From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WP:SFD
Deletion Debates Articles / Categorized Templates Images and media Categories User categories Stub types Redirects Miscellaneous Deletion review policy - log - tools

This page only deals with the deletion of stub types, which consist of a template and a category, and are intended to be used for sorting stubs. Stub templates that are missing categories and stub categories without associated templates are also appropriate here. All other templates or categories nominated for deletion have to be put on WP:TFD or WP:CFD, respectively.

Contents 1 About this page 1.1 Putting a stub type on SfD, and what happens afterwards 1.1.1 Putting {{sfd-r}} on redirects 1.2 Possible reasons for the deletion of a stub type 1.3 What this page is not for 1.4 Typical voting options 1.4.1 Renaming options 1.5 Note to admins deleting stub types 2 Listings 2.1 October 21 2.2 October 20 2.2.1 {{Hong Kong-road-stub}} 2.2.2 {{Vedanta-stub}} / Category:Vedanta stubs 2.2.3 {{Berbers-stub}}/Cat:Berbers stubs and {{Berber-stub}}/Cat:Berber stubs 2.3 October 19 2.3.1 {{AP-stub}} / no cat 2.3.2 {{African-music-stub}} → {{Africa-music-stub}} 2.3.3 Scotland national football team squad template 2.3.4 Belarus politics and history 2.3.5 Mathematician redirects 2.3.6 Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection 2.4 October 18 2.4.1 Military units 2.4.2 various TV networks 2.5 October 17 2.5.1 Cat:American rock musician stubs → Cat:United States rock musician stubs 2.5.2 Cat:Florida structure stubs 2.5.3 {{Sahaja-stub}} 2.6 October 16 2.6.1 {{Richmond-ca-stub}} 2.6.2 {{Palestine-stub}}s 2.6.3 By-decade country song stubs 2.7 October 14 2.7.1 {{Etruscan-stub}}/Cat:Etruscan stubs 3 Old business 3.1 October 13 3.1.1 Ancient Rome 3.1.1.1 {{Ancient-Rome-geo-stub}}/Cat:Ancient Rome geographic stubs 3.1.1.2 {{Ancient-Rome-town-stub}}/Cat:Ancient Rome town stubs 3.1.1.3 {{Ancient-Rome-arch-stub}}/Cat:Ancient Roman building stubs 3.1.1.4 {{Ancient-Rome-reli-stub}}/Cat:Ancient Roman religion stubs 3.1.1.5 {{Roman-Britain-stub}}/Cat:Roman Britain stubs 3.1.1.6 {{Rome-ethno-group-stub}}/Cat:Roman ethnic group stubs 3.1.1.7 {{Ancient-Rome-law-stub}}/Cat:Ancient Rome law stubs 3.1.1.8 {{Ancient-Rome-lit-stub}}/Cat:Latin literature stubs 3.1.1.9 {{AncientRome-war-stub}}/Cat:Ancient Roman war stubs 3.2 October 12 3.2.1 Cat:Hyogo geography stubs / Cat:Kochi geography stubs /Cat:Hokkaido geography stubs 3.3 September 24 3.3.1 Cat:Hong Kong sportspeople stubs 3.4 August 24th 3.4.1 {{SouthAm-geo-stub}} and {{CentralAm-geo-stub}} 4 To orphan 5 To delete 6 Listings to log

WikiProject Stub sorting edit
Information
Project page	talk
- List of stub types	talk
- List of stub redirects	talk
- Naming guidelines
- To do	talk
Wikipedia:Stub	talk
Discussion
Criteria (A)	talk
Proposals (A)	talk
Discoveries (A)	talk
Deletion (Log)	talk
Category

[edit] About this page

This page is for the proposal, discussion, and voting on deletion of stub categories, stub templates, and stub redirects. By having the vote on these three closely related matters centralised on one page, it reduced the need for repeating identical arguments on several different Wikipedia deletion pages (WP:CFD, WP:TFD, and WP:RFD) and also reduces the workload on those pages.

[edit] Putting a stub type on SfD, and what happens afterwards

• Mark the affected pages:
  • For deletion:
    • Put {{sfd-t}} on stub templates
    • Put {{sfd-c}} on stub categories
    • Put {{sfd-r}} on stub redirects, and include the redirect target after it (see below for details)
  • For renaming:
    • Put {{sfr-t|New-name}} (parameter optional) on stub templates
    • Put {{sfr-c|New name}} (parameter optional) on stub categories
• List the stub type below in a new subsection at the top of the section which has the current date. If that section does not yet exist, create it.
  • Mention all affected pages in the subheading, like this:
    

    ==== {{tl|banana stub}} / [[:Category:Banana stubs]] / {{tl|YellowCurvyFruit-stub}} (redirect) ====
    

  • Also mention how many articles currently use the template, and if it is listed anywhere else.
  • Of course, state your reason for nominating the stub type for deletion!
• After a voting period of seven days, action will be taken if there is consensus on the fate of the stub type. Please do not act before this period is over.
• Archived discussions are logged here, and are marked with {{sfd top}} and {{sfd bottom}}, indicating whether category and template were renamed, deleted, or no action taken.

[edit] Putting {{sfd-r}} on redirects

Given that the {{sfd-r}} template breaks redirection, it is necessary to change a stub redirect when adding the template, as follows:

#Redirect [[Template:foo-stub]] should be changed to:

{{sfd-r}}{{foo-stub}}

[edit] Possible reasons for the deletion of a stub type

• They are not used in any article, and their category is empty
• They overlap with other stub categories, or duplicate them outright
• Their scope is too limited - As a rule of thumb, there should be at least 50 appropriate stubs in existence
• The stub category or template is misnamed. In this case, make this clear when nominating and propose a new category or template name. Note that - in the case of a template but not a category - it may be more appropriate to make it into a redirect
• They are malformed, misnamed, or deprecated redirects

[edit] What this page is not for

• Patently nonsensical or insulting stub types — they may be speedily deleted.
• Empty categories with no corresponding template — they may be speedily deleted (after 4 days, as per WP:CSD criterion C1).
• Recently created stub types not used on any articles — they may be speedily deleted (after 4 days, as per WP:CSD criterion C1). This does not apply to types properly proposed and accepted which have not yet been populated.
• Malformed stub types to which no further deletion reasons apply — fix them or tell the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting.
• Stub templates that were not approved by the WikiProject Stub sorting (again, unless other reasons apply) — list those on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries. From there, they may later be taken to this page
• Stub categories that are too large — these are not deleted, even if they get subdivided.

