A type that sounds very sensible, but is tiny, has always been tiny, and seems to be if anything shrinking. If this can't be populated', or rescoped, then delete as undersized. Alai 04:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be amazed if this one can't be populated from myth-stub and ancient-Egypt-stub. If it can't, though, perhaps it should be deleted for now and recreated if needed later. Should have a look for some possible stubs first, though! Grutness...wha? 05:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. ive had a look in the gods and goddesses cats and got it up to 50 stubs. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I somehow managed to read that as up to 50 with cat god(desse)s, which I thought was a lot even for Egyptian standards. Nom withdrawn -- but wish I'd listed it sooner! Alai 05:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning feline godsorcategory gods? :) Conscious 07:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps Bastet was also goddess of categories! Grutness...wha? 07:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
good work - certainly looks keepable now. Grutness...wha? 05:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh guys did you have to make even SfD so complicated business? This was created by a new user, I reverted 5 linked pages and told him about the procedure (WP:WSS/P), and made a redirect out of it, but I'll notice you here, as I can't delete the category. So, it can safely be speedied. Duja 21:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep per What this page is not for, it's not for "discoveries," which are supposed to go to WP:WSS/D first, rather than be unilaterally depopulated and proposed here for deletion. I know, I didn't follow the rule (because I didn't know about it) when I created the stub type, but I hope you folks will follow your own rules on this one. A few more pieces of trivia:
Why does this page say that types should be deleted if they have fewer than 50 pages, but elsewhere it says 60?
There are currently 33 entries in Category:Card game stubs which relate to bridge; there are also a few other articles in Category:Bridge which are not categorized as stubs, but could be.
1) Discoveries do occasionally by-pass the discovery page if it's clear they are potential deletion material; 2) the threshold for creating a stub category is 60 - the level for potential deletion is normally 50. However, I'd vote a weak keepiff this can be populated to the sort of level suggested by Matchups. ISTR a similar stub cat was considered 9but not formally proposed) once before (which is the reason why brighes have bridge-struct-stub for their template). It would have been helpful if this had been proposed in the proper way this time, though. Oh, and as to sfd being complicated, it works in exactly the same way as tfd and cfd, and is a considerably simpler process to the old way of dealing with stub types before cfd was up and running! Grutness...wha? 02:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments One shouldn't "revert" stubs before or during SFD, because that assumes that the stub will be deleted, which is not always the case. Also, categories shouldn't be #REDIRECT-ed since that doesn't work. I've corrected the redirection and added the appropriate non-stub parent category in case it is kept. Now this stub has been proposed before with this very template name and a similar category name. I say, let Matchups have an opportuity to populate the stub and see if can be brought to the threshold. When this stub was discussed four months ago, Duja was certain that it could be easily done, so I wonder what caused the change of opinion. CaerwineCaerwhine 02:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I admire your memory Caerwine. At the time, I thought the threshold will easily be reached, but having created a dozen bridge stubs only by myself I realized it won't be easy without help of other editors, but frankly I didn't get too much of it. As for proposing this on SfD and redirecting the bridge-stub, I just thought that it would be simpler to speedy it and restart the proces on WP:WSS/P when/if the threshold is reached. Of course, if Matchups is willing to make few more, I will help and make this a valid stub. IOW, we don't disagree on anything, just I'm not sure which is the proper way to proceed – continuing Matchup's job or just starting from scratch. Duja 14:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments of Matchups and Caerwine. I will also help to populate this category. Bridge is a very complicated, yet very popular card game, and there are currently numerous stub articles related to bridge. I say they should have their own category. Andrea Parton 04:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal. Since not much damage is done (either by me by reverting or by Matchups and Andrea by creating the category), can we:
make {{tl:bridge-game-stub}} a redirection to {{tl:card-game-stub}} (as is now)
attach {{tl:bridge-game-stub}} to appropriate articles (currently around 30)
Oppose speedying anything, as per CW. Suggest we merge if it indeed seems to be undersized, as per Duja's suggestion immediately above, keep if it's going to be 60+. Also consider rescoping to include historical bridge variants, and whist-type games in general. Alai 17:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an editor with interest in and knowledge of bridge, I'd like to be able to find stubs related specifically to bridge. Although I have some curiosity about the historical and modern analogues, they're not articles I'd be likely to expand. On the other hand, I suspect that editors who are not bridge players and are attracted to the parent stub category may be interested in this type of article. Consequently, I believe that rescoping as proposed immediately above would work against the goal of getting articles expanded. * * * BTW, even if we included only players with multiple world championships, well-known conventions, and common and important strategic elements, it would not be hard to find well over the requested threescore of topics. Matchups 03:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understood you 100%. In any case: if you seek for existing uncategorized bridge stubs, you'll hardly find any. There is abundance of topics to write about indeed, but the only way to do increase the number of stubs is to start them from scratch. Duja
Matchups, as per the guidelines 30-odd articles isn't enough for a separate stub type. So the first question is, would you rather pick those out of one-page listing of bridge-and-whist-type-games, or out of Cat:card games stubs, which is -- oh, it's only one page anyway. As you were. Change vote to delete. 30ish is enough for a stub type connected with a wikiproject (hint, hint); though if there were a wikiproject, I'm sure there would be many more than 30 stubs... Alai 16:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that more material exists to this one, so I'm changing my vote to a keep. If it doesn't reach threshold, rescope to include other card games as per Alai. Valentinian(talk) 10:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
---
OK, people, let's cut the crap and put up the sleeves. On User:Duja/Bridge you will find the list of bridge-related red links which deserve articles. The list is of course incomplete – I made it in one pass. So, feel free to ammend it, and feel even more free to create the articles. (Please don't erase the links, they will turn blue once the article is made). Duja 16:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added ten more to Duja's page, and plan to turn some blue this weekend, regardless of what stub type I'm supposed to use. I was thinking that a Wikiproject might be a good idea, but that would require someone more available (and perhaps experienced) than I to get it off the ground. BTW, for those thinking of voting delete, if it does get deleted, it will be back on WP:WSS/P before too long, making poor use of everyone's time. Matchups 03:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The category Bridge (game) stubs now contains 100 articles... And many more to be created according to the list of task on WikiProject_Contract_bridge. JocK 20:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With a mere 11 articles, can it be rescoped? Or populated? Or upmerged in a bifurcated fashion? Who knows. If not, then delete. Alai 23:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the Mexican cuisine, you will see a very long, yet still very incomplete list of Mexican cuisine with numerous redlinks. My opinion is that the category is just currently underpopulated and could easily get 50 or more articles. BlankVerse 08:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another undersized split of the firearms. Surely this one is populable, even if it's unnecessary? Populate, upmergeordelete entirely, I don't much mind which. Alai 23:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The firearms are barely over two listings pages, so there's no particularly urgent need for these at all. I'm prepared to withdraw this if said sorting shows some isgns of taking place and demonstrating actual viability, but not just so that it can languish around a dozen stubs for another couple of months. Alai 15:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tiny population; possibly rescope to Central America/Latin America/the Americas in general? Alai 22:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
