Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For discussion about creation of stub types or the hierarchy of stub categories,
see Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals.

Disclaimer[edit]

We see so many non-stub-sorters on this page who get their backs up about stub sorting and its guidelines...maybe some boilerplate is in order, viz:

This nomination is not motivated by any personal, moral, or content judgment on the part of the nominator. Please take comments at face value without any implied insult or slight intended, as stub sorters are of a get-it-done, stick-to-the-guidelines, show-me-how-this-is-useful nature. Thank you.

And maybe an image?

Nisse d apres nature ill jnl fal.png

Only half kidding, Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm only half kidding when I say it sounds like a great idea! :) Grutness...wha? 21:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Asteroid stubs[edit]

A discussion about how to deal with asteroid stubs has been on-going here, continued from May 2008 ff. One user has created thousands of these, and there is consensus I think for putting the information into a table (with thousands of rows). The creator, (Captain panda), is understandably unhappy about deleting all his stubs, and having no insight into the Wiki administrative and policy issues, I wonder if someone here could help us? Thanks Wwheaton (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:American election stubs[edit]

I tagged this for renaming to Category:United States election stubs but I don't understand the instruction for listing it for today's date. Can someone with expertise please complete the listing? Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure - done. For future reference, if it's the first or only nomination for a specific day, you make a subpage like Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/August/6. Put hte date at the top with ===This header level===, then add a new section with ====this header level==== for the nomination, giving the name of the problem stub type and your proposal (deletion/renaming etc). > Then add the subpage under the "Listings" leading on the main SFD page by putting the subpage name in double curly brackets (as if it was a template). Grutness...wha? 22:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Rename[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. There are good arguments for moving the page, such as the fact that not all discussions end with either keeping or deleting. However, there is also valid opposition. This is not the only page where discussion on stub types takes place (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries), and the page is also a part of Wikipedia:Deletion process (because it does include deletion), and renaming it would result in less consistency between the different deletion discussion pages. On balance, I don't see the necessary consensus for renaming the page at this point. It's a shame that so few people participated in the discussion, but it may be a sign that not very many people see the current name as a problem. Jafeluv (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Stub types for deletionWikipedia:Stub types for discussion — Relisted for further input. Jafeluv (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this page should be renamed to Wikipedia:Stub types for discussion, as it includes both deletion and rename. See e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, setting a correct example. Let's have your opinions, please. Debresser (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This has been suggested before, and in some ways it's a reasonable idea. Problem is that a lot of stub types come here only after they've been discussed (at WP:WSS/D). As such, considering this the primary discussion page can be confusing. That's one reason why this page hasn't been renamed in the past. The other reason is more straightforward - "X for discussion" is the exception, not the rule. We have Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, Wikipedia:Files for deletion, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If anything, it's the categories page that is an odd one out. It and WP:Rfd are the only "discussion" pages on the Wikipedia:Deletion discussions tree... Grutness...wha? 23:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
As to your second point. Actually, this argument is really not an argument. This page and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion are indeed not only for deletion discussions, but for renaming and merging as well. You even have separate templates for "stubs for deletion" and "stubs for rename". This is not the case with the other pages you mentioned. Debresser (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The first point I understand better, but still I find that more of a technicality than a real reason to oppose the rename. Debresser (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The second point really also argues against CfD being different - except in rare cases, where a category is renamed the original name is deleted - similarly here. It is worth noting that more of the work done at SfD is like TfD than like CfD (we have more templates go through here than categories in general), so it makes more sense to keep this page the same as the templates equivalent. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok. You have good arguments. Let's see if there are more people who want to comment, and try to come to a conclusion within the next 1-2 weeks. Debresser (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Stub types for Discussion" is preferable to "Stub types for Deletion" because it emphasises that the focus is on discussion and collaborating rather than deleting. True, a lot end up getting deleted, but there are a lot of other possible conclusions to a discussion as well. I would prefer all the "deletion" discussions were renamed in this way, actually. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've posted on the Village pump to get more input and reach a conclusion. Debresser (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll add the same at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. Hopefully we can get some more opinions on this. Grutness...wha? 01:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I've a question: Why are new stub type proposals split off to a second page? Does this one get too big, or something, because I think it would be useful to bring all specific discussion types onto one page, and indeed, rename it. This means we (rather, you) can centralize the effort of dealing with stub types. --Izno (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
