Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/June

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

Moved from CfD

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Again, with the main article at armour the category should follow the same spelling, otherwise it looks strange. John Smith's 11:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom Johnbod 12:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If renamed, retain the old as a redirect. Otto4711 14:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and redirect. This should be a British English category, because armour was once worn in the British Isles, but the U.S. wasn't around in that era. Mowsbury 14:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Alex Middleton 23:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, mainly to agree with the article, though there is also sense in using the British spelling since the vast majority of related articles will not primarily relate to places using US English (for the reasons Mowsbury indicates). Do not retain the old name as a redirect - there's no point, since stubs are placed in categories by dedicated templates. The template {{armor-stub}} and its redirect {{armour-stub}} should be reversed at the same time, BTW. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 2 June 2007 (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 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 rescope to upmerged Ancient-Thrace-stub

Unproposed, and for the most part we don't split by no-longer-extant countries. Sure, there are a couple of exceptions - big ones with loads of articles. Note that the combined total size of the categories Category:Thracian people and Category:Thracian kings is 20 articles. There's no way that the threshold level of 60 stubs could be reached from that. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth keeping as an upmerged variant of an {{Ancient-Thrace-stub}} Between Thracian archaeological sites and mythology, there's probably enough for at least an upmerged {{Ancient-Thrace-stub}} Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we delete a previous generic template about Ancient Thrace because it could never live up to the size criterion? This one is more narrow in scope, and I doubt the material has grown significantly. Delete. Valentinian ^{T / C} 17:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest creating or upmerging to something like a generic Ancient Thrace stub category. Merge to {{Ancient-Thrace-stub}}. Neranei 01:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first book at hand I consulted, Thracians by Alexander Fol and Valeria Fol, ISBN: 978-9549717181 has fifty-odd persons mentioned, not just kings and other nobles but also priests, poets, singers, artists etc. that could possibly need such a bio stub. In any case, if this template were deleted I trust there would be no objection to inserting in the relevant present articles a footnote to the same effect with no template used? I have no problems with having the template renamed 'Ancient-Thrace-stub'. Apcbg 08:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my proposal for an Ancient-Euro-bio-stub (or Classical-bio-stub) at WP:WSS/P Grutness...wha? 01:41, 5 June 2007 (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 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 with a badly-capitalised category. Maybe this could be useful, but if so, it should follow the permcat and be Category:Reggae song stubs, with a template that matches that. Either delete or rename. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Potentially useful, but I'm guessing it's not going to be first on the list of genres to be viable. Accordingly, I'd suggest upmerging. Alai 01:16, 3 June 2007 (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 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, odd redlink category of Category:European Union politician. EU politicians are almost always specifically linked to one member nation, and as such are covered by specific country-politician-stub types and - in many cases - MEP-stub. This is therefore unnecessary. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all politicians in the EU system have a notable past in national politics. Some and are foremost identified as a "European" politician. I made this template with people in the EU commission, parliament etc. in mind, and not necessarily all MEPs sent from a national party. The rise of new "truly pan-european" parties aiming for the parliamentary election in 2009, like "Newropeans" and "Europe United" (Yes, the Newropeans article is currently small and seemingly questionable, but the party is all about getting parliament seats in the '09 election in a pan-European, not national way.) has political personalities that should and probably would prefer themselves to be marked as "European", instead of their country of birth. The fact is that this stub template is perfect for some politicians. _└ ^{S. SOLBERG J.} / _talk ^┐ 01:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems largely unnecessary to me, since even if they're only active at the EU level, they'll still have a nationality. If kept, upmerge to Category:European politician stubs. Alai 01:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes all EU politicians are born in a member state, but the fact that many pro-european politicians and citizens in general choose to ignore the national aspect and focus solely on the European, must shine through sometimes on wikipedia. Politics is one of the few areas with a real EU level, and this stub is about the profession of politican. I agree that a stub type called "EU actress" perhaps would be wrong, but when it comes to politics, the EU aspect must have its place - including a stub type of its own._└ ^{S. SOLBERG J.} / _talk ^┐ 01:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not just "are born in" (and not necessarily, either), but more importantly, "are citizens of". You seem to be suggesting that stub tags should reflect a (in this case, extreme minority) POV corresponding to that of the subject of the stubs it's applied to, which is utterly different from what we ordinarily do. Strongly oppose any separate stub category along these lines, as it wouldn't be populable, and it'd cut across all normal means of organising same. Alai 02:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point i'm making is that thousands of politicians are all about the EU system in Brussels, and without any relevant national background. Citizens of EU member states are officially also EU citizens (separately). So to force through the argument that "everybody is born in some country", would be just to correspond with some unofficial standards on nationality in the wikipedia stub project. As you said, Category:European politician stubs should of course be used. Tens of thousands of politicians from all over Europe are working in Brussels and Strasbourg with a common European purpose. The EU system is a major genre within European politics, so to split up these (with wikipedia articles and a non-segnificant background in national politics)into their countries of birth (everybody has a common EU citizenship by law) because of an unwritten wikiproject law, would be wrong._└ ^{S. SOLBERG J.} / _talk ^┐ 02:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(resetting indent). We already have {{Euro-politician-stub}}, {{MEP-stub}} and {{EU-org-bio-stub}} so we don't need any more templates. Despite the dreams of some Eurocrats, the EU is not a nation, and we sort politicians by country or continent. The EU is neither. In any case, the politicial stubs should always include a relevant national template. Delete. Valentinian ^{T / C} 17:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well this stub is really a mix of {{MEP-stub}} and {{EU-org-bio-stub}}. (The first is about elected politicians in the EU, while the other one represents the non-elected ones) I think EU-politician-stub works better and that those two should be merged into this one. You obviously don't like EU level stub types, so I'd guess that one would be better than two. This stub would also include people from for example Newropeans (Not MEPs (yet) nor government employee), whose inclusion in the "EU universe" is obvious but nationality is irrelevant._└ ^{S. SOLBERG J.} / _talk ^┐ 18:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My interest here is that I've sorted thousands of -politician articles, and I would very much like to avoid seeing that work wasted. We should avoid grouping people by their interest or similar. Otherwise we'd end up with stubbing the article about a (wannabe) politician with a -culture, -sports and X other categories simply because the person campaigns on those issues. The MEPs have been sorted very efficiently so I strongly oppose changing that situation. We shouldn't have -politician templates relating to the CIS, GATT, OECD or EFTA either. It has taken me and others a very large number of manhours to sort the political material efficiently, and a template like this will be set precedent for establishing a number of other templates cutting right through this system. A second criterion is size: we don't have 60 relevant articles that don't fall into any of the other categories - as required for new lines of stub templates - so even if we didn't have the other problem, we still have this one. There are just too many problems with this template and too little benefit. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody is interested, a similar proposal was rejected two months ago.[1] Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. EU isn't a country. There is no reason to unite all EU politicians together as each sub-stub cat has a healthy stub population. Also I see some POV issues here. I think country-politician-stub covers the bio stubs more than adequately. -- Cat ^chi? 17:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No point deleting just because it isn't a country, it is a massive political entity whatever you call it. We do though have the MEP and bio stubs, make sense to merge them, we're reducing the amount of stubs. - J Logan ^t/_c: 06:41, 24 June 2007 (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 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 reverse redirect to point to rugbyunion-stub

Per discussion over at WPSS/P, lower case "union" would be more appropriate. Not sure about the hyphenation; feel free to revise as needed. (The category name is OK as is.) Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom with the hyphen. I'm used to tagging stubs with a hyphen between words, and "rugby" is a separate word from "union". Placeholder account 00:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, but definitely without the hyphen. Standard stub-naming practice only uses a hyphen to separate between stub types and their subtypes - thus we do not have New-Zealand-stub, Star-Trek-stub, or Wide-receiver-stub. Rugby union is a unitary sport - it is not a variety of stub relating to unions in general, and given that there is no rugby-stub it should not be hyphenated in that way either (exactly as {{Rugbyleague-stub}} is not hyphenated). Note also the existence of {{NZ-rugbyunion-bio-stub}}, {{UK-rugbyunion-bio-stub}}, {{Ireland-rugbyunion-bio-stub}}, and {{Australia-rugbyunion-bio-stub}}, all of which correctly avoid the hyphen. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that we did have a {{rugby-stub}} before (but deleted it ages ago), and still do have a {{rugby-bio-stub}} (which I think we might be able to get rid of without too much effort, too). Alai 15:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename eith out hyphen as per User:Grutness. Waacstats 12:43, 6 June 2007 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename cat to "New York City transportation stubs", rename template to "NYC-transport-stub", keep redirect "NYCS-stub", delete redirect "NYCT-stub

