Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted/August 2005

Template:Kansas-stub
Used on exactly one page. No category. Overlaps US-stub. Not properly formed. Not proposed by proper process. Limited scope. Delete DES (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Delete since creator was unaware of the procedure for creating a stub notice. - Lucky 6.9 21:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. US-tub? Grutness...  wha?  01:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * And Grutness gets off a good one! Wokka-wokka!  :^) - Lucky 6.9 20:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Not formed in accordance with procedure. EdwinHJ | Talk 00:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Oregon-stub
Used on exactly one article. Too limited in scope. Overlaps US-stub. Not properly proposed. No category. Does not link properly. DES (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per Kansas-stub above. Grutness...  wha?  01:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Mountain-stub
Not used in any article. Improperly formed. No category. Not proposed by the normal process. Does not link properly. DES (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * ...and also cuts across all the geo-stub categories as per the deleted River-stub. Delete Grutness...  wha?  01:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:STUB: For example, geography stubs are sorted by country so you wouldn’t want to create mountain-stub or river-stub. Aecis 12:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Central-America-related stubs
You read right. But don't worry, I'm not suggesting deleting the well-used Category:Central America-related stubs - no, this is the empty Category:Central-America-related stubs (with the extra hyphen). Thoretically, both should be converted to Category:Central America stubs, but I leave that up to other voters to decide. Grutness...  wha?  03:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Inca-myth-stub
Only two articles tagged, not counting the template. Would be served better by merging with Americas-myth-stub (which Is currently expanding) GeeJo 01:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * (no vote) Wouldn't it make more sense to have it as a subcategory of Americas-myth-stub? BTW - I added this to sfd-current, and added the category, since it's silly to nominate one and not the other. Then I added the deletion templates to both. Please follow the instructions at the top of the page! Grutness...  wha?  03:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd agree, but I've parsed through from A to G in the myth-stub list (nearly 1000) so far without finding a single Incan stub to add to the two that are in the category. With that small a number, is it worth having an individual template/category when the subjects are also covered under another (non-full) stub type? GeeJo 04:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * PS: Sorry for the extra work from the listings, new here and still feeling my way around :)
 * Fair enough - welcome aboard! :) Grutness...  wha? 


 * Any votes for this either way? GeeJo 22:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Given the small number of stubs and the unlikelihood of this increasing any time soon, I'll go for a delete. It can always be re-created if needed later. Grutness...  wha?  10:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

User-stub
Stub for a user page. User pages don't need stubbing for reasons of going to expand them, or showing that they need expanding, making a stub type useless. Anyone wanting to put a fake stub type on their user page can easily do it with, which isn't difficult. This doesn't have any purpose and I doubt it gets much use. Hedley 02:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. What's next? "Teenager-user-stub"? "Koala-lover-user-stub"? --Sn0wflake 02:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Del (PS - I added this to sfd-current and added the appropriate deletion template to user-stub. Please follow the instructions at the top of the page!). Grutness...  wha?  03:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that have been: this user is a stub; give him food to make him grow... and that's a delete vote Lectonar 10:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: This template was created, if I remember correctly, because people were adding stub to their user page, which messed up the stub category by having a bunch of users in it. Blank Verse   &empty;  12:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Week Keep. Although I usually hate the standard joke template (e.g. the banana-stub and cow-stub that I think both got BJAODN'd), but I think that this category-less stub is harmless and should be kept. Blank Verse   &empty;  12:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, this Wikiuser cats and stubs are tiresome. -Splash 00:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

kiribati-stub / Category:Kiribati-related stubs
No, not a countermove from all of yesterday's deletion nominations, just a useless category and template. Created seven months ago, and since then used on two(count 'em!) stubs. And of them, one is also an Oceania-geo-stub and the other is also an Olympic-stub. Iff there's some activity on stubs about Kiribati, then this can be re-created, but for now there's no point in it. Delete. Grutness...  wha?  06:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - subsumed by Oceania-stub, and the entire Category:Kiribati is smaller than a lot of stub categories anyway. --ScottDavis 11:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No visible need. --TheParanoidOne 21:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Lectonar 06:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Knife-stub
Created out of process; overly limited scope; cuts across existing types. Delete. DES (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. User was on a real rollercoaster creating these things out of process. - Lucky 6.9 20:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. --TheParanoidOne 21:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Poli-substub
A relic of a distant time, when all stubs were sepia-toned and grainy. Should be solemnly laid to rest. Grutness...  wha?  09:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete anything named substub. --TheParanoidOne 21:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. --Mairi 07:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

park-stub
Delete. Provides no information regarding the stub's purpose or article topic. Simply says "help Wikipedia by expanding." -Soltak 18:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. More work by User:Maoririder. --TheParanoidOne 20:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete park-stub and User:Maoririder. This is getting out of hand. Grutness...  wha?  01:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, and create WP:UfD Lectonar 07:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete While the stub has potential, it would just be like any river- or mountain-stub. Circeus 13:00, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

maine-stub
Delete. Provides no information regarding the stub's purpose or article topic. Simply says "help Wikipedia by expanding." -Soltak 18:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. More work by User:Maoririder. --TheParanoidOne 20:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete sigh. Grutness...  wha?  01:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