It's enormous, and a significantly different process. I think it would confuse things immensely if they were combined, and would cause problems for WP:WSS whether the combined page wwere where WSS/P now is or where SFD now is. The proposals process is basically run under the auspices of WP:WSS simply because 90-95% of the proposals are done by WP:WSS members as part of the day-to-day business of stub sorting, and because it will be predominantly WSS that has to deal with any stub types created as a result of it; as such, it makes sense for it to be run as a WSS subpage. It is, however, very large even when split into its monthly subpages. WP:SFD is separate because it encourages people not directly involved in WP:WSS to have an important say in the decision making (lord knows we get enough calls as being "stub nazis' without trying to have the deletion process as part of WSS!) Grutness...wha? 23:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I also would be hesitant to add new stub proposals to this page. But I believe there is enough justification for the word "discussion" as is. Debresser (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Though I think there's enough justification to consider it as a name, I don't think there's enough justification to actually change it from its current name. The current name is, as I pointed out, more in keeping with most of the other related process pages, especially Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, which it is closest to in terms of purpose. "Categories for discussion" makes sense as a name for that page, given that soft redirects are frequently used for any categories renamed - for the most part, that does not happen with stub templates, and it never normally happens with stub categories, since such categories are automatically fed by templates and any former names can simply be deleted with no problems. It would also likely create confusion given that the discover page is already the de facto "stub types for discussion" page. Stub types are generally only brought to this page from there if there is sufficient grounds to believe that they are likely to be deleted, or renamed in such a way that the deletion of the current name of either template or category (or both) is appropriate. If a stub template needs renaming but the current name is acceptable as a redirect, then it is simply moved without the need to go through this page. If a template is brought here, then either it is itself being proposed for deletion or any rename that results will likely see the deletion of the former name. The same is true with any category brought here. As such deletion is directly or indirectly the proposed outcome of almost every nomination brought here, even if the purpose of the nomination is to change the name of a specific stub type. For that reason, "Stub types for deletion" is an accurate and preferable name for this page. Grutness...wha? 08:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Ha, that is only a technicality, which is by the way also valid for Wikipedia:Categories for disucssion. Debresser (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
No it isn't. As I pointed out, permanent categories, when renamed, often have soft redirects at their old names. Stub categories never do.As such, CFD does not always lead to either keep or delete - SFD does. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
You are correct about that. But that is not what I meant. I meant that the fact that rename = deletion of old name + creation of new name is not areason to keep calling this page "Stub types for deletion" because 1. it still is a rename in all but technicality 2. creation of new stubs is not included in the word "deletion". Debresser (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
You have given an excellent argument as to why WP:Categories for discussion is misnamed, but none that holds water asd to why WP:Stub types for deletion is misnamed. Let me summarise - WP:SFD is a Wikipedia:Deletion process page. It is not a Wikipedia:Discussion process page - there is no such thing. It is linked from Wikipedia:Deletion process, as are all similar pages, the overwhelming majority of which are called deletion process pages-Templates for deletion, Articles for deletion, Miscellany for deletion, Files for deletion, and Stub types for deletion. It also follows the guidelines and policies laid down and otherwise noted at WP:Introduction to deletion process, WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, WP:Deletion debates, and WP:Guide to deletion. Categories are virtually alone in their uunorthodox naming (the only similarly named page is redirects for discussion) - as such, it is CFD that seems to require renaming, and the arguments yoiu have given above indicate exactly why that is the case - not why SFD should follow suit by going against the largely standard naming. If you wish to change SFD, then consider changing WP:DELPRO first. If there is no move to do that, then there is no logical reason why this page should be changed. Grutness...wha? 15:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, when you stop and look at all the similar pages logically, you';ll see that there isn't any clear reason for one name or the other in many of the pages. At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, the most normal outcome is either keep or delete. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, merge and redirect are two frequent outcomes. But given that five of the seven deletion process pages are at "X for deletion", surely that is the standard and the other two are the exceptions. Grutness...wha? 22:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