When the WikiProject New York City Subway expanded its scope to become WikiProject New York City Public Transportation, the stub template {{NYCS-stub}} was moved to {{NYCT-stub}}, but the corresponding category was not moved. Rename to the above or Category:New York City public transportation stubs. Tinlinkin 03:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I prefer "transportation" over "public transportation." As a current NYC resident, I can assure you there's not much difference, and the shorter term is more user-friendly. Placeholder account 04:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm happy enough with the change, but please note that the only reason why NYCS-stub was acceptable as a template name was because the New York City Subway is a specific organisation/item known by that abbreviation. If the new category name has a lower-case "t", implying that there isn't a unitary organisation involved, the template should probably also be renamed - probably to {{NYC-transport-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 05:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename cat to New York City transportation stubs, to correspond in scope to the permcat; rename template (now tagged) per Grutness, keeping {{NYCS-stub}} as a redirect (or a separate upmerged template), but getting rid of {{NYCT-stub}} as an arbitrary and cryptic abbreviation. Alai 14:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have no problem with the renaming of the template. But the template (and category) is supposed to cover transportation over the New York City metropolitan area, including New Jersey and Connecticut. Is this an issue? Tinlinkin 15:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The permcat Category:Transportation in New York City seems (implicitly) to be scoped to include the MA, so my initial guess would be that the "NYC" naming is OK. But I'm open to suggestions on that... Alai 12:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I ask partly because a project member proposed a new stub template that's basically identical to this one and then quickly withdrew the proposal. I can only assume the name of the template was the issue. Tinlinkin 21:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I recently noticed that myself, and in short I don't know. (Could always just ask him, of course.) But if the permcat is OK, and the stub category follows the permcat, and the template is fairly unambiguously suggestive of the category name, then I'm thinking it's probably OK. Alai 00:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That project member was me...I wasn't sure if it was superfluous to the existing one already used for this WikiProject. There are many articles where it could be used (specifically, it might say something like: This article relating to transportation in the New York metropolitan area is a stub). (The existing one seems pretty limited to the City of New York...and this one would cover the entire MTA service area, northern New Jersey, and the Gold Coast of Connecticut (which are all part of the NYMA). Now, I think that a change might be appropriate, because many of the stub articles are simply classified as general stubs. The idea for this came from the Washington Metro stub. Comments? --AEMoreira042281 talk 03:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Washington Metro, of which {{Washington-Metro-stub}} is derived from, is a unitary system like the NYCS. As described in that stub's category, it clearly refers to that specific transit system, not necessarily other transit systems that operate in the Washington, D.C. metro area. If needed, {{metro-NYC-transport-stub}} may be a suggestion (not too familiar with stub template naming conventions), but I think the name is too superfluous and per Alai, the originally proposed name is implicit in including the NYC metro area. Tinlinkin 03:27, 8 June 2007 (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 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, cryptically named, no category. This is actually for Cape Cod Transit - and Category:Cape Cod Transit has precisely three articles. The chance of sixty of those three being stubs is not high. Utterly useless. Delete. Grutness...wha? 07:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This fish is too small. Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete well put Valentinian.

• Delete per above. It's used on two articles which are already categorized, and which can be recast into more general stub listings. YechielMan 06:48, 11 June 2007 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep and clean up

Never proposed, misleadingly named, no category, non-standard name. This is actually for stubs relating to the Salem witch trials, not for Salem itself. Category:Salem witch trials has 40 articles (don't be misled by the subcategory - many of the articles are in both it and the main cat). Wikiproject? Yes and no - there is a "working party", part of a larger Wikiproject which already has a main dedicated stub template. Even if there had been a fully-=fledged SWT WikiProject, this would require considerable re-working and would need 75% of the articles to be stubs for it to be worthwhile. I can't see much future for this one. Grutness...wha? 07:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to be used on over 30 of those articles at present, so weak keep, provided it's cleaned up (i.e. renamed to comply with NGs, given a category, and de-"task force"-spammed). Alai 13:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So in short, we need a new name, possibly a category, a new non-fair use image and we need to remove the advertisement for the task force. It would be somewhat easier if people just used WP:WSS/P. Has anybody done a proper count of this material? Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just not "bold" enough for some people, though. As I say, there's 30-something articles that transclude it at present, which I think is enough unless we quibble about the difference between a "task force" and a first-order WPJ. Alai 20:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the creator of the stub type of course i will say keep.-- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 22:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the one of the creaters of the The Salem Witch Trials Task Force, I of course say "Keep". Psdubow 22:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm an uninvolved party, but I think that if the Salem Witch Trials find it useful to slap stub tags on their articles, the encyclopedia comes out ahead. YechielMan 06:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their articles? Alai 23:45, 14 June 2007 (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 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; recreation of previously deleted Kurdistan-stub

Same reasons as Assyrian-stub nom on this page. I find this creation disruptive. -- Cat ^chi? 18:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See also leisure tagging -- Cat ^chi? 19:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is kurdish related article. --Bohater 19:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the point of stubs. You do not even understand the basic concept of stubs (what a stub is) -- Cat ^chi? 19:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep Same reasons as Assyrian-stub --Bohater 19:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly tempted to call for a speedy delete. You applied this to all of four articles, none of which were stubs, only one of which was even close to being a stub, and that one wouldn't get this stub template anyway but rather {{Iraq-footy-club-stub}} or the like. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No reason for deletion. We are at the beginning. Help us to expand it. --Bohater 21:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Expand what exactly? -- Cat ^chi? 21:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Surely there is a lot of kurdish related articles, which need the kurdish stub, see here --Bohater 21:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why not use a generic one like practically everyone else? Also I can't relate most of those articles to "Kurdish people" in general. They are mostly cities and provinces. Remainder seems to be significant for reasons besides "kurdish" relation. -- Cat ^chi? 21:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - see comments below. Also, same reasons as stated in all the previous discussions of Category:Kurdistan. The Evil Spartan 00:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deleted as re-named re-creation of {{Kurdistan-stub}}. Not useful to stub-sorting, edit-war-magnet, not being used for stubs, insufficient numbers of real stubs for general use, incorrect naming, in fact just about everything which could be wrong with this stub type is wrong. To Evil Spartan, please note that stub categories fulfil entirely different functions to general categories. A stub category may be completely unacceptable even when a general category is perfectly acceptable. The accepatbility or otherwise of a Category:Kurdistan is thus in no way relevant to this unacceptable and unnecessary stub type. Might I suggest, since this seems to be specifically for use by a WikiProject (WP Kurdistan), that you do what other WikiProjects do - that is, use a talk-page WP-specific template which can be applied to all relevant articles, not just stubs? It would be far moreuseful to WP Kurdistan, and far less of a problem in terms of its unsuitability as a stub type. I suggest you look at some example templates of this type, such as those at the top of Talk:Michael Smither, Talk: Acetylcholine and Talk: Yes It Is. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not true. We have also a lot of stubs articles with their own category. All these stubs articles have still their kurdish templates on the discussion site. There is hardly Editwar. I see no reason why Kurdish-stub should be speedy deleted when we have other ethnic stubs such as {{Roma-stub}}, {{Jewish-hist-stub}} or {{Assyrian-stub}}. Only Nationalist users try to remove these kind of templates. --Bohater 07:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{Jewish-hist-stub}} is perfectly fine as would {{Assyrian-hist-stub}} or {{Kurdish-hist-stub}}, it would be used for "history" related articles relevant to "Kurdish history" being a subcat of Category:History stubs. {{Jewish-stub}} however is a redlink and should stay that way unlike {{Judaism-stub}}.-- Cat ^chi? 11:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep again, it says "Kurdish", not Kurdistan. Nothing wrong here. Chaldean 02:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not the problem here. -- Cat ^chi? 11:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete since this is the recreation of a template previously deleted after intense discussion. Kurdistan is not easily defined and the subject matter is deeply controversial, so such a template will merely result in edit warring. Stick to categories and project banners on the relevant talk pages. Valentinian ^{T / C} 13:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We talk about Kurdish and not kurdistan. --Bohater 14:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes it more problematic. See how {{Turk-stub}} was deleted -- Cat ^chi? 14:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • What do you mean, "problematic"? Yes, it's a controversial region. So what? Does that mean there can be no Kurdish stubs because of that? You realise you're insulting millions of people by that? EliasAlucard|Talk 08:12, 14 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
        • Stubs are expected NOT to be controversial, as you acknowledge this stub proposal is not problem free and hence may lead to edit wars. If people are getting insulted over the deletion of a stub template they ought to check their priorities. Stub templates should not contain a political message, they are mere maintenance templates. -- Cat ^chi? 12:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep There is absolutely nothing wrong with this stub. No actual reason to delete it. EliasAlucard|Talk 20:35, 13 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
  • It does indeed have quite a lot of problems attached: 1) it doesn't live up to the naming system which is the only thing that makes the sorting of 400,000 stubs possible in the first place, 2) what's worse is that it has a scope breaking through the current system of stub templates, 3) it will doubtless be used in edit warring, something that WP:WSS tries very strongly to keep out of the template space since it can potentially affect a large number of articles. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for political causes and this template is definitely not problem free. This is a discussion about the problems / benefits of a potential template, it is not a vote. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let us wait it, I think there are a lot of users, who will give their statement here. Where is the problem?. --Bohater 01:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh I don't know... The fact that this was discussed before? Or in another way to look at it, was this ever proposed. How is this helpful to the project? -- Cat ^chi? 01:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - unconvinced by deletion rationale - editors who revert war should be blocked and certainly shouldn't be allowed to dictate content. Template appears comparable to Assyrian-stub or Tibet-stub, either of which could be labelled 'edit war magnets'. Addhoc 00:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither {{Assyrian-stub}} or {{Tibet-stub}} were properly proposed. A single user seemed to create both without consensus. {{Assyrian-stub}} is also nominated for deletion on this very page. Stub types should not provoke an edit war. Once added to an article, a stub shouldn't be removed. It isn't used anywhere (which is less than 70 article minimum). What more rationale should be necessary? -- Cat ^chi? 04:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

