idea that the Palestinian Flag is the PA flag. You suggest it as if the flag only represents the PA. The Palestinian Flag represents the Palestinian People within Palestine and the Diaspora. The flag was there before the PA and certainly older than the State of Israel! The Palestinian people raised it as the flag of the Arab National movement in 1917. As for the Stub, It represents Palestine. Please stop your Palestinian bashing.--Palestine48 09:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong opposeThe parent category is simply ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Palestine and I strongly suspect the nomination was made purely for POV purposes, perhaps hoping that by gaining a foothold here for a particular POV, it might then be carried across to other parts of the Wikipedia. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per user:Palmiro above --khello 18:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that Palmiro was part of that group of solicited special-interest votes he decried, will you be changing your vote now? Jayjg (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I strongly reject your claim. I am happy to be told about move or deletion proposals I may be interested in. I have no objection to anyone telling anyone about relevant issues. What we have here is a case where a large number of voters seem to have formed part of a voting bloc, and seem to frequently form part of such a voting bloc, and if another concerned user thought the best way to deal with this was to inform other users with an interest in the area of the vote, that was a fair and valid course of action. What we don't know, of course, is whether the initial small army of support voters had been notified by less open means. What I strongly object to is this sort of caucus-style voting where any votes on certain issues, particularly national issues, seem to elicit an instant reaction from a relatively large number of voters. This turns the decision process into a question of "who can muster the biggest team". That is no way to write an encyclopaedia and certainly no way to ensure a neutral point of view, and if anyone - such as the person you condemn for "soliciting votes", takes action against it, they are absolutely right to. Palmiro | Talk 00:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry I haven't been checking here for a while! My vote stands as it is: oppose. I don't see this particular stub as confusing at all- I actually think it contributes to a more organized wikipedia! All the articles categorized refer to either people identified as Palestinians or issues/organizations relating to Palestinians. So in this case, I don't think any alternatively named stub (Palestinian Authority for example) can serve the same purpose, since the people/issues/organizations categorized aren't necessarily affiliated with the PA. As such, the category "Palestine" best describes these "Palestinian" people/issues/organizations.--khello 01:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for the whole vote soliciting issue, I've come to learn that it is an unfortunate and inevitable consequence of the nature of these votes, especially when they concern such controversial topics! I just think that it's a bit unfair that such a vote can be decided on who happened to be active on wikipedia during this particular vote, only for the whole scenario to be repeated when the "other side" mobilize! --khello 01:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose stub type is valid as any other.--Ben 20:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename according to the type of stub; Palestine geo stub: Palestinian terrotories geo stub; Palestine bio stub: Palestinian bio stub; Palestine politics/govt stub: PNA stub; etc. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 12:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The scope of the stub seems to be the only thing to be at any odds with here. My main question is - are there any other disputed territories in the world that are referred to by; firstly names (kashmir?) by different groups of people, do any of these have stubs. The issue seems very clear to me. This is a disputed territory. The territory has different names based on different peoples point of view. It's a bad idea to use one of those names as the name for the stub, you can't get away from the fact that it's inherently POV to do so, unless it has been agreed upon by an oranisation that is not biased in any way shape or form. The stub title is very different from a country title, make no mistake. You should call the stub name 'Disputed Territories of the middle East' and include other disputed territories of the middle east. Or perhaps, create a 'Disputed territory' stub and refer to those around the world. JHJPDJKDKHI! 05:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, there aren't any others like this. No other disputed territories have the numbers of stubs which would require stub types. if they did have, the same course of action would have been taken as here - i.e., discussion with editors on all sides of the dispute, followed by the adoption of a politically neutral term which most nearly suited all of those sides. That has already been done with this case, and Palestine-stub and its subtypes are the result. The current debate is merely an attempt to overturn that discussion and the decision that was reached in it. Grutness...wha? 06:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Whether or not Palestine exists, the concept of Palestine exists. This stub-template identifies whether or not a stub is related to the concept of Palestine. And I also agree that this was a bad faith nomination. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 06:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:Yes, it's supposed to. The problem with the stub and there seem to be some people who want to ignore the fact that Palestine has nothing to do with a political entity. Somebody might put this stub in an article concerning the Jewish Roman wars or Cannan or Edom-Assyria or the Crusaders articles. But if one does so he will see a flag next to it that represents the PLO or the Palestinian National Authority. It doesn't in any way represent Palestine of course. It might be wishful thinking if we assume WP:AGF, but it also might be extreme delusional behaviour or WP:POV behaviour that confuses readers and users and puts wikipedia into shame, using a term for something that doesn't exist in a very inappropriate inaccurate and perplexing way. Amoruso 19:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose what will be done to articles related to the former mandated land and who lie outside Israel's internationaly recognized borders. The Palestine-stub is NPOV since the area was part of the Mandate of PALESTINE. Robin Hood 1212 19:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Solicited vote.
    • Comment that might be true if they dealt with articles about the Palestine Mandate, but the vast majority of entries are instead about places within the Palestinian Authority or people from them, which have as much to do with the mandate as Israel does. TewfikTalk 01:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment this vote will only occur on the English wikipedia which shows a trend of historical amnesia and selective referencing, the tide of rapid posting and POV tags against anything remotely critical of Zionism or Israeli extremism is extraordinary. But for those who are still interested in a few points: 1.The British Mandate was called the British Mandate of PALESTINE (not Israel). The area was always been referred to as Palestine through out unrevised history even in the Bible. The State of Israel is a recent creation of the 20th century. 2. Before anyone start the Kingdom of Israel speech (that was very ancient history by the way) and a relative flash in the history of the region. 3. Most importantly, the Palestine stub refers to the People, Area, Future State, Current State and People. Palestine48 14:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ignoring for a minute that this is a total assumption of bad faith:
    1. The vast majority of entries covered by this template have nothing to do with the British Mandate of Palestine.
    2. The historical term "Palestine" refers both to Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip (at minimum), and there is no justification for the novel approach that it now means the WB & GS exclusively (again, the vast majority of items covered by this temp are exclusively related to WB & GS). The area has not "always been referred to as Palestine," [and especially not in the Bible,] though when it was, it was roughly defined as what I said above (and not as the WB & GS, or somehow to the exclusion of the Jewish presence). As for the point about the modern Israel, that is irrelevant for the reasons I stated before, though the idea of an Arab "State of Palestine" is equally novel (as are all nation-states).
    3. There is no "current state" of Palestine, nor should/does the stub deal with a future state (crystal-balling & NPOV come to mind). The temp does organise the culture/people identified as "Palestinian" and the territory in the West Bank and Gaza Strip under autonomy of the Palestinian Authority. It is precisely the reasoning which you employed that makes the current name so non neutral as well as confusing. TewfikTalk 08:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"1. The British Mandate was called the British Mandate of PALESTINE (not Israel)". It was actually known as The British Mandate of Palestine (Eretz Yisrael). Chesdovi 09:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail see to understand how a "pro-Israeli bias" is considered to be a valid reason for your opposition. I don't contest the fact that Palestine is usually used to refer to the state, of course. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 14:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but if you recognise that "Palestine" is being used in this context to refer to a nonexistent state, then why do you think that is neutral, and why do you oppose renaming to refer to the presently existent autonomous entity - the Palestinian Authority? TewfikTalk 17:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that popular usage attributes it to the PA, I mean, sorry. I am somewhat left in the loop concerning the political situation in the Middle East. Amendments done per your highlights. Furthermore, I don't oppose a renaming, only the deletion. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 17:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kendrick7 put my objections down pretty well. The word "Palestinian", one would suppose, would be just as biased. But it refers to the Arabic speaking people there. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 17:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kendrick7's argument was that "Palestine" is the same as the Koreas or Taiwan in that controversy surrounds it, but the latter are independent states, while a "State of Palestine" does not exist, and thus a short name implying it does is non neutral (which may have been his point about Lebanon, which is also an independent state). What does exist is the Palestinian National Authority, as well as a culture and people that identify as Palestinian. Why not describe what is instead of what may one day be (sorry to be repetitive, but this is a crucial point). TewfikTalk 18:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This CFD has been tainted by a huge amount of vote solicitation, as the arguments of those solicited show.This will have to be taken into account when the final decision is made. Jayjg (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, given your vigorous deployment of condemnatory footnotes to the votes of all the "solicitees", it will be hard for whoever takes the final decision to miss it. You might want to reflect on whether this really shows respect for the opinions of others or not, though. Palmiro | Talk 00:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re comment - Since when this has been taken into account Jay? -- Szvest 12:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"As the arguments of those solicited show"? They do, do they? In what way? And how do we know that other voters weren't "solicited" as well, but in a less open way? There are seven or eight voters, none of whom strike me as regular cross-topic participants in stub-type-for-deletion discussions (I'm not one myself, which is the main reason why I welcome being informed of such discussions when they pertain to my areas of interest), all of whom appeared here tovote in favour of the move in a very short period of time. We certainly cannot say that we know "vote soliciting" happened on one side only. On the other hand, we can indeed say, I think, that a political bloc vote appeared in support of the move. That I heard of this vote thanks to another user telling me about it hardly disqualifies me from expressing concern at the frequency of this phenomenon. I think your attempt to cast doubt on the motives of oppose voters here is unfair and disappointing. Palmiro | Talk 00:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The name Palestine is the best to describe this group. All proposed names are more POV. The name Palestine here does not refer to a country but it is a general name of land, people, and culture. Other proposed names do not do the job as good as the word Palestine. --Thameen 10:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • small armies of Wikipedians with similar views who simultaneously appear to vote the same way on them, whatever the topic. Very well said Palmiro . Thank you --Thameen 10:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeAgree with Thameen and WikiSlasher, refers to the cultural region, its people and history. If anything, its the most NPOV as the other proposed stub names reflect Israeli bias. Afghan Historian 05:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would someone like to explain how it is an "Israeli bias" to deny that there is a political entity known as "Palestine," or how it is biased to affirm that the template instead deals with the political entity known as the "Palestinian National Authority"? If you believe that the renaming process is in error, then please reference or make an argument that deals with the specific facts of this case. TewfikTalk 06:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1)Many nations that have unclear/transitional/confusing political status are in Wikipedia, e.g. Kurdistan. 2)If you look in the index of any books covering this area of the world the territory that we are talking about is listed as Palestine, why should Wikipedia vary from the internationally accepted norm? Sorry , forgot to sign my name(just getting used to this)Puddleman 20:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine is a region that contains Israel also in the internationally accepted form. Currently, Palestine is a region. Stubs relate both to the region and to a palestinian national authority , which will possibly name itself as Palestine too when that state arrives - don't you see the problem here ? Amoruso 20:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a problem to deal with if it arises... chances are the name will be something like 'Republic of Palestine'...and there will simply be a disambiguaton page. It could end up being similar to the page America. This doesn't seem like a sound reason to change the name that is recognised and known world-wide. Puddleman 09:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Can anyone really look at the Emile Habibi article and say this would be a sensible change? I can only repeat my comment above, that this is an ill-thought out move which has nevertheless had the support of a large number of people for what look like purely