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

: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 taken to sfd for deletion or upmerge

Unproposed, redlinked category. We normally split tertiary institutions by location, though we do have {{tl|Lawschool-stub}} and {{tl|Seminary-stub}}. This is part of that second-dimension of splits, and may be quite a reasonable one, but if kept, it should probably be renamed to {[tl|Businessschool-stub}}, since X-school-stub is used exclusively for schools - i.e., primary, intermediate, and secondary institutions. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for the point on format, I agree that it should be reformatted to read Businessschool-stub instead of business-school-stub. The only reason I did not set it up like that originally was that it had so many s's in a row. Business schools are professional schools, comparable to law school or medical school, and would help to coordinate schools of a similar nature. I'm not sure how to formally submit this for review, could you guide me as to how to submit this for review and change the format to businessschool-stub? Thanks! Muchris 13:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

::This stub has been to SFD twice before in January 2006 and March 2006. The first one ended as no consensus and the second time it was deleted due to its small size. Things have improved in a year, but it's still marginal according to [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/stub_sense?category=Business+schools&num_pages=4000&dbname=enwiki Stub Sense]. It reports 121 stubs in the first 500 articles (with no more stubs found if one increases to the max 4000), but once one eliminates false positives from faculty, there's only around 50 business school stubs. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 2 items and is upmerged to {{cl|Business stubs}}. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Update: still upmerged, unused. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:01, 17 May 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.

: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 redirected to gastropod-stub

Newly created, and a bit of a case of putting the cart before the horse. Mollusc-stub isn't yet at a stage where it requires further splitting, and if it was, surely creating {{cl|Gastropod stubs}} would make far more sense than leaping in to create a subtype of it. There is, BTW, a gastropod-stub - it was created then moved to this "correct name" and now redirects to orthogastropoda-stub. There also isn't a {{cl|Orthogastropoda}} - there is, however, a {{cl|Gastropods}}. If we want to split the molluscs, then I suggest that deleting this and replacing it with a more widely-scoped gastropod-stub would be the way to proceed. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• My apologies, I wasn't aware of the "new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals" ruling. I created the gastropod-stub, then moved it when I realised I was only working with Orthogastropodas and not also Eogastropodas. As there has been a trend lately to remove the {{cl|Molluscs}} from Orthogastropoda pages I assumed people didn't want them appearing in the mollusc category so was doing what I could to change the situation. There are numerous articles, with more coming, in the Subclass Orthogastropoda so was doing some forward thinking.

The guidlines ask:

1. Is there a stub for this topic already? *No
2. Will the new type be well-defined enough to help editors identify articles that they have the expertise to expand? *It will narrow the field from the generic Molluscs to the true snails which is a narrower field to concentrate on.
3. Does the new stub type cover ground not covered by other type, or create a well-defined subtype that does? *It creates a well-defined subtype that is not easily confused with the larger type.
4. Will there be a significant number of stubs in this category; are there enough article stubs to warrant this new type? *There are at least 75 articles currently classed under :Category:Mollusc stubs that would fall under the new stub type.
5. Would your new stub type overlap with other stub types? *No
6. If you are breaking a subcategory out of a pre-existing category, will the new stub reduce the size of the parent category by a significant amount? *Absolutely

Again, my apologies. Good day. Nashville Monkey 03:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

:PS: just noticed that Wikipedia:Stub states

{{tl|guideline}} so is not in fact a policy as I was led to believe... Just an observation on my part. Nashville Monkey 03:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oookaaay. let's tackle a few of your points one at a time:

1. My apologies, I wasn't aware of the "new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals" ruling - Apology accepted... but please note that much of what you quote above is in the very next paragraph on from the notice about proposing stub types, at Wikipedia:Stub#New stub types. It's also at several other places on the same page in big red letters, and at the top of most stub categories.
2. As there has been a trend lately to remove the {{cl|Molluscs}} from Orthogastropoda pages I assumed people didn't want them appearing in the mollusc category - Well, did you consider that they have been removed from that main category because they are already in a subcategory of it? It is silly to have something marked in the main part of {{cl|Molluscs}} if they're in a subcategory of it. Currently it appears that orthogastropoda articles are in {{cl|Gastropods}}, which is a subcat of {{cl|Molluscs}}.
3. The guidlines ask: Is there a stub for this topic already? - yes there is - {{cl|Mollusc stubs}}, which is far from needing a split. It is not normally the case that a stub category is split if there are only about 300 stubs in it (though I'll admit that point isn't spelt out at WP:Stub, where it perhaps should be).
4. As to it being a guideline rather than policy, yes it is, but guidelines are there for a very good reason, and I stand by my comment that new stub types should be proposed prior to creation because of that fact. Most people consider making new stub types a form of being bold, not realising that being bold is actively discouraged when it comes to templates and categories, since they take considerable work to fix if there are any problems with them. Problems such as, for instance, making a stub type which may at first seem reasonable but which on closer inspection has problems with its format or scope (such as creating a subtype rather than a more useful, more broadly scoped type, or accidentally creating a stub template with the wrong name and having to move it to a new name. Or making sure that the new stub category has a parallel permanent category associated with it). Consider, too, that the people who need to know about stub types in order to be able to use them are the people who do the stub-sorting work. Without knowing that a particular stub type exists, a parallel type could easily have been proposed and created by someone at WP:WSS, leading to even more work setting things straight once your stub type was discovered. And without knowing about orthogastropoda-stub, how would we be expected to use it for stub-splitting in the first place?

Grutness...wha? 04:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

::Point taken Nashville Monkey 04:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

:::As to your point #1 the Stub page is where I got it, after you pointed me to it. Nashville Monkey 04:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

::::Fair enough. Grutness...wha? 11:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• With 75+ stubs you've identified, there certainly is a case to be made for a {{tl|gastropod-stub}} if you're willing to take the time populate it. So while {{tl|Mollusc-stub}} is not in dire need of splitting, but there is no problem if as in this case, someone is willing to take the time to populate it. Rather the question is whether going directly to the subclass and bypassing the class is desirable here. Given that the other existing subtype of {{tl|mollusc-stub}} is {{tl|cephalopod-stub}} which is at the class rather than the subclass level, I'd say it would make more sense to start with the class and break that into smaller groups if needed. Given what is already done, I'd recommend making the primary stub here be {{tl|gastropod-stub}} / {{cl|Gastropod stubs}} with {{tl|orthogastropoda-stub}} feeding into {{cl|Gastropod stubs}} as either a redirect of {{tl|gastropod-stub}} or as independent template upmerged to share the same category as its parent until such time as there are enough to stubs to have both {{tl|gastropod-stub}} and {{{tl|orthogastropoda-stub}} be well populated. Given the way the gastropods are organized and their current state of flux in that organization, I'm not certain that breaking up the class at the subclass level instead of the order level if future splitting should be needed (which given the number of gastropod species is certainly a possibility). Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Okay Caerwine, what do I need to do now? Nashville Monkey 07:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• I can live with that, too. Grutness...wha? 11:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the stub types' creator agrees to the changes, theoretically it can be speedied - but I'll wait a day or so in case there are any objections (if so, make them here!) It just means reversing the redirect, making a new category and deleting the old one. Grutness...wha? 11:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hopefully I haven't screwed things up, I've already reversed the redirect and made a new category: {{tl|gastropod-stub}} / {{cl|Gastropod stubs}} so all that is needed will be for {{tl|Orthogastropoda-stub}} /{{cl|Orthogastropoda stubs}} to be deleted. Nashville Monkey 11:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• No, that's fair enough. The 24 hours was just in case - to be honest, I doubt anyone will object. Grutness...wha? 12:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Completely done with the sorting, 188 stubs retagged as "Gastopod-stub" thanks for the patience. Nashville Monkey 19:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• S'alright - sorry for grumbling in the first place! The orthogastropoda stubs category's gone now, BTW. Grutness...wha? 04:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Is it too soon to get it listed at WP:STUBS? Nashville Monkey 07:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Given that the stub has been amended after debate here to something which the members of WP:WSS (or at least those who took part in the discussion) find appropriate as a stub type, I don't see anything wrong with listing it. Go for it :) Grutness...wha? 11:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Done deal. Nashville Monkey 16:44, 17 March 2007 (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.