SectStub
Malformed orphaned redirect of Sectstub. Why keep it? Grutness...  wha?  09:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per above. --TheParanoidOne 20:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --Mairi 02:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Edustub
Malformed orphaned redirect of Edu-stub. Why keep it? Grutness...  wha?  09:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per above. --TheParanoidOne 20:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. -Splash 17:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Lao-Stub
Poorly-named orphaned redirect of Laos-stub. (Lao are the people, Laos is the place, IIRC). Why keep it? Grutness...  wha?  09:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, potentionally confusing. It's also the language. --Mairi 19:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per above. --TheParanoidOne 20:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Stubs to be discussed
Not sure whether this should be here of CFD. It's an old attempt to rationalise the stub sorting project that has fallen out of use (hell, it was never really used). The only thing in it is the WSS/C page, and nothing else is ever likely to go in there. If the vote is within the parameters of this page, then I vote delete. (correction - it's empty) Grutness...  wha?  02:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete--BaronLarf 02:04, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unused. Never used as far as I am aware. Redundant with WP:WSS/P and WP:WSS/D. --TheParanoidOne 20:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above --Mairi 23:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

MainePBS-stub / (no category)
Another one by User:Maoririder. No category, incorrectly linked. Used in only article (which is already tagged with PBS-stub, which only has 68 articles), so not needed. --Mairi 19:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --TheParanoidOne 20:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. DES (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

PBSKids-stub / (no category)
Another by User:Maoririder. Again no category, no edit link. Used in two articles, but still quite unneeded. --Mairi 19:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --TheParanoidOne 20:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. DES (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Pakistan-econ-stub / Pakistan economics and finance stubs
Created by Egalitus in May 2005. Used on only 5 articles. This figure has not changed since it was first mentioned on WP:WSS/D several months ago. Note that it also feeds into its parent category: Economics and finance stubs (aka econ-stub). --TheParanoidOne 11:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Bakery-stub/(no category)
Well, since the date heading's there, we might as well use it! Another of User:Maoririder's little efforts. No category, no link, just a message saying this is a stub. Never used, never likely to be. Grutness...  wha?  11:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sneaking in an entry while I'm busy typing mine, I see. ;)


 * Anyway, Delete as per above. All this user's contributions so far have just made more cleanup work for everyone else. --TheParanoidOne 11:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Football-position stub / (no category)
Another Maoririder contribution. No category, improperly named and formatted, not used on any articles. No indication of whether it's American football, soccer, or some other football. But either way, I don't think there are 50 football positions, much less stub articles on them. --Mairi 02:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There might be if you added all types of football, including the two rugbys (rugbies?) but yeah, this is pretty hideous. Delete. (BTW, I've added this to sfd-current). Grutness...  wha?  02:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Activist-stub / (no category)
No category, not used by any articles. Michael 05:06, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Another Maoririder contribution. --TheParanoidOne 05:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This should discuss the (de)merits of the stub category regardeless of the user that created it. Nabla 21:17:18, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
 * Keep or broaden other stubs. There is a politicians stub, but that is too specific. Could it be broadened to include political activists? I just found this stub looking for a stub-type to categorize an agitator, (VONBLUVENS). OTOH, I don't understand the stubbing schemes so don't consider this a vote. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:53, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Trouble is, the term "activist" is both vague and liable to be POV. Theoretically it could cover everyone from the Shoe-bomber to Ralph Nader. If it were kept it would need a major overhaul, probably to the point where it's better to delete this and start again from scratch - especially since this one is badly formed (it has no linking category). Grutness...  wha?  13:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unused. Probably not the best way to split &#123;{Politician-stub}} as Grutness said. Nabla 21:17:18, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is Category:Activists which this could parallel. And I think (altho I haven't counted) that there's a need for some category for people who are involved in politics but don't hold a political office (and therefore aren't politicians). But I agree with Grutness that it's vague and likely to be POV. --Mairi 03:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

LADOT-stub / (no category)
Apparently something to do with transport in Los Angeles, but unneccessary and unused. No category, either. Grutness...  wha?  11:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Eradicate any extremely overspecialized stubs!. FYI: It's for the Los Angeles (County) Department of Transportation&mdash;not to be confused with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (although I have no idea what the differences between the two agencies are). Blank Verse   &empty;  04:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