emotional political/nationalistic motives. This is exactly the same pattern as with the proposed move of Great Uprising to Arab Revolt (Palestine 1948) where a large group of voters immediately appeared to support the move undaunted by the fact that the revolt in question had actually taken place between 1936 (or arguably 1935) and 1939. I'm surprised that User:Jayjg isn't thanking me, rather than making attacks on me whose unpleasantness is surpassed only by their pompousness, for taking a stand against such ill-thought-out proposals, considering that it was my remarks on the latter vote that resulted in a a slightly better-justified proposal which he felt he could support... Palmiro | Talk 01:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a couple of scoping questions at issue here:what definition of "Palestine" is intended (or should be intended) in the scope (the broader region, the territories, or the area the PNA supposedly controls at any given moment in time);and whether it designates a place at all, or an ethnicity.We've as a rule tried to avoid getting into that latter can of worms for stub types.So basically we have the worst of both worlds at the moment, as far as trying to follow recognised states and recognised borders for stub-sorting purposes, where places not in Israel get tagged with {{Israel-geo-stub}}, and ethnic Palestinians with Israeli citizenship are tagged with {{Palestine-stub}}.(Perhaps we can get a Wikipedia provision in the next set of Camp David agreements.)Alai 03:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There already is a Palestine-geo-stub, which perhaps explains why at least half of the articles sporting the main palestine-stub seem to relate not to the OPT but to the Palestinian national movement. I suppose creating a Palestine-bio-stub that could cover the likes of Habibi (though it's disgraceful that he only has a stub...) might be one way of tidying up some aspects of this, but as for the more sensitive elements, I fear you're right in thinking it'll take an international agreement before we're through with them. Palmiro | Talk 00:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Palestine can refer to a historic region (which includes modern Israel), to the ~25 year British Mandate, or the yet to exist modern political entity. Very few of the stubs currently tagged refer to these ideas. The vast majority deal with those who identify as the Palestinian people, or places within the West Bank and Gaza Strip; as of now those places are also exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Palestinian National Authority, a nonstate autonomous entity. Simply arguing that an adjective ("Palestinian") isn't the proper convention for stub naming is not a good reason for keeping a misleading title. Again, I'm inclined to suggest some flexibility for "Palestinian-stub" and/or "Palestinian-bio-stub," and due to the overlap of territory with the political entity, some variation on "Palestinian Authority" for the geo stub, though "Palestinian-geo-stub" would probably also be acceptable to all. If there are other suggestions that are in line with the naming convention and both avoid the confusion of "Palestine" and still recognise the unique Palestinian culture, then we should certainly discuss those, but so far such formulations have not been forthcoming. Let me know what you think, TewfikTalk 06:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously there are any possible subcategorizations that could be used, and there is in fact already a palestine-geo-stub. But I think we are probably going to have to keep this stub as well, both as a supercategory in line with all other nationality stub categories, and as a default for stubs that don't fit into any of the other categories.
As regards the Palestinian National Authority, it has no territorial jurisdiction over large areas of the West Bank, including all areas that come under the jurisdiction of the extended Israeli Jerusalem municipality, so it would not be an appropriate reference. Palmiro | Talk 12:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But how do you deal with the difference between what this is scoped to and its name? How would you feel about Huldra's potential "Palestinian" compromise? TewfikTalk 19:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually see any such proposal below. What precisely do you have in mind? The current stub actually says "This Palestinian-related article...", not "This Palestine-related article..." Maybe you can clarify below in your conversation with Huldra so as to keep as much as possible of this dialogue in one place - I already have a headache! Palmiro | Talk 21:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The stub is called {{Palestine-stub}}, that is what this page is all about. Huldra suggests naming the bio stub "Palestinian," so if we can both compromise on that position across the board, then we should have no problem (even though I think it would be more useful and logical to name after the Palestinian Authority entity). TewfikTalk 18:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Four points:
    • Facinating, that the question about wethervotes had been solicited via email was never answered here,("On the existence of cliques"), in spite of direct questions to Slim and Jay. Hmmm.
    • Also, arecent arb.com ruling found 5 messages soliciting votes "reasonable"
    • Some of the "solicited votes" above only show diffs pointing to a messages on portals/project....does this mean that in the future I can just leave a notice on one of the Israel/Judaism/Zionism project/portal, informing people that a vote is in progress somewhere on WP..and anybody (who is registered with that portal/project) showing up to vote will get a"solicited vote" attaced to their vote?? Great!!
    • Finally, I´m very dissappointed that nobody have solicitated my vote....I feel left out!! ;-D Regards, Huldra 07:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why do you strongly oppose renaming? Do you perhaps have any suggestions for how reconcile the gap between what the stub is called and how it is scoped? TewfikTalk 07:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I oppose it because the suggestion renames it to a much smaller entity, leaving many articles (of interest to anybody with an interest in Palestine) "outside". I think the only way forward is to create several "sub-categories" of "Palestine", making sure that all articles that are covered by the present cat. is also covered by some new cat. We could start with"Palestinian-bio-stub," (that should not be too controversial, should it?). Regards, Huldra 07:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with you that "Palestinian" is a good compromise across the board. So far the only opposition has come from the position that it is not in line with the naming convention. While I appreciate that point, if both sides concerned with content are willing to be flexible, then this would probably be a good place to utilise WP:Ignore all rules. TewfikTalk 18:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Aside from the fact that there's no expressed consensus for it at all, that I can perceive, and that it's against all stub-type guidelines, precedent and practice in scope, as well as name, for the reasons I mention, perhaps.Alai 23:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm puzzled as to why you are so inflexible on this point. You must certainly believe that the stub name must be factual - and I don't believe Catalan or Basque stubs are tagged as "European." Anyways, if Huldra, Palmiro, and I can agree, then that would pave the way to consensus. TewfikTalk 18:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per nom.--Mantanmoreland 11:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The story thus far":
    • Oppose: 26
    • Support: 15
    • Rename/other: 2
  • Just for the record. Pegship 22:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