: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

Newly created. never proposed. Considering that {{cl|Lingayatism}} has only 16 articles, there is scant chance of this getting within cooee of threshold. Links into an odd stub category ({{cl|Karnataka stubs}}, rather than a religion one). Grutness...wha? 05:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

:Sorry. I didnt know there was a process to go through before creating stub templates. Yes, I know there are not many articles at the moment, but potentially there can be many more. Please let me know what the threshold is. Sarvagnya 09:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

::The usual threshold is 60 currently existing stub articles (see the top of WP:WSS/P). Grutness...wha? 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Now contains 11 items; permcat has 17. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Update: {{cl|Lingayatism}} now has 18 articles, 11 of which are in {{cl|Lingayatism stubs}}. I suggest the template be upmerged to {{cl|Hinduism stubs}}. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:54, 17 May 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.

: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 delete or upmerge

Newly created, unproposed. Links to a non-existent category (which is named "British" rather than "United Kingdom"). At least there is a reasonable chance of this one reaching threshold, though since {{cl|Explorer stubs}} has only 270 unsubcategorised stubs in total, it'll be a close-run thing. Grutness...wha? 05:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

• The category name is perfectly sensible despite the aversion some here have about using the standard used on the permcats for categories about people. After all it will be child of {{cl|British people stubs}} and of {{cl|British explorers}}. It is way past time we stop the petulant, childish, stub sorting snobbishness of asserting that the permcat conventions are absolutely wrong, but rather than trying to change them, we'll just do things our own way here because we know best. Can this project expect others to adhere to its standards concerning naming when we pointedly refuse to abide by those of the whole Wiki where applicable? Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Hm. A couple of points there: Firstly, I did not realise the parent was at British people stubs - I thought it was at united Kingdom people, hence my initial comment. Secondly, as to your other comments, which strike me as a little harsh, may I point out that I am one of several Wikipedians who have been trying to change many of the permcats over. "British" is wrong - it implies that people from Northern Ireland (who are not "British") should not be included. Similarly, "Amerian" is wrong, though in common (incorrect) usage, since it implies that anyone from the Americas can be included, which they clearly cannot. Both United States and United Kingdom are commonly used as adjectival terms as well as noun terms, and there is no reason why these cannot be used for both permcats and stub cats. This is one of several reasons why more and more permcats are changing over to "X of Foo" style as opposed to the older "Fooian X" style. "X of Foo stubs" does not, however, make for a grammatically satisfying name, hence our usage at WP:WSS of Fooian, where this is unambiguous, or simply Foo X where such a term is an acceptable alternative adjectival usage. Grutness...wha? 07:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• I am an American, not a United States. I'll grant that using American as an adjective where concepts other than nationality are involved can be ambiguous, but that's not the case for how we generally indicate people. I have no insight as to how the Northern Irish view being considered British other than it's likely tied up in the same idiocy of Unionist/Republican that affects so many other issues there. As for X of Foo stubs it is grammatical, and while needing context to settle the issue of what Foo modifies, I doubt anyone would interpret Explorers of the United Kingdom stubs as a category for Wikipedians who search though the United Kingdom stubs for articles to improve and the same can be said of other stub categories that could potentially use the X of Foo stubs form. Also to my ears is not as grating as using "United Kingdom" as an adjective, which to me sounds like an unnatural effort to find something to use instead of "British" despite the obvious logical parallel with "United States" which would not grate my ears to the same extent. But since we're talking about English and not Loglan, applying rules of logic that would also lead to France musicians, Germany geography, and Asia history instead of French musicians, German geography, and Asian history is off point. Lastly, while I realize now my earlier reply may sound as if it was directed towards you with its somewhat churlish tone, that was not the intent as I had a different target in mind for my churl, but in an attempt at semi-civility, I chose to not include a specific name,tho I suspect the target I had in mind will recognize my intent. Caerwine Caer’s whines 08:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

