close enough for my tastes to speediable... BTW, I also speedied the same editor's {{AU-bio-stub}} which duplicated the existing {{Australia-bio-stub}} but had a redlink category and was the duplication of a stub deleted this time last year. Grutness...wha?08:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the merits of this stub category, but move the templates to "europe-foo-stub" if kept. — Jun. 2, '06[13:22] <freak|talk>
No cat, two articles, impossibly small scope, badly worded, never proposed. Almost speediable and definitely deletable. Grutness...wha?05:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I did not create this stub, I'll defend it to say that there is a difference between SOCIAL fraternities/sororities and HONOR fraternities/sororities. I think that the Honor society stub by definition is limiting. ACMe02:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a rename of Honor-stub/Honor society stubs to something more all-encompassing would make sense, then. The type that's been proposed for deletion here goes against so many naming guidelines it would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Opne to suggestions... Grutness...wha?03:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to answer the questions one at a time - 1) Category:Fraternal and service organization stubs would be a reasonable name (note the singular of organisation, as per stub category naming guidelines); 2) whether there's room on Wikipedia is irrelevant - the important thing is whether they would be populated enough to be of use to editors, and the aswer to that is clearly and empghatically no - one category is plenty; 3) four templates each using the word "fraternal" hardly avoids the gender-specific nature, since it makes them all masculine based. Ovrall, I think that BL's solution's a good one - rescope the long-established category with two replacement templates. Grutness...wha?07:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment Since I'm the guy who made the stub I'll try to explain things. I made the stub cat and template as an aid in editing as a way for wikiproject participants (and non participants) to know which articles need expanding. The scope of the wikiproject is much larger than I originally envisioned and I think a stub cat is needed. I am not against a merge though. Dspserpico03:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge I am glad we agree with (1) Category:Fraternal and service organization stubs.
(2) I was not being literal about the "room". Looking at what's in the honor stubs, I still recommend "fraternal", though maybe only two as Grutness suggests to limit for population purposes. "Fraternal" means "relating to a fraternity or society" per Webster's, thus broader in scope. And while rooted in the masculine "brother" reference, is less offensive to cover both genders (like "fraternal twins"), than just "fraternity" which would be less representative for say co-ed honor societies. Here are the amended two I propose: {{fraternal-general-stub}} and {{fraternal-honor-stub}}. As a final benefit, the naming convention would tie back to the stub Category. Thank you for the discussion. ACMe19:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge categories into one, keeping three (distinct) templates: {{honor-stub}}, {{fraternity-stub}}, and {{sorority-stub}}. Delete above template as badly-named (spaces) and over-long; any other desired names can be used as redirects, if strictly necessary. Alai21:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sped; agree with Conscious's merge suggestion, have tagged the categories. Rescope to something inclusive of all sword-based martial arts, replacing the long-standing undersized category, and the new, also unproposed, undersized cat. (It'll still be undersized, at that.) Alai10:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note:former was changed to a redirect, latter deleted, both cats were deleted. In the case that there will ever be enough Serbia&Montenegro stubs, the category can be recreated. - Bobet19:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never gained much use and the country shuffled off its mortal coil yesterday. While the former might be worth retaining in a historical sense (a la {{Soviet-stub}}), it's already been emptied and last time I checked there was something like three articles in the parent, so no great loss there. I must confess to already re-parenting the respective Serbian and Montenegrin geo cats up a level to the European geo parent, so apologies for breaching convention, but haven't made any edits to the various official trees. Someone's already emptied the S&M geo cat, too, which may have implications for the ongoing Kosovo headache. The Tom03:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. Mind you, the Montenegrin categories are very small - it may be a case of watching them to see whether they grow. if they don't something may have to be done with them. Kosovo...sigh. I suppose we'll hear about that sooner or later. Grutness...wha?05:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Montenegro, the generic and -geo categories have 55 articles each and the -bio category is above threshold (68). Given the recent events, they'll probably have a good growth potential. And the K-word situation is just ... tricky. In any case, there's no use to keep the {{SerbiaMontenegro-geo-stub}}. I don't have any clear preferences regarding the generic {{SerbiaMontenegro-stub}}, but on the drop of a hat, {{Yugoslavia-stub}} seems like a better keep. Valentinian(talk)14:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see two problems with this last suggestion. 1) {{SerbiaMontenegro-stub}} is currently not used at all, and we usually require at least 60 stubs to keep a template. I might be wrong, but I just can't imagine this one reaching this number. 