never poroposed. A latin american stadium stub would be good tho - there are loads of south american ones, especially argentinian ones. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually ISTR it's Peru with most of the stadium stubs - but yes, rescoping to latin America would be useful. We don't even have Mexico-struct-stub! Grutness...wha? 23:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Created in December, used on 20 articles. The parent category Cat:Filipino people stubs in also undersized, so I propose upmerging. Conscious 16:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This part of the hierarchy indeed seems to have evolved in a rather haphazard manner. Upmerge. Alai 18:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge into Filipino people stubs --G1076 21:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Now up to 45 articles. The parent category is now 60+. Valentinian(talk) 22:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now inclined to make this a weak keep given the new size: anyone else? Alai 22:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the material has grown and some material had not been tagged. Now up to 67 articles so keepValentinian(talk) 23:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not proposed. the parent does need splitting fairly soon but im not convinced this is the best way to do it - other religions are split by sects, biographies and texts and not by what parts of it are a myth and what parts arent. does have a good number of stubs tho, so its only a weak delete. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC) withdrawn. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a POV naming issue here, it could be renamed hindu-deity-stub or something similar. Otherwise it looks like a fairly coherent class of contents. (Obviously for several other major world religions this would be a strong "delete as undersized" if they had a directly analogous stub type...) Alai 00:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there is no need to delete this stub, except that there is a whole deal of subcategorization that is required. There are a good number of stubs, and it's a good thing to put in basic information in an entry and then mark it as a stub. WikiProject Hinduism would greatly benefit from this.:—Karthik.raman 05:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please create all the "regular categories" you wish, but this is not yet large enough to support any possible split as a stub type. Alai 18:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to keep, as I'm not sure these would significantly overlap with other typical splits. They might overlap with sects (I don't know enough about Hinduism to know if much of the mythology is specific to individual sects), and some might be stretched to go into biographies, but other than that I think seperating out mythology would fit with other splits. And it's large enough and hindu-stub needs splitting enough. Mairi 06:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Have you even seen how big the Hinduism stub category is? It's huge. As of right now there's over a hundred hindu mythology stubs. There's also a category and a project dedicated to Hindu Mythology which is extremely big. And it was proposed. Ask Alai. --Dangerous-Boy 08:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
cant find any sign of the proposal at WP:WSS/P (ie the proposals page). and "huge" is relative. we start thinking about splitting stub cats when there are about 600 stubs, which this one is just up to - but most of the splits are when stub cats get to 1000 or more. anyway as i said there are probably much better ways to split this than seperating out myths. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oops sorry - yes it is there. in that case i withdraw this nom. i still dont think its the best way to split them but since its all been approved etc... BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we might want to place a disclaimer from Cat:Hindu mythology in the category page. Conscious 08:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Created in December, used on 11 articles. Splitting comics by topic doesn't strike me as good idea. Conscious 04:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
mmmm. Is Disney a topic or is it the company that makes them? If the latter, then we have DC Comics and Marvel Comics stubs, so why not? It is piteously small, though, so a weak delete unless enlarged. Grutness...wha? 05:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it's a company, the size issue remains. Conscious 16:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are several Disney stubs that could probably be moved to this subtype, CaerwineCaerwhine 17:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis that some sorting effort is better than none, and that some growth potential has been alleged, I'm going to suggest we upmerge. Alai 17:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...keep, weakly, as per CW. Alai 20:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I finished sorting Disney-stubs that fit into this category and brought the category up to 49 stubs. I know it's still small, but with one of its parents being overlarge, weak keep. CaerwineCaerwhine
Sorting Comics stubs brought this up to 68 stubs, so I'm upgrading mmy weak keep to just plain keep. CaerwineCaerwhine 01:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. Conscious 04:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This one needs to be dealt with. Currently, it feeds into Cat:Mumbai and Cat:Maharashtra geography stubs. It looks like it's used for geographical features as well as other items related to Mumbai. It's used on 67 articles. As geographical use seems to dominate, my first-sight suggestion is to rename it to {{Mumbai-geo-stub}} and possibly give it a separate category. Conscious 07:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the way I see it there are two options: 1) move all the geo-stubs back into the Maharashtra category and see whether enough stubs remain for Mumbai-stub to be viable; 2) do what you suggest and turn it into a Mumbai-geo-stub. Personally I'd be happier if the first of those options was the one done, since we haven't been making city-specific geo-stubs unless there is a WikiProject. But given the number of geo-stubs, your suggestion might well be the better one. Is there a Maharashtra-stub (i.e., non-geo)? And/or is there a WikiProject? Grutness...wha? 12:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone please generate an actual actionable opinion on this, please? :) Otherwise I'll toss a coin or two and do either of the above, or delist, or relist, at quasi-random... Alai 22:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As noted elsewhere, this whole hierarchy is named in a way that does very little to resolve the "what kind of 'football', is that Union, League, Gaelic, Aussie Rules, or NFL?" ambiguity, and adds to it confusion by informal reference. To aid international understanding, rename to the unambig "soccer-", throughout, but keep redirects from existing names. Alai 02:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support. Soccer might not be the first word that springs to mind for the sport in many countries, but it's the only name that's internationally understood to always refer to this one sport. Football (and even the colloquial "footy") is sadly a bit too ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 03:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose. I don't think "footy" is so obscure that it cuases confusion. There are a huge number of articles that use this template and its descendents (literally thousands). Are you really prepared to change every single one of them? Tompw 12:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
