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
Created recently unproposed. I've no objection to caving-stub, made at the same time as this one, but cave-stub is already causing problems with articles being removed from the geo-stub regional categories. Removing, say a NorthYorkshire-geo-stub and adding a generic cave-stub makes articles harde to find, and specific regional cave stubs would be serious overkill. The situation parallels that with climbing-stub - individual climbs are double-stubbed with climbing-stub and whatever location-specific geo-stub is appropriate - this allows editors who know a specific area to find the articles without disadvantaging editors of articles about climbing. The same situation should happen here - delete this, and double-stub with caving-stub and location-specific geo-stubs. Grutness...wha?00:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find an example of how this is done. Can you give a reference or drop a note into Wikipedia:WikiProject Caves? I created those stubs before reading the instructions, unfortunately, as I explained on the proposition page when it was too late. I'm at the moment pressing cavers I know (who happen to be centred around NorthYorkshire) to start getting more involved, so I am looking for whatever best works. The geo-stubs looked too cluttered and over-used and wouldn't help the people I know who have a helluva lot of citable caving literature on their shelves to get it. Non-cavers in NorthYorkshare are unlikely to have this information available and have a lot of other things to be interested in.
I understand that stub-templates have this specific purpose of stimulating involvement. This might need more than simply throwing them into an edit box, but giving some targeted information. Since a large percentage of notable UK caves are in NorthYorkshire, is it possible to include a parameter into the NorthYorkshire-geo-stub to say it's a cave and reveal a link to somewhere where they can get hints?Goatchurch11:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just put {{NorthYorkshire-geo-stub}}and{{caving-stub}} (say) on the article; it's as simple as that. I strongly agree with Grutness that shuffling these sideways out of "local" categories is not a good idea. I think it's by no means clear that only caving-specialists would have anything to contribute to such articles, and I'd go so far as so say it was unlikely, and indeed undesirable to create a "niche editors only" expectation. Please double-stub (either with cave- if that survives this discussion, or as G. suggests with caving-), and we'll have the best of both worlds. Alai17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To answer Goatchurch's comments, some examples can be seen at the likes of (picking three random climbing stubs) Haiku Stairs, Hillary Step, and Horse Flats. As to non-cavers not having the information, I can easily argue that, as a non-caver who has added quite a bit of information on articles about caves in my local area. Why limit the chances for editors who may have information? To put it another way - who is more likely to have information on a cave in, say, Western Australia, a caver in North Yorkshire, or a non-caver in Western Australia? There's also the fact that, while caving may be an important part of a cave's story, it isn't all of it. A cave may be involved in local history, folklore, or news - something that may not be relevant from a caver's viewpoint - and therefore the article may not give a balanced account of the cave's story. As to the suggestion of what basically amounts to a NorthYorkshire-cave-stub, how long before other prominent caving regions (such as Derbyshire or Somerset, say) start arguing for the same? It opens the door to some 1000-odd templates for caves by region worldwide - and there would then be calls for the same for rivers, mountains, and many other natural features (there have, in fact, been calls for similar for both mountains and rivers in the past). Given the size of the respective stub categories, and also our ability to keep track of what stub types there are as things stand at the moment, it's massive overkill when double-stubbing does the job just as effectively and efficiently. Grutness...wha?22:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How 'bout this: Crackpot, North Yorkshire using a modification of {{NorthYorkshire-geo-stub}} with an extra parameter. I don't think I was explaining myself with enough sense, so this is an example of what I mean. I see stubs as part of the process -- not for the final result. So the right answer is whatever encourages people to start getting involved. I entirely understand the point about non-cavers having a lot to contribute, but cavers are so far contributing practically nothing (particularly in the NorthYorkshire where I know a lot of them). We don't know the psychology in detail, but to me the NorthYorkshireStub just feels slightly exclusionary because it makes it look like some other community has already taken ownership of the article and perhaps is putting cavers off from contributing what they do know. That's why this combined panel is worth trying out for a better effect, in case the rack of "this one is ours" strips is off-putting.Goatchurch11:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... and how 'bout double-stubbing? If you have two stub templates on an article, in what way can either "community" be seen to be "excluding" the other? (Frankly, I don't really follow that'd be the case anyway, but...) Alai03:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stubs are never parameterised! This has been discussed at length repeatedly in the past. There is NOTHING at all that that parameterised stub does that is not done by double stubbing, except leave both WikiProject Stub sorting - and, indeed Wikipedia as a whole - open to a mess of trouble. PLEASE NEVER EVER do that again! If cavers are not contributing, use caving-stub on the articles, as explained above. There's no reason at all that having two stubs on an article should make anything exclusionary - what does it matter to caving editors that two diffrent groups can contribute to an article? You might as well say "allowing anyone to edit an article feels exclusionary". Grutness...wha?23:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when you say "never", presumably you mean aside from the proposed (and currently "pilot" implemented on 45k articles at last count) "standardisation" proposal, that passes about four parameters around, just for the laugh... Alai03:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak to that, but shouldn't we concentrate on the effect, rather than the purpose (either as envisaged, or as represented)? Though right now, I suppose we should actually be concentrating on this stub type... Alai02:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a logic and then there's psychology. Having personally tried to get people to edit pages in WP I can tell you that a statement says to the novice reader, "this is part of the NorthYorkshire Project" really puts you off because you know you are are not part of them and, from your position of ignorance, you will tend to believe that there is a big NorthYorkshire community out there trundling through the articles about to clamp down and flatten you. And there isn't. There's about 950 NorthYorkshire stub articles and not one of the ones about caves has ever been extended. There's a