2) I don't think double-stubbing will be relevant in most cases. The state union is now pushing up flowers since both Montenegro and Serbia have declared their independence from it, and the material has generally already been tagged with either "Serbia" or "Montenegro". But my main concern is the size issue. Valentinian(talk)23:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wouldnt it be easier to just rescope the yugoslavia stubcategory to cover S/M and the federal republic as well? it would be far less confusing to have stubs relating to the federal republic of yugoslavia covered by yugoslavia-stub! BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard23:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Yugoslavia stubs should be rescoped to include FRY (and KoSCS if need be). Both the category and the {{Yugoslavia-stub}} will need a bit of text tweaking. BTW, I've been populating the Yugo-stub some as I've been going thru the Euro hist stubs to populate the newly created Norway-hist-stub, and I've noticed that the Yugo-stub doesn't meet the 60 stub minimum right now either so it could use a merge for that reason as well. CaerwineCaerwhine04:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that Yugoslavia stubs wasn't on the stub list. I've added it to the History by era section of the list since I'm certain it's suppposesd to an approved stub type. CaerwineCaerwhine04:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong pain in the arse. Oh yeah, you wanted something actionable, rather than a general complaint... Delete. I was rather suspicious of the depopulation, but it seems to have been as a result of more (highly predictable) silliness over Kosovo (Kosovo! Serbia! Albania! None of the above!), and as these types offer no logical solution to that issue, they might as well just clog up Euro-geo-stub for a little longer. Rescope Yugo-stub to cover all the various now-historical salami-sliced successor states, as well as the Cold War era origina. 21:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It's called "Balkanisation" for good reasons! The mystery of the kosovo-geo-stubs has been solved, BTW - as a compromise they're being kept in the main Europe geography stubs catgory. At least all sides seem to agree that Kosovo's in Europe. And with only 25 or so stubs there's litle need of a separate template yet. Grutness...wha?00:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the issue of not being "D" yet, what had you in mind as "N": the discussion, the template, or the political entity? Alai02:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reason for the temp now that SaM dissolved. All articles relating to both SaM are being split between Serbia and Montenegro <the countries not the union country>. -- Crna Gora08:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the country is no more and the categories are nearly emptied. Even if the country stub category could somehow miraculously fill itself up, the geography stub category is completely passe and should be speedily deleted. --Joy [shallot] 23:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't look! Try to guess first what this stub might be to do with. No? It feeds into the never-proposed (but pretty well populated) ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:São Tomé and Príncipe stubs. The template name is atrocious - renameto{{SaoTome-stub}}. NB - it also has some coding which seems to do some annoying "bottom-forcing", causing the sfd-t message to appear above other templates where there's double stubbing. I'm going to try to fix that, but my knowledge of code isn't brilliant, so... Grutness...wha?02:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would have guessed that it had something to do with Richard Petty myself. I think I fixed the template code problem. It was due to not providing the proper endtags, something that unfortunately is not a problem confined to only this stub template, so it likely was in the one they used as a guide. Agree with the rename, but a redirect from {{SaoTomePrincipe-stub}} would probably be a good idea. CaerwineCaerwhine04:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All unproposed, all by the same editor, almost all vastly undersized, almost all incorrectly named. given the spaces in the template names). Delete all but the last, which rename per the NGs. Alai03:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename any which get close to threshold by the end of this debate as per NG - delete the rest (or at least upmerge). I doubt any but NS will make it, but you never know. Grutness...wha?04:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but Rename as necessary). I suspect that there are plenty of stub articles that belong under these stubs, but someone has not taken the time to apply them to the appropriate articles (which, I'll admit, is a big job). That is the kind of job I am happy to help with, but it certainly isn't an easy one. Agent 8600:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be radically opposed to upmerging (i.e., keeping the template, fed into the Canadian stubs for the time being) if someone wants to try to populate them, But given that some of them are used all of twice, with one of those being a triple-stubbing that'd be better off back in the parent type, I really amn't holding my breath. Alai01:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've already tackled New Brunswick, and I don't think the results were all that bad for the little time I had available to work on it. However, the folks are in town and it's the first time in forever that I've seen the old man on Father's Day that I doubt I'll be spending much more time on it this weekend. Agent 8601:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to sound as if I was cracking the whip. :) As I say, I'd have no objections to keeping the template, say with a view to revisit in a month or so. Alai02:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Manitoba, PEI and NB could be merged into Canadian Maritimes stubs? The three territories could be merged into Canadian territory stubs as well. Manitoba should be kept. BoojiBoy13:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Follow Up. I assume BoojiBoy meant merging NS, PEI and NB together. In any event, in addition to New Brunswick, I've now updated articles with the PEI