To me, the points made here simply highlight the fact that the current deletion process is broken. deletion discussions should always be discussions, but there are simply too many concurrent discussions going on at once for that to be really effective. As a consequence, the "main" deletion discussions are seen by many to be arbitrary, and there is quite an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the whole thing (see: Wikipedia:Areas for Reform). Personally, I just don't give much weight to consistency arguments. I give them some weight, but only where there's noting better to use as a decision maker. I guess that the question here is, what do you want the page to be? Do those of you working this process want this page to only be about deletions?
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I'm of the same mind as Martin on this, in that I think that using the name "Discussion" instead of "Deletion" is a better choice all around. The reasons not to move the page are decent, but I guess that I just don't find them compelling. The structural differences between Stubs for (deletion/discussion) and stub creation will be understandable to those of you who participate regularly in this process, but most coming to the deletion process likely won't be interested enough in that to possibly be confused by it. Besides, if it does turn into a real problem, you guys could always just switch it back. Regardless, its just better to use "Discussion" instead simply because it subtly changes expectations in those who come here.
    V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    Then change all the others and the umbrella page which deals with all such processes. It's part of the deletion process system and named accordingly - it should stay at this name unless a similar change is made to all the pages listed at WP:Deletion process. Grutness...wha? 15:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    Hey, I'm game for that! However, this is a fairly typical reply to RM's from people who just don't want to do the rename. It actually is an Wikipedia:Other stuff exists argument, which is fine but... it just doesn't really address the issue(s). You said yourself that moves/name changes are often a result of stub deletion discussions, so right away it's misnamed. I could make similar arguments about all of the other "X for deletion" pages as well of course, but since this discussion is about this page I won't.
    V = I * R (talk to Ω) 16:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    More to the point, it's a typical reply of someone who can't see the point in changing them all, when only two are out of line with all the others. It's not so much an WP:Other stuff exists argument as a WP:Naming conventions argument, though - we have naming standards for all other types of pages, why don't we have them for the deletion (not discussion) pages, too? And given that this is one of sevenj pages that should be similarly named, it's silly not to mention the remaining pages in this discussion. All but two of them are named by one standard - a standard also used by umbrella pages dealing with all of them - so moving this page away from that standard is odd at the very least and against normal Wikipedia practices at most. Grutness...wha? 22:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see a huge practical benefit to renaming it. –xenotalk 15:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Although I see only 1 editor opposing (vehemently), neither do I see massive suport for a rename here. Perhaps let's close the discussion as "Keep, in view of no consensus for rename". Somebody do the honors, please? Debresser (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Not particularly vehemently at all - just my usual verbose self coupled with some common sense. You ought to see me when I'm vehement about something :). I make it two editors who don't see that renaming is worthwhile versus three who do, BTW, and given there are over 150 stubsorters and tons of other VP regulars who would have known about the debate, it seems that it's largely a case of fuss (and potential work in renaming things) over nothing. Grutness...wha? 23:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
You should give it the 7 day run, and then one of us at WP:RM will come along and archive it.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
It's had a 19 day run so far... this was proposed in mid-August. Grutness...wha? 10:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
well, yea... between you and debresser. Anyway, I don't actually have strong feelings on this. The RM process is there to provide some outside exposure to a naming issue is all. If those of you who are more involved in this process feel like closing it, then I don't think anyone would really complain.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough - makes sense. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Let's give it a bit more time, as we don't really have a consensus either way on this at the moment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Basically, only one editor insists on keeping things the way they are. It is just that nobody else cares enough to express his or her opinion. Sic transit gloria mundis. Debresser (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand that this has gone on for a while already, but I've relisted the debate for another week in hopes of attracting further comments. It's just not a very good idea to rename an internal process based on the support of three people (out of five total). Looks like WT:WSS has already been notified of the discussion; I hope some more people will show up so that this can be decided. Jafeluv (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Close and make an RfC for it, since here doesn't seem to be enough participation. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Renaming of multiple categories, including one or more stub categories[edit]