much greater probability they could be extended by cavers. Personally I would take out the NorthYorkshire stubs completely. Templating the stub so it explicitly says "cave" mitigates most of the damage. A double stub, in my opinion, does not undo the exclusionary effect. While the false statement "allowing anyone to edit an article feels exclusionary" might seem a logical consequence of my claim, that's not how we work, is it? I can clearly see that this policy has been fleshed out on the basis of logic rather than on psychology, which would have required experimentation. Otherwise we would be thinking about doing half of them one way, and half of them the other, and coming back next year to examine what's happened. I mean one ought to be discussing the conversion rate of these different styles, rather than arguing about technical elegance. Having some knowledge of tuning webpages I can tell you the small illogical changes can make spectacular differences... Not to worry. I have just read the Discussion Archives and the only comment on the issue of conversion rate is in question on appearance of triple stubs. I like the thought that the German wikipedia has abandoned stubs entirely, suggesting that the whole opinion is just a locked-in. Not my beef. We'll get there in the end (ie not having stubs on any of the articles I care about) in spite of policies which won't matter in the long run. Just because conversion rates do not appear to be of concern, doesn't mean it doesn't occur. Whatever.Goatchurch10:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's also lack of logic and psychology. As soon as you point out that there isn't a North Yorkshire Project, and that stubs aren't connected to any wikiproject (that's what talk page banners are for), there should be no problem. All you're doing with the suggestions you make above is tantamount to saying "I don't care about any other editors except cavers, and I don't care whether asny other editors would be helped by stubs - you should remove all stub types from cave articles except a stub for caves, as it is clear that no-one else is interested in the articles". I'm afraid that is a very selfish suggestion, and also very unhelpful to Wikipedia. BTW, the German Wikipedia did abandon stubs...briefly. As soon as they discovered that they were far better off with stubs, they revokede that change, and are using stub categories again. As for conversion rate, I don';t see how cutting the number of types of visitors from "cavers and those interested in North Yorkshire" to "only cavers" is going to do anything except reduce the conversion rate (unless the number of people interested in North Yorkshire is below zero). Grutness...wha?20:44, 6 October 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 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 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 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 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 named, and unnecessary. ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Rapid transit stubs is not yet at a splitting level, and even if it was, there are far more viable subtypes than this (BART is a far more likely contender, for instance, as are by-country splits of some parts of Europe and Asia). In any case, the name is poor, to say the least (the permcat parent is not ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:MBTA, and nor should it be, and the template name is equally poor). At the very least this neds a rename and upmerge, though its existence overall is very questionable. Grutness...wha?00:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this template isn't any different than {{SEPTA-stub}}, {{Paris-metro-stub}}, {{Washington-Metro-stub}}, {{MTR-stub}}, etc. I don't see how it would be renamed, nor do I see why its existence would be questioned. I mean, it's only in a few articles right now because it was just recently created, but there are tons of other stub articles out there that can use this template, but I just haven't gotten around to adding it to all of them. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:48, 6 October 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 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, upmerge, delete redirect
While the idea of a separate actor-stub for each country is a reasonable one, this one is in serious need of a rename and upmerge, with the current name not kept as a redirect. Grutness...wha?00:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I've seen worse, in that I at least guessed right, TZ is far from unambiguous. Move, upmerge, and delete redirect, per nom. Alai01:34, 9 October 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/rescope to astronomical-catalogue-stub/Astronomical catalogue stubs
Unproposed, no text at all, the only category is a misnamed permcat (no stubcat link of any kind), and the template is misnamed with plural adjectival form. If kept - upmerged - it should be at astronomy-survey-stub, but with fewer than 60 articles in the (correctly named, lowercase) permcat (of which, cattersect shows only 18 in ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Astronomy stubs), it seems hardly necessary. Grutness...wha?00:58, 9 October 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 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.
Hi there! In regards to your comment on the WP:SFD page, about Taiwan-tv-stub and ethics-stub, the proposal is to keep the templates and delete the categories for now. Does your comment support the proposal, or is your preference to keep both the templates and the categories? Thanks for clarifying - Her Pegship (tis herself)21:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support keeping both the categories and the stub templates, as no justification for their deletion has been offered. The mere fact that a category has a small number of articles does not justify its deletion. John25423:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The justification is that, by stub sorting standards, it's not efficient to have a stub category with fewer than 60 or so articles (although if there's a WikiProject associated with a stub type, 30+ will do). There's a different standard for stub categories than for "regular" categories. If we keep the templates, and they end up on more than 60 items, the categories will be created in due time. Would that compromise be acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pegship (talk • contribs) 03:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how the number of articles in a stub category affects the efficiency of stub sorting at all. The stub templates include the associated categories, and add articles to the categories automatically when they are transcluded. No extra work is required for categorization. John25403:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of efficiency of the sorting (though over-sorting is potentially excess work, no-one is likely to care if it's someone else doing said work), but of sorting in such a way as to produce stub categories in a size range thought to produce a reasonable turnover of stub-expansion (i.e., not so many that individual articles are swamped, not so many that a tiny category languishes in obscurity with no-one visiting it. See WP:STUB#numerosity for the guestimate as to the sweet-spot. Alai04:45, 15 October 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 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 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 move to 1632-sectstub, delete redirect