a few small comments: (1) footy isn't obscure - it's potentially misleading. Where I live, "footy" means Rugby Union (although as a follower of the one true code I know what it really means). Over the ditch "footy" means AFL. (2) the proposal includes the idea of keeping the current names as redirects. Because of this any change of articles to the new name could be done gradually - in many cases when the categories are further split (like the proposed US-soccer-stub on WP:WSS/P at the moment). (3) even if the idea was to change them all over at once, that's what bots are for, so it wouldn't be much of a hassle. Grutness...wha? 13:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose we have been over and over and over this name thing, football is a/the correct name for the sport no matter what else followers of other codes want to call it. Footy is a nice contraction. Bob Palin 05:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good grief. Let's go over (and over and over and over and over) it some more until we end up with a more reasonable result, then. Followers of this code also call it "soccer" (among other things). No other code is called "soccer". Many (many, many, many) other codes are called "football". Many of them may be colloquially referred to as "footy", which may elsewhere be understand as referring to something else, or not understood at all. The categories do not use "footy", and use "football" only as qualified as "soccer". Retention of the existing names as redirects has been stipulated. This is, as the NFL contingent would say, a "no-brainer". If anyone can't stand to type "soccer", and want to continue to use the originals, or to create additional redirects from {{association-football-stub}} or whatever else, no-one would be stopping them. Alai 06:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
careful with that last comment Alai... someone who shall remain nameless may be reading! Grutness...wha? 06:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, was that my hallux I just barraged? Yes, I left that "or whatever else" a little open-ended, lest we end up with a scattergun of different templates for no particular reason. Alai 07:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't like the term "soccer" since it is not European English (yet) but it is still the term most users will recognize. Valentinian(talk) 22:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose in the strongest terms. What will American football stubs become? And then do we need Canadian football, Ausie rule, Gaelic, etc.? Footy is primarily a British term for what North Americans would call Soccer. Most North Americans would associate gird iron with their game before they would assiciate footy with it. Please just leave it as football-stub. --Walter Görlitz 01:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat. In Australia, "footy" is AFL. In New Zealand, "footy" is Rugby Union. In the US, no-one has heard of "footy". But no matter where you are in the world, you'll recognisse the meaning of the word "soccer", even if it is not the primary name for the code. It is that lack of ambiguity which makes it ideal as a stub template name. Grutness...wha? 02:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the basis for this opposition (assuming there is one). Why do you ask about Americal football stubs? I'm not proposing they'd change at all. I'm certainly not proposing that they are moved to "football-" or "footy", if that'd what you're inferring (or indeed, implying), and I'd be strongly opposed to doing so, for much the same reasons I'm opposed to this stub type using either of those names: ambiguity, and scope for confusion. Note it's not possible to "leave it alone as football-stub", since it's not "football-stub". Alai 01:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I originally searched for American Football (and Canadian Football) stubs and did not find them. I took a different tack and found them. I change my opposition. If there is confusion, as there appears to be, creating either a soccer stub or a footy stub is not required. A link on the stub category page or in the football stub alone directing people to the other possible stubs should suffice. Footy is not a common term and obviously has alternate meanings as well, so you're not clearing the matter up. Soccer is not commonly used either, but it would be my choice if there was extremely stron opposition to keeing it as a football stub. --Walter Görlitz 18:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Although I do not like the term soccer, the term football is a bit ambiguous. Soccer-stub would be a more accurate stub type. --Siva1979Talk to me 11:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONGLY OPPOSE - Leave it the way it is. For the last time, please!. Brysull 2006-04-13T07:26-5:00
OPPOSE - I'm new to this debate, so forgive me if this is old ground. I think trying to decide between slang terms as the basis for the stubs is unencyclopaedic. I think the only way to ensure unambiguity is to have 'Association Football' as a stub, and also 'Australian Rules Football', 'American Football', and any other formal names. Footy and soccer are localised slang terms. Many British and some European people will actually take offense at the use of 'soccer' for what they/we call 'football'; and 'footy' can be spelled differently (footie) and has almost as many meanings as football anyway. If we're going to do this, I think we should give each sport its proper name, then do redirects where people search using slang terms. Duncshine 12:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is 'American Football' called "football"? the ball is 'hand-carried' all the way down the field and if the ball actually touches the ground(a fumble), all play is stopped. Should it not be called handball, to be more correct? 68.160.61.116 15:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Soccer" is as colloquial as "footy", and "football" or an alternative spelling is recognised over most of the non-English-speaking world. If you're going to rename every subcategory (and don't forget it doesn't actually appear in the article text anyway), it should be to "association-football-stub" Cedders 15:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Come on, how many times? Budgiekiller 18:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this is the first time this has ever been at sfd. Grutness...wha? 23:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Again and again and again... Can't you guys get a life and stop beating this dead horse? Nanouk 18:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this is the first time this has ever been at sfd. Grutness...wha? 23:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This ridiculous name discussion has been all over wikipedia, numerous times. It's old, tiresome, and it won't get better with repeating it again and again. Go and work on some articles instead, do something useful. --Nanouk 06:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Might I remind you of WP:CIVIL? FWIW, if you're interested (which no doubt you aren't) without people sorting stubs chances are Wikipedia would not be usable at all now (so it is fairly useful). Making stub templates easily comprehensible to all editors is a vital part of that job, and as such is useful - far more useful than opposing it on the grounds that you prefer to use one name over another. Using colloquialisms that are not universally understood for the names of stub templates defeats the objective of making them universally understandable. If you could prove that no English-speaking countries think of sports other than association football when they hear the word "Footy", then keeping the current names would be perfectly acceptable. But you can't, because it's not true. Now, if you are willing to argue to the points raised, rather than insulting people, feel free. If you just intend to be insulting, take it elsewhere. Grutness...wha? 07:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not insulting, I'm just suggesting to do something else than trying do drag people into this argumentum ad nauseam. Have a nice day, Nanouk 12:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, hopefully for the last time. – Elisson•Talk 18:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is.CTOAGN (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Football" refers to only one thing to the rest of the world and that is what's academically named "association football". Think Asia, Africa, Latin America &c.. --Pkchan 03:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Don't quite see what everyone has against redirects. Or even if anyone voting oppose even knows it is about redirects. BTW, this is footy - Nomadic1 05:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, the word "footy" is completely alien to most contributors from e.g. Continental Europe (just to give an obvious example), so the current situation is rather crappy. Nobody is suggesting a grouping of the European, American, or Australian games into the same category, so don't worry about that scenario. Problem is that "soccer" is *the* internationally recognized word, nomatter if some of us personally hate the term. Valentinian(talk) 15:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Everytime I hear the word "soccer" I scream. Football (soccer) is bad enough. Don't make it any worse. Oh, and by the way, "footy" is equally horrible! fchd 11:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename based on common usage arguments given above. Also, "footy" just sounds ... strange. --TheParanoidOne 12:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose - Just saw the rename proposal on the stub itself, and oppose the use of soccer to describe it. Association football stub may be acceptable, but even in that case this would need discussion. Footy stub has been in use so long why change it? There has been no prob before, and looking through the discussion the other forms of football don't have stubs so why the bother? - Master Of Ninja 19:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - There were no real oppose-arguments except "argh, the word soccer is horrible" (POV, shouldn't influence (re-)naming of templates), and "argh, why do we have to change it" (well, this is a wiki, it is changing - get over it) - soccer (or association football) is the only two internationally known words for this. /AB-me (chit-chat) 01:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Football (and footy) is an international term for the sport and shouldn't be changed due to regional oppinions. Besides, there's a ball right in the template, anyways, how hard is it to see that? I don't really want to change the hundreds of football related articles, either. Useless Fodder 03:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Football" is an international term -- and not what the template is currently called, so that needn't detain us here. "Footy" is considerably more "regional" than "soccer", and is simply not a generally accepted descriptor of the topic: it fails to appear in Football (soccer)at all, much less being a bold alternative title, as is "soccer". You are not being asked to change hundreds of articles, either, so that's hardly grounds for opposition. The presence of an image in the template is neither here nor there: that works just as well as a justification for calling it {{farble-stub}}. Next time I nominate this for renaming, I'll be sure to suggest {{association-football-stub}} as the target, since the amount of frankly baseless opposition the word "soccer" clearly provokes is truly epic. Alai 04:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't actually saying that I would be changing anything. It was meant to be read as a response to the previously stated problem of changing all of the articles that use this template. Also, why don't we just call for a change to football? I believe that would make many happy, anyways, though the use of football instead of footy in the stub also works, anyways. Useless Fodder 04:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking personally I'd just like rid of the ridiculousness of "footy", and would have no complaints about "football-stub" (which I only just realized actually does exist, as a redirect). But this is an international project, so just as I try to prevail upon US editors not to insist on US-specific usages of words such as "watershed", non-MoS punctuation, etc, it seems problematic to insist that one usage of the word football prevail over that of what's very likely to be a majority of users here of the word to mean something else. (To say nothing of the other majority usages.) But if no-one has complained about the redirect (and all while the NFLers have to type {{americanfootball-stub}}...), perhaps it'll fly... Alai 05:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time, really: Football is the internationally recognized term for the game. It's used by FIFA, the Olympic Committee, and all around the world. "Soccer" on the other hand is a completely artificial and meaningless word, born out of US imperialism, with no foundation, no base, in the game itself. And don't even try to suggest that the "majority" of users here are worshippers of US imperialism. This is not the US-Wikipedia, and it is also not restricted to native speakers of the English language. If you want to use generalisations, then I'd dare to say that most of the people worldwide understand quite well which kind of game is commonly associated with the word "football" - even in countries where rugby and other codes are also popular. Especially when the stub clearly shows the picture of a football, and is only used in football articles, and has a very specific text which exactly describes it's purpose. Come on, this is just ridiculous, to suggest that a significant part of editors can really get confused with the stub. If you really insist, then rename it to football-stub, if you must. Though I still don't see the point. I'm not from the UK, but still I had no problem with using "footy-stub", as it's clearly obvious what it means. But definitely stay away from "soccer" or any other US-terms. --Nanouk 22:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the term soccer comes from association football to distinguish it from rugby football, its etymology dating back to around 1890 or so. The abbreviation for each code would have been assoc and rugger but socca seemed more appropriate and was thus adopted, way back when. But it's still awful. Budgiekiller 08:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support as soccer seems to be the only unambiguous, common term. Even football-stub would be better than footy-stub, as it's still ambiguous, but less obscure. Mairi 05:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but do keep the redirects, as somebody, somewhere, will still instinctively use the word "footy". — Apr. 19, '06 [08:33] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Oppose, "soccer" is a term used only in the US, whereas "football" is the official recognized term. No way. --Angelo 20:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only eight articles - never likely to reach threshold, never proposed, no category. delete. Grutness...wha? 12:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then how about you add more stuff to it before deleting it? The Goosebumps section list over 60 books that need to be given entries, so chances are the stub will probably used again in the future. Don't delete.--CyberGhostface 14:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Far too narrow. Stub types are for where there's at least 60 existing articles, not 60 possible articles (even assuming those merit articles). Delete. Alai 17:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are several stubs which have less than 60.--CyberGhostface 20:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not through want of trying on my part. Alai 20:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'll get to work on increasing the category.--CyberGhostface 20:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Scope too narrow, and still only 26 stubs despite efforts to populate it. --TheParanoidOne 11:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49 now. I'll add more if you need it.--CyberGhostface 22:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should see how AFD-proof the first batch of one-line-articles-with-no-evidence-of-separate-notability are before we turn out more? Alai 09:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There have been quite a few one-line articles in that section that others have expanded on. People are more likely to contribute to articles if there is an existing one in its place. And considering Goosebumps was once one of the most popular children's series, I do think they have some notability.