Please express your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions#Renaming of multiple categories, including one or more stub categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Help needed in closing old debates[edit]

Hi all - there's getting to be quite a backlog here, and help is needed to close some debates. I've closed as many as I can comfortably - those which I haven't taken part in, and any I have taken part in that had unanimous outcomes. I'm loath to close any where my comments were different to one or more other commenters, even where there seems a clear consensus. Some of those needing to be closed seem fairly straightforward (UFO-stub, for instance), but it would be better if someone else who knows how this page works did the closing. Any volunteers? Grutness...wha? 23:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

XfD logs[edit]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#XfD logs. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Have all XfD be substituted and link to the actual page of discussion[edit]

Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions#Have all XfD be substituted and link to the actual page of discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Editsemiprotected[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please add the semiprotection icon template to this page since it doesn't currently appear. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Renaming[edit]

A stub template has been given a {{sfr-t}}. Q1: why does {{sfr-t}} mention deletion (twice), when deletion is not intended? Q2: why is there no link to the relevant renaming discussion? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

A1: {{sfr-t}} and it's equivalent for categories, {{sfr-c}} both "cover all the bases". If it only said renaming "renaming", yet the discussion here deemed that it should actually be deleted, then the discussion would need to be closed, a new sfd template would need to be added to it, and then a new discussion would need to be opened. That's simply not practical. Q2: no direct link is provided because of the way discussions are transcribed on the page. I suppose it could be done, but given that individual debates are more often than not part of double nominations, and are always written into small daily transcluded subpages, it would be messy. Mind you, Some variation of the system used for cfd might well be possible and might not be too bad an idea. Grutness...wha? 18:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Q3: exactly where is the relevant renaming discussion? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Go to the template's "What links here" (link in the toolbox on the left of the page) and choose Wikipedia namespace - it'll guide you to here. Grutness...wha? 01:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:United States history book stubs[edit]

Category:United States history book stubs was nominated on 28 February for speedy renaming to Category:History book about the United States stubs. Since it is a stub category, it is ineligible for speedy renaming, and the listing has been removed. I am posting this notice here so that a discussion about the category, if it is thought to be necessary, can be initiated. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably worth discussing, though the new name is pretty cumbersome. I'll add it to the nomination page. Grutness...wha? 22:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion re: Re-listing[edit]

A suggestion for WP:SFD. We don't normally re-list nominations - they just hang around at the bottom of the page until someone gets fed up with them and closes them. I'd like to propose the following:

  1. If discussion is continuing, an item should be kept at the bottom of the page if no clear outcome or best course of action has emerged on the stub type under discussion
  2. If there has been no new comment on an item for a month and there is still no clear outcome or best course of action, it should be re-listed, per the normal methods on CFD and other process pages, in order to gain more comments.

Most of the time, clarity of action - if not always consensus - is reached. In other cases, such as the current US-history-book-stub discussion, they can hand around unresolved for a long time. Hopefully this will keep the ball rolling on a couple of items every now and again. (Crossposted at WT:WSS) Grutness...wha? 22:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, since there were no objections, i've gone ahead and relisted the sticking nom, using two new templates - {{sfd relist top}} and {{sfd relist bottom}}. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Using essays for basic guidelines[edit]

Sadly predictable, but unproductive. Process pages should not refer to user essays for basic reading material on how to use them. If this material has consensus (which it probably has) then it should either be imported here or moved to a sub-page. "Reducing clutter" is not an excuse to send readers into userspace for essential guidance on process. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The essay was moved into the Wikipedia namespace - this simply points to a redirect. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
So there are still several problems:
  1. The content is marked as an essay. If the consensus is that it's appropriate guideline material it should be de-essayed.
  2. It's located under the Wikiproject. SFD is a full-blown process and should not be dependent on material from a Wikiproject to understand. The correct place for explanatory material would be under this article.
  3. The page itself still points to the user redirect.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. True
  2. It is not an explanation for this process page per se, as is clearly explained in the text. It is an explanation regarding the stub-classifying process. As such it is appropriate to be under WP:WSS, and also appropriate to link to this page, given this pages inseperable link with stub-classifying.
  3. Remember WP:SOFIXIT?
Grutness...wha? 23:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Premature Iran categories[edit]

Hi guys. As creator of these categories (this, this and this), I agree that they are still premature, but I have plan to complete these categories in a Month. I just made those for in first step to sorting Iranian writing articles that spread through the Wikipedia. Unfortunately most of Iranians I see in Wikipedia are sensitive in political articles but no one help me in literature parts. Now, what would I do after this nomination for deletion? Is it possible to stop deletion?P. Pajouhesh (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to simply state why you think they shouldn't be deleted in the nomination. If they are deleted, there's nothing to stop you proposing similar stub types at WP:WSS/P - which is the standard procedure. Note however that stub categories are never filled without templates, so the current stub categories have serious problems with them. I'd suggest you have a good read of WP:STUB before making any proposals. Grutness...wha? 01:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Use AWB to gradually reduce the use of moved stub tags?[edit]