This one's a tricky one. Its documentation seems to suggest some confound between being a sectstub (i.e., a {{1632-sectstub}}) and being a Start-class template. What is clear though is that it isn;t part of the stubbing scheme, and therefore shouldn't have "-stub" as part of its name. If there's a genuine purpose for it, then a move to {{1632-sectstub}} is probably the best remedy. Grutness...wha?00:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To closing admin: I've cleared all direct links to the original name after CBD's move. It is safe to delete it assuming it's safe to close it! <g> // FrankB23:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A) It's newly minted, B) I'm busy tidying up the rest of the stuff in the parent category, so will be unused for a bit. C) Unless the stub sorting project has some sort of copyright on the word "stub, this is ridiculous. Would this be happening if it were called {{1632sectneedsexpanded}}??? [I want to see notorized documents saying stub sorting has exclusive use over that string! <G>] The 1632 series now numbers better than 20 book length works, and categorizing and tracking the need for a section expansion in ‹The templateCat is being considered for merging.›Category:1632 articles with sections needing expansion needs some aid to not typing all of that name! Hell, we're short articles on the books in half of those, and now find we have to organize characters and places and so forth that should have an article, or can be rolled into compendium pages like 1632 characters. D) The template is derivative of {{sect-stub}} the normal syntax I was familar with, with adapted innards of it's redirect target {{sectstub}}. E) I deliberately chose a name at variance with such naming (order) as {{hist-stub}}/{{geo-stub}}, et. al. F) Since the template is properly categorizing into a tracking category for those involved in the pages to clean up, I don't see that stub sorting has any gripes. The last time I requested stubs and categories I was told we didn't have enough articles. Since the magnitude of the extant articles has only quadrupled or so since then, I'd no choice but to be presuming the threshold is still ridiculously large. G) More to the point, perhaps, since we're trying very hard to hold the article count down, and keep things tight and 'efficient', a section tag is far more useful than any article stub template... we know what those are! (I hope! <G>). H) Last but not least, this is a very complex series mixing historical factors and persons with fictional extrapolations and plot so fairly intimate knowledge of the various (inter-related) works is required for any significant expansion effort. Every new release reveals "innocent seeming background details" of a prior book were in fact plot set-ups for the sequel in the later work(s). Hence, I had my doubts as to whether the template in question should categorize as a clean up template in the normal sense at all, at all. In closing, I can live with the suggested {{1632-sectstub}}, but prefer the hyphen be kept instead if there is some imperative requiring 1632 to come first. // FrankB02:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you point out, sect-stub does redirect to sectstub, and has only not been emptied and deleted due to its heavy usage. Since what you're wanting is not a stub type but a sectstub type, surely the name you want is also some variety of sectstub, such as 1632-sectstub (1632sectneedsexpanded would be fine, too - it doesn't use the term -stub as part of its name). You say you're familiar with the syntax of sect-stub, whereas it's far more likely you're familiar with the syntax of sectstub. Given that the name of the template is sectstub, having the template at 1632-sect-stub would be a bad move, especially since it would imply that it was for sects in 1632.
BTW, I find it interesting that you say the last time you requested a stub type there weren't enough articles, yet you haven't come back to try again now that the number of articles is far larger. If there are over 60 stubs, then it's very likely that a stub type for 1632 would be a very reasonable idea and supported by WP:WSS.
Consistency with existing practice would argue for a rename to {{1632-sectstub}}. However, existing practice sucks, so I would strongly prefer a rename to {{1632-sectexpand}}, or some other variation that doesn't rely on such a cheese-paring distinction between "*-stub" and "*[^-]stub" templates. Alai23:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine too -- I've been away all summer and am just working my way through what needs fixing, and just want something ASAP! (I've skipped half a dozen places I wanted this tonight since this blew in, on the general principle, there's no reason to cause anyone extra tasking.) Since there's general agreement[1] that renaming is fine, can we close this out and get down to more compelling tasking? [I really have no idea of the distinctions you folks are making, save can gather there is some naming convention in force, and you've sortof copyrighted 'stub' on wikipedia.] I cerainly didn't dream my tracking aid would cost others time! Thanks and Cheers to all! // FrankB02:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps by "sortof copyrighted", you mean "made good faiths attempts to avoid naming confusion in the use of"? Alai04:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I moved the template to '1632-sectstub' per the majority of suggestions above and changed all the uses to call it under that name. Haven't deleted the redirect or closed the discussion because there hasn't (quite) been 100% agreement on what to do, but barring some new idea coming in this seems to be where the discussion is headed. --CBD10:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a sensible compromise not-quite-closure. The issue of the naming of {{sectstub}} should probably be addressed in and of itself: realistically my suggestion on this template was never going to fly without first addressing that. I don't think we need to delete the old name: do I want TF"D" (R), RM, or would this be in the category of "just go ahead and move a massively-transcluded template, and await the twhappling"? Alai04:52, 13 October 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
Where to start? Okaaay... Name uses "French" instead of "France". Ambiguity about what kind of club - Sport? Social? Political? Hobby? Lack of category. Failed attempt at applying an image icon. Never proposed. Unused... my guess is that this is an attempt to create a {{France-footyclub-stub}}. If so, that's already been done, so this is unnecessary. Whatever is the case, {{French-club-stub}} is of no use and should be deleted. Grutness...wha?00:37, 11 October 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, upmerge to European computer specialist stubs
Unproposed and poorly named, and the categories have dubious parentages, too (are all computer specialists automatically engineers?). No certainty that either of these would reach threshold, either, though compu-bio-stub is getting close to needing a split. Propose renaming to NG-compliant {{France-compu-bio-stub}} and {{Germany-compu-bio-stub}} and upmerging. Grutness...wha?02:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was unaware of the proper process for stub creation.