--CyberGhostface 16:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting there should be no articles on the topic, just a bit skeptical about one-per-book. A merged article would surely be more useful, given the current contents. Still, I'm not sure I want to upmerge this lot into another stub-type, and deleting or merging them isn't our business here, so change of vote to extremely feeble and ennervated keep. Alai 00:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I need to know how to act to close this one out. What stub type shall I upmerge to? --Cyde Weys 22:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't bother; there's not really a consensus to delete. Let's revisit this in a month or three, and if it still contains 60 one-line stubs, merge those articles vigorously. Alai 22:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As said on the proposal page, I'll buy a redirect if that'll make everybody happy, but the template should still be moved to a consistent name. Valentinian(talk) 17:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be *ultraultra* correct, it should be {{MecklenburgWesternPomerania-geo-stub}}, with one m. Rather this one than Vorpommern, since the other stubs use the English names as well. But simply Mecklenburg is fine with me too. Markussep 20:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about Pomerania being with one M :) (switching between three languages messes things up). According to Talk:Vorpommern the German version is also used on the English part of the 'net, but I'm happy with either one. Valentinian(talk) 20:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to keep the redirect, on the off-chance I ever need to type this monster, but I'm fine with renaming it, as nominated. Alai 23:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please please please don't make us type {{MecklenburgWesternPomerania-geo-stub}}! That would really be too much, and naming it {{MecklenburgVorpommern-geo-stub}} is highly inconsistent, since all the others are under their English translations (Saxony-geo-stub, not Sachsen-geo-stub, etc.). We know that there's more to the Bundesland than just Mecklenburg, but it's so much easier this way. The stub template's title is only supposed to be a mnemonic, not an authority. {{Mecklenburg-geo-stub}} is the best option, and until an embittered Western Pomeranian shows up, I see no reason to change it. With the other Länder, there were reasons of ambiguity (we could hardly abbreviate SaxonyAnhalt-geo-stub to Saxony-geo-stub, since Saxony is a different Bundesland, or RhinelandPalatinate-geo-stub to Rhineland-geo-stub, since the Rhineland is something different, or BadenWurttemberg-geo-stub to Baden-geo-stub, because there are many places called Baden); here there are none. --Stemonitis 06:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, what final action shall I take? --Cyde Weys 22:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for good measure, I've created the third-nominated variant: I don't see any consensus for deleting or mass-moving any of them, at this point. Alai 22:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not proposed and created 1 month ago about a "country" not recognized by even a single nation in the world. Used on a mere 7 articles. DeleteValentinian(talk) 22:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No country has officially recognize it, that's why officially it doesn't exist. --Andrei George 12:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above opinion is from a banned sock of permabanned user Bonaparte. Transnistria may not be officially recognized at this point in time, but it is a bit over to top to tell it's 600,000 inhabitants that their country doesn't exist. - Mauco 00:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Transnistria (which declared independence in 1990) is in the process of seeking international recognition. Today, as a matter of fact, the acting chairman of OSCE arrived in the country's capital. Also, the fact that it is used on a mere 7 articles is not an argument for deletion but merely a reflection of the stub being created just a month ago. - Mauco 23:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering when you'd turn up. The problem is that you've apparently not read a single word of the correct procedure for creating stub templates (WP:WSS/P#Proposing_new_stubs_-_procedure). 1) Well established practice says that only internationally recognized countries are assigned stub templates (former countries like Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and the Roman Empire are also allowed). See WP:WSS/ST for a full list. 2) A stub template must be used on at least 60 articles. Smaller categories are merged into larger units. 3) It is using a POV flag, which is a bad thing. Valentinian(talk) 23:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree. This cuts badly across the idea of NPOV re stubs, which go by internationally recognised countries. Grutness...wha? 08:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV isn't really the issue. The Transnistria articles, like the rest of Wikipedia, are generally NPOV. Those that are not are in fact quite harsh on the country (adopting the Moldovan POV). Nor is recognition an issue, as shown by, for instance Category:Western_Sahara_stubs, Category:Palestine_geography_stubsorCategory:Taiwan_stubs so on this basis it is Keep. Now, it would be helpful to get some more of the experienced Transnistria editors to chime in, too, because there are a few misconceptions about the status of the country in Wikipedia. It already has a long history of being included in all Wikipedia country lists as a separate entity: Under politics, sovereign countries, national flags, currencies, etc. The flag thumb is shown, too, and not called a "POV"-flag. In fact, it is the first time I have ever seen this discussed. - Mauco 09:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The comparisons with Western Sahara, Palestine and Taiwan aren't really valid ones. Taiwan and Palestine both have authorities which control their territories that are recognised by a significant part fo the international community. As for Western Sahara, it did have its own authority and is regarded by the UN as a separate territory, albeit a non-self-governing one. As for Transnistria, as the infobox on the page says: "International recognition - none". A better comparison is our deliberate lack of separate stubs for Turkish Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, Chechnya, and Kosovo. The last one in particular is worth noting, since stub types relating to Kosovo were created without proposal and brought here not that long ago, for exactly the same reasons that this stub type is listed here at SFD. Grutness...wha? 14:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grutness, thanks for the good input. I was unaware of the Kosovo stub and you certainly have a point. You obviously know a lot more about stubs than I do. My specialty is public international law and I also happen to know the Transnistrian conundrum exceedingly well, too. At present, the country is on its way to fully recognized sovereignty. Two news items from yesterday alone: 1. OSCE's acting chairman arrived in the country's capital to discuss this issue with its Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2. Russia approved a $150 million loan to Transnistria with the government of Transnistria as the sole guarantor (thus recognizing its sovereignty to enter into financial state to state commitments). There are thus significant differences between Kosovo (which is under U.N. protectorship) and Transnistria (which is de facto independent and ruled by its own government). It may also be useful for us to compare the extent to which other Wikipedia editors routinely include (or fail to include) Kosovo and Transnistria on such lists as politics, sovereign countries, national flags, currencies, etc. If not decisive, it does indicate the distinct status of Transnistria. - Mauco 17:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear that you know a lot about the region, and I have no objection to the "ordinary" category Cat:Transnistria. No problem with that one at all, and it's great you have a lot of material to add. The problem is simply that one stub type can set a precedent in similar cases, and we're really trying to avoid all sorts of problems with other hotspots around the world - e.g. Chechnya, the TRNC, Kosovo, Abkhasia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland, Xinjiang, etc etc, since templates relating to these regions risk becoming the battleground of edit wars. By the same standard, we're trying to avoid stub templates sorting people according to ethnic groups / "races" (or sex for that matter). This is why we've made internationally recognized borders the backbone of the current system. Valentinian(talk) 21:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I