By-decade country song stubs

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


Unproposed, and seriously undersized:the largest is a mighty six, and some are actually empty).There's no present need, as the parent would be around stubs even if these were all upmerged, which I recommend we do.Alai 00:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

October 17

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


My bad, I misnamed it when I created it. Please speedy. Her Pegship 04:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Florida structure stubs

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


Followup from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries#Cat:Florida_structure_stubs. Template is OK, but rename category to conform with other "building and structure" categories. Her Pegship 20:58, 17 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.

{{Sahaja-stub}}

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


(followup from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries). This stub was created without permission on October 11, 2006, and is currently being used on three articles. There has evidently been a recent campaign to introduce multiple vanity articles on Wikipedia which are related to this religion (some call it a cult) of Sahaja Yoga, and this stub appears to be part of that. I recommend deletion. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahaja Yoga International --NovaSTL 18:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

October 18

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 consensus at WP:MILHIST a number of categories are being nominated for renaming. In order to achieve the broadest possible consensus, those categories which are for stubs will be brought here for discussion (per recommendation by Alai. Currently, only one stub category is affected, but there may be others in the future.

  • Rename per consensus at WP:MILHIST

Carom 20:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename, assuming that the wheels don't come off the CFRs of the permanent parent cats. Contents aren't all "units" in usual parlance, but the distinction is a little murky to split along those lines. Alai 03:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, rename if (and only if) that is also the consensus for the permcats. Grutness...wha? 05:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion at CfD has been closed, with a consensus to rename all. Unless there are any objections, this discussion can probably be closed as well, and the appropriate changes made, no? Carom 12:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

various TV networks

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


Trying to clean up the discoveries page, so here's a few US TV network stubs. They are decently populated, but I'm not sure this is an axis that we want to use. I believe we decided in a by-decade split as opposed to a by-network split, so these should probably just be deleted.

~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

October 19

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

The result of the debate was delete


From discoveries. Too narrow. Can restub articles into {{edu-stub}}. Delete ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also thoroughly fails the dab test. I work for AP (not to be confused with AP). Delete. Grutness...wha? 22:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

{{African-music-stub}} → {{Africa-music-stub}}

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


We usually have the country as a noun in the template, so this should be renamed. This was on the Discoveries page, and it just needs to be renamed before I put it on WP:STUBS. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok with me. Goldenrowley
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.