HI-stub / (now a redirect)
Poorly-named stub created by someone who didn't know we already had a Hawaii-stub. Currently a redirect, but the name is ambiguous (I instantly thought of heavy industry). Delete. Grutness...  wha?  11:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Hawaii-stub. Since you're not from the U.S., I can see how you wouldn't know that HI is Hawaii's U.S. Postal Service abbreviation. So, I'm all for renaming it.  I would say "without redirect", but there are between 50-100 articles that link to HI-stub.  Is there a way that this can be automated, or is someone going to have to go in there and change all the articles manually?  KeithH 08:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yesterday there were about 140 - I changed 60 of them myself in about half an hour. It's very easy to change them over. Changing stubs is what tiggers stub sorters do best! And no, I'm not from the US, but then again, only a small proportion of wikipedians are. if I get confused by it (and I think I've got a pretty good knowledge of geography), then I won't be the only one. Grutness...  wha?  10:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Mahjong stub / Category:Mahjong stubs
Waaay too specific, and already adequately covered by board-game-stub. Little chance that it will get many more than its current seven (count 'em!) stubs. Name is non-standard, too (no hyphen) Grutness...  wha?  11:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC) Keep Mahjong is not a real board game but something more of it. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 03:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Scope too narrow considering there are currently almost 800 stubs in game-stub/board-game-stub. Not needed. Not likely to be needed in the future. --TheParanoidOne 19:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Mahjong is more of a card game than a board game, the cards just happen to be rather thick -- indeed I have a set with actual cards in place of tiles. But the general method of play and feel is not like that of most Board games nor does it fit the definition in that article. If this is upmerged, don't put it into board-game-stub, but into card-game-stub (if that gets created), or just into game-stub.
 * Heh. Showing my ignorance here, I guess. I've never actually seen real Mahjong. Only on a computer and it looks to me like tiles on a board, hence my comment. I guess I should go look up the Mahjong page ... --TheParanoidOne 20:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * well, it's a bit different because the "board" is created by the area between the tiles. It's not a fold-away area like Scrabble or Monopoly. But it's still usually regarded as a board game. Grutness...  wha?  01:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The article describes it as being more similar to gin rummy than to any other western game, and I have often compared it to that or to canasta when describing it to new players (which i have done many times). The "feel" is much more like that of a card game IMO. For qualification: I was for several years the Secretary of the MSU Mah jong club, and the author of the club version of the rules -- which i think I will convert to an article here, since wikipedia lacks one on the "western classical form" which is what we played. DES (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * So - just to clarify - you'd say it would be better with card-game-stub? Grutness...  wha?  12:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is my view. Or if card-game-stub doesn't exist (and somehow I thought it didn't) just use game-stub. DES (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hm - you're right, it doesn't. That may be another one for the proposals page. Grutness...  wha?  05:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Too narrow sccope, little chance of getting anywhere near enough articles. game-stub looks like the best place for it's articles. --Mairi 04:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: If this is to be deleted, card-game-stub is a better destination to merge into. &mdash; Instantnood 08:45, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Eris-stub /
Used on only one article. Unintuitively named, at least to me. (The stub name doesn't appear related to the category name, but then again I don't know anything about the subject matter ...). Scope appears to be narrow. --TheParanoidOne 22:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, far too specific (there are only 24 articles in Category:Discordianism). The name isn't that bad, since Eris is principle deity in Discordianism, but I still agree that it isn't intuitive. --Mairi 03:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only has one article stubbed with it - and that isn't a stub! Grutness...  wha? 

Category:Geologic feature of the Solar System not on Earth stubs
This shouldn't be deleted, but it needs renaming. It's an absurdly clumsy title, and could be changed to the much simpler Extraterrestrial geological feature stubs. The Singing Badger 01:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * it certailnly could do with changing, it IS clumsy. Grutness...  wha?  01:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * hack, my eyes! By all means, Rename! Circeus 23:33, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Does it even need the word "geological"? "Extraterrestrial geological" is a contraddiction in terms, since it means "beyond earth, the study of earth", and I doubt anyone would think would refer to Spock's ears. Grutness...  wha?  00:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * What word would you use in place of geology to describe the study of the structure of planetary bodies that are not Earth? I've seen geology used for this meaning before. --ssd 12:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Depends where they are. Selenography for the Moon, areography for Mars, cythereography for Venus, etc etc etc. Geology is often used, simply because of the difficulty of having a different term for each planet and no set nomenclature for satellites of planets for the most part. But it's still technically incorrect. Minor quibble, I know, but I still wonder whether the term is needed here, as it lengthens the category title without giving any new information. Grutness...  wha?  12:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The study of such things is called planetary geology or astrogeology. So the use of the term is normal. The Singing Badger 13:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although I do wonder then why we have a page Selenography for the study of the lunar surface, or Areography for Mars for that matter. In any case, I still don't think the word geology's necessary in the category title. Losing it loses nothing from the category's meaning. Grutness...  wha?  13:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * True. The Singing Badger 13:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

A second thought: how about astrogeology stubs - that's even shorter still, and also avoids any possible confusion with stubs about aliens. The Singing Badger 16:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. It's more concise, and unambiguous. Grutness...  wha?  01:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

fire-alarm-stub /Category:Fire alarm stubs
Suggested for deletion of the category. There is already a fire alarms category that covers these kinds of articles. In practice, the same articles were listed in both the stubs category and the parent (fire alarms) category, making the stubs category a duplicate. The stub template that this originally went with (Template:fire-alarm-stub) was edited to place article stubs in the fire alarms category directly. Schuminweb 22:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * All stub templates have matching stub categories. Stub categories are meant to mirror main categories (typically their parent category), so that it's easier for editors. As per WP:STUB, articles should also be tagged with other main categories, as the categories in the template are temporary (since the template will be removed when article is expanded), so being tagged with the template and the parent category is not unusual or problematic. However, delete template and category, as they are only used on 5 articles, unlikely to have near 50 stubs (Category:Fire alarms has only 10 articles), and were created out-of-process. --Mairi 23:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Have amended voting to both, since neither should be kept. If the template was to be kept, it should feed into the stub category, but there's no way this will ever achieve the required number of stubs. I'm amazed that anyone could have considered this a useful stub category. Grutness...  wha?  01:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