certainly see the potential for problems (both as a new Wikipedia editor and as a practioner of public international law). Disregarding the flag for now (which I suggest we discuss after we know if this stub category can stay or not), Alai already made Transnistria a subsection under Moldova. I know already that this "Solomonic" solution will be acceptable both to Moldovans and Transnistrians in general. As far as Wikipedia pracices are concerned, my suggestion is to think along the lines of Category:Land_of_Valencia_stubs and possibly also require that anything geographical be double stubbed, as they do. - Mauco 23:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the template stays, I believe everything and everyone associated with Transnistria should be double-stubbed with the similar Moldova-stubs. Otherwise, Wikipedia can be accused of taking sides in this conflict. Valentinian(talk) 15:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, a lot of Transnistria stubs weren't tagged. Some of us are currently cleaning that up. So far, there are 72 pages in the Transnistria section of the Moldova category (it is a subsection under Moldova). - Mauco 09:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the flag. I'm quite sure people in Moldova consider it to be POV. Wikipedia has editors from virtually every country in the world. Categories for Transnistria is another matter (Wikipedia also has those for the TRNC and Nagorno-Karabakh), but stub templates / stub categories are run by stricter guidelines than ordinary categories. There's no problem that you have a category, the stub category is the problem. Besides, if you have 72 articles in total, I don't think 60+ of them will be stubs. ("stub" = a very very short article). If that is the case, it'd be the first time I've seen such a percentage. Valentinian(talk)
Flag: Editors of Category:Western_Sahara_stubs had the same concern, as can be seen from the template's Talk page. They debated substituting the flag for an outline map of the area, and eventually just removed it altogether. So we can discuss the merit of including the flag, but let us first seek consensus on whether the stub itself will stay. - Mauco 13:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you say that a lot of them weren't tagged, and that they're a "subsection" of the Moldavan category, it would seem more accurate to say that a lot of them didn't exist 24 hours ago, and that it's only a subcategory because I added that supercat very recently. Creating a stub type without proposing it, when its current population is well below any sensible threshold, and with a POV categorisation as if it were a de jure separate country is clearly problematic, even if fixable after the fact. Alai 20:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are adding a few more now, but yesterday a simple text search in Wikipedia on Tiraspol and Transnistria yielded 50+ existing stubs that weren't tagged for Transnistria. And it is great that you did the supercat (thanks) because then even those who see Transnistria as a region of Moldova, rather than as a separate entity, will feel OK. As for the other issues, please assume good faith because some of us know a lot about the subject matter but next to nothing about stubs. They key here are the words fixable after the fact. - Mauco 20:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a wiki, almost everything is "fixable after the fact", the question is a cost/benefit one. Deleting the whole thing as unnecessary, and a likely source of edit wars is another option for "fixing after the fact". Why do you assume I'm assuming bad faith? AGF does not mean "never criticise anyone's actions". You say "those who see Transnistria as a region of Moldova" as if they are a minority, whose sensitivities it may be permissible to placate: wouldn't that be the position of every country, and of every international organisation? Alai 04:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The status is being negotiated right now, but that is moot if we let Transnistria stay as a subsection under Moldova (which is something that both sides can agree on, as well as international orgs, countries, etc). As for edit wars, let's just cross that bridge when we get to it. As an editor of Transnistria related subjects I can tell you that Transnistria isn't really an edit-war magnet. We get some of that on the main Transnistria page, but almost never anywhere else - not even on "heated" subjects such as War of TransnistriaorDisputed status of Transnistria. In fact, most of the edit wars are usually about Romanians calling Moldovans in Transnistria Romanians and Moldovans then reverting that (the arguments being between Romanians and Moldovans, not between Moldovans and Transnistrians. The latter two groups get along surprisingly well, at least on Wikipedia). - Mauco 12:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least that sounds somewhat positive. Sorry, but I'm still very worried about setting a precedent. Valentinian(talk) 23:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons as explained above. --StabiloBoss 20:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Valentinian, I share your concern, as I think that I stated above (on 21 April). It is not so much an issue with Transnistria, where the status is in the process of being settled and where both sides usually get along, even on hot topics like the ones named above or History of Transnistria, as a look on the history of those pages will show. The concern would be for truly disputed places like, for instance, Abkhazia with a much higher number of deaths and IDP's in the past conflicts. In the past few days, I have discussed this with one of the Abkhazia editors and came to the conclusion that political criteria (how "hot" or "cold" a place is) should be avoided, because if we start down that road then we are applying value judgments which will ultimately boomerang back on us later. Rather, we prefer to have Transnistria be a subcategory under Moldova until such time that Transnistria is widely recognized internationally as not a part of Moldova. Reasons: 1. to call Transnistria a country would invite unneeded edit wars, 2. to delete Transnistria altogether and replace it with Moldova-flag and -stub would be incorrect, as it wouldn't match the facts on the ground (and it would create edit wars), whereas 3. To classify Transnistria as a geographical region under Moldova, and have the category be a subcategory under Moldova, is the current status quo both in Wikipedia and in Transnistria itself. - Mauco 01:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there are also stub types for divisions of countries such as Catalonia, the Aaland Islands, etc. For this reason, I think that, for example, having a stub type for Chechnya or Kosovo would be a good idea, because they are territories (all the republics of Russia can have their own stub types, as can Vojvodina, etc.) Additionally, I would agree with having a Transnistria stub type, since stub types do not necessarily indicate sovereignty (again, one can make a stub type for Bihor County or for Cornwall). I think we should simply use the specificity principle here - if categorising an article as a Transnistria stub is more specific than as Moldovan stub, we should use it. If someone creates 100 stubs on streets in Tiraspol, the organisation should become even more specific, with a stub type for Tiraspol. Ronline✉ 08:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ronline - yes, some subnational stubs exist, but often only as geo-stubs, and for very good reason in each instance. In each case, the parent category for the country was so big that splitting by subnational region made perfect sense - any country with over 600-700 stubs is split that way, so long as the regions within it that have their own categories each have over 65 stubs. Moldova doesn't come remotely close to that level of stubbing. So yes, the US's 3000 geostubs were divided by state, and the UK's 3000 were divided by county, and yes, there have been the starts of splits for the 1000+ stubs relating to the geography of Russia, France and Germany. But please note that for the most part non geo-stubs (e.g., Gloucestershire-stub) have either 1) not been created, 2) been deleted once discovered, or 3) in rare instances are kept - usually if there is a specific wikiProject relating to that area. The main reason why subnational regions are rarely split off is because for the most part once a group of stubs are split by nation, it makes far more sense to split further by subject matter in other ways. Thus we might have