White Cat you fight and fight, but somehow nobody listens to you. Is that not odd?--Bohater 12:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; previous discussions have resulted in deletion, nothing is new this time around. Extremely controversial territory here and edit warring about "this is in Kurdistan" "no it isn't" "wait, Kurdistan doesn't even exist" will go on. There is no real way to establish what articles should be tagged with such stubs, and any uses will be controversial; a broader stub category will suffice. I'd also like to request that everyone keep cool: personal attacks like Bohater's comment above are not warranted in a discussion about a stub classification :) -- Editor at Large • talk 19:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see over there: It is kurdish related Stub, not Kurdistan-stub. It is true, that a official Kurdistan doesn't exist. But this stub should describe kurdish related articles. thanks. --Bohater 20:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Kurdistan doesn't officially exist, who is going to determine what is within its non-existant borders or not? Other than a few articles that refer to the general idea of a Kurdistan there will be nothing to put in it, since cities, towns, buildings of note, etc. cannot be accurately identified as being within "Kurdistan" or not. With so few articles actually fitting the requirements for being classed as a Kurdistan-stub there is no point in having a stub class that will have fewer than the 70 article minimum. -- Editor at Large • talk 06:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just a reminder to everyone commenting here that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is specifically noted as a very poor argument to use in deletion processes. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've removed a map of the Kurdish-inhabited region from this template. The fact that is was even there is the first place reminds me way too much about the flag that was used on {{Kurdistan-stub}}. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:51, 20 June 2007 (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 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 update

1930s template has hit threshold, and I'll be splitting it out. Update to reflect proper categorization. --fuzzy510 04:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a done deal. Alai 20:02, 13 June 2007 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep

Was nominated before which was closed as a non-consensus: WP:SFD/16 January/Assyrian-stub

Other similar noms:

• WP:SFD/26 March/Kurdistan-sport-bio-stub
• WP:SFD/25 February/Kurdistan-stub

• Assyria is a controversial region with non-definitive borders much like Kurdistan. It is being used to tag parts of existing countries (such as Nineveh plains). Many existing sovereign countries do not get to have stub templates. I do not see any reason why "Assyria" needs a stub template as {{Turkey-geo-stub}}, {{Iraq-geo-stub}} and etc are not overpopulated prompting such a breakaway.
• With 45 pages it seems underpopulated. Some pages the stub template is used are not even stubs such as History of the Assyrian people.
• The presence of an Assyrian flag itself adds additional controversy. This isn't a country after all (cultural/controversial flags are frowned upon on stub templates as it risks the political POV problems inherent in articles for races that cross international borders).
• It seems to be used to tag anything relevant to "Assyrian" as a term including TV stations: Ishtar TV. It doesnt seem to be topic specific in any way
• I do not believe it was ever proposed.
• Its existence is now used as a rationale to question consensus deletes in the past: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kurdistan#Kurdistan Stubs

-- Cat ^chi? 00:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. You don't have one single valid point to justify deletion of this stub. I can see through your agenda though. You speak Turkish. Turks do not like Assyrians nor do they like Kurds. Yes, the fact that we want our homeland back, that of which was stolen from us by you Turks, and the Assyrian Genocide, is a controversial topic. You want this stub deleted because you don't want us to gain any kind of recognition. You have a problem with our flag? Well that's your problem then. That's not a reason to delete the stub template though. You're just a racist who hates Assyrians. EliasAlucard|Talk 04:06, 12 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
  • I am uncertain what an Assyrian even looks like... I have no knowledge (not even basic knowledge) on them so it is rather trivial to say I not hate them. The point of stubs is not to give anyone "recognition", they are mere maintenance aids. Also please be civil avoiding WP:NPA violations. -- Cat ^chi? 02:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Right. Don't expect me to believe that. EliasAlucard|Talk 05:23, 12 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
      • Your disbelief is really none of my concern. What I am suggesting is inline with stub sorting practices, guidelines, and policies. -- Cat ^chi? 10:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- Assyria is a controversial region with non-definitive borders much like Kurdistan - this is true, BUT look at the template again; it doesn't say Assyria, it says "Assyrian-related" - that is not contriversial. Notice how the word "Assyrian" is linked to Assyrian people, not Assyria. The same with the Kurdish one I believe used; if the template said "Kurdish" instead of "Kurdistan" then I dont think that wouldn't push NPOV. As for the rest of your concerns; The presence of an Assyrian flag itself adds additional controversy. This isn't a country after all - the Assyrian flag is not a flag of a "region", much like Kurdistan, but an ethnic one. With 45 pages it seems underpopulated. - Assyrian topic may not be as large as some other topics. What is wrong with that? It doesnt seem to be topic specific in any way - the topic is anything related to Assyrian people.Chaldean 02:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Stubs#Creating stub types#4: "Ideally, a newly-created stub type has 100-300 articles. In general, any new stub category should have a minimum of 60 articles". This one had 5 when created according to the previous nom and has 45 entires after nearly 5 months. -- Cat ^chi? 02:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If thats your only concern, then their should not be a problem, since their are well over [100 Assyrian stubs] - its just a matter of "we haven't gotten to them yet". Chaldean 03:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You want to tag places like Baz, Turkey/Hakkâri and etc under an Assyrian stub? The article(s) doesn't even mention Assyrians (yet). It is somehow on that list you provided. This arbitrary criteria isn't particularly useful. -- Cat ^chi? 03:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
        • You want to tag places like Baz, Turkey/Hakkâri and etc under an Assyrian stub? - Umm no I dont, just so that it doesn't offend you. Any other concerns? Chaldean 03:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It wouldn't "offend" me. However it would be controversial. The list you gave me has lots of entries which it would be controversial to put this template on. -- Cat ^chi? 10:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• It says "Assyrian-related" because the stub template boilerplate text reads "This foo-related article is a stub", and people plug in a term without really considering that the wording might be awkward or unclear. I have no opinion on the stub itself (yet), but I'm not inclined to listen to arguments from someone who verbally attacks a user. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not verbally attack the guy. I just stated the obvious. If you know anything about Turkish-Assyrian relations, you'd know that they hate us because we're Christians, and that they want to wipe us out and have tried in the past. EliasAlucard|Talk 05:24, 12 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
    • While I do not support the verbal attacks by Elias, it is note worthy to keep in mind that this nomination for deletion was done so by a Turkish user. Kurdish-Turkish or Assyrian-Turkish related articles are a hot bed of people pushing their own agenda. And after seeing "White cat"'s recent moves [[2][] - his intentions and motives are pretty clear. Chaldean 03:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well then, I guess I was right after all. It's quite obvious he doesn't want us to get any kind of recognition or attention at all by deleting templates and stubs related to Assyrians. That said, this template and those user boxes will stay, since his motives are indeed, racist. EliasAlucard|Talk 06:34, 12 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
  • "Assyrian history" would be a valid specific topic. Articles can be categorised under Category:Assyrian history but this is not the point of stubs and instead of categories (see Wikipedia:Categorization for more info on categories). -- Cat ^chi? 03:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• I oppose the "Assyrian history" suggestion. Assyrian-stub is much better. Not all Assyrian-related stubs are about our history. There are stubs about Assyrians (for instance, Claudia Hanna). Also, Assyrian history would imply that we don't exist any longer. EliasAlucard|Talk 05:28, 12 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
  • Thats ridiculous. We have "United States history" related articles. That doesn't in any way imply that the US ceased to exist. "History" includes recent events such as Sep 11th. Everything is "history" if it happened before present. -- Cat ^chi? 13:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment We do have stubs for stateless ethnic groups, such as {{Roma-stub}}, so long as they meet the normal guidelines on stub category size and content there is not a problem per se with this stub. However, quite a number these articles are not even up to stub standard. For example, the various one line unreferenced articles on the Assyrian kings that do no more than that should be turned back into redirects for King of Assyria. The stub has also been plastered on several bio articles that based on the minimal content included in the article is such that it does not meet the standard that has been applied to other ethnic groups with similar stubs. Merely being an ethnic Assyrian with a stub article is insufficient to apply this stub. The person has to be notable for something related to Assyria or Assyrian culture. For example, assuming this stub is kept, the stub would be appropriate on the Gabriel Asaad article because he is notable in connection with Assyrian culture. It is not appropriate on the George Issabeg article because he is notable for having represented Iran in Olympic boxing, and at least as far as the article indicates, he is not notable for anything specifically Assyrian. These stubs need some serious cleanup, and I intend to apply it and then see whether there are enough remaining stubs to warrant a stub type. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the Comment you said The stub has also been plastered on several bio articles that based on the minimal content. Isn't that what a Stub is meant for? --MarsRover 06:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply Bio-articles get whichever bio-stubs apply - the one for occupation and the one for internationally accepted national division. Assyria-stub is not a bio-stub, and is not an internationally accepted national division. Grutness...wha? 09:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, stubs have minimal content. My point was that based on the content of the stub, there are several stubs is which there is nothing that indicates applying {{Assyrian-stub}} would be warranted. Caerwine Caer’s whines 16:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at Roma-stub's proposal. I am also looking at Category:European ethnic group stubs which itself has a mere 153 entries which is around the "ideal" start number. I am inclined to believe neither Category:Romani stubs (70 entries after a year of existence) nor Category:Scottish clan stubs (21 entries after a year of existence) subdivision is necessary. I also feel Category:Romani stubs is a bit overused as if it were a -bio stub type. Perhaps the deletion of those should be discussed especially for the Scottish clan thing (21 entries? Come on...). -- Cat ^chi? 10:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep It doesn't say Assyria, it says "Assyrian-related". --Bohater 15:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a -bio stub then? -- Cat ^chi? 16:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - cat, enough with this Assyrian/Kurdistan war. Same reasons given in the last 15 debates. The Evil Spartan 16:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It is always about me isn't it and never about the topic. I am not waring at all. Take your [baseless] allegations to arbcom. -- Cat ^chi? 19:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  I have no desire to take it to arbcom, unless these nominations continue. As for the topic: like I said before, same reasons. Individual regions are notable (whether or not they cross national boundries) - for the same reason we have {{ireland-bio-stub}}, {{texas-bio-stub}}, Category:Basque people, etc., etc. Seriously, cat, it's nothing personal, but nominating the same thing over and over gets old after a while. The Evil Spartan 00:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Category:Basque people has NOTHING to do with stub sorting. This isn't a -bio stub and -bio articles get whichever bio-stubs apply - the one for occupation and the one for internationally accepted national division. "Unrecognized cross national boundaries" are beyond the scope of stub sorting practices. They were [repetitively] deleted before with or without my involvement. These nominations will continue as they are more than INLINE with wikipedias guidelines and policies. So please take it to the arbitration committee if you have a personal problem with me. -- Cat ^chi? 12:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Finished going through the articles marked with this. Upmerged some substubs, removed it where it wasn't appropriate. While there are a few articles on which I gave it the benefit of the doubt, there are now 36 articles tagged with this stub, none of which are obviously inappropriately tagged. 36 is a bit small for a stub category, but it does have an associated WikiProject, so it neets the smaller threshold in such cases. Strongly recommend choosing a different icon, or even none at all for the template though. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not see any reason why we can't use the generic stub templates for something this tiny with no prospect to grow. -- Cat ^chi? 19:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  I do not see any reason why we can't use the generic stub templates for something this tiny with no prospect to grow. - My friend, this is your opinion. Just because you are ignorant of the topic doesn't mean its "tiny". It might not be bigger then your Turkey, but please, give it a break. Chaldean 02:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not care how "large" the topic is. We do not have any other stub type like this one. {{Jewish-stub}} does not exist. Neither should this one. You can create topic specific stub types relevant to the Assyrians once you have enough articles to do so. This is standard stub sorting practice, not my opinion. For example you can have {{Assyria-hist-stub}} once you have 70 stub articles on Assyria history. Putting a TV station and some king that lived some 1000 years ago into the same stub category is not helpful to anyone. As expressed earlier this stub type isn't very specific on its target which is the main problem aside from being underpopulated. -- Cat ^chi? 11:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a bad idea. --Bohater 14:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? -- Cat ^chi? 15:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That's because there's the {{Judaism-stub}} stub and that's where you got Jews, Judaism and Jewish related stuff. EliasAlucard|Talk 20:20, 13 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