stub, and think all three stubs ought to remain. Manitoba ought to be its own stub. (I haven't checked to see if the other two prarie provinces have their own stubs). As for merging the territories, I haven't looked at the number of articles for any of those areas, but if the numbers don't warrant it, some sort of Canadian territories stubs is worth consideration. (The PEI and NB stubs still need to be fixed so that the spaces are removed, but I'll leave something for someone else!) Agent 8622:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed he meant that too. PEI is fine now, so by all means keep that, but the remainder are still very undersized. (Aside from NB, which is still distinctly so.) If these don't grow, they're really not viable as they stand, and are pretty marginal even if merged along those lines. Alai01:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think what I've been able to do in the last while demonstrates these have merit. In fact, I'm thinking that I might even propose stubs for Alberta and Saskatchewan (in the proper manner, unlike how these nominees came to be). Agent 8608:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see more of these waxing thresholdwards. I'd imagine the two you mentioned are quite likely to be populable (though a size guestimate would be handy), given that the smaller provinces seem to have turned out to be. I'm far from convinced that necessarily makes the territorial ones numerically viable -- they're not even obviously so if they were merged, unless there's significant numbers left to find. Alai20:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It was a real time sucker, and just feeding into my tendancy to procrastinate about real life! I might be waning a bit on this project for a little bit, if only because the dead end pages have become my obsession du jour. I think I'll wait a bit before proposing {{Alberta-stub}} and {{Saskatchewan-stub}}. Agent 8603:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed the Manitoba stub template was never affixed with the {{sfd-t}} template. I have added it now. I assume it was overlooked in error. Agent 8615:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Must have been, unless I was subliminally thinking upmerge, rather than template-deletion (which would have been plausible, though not how I nominated it). Alai20:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Worse case senario... merge and create "Canadian Maritime Provinces stub" and "Canadian Territories stub". DMighton18:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the {{Northwest Territories-stub}} is also tagged as being nominated for deletion, but was not listed as a part of this discussion. If it is kept, it should be renamed according to the usual standards. In any event, the current counts for the three provincial stub categories in this proposal ought to suffice so that the nominations for those stubs can be closed (as "Keep"). The NWT category has a respectable number, leaving only the Yukon and Nunavut (I haven't done much work on either, yet). A proposal for their merger with NWT might be in order, but I'm happy to leave them as-is. Agent 8618:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep any that are sufficiently close to threshold - upmerge the others back into Canada (keep and re-point the templates) - as is surely standard practice by now in this sort of situation, or, if they will reach threshold, separate territories/maritimes combinations as per DMighton. Rename the malformed "Northwest Territories-stub", "Prince Edward Island-stub", "New Brunswick-stub" and "Yukon Territory-stub", and delete the malnamed "Nova Scotia-stub" redirect. Grutness...wha?23:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename for all. Just because some of these categories are not heavily populated yet does not mean that they won't be or otherwise have no value. The Canada stubs are dauntingly overcrowded, so these divisions are useful in making the work more approachable and manageable. —GrantNeufeld09:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I discovered this one today. It is actually used on 60+ articles and I've cleaned up the code, but is oddly named and w/o a cat. Suggest a renameto{{IsleofMan-stub}} (which will match Grutness' recent -geo-stub proposal.) Valentinian(talk)17:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy rename/cat fix - as you pointed out, IsleofMan-geo-stub is currently proposed at WP:WSS/P. I thought this one had been renamed and dealt with ages ago (ISTR it was discovered several months back). Grutness...wha?00:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Resplendent in its Catalan name at present, this should by any reasonable criterion be under a common name in English. (It's also unproposed and undersized, btw.) Alai15:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously undersized. Smallest of a batch that are < 60, and while there was generalised discussion of splitting Spain-geo-stub, I don't think ever explicitly proposed. Upmerge, keeping template. Alai16:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another cryptic and ambiguous stub name. The stub type was properly proposed, but the template name was an afterthought and created without debate. Large enough to keep, so a rename to remove the ambiguity that TES has. CaerwineCaerwhine19:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. As long as you don't delete it outright (as some already proposed), I'm OK with renaming it to remove the ambiguity. --Koveras07:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's standard naming procedure for stubs (although how that started I've no idea). basically we don't use spaces in template naes, and if it was Elder-Scrolls-stub it would mean it was a specific type of Scrolls-stub, which it isn't. WP:WSS/NG explains a bit more. Grutness...wha?12:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that these three unused redirects have in common is that they they have languishing on the discoveries page since last October! Only the middle one comes close to meeting the