Scotland national football team squad template

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 moved to WP:TFD


{{Template:Scotland football squad}}

This was created as an example template (by me) and is not needed. Nominate for deletion. Fedgin 15:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Belarus politics and history

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 -history- redirect, upmerge others


Discoveries cleaning again. (Expect to see this a lot today.)

Too small. Re-stub these with {{Belarus-stub}} (‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Belarus stubs is not oversized) or upmerge. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Mathematician redirects

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 1,2,3 and maths-bio-stub


More cleaning of Discoveries.

  1. {{mathbiostub}}
  2. {{mathbio-stub}}
  3. {{math-bio-stub}}
  4. {{mathematician-stub}}

1-3 are currently redirects to 4. I vote that we delete 1 and 2 and possibly redirect 4 to 3 because math-bio is a lot easier to spell that mathematician. I would also be fine with keeping the 3 → 4 redirect as it stands. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 1 and 2, redirect 3 to 4, not the other way round. "Math-bio" is a US-only construction (it would be Maths-bio in Commonwealth English, since we've never managed to work out what an individual mathematic might be), and it's better to avoid the US/UK language split where possible. Grutness...wha? 22:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1, 2, and 3. How many "hits" do these phantoms get? I agree with Grutness's remarks. In addition, everyone who works on math(s) bios or history knows that {{mathematician-stub}} is the stub template to use. Also, I would hate to have to clean up after an editor who has any difficulty whatsoever spelling mathermatician (OOPS!). Personally, I copy and paste such things, and I suspect that many others do likewise. Finell (Talk) 06:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "[E]veryone who works on math(s) bios or history knows that {{mathematician-stub}} is the stub template to use." Ummm, I didn't. I haven't made many edits of bios, but I've made a few. And the tag I used I copied from somewhere else. (I don't remember where.) Also, if these really are redirects and not stub types in and of themselves, then doesn't this belong on WP:RFD instead? Note that you may have a tough time on RfD: these redirects don't cause confusion nor are they cross-space redirects. Also, redirects are cheap. Lunch 04:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stub redirects are always handled here, and template redirects are not cheap in terms of the servers, as has been explained here many times in the past. They also cause problems in trying to maintain uniformity in stub template naming. Perhaps a viable compromise would be to keep mathematician-stub as the mains tub, with the redirect from math-bio-stub, and create a maths-bio-stub redirect, deleting the two which fail the naming guidelines. Grutness...wha? 21:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okey doke. Lunch 23:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like Amalas suggestion, support, it eliminates 2 redirects. . Goldenrowley 00:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I just created {{Maths-bio-stub}} as a redirect. If it is decided to delete the other ones, please delete this one too. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... on what basis? Two of them clearly clash with the naming guidelines, the one you just created does not. The real issue as far as I'm concerned isn't the server load, it's the cognitive load caused by creating confusion as to the pattern of stub template names. Someone typing "mathbiostub" either has a nervous tick about hyphens, or is going to be mighty confused when they try to use any other "-bio-stub" type, which they're invariably called. Alai 04:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Redirects are cheap — enough. Why go out of our way to make it harder for editors to classify a stub? If it is really all that hard on the servers, then some bot could be written to convert all the uses of the template redirects. Humans should tell the commputers what to do not the other way round ;-) Paul August ☎ 20:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I run such a bot, "on the basis of SFD outcomes" as it's approved to do, and ironically, keeping the redirects would preclude me from running it on these instances. Alai 04:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template redirects are not cheap. See Grutness 21:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC) above. Finell (Talk) 20:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err, Finell must mean User_talk:Grutness#template_redirects. To sum up: in their use, template redirects cause a marginal increase in server load that would best be avoided. Their practical effect is a bit different than that of article redirects. (And template redirects only benefit editors whereas article redirects benefit readers - the idea being editors are easier to corral and get to do something that benefits the project.) That said, they're not super-duper-ultra cheap, but they're not that expensive either. Lunch 23:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uhh, no, Finell means, as he said, Grutness's comment time stamped 21:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC), on this Talk page, several paragraphs above. I've also read elsewhere in WP policy documents that template accesses hit server load more heavily than page redirects. Finell (Talk) 07:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection

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


Extremely limited in scope: There are very few Nintendo WFC games (certainly not the fifty articles that this page suggests), and even fewer that are stubs. {{Nintendo-stub}} should cover the stubs that do exist. Hbdragon88 07:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