:OK - fair enough about the aim of your comments. As to the N.I. point, I should point out that Great Britain is the island which contains England, Scotland, and Wales, hence the problem with "British". Even unionists might have concerns with that description. And I'd hardly say that you can say that logically you'd need to use France, Germany, etc as adjectives, any more than saying that if you use American and German then you should logically use Britannian and Francan. Since "United States" is an accepted adjectival form - as is, albeit to a lesser extent, United Kingdom - then there's nothing to stop it being used. France and Germany are not used adjectivally in the same way. Let's face it, it's perfectly reasonable to have something named the US Navy or the UK Independence Party, but I'd find it unlikely that you would have the France Air Force or the Germany Football League. Grutness...wha? 09:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links only to WPSS discussions; still no category. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Update: still unused & redlinked. It appears the creator is OK with the possibility of its demise, so I propose we delete it and take up the naming issue when the need arises. Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:58, 17 May 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.

: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

Newly created (unproposed). Possibly useful, but the template will probably need renaming - at the moment it sounds like a very small stub... Grutness...wha? 22:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

: Stub about nanotechnology . --Altermike 22:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That's my point exactly. So surely it should be nanotech-stub, not nano-stub (which sounds like a very small stub). Grutness...wha? 02:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

:I agree with Grut. Also, there is only one article in this category... Altairnano. I'm sure there are plenty of other nanotech stubs out there, already listed as technology stubs, instead. I would suggest that AltairNano should probably be listed under business stubs, as well. This stub category seems like it may be useful, if someone would take the time to hunt for other nanotech stubs (probably not going to be me, however). Also, the picture for the template looks a little screwgy. It needs a size adjustment. Probably a better picture would be C60 (buckminsterfullerene), since the discovery of that compound set off the nanotech industry trend (some businesses have begun to use the nano- prefix even when they are indeed using macro- technology). Fuzzform 21:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Still only contains 1 article. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:35, 30 July 2007 (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.

: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

One of two unproposed stubs created today by Willow. This one may be useful, if there are the required number of stubs - which is unlikely since there are only 37 articles in {{cl|Archaea}} and its subcats. A more general prokaryote stub might be more useful and more likely to reach a sensible size. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Every day I'm amazed at the number of processes Wikipedians have managed to create. 'Required number'? Anyway, the MCB and microbiology projects are planning to substantially expand coverage of recognized taxa, so this will probably have many more articles in the near future. Opabinia regalis 03:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, required number. You did read WP:STUB, I take it? That mentions that there is a required number, and why. I'd still be inclined to upscope it to prokaryotes. If there will soon be more articles, all well and good - but if they don't eventuate, don't be surprised if this one gets nominated for deletion at some point. Grutness...wha? 05:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

::Yes, I'm aware of the general recommendations in that guideline. I suppose we've got our {{tl|shrubbery}} now, but I don't know how it isn't obvious that a group of organisms with their own taxonomic domain ought to have a stub category. Opabinia regalis 01:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Well, it was either get the shrubbery or have lots of people going "Ni!" Sure, something with its own taxonomic domain deserves a stub type - assuming there are enough stubs. At the time this was brought here, not only were there only a handful of stubs, but there were only a handful of articles in total. It doesn't make sense to have stub categories cut down to unmanageably small sizes, for the sake of editors and for the sake of maintenance. Grutness...wha? 05:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

:*Grutness, please let me apologize for having transgressed our community norms. I was innocently unaware of the proposal process; it never occurred to me that there would be a problem with making a much-needed stub. It was not an act of defiance, but of ignorance, and I hope that you will forgive me for it.