I came up with an idea of how to gradually reduce the use of stub tags we rename but keep the redirect: Add these redirects to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects. What this means is, that any time someone uses AutoWikiBrowser(called AWB for short) to edit a stub with one of these tags, AWB will sugest that, in addition to anything else the user may be doing, that (s)he replace the old tag with the new tag. Note that users aren't supposed to use AWB just to fix these redirects; we're talking here about something which would happen in addition to some other edit. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I thought of this recently when I set up a {{Euro- to {{Europe- find and replace in AWB so I support. How about the redirects from stub templates without diacritics (eg {{Galati-geo-stub}} → {{Galaţi-geo-stub}})? SeveroTC 05:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
And all the NZ- ones to NewZealand-, and -hist- to -history- for that matter. There's certainly quite a few places this could be used. Grutness...wha? 06:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The NZ- ones are covered by Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/September#A group of redirect reversals; although I wouldn't automaticly rename any templates there under this discussion without a new discussion, I would definitely include any redirect to the NewZealand- form which already exists to be included - especially that there's no clear list of all the NZ- tags it applied to at the time. And I've found a number of -history- tags in discussions.
About the diacritics - I'm not sure.
I'm currently in the process of creatinga list at User:Od Mishehu/SfD moved templates, I started at August 06 and am going forward - already reached October 07. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Sfd top[edit]

I've added

{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#ifeq:{{{sig|}}}|no||– ~~<noinclude></noinclude>~~}}

to Template:Sfd top to ensure that closes are signed. This allows for more transparency, as admins frequently neglect to sign their closes. I've used the code from Template:DRV top to make this change. Cunard (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfinished business[edit]

The discussion at Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2011/August/18#Rail_-.3E_Rail_transport closed as "delete" but it seems no action was taken on the templates. The templates are not listed in the "to orphan" section of the main STFD page. Is there a bot that is supposed to take care of those things? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK there is no bot that does this, and I admit i'm not completely knowledgeable to deal with all the closes I make, and usually the cleanup is left on AN. But on this case the result was actually rename, and it looks like that done...or am I being blind? -- DQ (t) (e) 14:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The existing uses were never updated to the new names, and the old stub template names were never deleted. So the outcome that is in place is "Rename, keep redirect/Move" rather than "Rename". — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah ok, thanks for clearing that up. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes we allow these things to happen naturally (using AWB:template redirect replacement for example), not expecting the "preservers of obsolete redirects" brigade (of one) will be reverting anyone that does so. <meh> Rich Farmbrough, 14:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC).
The questions are (1) Was the intention to rename all the existing uses and (2) is there a bot to do it. Apparently there is no bot. If the goal was to rename all the existing uses, I can do it quite easily, which will (finally) resolve that old discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Since DQ, who closed the original discussion, seem to indicate the goal really was to rename the templates, I added these to the "to orphan" list on the main page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Help, please[edit]

I would appreciate some help in getting Category:Sub-Antarctic island geography stubs renamed to Category:Subantarctic island geography stubs. I am finding the instructions on how to do this somewhat confusing – no doubt due to my own mental inadequacies. The renaming is to bring the spelling into line with the parent category, following a speedy renaming there, and should not be controversial. Thanks for any assistance. Maias (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - and we should find a standard way of doing this through the category speedy renaming method.... SeveroTC 13:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Severo; much appreciated. Maias (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Stub category visibility[edit]

It has been suggested that stub categories should be hidden. Please comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 6#Category:Stub categories. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we really need this deletion discussion category?[edit]

Implementation of the SFD migration to CFD - potential problem?[edit]

Following the closure to new business of SFD, four stub templates were nominated for deletion at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 15. The discussions have been closed on the grounds that CFD does not handle templates. The closer has opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Implementing the merger of SFD to CFD and requested input on various matters, including whether stub templates should go to TFD. All input welcome. BencherliteTalk 12:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)