October 20

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


Spacey redirect. This type was a distinct mess: one template and two redirects, none of them complying to standard and NG names. I've moved the template to {{HongKong-road-stub}}, which is, leaving redirects from {{Hong-Kong-road-stub}} and {{HK-road-stub}}, which are less egregious, though hardly desirable as such. Alai 19:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this redirect and the Hong-Kong one, HK seems okay as a redirect, though, so I don't mind whether it's kept or not. Any indication of how frequently it's used? Grutness...wha? 23:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Often -- unsurprisingly, in that IN keeps creating them, keeps using them, and maintains (contra HK and google) that the term is a veritable model of unambiguity). In fact it's a pretty sure bet that all usages are at one of the redirects or another, since I moved the template a little while ago, from {{Hong-Kong-road-stub}}. Alai 01:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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

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


Empty, not used. Should be deleted. GizzaChat © 00:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

{{Berbers-stub}}/‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Berbers stubs and {{Berber-stub}}/‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Berber stubs

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 plural versions, upmerge berber-stub


Never proposed, these only 18 and five stubs respectively, despite being created two months ago, and have a curious mix of ethno-group stubs, hist-stubs, party-stubs and geo-stubs. One of the template/category pairs has unnecessary plural names, too. We certainly don't need both, and it's questionable whether we need either. Not needed in its present form - first option Delete both pairs, distant second option sort properly and populate the singularly named one, and delete the other one. Grutness...wha? 00:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of {{Berber-stub}}/‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Berber stubs i suggest deleting {{Berbers-stub}}/‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Berbers stubs after transferring all its content to {{Berber-stub}}/‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Berber stubs.
P.S. I haven't paid attention to the existence of {{Berbers-stub}}/‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Berbers stubs. -- Szvest 10:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®[reply]
Or to the stub proposal process, size guidelines, etc... Delete the plural pair, at a minumum. I'd suggest upmerging the other, but it's not clear to me what the upmerger target would be. {{Africa-stub}} isn't quite right, {{ethno-group-stub}}, possiblie. Alai 04:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those templates would make it eazier to bring the berber related stubs together. I would vote for {{Berber-stub}}. Because wikipedia tends to use the singular names.Read3r 13:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

October 21

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


Another unproposed mini-type. At a minimum, template needs to be renamed to be NG-compliant, though whether it's broad enough to be sensible is a question unto itself. Alai 19:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

should that be -philosophy- or -phil- ? It needs renaming, whichever - and should probably be dealt with in oparallel with the discussion on hundu-stub subtypes at WP:WSS/P. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Valid point, standard is "-philo-", changed nom accordingly. (OTOH, while I don't mind leaving a redirect at -philosophy-, the spacey one I'd like rid of.) Alai 04:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'll add to the Hindu cats as I did for the other Hindu stubs.Bakaman Bakatalk 04:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Politics of Hong Kong stubs → ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Hong Kong politics stubs

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

The result of the debate was rename


Rename to same word-order as siblings. Alai 15:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

October 23

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 deferred/withdrawn


I realize it's a new creation, so perhaps I'm being hasty, but as this + the parent are only around 80 stubs, I'm guessing this would be better upmerged, unless there's a lot of latent Rwandans about the place... Alai 04:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The -bio is now up to 59. The parent is at 51, but with two children (-bio and -geo). Although the -geo is a bit thin, I don't think this material is properly sorted. Shouldn't we give it a chance to grow a bit? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 12:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, withdrawing. Alai 02:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

October 24

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

The result of the debate was
Speedy deleted WP:SNOW and creator request--Konst.ableTalk 10:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{wot-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Wheel of Time stubs

This category only has one stub in it over a month after creation. It hasn't been proposed. Eli Falk 11:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the one stub there could easily be given a fict-char-stub. And you didn't mention how lousy the template name is! ({{wot-stub}}, which should also go). Grutness...wha? 21:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems too narrow. Alai 02:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creator, this was going to be something I focused on, but quite clearly I forgot all about it. If you want, speedy-close delete this, and delete the cateogry as well - it was an error on my part, as it was too narrow anyways. Daniel.Bryant 10:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

{{Rhode Island-State-Highway-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Rhode Island State Highway stubs

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

The result of the debate was rename template, delete cat


This stub cat. seems to never have been proposed, doesn't have a regular (non-stub) category, and is unpopulated. Eli Falk 08:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

October 26

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


Has a wikiproject - but has no articles and no category and was never proposed. And we've been pretty clear in the past that "culture-stubs" are more trouble than they're worth as far as scoping is concerned. Delete. Grutness...wha? 22:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

{{Azerbaijan-nature-stub}}/ ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Azerbaijan nature stubs

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


Unproposed - and it would have been soundly rejected if it had been. A simply appalling attempt to split Azerbaijan stubs which takes in national parks from the Azerbaijan-geo-stub category and a handful of other Azerbaijan stubs. neither the geo category or the main stub category were overtaxed (neither has over 200 stubs), and this is an horrible way to try to split it. If there were more national parks a Protected Area stub may have been useful eventually, though this category has a bare 31 stubs, so that seems an unlikely option. Grutness...wha? 22:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: You bring up a valid concern regarding an attempt at unecessary fork from Geo-stub. I created the category after I noticed it at Special:Wantedcategories. Since it had no deletion logs, I assumed the community wanted such a category. - Tutmosis 23:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