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, and cuts through the stub hierarchy. There's also some apparent confusion about parentage - for some reason, the category has ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:American politician stubs as a parent, and (as far as I know) no American politicians are media (they may be mediums, but that's another matter). Longstanding procedure is to split primarily by type of medium and only then by nation and subnational region. That's why we have state-specific newspaper-stub types, but no media-stub type even at national level. Both the articles which use this stub should be using the long-established {{Mississippi-newspaper-stub}}, not this new media-stub (which should be deleted). Grutness...wha?01:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fixed that issue with the politicians cat. Further, it's redundant to have them broken down by radio stub, newspaper stub, television stub, magazine stub.. when they are all media and should be under one stub. As seemingly the only one resurrecting WikiProject Mississippi, I created the stub inline with trying to categorize and file things related to Mississippi. Granted I'm not experienced in the broad duties and creations of a wikiproject but it only makes sense to have media under Media Stubs rathern than seperated. Further, is "proposal first" a law around here? And I'm being serious when I ask that.. I wasn't aware editors had to get permission to create things on WP before creating them. Thanks. -- ALLSTARECHO02:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAs it says on {{Wikiproject}} and at WP:STUB, as well as at many other stub-related pages, it is very strongly recommended. It's not actually policy, but strong recommendations are not there purely for window-dressing - there are distinct and logical reasons why they're put in place. After all, the main people using any stub templates will be WP:WSS, and stub templates have to be consistent for ease of use by people unconnected with any specific projects as well. It's not like it's a WikiProject talk-page assessment template (which would be specific to your wikiproject). So there's sense in not having one state's articles do things one way while everywhere else has them done another. As to redundancy, quite the opposite - it is a media stub which is redundant to the system currently in use, which has worked very well with no problems for a long time. Grutness...wha?02:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not especially excited about this, but there is the precedent of ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Florida media stubs. However, if it's also going to be tiny, I'm not sure I see much point. I certainly don't think that more precise types are "redundant", or that lumping "only makes sense" -- that assumes these will be getting edited entirely by location, and not at all by people working on regional radio stations, etc, which is exactly the reverse of that behind the organisation of those stub types. I'd much rather see upmerged- (or double-upmerged) templates for each particular medium/state combination; if there's the numbers for a media cat, it can feed there, rather than into the state-stub. Alai04:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you Grutness and Alai. I don't have a problem with it being deleted if others can be created. There's already a Mississippi-radio-stations-stub and a Mississippi-newspapers-stub but there is no Mississippi-television-stations-stub or Mississippi-magazines-stub and I don't know how to go about creating them and implementing them into the Grading and Importance system that I just copied from WikiProject New York into WikiProject Mississippi. I can't even get the bot working to automatically do the log and statistics. I fix things as I stumble across the education and learning of them. Further, there are other entities that are media such as parent companies. A good example would be, nationally, Gannett to my local newspaper The Clarion-Ledger. Another good example is, locally, Roberts Media Company which owns several television and radio stations here in my area. Roberts Media Company couldn't use a Radio or TV stub alone and should have a general "media" stub. So unless there's other suggestions and someone willing to lend a helping hand to someone to get the ratings and importance system in line at Wikiproject Mississippi, I'm doing the best I can with it and feel that a media stub is the best for all things media in Mississippi. Thank you. -- ALLSTARECHO21:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There would certainly be scope for a {{Mississippi-tv-station-stub}} - this is a partially-implemented by-state split as things stand (though it would probably be better upmerged with other state types into a {[cl|Southern United States television station stubs}} - the completion of such a by-state split would require about 30 state-tv-station-stub types, so it's definitely better handled through a proper proposal at WP:WSS/P. {{Mississippi-magazine-stub}} would be a more difficult one, though, since it's more natural to split magazines by subject matter than by specific location (we don't even have a {{US-magazine-stub}}, though splitting at a national level at least does make some sense). BTW, any company which operates both television and radio stations can easily be simply double-stubbed with both templates. As to the "grading and importance system", I'm not sure I understand. Such things aren't usually handled by stub templates, but by wikiproject-specific talk-page banners (e.g., {{WPBeatles}}). It's certainly not the purpose of stub templates to perform that task. Grutness...wha?22:43, 13 October 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, unlikely to gain close to threshold number of stubs, and one of the most ambiguously named stub templates I've seen in a long while. My first thought was "synchronisation", then I considered that "synchronised swimming" would be the most likely candidate. But no, this is for synchroniused skating - something for which the (unlisted) permcat has only six articles. Given that its stub parent (‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:figure skating stubs) doesn't number 100 articles, the chances of this reaching the splittable threshold any time soon are remote, to say the least. This at the very least needs to be renamed to something less ambiguous (e.g., synchro-skating-stub) and upmerged, but the necessity for its existence is pretty questionable, to say the least, so deletion is also an option. Grutness...wha?23:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename it if you want. But give it a little time, please, before you say there are only a couple articles in it. It's barely been an hour! Awartha23:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but if the parent stub category doesn't have enough stubs for splitting, and if the parent permanent category only has a handful of stubs, it doesn't bode well. The usual rule of thumb on this page, though, is that deletion debates take several days, and if there's a definite sign of growth towards threshold level in that time, deletion is a less likely outcome (threshold level, BTW, is 60 existing stub articles - unless there's a specific Wikipedia:WikiProject Synchronised skating, in which case it's 30). Grutness...wha?00:15, 16 October 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 mil-memorial-stub
Unproposed creation, but at 43 stubs within 24 hours it seems reasonable (though if it doesn't reach threshold, the possibility of an upmerger arises. It's in desperate need of a rename, though: either {{Mil-cemetery-stub}}or{{Mil-memorial-stub}} (or both!) would be more NG-standard. My preference would be for the latter, since cemeteries are de facto memorials anyway. Grutness...wha?22:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you find the system too difficult to follow - loads of other WP editors seem to manage easily, so it can't be that difficult. You seem to have failed to notice that I have not suggested renaming the category or nominated it for such, since, as you say, it is in line with other similar categories. Considering you seem upset at the thought that I might be suggesting a category name not in line with similar category names, perhaps you could be a little more understanding of my pointing out that the template name is not in line with other template names. If you want to keep your "blocks in a neat row", to consider it petty bureaucracy for us to want the same seems mildly hypocritical, to say the least. BTW, having two separate templates, one for cemeteries and one for memorials, both feeding into the current category - as I suggested - would allow for the possibility of later subdivision of them if it becomes necessary. Also BTW, I'd be very interested if you could point out one cemetery which wasn't also a memorial. Grutness...wha?23:14, 16 October 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
