Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2007/February

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

The result of the debate was upmerge to Euro tv stubs

Newly created category. Unfortunately, the Norwegian material is very small in this respect, so an upmerge looks like the logical conclusion. Valentinian ^{T / C} 15:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, we decided to upmerge all those stubs for a reason before. Not much changed. TheDJ (talk ? contribs ? WikiProject Television) 19:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Currently used on 11 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was upmerge gender-stub & masc-stub to gender-studies-stub

Two new stub types for gender studies and men's studies (redlinked categories). At the moment these are covered by sex-stub and sociology-stub. Category:Sex stubs isn't really big enough to split, but its name does suggest things not entirely compatible with gender studies... perhaps the best solution might be deleting masc-stub (it would be automatically covered by gender-stub if kept), but keep gender-stub, and direct both it and sex-stub to a re-named category covering both aspects of this topic? Grutness...wha? 01:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not proposing these stub types. Its a 100% case of my not reading policy first - sorry. Grutness makes a good point about the name of Gender-stub and about deleting masc-stub. However, I wouldn't really favour a conflation of sexuality stubs and gender studies stubs because they are very different areas. A feminism stub already exists, perhaps a merge of gender-stub and {{fem-stub}} would be more appropriate since feminism would also be covered by a Gender studies stub?--Cailil 01:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{fem-stub}} and {{fem-activist stub}} currently cover feminism and feminists (as well as the opposition and opponents respectively). Feminism is only one aspect that women's studies covers (or at least it's supposed to be) and while neither existing stub is close to being overlarge, I can't see upmerging them as appropriate here. The sex/gender distinction is a bit on the subtle side, so how about we consider upmerging and deleting both {{gender-stub}} and {{masc-stub}} to a {{gender-studies-stub}} (child of a hypothetical {{studies-stub}} for the social/cultural studies that could serve as the parent of such stubs as {{Asia-studies-stub}} et cetera. The -studies- stem would serve to indicate that the stubs are for those aspects of the topic that attract academic attention or are used in academic discussion. Caerwine Caer?s whines 03:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the benefits in your points Caerwine. The creation of a parent (even if hypothetical) social/cultural-studies stub for academic issues. But what effect would excluding {{fem-stub}} from such a {{gender-studies-stub}} mean for its use? Currently {{fem-stub}} is used on articles about feminist theory and other feminist academic and women's studies pages as well as on pages about activists. I would worry that excluding it would lead to confusion - unless guidlines for use of both stubs were clarly drawn up.--Cailil 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Feminism stubs don't currently have have a parent, so making Category:Feminism stubs a child of Category:Gender studies stubs is probably best, at least as a first step. The activists themselves should have {{fem-activist-stub}} instead of {{fem-stub}} in any case. Caerwine Caer?s whines 18:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to strictly follow the permcats, we'd have Category:Gender stubs with Category:Feminism stubs as a sub-type, and Category:Male-studies-stubs being upmerged to the former on the basis of a) size, and b) there being no permcat at all for that at present. (Category:Feminism is a child of Category:Gender and a sibling cat of Category:Gender studies, and Category:Feminist theory is a child of both.) None of that would be set in stone, of course. Alai 00:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like Caerwine's solution. Mind you, it still leaves the problem of the numbers... ISTR there is also a LBGT-stub and LGBT-activist-stub, which would also make suitable child categories of this. Grutness...wha? 04:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: {{gender-stub}} links to 2 items; {{masc-stub}} 0 (and has no cat); {{fem-stub}} 155. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was upmerge

I thought this had already been discussed, but I can't find it listed anyplace. Sensible-sounding, but currently small. Alai 14:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Currently contains 15 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 Previously proposed, so not a discovery

Unproposed, very small. Well enough formatted, but we don't split by country of origin or language (perhaps we should?) Grutness...wha? 01:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - my apologies - there was a proposal after all! Grutness...wha? 01:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can remove the subcat from Category:Literature stubs if we should not be splitting by country/language; because, that wasn't discussed in the original proposal. I added it 'cause it seemed like a good idea; but, maybe not? Neier 01:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah - it's probably fine the way it is - they are, after all, a subtype of literature stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 take to sfd for rename