US-stadium-stub, or India-politician-stub, or Japan-rail-stub. It makes little sense to split further by subnational region when it's easier for editors for stubs to be orthogonally split by nation and subject matter. What's more, those subnational regions with non-geography stubs which have been kept are all ones which are stable and agreed on at a national level by the national governments in a stable situation, with no irredentist/independentist groups disputing the borders/sovereignty/status of the areas concerned. Please also note the hassles which have surrounded Kosovo-geo-stub (a summary of the situation can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Template:Kosovo-geo-stub - these give a strong and clear indication of why having stubs for disputed areas is generally a bad thing. Grutness...wha? 09:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a bad thing, but the cure may be even worse if it means putting the Moldova flag on stubs which deal 100% with Transnistria. That (whose flag Transnistria is under) is a sore point for Transnistria, but not so much for Moldova. This is because Moldova lets Transnistria fly its own flag just as they let the autonomous region of Gagauzia also fly its own flag. If we remove any mention of Transnistria, and replace it with the word Moldova, that would not only invite more conflict but would also in many cases even be outright misleading; especially in bio-stub cases where, in some cases, political leaders weren't even born in Moldova. Note also that in Transnistria you now have a new generation coming of age which was born under independence. Putting a Moldovan flag on these people who have never in their life been subject to Moldovan jurisdiction would indicate POV, especially if we know better and if we already know which solution that will satisfy both sides. Considering the alternatives, I therefore still vote for keep even though I fully understand your concerns and even share them myself. - Mauco 13:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
William, your input in this is very valuable. There are very few people who know about the situation in Transnistria accurately, and that clouds a lot of judgement. In fact, I would personally like to know more about this territory. I agree that there should be stub types for Transnistria, even if as a subgroup of Moldova, because clearly its affairs and subject matter are different to that of (the rest of?) Moldova. If it's useful to people to have a Transnistria category that they can look through for Transnistria-related articles, then it's also useful to have a Transnistria stub type/category. Ronline✉ 13:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. This category is a better way to organize stubs about Transnistria than to include them directly in "Moldova stubs". The category has more than 80 articles now and many of them (e. g. political parties) in my opinion just don't fit in "Moldova stubs" or any other category. --Zserghei 14:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. The nomination is motivated by political reasons which IMO should be rejected outright as non-encyclopedic without wasting time for further discussion. Any valid topic has an inherent right to all technical support available in wikipedia for information maintenance. `'mikka(t) 17:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith, especially where good faith should be as easy, and bad faith as hard, to assume as in this case: the stated reasons for the nomination included "Used on a mere 7 articles": see WP:STUB, and the guidance if you're unclear why that's a perfectly valid reason for nomination for deletion of a stub type. Alai 17:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can read myself thank you (the guidelines are for creation, not deletion, and they are guidelines), and I do assume bad faith in this case, for at least two reasons. The second one is civility. the stub has a creator. A minimal courtesy would be to talk to the author (he is not, like, a random vandal) and ask for reasons. `'mikka(t) 17:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to add "[and the guidance] on this page", which explicitly covers reasons for deletion, including size. But if you don't need me to point you at WP:STUB, presumably you didn't need me to point at those, either. In any case, how large a leap is it from "In general any new category must have at least 60 articles." to supposing that being less than that size is reasonable grounds for nomination for deletion? And yes, they're guidelines: isn't that rather the point? Am I to understand it's your position that nominating a stub type for deletion without informing the creator is "incivil", or evidence of "bad faith"? (While asserting that the "The nomination is motivated by political reasons" is the very model of civility?) It certainly doesn't appear as if the creator has had any trouble finding this discussion (see the three boldface "keeps" under his name), so I don't see the substance to this objection. I'm glad we at least agree you were assuming of bad faith, but I couldn't disagree more with your "defence of justification". Alai 18:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for your information Mikka, I've nominated *many* templates for both deletion and creation. If stub templates can't be debated or deleted please inform me, what exactly *is* the purpose of this page? Your point about the template's creator not being a vandal is rather odd. Nobody here has accused William of anything of the sort. I've never considered William to be anything but a valuable contributor, and I'll stick to that analysis. Valentinian(talk) 21:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the number of stubs was a main reason, but around 50 of them were already there and just not tagged correctly. We fixed that and added new ones in the process. Right now, we've got another 30 or so stubs to add (bringing the total to over 100) but I am waiting to see if this stub subcat will stay before adding them. That's because these new article stubs are very Transnistria specific, and to put them under the main Moldova cat (without the sub cat Transnistria qualification) would be both a wrong classification, and would also be seen as a provocation by some of the more patriotic/hardline Moldova editors. - Mauco 01:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These stubs are useful and will also make it easier for editors who write missouri-related articles in the future. --preschooler@heartmy talk - contribs 06:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, given it's current size of nothing. Mairi 06:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, give it a chance to grow. The Missouri Project just got started. (Steve 23:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep, there is a quickly growing contingent of people in the Missouri Project. I am certain this stub will grow quickly. mobyrock 01:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, populate. Shouldn't be that difficult. — Apr. 29, '06 [13:10] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Given that there is a WikiProject, then keep for now, re-assess later to see whether they can populate it. If they can't, then a renomination may well be in order at some point: just because there's a WikiProject doesn't automatically mean there should be a stub template, and it certainly doesn't excuse the lack of proposal of this stub type at WP:WSS/P. I'm mildly amused to see that the category suggests that various types of Minnesota stubs should be marked with varieties of Missouri-stub, BTW. Grutness...wha? 13:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A while back it looks like two editors between them created ten categories and templates connected with trade/labour unions. All without proposing them first. The problem with that is, of course, that the names the came up with are problematic ones, and several of the categories don't come close to threshold. The stub types I;'m referring to are:
In the past we've deliberately avoided the use of the word "Labour" or its alternative spelling without the "u", for obvious reasons. Certainly UK-labor-org-stub is a null case, since there are no "labor organizations" in the UK. We've also avoided the use of the word "union" in stub templates, again for obvious reasons (consider the problem of "Euro-union-stub", to start with. This is the reason why Unionists were given "worker-activist-stub". Furthermore, seven of the ten categories use the adhjectival form of the countries/regions involved, unlike other stub categories. For those reasons, I propose the following renaming.