[edit] Typical voting options

• Keep (do not delete or modify)
• Delete (delete template and category)
• Merge with xx-stub (delete category, keep template (either as redirect to, or feeding into the same category as, xx-stub))
• Merge with xx-stub without redirect (delete category and template, put xx-stub on all articles that use it)
• Upmerge (merge to parent type)
• Change scope (reword the template, typically giving it a larger scope. Usually also means renaming the category)
• BJAODN (add to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, then delete)

When voting, please try to give a more substantial reason than simply "I like it/find it useful" or "I dislike it/don't find it useful"

[edit] Renaming options

• Rename/Support
  • (for templates: move to new name, replace existing usages, delete redirect);
  • (for categories: recreate category page under new name, repopulate, delete old category).
• Rename, keep redirect/Move (for templates only: move, but don't replace usages of existing template)
• Oppose (no move of template, and/or deletion and recreation of category)

• If you wish to argue for the deletion of a template or category nominated for renaming, please re-tag with {{sfd-t}}/{{sfd-c}}, and note the date of doing so, so as to ensure proper consideration of this new nomination.

If a template is speedily renamed, similarly re-tag the resultant redirect if deletion of that is desired.

[edit] Note to admins deleting stub types

It is important for consistency, and to avoid confusion on the parts of stub-sorters that stub types be removed from the stub type list when they are deleted. Please don't leave red links on WP:WSS/ST!

[edit] Listings

[edit] October 21

[edit] October 20

[edit] {{Hong Kong-road-stub}}

Spacey redirect. This type was a distinct mess: one template and two redirects, none of them complying to standard and NG names. I've moved the template to {{HongKong-road-stub}}, which is, leaving redirects from {{Hong-Kong-road-stub}} and {{HK-road-stub}}, which are less egregious, though hardly desirable as such. Alai 19:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete this redirect and the Hong-Kong one, HK seems okay as a redirect, though, so I don't mind whether it's kept or not. Any indication of how frequently it's used? Grutness...wha? 23:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Often -- unsurprisingly, in that IN keeps creating them, keeps using them, and maintains (contra HK and google) that the term is a veritable model of unambiguity). In fact it's a pretty sure bet that all usages are at one of the redirects or another, since I moved the template a little while ago, from {{Hong-Kong-road-stub}}. Alai 01:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the HK ones. IMO, the templates should in fact be named HK rather than HongKong, cf UK. I've no opinion regarding the spacey and hyphenated ones. — Instantnood 23:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Vedanta-stub}} / Category:Vedanta stubs

Empty, not used. Should be deleted. Gizza^{Chat ©} 00:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Populate or delete. As it stands at present it's probably speediable (empty, never seems to have been used), but Cat:Hinduism stubs is in need of splitting. I don't know enough about the subject to know whether this is a viable way of doing that or not, though. On that subject, and after a quick look at the Hinduism stubs category, I suspect a Hindu temple stub would be very useful. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete empty, unused category. Wryspy 09:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Berbers-stub}}/Cat:Berbers stubs and {{Berber-stub}}/Cat:Berber stubs

Never proposed, these only 18 and five stubs respectively, despite being created two months ago, and have a curious mix of ethno-group stubs, hist-stubs, party-stubs and geo-stubs. One of the template/category pairs has unnecessary plural names, too. We certainly don't need both, and it's questionable whether we need either. Not needed in its present form - first option Delete both pairs, distant second option sort properly and populate the singularly named one, and delete the other one. Grutness...wha? 00:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As the creator of {{Berber-stub}}/Cat:Berber stubs i suggest deleting {{Berbers-stub}}/Cat:Berbers stubs after transferring all its content to {{Berber-stub}}/Cat:Berber stubs.

P.S. I haven't paid attention to the existence of {{Berbers-stub}}/Cat:Berbers stubs. -- Szvest 10:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

Or to the stub proposal process, size guidelines, etc... Delete the plural pair, at a minumum. I'd suggest upmerging the other, but it's not clear to me what the upmerger target would be. {{Africa-stub}} isn't quite right, {{ethno-group-stub}}, possiblie. Alai 04:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] October 19

[edit] {{AP-stub}} / no cat

From discoveries. Too narrow. Can restub articles into {{edu-stub}}. Delete ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Also thoroughly fails the dab test. I work for AP (not to be confused with AP). Delete. Grutness...wha? 22:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - there are only 37 AP exams presently so I can't imagine it becoming large enough for a long time. Crystallina 05:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 09:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{African-music-stub}} → {{Africa-music-stub}}

We usually have the country as a noun in the template, so this should be renamed. This was on the Discoveries page, and it just needs to be renamed before I put it on WP:STUBS. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland national football team squad template

{{Template:Scotland football squad}}

This was created as an example template (by me) and is not needed. Nominate for deletion. Fedgin 15:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• This should go to Templates for deletion as this page is for the deletion of stubs only. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Moved Fedgin 07:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belarus politics and history

Discoveries cleaning again. (Expect to see this a lot today.)

• {{Belarus-politics-stub}} / Cat:Belarusian politics stubs
• {{Belarus-history-stub}} & {{Belarus-hist-stub}} / Cat:Belarusian history stubs

Too small. Re-stub these with {{Belarus-stub}} (Cat:Belarus stubs is not oversized) or upmerge. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 13:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Since the other two components of the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth both have a -hist template it is probably better to upmerge that one. Delete the -history redirect. The -politics template should be either deleted or upmerged (no strong opinion either way). Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 09:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematician redirects

More cleaning of Discoveries.

1. {{mathbiostub}}
2. {{mathbio-stub}}
3. {{math-bio-stub}}
4. {{mathematician-stub}}

1-3 are currently redirects to 4. I vote that we delete 1 and 2 and possibly redirect 4 to 3 because math-bio is a lot easier to spell that mathematician. I would also be fine with keeping the 3 → 4 redirect as it stands. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 13:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete 1 and 2, redirect 3 to 4, not the other way round. "Math-bio" is a US-only construction (it would be Maths-bio in Commonwealth English, since we've never managed to work out what an individual mathematic might be), and it's better to avoid the US/UK language split where possible. Grutness...wha? 22:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I am now ashamed of my lack of consideration for UK spellings. *smacks self in head* Redirecting 3 to 4 would be fine as well as deleting 1-3 as Finell says below. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 13:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 1, 2, and 3. How many "hits" do these phantoms get? I agree with Grutness's remarks. In addition, everyone who works on math(s) bios or history knows that {{mathematician-stub}} is the stub template to use. Also, I would hate to have to clean up after an editor who has any difficulty whatsoever spelling mathermatician (OOPS!). Personally, I copy and paste such things, and I suspect that many others do likewise. Finell (Talk) 06:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • BTW, mathbiostub has between 400 and 500 articles using it versus mathematician-stub which has between 700 and 800. I didn't check the other two. Lunch 23:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment "[E]veryone who works on math(s) bios or history knows that {{mathematician-stub}} is the stub template to use." Ummm, I didn't. I haven't made many edits of bios, but I've made a few. And the tag I used I copied from somewhere else. (I don't remember where.) Also, if these really are redirects and not stub types in and of themselves, then doesn't this belong on WP:RFD instead? Note that you may have a tough time on RfD: these redirects don't cause confusion nor are they cross-space redirects. Also, redirects are cheap. Lunch 04:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Stub redirects are always handled here, and template redirects are not cheap in terms of the servers, as has been explained here many times in the past. They also cause problems in trying to maintain uniformity in stub template naming. Perhaps a viable compromise would be to keep mathematician-stub as the mains tub, with the redirect from math-bio-stub, and create a maths-bio-stub redirect, deleting the two which fail the naming guidelines. Grutness...wha? 21:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Okey doke. Lunch 23:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection

• {{Nintendo Wi-Fi stub}}
• {{Nintendo Wi-Fi Conect stub}} (redirect; tagged with redirtypo)
• No category

Extremely limited in scope: There are very few Nintendo WFC games (certainly not the fifty articles that this page suggests), and even fewer that are stubs. {{Nintendo-stub}} should cover the stubs that do exist. Hbdragon88 07:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• It has a category, Category:Simulation game stubs, it's just not visible on the template page. Mind you, any template using <noinclude> inside a deserves to be deleted for that alone. (Also, it's unused, and badly-named.) Alai 08:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's unused because I just orphaned it while cleaning out the transclusions of {{Nintendo Wi-Fi}} (The template doesn't link to any games, so the game articles shouldn't transclude the template). Hbdragon88 08:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That was possibly a tad over-zealous, since it does have a middling potential scope, judging by the size of the perm-cat, so we might just have upmerged it, rather than deleting it entirely. But since the template is horrible anyway... Alai 08:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete what's here at present as horribly named. No opinion on whether it should be recreated as an upmerged Nintendo-wifi-stub or similar. Grutness...wha? 22:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete unpopulated category better covered by other categorization. Wryspy 09:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] October 18

[edit] Military units

Per consensus at WP:MILHIST a number of categories are being nominated for renaming. In order to achieve the broadest possible consensus, those categories which are for stubs will be brought here for discussion (per recommendation by Alai. Currently, only one stub category is affected, but there may be others in the future.

• Category:Military unit stubs to Category:Military unit and formation stubs

• Rename per consensus at WP:MILHIST

Carom 20:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Rename, assuming that the wheels don't come off the CFRs of the permanent parent cats. Contents aren't all "units" in usual parlance, but the distinction is a little murky to split along those lines. Alai 03:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• As above, rename if (and only if) that is also the consensus for the permcats. Grutness...wha? 05:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] various TV networks

Trying to clean up the discoveries page, so here's a few US TV network stubs. They are decently populated, but I'm not sure this is an axis that we want to use. I believe we decided in a by-decade split as opposed to a by-network split, so these should probably just be deleted.

• {{ABC-stub}} / Cat:ABC stubs
• {{CBS-stub}} / Cat:CBS stubs
• {{CNN-stub}} / Cat:Cable News Network stubs
• {{NBC-stub}} / Cat:NBC stubs

~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 13:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Correction. The proposal is by genre, but it any case, it was mentioned that by-network wasn't a good idea. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. It's not the ideal axis, though I'm loathe to throw these back into large-ish parents. Note that contents aren't all TV-progs; some are network affiliates, so these will need to be re-(de-)sorted by hand. (Or a combination of by hand first, and 'bot on the residual, at least.) Alai 03:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with {{tv-stub}} without redirect. Deleting such populous stubs means re-stubbing all of those articles, correct? At least that could be avoided this way. --CobraWiki 23:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] October 17

[edit] Cat:American rock musician stubs → Cat:United States rock musician stubs

[edit] Cat:Florida structure stubs

[edit] {{Sahaja-stub}}

(followup from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries). This stub was created without permission on October 11, 2006, and is currently being used on three articles. There has evidently been a recent campaign to introduce multiple vanity articles on Wikipedia which are related to this religion (some call it a cult) of Sahaja Yoga, and this stub appears to be part of that. I recommend deletion. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahaja Yoga International --NovaSTL 18:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, too narrow. Alai 02:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not bothered either way on this stub. I do however take exception to the use of the term "multiple vanity articles" The articles in question are factual. One person's genuine attempt to increase the factual content of the Wikipedia database should be commended not smeared as a 'recent campaign' Sahajhist 13:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - My bad, definitely too narrow for the moment. Wasn't intended as vanity, just coordination. The recent campaign concerns one article... Sfacets 11:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete narrow, underpopulated category. Wryspy 09:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] October 16

[edit] {{Richmond-ca-stub}}

Not in use, not well-named, not remotely numerically viable, not popular when mooted at WSS/P. Alai 05:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Alai. Grutness...wha? 05:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support deletion - per above. N4nojohn 21:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Palestine-stub}}s

Category:Palestine stubs Should change to Palestinian National Authority stubs per WP:NPOV and policy, or West Bank and Gaza or something of the sort. Palestine as a country doesn't exist but only as a region which corresponds also with Israel and possibly Jordan, portions of Syria and Egypt etc. Putting a "Palestine" stubs on articles is extremely misleading and inappropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amoruso (talk • contribs) .

• Oppose - keep as are. Palestine-stub deals with both the modern Palestinian Authority and the pre-1948 state of which it is the successor, as well as matters relating to Palestine and Palestinians which occurred in between these imes. To rename it would misrepresent what it is meant to deal with. Grutness...wha? 05:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ehmm, there was no pre-1948 state called Palestine... --Leifern 21:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he mean western Jordan? What is called Palestine was in Jordan until 1967. Only if actually talking about Israel is 1948 meaning anything and there is already a name for that country.Opiner 00:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I take it you're planning to nominate the Palestine (mandate) article as a hoax, then? Grutness...wha? 00:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