LACMTA-stub / (no category)
Overly specialised - used on 14 articles. No category. Given that there are three California-related transport authority srubs currently on sfd, perhaps an overall California transport stub could be created, but I doubt even that would react threshold at present. Grutness...  wha?  06:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Probably worth doing a count to see if a California transport stub would useful. --Mairi 17:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't want to point someone out and say "he can do it", but I suspect that BlankVerse would have a far better idea than I would what could go in that category and what to call it. Grutness...  wha?  11:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There are already WikiProjects and stubs for California state routes and California county routes, so that part of Calif. transportation is covered. There is the potential for a large number of stubs for California public transportation is someone started creating stubs for all the different public bus companies and transit stations in California (plus Metrolink routes, Amtrak routes, etc.). On the other hand, without a WikiProject to support the stub, and without enough stubs currently in existence, I'd rather not see a California public transit stub just yet. Blank Verse   &empty;  09:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete any overspecialized stubs!. Blank Verse   &empty;  09:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Overly specialized.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91  ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  15:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unnecessary. siafu 22:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

OCTA-stub / (no category)
As above. Another California transport-related category (or rather, lack of category). Unused and unnecessary. Grutness...  wha?  06:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. --Mairi 17:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete any overspecialized stubs! Blank Verse   &empty;  09:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Dragon Quest-stub / (no category)
Overly specialized, used only in 5 articles. Has category link, but category uncreated. --Mairi 07:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. --TheParanoidOne 19:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. cvg-stub could easily be used on the articles. Optichan 20:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

SaGa-stub / Category:SaGa stubs
Overly specialized, used only in 7 articles. Not clearly named, either. --Mairi 07:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. Non-intuitive name as well. --TheParanoidOne 19:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, too specialized. However, I don't see how it's not clearly named (I'm probably missing something.)  Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 23:59, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Name looks ok but it wont get enuf articles - delete BL Lacertae 07:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

SNK-stub / (no category)
Overly specialized, unused, unclear name, no category. --Mairi 07:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I give up - what's SNK? South and North Korea? Google suggests it could be a Japanese computer game company, a Canadian web development company,a language called Soninke, or the Slovenian National...erm...something (I don't speak Slovenian). Grutness...  wha?  09:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Apparently it's the Japanese computer game company (which is apparently the only one of those wikipedia has a page on). Maybe if we made it all 5 of those, it could get enough articles :P --Mairi 17:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be the "Slovakian National..." I think it is the Slovakian National Library (kniznica means book-case), but I'm not sure. Aecis 22:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There's a link on the stub itself. They were a videogame company that primarily made fighting games, most famous for the King of Fighters series.  They also made the NeoGeo, which (despite its relative failure as a home console) is/was used for a lot of arcade games. cvg-stub should probably replace it everywhere it's used, if it's used anywhere. Aquillion 18:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * DLT. --TheParanoidOne 19:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

love-stub / (no category)
Only used on a userpage (not the same user who created it). Unlikely to be used. Almost seems like a joke... --Mairi 07:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That, or a belated Valentine. Aecis 13:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Abstract categorisation with potential POV issues. --TheParanoidOne 19:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * subst, remove the category, delete. Grutness...  wha?  10:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

knowledge-stub / (no category)
Used on only 1 page. Incredibly broad (given how high-level Category:Knowledge is) such that it'd probably be of little use to editors. The current article (and most pages that it'd be useful on) could go under philo-stub. --Mairi 17:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. This seems to be the exact opposite of the highly specialised stub types above. Extremes are not helpful. --TheParanoidOne 19:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

sandbox-stub / (no category)
Created "For testing in the sandbox" over a month ago (by an anon user). Not used anywhere. why keep? --Mairi 00:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete if possible. I'm not sure if the Critera for Speedy Deletion applies for templates, but test pages are candidates for speedy (point 2). If not, then delete. --TheParanoidOne 19:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have tagged this for a speedy delete. The "general" criteria at DES (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I didn't know what WP:CSD said about templates, and I didn't think to check before putting it here. Looks like it's already been taken care of. --Mairi 04:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Inheritance-stub / Category:Inheritance trilogy stubs
Apparently refers to a book trilogy. Far too specific - used on 4 articles (and 3 talk pages). Category also lacks any parent categories. --Mairi 20:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Badly named, too. The template may well find itself being used on article relating to inheritance law. Delete. Grutness...  wha?  02:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: The second book in the trilogy is coming out in something like five days, there will probably be more use for this stub after the release. Nandhp 21:07, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Will there be roughly 50 more stub articles tho? As around there is the threshhold for stub categories. --Mairi 21:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There's only been one part of the trilogy published so far? Ye ghods. Doesn't this fall under WP:NOT a crystal ball, too? Grutness...  wha?  06:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I dunno. I feel that it will have more use after the 23rd when the next book will come out. Lots of new characters will be revealed and most of them will lead to stub articles. I strongly feel we should Keep.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91  ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  15:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Move any character stubs to Minor characters of the Inheritance trilogy and redirect. Blank Verse   &empty;  09:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Lectonar 09:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No argument. siafu 22:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This applies to too little pages, many of which will expand quickly, as the series progresses. Phsource 23:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