If the latter names are chosen for the categories, then the remaining three should also be changed to match. Furthermore, several of these categories are very small and it may be worth considering upmerging them into their parents. Grutness...wha? 13:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies and corrections. It seems these were proposed at WP:WSS/P (all except the parent category,a nyway), but that it was strongly suggested at the time that worker-org was better than labor-org (also it looks like only six of the nine child stub types were proposed then and the others were slyly created later, but that's another matter). In any case, the templates and categories still need a rename, and the Oceania stub type is still dangerously thin. Grutness...wha? 14:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. I'm the one who created these stubs. I engaged the "Stub community", we discussed various ideas, and then when there was 5 days without any more comment I proceeded in good faith to create what I thought was a reasonable compromise in a somewhat unique naming conflict. (Don't forget there is a trade union/labor/labour union three way here). Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive20#WikiProject Organized Labour
These are actively used stubs by an active community that is new. I can't see the point in clumping around renaming them. Worker-org was suggested but as I noted the first time around, Worker has political conotations in the labour world, and I would choose to avoid political issues before spelling issues.
After reading the proposal that Bookandcoffee originally made, I don't see why these stubs need to be renamed. As he said, the community provided no objections to the names he ended up going with. Why go through all the work of renaming all those stubs and their categories? Nobody had any problem with these until I proposed a related stub.
Having said all that, as long as those who object to these stubs are offering to rename them, have a blast. --JerryOrr 22:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename the templates but keep the catagories as is. ill admit i thought the names had been finalized on the worker-org suggestions earlier in the proposal and it was such an obvious name for them i didnt check later to see what had been chosen so im quite surprised to see that labor-org was used, especialy since only two or three countries in the world use that spelling. also as it says in that debate the name union-stub was rejected as being too ambiguous. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to rename them. When someone says the word "union", the first thing that comes to most people's minds is a labor union. Therefore, I don't think these stub types are the ones that should be changed. The nom's discussion of "labor" vs. "labour" seems largely unimportant. --metzerly 16:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move some of the templates to "labour" as appropriate, as per consensus on UK vs. US spellings. Keep redirects to avoid confusion and the inadvertant shitting of red links. — Apr. 29, '06 [13:07] <freakofnurxture|talk>
I need some sort of a specific final consensus on exactly what to do, and then I'm gonna let Cydebot (talk·contribs) loose. --Cyde Weys 23:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename templates and categries to Grutness' proposals - Nomadic1 10:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is still my vote; labor-org is more obvious than worker-org, which has a "revolutionary" connotation (in my opinion, at least). I think the labor v. labour argument is silly, especially considering the labor stubs were added by a Canuck. But again, if people feel that strongly about it (and are willing to do the work to change it), I suppose I don't really care that much. --JerryOrr 16:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This looks to me like a great big fat no consensus; I've renamed the UK one to UK-labour-stub, and bot-moved the existing template-usages, as frankly having a US-specific spelling on UK-specific articles is against every guideline on the topic, and is a recipe for confusion and annoyance. However, deleting the redirect would also be a recipe for confusion and annoyance, given the clear pattern of the other templates. I won't archive this immediately, in any there's late-breaking agreement, or someone fancies doing something bolder. Alai 00:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cough. Well, I'm a little slow in modifying my frustration from earlier. Renaming from labortolabour isn't a big issue for me if there is interest in that. I am still opposed to worker organizations though. --Bookandcoffee 20:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance of wrapping this up? It's been a month, and I'm tired of looking at the {{sfd-t}} tag on all those pages. :) Originally I was trying to keep the actual text short, but we're already past the level of people intuitively guessing the name, and there seems to be a move to expand titles for more clarity, so what about going all the way here.
Granted, there is still the dilemma of the word "union", but that's a pretty small fly in the ointment. Few people are going to be confused by this name, and even fewer are going to want to use it for a different purpose - African Union and European Union notwithstanding.
But with that in mind I would like to keep {{union-stub}} as it is for the simple fact that it is intuitive, and people who are not versed in stubs can use it with a positive result. It's not too large a task to sort the category from time to time, and I have yet to see the tag used on an non-trade union related topic. --Bookandcoffee 21:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as no consensus.Conscious 14:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Used on just eight articles. Populateorupmerge. Alai 07:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per nominator. Conscious 05:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Populate of course. Such stubs shouldn't be that hard to locate. — Apr. 29, '06 [13:02] <freakofnurxture|talk>
As it's now in fact been populated, I'm withdrawing the nom. (Which is easily enough done, given that seemingly I neglected to tag it in the first place.) Alai 21:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Small, and problematic. Several of the articles are either double-stubbed with more plausible types, or seem entirely wrongly tagged (I assume Prince George of Yugoslavia (1984- ) is a citizen of Serbia and Montenegro). Alai 04:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this one's a big enough can of worms without this. Delete. Grutness...wha? 05:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This stub type is sensible (like {{Soviet-stub}}), but it shouldn't be used on articles about ex-Yugoslavian things. Populate with Yugoslavian topics or delete. Conscious 05:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If can be populated with things that are strictly about the historical Kingdom, Socialist Republic or Federation (which will mean getting rid of half the current contents, and populating almost from scratch), I'm cool with that. Alai 06:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's KEEP because has over 5 pages in the category. General Eisenhower 22:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the normative threshold for stub types is 60 articles, rather than five... Alai 22:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete underpopulated. --Mais oui! 09:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: usage should be reserved for articles related to the SRFJ (that is pre-1991 Yugoslavia) and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (pre-WWII Yugoslavia). For any articles related to the FRY, Serbia-Montenegro stub should be used (same country, different name). Stub has got potential. Regards, --Asteriontalk to me 07:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ronline ✉ 08:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