Unproposed creation, but at 40 stubs within 24 hours it seems reasonable (though if it doesn't reach threshold, the possibility of an upmerger arises. It does need a rename, though, to the NG-standard {{Korea-cuisine-stub}}. Grutness...wha?22:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I didin't know such the rule existing because there happens no trouble in Korean wiki in which I've been also contributing whenever somebody makes a stub template. Before making a stub, now I get that a proposal with a plausible reason and rationale is mandatorily required. But I don't think the name is that bad and needed to be renamed or deleted. Because all most all of Korean cuisine articles are in stub status as do other articles regarding Korea. I want to sort the cuisine articles among the chaos. I simply named it after the Category:Korean cuisine. But it is a bit off the convention like the below examples. Well, I'm one of this community, so must obey the rule with which it's made and kept. I'll follow whatever this discussion would make a conclusion.
The four examples you give show exactly why I proposed the renaming. The names of all the templates - as with all other nation-specific templates - are in the noun form: Turkey-cuisine-stub, not Turkish-cuisine-stub, Spain not Spanish, Mexico not Mexican, and India not Indian. So Korea-cuisine-stub is the preferred naming. Its standard stub template naming, as it gets aroudn those fiddly cases where the adjectival nationality name can't be easily guessed. Grutness...wha?23:05, 16 October 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 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.
Having looked at it again, I'm very much inclined to say delete any stub template that "needs" its own transcluded documentation. (And if it doesn't need the /doc sub-template, then cry "Occam!", and get rid of that, at least.) Alai10:32, 26 October 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
For stub articles related to video game company SNK Playmore. Last I heard, you had to be Disney to get your own branded stub type. Unproposed, contains 32 items, which is probably the sum total of the parent cat and its sub-cats. Delete. Her Pegship (tis herself)21:58, 19 October 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 see closing note below
I propose we delete these categories and upmerge the templates. Per previous discussion, the categories would need renaming at any rate, and all of them have fewer than 40 articles, most fewer than 30.
Agree on all fronts. Mind you, it'll make my daily sorting of what's new in the NZ geo category harder :/ One option could be to redirect them to new "no-template" North and South Island categories. If I had some more time, I'd start filling them all up to get them closer to target. If kept, three of the others would need renaming in a similar way to the Marlborough one, too. I'm surprised that the Hawke's Bay and Taranaki ones are still small, though - they could easily get up to 60 - I'll try to expand at least one of those in the next few days. BTW, "less than 40" is incorrect for the Tasman one - it has exactly 40 :) Grutness...wha?23:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to such a merger, as long as the separate templates are kept separate, obviously, and they're re-split if and when again separately viable; logic would seem essentially similar to using other less-than-formal or less-than-current regions (such as abolished German Regierungsbezirk, groupings of PRCese provinces, etc). Alai11:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CLOSING NOTE There's a lot going on, so here's the closing summary:
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 Mississippi-tv-station-stub
Unproposed creation part-way through a debate on Mississippi-media-stub, a debate where the creator presumably took my own personal opinion on the viability of a naming-guideline compliant stub type as an overall endorsement by the stub-sorting community (which it wasn't) of one with a different non-standard name. Though I personally think that such a stub type would be useful, it certainly should have a uniform name with other such templates, and should be correctly formatted as regards parent categories (a stub template shouldn't have permcat links, to start with). Rename this to the standard {{Mississippi-tv-station-stub}} and fix it up, at the very least. Grutness...wha?00:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So why not just rename it, fix the cats issue in the template and redirect the television version to the newly renamed tv version rather than nom it for total deletion?? -- ALLSTARECHO00:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't nominate it for total deletion. This page is where renames are discussed as well, since that generally includes the deletion of the original template name. Grutness...wha?01:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh OK. So we couldn't just renamed it without having to wait for a consensus? Or create TV and redirect Television since there's quite a few articles that are using the Television version? -- ALLSTARECHO03:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved and fixed. BTW, you did tag it with {{sfd-t}}, and "at the very least" seems to imply possible deletion, so some confusion on that front does seem understandable. We do have some redirects from -television- to -tv- templates, so it's not entirely unreasonable to have that... on the other hand, it seems fairly unreasonable to type anything that long. :) (It's also currently used on all of two articles, btw.) Tag the redirect if you especially want rid of it. Alai04:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fine. I didn't realise we had other x-television-station-stub redirects. Given that we do, there's no harm in it. BTW, I tend to use sfd-t since it "covers all bases" - it does say "deleted or renamed", and it allows for the possibility that someon will be more anti keeping a stub type than I am. Given that it's being kept as a redirect, this can probably be pretty much wrapped up straight away and closed as a simple redirecttion. Grutness...wha?22:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of {{television-bio-stub}}, to be precise. I don't know if we have any other -station- ones, but it seems difficult to argue too strenuously for "mandatory abbreviation" in such cases. I wasn't suggesting you shouldn't have used sfd-t, just pointing out that you by doing so had nominated it for total deletion (among other possible outcomes). Alai06:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And may I suggest that Allstar take a look at the stub sorting guidelines, so that the mysteries of stub sorting procedures may be revealed. We're just trying to do things, as the Presbyterians say, "decently and in good order". :P Her Pegship (tis herself)14:33, 19 October 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
Was populated (in heavy quotes, with all of two articles) by {{Zimbabwe-ethno-group-stub}} which fed into three categories. Two of those made sense, i.e. the the double-upmerged ones. This one doesn't, on size and redundancy grounds (hence I've already recatted the template). Delete this, keep the upmerged template. Alai21:28, 20 October 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 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 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 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 long-established {{Brazil-stub}} or one of its subtypes. As far as the formatting's concerned, the name is non-standard - check the stub naming conventions for the problems with the name format. In the case of some of the other templates created by the same user listed above there are also other problems with formatting. Grutness...wha?06:08, 22 October 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.