naming guidelines, and frankly it would be far more likely that someone would want to use {{BosniaHerzegovina-geo-stub}} than {{bih-geo-stub}} because they couldn't remember the camelcasing used by {{BiH-geo-stub}}. Delete all three with a possible addition of a {{BosniaHerzegovina-geo-stub}} redirect while we're dealing with these. CaerwineCaerwhine19:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No category, and otherwise malformed; hopelessly cryptic and ambiguous (my guess was natural language processing), only used on three articles. Delete. Alai18:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too few stubs, and way too ambiguous. I could probably support a {{NLP-psych-stub}} if there were enough stubs, as I think the -psych- qualification would remove the ambiguity (but not the crypticness). CaerwineCaerwhine19:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree in principle - slight concerns WRT those US territories in the Pacific currently covered by oceania-stub and oceania-geo-stub, though (Am. Samoa and the like) - how would they be dealt with under this system? Grutness...wha?01:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we even have 60 articles on Ancient Thrace, but many will probably be stubs. It looks like somebody is trying to set up a portal. Does anybody know if a WP exists? Valentinian(talk)10:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have only a little over 250 Ancient Greece stubs and Ancient Thrace is far less well documented. It's probable that there are some articles there that would belong to an Ancient Thrace stub since Thrace was subject to Hellenic influences. Even if we had 60 attested stubs (or 30 with a Wikiproject) the stub should be named {{Ancient-Thrace-stub}}. Unless someone can show enough stubs -- delete. If they can, then rename. CaerwineCaerwhine14:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant stub template has been changed to put the articles into the new category. The old category is now blank and needs deleting. Owain (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a perfect CSD C3 "...category is solely populated from a template..." SeventyThree(Talk) 22:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
correction - someone has split the whole damn lot without proposing any of them! a lot of these will be grossly undersized and will need to come here. Anglesey 31 stubs. Torfaen NINE stubs. Bridgend TEN stubs. This is a complete mess and someone wants a thorough kick up the arse. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard03:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ye ghods - no wonder BL was annoyed - I am too. Twenty-three categories for only about 700 stubs? Most of the categories only have about a dozen stubs. It's a shame that Glamorgan doesn't still exist, or we could moerge several into that, but this looks like a lot of serious upmerging needs to be done. One or two of the categories come close to 60, BTW - I think it's Powys that I noticed was over threshold. For now, upmerge the lot except for the one or two that are over 50. Grutness...wha?03:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using the trad counties systematically would also lead to undersized types in a number of cases. I have no objection to using older (or less formally defined) subdivisions, as long as a) they're at least close to threshold, b) they're reasonably commonly understood, and pretty non-controversial, and c) they don't cut across existing UAs, which would needlessly complicate matters. Alai19:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no it wouldn't, they are much bigger in area than the smallest UAs (Blaenau Gwent, Torfaen, &c), commonly understood, non-controversial, but obviously differ from UA boundaries. In fact since the dawn of municipal government, local authority boundaries have always cut across county boundaries, so I'm not sure why this needs to be a consideration... Owain (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But how many of them are actually above the threshold of 60? Cutting across current local government borders is a deal-breaker, because that's the basis on which other UK (and essentially all other) geo-stubs have been split, so doing Wales differently would cause pointlessly large amounts of confusion, and would make templatising and later splitting by UA unnecessarily difficult. Semi-arbitrary groupings of UAs are OK to an extent, though they're not ideal. A further possibility is the NUTS 3 subdivisions, of which there's 12, so probably they're about half-viable, but at least properly include the UAs. Alai20:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we seem to use 60-65 for creation and 50 or so for deletion a lot, since if something's reached 50 then it's probably not worth deleting it only for it to be at 60 a month later. Grutness...wha?07:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now empty and unused, due to the split of stubs between new categories for the Isle of Man and Channel Islands. No point in keeping this, and ambiguous as a redirect. Delete. Grutness...wha?08:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definite delete on the template, and weak delete on the category since it could be useful as a holding category if there be a corresponding non-stub category, which there does not appear to be. CaerwineCaerwhine05:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned template I discovered some hours ago. It is not being widely used (three articles other than the 8 I tagged before realizing the template was unused), its associated category doesn't exist (Category:DVD stubs), and according to the Stub project, movies are sorted according to genre. [1]ReyBrujo19:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This rename is for two reasons, to give it a template name that encompasses the entirety of what the stub type covers, and provide the basis by analogy for a {{finance-bio-stub}} to help thin out the overlarge business biography stubs. Obviously we should keep {{bank-stub}} as a redirect and maybe even add a {{insurance-company-stub}} as another redirect. CaerwineCaerwhine05:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Central banks are not classified as companies, but several related articles have been using the template in question. The use of "company" in the new template and the redirecting of the original bank stub may exempt central bank articles and complicate stub sorting. I would like to see an assessment of what can be done to address this, perhaps the creation of a new template designated for government based-banks. ? ???RingADing?18:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC) ?[reply]
