Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/October/31

, and subcats

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

The result of the debate was rename all with "s"

Lastly, given that English-speaking nations in Europe use the "organisation" spelling, and that all the subcats ought to be at the "organisation" spelling, rename to. Alai (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * doesn't follow spelling of permcat, rename to
 * undersized, upmerge
 * doesn't follow spelling of permcat, rename to
 * highly undersized, upmerge
 * Support changes to international English. Also support upmerging, though of course would recommend trying to fill them first (less than 60 Italian or Spanish org-stubs? I would have expected there to be far more...) Grutness...wha?  22:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've no idea; the European cat is hardly huge itself, so finding them would be the usual magical mystery tour through the -stubs (and perhaps elsewhere).  Obviously if someone expends the effort in populating them, I'd be fine with renaming instead.  Alai (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've gone through the first 1/3 of (which is grossly undersorted, BTW); the Italy-org-stub category's gone from 26 stubs to 51 so far - and that's despite the fact that I've ignored sports teams and companies. Grutness...wha?  00:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Italy's up to 60 now, so keep but rename that one, too. Grutness...wha?  22:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done the same with Spain, and that too is now up to 60 stubs - keep but rename that one too., BTW, was almost enough to make a stub-sorter week. Grossly undersorted, some 50% of it wis geo-stubs, and that's nopthing compared to one or two of its subcats. would from from 80 to about 10 stubs if all the geo-stubs in it were correctly stubbed. Massive work needed here, methinks. Grutness...wha?  00:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose We have explicitly allowed for this non-consistency between English and American spelling. In particular, with respect to the Norwegian category, it should be noted that a perusal of Category:Organisations based in Norway shows there is no preference for one variant or the other. We should not attempt to streamline Wikipedia on an issue where consensus is not to do so. __meco (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's per, not per . Stub templates, wherever possible, follow permcat names (as is implied in the nomination). Grutness...wha?  11:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a ludicrous misconstrual of what's "explicitly allowed": we don't have inconsistency between parallel categories just for the fun of it. Discussion at /P already noted that the Norwegian type should be at "organisations": I find it very odd that you'd jump in, create it at a different title, and claim some sort of fait accompli.  Alai (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not like I noticed this discrepancy as I created the stub category and decided to oppose it. I didn't. Also, I missed some of the rationale for the nom, so I am retracting my vote. __meco (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Tentatively Oppose. Before making it non-tenative, I'd like to know what the significance of the permcat criterion is. To Grutness: both spellings are international, so that isn't a factor. I live in Sweden, I see the z-spelling more often than the s-spelling. The z-spelling is what we're taught in school, and the s-spelling is thought of as "vulgar" (a sentiment with which I do not agree, BTW!) This change seems unnecessary, and will potentially needlessly upset many Europeans (esp. older ones). --Samuel Webster (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "International English" is a term widely used to describe traditional English English - i.e., non-American English. As such, I was using the term not to denote its use in those countries as to distinguish it from American English. Grutness...wha?  22:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I recommend looking at Wikipedia's article on International English! Most linguists I know think of "Int. English" more as a normative term -- a kind of English towards which we should strive, one that would be best in an international context. But that's neither here nor there, just "for the record"! Samuel Webster (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know about that page - and it accurately describes a technical meaning as used by some linguists. But many people in general (not linguists specifically) use the term to refer to English as it is spoken in a large number of countries internationally - that is, "English English" - as distinct from the form of the language only spoken in a handful of countries. As with many things, the scientists and researchers who specialise in a particular field use a different set of terms for the subject to that which is used by the populace in general. But you're right, this has little to do with the topic in question. Grutness...wha?  00:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have dropped a note at WikiProject Organizations, which I know did a major overhaul of these categories in the past year. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 00:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. __meco (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.