followed by a comment. The noinclude shouldn't have been there, the categort should have been the proper target one rather than ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Stubs, and the note wasn't necessary or standard for a stub template). Size is still likely to be a problem though - there certainly aren't likely to be 60 current stubs. Grutness...wha?05:59, 22 October 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 per permcat
Inconsistent with permcat. As suggested at WSS/P, if the permcat's wrong, take that to CFR. (I'm not personnally much inclined to do so, as it's as clear as mud which is correct: Botswana claims Batswana is a civic demonym (though this is a recent addition, and one wonders as to its "stability"), but Tswana claims exactly the opposite. Alai20:24, 22 October 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 misplaced nomination
Keep - I'm not sure why this {{sfd-c}} was added to this category, as it has nothing to do with stubs. If Nousernamesleft disagrees with its creation, {{cfd}} would be more appropriate IMO. In any event, I think a category for articles dealing specifically with DST issues is warranted. ⇔ ChristTrekker15:58, 22 October 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 all; rename history, comps, terms; delete redirects except for history
I'd favour the upmerge. WP Cricket is surely big enough to be predominantly using talk-page banners for sorting its articles anyway - that's what banner templates are for. As far as the rename, not only should -comps- be changed to -competition-, but we generally use -term- for terminology, and avoid all plurals in stub template names, so that one needs changing too. Grutness...wha?23:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename templates per said patterns and precedents, and upmerge cats on the 'size' clause of the guideline (that's WP:stub#numerosity, for the convenience of anyone about to ask). Don't keep redirects, with the exception of "-history-", if it's moved to -hist- (which I don't necessarily recommend.) I'll say as little as I can manage on (b) -- which may still be quite a bit, if that portion of the /D discussion ends up being reiterated in similar terms and tone here. Alai04:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify (as best as I can discern, at least), though the tag {{sfd}}'s been employed throughout, there's no nomination to rename any of the categories (though upmerger would delete all four, at least in the short term), or to delete any of the templates (just rename one of them). Alai18:38, 26 October 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 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 and upmerge
Unproposed, very very tiny category with misnamed template (standard is NorthernMarianas-x-stub). The parent permcat has fewer than ten articles, and the template that links all the stations lists six stations in total, using just seven frequences. This will never reach the required threshold. Upmerge to the Oceania radio station stub category and generic Northern Marianas stub category, as per standard procedure for small types. Grutness...wha?01:46, 23 October 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
As above, unproposed and hopelessly small. Never going to get within a bull's roar of threshold - at least this time the template is well named. Upmerge. Grutness...wha?01:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this one too, that's fine. Work on the comments though, you could have fit a few more condescending comments in there.--Rtphokie02:12, 23 October 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 rename, with agreement of creator
We've of late managed to standardise all the US-road- subtypes at "-road-", and with "all roads" scoping: I can see no earthly reason we shouldn't make new types consistent with that, rather than months or years down the pike. Alai08:29, 25 October 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.