General-Edu-stub /
This one is an annoying one... someone seems to have decided just to create more work for everyone. Not only were all the articles in perfectly acceptable suddenly moved to this new, badly capitalised category with no debate on WP:WSS/P, but a new, badly capitalised template was created at the same time. If any changes were wanted, then changing the wording of th existing template would have done the job. Now we have a pointless new malformed category and template to deal with, just at the point when the old was was about to be split (UK-edu-stub and US-edu-stub are both on the proposals page for creation). So we get more work to do and another week to wait before anything can be done to split the category. Brilliant. Delete with all prejudice. Grutness...  wha?  06:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, in Wiki years it's quite | old. I made this back in April at a time when the only other education stub was the edu-stub which was meant for structures. The articles weren't moved recently but have been accumulating since the category was created. I posted it for comment on the proposal page and waited seven days before creation. It doesn't seem to have made it into the archive from the period but in any case, it was created within process at a time when there were fewer stubs and no real naming guidlines. Not only that but it's been listed in Stub types since April when there was only one other education stub template. Delete if it's time has passed but it's existence certainly shouldn't be a surprise.  Rx StrangeLove 06:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In that case I apologise - I take it that it isn't you who's moved things around in the categories, though. was up for deletion at CFD because someone had decided to move everything from there to  (which is still incorrectly capitalised, no matter how long it's been there!).  is now empty - it shouldn't be, it's got a purpose separate from the purported purpose of . So someone else has misunderstood the difference between the two categories, and a lot of extra work is needed to put it right. Grutness...  wha?  06:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Right, I didn't move them but I understand the extra work. Re:spelling, you're right but I thought it looked weird for the subject not to be capitalised..."my bad" as the kids say. Anyway, no big deal but I could tell that you were bugged and I didn't want to be the villain..sigh, vanity thy name is Wiki. Rx StrangeLove 14:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * What template is/was associated with ? As it looks like edu-stub is restricted to universities (for whatever odd reason...) --Mairi 19:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, actually. Edu-stub should be about education, with a separate University-stub for universities and other tertiary institutes. I've argued in the past for a separate UK-university-stub and US-university-stub... perhaps an overhaul is needed in general (no pun intended) here. I'll take this over to WP:WSS/P for some discussion. Grutness...  wha?  00:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I propose that we keep this stub type. It is very possible for a stub to be about education, but not fit cleanly into a university or school stub category. Some examples could be stubs concerning styles of teaching or types of examinations. I realize that this category is liable to become large due to editors sorting stubs in general categories, but I think General Education is still a useful stub category. Solarusdude 20:10, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. A category for education stubs is needed, but I prefer Grutness's proposal, on the Proposals page. --Mairi 21:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, now that I've seen the proposal by Grutness, his way makes more sense. I am in support of it. Solarusdude 03:48, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * We already talked about this months ago on the old WP:WSS/C, but someone carelessly deleted that discussion without any regard to the fairly clear conclusions that we had reached. Well, at least there was no confusion with regard to the fact that the present situation was confusing. :) Cf. WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria/Archive16 --Joy <small&gt;&#91;shallot&#93;  21:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

A general overhaul of the university and education stub categories has begun - this vote should be held over until it has been completed Grutness...  wha?  09:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Singapore MRT-stub (redirect)
Incorrectly named, and an unsanctioned creation. I've moved all the articles to Singapore-MRT-stub, which is at least more correctly named. It has some 60 articles, so I'm not suggesting that gets deleted, but the original template probably should be (MRT is Singapore's metro). Grutness...  wha?  10:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If it doesn't have anything now, then why not?...--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91  ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  15:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No argument. siafu 22:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesnt look useful. BL Lacertae 07:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Kanyakumari-stub /
Created today (out of process), is apparently for a city in India. Has 15 articles, a few of which meet CSD. Little reason to keep, especially since the city lacks a non-stub category. --Mairi 00:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not likely to ever get to 100 stubs... and it would set a difficult precedent (unless we want different stub categories for every city in India...) Grutness...  wha?  07:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be a lot of stub cats! Whats CSD? BL Lacertae 08:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Candidates Criteria for speedy deletion - articles so pointless or unencyclopaedic that they should be got rid of very quickly. Grutness...  wha?  12:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * delete Circeus 20:46, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

UK-hill-stub /
A three step plan: Delete the template. Delete the category. Delete the user. Grutness...  wha?  06:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) User: MarkJ proposes this stub at WP:WSS/P
 * 2) User: MarkJ is told why this type of stub is not used.
 * 3) User: MarkJ creates the stub and populates the category.
 * There's also the old category for the template, Category:UK hill and mountain stubs, which i marked for speedy deletion.