State-owned enterprises use the company series of stubs (altho with exception of {{India-company-stub}} the templates don't explicitly mention that fact). Central banks are not even neccessarily state-owned. So I don't see any need for excluding central banks from the revised stub type on that basis. However, I'm not necessarily opposed to a central-bank-stub, tho I think a country-based rather than a function based split would be more productive. CaerwineCaerwhine03:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support; sounds good to me. Something like "Finance organization" would possibly take care of the central bank issue, but probably opens up a whole new can of worms. --Spangineer[es](háblame)18:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could an admin please close this and the category rename below ASAP? There is a proposal for a US specific version that is awaiting the results of these two SFD's. CaerwineCaerwhine04:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've swapped things over, but there seems to be a page caching problem or something - none of the articles have swapped over to the new categories yet. Grutness...wha?05:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to frequently be the case, and for apparently completely unpredictable lengths of time. (Perhaps the "auto-null-editing" feature is load-managed, or something like that (total guesswork).) If it's more serious than that, and they're still "stuck" come tomorrow, I'll run my cybernetic counterpart over the old category to null-edit the semi-old-fashioned way. Alai05:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On balance, I'm thinking not; my bot's still running without a flag (which I think is rather poor, given how standard, straightforward and simply-scoped it is), and we've had abuse on a number of occasions for "needless" retemplatisations. Running currently to 'touch' the category. I was surprised the category-lag still seemed to be in effect overnight, which probably just goes to show how off-base I was with my diagnosis. Alai17:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The saga continues: the last few entries in the category are actually "hand-categorised". I'll remove these with AWB. But... one of the articles is currently unsavable, due to a false positive on the spam blocklist. Is there a meta admin in the house? Alai20:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done; whitelisted the offending link locally instead. Old category eventually emptied, and deleted. Alai21:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really created template, but it was quickly deleted without discussion, so it's worth a least a look. It's been used in seven WalMart-related articles but it seems too specific. Typically, companies are organized by branch or by country, but there is the company-specific stub category for template:Disney-stub. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this was deleted correctly - although the stubs marked with it should have been re-stubbed with legitimate stubs! Disney-stub is a bit of an anomaly, since it originally tied in with the splits of TV stations and film types, but expanded to cover the entire Disney empire. Grutness...wha?11:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)�[reply]
Given the smallish size of this category (and the related template {{library-stub}} from the discoveries page, and the fact that a number of the existing stubs already require the broader scope, how about making it official with a change of name (and of its non-stub parent)? CaerwineCaerwhine14:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've only nominated changing the name of the category, not the template. If we were to rename the template as well then removing two hyphens from your idea to give {{libraryinfosci-stub}} would be more in keeping with the naming guidlines, but I really don't see the need. If we ever do breakout the buildings as a separate stub type, {{library-struct-stub}} would work. More hyphens should mean that you are farther away from {{stub}}, not closer. CaerwineCaerwhine16:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okey dokey, as long as the text in the stub template is modified accordingly, e.g. "This article about library and information science is a stub." Cheers, ♥Her Pegship♥00:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is the template intended for library science or the buildings themselves? Caerwine's comments seem to suggest that it's a mix of both. It's a subtle but important difference. A Library and information science stub would be very useful if it did not include the libraries themselves - similarly there is possibly a case for a stub just for the libraries themselves. Some clever wording would be needed to separate the two, though. Grutness...wha?01:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
etc. (will expand the list later)