The work of a WikiProject. Very small and the name reminds me of something else. Valentinian ^{T / C} 10:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This article related to dodgy hairstyles of the 1970s is a stub..." Hm. Quite. Certainly if kept it would need a renaming, and, to be honest, I'd say the category is just too vague as well - what humans living anywhere except in Africa are not the result of an African diaspora? This one seem unlikely to well fit in with other stub types. Grutness...wha? 04:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intent is clear, the Africans dispersed due to slave trading and in which describing the prefix "Afro-" is the one usually used, e.g. Afro-Ecuadorian people and Afro-Mexican so except for the ambiguity with the hair style its clear enough. Perhaps {{Afro--stub}}? Caerwine Caer?s whines 01:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by way of contrast with that, Afro-American is no longer used, and African American is now seen as the correct form. And since I can foresee eventual Polynesian diaspora, Jewish diaspora, Scottish diaspora and Chinese diaspora stubs (among others), wouldn't it make more sense to start with a name that can be paralleled with all of these, such as African-diaspora-stub? Grutness...wha? 03:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a viable stub coming from this. Besides, shouldn't we be stubbing by nation, not culutre?--Thomas.macmillan 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that one. SFD? Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Used on 14 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename to gametheory-stub; allow joint custody under psych stubs, math stubs, and game stubs

Never proposed, potentially useful but currently very small 9with no guarantee it would get to required size. Parentage is also troublesome - this is currently listed as a child of Category:Economics and finance stubs, but Game theory covers a wide range of possible parents, from Category:Sociology stubs to Category:Philosophy stubs. Template also should probably be at {{Gametheory-stub}}, since we're unlikely to have lots of parallel X-theory-stub types or any parent {{theory-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 03:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Pick whatever name you like if the hyphen is a problem. For potential entries, just check Category:Game theory or Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Game theory ? tons of unmarked short articles from first glance. The parentage is certainly a problem, very few game theory models fit nicely within one or the other academic discipline. Which is why I created it in the first place. ~ trialsanderrors 03:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may be biased, but to me, it's a branch of mathematics. Trying to say it fits in one particular applied discipline would be like trying to decide whether calculus belongs to physics, economics, or engineering. Caerwine Caer?s whines 05:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • • My bias is obviously different to yours - to me it's a branch of psychology :) Grutness...wha? 22:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well the originating book was called Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, but that's neither here nor there. Not sure what the point of this exercise is. ~ trialsanderrors 07:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if, as seems probable, this is kept (possibly with slightly altered template name) then the category needs to be properly parented. A permcat parent is easy - Category:Game theory. A stub cat parent is a bit more open to question. Grutness...wha? 22:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Going by the perm cat's parents, it looks like there are four appropriate parents Category:Applied mathematics stubs, Category:Economics and finance stubs, Category:Game stubs, and Category:Psychology stubsCaerwine Caer?s whines 23:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Game theory is about as relevant to psychology as it is to comparative religious studies. Let's not get carried away. There are any number of sciences that use game theory, but the two that have a fundamental claim to it are mathematics and economics. ~ trialsanderrors 08:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Um, with due respect, you clearly don't have much knowledge of the study of psychology. game Theory is an extremely important part of many branches of it, most notably behavioural research. Grutness...wha? 04:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm pretty comfortable with my knowledge of game theory as a tool in psychology, but I don't think you got my point. In any case, is there a purpose to this discussion? ~ trialsanderrors 00:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: Currently contains 14 items. The permcat Category:Game theory contains 164 items and several sub-cats. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Now holds 24 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 cricket-comps-stub, cricket-terms-stub, let the rest lie

We've suddenly acquired a slips cordon of stub types relating to cricket:

• {{Cricket-history-stub}} - Category:Cricket history stubs (28 stubs)
• {{Cricket-admin-stub}} - Category:Cricket administration stubs (32 stubs)
• {{Cricket-comps-stub}} - Category:Cricket competitions stubs (not computing, and a badly named cat - 47 stubs)
• {{Cricket-media-stub}} - Category:Cricket media stubs (11 stubs)
• {{Cricket-terms-stub}} - Category:Cricket terminology stubs (badly named template - 30 stubs)

None of these was proposed, two of the templates and one of the categories are incorrectly named, and several of them are woefully small. On the upside, it completely empties Category:Cricket stubs into subcategories, but that also means that the small ones (in one case fewer than a dozen stubs) have little opportunity for expansion to anywhere close to a reasonable threshold. Grutness...wha? 01:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The project page states that stub sorting is important so that articles are more likely to be edited to a higher standard. I believe that the new stubs have taken a large step towards helping those editors with an interest in cricket to find articles which they can improve.