 * Delete; don't get angry :) Lectonar 06:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete with prejudice. Looks like he created it right after he "proposed" it... --Mairi 07:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Why dont people read what their supposed to do before making stubs? BL Lacertae 07:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. OK procedure wasn't followed, and I suspect that no-one will agree with me anyway BUT I would have found it a very useful stub. Can it not be preserved alongside the rest of the UK-geo-stubs? Grinner 08:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * One of the main reasons why working orthogonally to the hierarchy is a problem was clearly shown by the moving of articles into this category. A lot of them had the UK-geo-stub removed, which means that when more counties come to be split (which is an ongoing process) these stubs would have missed out of being put into their regional categories. It's been found before that even when direct instructions are put to use a new orthogonal stub template as an addition rather than a replacement, a lot of editors ignore those instructions and stubs gfo missing from their primary categories. Since it's very likely indeed that the vast majority of editors work according to the area they know rather than the particular landform they know, these articles would have missed out on being seen by a lot of editors. As it is, some county categories probably wouldn't even have been considered for creation; the threshold being used to pare off cunties is 100 stubs - by moving all the hills out of UK-geo-stub the number of Cumbria stubs dropped from 98 to 56. Any editors who want to look for british hills to work on only have to look in categories related to the hilliest counties to discover stubs worth sifting - there are likely to be a lot in the Northumberland and Yorkshire categories, for instance, and Cumbria is now likely to get its own category soon. In any case, a precedent like this would lead to the inevitable possibility of someone suggesting separate stub types for every major landform across all countries, so we'd end up with hill-stubs, river-stubs, lake-stubs and the like for all regions of all countries that have been split regionally. Many too many, much too much. This is why geographical feature stubs are specifically mentioned on WP:Stub as being an example of types of stubs to avoid. Grutness...  wha?  12:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * DONT GET ANGRY WITH ME. I went ahead with the stupid thing right after I proposed it because I couldn't find/be bothered to wait for the proposals page again. Kinda thought I was doing everyone a favor sorting out the mess that you guys have got, and it certainly helps some people (see Grinner above). I didn't even put most of the stubs in the stupid category anyway. This was my first attempt at making a category and I sure won't be making any more soon. 'Delete the user'. Huh. --Mark J 08:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Good. I was angry with you because you deliberately went against the procedure. If my anger was misplaced, I apologise, but it caused a hell of a lot of extra work and time, which could have been taken up on more productive stub sorting. As for you not populating the category, no-one would have populated it if you hadn't made it in the first place - and "couldn't be bothered to wait" is hardly a good excuse. Grutness...  wha?  09:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- the first two only, not the latter. Wikilove, wikilove, cool clean grass...  Alai 03:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Scarface-stub
Created by the same misguided user as the Hot Jewish one below. Somewhat narrow in scope, I would think. Grutness...  wha?  02:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Further notes - was used on two articles, although one of those was better served with song-stub. Also worth noting that Scarface could refer to either of two movies, or to Al Capone, or to a rapper (yes, Scarface is a disambiguation page!) Grutness...  wha?  09:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. I can understand the objection to the first template but there are a lot of Scarface stubs on here Scarface is a very famous movie with a large following and lots of articles on here.Wiki brah 03:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The amount of articles about Scarface on Wikipedia does not matter, nor does its popularity, nor does the size of its following. What matters is the amount of stub articles that would fit into such a category. According to you, "there are a lot of Scarface stubs on here." Care to give us an indication of how many stubs you are talking about? Aecis 18:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no main category, and there aren't even 50 articles that link to Scarface (1983 film) (or even if we add Scarface (1932 film)). So there's almost certainly not alot of stubs. --Mairi 03:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. There might be a few movie "franchises" such as Star Wars that deserve their own stub, but I can't think of a single movie, even one that's been remade multiple times, that should have its own stub. Blank Verse   &empty;  04:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per BlankVerse. -- Curps 05:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, I agree with BlankVerse and Curps. kvidell 21:34, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per BlankVerse. Optichan 22:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a useful stub category. Creator seems to be testing the limits in several ways including this one. Andrewa 18:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per... everyone.  Alai 03:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above; let's not encourage this kind of thing.