Comment (after edit conflict) : Stub sorting is not based on ethnicity or race, but on specific scopes (normally rather narrowly defined) that must be uncontroversial to avoid edit warring spreading to the stub templates. When WP:WSS considers it necessary to break a large category into smaller units this is done according to either continent or an internationally recognized border. Example: a giant category for "history" would be impossible to use, but a category for German history makes sense due to the size issue, and the scope is relatively easy to define. We've been through this discussion before with similar controversial material (the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", Ossetia, Kosovo, Kurdistan etc.) If we begin deviating from this line, it will be impossible to avoid future templates that will be even more controverisal, e.g. a template for Republika Srpska would be a really bad idea. According to normal practice, articles like Ankawa would be tagged simply with {{Iraq-geo-stub}}. Otherwise, we might as well also add {{MEast-hist-stub}}, {{Ancient-Rome-stub}}, {{Byzantine-stub}}, {{Ottoman-stub}} etc. since the region has belonged to many different nations. Surely, such an approach would not be practical. I have absolutely no problem with an {{Assyria-hist-stub}} (if needs be, using the Category:Middle Eastern history stubs category if we have 60 relevant articles for this one). The project banner used on talk pages is fine as well, but the stub template cuts through the existing system. I have no idea why {{Roma-stub}} was approved in the first place, but it looks like a bad idea. We had similar debates regarding Kurdish, Ossetian, and other controverisial topics in the past, so this debate is not a new one. {{Roma-stub}} might have scraped through because people figured that material about Romas would be very unlikely to stir up controversy. Unfortunately, this is not the case for most issues relating to Iraq or the Middle East. Just for comparison: if we begin tagging material relating to the Balkans based on ethnicity or historical allegiance it would be deeply controversial, and it is a core value on WP:WSS to keep controversy out of the stub templates. Consequently, the flag is also problematic since it seems that it can be interpreted as a political statement. An image of a famous figure from Assyrian history wouldn't pose the same problem. And for the record, smears against other editors based on their ethnicity or religion is completely unacceptable, Elias. Calling White Cat a racist just because he disagrees with you, is not allowed under Wikipedia policies. I suggest you read WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and abstain from making similar comments in the future. Valentinian ^{T / C} 13:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Look, you obviously don't know what this is about, and you shouldn't make such snap judgements about why I called him racist. Turkish-Assyrian relations have never been good. The Ottoman Turks killed our people (along with Armenians and Pontic Greeks) in a genocide during World War 1 (Assyrian Genocide), and the Turkish state denies it to this day. They are strictly against Assyrians, and a future Assyrian state. This guy, obviously has a political agenda. He's Turkish, or at least speaks Turkish and sympathises with Turks. He knows very well what this is about, and it's not because he's concerned about some stubs or political userboxes. [3] <--- Can't you see what this is about? He's got a grudge against Assyrians. He's on some kind of lame flame war against Assyrians and Kurds. It's ridiculous. When I called him racist, I just stated the obvious. The entire reason why he wants these political userboxes deleted, is because he doesn't want people to know about the Assyrian independence, and that's because he doesn't like us. This is comparable to some Nazi running around and deleting Jewish stubs and Jewish political userboxes. But of course, in that case, everyone would have sympathy for the Jews (with good reason), in our Assyrian case, I get blocked for 24 hours by some biased admin for simply telling the truth. I'm not the only one complaining about his war against Assyrians and Kurds. Obviously, he's been at it before. You should give him a warning or something. EliasAlucard|Talk 20:20, 13 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks are never allowed on Wikipedia, no matter the reason and no exceptions. It is that simple. If you believe that White Cat is acting inappropriately, use the conflict resolution system, but never attack another person due to his race, religion or ethnicity. Thank you. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The irony here of course, is that I have not even attacked him personally. I'm just pointing out his racist motives. If anything, he's the one attacking my race/ethnicity. I'll take this up with other admins in a moment. EliasAlucard|Talk 21:08, 13 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

EliasAlucard' s statement can be confirmed with these atacks --Bohater 01:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to imply an insult? -- Cat ^chi? 01:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

He's not implying anything. He's just showing how insulting you are by your anti-Assyrian and anti-Kurd campaign. Bohater's link proves me right. I will take this up with other admins and make sure you get a warning, and possibly, a block for racist-behaviour. EliasAlucard|Talk 19:53, 14 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

Luke 6:31 . Matthew 5-7 Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - unconvinced by nomination - we have {{tibet-stub}} without agreement on the exact borders of the region / country / historical geographic area. Addhoc 00:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That one is also problematic. "without agreement on the exact borders" on your keep rationale is evidence enough. -- Cat ^chi? 05:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete This entire debate seems to indicate that this template is controversial in its current scope, and I don't see any indication that this controversy wouldn't merely increase in the future. Should edit warring begin to spread to the stub sorting work, this might very well result in splinter groups of WP:WSS fighting turf-battles over controversial / grey zone material. Such a scenario will certainly not help improving Wikipedia and it must be avoided. The second-to-last userbox on User:EliasAlucard's userpage is just a case in point why we should avoid stub templates with controversial scopes. {{Roma-stub}} seems to be the singular exception to the rule that ethnically-based templates are controversial, and I don't like the idea about setting precedent for the creation of even more controversial templates. I have no objection to more specific templates relating to Assyrian history or culture, since narrower scopes normally mean less controversy, nor do I have any problem with project banners being used on article talk pages, nor with the use of "ordinary" categories on Assyrian material, since any controversy over an article using an "ordinary" category can only affect one article at a time rather than the large number of articles that can be affected simultaneously by warring over a template. Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just a reminder to everyone commenting here that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is specifically noted as a very poor argument to use in deletion processes. Grutness...wha? 01:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note I am marking this as "keep" for the following reasons:

1. At threshold
2. The articles have been sorted, so I believe the existing ones are valid to have Assyrian-stub on them
3. Controversial flag has been removed

~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:31, 19 July 2007 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete

• Unused redirect, potentially controversial due to the complicated nature of the term. See Who is a Jew?.
• Until this morning 24 articles were using the stub redirect template.
• I do not believe its creation was discussed.
• Redirects to {{Judaism-stub}}
• This is NOT a nomination to get {{Judaism-stub}} itself deleted.