{{Tajik-bio-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Tajik people stubs

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 to Tajikstan-bio-stub, upmerge/delete cat, sort articles by citizenship not ethnicity


Never proposed - has four articles. Category name is ambiguous. I can see the possibility of an upmerged Tajikistan-bio-stub, but not with the current name. Delete what's here, possibly create a new upmerged template. Grutness...wha? 22:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. We already have Tajikistan-bio-stub and I don't like templates crossing borders (unfortunately, "Tajik" sounds a lot better than "Tajikistani"). Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see any problem with this category (or the stub type). For every country x, we should have an x-bio-stub template and Tajikistan is not an exception. About the name, I redirected tajik-bio-stub to Tajikistan-bio-stub. About Tajik/Tajikistani, the word Tajikistani is not used and using it is wrong (it's not for us to invent new words). Jahangard 06:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - As Alai pointed out, we already had Tajikistan-bio-stub for exactly that purpose (which you somehow over-wrote with your move). Tajik-bio-stub, though, implies it is used for Tajik people (as the category is indeed named). That suggests it is for people of Tajik descent, not people from Tajikistan, and as such has the potential to cause confusion and also the potential for people to consider that splitting bio-stubs by ethnicity is a good idea (which it isn't). It is for these reasons that Tajik-bio-stub should be deleted. BTW, I have reverted your redirection - please don't redirect something while a deletion debate is in progress! Grutness...wha? 07:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't a separate stub type for Tajikistan-bio-stub (and I didn't over-write it). There was only one which I had moved it to Tajik-bio-stub and then I moved it back to Tajikistan-bio-stub. So, indeed you over-wrote template:Tajikistan-bio-stub, during the discussion. Jahangard 15:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strange that, considering how often I've used tajikistan-bio-stub over the time I've been sorting stubs. As to overwriting it during this discussion, since Tajikistan-bio-stub wasn't up for deletion here, there was nothing wrong with that. Grutness...wha? 21:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was my buff, sorry! I was thinking about {{Kazakhstan-bio-stub}} and {{Uzbekistan-bio-stub}}. I'll have no problem with an upmerged {{Tajikistan-bio-stub}} (to be used on all persons living in Tajikistan regardless of ethnicity). Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to say, I can find no trace of there having previously been a Tajikistan-bio-stub template (and I checked past db dumps, lest the deletion logs be playing up). Alai 23:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strange - I was sure there had been one before - and there were certainly a few things which seemed to be marked with it which hadn't been marked with Tajik-bio-stub (I added a few more to see whether it would get up to stand-alone category size, but it only totalled about 25). Grutness...wha? 04:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment: As to the word "Tajikistani", perhaps I can draw your attention to part of the article we have on Tajikistan: Controversy surrounds the correct term used to identify people from Tajikistan. The word Tajik has been the traditional term used to describe people from Tajikistan and appears widely in literature. But the ethnic politics of Central Asia have made the word Tajik a controversial word, as it implies that Tajikistan is only a nation for ethnic Tajiks and not ethnic Uzbeks, Russians etc. In addition, the Pamiri population in Gorno-Badakhshan also have sought to create an ethnic identity separate from that of the Tajiks. There is a growing consensus that Tajikistani, which is not ethnic specific and is inclusive of ethnic Tajiks and non-Tajiks alike, is the correct term to call people from Tajikistan. Grutness...wha? 07:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like original research. Show credible references (about the use of the word Tajikistani for the nationality). However, I don't have any problem with the term "Tajikistan-related". If you are so concerned about the word "Tajik", change it to this term. Jahangard 15:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research? A Google search for Tajikistani finds over 50,000 non-google hits, including Word web dictionary, NewsfromRussia, Xinhuanet, USAID, Embassiesabroad, Islamonline, Barnes & Noble, Findglobe, Aneki.com, Worldpress.org, The US Embassy in Tajikistan, The BBC... oh, and The United Nations. Seems fine to me. Grutness...wha? 21:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

{{Iran-law-stub}}

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


Never proposed - has one article and no category, despite being in existence for nearly a month. Delete - or possibly upmerge. Grutness...wha? 22:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

{{1980s pop album stubs}} and {{1980s pop album stub}}

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


Two unused and poorly named redirects to {{1980s-pop-album-stub}}. Seem to have been created in error, if the history is anything to go by. Delete. Grutness...wha? 22:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

{{Artstub}}

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


As above, but for {{Art-stub}}. Delete. Grutness...wha? 22:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

{{3do-cvg-stub}}

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


Cryptically named, never proposed, and seemingly never used. Delete Grutness...wha? 22:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Mixed Martial Arts stubs and {{MMA-stub}}

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 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.