Template:Hot Jewish Actress-stub
While I admire hot Jewish actresses as much as the next heterosexual goy, this is ludicrously inappropriate. --Calton | Talk 07:21, August 24, 2005 (UTC)--
 * Delete Is there one besides Natalie Portman? Lectonar 07:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Curps 07:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Its not just a religion its an ethnicity first plus i spent a long time doing that stub getting the magen david and colors to look good and cetera.Wiki brah 07:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean; you did only intend to use it on your userpage (did you?), so perhaps just userfy it Lectonar 11:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nope. He added it to Lisa Kushell four times, plus to a few others. For a sense of his sincerity, check out this early edit of Lisa Kushell. --Calton | Talk 13:19, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Who's Lisa Kushell? :)), sorry I did just have alook at his userpage, and I should have got suspicious, with this other sexually oriented template.... So my delete stands Lectonar 13:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete -- But you didn't link "Hot Jewish Actress" to an article about them, it's just linked to actor. It's all in the details...  :)  It deserves to go into BJAODN though.  Dismas 08:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. How many ways is this template just plain wrong, starting with POV (do we also need a template for Cold Jewish Actresses?). Don't even BJAODN it. Blank Verse   &empty;  10:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Is Julie Christie Jewish? I'm having a sudden Dr. Zhivago flashback. --Calton | Talk 14:37, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * BJAODN Circeus 12:34, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Since the invention of air conditioning, the problem of actresses (Jewish or otherwise) suffering from heat has been solved. --Allen3 talk 12:39, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN. I'm still smiling.  Add this, um, debate as well.  Hail to thee, O Air Conditioning! - Lucky 6.9 17:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oy. BJAODN already. Mind you, if the articles on Alicia Silverstone and Sarah Michelle Gellar were stubs it could have been useful. Grutness...  wha?  02:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN This is kind of entertaining, but it's POV and not needed. Kevin 08:57, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN This is kinda entertaining. Optichan 19:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN. Best candidate for ages. Andrewa 18:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, userify, BJAODN, or otherwise anything but actually keep the thing. Alai 03:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Isn't funny enough for BJAODN; and inappropriate.  --EngineerScotty 22:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN. Entertaining, particularly with this "debate". --Mairi 18:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment An RfC has been filed, here Lectonar 11:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN Ironically my girlfriend is Jewish although id never knew until like 3 months after i knew her and well IMO i think shes hot. Jobe  6  [[Image:Peru flag large.png|20px]] 04:19, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, but is she an actress? :) Grutness...  wha?  06:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC) (whose own g/f is 1/4 Jewish)
 * Delete Need I offer any explanation?  Sheesh. --Icarus 05:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Ichneumonoidea-stub/
Wasp-stub wopuld be pushing it, but a stub for a specific type of wasp? Very very overspecific. Grutness...  wha?  02:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion. There are thousands of species of ichneumons, and this stub is needed. Very, very deletionist! 80.255 03:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If you can show a significant number of stub articles that this stub type could be used for, please do so. But without the reactionary labelling of people. --TheParanoidOne 05:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * FWIW, as anyone whose seen my edits on vfd would see, I'm an inclusionist (or at the very least a mergist). However, stub templates are a tool that shouldn't be misused by the creation of overly-specific categories which will hinder rather than help editors. Grutness...  wha?  06:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. There certainly aren't thousands of stubs on ichneumons, however. There aren't even 50 articles in Category:Apocrita and it's child categories (the sub-order Ichneumonoidae is in), much less that many about ichneumons. --Mairi 03:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Having recently split Insect stubs from Invertebrate stubs, I'm pretty sure that this stub type is currently too specialised. The next big split for insect stubs would most likely be beetles. It's not inconceivable that 50-100 ichneumon stub articles may suddenly appear, but if this were to happen, wasp-stub would be the way to go. Not this. --TheParanoidOne 05:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, tiny current article population. If insect-stub needs split, look at the viability of Hymenoptera-stub before either this or Apocrita-stub, or indeed possibly a yet broader super-taxon.  Alai 03:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; see above Lectonar 11:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename as wasp-stub. -- Reinyday, 23:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Micronation-stub / Category:Micronation stubs
Too specific; there aren't anywhere near 60 micronation stubs (or even 60 micronation articles); there might be 10 such stubs. --Mairi 22:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * ...and since Micronation articles are almost always VFD'd... delete. Grutness...  wha?  06:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * micro-Delete Lectonar 11:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Micronations are an interesting phenomenon. There are several historically notable micronations such as Sealand and  the Conch Republic.  Yea, by their very nature they are small and usually not very notable, but the ones which are notable, still need some way to classify themselves with a stub.  It seems that there are 32 micronations listed in Category:Micronations, three of which are stubbed as  history,  Carribean, and  New Zealand.  Heh, the Kingdom of Redonda and Redonda even need to be merged! (Yeah, I'll do it.) Frankly, more of those articles should be stubbed, in my opinion.  But the fact that there is an obvious problem figuring out what these micronations should be stubbed under makes me belive that we need this.   I mean, what else would we categorize these articles under?  Unless we can come up with a good way to categorize these stubs in one place, I think we should keep this stub. (Hoo-boy, this is a long argument.  Heh.) Syrae Faileas 17:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm not going to unilaterally merge. There was a talk page.  I'll be nice and ask first.  ;) Syrae Faileas 18:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * While that is a good point about them being difficult to classify (and I agree that micronations are interesting), I don't think 3 articles, regardless of how hard they are to categorize, justify a stub template (especially given that the standard is somewhere in the range of 50-60 stub articles). They should definitely be stubbed with a geo-stub template appropriate for where they are (regardless of what happens to micronation-stub), and probably hist-stub or culture-stub depending on the nature of the micronation. I think that if we start creating stub templates for every small collection of articles that's otherwise hard to classify, it'll become near-impossible for stub-sorters to do that job, and somewhat harder for editors to find articles to work on (because the stub categories will become too fine-grained). Atleast in this case, has just 35 articles, so it's not too hard to look thru. --Mairi 18:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If the standard is 50-60 stub articles needed to be considered a usable stub, then we should consider deleting things like Category:Singapore broadcasting stubs with 5 articles, Category:Finnish writer stubs, or even the empty Category:Hip hop DJs stubs.  I can also concieve of stubbing more of the Micronation articles than are currently stubbed because some of them are quite limited in their content and are only about 1-3 sentances long with a list or two of links or info.  If I did that, there might be almost 10 Micronation stubbed articles. Syrae Faileas - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The Singaporean stub is supported by a wikiproject. The Hip Hop DJ stub category was associated with a long-deleted template, and as such has been speedied. As for the Finnish writer stub, if we'd noticed that someone had slipped it into the stub list, it would have been up here before now. I've proposed it for deletion now. Grutness...  wha?  08:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment I think that this conversation should be EXTENDED as there is some discussion still going on about the usefulness of this stub, and I would like to see some more peoples' opinions. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I'd like to see more input on this.  Syrae Faileas - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete restub to either politics-stub (my first thought) or law-stub (as Category:Micronations is under Law/International law) --Scott Davis Talk 07:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Micronations don't really fit too well under any of our ewxixting stub categories, and people who are intersted in one micro nation are likely to be intersted in others. So I think this stub type would not be a bad idea, IF there were enough stubs to make it wiorthwhile. 5 or even 10 is IMO much to small to be worthwhile -- if there were 25 or 30 I might say give this a pass on the more usual threshold. How's that for an ambigious comment? DES (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:Cuba-related stubs
Was used on Cuba-stub, but given the consensus on WP:WSS/P (to standardize to "X stubs", not "X-related stubs"), I've changed the category back to the still-existing Category:Cuba stubs. So Category:Cuba-related stubs is unneeded, and ought to be deleted. --Mairi 04:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. This should be included in categories for deletion, not here.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91  ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  15:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe here is the appropriate place, as the category is intended for stubs. And the top of this page does say "stub categories without associated templates are also appropriate here". --Mairi 21:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As it says at the top of CFD: Categories relating to stub articles should not be nominated here, but should be taken to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. Grutness...  wha?  23:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as unused, and contra-convention. Alai 03:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Web comics-stub
Unused, obsoleted by Webcomic-stub. The corresponding category does not even exist. --Fibonacci 02:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If it weren't unused, I'd vote to redirect... --Mairi 02:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Useless stub template. -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant. Alai 03:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. --TheParanoidOne 19:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Silly creation of this stub-cat to go along with the equally silly ChickenLittle which is currently on Tfd. Recommend delete. &infin; Who ? &iquest; ? 21:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * While i thoroughly think that category ought to be deleted, it doesn't belong here as it's not a category for stubs (it's a subcategory of because the author tagged the page as a stub). This vote should be moved to WP:CFD. --Mairi 22:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've changed the stub notice to the more appropriate popcat. Moving this nomination to CFD (although it's probably a speedy)... Grutness...  wha?  00:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC) (PS: Delete)