-- Cat ^chi? 12:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete Unused, duplicate and misnamed according to the naming convention. Valentinian ^{T / C} 12:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep why?, because of the kurdish and assyrian Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/June/12 one. That is ridiculous. --Bohater 16:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a procedural issue, not an elimination of anything useful. See {{Judaism-bio-stub}} and others for stub types that already cover this material. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Sped, before this gets out of hand. Alai 16:50, 13 June 2007 (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 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 do not rename

• Category:Buddhist biography stubs Category:Buddhist religious biography stubs
• Category:Islamic biography stubs → Category:Islamic religious biography stubs
• Category:Jewish biography stubs → Category:Jewish religious biography stubs
• Category:Hindu people stubs → Category:Hindu religious biography stubs

Per rationale below: to correspond to parent, and we don't sort people by religion, but by religious notability. Alai 23:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wouldn't. "Religion-bio-stub" be better? Aka "Islam-bio-stub". "Jewish" particularly can be problematic. -- Cat ^chi? 17:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Poorly thought out proposal. The present names are more meaningful than the proposed ones. The new stub names will require the removal of these stubs from biographies of perosn identified by them but not noted for being religious. Are new stubs proposed for the non-religious?--Redaktor 22:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Keep it simple. (No offense to Alai, I respect his work and gave him a barnstar for his efforts, but just wanted to drop this phrase in because its so fitting).Bakaman 01:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - too long.--D-Boy 18:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose --Bohater 12:50, 23 June 2007 (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 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 do not rename

This type's seeing what looks to me like excessive use ("this person's a known Christian"), and I wonder if the category name is partly to blame. Rename to match the immediate parent, Category:Religious biography stubs. Alai 16:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Change is not consistent with other subcats. Also, it is unclear what the proposed title means. Does the nominator think only the "religious" (those who have taken Holy Orders) should be included? I don't understand what Alai expects to accomplish. Mdotley 21:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first point is well taken: other nominations imminent. It seems perfectly clear to me, and I don't think people would argue that the parent would be read in the manner you suggest, which is far from a natural one. What I hope to accomplish (my expectations I try to keep in check) is less scope-creep: Diane-Louise Jordan is obviously a biography about a Christian, but hardly about a "Christian religious figure", or even one notable in connection with Christianity. Alai 23:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposal that a change is necesary but I don't agree with the proposed change "Christian religious biography stubs" sounds weird. HOw about something like "Christianity related biography stubs"? -- Cat ^chi? 17:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/re-scope and upmerge

Unproposed and badly misnamed. Arch-stub was the term used for architecture stubs until earlier this year, when it was deemed to be too ambiguous. This shows in what way it can be - this should, if kept, be {{Peru-archaeology-stub}}, and should have been pointed at Category:Peruvian archaeology stubs. However, the category is not needed, and splitting by individual countries when we haven't even really begun to split by continent is strange and potentially difficult for editors. Pre-Columbian peoples spread far across current borders, so a more logical early split would have been {{SouthAm-archaeology-stub}}. It's worth noting that between them Category:Archaeology of Peru and Category:Archaeological sites in Peru have fewer than 50 articles in total - so there's little chance of the required 60 current stubs for a separate category. A split of Category:Archaeology stubs by continent is probably about due (Europe has already been split out, and there are 430 other stubs), but by country? Not for quite a while yet, at least not for South America. Delete the category, rename/rescope the template to (a possibly upmerged) {{SouthAm-archaeology-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 01:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and upmerge, per nominator rationale. Alai 16:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & Comment There might be a little of confusion between "Archaeology" and "archaeological site". The {{Peru-arch-stub}} spceifies archaeology, for articles about its science(the study of human cultures-inPeru), developments, scientists, and if possible arch sites located in Peru. And also because of the huge amount of arch sites located in present-day Peru this stub should be kept (compared to other SouthAm countries). --Andersmusician $ 15:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete only 6 articles.... No need for a stub type for that. Use the generic one please. -- Cat ^chi? 21:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all

Even if you disregard for a moment the ridiculous category name, there's no denying that this unproposed stub type does little more than duplicate the long-established {{NapoleonicWars-stub}} and Category:Napoleonic Wars (1792-1815) stubs. Delete. Grutness...wha? 02:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The Napoleonic Wars stub cat is wrong the Napoleonic war were from 1805-1815, not 1792-1815. My cat, is intended for the French Revolutionary Wars, therefore it should be renamed to French Revolutionary Wars stubs.--Bryson109 02:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me guess, to Category:French Revolutionary Wars-stubs? That's also not NG-compliant (or proposed, or needed, given the type Grutness mentions...) Alai 03:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Cat:Napoleonic-stubs" should be deleted; however. --Bryson109 03:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• At the risk of sounding like a dime-store Solomon, I have to say delete 'em all, and merge to Category:Great French War stubs, following the permcat Category:Great French War (unless subcats specifically for the component conflicts are feasible and desirable). Keep the templates that follow the NGs, and renaming or deleting thems that don't. Alai 03:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the newcomers. The scope and name used for {{NapoleonicWars-stub}} and Category:Napoleonic Wars (1792-1815) stubs were both vetted with the Military History project before they were created. (I know it seems amazing, a stub actually being proposed and the opinion of knowledgeable Wikipedians working on the articles consulted before being created.) If they wish to change the scope or name, I have no objection, but that does not seem to be the case here. Furthermore, there are not enough stubs to warrant different stubs for both. Indeed, now that the battles have been separated out into a separate stub type ({{Napoleonic-battle-stub}} ), there's barely enough for one stub type. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't just seem amazing, frankly it is amazing. :) I've already dropped a line at the WikiProject Military history/Napoleonic era task force and asked them to comment on the name issue. Alai 16:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the new duplicates. Not needed. Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree completely that this material doesn't live up to the size criterion for two categories. It doesn't even live up to the criterion for one template (= c. 60 stub articles). Unless more stub articles exist, this material should be upmerged. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- I agree with Bryson. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk -- (dated 09:48, 17 June 2007 UTC)
• Delete, my money is with Grutness. No need to have a redundent stub class which seemingly is intended to do the same thing. It was rencently renamed to {{French Revolutionary Wars-stub}} and has a ridiclous number of 13 articles. Thats too few. Thats not even a quarter way to 70. -- Cat ^chi? 21:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename

Current name is misleading as to scope, and doesn't follow the permcat. Alai 18:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support suggestion. I also recommend {{Latin-legal-stub}} → {{Latin-legal-phrase-stub}}. -- Cat ^chi? 21:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy closed. Wrong place. Best to keep the discussion in one place. -- Cat ^chi? 21:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Since this is a proposed creation, not a deletion, I've moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/June Grutness...wha? 00:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though there's also a renaming component. (Which isn't to say we might not as well handle it at /P, just fair warning.) Alai 01:32, 19 June 2007 (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 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 create Judaism-hist as a redirect to Jewish-hist

I propose a rename of Jewish-hist-stub to Judaism-hist-stub

• "Jewish" is a complicated term, see "Who is a Jew"
• Doesn't follow the template structure used in Category:History stubs
• Has a healthy number of 287 stubs. Though some are biographic articles such as Eleazar ben Simon, David G. Dalin etc. There needs to be a cleanup of bio articles as this is a historic stub category not biographical.

-- Cat ^chi? 15:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• As the name has a "hierarchical look" about it, this would seem a logical rename, as it looks like a sub-type of both {{hist-stub}} and {{Judaism-stub}}. But it's not (the latter), so perhaps that would be misleading, and suggestive of a narrower scope than is presently the case. I'd suggest on balance either adding {{Judaism-hist-stub}} as a redirect, or a move to that name, keeping the existing one as a redirect. Alai 16:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose: No objection to adding the rename redirect, but this template is normally used for the history of the Hebrew people as such, but labelling an 18th century Jew from Poland-Lithuania with a template named {{Israel-hist-stub}} doesn't sound right either. On the other hand, {{Judaism-hist-stub}} makes me think of the historical development of the Jewish faith as such. The current situation isn't perfect, but I don't think this proposal will decrease confusion about the scope of this template. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose - 'Jewish-related' and 'Judaism-related' are totally different concepts. Daniel^C/_T+ 20:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please clarify what the difference is between Jewish history and Judaism history? Jewish history is never referred to as "Judaism history." Chesdovi 10:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, this template is intended to be refer to the history of the Jewish people as such covering the time before the creation of the state of Israel. Valentinian ^{T / C} 10:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, "Jewish history" refers to the history of the Jewish people in ethnic and cultural terms. "Judaism history" refers to the history of the Jewish religion. The two are intertwined, certainly, but there is a clear distinction. Daniel^C/_T+ 10:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, per Daniel, Chesdovi 11:48, 27 June 2007 (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 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