For better or for worse, there has never been a modern state in the area known as Palestine, including the Palestine Mandate, with the exception of Israel, and the Jordanian and Egyptian occupations. Tewfik^Talk 02:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. AFAIK, the PNA has authority over the Gaza Strip and around 40-50% of the West Bank. Not counting (Trans-)Jordan, the remaining part of the old British mandate outside of Israel's 1949 border is - internationally speaking - not recognized as Israeli territory but as territory under Israeli occupation. These two things are not the same and to me the current name seems more neutral than having to find some way stub wise to refer to the rest of the West Bank as an "Israeli military zone on the West Bank" which would seem to be the logical conclusion. The text doesn't use the term "Palestine" as such, but "Palestinian" which is already a deviation from our standard practice. The current situation seems like the lesser of two evils to me. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 10:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Which Palestine? The region? Ottoman? British? Before? Jewish State? Arab State? Before 1917? After the Partition of Churchill? UN Partition? The territories? Transjordan? Modern-day Palestinians? It's all a different story. --Shamir1 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The stub type is supposed to cover items relating to all of these. To give it the name of any one of these would be highly misleading.The fact that few of the items in here relate to anything other than current Palestinian issues is a problem relating to systemic bias in Wikipedia, not to any problems with the stub name. Does the proposed new name successfull cover such stubs as Malhis. Lubya, or Fadwa Toukan? Grutness...wha? 00:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Malhis and Fadwa Toukan, being from Nablus, would be covered. Lubya, being in Israel, is not covered by either tag. Palestinians are not the only group with a diaspora, and as such we can organise the articles in the same way as any other territory - if the subject in question isn't covered by the general stub template, then there is a good chance it wouldn't be covered if it instead referred to Botswana either. And if categories or other strategies can be employed to organise Botswana articles, we can do so here as well. Tewfik^Talk 02:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom Isarig 05:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nomination --Leifern 21:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom; pray for a peaceful two state solution, but until then PA better than P. Elizmr
• Support per nom. Beit Or 21:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Shamir1 -- Avi 23:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --tickle me 23:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom.Opiner 00:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - the current names were chosen after a long series of discussions with Wikipedia editors from both Israel and the Palestinian Territories, and were seen as the best and most politically acceptable names to use, given the coverage intended for the items. If there are any suggestions of pro-Palestinian bias in the name, check the history of the template (you will see that much of the early work on it was done by User:IZAK, for instance - a leading member of the team working on Portal: Israel and Portal:Judaism). Given that there was considerable debate before deciding on the name, and this was the one name that seemed to satisfy most people, changing it would create more, not less, problems. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Counter-Comments to Grutness: You are misrepresenting me. Firstly, I have not been working on "Palestine" topics for over two years, in some instances going back three years and much has been discussed and changed. Could you please point to the exact places about anything you claim I may have agreed to? While I have not been actively editing in this area, a number of other anti-Israel editors seem to have been active (see examples below). I have nothing to say about this stub discussion/vote at this time, but I will clarify my views since you mention my name, and I will let others draw their own conclusions. Secondly, I seem to recall that the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) article was reserved solely for the entity by that name set up in recent years by the PLO as part of the Oslo accords, and was not meant to imply that it is the "successor" to anything and everything to do with "Palestine" or to all or anything in the History of Palestine article, which it isn't. For example, prior to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Palestinian Jews living in that place were called "Palestinians" so it is pure historical revisionism to now twist things around and say with a straight face that "oh, the PNA is now the "successor" to all things Palestinian, which it is not! Thirdly, about two years ago or longer, and when I last left this general area of discussion and its basic consensus, which was that there should be an article called Palestine (region) which was a NPOV solution designed to reconcile the various approaches to this disputed (geographic) area. Since then however, User:Zero0000 merged Palestine (region) into the plain Palestine article in Jan 2006 [1] which was even disputed by User:Leifern at the time. I knew nothing about this and would never have agreed to that merger. How much serious talk was there about that? Could someone revert that please! Zero0000 has destroyed an important neutral name for an article in a POV fashion favorable to the Arabs and against the Israelis, it's pretty obvious. If Zero0000 can do that, then there is nothing wrong in redirecting and merging the Palestine article to the Land of Israel article because the older and better known and established name is "The Land of Israel" (derived from the Hebrew Bible.) Fourthly, I once contributed to an article called British Mandate of Palestine, but in June 2006 User:Doright changed and redirected the name of the British Mandate of Palestine article (which is what it is universally called) to "Palestine (mandate)" when the name British Mandate of Palestine has most of the intra-wiki links to other articles [2]. This is another example of recent historical revisionism at work by an editor who decides that "British" & "Palestine" = "POV"! (a joke that we are supposed to take seriously): His "reasons" for the radical change : "The Mandate for Palestine is the proper legal name of the entity that is the subject of this article. British Mandate of Palestine is a POV term. No one in talk objected to proposed move)" [3] and changes it without worrying about past "consensus", how about if he took a look at how many other articles linked to that article's name/s [4] BEFORE making changes in such a volatile topic! How about reverting that please, because it is not "POV" to state that the British (and no other world power) had a mandate to GOVERN (or RULE) Palestine - it's about their role primarily, not just about what did or did not happen to "Palestine" - the British are as much "the subject" as is "Palestine" and it is very much POV to attach "(mandate)" to "Palestine" (neutering it of its British connection) and to deliberately swing the article, via its more "neutral sounding name" in the direction of a "build up" or "boost" for "Palestine" in general and the Palestinian National Authority in particular, but somehow not for the State of Israel. Prior to 1947/8 the BRITISH had all the power in Palestine and, after the 1947 UN Partition Plan, they handed over Palestine to BOTH the Jews and the Arabs - proof that the word, name, history and entity of "Palestine" does not belong to Arabs "only" but to the British, and before them the Turks, and before them the Mamluks, and the Crusaders, etc - and in 1947 it was handed back again to the JEWS (and to some local Arabs as well, after the greater part of Palestine aka Transjordan had been given to the Hashemites from Saudi Arabia after the Churchill White Paper, 1922 and not to the Jews as promised by the BRITISH in the Balfour Declaration, 1917.) Finally, c'mon anyone with a brain in their head can see that some anti-Israel editors on Wikipedia wish to delegitimize Israel's claim to anything associated with "Palestine," and hence its very right to exist, by stripping-down anything with the name "Palestine" on Wikipedia, be it the ancient history of that area, or as a complex region, or as the British mandate and thereby deny it as a legitimate homeland and base for the State of Israel. Formulations and presentations that falsely depict the Arabs in the so-called Israeli-occupied territories seem the "only" heirs of the word and historical entity known as "Palestine" are just a ploy and must be rejected because the facts of history, religion, and politics should not become the playthings of anti-Israel editors and apologists for the Arabs. To do so goes against Wikipedia:No original research as well as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thank you. IZAK 07:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom and my comments above, Tewfik^Talk 02:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per Grutness above. These names are loaded with POV issues. --- Skapur 03:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support per nom. Kuratowski's Ghost 05:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Always nice to see so many new faces at SFD. :/ Now, if anyone can explain to me the nomination they're strongly supporting: if the category is being proposed for renaming, why is it not tagged, but the template is? What precisely is the proposed new name? (Hint: some lip service to the stub naming guidelines would be nice.) The parent category is Cat:Palestine: is that to be renamed too? Is it anticipated that this rename would involve a scope, and reparent? If so, to precisely what, in each case? Alai 06:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I would propose that the most neutral way to deal with the Categories is to change xyz of Palestine to Palestinian xyz, a convention already in place for more than half of them. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 13:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • This isn't a "xyz of Palestine" category, nor does seem to be consistent with the "nom" you're supporting "per". Nor do you address scope and parent. Please clarify. (See also WP:WSS/NG.) Alai 17:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Palestine is/was there for more than a thousan year. Temporary occupation doesn't change a thing. Also, if you say "there's no palestine" how can you say about "palestine territories"? Please note that many countries(most of the Israel's neighbors) do not think that "there's a country named Israel". They call it "occupied palestine". So, if someone starts removing articles start with Israel, what do you say to him/her? Please refine your POV, as it seems totally strange and agressive. In wikipedia we should assume good faith, unless it's obviously visible that it's not.