This category will soon be emptied, due to the re-vamping of the education stubs (almost everything in it will be in the new, and the rest should have been in anyway. This can either be kept as an umbrella category to simply hold those two categories (the of which probably needs renaming to "Canada school stubs"), or simply deleted. I'd slightly favour the latter, unless we have similar umbrella categories for the other countries with university and school stub categories. Grutness...  wha?  11:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think umbrella categories are necessary for school/university stub categories, as I don't think they'd help substantially in grouping/finding the categories. --Mairi 02:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Systems-stub / Systems Thinking stubs
Used on only one article since its creation in July. Unintuitive name. Spans multiple subject areas. The discovery page discussion has more details. --TheParanoidOne 11:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Never much liked this one. As TPO says, it straddles too much ground. Delete. Grutness...  wha?  11:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Now renamed to and emptied. Delete. Grutness...  wha?  01:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * My bad on the naming, delete. Alai 02:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No probs - but better to change it now than when it is full. Grutness...  wha?  05:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. Couldn't this have been speedied? --TheParanoidOne 19:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point. Done. As with the Relativity one further up the page, I simply forget that stub templates are speediable. Grutness...  wha?  09:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:Business bio stubs to Category:Business biography stubs
Proposed name is unabbreviated. Aecis 16:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment Moved here from WP:CFD --Sherool 17:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename as per nom. We ought to have a convention regarding abbreviations in stub category names... --Mairi 02:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The current naming guidelines only refer to stub templates, it seems. Anyway, rename as per above. --TheParanoidOne 19:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename and mark as a precedent for future speedy renaming :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   22:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)