Yet another attempt at a parameterised metastubtemplate, and probably speediable for that alone, since such things have been discussed and quickly rejected many times in the past. This one also fails by making the incorrect assumption that any country-stub for country X will automatically have X's flag as an icon (which isn't true since it is sometimes politically divisive, such as in the case of {{Cyprus stub}}) and also that it will then have a category called Category:X related stubs. As to what {{provstub}} is, your guess is as good as mine, but one thing is for sure - it isn't a stub template and therefore shouldn't have a name ending in stub. It also uses {{country flagstub}} as part of its construction (which is why I didn't consider speedying {{country flagstub}}). Superstrong delete for the first, delete or at least rename for the second, depending on its intended purpose. Grutness...wha? 02:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to create a stub template to work with the Provinces of Papua New Guinea ambigiously. I ask for a rename. I am currently finishing off creating the flags for each of these provinces. It is specifically for the provinces of PNG, both these templates. I had no idea there was a stub proposal process. I am hoping for an easily remembered name so stubs actually get sorted. For instance, PapuaNewGuinea-Geo-Stub is not used as often as it should be because the template name is too long. The rename for country flagstub can be anything, as it is not directly called Aliasd 02:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is a work in process. The template is not yet complete. Aliasd 02:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better a name that's a little long to type, than one that no-one would ever guess. It might be slight overkill, but would per-province upmerged stub templates serve your purposes? Alai 04:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would. This is what I was aiming to create, just thought this was a smarter way of doing it. I intend, over the next couple of months to create hundreds of articles relating to PNG provinces, such as articles relating to the districts of provinces of papua new guinea, and also the local level governments, important towns, villages, places, parks, even buildings, and this will necessitate a template such as this, or individual PNG provincial templates. I propose a rename of the backend template to png-prov-stub2 and the frontend to png-prov-stub. Aliasd 04:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I vote for that being the "huge can of worms" way of doing it. It'd confuse the heck out of anyone just looking at the articles, never mind the (meta)stub template. I strongly suggest separate conventionally coded upmerged templates (and not using "PNG" as an abbreviation in any such template). Alai 04:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did intend to document it properly, its ok, it will be simple Aliasd 04:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking for parameterised stub templates to be renamed, documented, coded yet-more-cleverly, or anything other than "replaced with non-parameterised versions". Alai 04:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The flag templates seem to work fine, and don't confuse the user/viewer/writer.. how is this different, as I am showing you on my sandbox, this works fine, categorises fine, has a very specific purpose, and is clear and concise. It is a good idea for a template and very much deeded, why do I need to fight for it? I would like to be working with as few templates as possible to get things done here, simplicity is king, we shouldn't have to create 15 templates when all we need is one. Aliasd 05:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For "concise" read "absurdly cryptic". The reader that isn't confused that {{provstub|nip}} is supposed to mean {{NewIreland-geo-stub}} is going to a pretty rare specimen. It's an extremely bad idea to create stub templates that totally ignore WP:STUB and WP:WSS/NG. Why "fight" the extremely compelling reasons to get rid of this as a matter of principle and urgency? Alai 05:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It works like this, here Aliasd 04:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure exactly what you're trying to do - there is already a stub template for the provinces of Papua New Guinea - PapuaNewGuinea-geo-stub. You don't need another one, and certainly not of a type that is parameterised. If your intention is to make it so that each province has a separate stub type, then it is extremely unlikely that any of them would reach the threshold requirement for stub types: there are only some 220 stubs in Category:Papua New Guinea geography stubs, so it is nowhere near needing to be split. The reason for that number is not that the template name is too long, either - it is simply that those are all the Papua New Guinean geography stubs that currently exist - i.e., it has been used exactly as often as it should be. In any case, it's a shorter name than other frequently used stub templates (as I know for a fact as someone who recently tagged a load of articles with ChaharmahalBakhtiari-geo-stub). Grutness...wha? 03:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or make it staticish. I really like this parametric idea but it should be made to only approved parameters will work so as to avoud possible wierdness like: {{Country flagstub|flag alias=Flag of Sealand.svg|alias=Principality of Sealand|shortname alias=Sealand}} This would unite hundreds of stub-templates to one template and would do the same thing. A switch statement for example can handle this. Of course there is the question of weather it is worth the effort. -- Cat ^chi? 16:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it could be bomb-proofed somewhat, but it'd still have the "hideously cryptic and non-standard syntax" aspect. Stub-sorting should be a pretty simple activity, it'd be a real pity to make people read a usage manual and a guide to obscure abbreviations just to re-tag a stub. Alai 16:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these stubs would be sorted by myself or the relevant Wikiproject, who are aware of the idea. Some of these guys had the idea of converting the current {{PapuaNewGuinea-geo-stub}} to have the ability to take on functionality of being optionally province specific. ie: {{PapuaNewGuinea-geo-stub|nip}}. Would you guys agree with this idea? Aliasd 23:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's one snag witht hat argument. The "relevant wikiproject" in any stub sorting task is WikiProject Stub sorting. I've explained elsewhere easier ways to do what you're trying to do in ways that will be easier for both you and for us. And no, the idea you suggest above is just as bad as the original templates, since it would be very quickly a case of "if they have it, why don't we?". You may see it as helping out your wikiproject in a small way, but it would cause enormous headaches for stub sorting. Grutness...wha? 06:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. For one reason, because some category names don't follow the standard naming system, and I don't like the idea about one template that can affect many thousands of articles at once if somebody messes with it. We should maintain the policy about not having any parameterised metastubtemplates. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the correct naming format for the geographical templates is <countryname>-geo-stub, using lowercase letters, e.g. {{India-geo-stub}}. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, I posted that comment first thing in the AM, it is shown how I would hope it to work now. I don't suppose I should have to point out that under the idea I just proposed, this "parameterised metastubtemplate" would only work with the Provinces of Papua New Guinea, any who 'messes with it' would be a vandal, and the {{PapuaNewGuinea-geo-stub}} would still function the way it is supposed to? although, not all province related stubs would fall under the {{PapuaNewGuinea-geo-stub}} category. That is an issue. Aliasd 00:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other issue, as I've mentioned to you, is that by automatically linking a stub template in to your province template, yyou make far more work for yourself once an article moves beyond stub size. Just making a standard infobox and adding that and PapuaNewGuinea-geo-stub separately and independently keeps things simpler for you and for us - which is why that is the method other country WikiProjects use. Grutness...wha? 06:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automatically linking a stub template into a province template was not something I was trying to do Aliasd 06:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is country flagstub one of the parts of provstub? Grutness...wha? 01:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really need stubtypes like this for the work I am doing. Most pressing at the moment is Western Province, as I am creating about 10 stubs a day related to that province Aliasd 23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if they are marked with PapuaNewGuinea-geo-stub, then with any luck PNG will soon get to the 500-600 geography stubs necessary before splitting it seems a sensible move. And unless I'm much mistaken that can easily be done by bot later as long as he stubs are marked with {{PapuaNewGuinea-geo-stub}} and are categorised as being in a specific province. Grutness...wha? 01:46, 22 June 2007 (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 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, created (according to edit summary) for the one article found - hardly an indication of enough articles to warrant this stub type, especially since, though it is an unlikely theory, classifying this article as pseudoscience violates NPOV. Unnecessary - delete. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I replaced the stub template on the one article that was using it. It's not needed anymore. YechielMan 22:22, 24 June 2007 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete

Unproposed, naming-guideline-violating duplicate of long standing EU-stub. Totally unnecessary - delete. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, just duplicates the EU-stub. - J Logan

^t/_c: 06:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I created this stub as part of a proposal of a new project page for WikiProject European Union, because I could not find an existing stub. Because there exists a stub, proposing another to the members of the project was not necessary and the creation therefore a mistake. Please delete.Thw1309 07:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please in future note that new stub types are proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, not at the specific WikiProject connected with the stub type. Grutness...wha? 04:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per the above. Duplicate so not needed and the name doesn't follow the naming convention. Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:04, 24 June 2007 (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 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, malformed template (with no category link), again violating naming guidelines. And not needed, since web games are adequately covered byother stub types. No articles use this template - delete. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominator --BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 21:25, 28 June 2007 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename cat, rename template to "TrentinoAltoAdige-geo-stub", with redirects at "Südtirol-geo-stub" and "TrentinoSouthTyrol-geo-stub"

The article "Trentino-South Tyrol" was moved to Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. Also {{TrentinoAltoAdige-geo-stub}} is acceptable because it's shorter.--Supparluca 11:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this article has previously been the object of an edit war over its name, {{TrentinoAltoAdige/Südtirol-geo-stub}} / Category:Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol geography stubs will probably be the safest bet. It will also match the permcat names. Valentinian ^{T / C} 12:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support cat rename as following permcat; oppose template name as utterly ludicrous and long-winded. Instead, I suggest a move to {{TrentinoAltoAdige-geo-stub}} and {{Südtirol-geo-stub}} (either two duplicate templates, or making one of them a redirect -- I don't particularly care which), also keeping a redirect at the existing name. Alai 16:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trentino-Alto Adige is a region formed by the two provinces of Trento (Trentino) and Bolzano (Alto Adige, also called Südtirol). I mean, the slash is just for Alto Adige/Südtirol, that is part of the region. I proposed the {{TrentinoAltoAdige-geo-stub}} form because it's the name most commonly used in English, it's shorter, and it doesn't have the / and the ü, but the article in wikipedia is Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol.--Supparluca 18:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• [edit conflict] Change the category if you must, but there is no reason to change the template. Its title is not visible to the readership and is entirely irrelevant to any political discussions about naming; it is a mnemonic and nothing more. Some poor bastard (quite likely to be me, actually) is going to have to type it in every time a stub gets sorted and trying to remember where the hyphens go if any, where the spaces go if any, where the slashes go if any, and which translation we're using at the moment is all too much, and for no gain whatsoever. Like I say, change the text of the template to match the article, and the category too, but don't go moving the template — it can't achieve anything. Making new redirects will serve that purpose admirably if the purpose must be served. --Stemonitis 16:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Category, yes, change it. The template... either the current name or {{TrentinoAltoAdige-geo-stub}} (or with one a redirect to the other) would be better than the full one with the oblique. It's not like it's going to get confused with anything else by not having the entire name. Grutness...wha? 03:06, 26 June 2007 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete

A stub by any other name. All this does is say why a stub was written, then transclude the stub template. Given that {{stub}} is only used until such time as a more precie stub template can be added (hopefully within hours), this is worse than useless. Even if it did work, all it would do is divide stubs into groups according to why they were written, which isn't going to help a single editor. Pointless in the extreme. Delete. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Unused, duplicate, not needed. Valentinian ^{T / C} 10:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - User:Thedjatclubrock, the creator of this category and template, has repeatedly removed the sfd templates from those pages, and has also removed this discussion from here. (S)he is walking a thin line WRT vandalism and blocking. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The creator of this template, a new user, was never informed by the nominator of the deletion. I would assume the tags were removed through ignorance of the process since it was never explained to this user. Please remember to assume good faith and not bite the newcomers. Thank you. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 03:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment. The creator of the template has been around Wikipedia long enough to have three archives of his/her talk page. As such, it seemed very unlikely that this was a new user - especially since new users don't often go around creating new template/category combinations. Even a new user should no not to delete ongoing discussions by other users, however. As to not proposing the template in the first place, I note from Thedjatclubrock's talk page archive that you yourself informed him/her of how stubs worked and pointed the way to the page giving proposal details nearly two weeks ago. I also contacted the user about tampering with someone's comments on Template talk:Stub a week ago - which I assumed then was a test - and another stub template from the same editor was speedily deleted last week. (S)he has also been removing stub tags from stub articles such as Middle finger. Good faith only goes so far with an editor who did not appear to be a newbie and who has caused concerns to stub sortiong in various ways recently. So thank you for the reminder, but it was unnecessary in this case. Grutness...wha? 03:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to response to Comment - Thanks for replying with your concerns. Prior to this month, he's only made eight edits [4], I'd say that still qualifies as a new editor, though I can understand how you might be deceived by the presence of the (very small) archives on his talk page. As for following directions, look on my talk page for how basic I had to get to explain the use of the recent changes feature. I'm not sure what you mean by, "As to not proposing the template in the first place,"; do you mean this nomination for deletion? If so, I can't say I disagree with your rationale here- the template and category are redundant. If you are referring to my noting that you didn't inform him about the deletion, I didn't mean it as an accusation but instead to explain the editor's reaction. As for the previously deleted template, I note that he apologized for making a mistake [5]. The diff you've provided is interesting, I interpret that as confusion about the rules rather than vandalism. What I see from this editor is newbie fumbling, not vandalism. Anyways, I think that's enough off topic discussion for the debate; if you feel like continuing this conversation I'd recommend taking it to my user talk page. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 04:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<< (resetting indent) Comments. #1 Regarding the newbie issue: in fact his talk page archives aren't exactly full, so it could all have been written on one page. #2 I've updated {{Sfr-t}} and {{Sfd-t}} with a disclaimer similar to the one used on AFD process. #3 This entire template / category is nothing but a recreation of {{Substub}} which was deleted after an SFD debate two years ago. I don't see any reasons to overturn this decision. Valentinian ^{T / C} 09:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Elipongo for helping me. If you really think the template is useless feel free to delete it. Although it was not intended to be a new stub type!!! Next time I will do more research or consult a admin etc. Sorry for any trouble If you have any questions contact me I have no intent to vandalize wikipedia. Thedjatclubrock :) 10:44, 26 June 2007 (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 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

Old-time spacey redirect, contrary to naming guidelines, half a dozen usages out of 1000. (Both these numbers likely to fall, since I'm re-sorting the type at present.) Alai 22:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depopulate and delete, per nom. Grutness...wha? 23:27, 30 June 2007 (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 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, badly malformed, no category. Precedent is to split geo-stubs by location, and then by smaller division - so any split of TamilNadu-geo-stub would be by smaller administrative unit, not by the type of feature. Delete. Grutness...wha? 03:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not even used. Delete. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above.Anwar 13:53, 29 June 2007 (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 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 Hasidic-Judaism

Unproposed, with badly named template. Not convinced of its need, though it does have about 40 stubs - although quite a number of those would be better served in Category:Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism stubs. Delete, or at the very least Rename the template. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make that rescope and merge, as below. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The previous comment was uninformed. None of the current articles with the Hasidic dynasties-stub could use the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism stub, but most that use the latter could use the Hasidic dynasties-stub, since Chabad is a subset of all Hasidic dynasties. This stub is very useful, and enables editors of Hasidic dynasty articles to find in one place stubs on this subject which need expanding. --Redaktor 05:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for automatically assuming that I'm uninformed on the subject. The point is - or more accurately, points are: 1) we've already started to split hasidism stubs in one way. To start splitting it another way will make splitting that particular stub type far harder. 2) Whether you personally find it useful is immaterial to whether it is useful overall, and even if it is, the name does not comply with stub naming and thus at a very minimum it will need to be renamed.

As it is, I'd be reasonably happy to see dynasties as the way to split Hasidism stubs - as long as the name is corrected - though I'd like to see it replace Chabad-stub, as that is for one branch (or dynasty, if you prefer) of Hasidism. And there certainly aren't enough stubs to satisfy two separate stub categories - Chabad-stub was always going to be pretty thin anyway, given that there are only 100 or so articles in total in the permcat parent. A better solution still would probably be to delete both and replace them with a more inclusive and potentially far more useful {{Hasidism-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 09:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I have no objection to renaming; that is a far cry from deletion. Since Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism is a sub-catgory of Cat:Hasidic dynasties there is something to be said for absorbing the stub for the former in the stub for the latter. Hasidism-stub is probably not a good choice of name because (a) there is no Category:Hasidism and (b) the very term Hasidism engenders a great deal of heat among some editors. But there is Category:Hasidic Judaism, so would Hasidic-Judaism-stub meet the criteria? --Redaktor 10:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it would - see User:Alai's comment below. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose For people wanting to expand on Hasidic related articles it was difficult to spot them amongst the general Judaism stub. The Chabad movement is so huge it has near individual standing in Judaism, let alone Hasidism. It has its own template on wikipedia, etc. I am sorry, but I just went ahead and created it without reading any article about stubs and therefore didn’t known about naming conventions or having to propose it either. Chesdovi 14:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to person closing this discussion - this is Redaktor's second !vote

Aren't Chesdovi and Redaktor different people? Alai 01:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes—I have only one identity on the English Wikipedia.--Redaktor 06:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ach - apologies. My eyesight must really be going! Grutness...wha? 10:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, there are only about 100 articles on Chabad on Wikipedia. Even if half of them were stubs, it would still not be enough for a stand-alone stub template-stub category combination (60 is the threshold unless there are special extenuating circumstances). It makes good sense to merge this stub type and the chabad one into a more all-encompassing one for Hasidic Judaism. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename template to comply with NGs; upmerge to Category:Hasidic Judaism stubs (for which the suggested canonical template of {{Hasidic-Judaism-stub}} seems an excellent idea), on the basis of narrowness of scope. Alai 17:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I know some see Chabad as synonymous with Hassidim, but the scope is much wider than that. DGG 19:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well yes, that's the whole point. You did read the rationale behind the nomination, I take it? Given that one dynasty had already been split out, that was the way stub-splitting was going to proceed. having an overarching stub type running counter to that was going to interfere with that split. As it is, neither this Hasidic Dynasty stub type nor Chabad stub reaches stub-sorting threshold, thus the counterproposal of a merger into a Hasidic-Judaism-stub. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The stub for Chabad, which I created, and have gone to the trouble to post on many relevant pages, is justified by the fact that there is a very large amount of material and many different topics to be covered within this particular group's philosophy and history. Thus, this stub is very useful, as it enables editors of Chabad articles to find in one place stubs on this subject which need expanding. Deleting the Chabad stub would prevent this possibility.