I don't see why a stub category requires a certain number of articles to be 'reasonable'. Surely it is easier for an editor interested in improving coverage of the cricket media, for example, to work through a category of those articles, rather than having to look through a longer list of mixed articles and pick out the ones that involve the media? I can see there being a lower limit of three or four articles being to some extent helpful, but eleven doesn't strike me as too small. The next smallest is 28, and that certainly is of a decent size.

Of course, I have no objections to renaming some of them. ?Ollie (talk ? contribs) 22:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from users Grutness's talk - "Would you please explain exactly what is your problem with these stub categories and where it says I must first propose their creation? What I have done is yet another example of bold editing where no one else can be bothered.

I am probably the most prolific contributor to the cricket project and the one who was entirely responsible, with very little help from other members, for the creation of a project structure in terms of domestic and international cricket in particular. There has for a long time been a need to impose some sort of order onto the cricket stub articles and this task was begun by User:Alai in respect of season reviews, tour reviews and venues. There already was a separate bio-stub categorisation.

By splitting the stubs out into sub-categories it enables the project to recognise the scale of the main task that confronts it, which is to develop all 5600+ stubs into finished articles. From this, members should feel able to pick out batches of stubs which they will be responsible for (in theory).

This is the third time in a week that I have encountered someone who evidently thinks all of these stubs have to become articles NOW and therefore cannot see the proverbial wood for the proverbial trees. What does it matter if one of the stub categories currently has only 12 members? What does it matter? There are plenty of article categories throughout the site that have less members than that and never will increase.

Why not allow the project to develop these stubs over a period of time so that the work is done in an enjoyable and relaxed way, thereby achieving better results in the long term. What is it with this site that no matter what anyone does to try and improve a project when others are not showing interest, that there is always someone who has to come along quoting this procedure and that process and completely losing sight of the big picture.BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

I say Keep them per Blackjacks points--Thugchildz

Ollie and Thugchildz, this is my reply to Blackjack. You may find it worth reading, since it covers all the points you both raise:

Would you please explain exactly what is your problem with these stub categories and where it says I must first propose their creation? What I have done is yet another example of bold editing where no one else can be bothered.

Please read WP:BOLD - read in particular the bit which says that it applies to articles but not to categories or templates. Please also note the template at the top of Category:Cricket stubs and the information listed on WP:STUB. The main problems (plural) are with the names of one category and two templates, and the size of the categories - none of them are at the standard 60 stubs needed to split and one is at a fairly shocking eleven stubs. prior to this, they were in one category with some 160 stubs - well within the standard accepted size for stub categories. See below for reasons why these sizes are used.

I am probably the most prolific contributor to the cricket project and the one who was entirely responsible, with very little help from other members, for the creation of a project structure in terms of domestic and international cricket in particular. There has for a long time been a need to impose some sort of order onto the cricket stub articles and this task was begun by User:Alai in respect of season reviews, tour reviews and venues. There already was a separate bio-stub categorisation.

Actually, ISTR it was begun by me - I'm pretty sure I was the one who started the bio-stub organisation.

By splitting the stubs out into sub-categories it enables the project to recognise the scale of the main task that confronts it, which is to develop all 5600+ stubs into finished articles. From this, members should feel able to pick out batches of stubs which they will be responsible for (in theory).

Exactly, and that is the reason for stub sorting in general.Without stub sorting, all stubs would be in one large category of several hundred thousand articles. This is clearly not suitable, and, in fact, over a long period it has become clear that stub categories with more than about 600 articles and less than about 60 articles are of little use to editors. Any more than 600, and int becomes too difficult to wade through all the articles to find the ones an editor may be able to edit. Any fewer than 60, and an edito has to search a far larger number of categories for articles, a task which not only slows editors down but is disheartening for many editors. From the stub sorting point of view, 60 articles as a minum is also useful, as the number of stub categories is already closing in on 4000 - lowering the threshold number would make an already busy system too cumbersome for any stub sorters to keep track of. Allowances are made for one base-level stub category for wikiprojects (a reduction in the threshold is considered appropriate in this case), but not for a plethora of different stub categories for any one project.