Many of these have probably already been listed here. I'll go through this user's edit history to find more stub categories. All in all, this person has created almost 1000 categories in a few hours. AecisAppleknocker Flophouse09:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Taking a look at his efforts, it looks like he was going along at random and creating redlink categories and trying to be helpful by turning them into bluelinks. CaerwineCaerwhine13:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Valentinian. A renamed Eritrea one may be useful, but the current name is lousy (it could just as easily be a redirect for UK-royal-stub, to start with). Grutness...wha?03:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update I've populated the Yemen templates. Both the -bios and the generic template is now used on 54-55 articles. I've been bold and given the bio a proper category, since it definitely seems needed. I've not listed them on WP:WSS/ST though. I wouldn't be surprised if a few more bios could be found in the {{MEast-bio-stub}} and its children. So far, I've not checked the Eritrean material, but I think this one might be too thin. Valentinian(talk)20:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well yes and no - some are split by type if it's deemed useful. This isn't really, since shops would either go into retailing stubs or - if it's a retail complex in the US, into mall stub. I doubt this split would be useful, and the name's pretty ambiguous, too - it could easily be ammunition stores, grain stores, etc. Grutness...wha?03:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too poorly defined. By all means split the name-stubs into forename-stubs and surname-stubs, however. Alai01:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As to its ambiguity, it's worth noting that the one article marked with it was a biography of a specific family (which I moved to an appropriate bio-stub). Grutness...wha?01:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am relisting this so soon because I am of the opinion that this was wrongly logged by the sole opponent of its deletion as no consensus. The previous discussion had 4 people give an opinion and the 3 were in favor of eliminating {{Argentina-sport-stub}} and 1 opposed. Having the sole opponent logging it as no consensus is decidely not kosher. CaerwineCaerwhine19:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename with no redirects since it is clearly above threshold. Precedent is established by e.g. the German material. (This way Argentina will have its template and we will have the consistent name system). Everybody happy? Valentinian(talk)12:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there was some misunderstanding regarding the different format of those supporting the original nomination (in which case the closer is clueless, and shouldn't be meddling with processes they're unfamiliar with), this looks like bad-faith unilateral stroke-pulling (in which case an admin should know better than to perform such stunts). Speedily re-close, resort as nom (whether by renaming or deletion, it's really six and half a dozen), and "have word with" original closer. Alai01:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the previous voting had only 3 votes, one fore rename, one for deletion, and one for keeping. I don't know how do you get the idea I acted in bad faith. If you so strongly want re-structure the Argentine sports stubs even if then they will be less useful to the Argentine contributors, go ahead, but don't go around pointing fingers. I closed the debate becase 8 days had already passed, and I closed it as no concensus because there was not one, so please stop acussing me with nonsenses. Mariano(t/c) 12:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How will a template be "less useful to the Argentine contributors" because it will be named in line with all similar material? This posting is about a rename since the standard name is "(contry name)-sport-bio-stub". A standardised name simply means that users do not have to play "what's the name" to use the templates. Valentinian(talk)12:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is that "(contry name)-sport-bio-stub" doesn't include venues and other non biographical articles, while (contry name)-sport-stub does. BTW, I didn't count the nomination as a vote since it was not implicit. I'm not against doing this for the third time, I was just upset for being accused of not being fair. Mariano(t/c) 08:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is the case, it nevertheless means that three editors believed that the template was problematic. It is not uncommon for the vote to continue a few days longer if no clear consensus emerges quickly (but this practice is not described properly on this page.) It seems a pretty good guess that this case would have been given a few days more consideration had it not been closed so soon. Everybody - please assume good faith. Valentinian(talk)12:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since SPUI decided to be his usual charming self concerning redirects, I'm restubbing the sports people to use the {{Argentina-sport-bio-stub}} redirect so that if it is decided that the concensus is to do the rescope it will be ready to do. CaerwineCaerwhine04:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 I'm astounded. After I finished with Argentina-sport-stub, I decided to also sort Argentina-bio-stub. Considering all the fuss that was raised over this stub, when I just now sorted Argentine-bio-stub, I expected to find only a few more stubs that would go under an Argentina-sport-bio-stub. Make that 73 additional stubs. Not only are there now way more than enough known stubs to populate Argentina-sport-bio-stub, there probably are enough for a separate Argentina-footy-bio-stub, but I'll let someone else worry about doing the count and proposal if they care, since SouthAm-footy-bio-stub is only around 600 stubs and likely has a latent Brazil-footy-bio-stub lurking within it as well. CaerwineCaerwhine05:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
slight delete. I love my fellow Hispanic brothers from Argentina (Vamos Argentinaaa!!!) and all Argentines do is awesome-but out of respect for the flag, I just do not like the half flag image portrayed in this stub's picture. Antonio 33% Puerto Rican heart, 33% Mexican, %33 Argentine 07:55, 5 July 2006
The following is from wWP:WSS/D, courtesy of Aelfthrytha - This category was created last week, was not proposed, is malformed, and contains two stubs. This is aside from the fact that a split of {{US-hist-stub}} has not yet been begun because it isn't needed.