October 28

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


Was never proposed. Underpopulated (39 members). Unnecessary stub type, there was no problem with the previous {{mars-stub}} and {{crater-stub}} combination. Does this also mean we need a stub type for each mountain or rock on Mars? MER-C 09:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mars-stub is hardly overburdened, either, so there shouldn't be any problems if the stubs are in there. Grutness...wha? 21:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We can always make something clever later should this material show significant growth. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge (presumably "doubly"), and rename to {{Mars-crater-stub}}, which would be per convention. This is not ridiculously narrow. Category name isn't the best, but it seems unnecessary to discard tagging effort. Alai 02:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

October 30

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 to SeventhdayAdventist-


{{Seventh-day Adventist-stub}} → something without spaces

I don't much care if this ends up at {{SeventhDayAdventist-stub}}, {{Seventh-dayAdventist-stub}} (which it was created at, and is now a redirect, due to a move to the current name), {{Seventh-day-Adventist-stub}}, {{Seventh-Day-Adventist-stub}}, but the space-filled name doesn't meet the stub naming guidelines. Alai 06:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct use of the church's name is "Seventh-day Adventist", with the hypen and lowercase "d" for day (and including the space)! The officially preferred abbreviation is "Adventist" not "SDA", for reasons of disambiguation and avoidance of exclusivism.[11] This makes the naming tricky:
  • {{Adventist-stub}} will not work because "Adventist" as a standalone term has a broader meaning
  • {{Seventh-dayAdventist-stub}} (the original name I used) looks awkward
  • {{SeventhdayAdventist-stub}} has strange capitalization and leaves out the hyphen
  • {{Seventh-day-Adventist-stub}} overuse of hyphens, but not too bad
I prefer the following two names:
  • {{SeventhDayAdventist-stub}} incorrect capitalization, but still looks good
  • {{SDA-stub}} not the preferred abbreviation, but looks good and "exclusivity" not a problem because stub naming is for editors not for readers. Still, there are other uses of the abbreviation "SDA", although it is unlikely a stub class will be formed for them. -Colin MacLaurin 08:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also have no objection to {{Adventist-stub}}, at least until such time as the other A-ist denoms object, or perhaps {{SDAdventist-stub}}. {{SDA-stub}} is way too cryptic and ambiguous: see SDA. One might argue that {{Seventh-day-Adventist-stub}} is correct on the basis that "Seventh-day-" is a qualifier of a possible, if admittedly currently hypothetical, {{Adventist-stub}} for the larger grouping. Alai 17:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about {{SeventhDay-stub}}? it also gets around whether the stub is for the religion or its adherents, since the term "Seventh Day Adventist" could refer to the people alone. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not recommend {{SeventhDay-stub}} because some other groups also call themselves "Seventh Day". Yet I agree with your point; the stub is intended for the denomination - so we should make it an "ism". How about {{SeventhDayAdventism-stub}}? That is the natural name that a user unaware of the preferred punctuation would choose. -Colin MacLaurin 13:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Would anybody be offended if the form "7th" was used? — CharlotteWebb 19:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about either {{SeventhdayAdventist-stub}} or {{SeventhDayAdventist-stub}}? -Colin MacLaurin 15:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry for violating guidelines about spaces with the move, I was not aware that stub templates had so much bureaucracy behind them. Having a capital "D" for day is incorrect in the general case, so I do not see why it would work like that. SeventhDay-stub doesn't reflect any usage of the term currently. Also not sure why hyphens are a bad thing. The template name is not actually seen by readers so I guess its not such a bad thing, but as a user of the template I do not mind at all about long or hyphenated names. Something I can remember is more important, and either Seventh-day-Adventist-stub or SeventhdayAdventist-stub are what I would actually remember, assuming the template name currently with spaces is strictly disallowed. Ansell 23:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support How about {{SeventhdayAdventist-stub}} then? -Colin MacLaurin 17:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sounds good to me - in answer to Ansell's question about hyphens, BTW, Seventh-day-Adventist-stub would indicate that the stub was a subtype of day-Adventist-stub, which was a subtype of Adventist-stub. Grutness...wha? 21:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the specific use of hyphens in stub tags has a reason then. Sorry again for fooling around with the system with my move. :) I think in the case that hyphens have a specific use, and SeventhDayAdventist-stub is technically incorrect and troublesome for future use of the capital D by other editors unknowingly, I also agree that {{SeventhdayAdventist-stub}} should be the final solution. Ansell 02:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{KCR stub}} → {{KCR-stub}}; {{MTR stub}}→ {{MTR-stub}}

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'm doubtful if these were ever proposed, or are anything but highly cryptically named, especially as regards the categories, but I'm certain that the non-hyphenated template names are contra the stub naming guidelines. No problem as to population or scope, though. Rename those, at the least. Alai 03:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

support, with deletion of the redirects. I suspect the hand of one of our old friends in these... Grutness...wha? 21:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2006/October&oldid=109305055"