This is the third time in a week that I have encountered someone who evidently thinks all of these stubs have to become articles NOW and therefore cannot see the proverbial wood for the proverbial trees. What does it matter if one of the stub categories currently has only 12 members? What does it matter? There are plenty of article categories throughout the site that have less members than that and never will increase.

It matters for the reasons listed above. A stub category that small is useless - and even discouraging - for editors, and sets a precedent which could see the demise of stub sorting as a whole if it were to become the norm. I certainly do not think "all stubs should be expanded now" It would be nice if some were, but it certainly is nothing to do with the reason why I pointed out the problems with what you have done.

Why not allow the project to develop these stubs over a period of time so that the work is done in an enjoyable and relaxed way, thereby achieving better results in the long term.

That is exactly what I want to happen.

What is it with this site that no matter what anyone does to try and improve a project when others are not showing interest, that there is always someone who has to come along quoting this procedure and that process and completely losing sight of the big picture.

The big picture, as I have pointed out above, is problems for all stub types across the whole of Wikipedia if there is no threshold.

I absolutely refuse to visit WP:WSS/D or whatever it's called. If you are so pedantic that you must interfere in this project to suit your own blinkered view of the way that information is created and categorised for the benefit of the readers, then you will no doubt go ahead and do whatever you are going to do anyway and I will just be wasting valuable time getting involved.

I have no objection to you creating permcats for the benefit of readers. But, as I pointed out, stub categories are not designed for the benefit of readers they re for the benefit of editors.

I seem to have been free of this sort of political interference for a few months lately but, sure enough, three times in one week, here we go again. Frankly, I really don't know why I bother.

You bother because you care about cricket and you care about Wikipedia. You bother because you have information that you want to share with others. You bother because overall you see Wikipedia as a good thing, even though occasionally you rinun ito other people working on Wikipedia with views different to you. Wikipedia is not anarchy - it has set rules and guidelines. Working within them means that in doing your editing you are not harming the work of others. Your stub categories and templates could well harm the work of many other editors. I can understand why you have made them, but please understand why they are not necessarily the best way to have gone about things. Grutness...wha? 05:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comprehensive reply Grutness. I do feel that small stub category sizes are of benefit to me, as an editor. Over at Wikiproject Cricket, I volunteered to "look after" one of these stub categories (Cricket Terminology). I can honestly say that the specificity (is that a word?) and small size of the category encouraged me to do so. So small size does not always discourage editors! I do understand all of your points however, and will leave this project to determine what to do with the stub types. I have decided to copy the cats that interest me to my user space in case you decide to delete. ?Ollie (talk ? contribs) 05:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most likely thing - going on past cases - would be keeping the templates and categories for any with above about 40-45 stubs, and keeping the templates for the others but redirecting them back to the main Category:Cricket stubs until they get to a size where they are a more reasonable size. That would leave the competitions one and putting everything else back in the main cricket stubs cat (which would then have about 100 stubs - hardly a huge problem for finding articles for editing). The competition one's template name will probably be changed, though - since comp is used for computing in stub templates, comps is perhaps a little too close to that for comfort. Grutness...wha? 06:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that the pointless intervention by Grutness into the running of the cricket project has gone nowhere at all and achieved nothing other than to alienate one of the main contributors to the cricket project. Going back to Grutness' original entry above, I do not suppose anyone cares what names the categories are given but I am amazed by the other point which is:

the small ones (in one case fewer than a dozen stubs) have little opportunity for expansion to anywhere close to a reasonable threshold

What on Earth is he on about? Surely if a project is managing its stubs it is seeking to reduce and eliminate them!? Why would anyone wish to expand stub categories? I have seen some real twaddle on Wikipedia by these procedure wallahs but I think this one takes the biscuit.