There are only 5 games in the Blaster Master series, and only two articles are this type of stub. I don't see any need for a stub category that will never house more than five articles, especially when other much more famous video game series do not have their own stub types. KingTT03:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete... and you didn't even mention the naming ambiguity problems (how many computer and video games are made in Bermuda?). Grutness...wha?04:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not proposed and feeds into main cornwall cat. had nine stubs, seven of them were geo-stubs and one was a merge candidate. those that were stubs are now marked cornwall-geo-stub as they should have been - but some werent stubs. weve deleted county-stubs in the past and tho cornwall is a bit special it doesnt need a seperate stub. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard01:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite Cornwall's somewhat special status. There is precedent - we've deleted Gloucestershire-stub in the past. Grutness...wha?04:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Been at /D for a while, growing slowly, but certainly too small. Contrary to the consensus on how to split the uni-stubs (i.e. by country/region/subdivision, not by individual institution other than as a last resort in extreme cases), and badly-named. Ideally, upmerge to a to-be-created {{NorthCarolina-university-stub}}; failing which delete; failing which, rename both template and category per the naming guidelines. Alai16:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Testify, brother. These suffer for pretty similar issues, and the two that are viably-sized look dubious to me in that the population seems to be overwhelmingly bio-stubs, and with a distinct suggestion of over-application (such and such played ball for us for a couple of years). Our experience with UTexas-stub might indicate that these are undeletable on "vote" numbers, though. Alai20:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge into state-specific rather than university-specific types if viable, and move the bio-stubs back to where they belong. US-university is getting close to splitting, but this way is ridiculous. And remember Alai that this is not a vote pure and simple... reasoning is as important as actual numbers. Oh, and delete any and all stub categories that use the long-deprecated "-related" tag! Grutness...wha?04:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware that's true in theory, hence the scare-quotes. But when three well-argued, guidelines-citing "deletes" prevail over half a dozen of "I vote keep, because I like it/find it useful/am able to do so", I might actually feel it to be actually true. (Prevailing being, an SFD is closed on such a basis, and we get only moderate levels of dog's abuse over it at DRV, AN/I, yadda-yadda. Alai05:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. Am I going bonkers, or did NawlinWiki just recreate hundreds of articles recently speedied from Imthehappywanderer's category-creation-spree? (At least they seem to have been created more carefully this time.) Alai02:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects to various european stubs, nope a collection of hopelessly ambiguous stub redirects from the good folks of the computer science wikiproject. Delete all with extreme prejudice. CaerwineCaerwhine01:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More fun from the computer science wikiproject. The template is hopelessly ambiguous. At the very least it should be renamed, but with only 21 articles this unproposed stub should likely be deleted. Delete unless better popoulated and even then rename the template to {{compu-ai-stub}}. CaerwineCaerwhine01:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know, artificial insemination, abstract interpretation, Amnesty International. Rename, poke the wikiproject to see if they want to populate it (though I get the impression this is just another Kootism, rather than something the wikiproject at large actually supported), revisit in a while. This should be more than viable if anyone makes the effort: [2]. At worst, upmerge to comp-sci-. Alai03:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidently, the abbreviation isn't as bad as some: note that AI is indeed a redirect to the topic at hand. OTOH, should at the very least be capitalised. (Perhaps have {{compu-AI-stub}} as the canonical template name, with redirects from AI- and compu-ai-.) Alai03:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some random info from someone who's never been here before:
seven days seems like a really short discussion period for something that's mostly getting populated by busy academics
none of the topics currently stubbed out as ai-stubs sound like they are anything other than Artificial Intelligence stubs.
I don't have enough experience to say what effect upmerging has on a field, but I'd say that AI on Wikipedia is surprisingly crap, given that it's a fairly interesting and techy topic. Maybe people who feel qualified to write about it don't think they have time. But I don't see this holding back other areas.