As for the fact that this involves a certain discrimination in favour of Chabad, my response is simply along the lines of Chesdovi: that if another dynasty can demonstrate a similarly large number of articles (which the Chabad articles can; there are far more articles for this dynasty than others, it even has a separate template and there are more and more such articles being created regularly) then let those particular dynasties also have a stub of their own! Yehoishophot Oliver 14:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it was said that 60 is the threshold? There are now 60 Chabad stubs, making this whole discussion irrelevant. Yehoishophot Oliver 16:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "irrelevant" aside from the indisputable need to rename the template, and of course the ever-popular opportunity for making dismissive comments to fellow editors. Alai 03:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to be dismissive; I was merely pointing out that the reason given for the proposition to remove the stub, viz. that there are not enough of them to justify a separate stub, no longer applies, as there are currently over 60 stubs in this section. Secondly, as far as I understand there is disagreement on whether to rename the Chaba ostub, as evidenced by the majority of oppose votes. This is far from "indisputable."--Yehoishophot Oliver 03:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many people have chimed in with bolded opposes, yes. What they have not done is to in any way actually argue against following the stub naming guidelines. Alai 06:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's your POV, to which you're entitled. But the fact is that the consensus so far is to keep the Chabad stub, especially considering that it's now been demonstrated that there are over 60 articles with such stubs (and thus it's more than likely many more such articles to come). But please share with us precisely which stub naming guidelines you believe are not being followed. I read through the guidelines and didn't notice anything that this stub violates. Also, if the stub would be deleted, please tell us when it would qualify for being proposed again, in your view? Yehoishophot Oliver 15:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a little more than a POV, but I do belatedly notice that neither the nominator nor myself really said what rename, or why -- our bad. Specifically, the naming guidelines require that there be no spaces in stub templates name -- this should be {{Hasidism-dynasty-stub}}, or perhaps strictly speaking {{Hasidicdynasty-stub}}, since there's no {{Hasidism-stub}} or {{dynasty-stub}}, as the former pseudo-hierarchical name would imply. (Speaking of which, I've proposed a stub type for Hasidic Judaism topics, which would presumably become an umbrella for these bits-and-bobs types, given the keep-at-all-costs climate.) Deletion now looks unlikely, for the reason you mention, though I'd still like to hear some detail on why this is a good scope for such a stub type, as opposed to a more broadly-scoped one. (i.e. the sort of thing that would have been discussed had either of these been proposed in advance.) Alai 00:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose it is large enough on its own.. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per all the above. Shlomke 22:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think that the stub is currently useful and should therefore be kept Sagtkd 17:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose yeah. me three. Dynastic 20:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename rename to more inclusive {{Hasidic-Judaism-stub}}. --Eliyak T·C 11:04, 19 July 2007 (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 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

Unnecessary. Unproposed template added to "parent only" stub category. All stubs which would be within it use one of the subtypes quite happily. Talking of which, those categories need a rename (see below). Delete. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I created it because I assumed that its absence was an oversight: the text in Category:Peerage of England stubs says: "To add an article to this category, use {{England-peer-stub}} instead of {{stub}}". I now realise that is automatically added by the template, but if that text remains then so should the template. I would be happy for the template to be deleted if the category text is replaced with something which explains the intent of Category:Peerage of England stubs as a "parent only" stub category (if there isn't an existing template for this, there ought to be). However it's silly to have a category saying "please use this template" if the intention is that the template shoukd never be created. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As creator (apparently), put me down as a strong who knows? and easy either way. Alai 17:58, 28 June 2007 (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 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 do not rename

• Category:Peerage of England duke stubs → Category:English duke stubs
• Category:Peerage of England earl stubs → Category:English earl stubs
• Category:Peerage of England baron stubs → Category:English baron stubs

The current titles are very clumsy. If the above suggestions are too ambiguous, perhaps Category:Duke (Peerage of England) stubs +c or even just Category:Duke (England) stubs +c would be better. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose first and third suggestions as massively ambiguous and highly confusing; oppose second as yet-more-tortured than the present name. If renamed at all, let's keep in mind that the parents are at Category:Dukes in the Peerage of England, etc, and have some modicum of compliance (unless a rename of those is to be contemplated), or a change in scope. Alai 04:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose first and third suggestions as highly misleading: there are plenty of English Earls, Dukes and Barons whose peerages were created in the Peerage of Great Britain or the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and the category names must be explicit that the word "England" relates to the Peerage of England rather than to the nationality of the title-holder. Per Alai, Category:Duke (Peerage of England) stubs is more clumsy than the current name. Further, a consistent naming structure should be retained for all the subcats of Category:British nobility stubs, and the current names keep that consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note These categories are not to be renamed to any of the suggestions. This does not mean that they cannot be renamed in the future. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:41, 19 July 2007 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep

There is a lot of confusion about the difference between the Internet and the World Wide Web (roughly, WWW is stuff with http:// or https:// while Internet is everything on-line). As a result, Category:World Wide Web stubs has a lot of articles that should be in Category:Internet stubs, and a few vice versa. They have a total of about 800 stubs between them, many of which belong in subcategories. Web-stub is the narrower, and more confusing, stub type, so I feel it would be best Merged into {{Internet-stub}}. -- kenb215 talk 00:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't follow the logic of this at all. They're not the same thing, and if any are mis-sorted, they should be re-tagged, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. (With a more specific tag would be better still.) Instantly creating an oversized stub type, especially in the massively undersorted in general computing/ICT/etc domain out of two of manageable size is to basically defeat the purpose of stub-sorting. Oppose; keep, re-sort, and create additional subcats as needed. Alai 05:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the Internet isn't the same as the WWW, and the fact that some (many?) people don't know the difference doesn't mean we should dumb down our stub types. :) -- Schneelocke 12:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but modify - it would be potentially less confusing/ambiguous if it said "This Web page article", for instance Xmoogle 15:21, 5 July 2007 (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 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 1,2,3,5; rename template 3,4; keep cat 4

Sadly, it seems to have been a busy day for user:Dl2000, who has created six new unproposed stubs, several of which need work at the very least:

1. {{PrinceEdwardIsland-bio-stub}} / Category:People from Prince Edward Island stubs
2. {{PrinceEdwardIsland-bio-stub}} / Category:Prince Edward Island politician stubs
3. {{NewfoundlandandLabrador-bio-stub}} / Category:People from Newfoundland and Labrador stubs
4. {{NewfoundlandandLabrador-politician-stub}} / Category:Newfoundland and Labrador politician stubs
5. {{Saskatchewan-bio-stub}} / Category:People from Saskatchewan stubs
6. {{Saskatchewan-politician-stub}} / Category:Saskatchewan politician stubs

There are numerous things wrong with these combinations. Firstly, no-one comes from anywhere stubs - there is no such place as "Saskatchewan stubs", for instance. Which is the reason why we use the combination "X people stubs". Thus, we instantly have three categories needing renaming. Similarly, it is standard practice for Newfoundland and Labrador stub templates to simply be {{Newfoundland-x-stub}}, often with a redirect from {{Labrador-x-stub}}. So that's two more renamings needed. Then we get to problems of size and scope. Subnational bio-stubs are, as long-standing stub-sorters are keenly aware, a major prolem due to the perambulatory nature of people. And none of those three stub types is used at all. Size is the next problem, and though it appears that the Saskatchewan and N/L politician stub types are fine as far as this is concerned, there are only 16 listed stubs for PEI politicians, though doubtless there may be more.

So, to summarise:

• Either rename categories 1, 3, and 5, or upmerge the respective templates
• Rename templates 2 and 4
• Either populate category 2 or upmerge.

On inspection, no. 6 appears to be ok.

A lot of work could have been saved here simply by proposing the stub types... Grutness...wha? 01:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh, my bad. OK, the work on my end was strictly with politician stubs, not any general bios (fortunately). Besides not "proposing", the big mistake was made was trying to be consistent with {{Quebec-politician-stub}} which goes up to a {{Quebec-bio-stub}}, which on further inspection had a "no consensus" for deletion so remains an anomaly.

Anyway - regarding the proposals here:

• support speedy rename/upmerge of the bio categories/templates 1, 3, 5 as nominated;
• Regarding templates 2 and 4, the naming of the PEI and N/L stub templates was based on the naming approach taken with the existing {{BritishColumbia-politician-stub}}, {{NovaScotia-politician-stub}}, {{NewBrunswick-politician-stub}}. However, won't oppose renaming if it simplifies things, especially if a consensus/policy was previously (or will be) demonstrated as exceptions from the previous template namings.
• Re: category 2 - Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Canadian politicians indicates dozens, perhaps hundreds, of Canadian politicians yet to have articles, including many PEI politicians, and can be expected to populate - keep this.

A few corrections to the nominator's items - 1) stub template #2 above should be corrected to {{PrinceEdwardIsland-politician-stub}}, not bio; 2) currently 31 under Category:Prince Edward Island politician stubs and as mentioned this will likely be growing. Dl2000 02:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that's largely resolved that, I'd only add the quibble that redlinks don't sort well: the current population is pretty small, and in the normal course of events I might suggest upmerger. OTOH, the Canada-level politicians have been oversized on a number of occasions, so I feel no huge rush to do this just yet. Perhaps revisit in a few weeks to see if is indeed growing. On #4, perhaps keep redirects so the Labradorwegians don't feel too left out. Alai 18:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Labradonians, perhaps? It would make sense to have it like the geo-stubs and plain stubs - Newfoundland-X-stub with a redirect at Labrador-X-stub. As for the PEI politicians, I thought they'd probably reach target, but it made sense to list everything together in one go. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 3 July 2007 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete

This one is, at least, a bit more straightforward. never proposed, oddly worded category, badly named template and redirect, and the whole of Category:Coheed and Cambria contains only 2/3 of the number of articles that would be needed as stubs for this to be viable. Given that categories for individual bands are generally frowned upon (the parent should by rights go to cfd), a stub category is not generally desirable. And yet again we come back to the precedent - this would be the second musical act to have its own stub type, with the Beatles being the other (and that only for songs). Might I suggest that if band-specific stub types are going to become standard (which I sincerely hope they are not) a few other acts deserve a stub type a little more than Coheed and Cambria? Grutness...wha? 01:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, as I did not realise that band-stubs were generally unrequired. As I created this WikiProject, I derived most of the styles from the Mortal Kombat WikiProject, including the idea for a Project-specific stub. If this stub does not meet your requirements, then by all means delete it - sorry for any hassle. ≈ The Haunted Angel

• Delete: A rather unnecessary stub. Rehevkor 01:07, 6 July 2007 (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.