Hossein.ir 12:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Palestine has existed for the milleniums whether the 10-12 editors that give Wikipedia its Likudnik slant continue to rule. As the founder of Citizendium opined, Wikipedia articles are often not by consensus but by the most persistent posters. And I would add organized. Are you listening, just look at the familiar names above? Best Wishes Will314159 12:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I find your comments about other editors to be offensive and to lack WP:AGF, as well as being extremely ironic given your public calls for meatpuppets. Only if we focus on edits and not editors will we actually accomplish anything here. To the topic at hand, there is currently no state called 'Palestine,' nor has there ever been one. There is however a culture that identifies as Palestinian, as well as a quasi independent entity (PNA). Lets then try to reflect what is, as opposed to what we might think should be. Tewfik^Talk 13:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I find your taking offense at my call for more people to become involved and counterbalance your invidious POV not surprising Tewfik, the man of the thousand edits, and the owner of the July War article. For now, WP is your POV's playpen and you gang up on every article and hit people with the 3RR instead of reaching for valid, fair, and neutral positions. How many 3RR's have you done this month Tewfik? Best Wishes Will314159 15:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure when making 1,000 edits became something to be ashamed of, nor when enforcing policy became something to be censured. However, the types of comments that you've made about other editors and myself are not OK, nor are they making this a conducive atmosphere for collaboration. Please limit discussion to the issue at hand, and avoid further violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Tewfik^Talk 17:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support For millennium Palestine has referred to a region with constantly changing borders. In this day in age it is a wholly ambiguous term. Does it refer to the area including Israel, Jordan, Syria? If it is to refer to the West Bank & Gaza, Category:Palestine stubs is inappropriate, as a sovereign entity named Palestine doesn't exist. Chesdovi 13:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • And if rescoped to be something like, "places and matters under the control of the PNA", approximately how often does that change? Several orders of magnitude faster, it appears to me. Alai 17:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose What a provocative anti-Arab move. This is a very aggressive suggestion. To delete this stub is to delete any existence of Palestine. I find this whole suggestion very Israeli-Zionist orientated, If the Palestine Stub is to be deleted then the Israel Stub is to be deleted too. Palestine has existed for Millenniums and this threat of deletion to the Palestine stub shows the kind of place wikipedia is becoming. An outright POV is the proposal of deletion itself. So far I haven’t seen any neutral names that support this deletion. All the names supporting the deletion are from the usual pro-Israeli band wagon. A sad day it would be if this continuous unchecked.Palestine48 15:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  Goodness gracious, this isn't about deleting Palestine, it’s about changing it to Palestinian National Authority Chesdovi 15:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per Palestine48. This would be another example of Israeli-POV taken as fact if the template is changed. BhaiSaab ^talk 15:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Its not an 'Israeli POV' that there is no country called "Palestine." It is a fact that the closest thing to that country is currently the Palestinian National Authority. It isn't our place to describe something that should be, but only what currently is. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 17:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I really doubt that everything that fits under the template "Palestine" also would appropriately go under "Palestinian National Authority." BhaiSaab ^talk 18:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per BahiSaad. --- ابراهيم 16:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Per above. IronDuke 16:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose I have a hard enough time trying to guess at the right stub name for a new or unstubbed article as it is. There's a {{Korea-stub}}, even though there's no such place either. There's even a {{Taiwan-stub}}, even though a billion Chinese know there's no such place. And they'd be right, its actually called the Republic of China. There's also no such place as Lebanon (it's the Republic of Lebanon), but if {{Lebanon-stub}} was red-lined I'd be puzzled as to why.. Similarly, everytime someone takes a road trip through Palestine, I hope they don't actually need three footnote laden paragraphs about semi-Autonomous privisional governing authorities to explain where they've just been. -- Kendrick7 17:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That's actually exactly what they'd need, as it is a far more complicated place then either of the Koreas or Taiwan. In any event, the 'short names' that you referred belong to independent states, whatever questions about their legitimacy may exist. There is no such analogy here. Tewfik^Talk 18:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is a proposal to eliminate the {{Palestine-stub}} template, nor is it even clear if it's being proposed to move it, and if so to what. In fact, the degree to which it's muddled really makes one wonder why people feel it's reasonable to turn up and say "support as above" (as opposed to say, making a coherent argument, or actually fixing the tagging to correspond to nomination and/or the naming guidelines). The phrase "co-ordinated vote-stacking" springs to mind for some reason I can't quite put my finger on. BTW, "Taiwan-stub" is a relatively safe choice, since no-one disputes that Taiwan exists, and the scope of Taiwan and (the modern) RoC are little different. Alai 19:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If you are concerned about "co-ordinated vote-stacking," you may find these solicitations to be of interest: Palestine48, Kendrick7, Will314159, Kosmopolis, Robin Hood 1212, Palmiro, BhaiSaab, Sa.vakilian, Ibrahimfaisal - while notifying interested users on a small scale is fine, I hope we all realise that this isn't a "vote," Tewfik^Talk 06:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Kendrick7. --Sa.vakilian 18:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, and oppose the general principle that decisions of this sort be taken by small armies of Wikipedians with similar views who simultaneously appear to vote the same way on them, whatever the topic. Palmiro | Talk 18:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The stub should be used to include all topics relating to historical Palestine in all its forms, as per Grutness' comment above. As a result, the flag icon should be replaced.

As far as categories go, to be consistent, Category:Palestine should cover the same topics, with a subcategory (Category:Palestinian Arab People, or something like that) which will include all topics relating to the modern Palestinian Arabs, the PNA, and their conflict with Israel.

Actually, this would mean that Category:Israel should be in Category:Palestine (yikes! what have I got myself into?).