I've created a couple of those stubs (copying off of some other page, sorry I don't remember which) but (also sorry) I don't have time to create an advocacy group / portal / whatever to get more people making more pages. But AI is a real field so it seems to me like you should just leave it alone until it gets 'discovered' or something.
That's the first time I've heard the "systematic bias" pleading used to suggest that a aub-field of computer science is obviously seriously under-represented on an online encyclopaedia, and which I think is pretty much proof positive that we shouldn't pay it too much heed, or else give up or the idea of ever deleting anything as undersized. (Which given the amount of "Keep! For no reason whatsoever related to the stub guidelines! What do the stub-sorting people know about sorting stubs, anyway?!" contributions of one sort or another we get here, might not be far off the case anyway.) Actually, part of the problem is that AI isn't exactly the most crisply defined discipline in the whole world, and there are lots of {{comp-sci-stub}}s like subgoal and pattern mining that AI zealots would claim to be AI, and AI detractors would claim are really more to do with declarative languages, databases, or likewise, formal methods or whatever else. Alai19:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually just cruised around a bunch of pages I've edited and a lot of the ones that used to be ai-stubs aren't anymore, which to me makes it sound like the stub is really very healthy. I don't get the idea of a threshold that needs some fixed number of stubs, because surely that's just proportional to the number of editors. As long as a field is getting steadily built up then the stub widgit is doing it's job, right? Though I acknowledge that it would be harder to keep track of the rate-of-conversion of stubs than to just count how many are there. But if you use the simpler metric you may indeed prune stuff that's worth keeping and worth letting a however-small community communicate about. (You are right about the ill-defined thing, have a look at the pages for AI winter and the lighthill report (linked off of that one). A lot of AI pages aren't even linked to AI... --Jaibe20:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think size of stub category is a pretty good measure of "utility", because for one thing, very small categories are easily managed by other things. It's also likely to be correlated with general activity in that area, unless for some reason creation, sorting, and expansion are radically out of whack. "Stub turnover" would, as you note, be a lot of effort to measure, but in theory yes, if a stub type were very active, but from time or time undersized, it'd be worth keeping; though it's harder still, if not imponderable, to assess whether there's been any additional benefit to splitting it out of a parent that wasn't itself oversized. Many "AI stubs" have clearly been edited significantly when tagged with other types, after all. Alai06:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've populated this without much difficulty from the AI perm-cat, and there's more where that came from. I've also been so bold as to move the template as I suggested above, and remove the SFD notices. If there's no further input on a template name, I'll 'bot the templates over from ai-stub, and delete the redirect. I've avoided lumping in the computer vision, sound processing and whatnot, though they may be otherwise homeless shortly, as these seem less clearcut than the ones I've sorted (machine learning, neural nets, etc). Alai02:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This appears to have been commented on in the June 22nd section below as part of the "Imthehappywanderer" discussion. Road Wizard21:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure this was technically speediable, but then again, maybe a few random shootings will serve to encourager les autres. Certainly deleteable on grounds of gross and indecent levels of ambiguity and crypticness. Alai17:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
just about everything that could be wrong with this is. template is badly named. catagory is badly named. template format had to be fixed to show catagory properly. never proposed. only 10 stubs. mixture of geo-stubs, bio-stubs and neither-stubs but feeds into geo-stub catagory. delete now before anything else can be found wrong with it. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard02:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The parent project, being WikiProject Geelong has 123 articles assessed as being of stub class quality. There may very well be a need for this stub type however I take on board the comments of it being created in a somewhat messy and unproposed way. -- Longhair06:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh great, there's ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Stub-Class Geelong-related articles, too. Is nobody but "us people" (i.e. the oft-scorned stub regulars) convinced that these parallel structures, using the same/similar terminology for things that have never been properly clarified either to actually be the same, or actually different, is pretty much guaranteed to causes this sort of systematic inconsistency, confusion, and general foul-ups? Alai15:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I brought this up at /D back in April, when BL Lacertae wanted it deleted; two months later, it's about time this got sorted out. Parent category Cat:Computer vision has fewer than 100 pages encompassing all its subcategories. I suggest Merge with compu-stub without redirect. –Unint02:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that compu-stub is significantly oversized, I'm loathe to delete this entirely (though it's not clear how much it's helping, either). Perhaps replace with a (properly formed) {{image-processing-stub}}, or something along those lines? [3]. I have a real feeling of deja vu, though: did we already deal with something similar to this? Alai03:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Raccoon Fox 
Talk 
01:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
07:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