::There is definitely a need for this stub. I've created Wikipedia pages for 151 Archaea taxa higher than species that are not presently in Wikipedia, which I'm about to start uploading. That falls within the 100-300 limit specified on WP:Stub, right? Once I start creating the archaeal species pages, that number will grow further. This stub fills a significant gap in the presently available taxonomic stubs; aside from the bacteria and the eukaryota, the archaea are the third major branch of life. Willow 06:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

:::There are now 31 articles tagged with {{tl|Archaea-stub}}, which exceeds the established threshold of 30 articles; this stub is associated with the Microbiology WikiProject. In addition, there are still 20 archaeal families to upload, plus a host of genera and species. I hope that these data satisfy the concerns about the usefulness of this stub-template; thanks! :) Willow 10:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

::::Dear Grutness, there are now 66 articles tagged with {{tl|Archaea-stub}}, which exceeds the higher threshold of 60 articles for stubs that have no sponsoring WikiProject (which is not the case here). Please let me know whether your concerns have been addressed; thanks! :) Willow 20:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

:OK, given that there are now plenty of stubs, it seems reasonable to keep this (unless there are any objections). BTW, the 30 for a WikiProject is for a basic stub for that WP (in this case, that would be something like microbiology-stub). But since there are 60, there's no problem with that. Good work, BTW! Grutness...wha? 00:10, 15 March 2007 (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.

: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

ISTR some talk about this one, but I'm pretty sure that it was rejected as a possible split, due to the lack of stubs. Yet here it is, created yesterday. Admittedly, excluding orders and medals {{cl|Exonumia}} does have about 320 articles, but the questions remain as to how many of them are stubs and how many of them are already covered elsewhere. Currently has two stubs. Grutness...wha? 05:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Here's the discussion; there was no consensus, and the category now contains 22 articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Now has only 17 items. I suggest we upmerge the template. Her Pegship (tis herself) 06:22, 25 December 2007 (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.

: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

Created a couple months ago, only 21 articles. Eli Falk 13:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• This was proposed and accepted in October. Waacstats 12:23, 19 March 2007 (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.

: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 metabolism-stub?

Unproposed, badly named, badly formatted, inappropriate wikiproject message, no category at all. Moderately-well populated, but I'd wonder if it doesn't cut across existing stub types. Then again, all plans to reduce {{tl|biochem-stub}} in size are worth considering... Alai 19:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

:It's clearly a subset of the intersection of {{cl|Biochemistry stubs}} and {{cl|Cell biology stubs}}, so I wouldn't mind placing it a child of those two. It marks only 33 stubs at present, but luckily since there is an associated wikiproject it needs only 30, so take this to SFD for renaming and give it an appropriate parentage (including existing permcat {{cl|Metabolic pathways}}). If it weren't for the wikiproject I'd suggest upscoping to {{cl|Metabolism stubs}}, but maybe a discussion with the WP would get them to consider upscoping their project as well. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 32 articles, but still badly named and doesn't link to any category. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:50, 30 July 2007 (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.

: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 taken to SfD

Never proposed, some issues with the way the category is formed, but seems quite reasonable, if there are enough stubs 9which at the moment, is still doubtful). Grutness...wha? 06:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Links to 11 items; I have proposed a change at SfD. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:51, 30 July 2007 (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.

: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 reverse redir or rename

Can anyone here guess what this is for? Why its a stub for British royalty. What's that you say? We already have one? No, we had one. {{tl|UK-royal-stub}} got moved eight months ago to this by a member of Wikiproject British Royalty and left as a redirect. Now to be fair WP:BRoy is in the habit of using BRoy at the start of the templates it uses. But this one violates the naming guidelines for stubs in several ways. By the way, a quick glance indicates that there appear to be enough pre-Jamesian stubs here to warrant an {{tl|England-royal-stub}} if anyone is so inclined. I'll leave Grutness and Alai to fight over the category name if they want, but since the permcats here use British rather than United Kingdom, I'm inclined to leave the category as it is and send this to SFD to be set aright after gently informing BRoy of the alternatives. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Contains 179 items. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:52, 30 July 2007 (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.

: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 listed

Proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2007/March#Juggling. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

:...in which case, it's hardly a discovery! Why did you list it here? Grutness...wha? 06:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

::Oh, um, I thought it was the thing to do. Sorry then. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

:S'alright. This page is for templates and categories discovered by WP:WSS that hadn't been proposed and which need discussing to see whether they need any tidying up. Grutness...wha? 22:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

::I see. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 27 March 2007 (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.