However, categories such as Category:Xxxxx of Palestine should be renamed to either Category:Palestine xxxxx or Category:Palestinian xxxxx, on a case-by case basis. For example, Category:Palestine geography but Category:Palestinian education. In general, Category:Palestine xxxxx would go under Category:Palestine but Category:Palestinian xxxxx would go under the "Modern Palestinians" subcategory. --Eliyak T·C 19:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A major split and/or restructuring is somewhat problematic to address in the context of this stand-alone nomination, since it'd mean rearranging assorted other categories, which would have to be done separately (and from our perspective preferably first), and because there's only 130ish articles to play with (aside from the locations), and the stub guidelines argue against creating lots of itsy-bitsy stub-cats, so separate sorting of "Historic Palestine" (much less one for Roman, one for Ottoman, one for British...), an "ethnic-Palestinian", a PNA, and a Palestinian-territories-not-under-PNA-control would be a bit much, to put it mildly. OTOH, a Cat:Palestinian-bio-stub is probably inevitable sooner or later, though strictly speaking it would be applied only to people who are PNA "citizens", or otherwise-stateless Palestinians. (Cf. the issue of applying {{Albania-stub}} on an ethnic basis.) Alai 20:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I still think that this stub tag should be for general Palestine topics (with an appropriate icon). --Eliyak T·C 23:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are some possible alternate pics: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] --Eliyak T·C 23:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• oppose If i would choose one to call non-existent, it would'nt be Palestine. --Striver 20:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Again, this isn't a place to register opinions on what we'd like to be, but on what exists in reality. I don't think anyone here contends that there is a state called "Palestine" today (or in the past, for that matter). There is an autonomy called Palestinian National Authority - hence I'm puzzled by the opposition. Anything that wouldn't be covered under the new template probably doesn't belong under the current one anyways (things dealing with the Palestine Mandate for example, should be marked separately). Tewfik^Talk 20:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • New template? I ask again, what's being nominated (and what are you supporting) for renaming? The template? The category? Both? In either case, to what, precisely? And see my comments above about the several different types of non-PNA "Palestinian" topics, which there's not currently, and little prospect of, any means of 'marking separately'. How do you suggest we tag locations in the 60% of the West Bank (m.m., Judea and Samaria) not under PNA control, that's in international law not part of any state (much less a Palestinian one)? (I suppose there's always the Kosovo, or suggested Hong Kong 'solution', of tagging with the mysteriously non-specific {{MEast-geo-stub}}. Alai 21:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I apologise if I wasn't clear, but I am in favour of renaming at the very minimum, to "Palestinian." As an aside, I believe that upwards of 95% of Palestinians in the West Bank (excluding Jerusalem) are under PNA control, and I've yet to come across an entry that pose a problem. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 23:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm afraid that's still not being at all clear, or answering most of the above questions. {{Palestinian-stub}} and/or Cat:Palestinian stubs don't follow the stub naming guidelines, and would have no logical permanent category parent. Your carefully-phrased statement about the Palestinians in the WB is true, as I understand it, but only addresses the biographies, and not the remainder of the scope of the stub type, and its child cat, Cat:Palestine-geo-stub. (As to "reality", I suppose that depends if you're applying a definition from international law, or a more Maoist one.) Alai 02:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I don't quite understand your point. I would obviously (I think it may be obvious, but perhaps I'm missing something?) support changing the appropriate categories to be in line with whatever we rename the stub/s. As far as I can tell, everything in the Category:Palestine geography stubs would fit under a "PNA" template, and most of Category:Palestine stubs would as well, though all of them would certainly fit under a "Palestinian" template. As for "reality," I'm not sure what you meant about the Maoist position, but I don't believe that it is the position of international law that there is a state called "Palestine," nor that Israel doesn't exist (which is what my comments were directly responding to). Cheers, and let me know - Tewfik^Talk 04:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Let me try again. You can't (trust me on this) call a stub template {{PNA}} or {{Palestinian National Authority}}, nor a stub category Cat:PNA or Cat:Palestinian National Authority; thus I ask you to clarify (without reference to "per nom", which is as clear as mud, and takes about a "category", after tagged a template, and fails to include use of the word "stub" or "stubs" in the renaming proposal (I use he term loosely)) exactly a) which of them you're arguing be renamed, and b) to what? Tagging individual Palestinians with a {{PalestinianNationalAuthority-stub}} (let us say) seems a bit like tagging a (hypothetical) article on me with a {{Ireland-gov-stub}}, on the basis of where I live. The Maoist ("from the barrel of a gun") position would be that it doesn't matter what the status in international law of the WB&G, it matters whose guns are where, and thus we might as well call the portion of the WB under Israeli civil or military control "Israel" (or some other term of choice of the Israeli government), rather than in any sense being "Palestine" (or variations thereon). (Thus, the current tagging of Ma'ale Levona, Revava, etc, which cuts straight to the chase.) You weren't responding to any comment about Palestine as a state, nor obviously did I make one, either. Alai 05:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
              • I'm sorry if I wasn't clear above, but I'm not suggesting that every entry be covered by some variation of PNA (obviously in the proper form), but rather only most. There would seem not to be any problem, for example, with changing "{{Palestine-geo-stub}}" to some variation of "{{Palestinian-Authority-geo-stub}}," since geography is in fact very specific to government. And while I believe that most of the articles tagged with the "{{Palestine-stub}}" would fit into a "{{Palestinian-Authority-stub}}," if you don't think that people/miscellaneous articles currently in {{Palestine-stub}} fit, and that they don't merit their own sub templates ("{{Palestinian-bio-stub}}" for instance), then a "{{Palestinian-stub}} would also do the job. I would not suggest putting you under {{Ireland-gov-stub}}, but if there was no {{Ireland-bio-stub}}, then {{Ireland-stub}} would make sense (Of course, I'm not sure why the name of the current Palestinian entity wouldn't be appropriate; East-Germans are listed under the modern Germany stub, and Soviets under the modern Russia stub - if Ireland changed its name, you would be listed under it, but this is all moot). As for the West Bank & Gaza Strip, they are the West Bank & Gaza Strip. They are not internationally held to be a state, nor is there "on the ground" a state. Palestine = [at minimum] the West Bank, Israel, & Gaza Strip. And while I didn't say you made the comments, I was certainly responding to them (see Striver's comments directly preceding mine). I hope that I was sufficiently clear, but I appreciate how this could be complex - let me know if you require further clarification. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 06:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