I stongly suggest in agreement with the project members who have written about this already that the discussion is closed and that the cricket project is left to run its own affairs without interference from people who do not contribute to the project. Or to anything else for that matter. --GeorgeWilliams 14:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Current counts:

• {{Cricket-history-stub}} - Category:Cricket history stubs (15 stubs)
• {{Cricket-admin-stub}} - Category:Cricket administration stubs (31 stubs)
• {{Cricket-comps-stub}} - upmerged to Category:Cricket stubs (33 stubs)
• {{Cricket-media-stub}} - Category:Cricket media stubs (12 stubs)
• {{Cricket-terms-stub}} - Category:Cricket terminology stubs (22 stubs)

Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was keep

The surreptitious split of Spanish stubs by region continues... unproposed, but looks well formed. Depending on the number of stubs it may need to be upmerged - I suppose that's a "wait and see". Grutness...wha? 01:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, I've too fast creating the stub for the Asturian related articles, I'm so sorry. Anyway, I've noticed there's no specific stub category covering various general stuff related to asturias (art, education, economy, images, etc...), so I think it coulbe a good idea to create a generic one: Cat:Asturias stubs, a category that could even upmerge other stub-categories related to Asturias that are maybe too specific for a region with 1,076,896 pop --  ? Ravenloft ?  ^{? (talk) ?} 10:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... well, the only subtype of it there should be at the moment is the geo-stub one, and a lot of places have geo-stub categories but not general stub categories (also, see the note on bio-stubs on the proposal page!). It really does mainly depend on the numbers. if there are 60 or so stubs, there's no real problem with this - fewer than that, and keeping the template but directing it to the larger Spanish stub cat is probably the best way, at least until such time as there are 60 stubs. Grutness...wha? 05:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, I think you have point. If we look at the cold numbers, you're right. There's no real need to upmerge right now, as there aren't so many subtypes. But to have this general category and upmerge the geo-stub one could still be a good idea. --  ? Ravenloft ?  ^{? (talk) ?} 16:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why {{asturias-geo-stub}} would need to be upmerged, it has enough articles to have own category, and if we decide to keep the generic one, the geography category becomes child of it. Monni 05:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was keep

This one looks moderately useful, despite the lack of proposal - already has some 30 stubs. Could probably do with some better parent stub cats, but other than that, not too bad. May need upmerging if size doesn't increase, but if it's got 30 already, that probably won't be a problem. Grutness...wha? 06:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was original proposed as a phytopathology-stub but it was decided to call it a plant-disesase-stub, see [[1]]

Ah - apologies. I missed that one. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 take to sfd for renaming

seems like someone has supplied the "missing" categories for the upmerged NZ-geo-stub subtypes. One or two of them are close to threshold, but others are nowhere near, especially:

• Category:Gisborne, New Zealand geography stubs (16 articles, and also misnamed - should be Category:Gisborne Region geography stubs)
• Category:Nelson, New Zealand geography stubs (17 articles - should be Category:Nelson District geography stubs)
• Category:Tasman, New Zealand geography stubs (37 articles - should be Category:Tasman District geography stubs)
• Category:Hawke's Bay geography stubs (27 articles)
• Category:Taranaki geography stubs (21 articles)

The others created (for Bay of plenty, Northland and Marlborough) are all of reasonable size (45+ stubs), though again there are name problems with Category:Marlborough, New Zealand geography stubs (should be Category:Marlborough Region geography stubs), but the five above probably need re-upmerging and sfd'ing. Grutness...wha? 23:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Update:
  • Category:Gisborne, New Zealand geography stubs (21 articles)
  • Category:Nelson, New Zealand geography stubs (25 articles
  • Category:Tasman, New Zealand geography stubs (41 articles
  • Category:Hawke's Bay geography stubs (31 articles)
  • Category:Taranaki geography stubs (30 articles)
  • Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the discovery 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 upmerged

Unproposed, and I'd say very unlikely to reach 60 stubs. Upmerging could be the best option. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Currently only one page transcludes the stub, and the permcat has < 30 pages. I'd favor SFD and change the one page to {{band-stub}} (Maybe {{Euro-band-stub}} would be a good catchall for various small European countries?) — jmorgan (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support creating {{euro-band-stub}} / Category:European musical group stubs and upmerging {{Estonia-band-stub}} to that. Monni 17:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: Now links to 16 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.