Unproposed and - given the size of the parent cat (which, with its subcats, totals just 24 articles) - not likely to get close to threshold. Also uses the long deprecated "HK" component in the template name. Propose rename of template to standard {{HongKong-sports-venue-stub}} with deletion of redirect, upmerger, and deletion of category. Grutness...wha?01:10, 28 October 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, use Record producer stubs
If I'm the "newbie" reffered to above, I'm not a newbie. I just did something that looked very simple and didn't realise redirecting a category isn't that simple until a day later, at which point I asked for assistance. Sorry for the inconvenience. U-Mos18:08, 29 October 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 feline-stub/cat:feline stubs
Renametofeline - also so it doesn't look like it's a category of category subs (for those of us who tend to think/type/speak in shorthand! ;)SkierRMH02:03, 5 November 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 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 cat as is, rename template to Africandiaspora-stub
Or what about Nisi Shawl? No indication at all what she should have to do with an African diaspora movement or similar. These templates are more trouble than they're worth. ValentinianT / C19:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely. I don't like the split by ethnicity types at all, and argued against them at the time (see also current discussions on the proposal page re:Franco-Belgian comics creators). This stub type in particular seems highly subjective and ambiguous, so I would not be sorry to see it go. Grutness...wha?00:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm actually a member of WP:AFRO and first off I'm more than a bit concerned that this wasn't raised at the project talk page. I only actually found it because I was digging through all of the deletion discussions. I don't mind renaming to {{African-diaspora-stub}} or similar but I do not support deletion. Deleting the category would be akin to deleting Category:LGBT stubs. For starters it ignores a notable group and guidelines such as WP:CATGRS. But more importantly it impars the ability of the project to find and improve those articles. CJ14:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. It was a long day...Anyway, what about using a talk page template, like the "article assessment" tags that are so popular? That would collect them into a category for your project without using stub category space. The main difficulty, I think, is making sure the stub category (if kept) would not include items that are only tangentially related to the African diaspora rather than directly. Her Pegship (tis herself)17:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We just recently set up article assessments. However, I don't think it's use precludes the use of a stub sorting category for sorting stubs. If it did there would be a case for deleting almost all of the stub categories because most of them are tied to one project or another. And making sure the right articles is in the category is a problem for every single category on Wikipedia so why would that be a special concern for this category? I've looked at some of the articles that were questioned previously. Old Dillard High School is a historically Black school as in it was specifically created as a result of segregation. I presume the same goes for Central Academy. Calvin E. Simmons is an African American. I presume at some time the article was a stub and someone forgot to pull the tag. Every single article that was mentioned is relavant to either African Americans or to the African diaspora. That further increases my lack of understanding of these concerns.
If this is strictly a renaming discussion then by all means, rename it to whatever works. But deleting the categories and the templates because someone doesn't like categorizing by race/ethnicity creates a big time POV issue. CJ18:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assessment templates don't preclude the use or creation of stub templates, no - but the two serve different purposes and it's often more useful to have one than the other. Assessment templates are for subjects specific to individual WikiProjects, whereas stub templates are for use by editors across the whole of Wikipedia. It's often the case that a topic will be too nebulous for a stub template to be truly effective - articles which could be stubbed by it would be better suited to other stub categories - whereas those articles are central to the work of a WikiProject. This is the case here. An assessment template would allow you to create lists or categories of articles according to your own assessment of work needed on them, whereas a stub template might reduce the visibility of the articles for editors working in other fields (e.g., Bill Cosby, mentioned above, would be better classified with US comedians, and Barack Obama with US Democrat politicians). Given that we try to limit the number of stub templates an article has, reducing the number of more vague stub types and - in the case of subjects intimately associated with specific WikiProjects - suggesting their replacement with assessment templates is a frequent issue. Grutness...wha?00:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I hope this doesn't mean that we'll end up seing Bill Cosby and Obama tagged as African diaspora as well."
African diaspora is not a movement. I think you're thinking of Pan-Africanism. African diaspora is a racial group. It's an anthropological and sociological grouping. CJ18:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for clarifying the last point. In this template's primary purpose is to group people according to race, then I'll suggest deleting it since stub templates consistently sort people according to citizenship / occupation but not ethnicity, skin colour or gender. I have no objection to a talk page banner, which can provide the categorization you seek, but stub templates are a bad solution for this purpose. And whatever happens, please *don't* hardcode stub categories into articles. Your project seems to do so consistently and it makes our stub sorting work impossible. Please add stub templates but don't hardcode categories into the articles. The stub template activates the category automatically. ValentinianT / C21:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll point out to the project that hardcoding should be removed where it's found, but it would be nice if you didn't just assume that we're responsible. Most of the articles we work on predate the project. Secondly WP:CATGRS allows categorization by race gender and sexuality so I don't get how stub sorting can just ignore that. Perhaps you could point out some existing guideline on wikipedia that says that stub categories can't use race? I looked. I couldn't find it. I mean if that's the policy it's the policy but it's not documented. In fact it's only been mentioned as a personal opinion. And the reasoning that was given about article assessments being preferred over stub categories would most likely mean the end of the stub sorting project since there is a comedy wikiproject and at least one us government project, there's a schools project, etc. CJ01:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the AGF issue, I've sorted more then 20,000 stubs, and I've never before seen as high a proportion of articles having the stub categories hardcoded as is the case here and with the related ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:African American stubs. I simply picked a sample of articles and took a look: e.g. Hair Wars, Niggas vs. Black People and Black people in Ireland. Some of these articles are too long to be stubs, but that is another matter, but the hardcoding seems to be done recently and by different editors independently of each other [2][3] . The result is, however, that the stub sorting system is ruined. Given the number of articles, a WP:WSS editor can probably fix the hardcoding business by AWB in an hour or so. ValentinianT / C10:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear African American stubs should be a subset of Afro-Diaspora stubs. Nothing should be tagged with both. Other subsets of the African Diaspora we might want to consider creating are things like the Afro-Cuban, Afro-__ etc. There should not be a zillion articles tagged with the Diaspora stub tag since there are very few things that aren't a part of one region or another. There has been talk about an African American project, but until the African Diaspora project becomes bigger that's tabled. Bill Cosby would fall under such a project. That said, not every single Afro-___ person or thing should get this tag, just the ones that play some role in Diaspora history. I a bit annoyed that there was no message on the talk page, too. futurebird02:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename The African diaspora is the dispersal of Africans and their descendants around the world, primarily due to the slave trade. I'm not arguing WP:OTHERSTUFF, but a similar stub type is {{Judaism-bio-stub}}, which includes religious leaders, actors, businessmen, professors, and historians. Notwithstanding the statement that "This biographical article about a person notable in connection with Judaism is a stub", their common link is that they are Jewish — by religious practice? by ancestry? by no external set of religious, or legal, or sociological norms? Who knows. Maybe the use of {{Afro-stub}} should be limited to stubs whose subjects are notable because of their role in the African diaspora. Such usage would preclude the application of this stub type to articles about African-American senators and multimillionaire comedians, assuming that any such stubs exist. I strongly disagree that "this template's primary purpose is to group people according to race". Only a small number of the articles are biographies; most of them are about peoples (Afro-Arab, Afro-Guyanese), places (Museum of Contemporary African Diasporan Arts, Cotterwood), culture (Get down, Black orientalism), etc. They are not related to one another by black skin, but by roots in Africa and by the experience of Africans in the diaspora. The fact that most descendants of Africans are black-skinned doesn't make this category any more race-based than ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:European Olympic medalist stubs. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with tagging articles like you propose here with a template like this. The scope you suggest seems to be easy to manage, but I'll oppose a mass-tagging of articles simply according to race. A U.S. artist is a U.S. artist nomatter the ethnic / national background of his/her ancestors. ValentinianT / C10:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I think the bigger part of this issue is that this category needs some cleanup. I'll make it a personal priority over the next few days. But you guys have to understand that while you might see a US senator. Someone else might see one of only what 4 members of the African Diaspora to ever run for the most powerful job in the world. That kind of makes them important to the Diaspora. CJ11:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Crown Jewel is mistaken. This has absolutely nothing to do with "race." I myself am an African-American, a pan-Africanist, a nationalist, and I generally don't use the term except in quotes. This is about a group of people who are connected via shared cultural and historical roots and very obvious present-day, objective political and economic realities. It is a general ethnological rubric comprising many subgroups/ethnicities, many of whom share a common past, common struggles and challenges, and an interdependent destiny. Because the African diaspora is a concept and functional category that has broad application, relevance and implications for historical, ethnological, archaeological and macroeconomic and sociopolitical study and real-world events, the category is an important one and is worthy of a tag here which would serve to consolidate/connect related articles. I don't much care how it is renamed as long as its central meaning is not distorted; it should stand. I am annoyed with the precipitous nature of this deletion process -- which happens all too frequently here when it comes to subject matter treating Africans in the diaspora. I find it rude, arrogant and disrespectful, and it's time for this bullsh*t to stop. deeceevoice15:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody simmer down. This category has been listed on the stub discoveries page for ten months now, so nothing has been done precipitously. I listed it here in order to get the template renamed. Since I properly tagged the template, someone from the diaspora project noticed it and came here to comment. (So quit whining about how no one was notified.) I don't think there's any doubt that the African diaspora is a legitimate, encyclopedic topic. The stub project is currently interested in making the stub template and category (a) useful to all editors, not just the WPJ, and (b) in line with naming guidelines. I can personally attest to the fact that stub-sorters tend to be process-oriented and are only seeking practical procedural solutions, not attacking anyone's right to have their topic represented in Wikipedia. So please address the issue at hand. In the Big Picture of Life:
is a stub type needed for African diaspora articles, or would a talk page template (which the WPJ can tweak to their heart's delight) be more appropriate?
If a stub type is needed (not just wanted), should the template be reconfigured and if so, how?
I know that you're probably trying to be helpful with this comment, but it isn't helpful to tell people to "simmer down" when no one is even that upset and then to minimize the concerns that a few of us have expressed about not being notified as "whining." I really was not annoyed with any of this until I read this last comment. Now I am annoyed. It never helps to say that people are "whining" it's soooooo condescending.
But, lets not harp on that. Can we just agree that it helps to notify a project when you're talking about their tags? CJ's done a lot of work today to address the issue with people hard coding things. (Thanks!) And now we have a nice little note on WP:AFRO that will let people know how to use the stubs. What I would like to see is our projects stubs put in to the sorting hierarchy. I don't know much about how that works... what larger stub category would contain African Diaspora stubs? etc. futurebird17:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right now it's listed under these stub categories:
Africa stubs (not really the best place for it...)
Stub categories (way too general)
What is a more refined place for this? The other reason I'm asking about this is I'd like to help find other stubs for our project, but it's not clear where in stub sorting they might be...futurebird17:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you think the way to respond to someone who writes of the pervasive systemic bias of the project is trying to be "amusing"? Try again. deeceevoice07:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the way to respond to someone who writes of the pervasive systemic bias of the project using inflammatory language is to try to lighten the atmosphere so that this doesn't become a flame war. A soft answer is supposed to turn away wrath. Try yourself. Her Pegship (tis herself)19:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've come across where some of these hardcoded stub categories came from. 128.111.56.35. Given the timing of the edits and the similar edit summaries I'm thinking maybe an unauthorized bot? CJ23:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, and scope per the analysis of Malik Shabazz. This seems a perfectly legitimate stub type scope, but there's a clear, and indeed at this point well-demonstrated risk of topic drift here: like several of the above, I'm not comfortable with what are prominent article-space templates being used with a "banners by ethnicity" reading. It's no comfort from WPSS's perspective that the creation was by one group of people, and the drift by another. BTW, notification cuts both ways: this was created, and subsequently tagged with {{WPSS-cat}}, without a cheep of same to the stub-sorting project. (Indeed, the latter has the status of a guideline, whereas if a category and template are in regular use by a project, tagging them should be sufficient for most practical purpose.) Alai18:11, 5 November 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 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.