                • The lack of clarity isn't related to the complexity of the subject, but to me asking one set of questions, and you giving a set of answers to different ones. And I did see Striver's comments, hence my description of them, and hence my italicision of the key "as a state" predicate, that you were making out of whole cloth. (I'll make sure to use bold, too, next time.) If someone asserts "Palestine exists", and you respond "there is no state of Palestine", you've not refuted the original claim, you've reframed it as a different one. And you then proceed to do the same to me: I made no statement about WB&G as a state, but quite the reverse. In international law, no part of the entirity of the West Bank (and Gaza) is part of any state. (Come to that, the situation isn't especially different for these purposes in Israeli law, as I understand it.) Thus I'd like to see an argument as to why we should scope part of the state-free West Bank as "PNA", and part of it as "Israel", that in any sense meets the criterion of WP:NPOV. We do at last get some acknowledgement, though, that this isn't just a rename, it's a rescope: thank you. (One I thought there might have been some nuance to, but given the tagging of the settlements, clearly not.) The point of my Ireland-gov-stub example is this: you're proposing to classify people without an established citizenship with the (quasi-)governmental entity they live under the (semi-)jurisdiction of, as distinct from either the citizenship they'd assert or claim, or the legal status of that territory, and the larger context in which it exists, which is indeed analogous to listing a non-Irish citizen with a "Government of Ireland" category. (BTW, Soviets are tagged with {{USSR-bio-stub}}, for the very good reason that they're not all "Russians", in one sense or another, though we're many digressions deep by that point.) Your re-suggestion of {{Palestinian-bio-stub}} only tells me you didn't avail of my earlier hint that would might want to read WP:WSS/NG: we don't have {{Israeli-bio-stub}}, {{Irish-bio-stub}}, or {{Panamanian-bio-stub}} (though if I say that loudly enough, SPUI will create redirects at all of them). A broader reading of "Palestine" than Palestinian territories is remarkably far-fetched, given the prevailing climate on wikipedia: are you going to tell me that there's some sort of occasion of sin for revert wars on Haifa between {{Israel-geo-stub}} and {{Palestine-geo-stub}}? Alai 07:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
              • A broader reading of Palestine than the West Bank & Gaza Strip would be far-fetched? Since when was the term limited to those areas? In the absence of the proposed state by the same name in those areas, the term only means those areas + Israel (and often more), and that yours is an original understanding of the term. And why must we ignore that there is a Palestinian autonomous entity that has jurisdiction over all the Palestinians in those areas (repeating the caveat about E. Jerusalem) - even if you deny their legitimacy for some reason, we are trying to represent what is, and not to engage in our own analysis of int'l law to state what should be (though I don't see how any of its statements preclude the PNA from operating)? And no, it isn't really a rescope, its a rename of a stub whose current name doesn't accurately represent its scope (there are minimal, if any articles, that deal with Mandatory Palestine, or with the "historical" region). As for the rest of your comments, I assure you that I read WP:WSS/NG several times, but it does not say that in the absence of a country name that fits the proper conjugation, we should make one up (as for the East German and Soviet - and I suggest you reread Striver's comments). Correct me if i misunderstand you, but it seems to be that you propose that "Palestine" is somehow the name of the "country" in which the Palestinian population/territory exists - this is simply nonfactual. Tewfik^Talk 14:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
                • A broader reading of Palestine than the West Bank & Gaza Strip would be far-fetched, in the context described. I repeat (I seem to have to do a lot of that in this thread), do you think that the naming of a template as "Palestine-geo-stub" makes it like people will apply it to locations in "Israel proper"? Or Benjamin Netanyahu as a Palestine-stub/Palestine-bio-stub? The imagined misapplication is ridiculous on its face (and besides, that's what template and category scoping text is for). I ask you once again to acknowledge in which direction the current cross-border template march is occuring. It's certainly much clearer in applicability than PNA-stub (do click, please), or PalestinianNationalAuthority-stub, which would be a prime example of using extra characters to make something less clear. I'm not suggesting Palestine can only be read as WB&G (that would be as absurd as your claim it's not a feasible one, which most assuredly flies in the face of the "reality" of the use of language), I'm simply saying it's not a problematic one when used in this way. The argument has nothing to do with the "legitimacy" of the PNA, or its status in law; the question is, how do we scope and describe that area between the eastern border of Israel, and the western border of Jordan? (By whichever definition you prefer for the former border for the purposes of this discussion; we can largely ignore East Jerusalem, or come to that the Golan.) Your analysis, while repeating "not a state!" at regular intervals, fails to apply the legal boundaries of recognised states with any consistency. Given that none of this area is part of any state, why does it make sense, under the "by states" principle, to sub-divide it into a one non-state, and one state that doesn't legally exist in said area? (Applying whichever body of the law you selected in earlier choice.) That has nothing to so with division into states, that's switching criteria to "facts on the ground". A systematic division into states within their generally recognised borders would leave several such in the area, surrounding one non-state "hole", which it makes sense to me to scope and tag as such, much as we do with {{Antarctica-stub}}, or {{WesternSahara-stub}}. Your statement about not being a rescope flatly contradicts your previous one, and all evidence that's plain to see at the template. Merely excluding subjects from a stated scope before attempting to formalise such a change does not make it "not a rescope". And the rescoping is key: I'd rather see some neocon euphemism for Cat:Palestinian territory stubs (I'm not sure what the currently prefered one would be in those circles) than to see an arbitrarily different scope. (Historical Palestine is not the key issue here.) OK, having read /NG, you might try applying it. Using an adjective, or an ethnic descriptor in a stub template goes against every precedent for such. Using the name of a quasi-governmental body of a non-sovereign and arbitarily-designated piece of territory as if it were the name of a "country" makes no logical or linguistic sense, even as metonymy. There's no need to "make up" a term: we're already oversupplied with them, it's just unfortunately the case that each protagonist in the political dispute naturally despises the other's preference. "Palestine" is the only term that's at all suggestive and applicable with any concision appropriate for a template name, but there's ample scope for squabbling about the category name between the assorted descriptors. (Fans of ridiculous template names are free to argue in favour of {{PalestinianTerritories-geo-stub}}, {{IsraeliDisputedTerritories-geo-stub}}, {{JudeaandSamaria-geo-stub}} etc, of course, to match whatever category name they're shooting for, but I don't really see it, myself.) And yes, you misunderstand me: there's no such country, as I'd have thought I'd have made more than clear several times now. That does not make "Palestine" a non-applicable descriptor for the described non-state. It most certainly doesn't make "mostly Israel now" an applicable one, which I can only conclude is your desired outcome, absent any statement to the contrary as to how the "excluded middle" should be tagged. Alai 18:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
              • Being that users on this very page have suggested putting Israel in the "Palestine" category, I think it is not far-fetched to be wary of that option. To your suggestion that calling WB&GS Palestine would be legitimate, I will again say "not a state" - Palestine refers to WB + GS + IL (at minimum, and/or the Mandate which is not really relevant) - and popular usage is not a substitute for reality. And considering the POV that there is an entity called "Palestine" (take a look at the Arabic-language Wikipedia), I don't understand how you wouldn't see the current name as being extremely confusing at best. As for the legal boundaries of states, I also repeat that it isn't for us to become interpreters of int'l law [despite your claim not to be doing so, that is exactly what any type of original formulation is], as while simply labelling everything in WB&GS as "WB&GS" might be technically factual, it seems ridiculous to ignore the autonomy of the Palestinian Authority over the vast majority of towns/people/institutions (and most everything included in the category), which is how the template/category is currently scoped (the only contradiction is between the current scoping and name of the template). So yes, "Palestine" is not an applicable descriptor for the described non-state, which is called "Palestinian National Authority." As an aside, after all your insinuations about my motivations here, I would hope that you would consider reexamining the attitude with which you've approached this matter to see if they are really necessary and conducive to a constructive discussion. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - We aren't dealing with a country or state here. We're dealing with association. And if the article is associated with the state or country, this is the simplest and most politically correct template to use. This template does not endorse either. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 06:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Which state or country is this template associated with? Tewfik^Talk 06:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I take that back. No country there. It could, however, be used to associate either the State of Palestine or the region historically known as Palestine. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 06:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case please explain why does it carry the Palestinian Arab Flag? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not take responsibility for the content of the stub, after all I did not make it. That flag can be changed. It is just that the name needs no conflict, as I have said before. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 17:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support - intentionally or not, some users prefer to create the confusion between the geographic region (which includes Israel) and the PNA/proposed Palestinian State. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • People can have an unintentional preference? Sounds a little like an assumption of bad faith, with an AGF fig leaf attached. Your comment also appears to elide the distinction (or if you prefer, maintains the confusion) between a) whatever territory the PNA controls this week, b) the territory of a proposed Palestinian State (depending on whose/which proposal, of course), and c) the Palestinian territories (liberally tagged with {{Israel-geo-stub}} at present, as noted above, lest it be unclear in which direction the scope-creep is trending). Alai 10:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Why don't we let the facts on the ground guide the organization of the encyclopedia rather than vice-versa???
      • Facts on the Ground are the cause of problems. I again repeat my cries of POV behind this deletion vote. This deletion vote is backed heavily by long established Israeli-Friendly members. I see no harm in the continuation of the Palestine stub and all stubs relating to it. If this deletion is carried then it will affect many articles and will decrease the quality of Wikipedia not increase it. Facts on the Ground has long been official Israeli policy. --Palestine48 21:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Please make up your mind: if this is about the geographic region, then the PNA flag only is inappropriate; if this is about the PA/proposed Palestinian State, then rename and use the template only where it applies - in articles related to the PA/PS. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Humus sapiens, I don’t know where you got the idea that the Palestinian Flag is the PA flag. You suggest it as if the flag only represents the PA. The Palestinian Flag represents the Palestinian People within Palestine and the Diaspora. The flag was there before the PA and certainly older than the State of Israel! The Palestinian people raised it as the flag of the Arab National movement in 1917. As for the Stub, It represents Palestine. Please stop your Palestinian bashing.--Palestine48 09:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
            • That flag is of Arab national movement, and it represents excluding Jews and Israel. To use the same tag for both geographic region and an Arab state in the making is an extremist POV. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong oppose The parent category is simply Cat:Palestine and I strongly suspect the nomination was made purely for POV purposes, perhaps hoping that by gaining a foothold here for a particular POV, it might then be carried across to other parts of the Wikipedia. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as per user:Palmiro above --khello 18:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose stub type is valid as any other. --Ben 20:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename according to the type of stub; Palestine geo stub: Palestinian terrotories geo stub; Palestine bio stub: Palestinian bio stub; Palestine politics/govt stub: PNA stub; etc. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename The scope of the stub seems to be the only thing to be at any odds with here. My main question is - are there any other disputed territories in the world that are referred to by; firstly names (kashmir?) by different groups of people, do any of these have stubs. The issue seems very clear to me. This is a disputed territory. The territory has different names based on different peoples point of view. It's a bad idea to use one of those names as the name for the stub, you can't get away from the fact that it's inherently POV to do so, unless it has been agreed upon by an oranisation that is not biased in any way shape or form. The stub title is very different from a country title, make no mistake. You should call the stub name 'Disputed Territories of the middle East' and include other disputed territories of the middle east. Or perhaps, create a 'Disputed territory' stub and refer to those around the world. JHJPDJKDKHI! 05:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, there aren't any others like this. No other disputed territories have the numbers of stubs which would require stub types. if they did have, the same course of action would have been taken as here - i.e., discussion with editors on all sides of the dispute, followed by the adoption of a politically neutral term which most nearly suited all of those sides. That has already been done with this case, and Palestine-stub and its subtypes are the result. The current debate is merely an attempt to overturn that discussion and the decision that was reached in it. Grutness...wha? 06:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Whether or not Palestine exists, the concept of Palestine exists. This stub-template identifies whether or not a stub is related to the concept of Palestine. And I also agree that this was a bad faith nomination. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 06:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Is this going to be used to stubs related to the Palestinian Authority and the territories under its administration? — Instantnood 17:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment:Yes, it's supposed to. The problem with the stub and there seem to be some people who want to ignore the fact that Palestine has nothing to do with a political entity. Somebody might put this stub in an article concerning the Jewish Roman wars or Cannan or Edom-Assyria or the Crusaders articles. But if one does so he will see a flag next to it that represents the PLO or the Palestinian National Authority. It doesn't in any way represent Palestine of course. It might be wishful thinking if we assume WP:AGF, but it also might be extreme delusional behaviour or WP:POV behaviour that confuses readers and users and puts wikipedia into shame, using a term for something that doesn't exist in a very inappropriate inaccurate and perplexing way. Amoruso 19:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If what user:Grutness said [10] was right, then why the Palestinian flag was put on, and there's a link to Palestinian, which redirects to Palestinian people? — Instantnood 19:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Exactly. For this reason, the flag should be removed anyway if it's still named palestine. Amoruso 01:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose what will be done to articles related to the former mandated land and who lie outside Israel's internationaly recognized borders. The Palestine-stub is NPOV since the area was part of the Mandate of PALESTINE. Robin Hood 1212 19:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment that might be true if they dealt with articles about the Palestine Mandate, but the vast majority of entries are instead about places within the Palestinian Authority or people from them, which have as much to do with the mandate as Israel does. Tewfik^Talk 01:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] By-decade country song stubs

• Cat:1930s country song stubs
• Cat:1940s country song stubs
• Cat:1950s country song stubs
• Cat:1960s country song stubs
• Cat:1970s country song stubs
• Cat:1980s country song stubs
• Cat:1990s country song stubs
• Cat:2000s country song stubs

Unproposed, and seriously undersized: the largest is a mighty six, and some are actually empty). There's no present need, as the parent would be around stubs even if these were all upmerged, which I recommend we do. Alai 00:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• either delete or upmerge as per Alai. Grutness...wha? 05:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] October 14

[edit] {{Etruscan-stub}}/Cat:Etruscan stubs

Brought to you by the same user as all those Ancient Rome stub types. This one is used on two (count 'em!) articles. Never proposed, drastically undersized, unnecessary. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, trying to populate, blundered on not proposing, sorry, but do have patience. User|Neddyseagoon 21:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No harm done, but I honestly can't imagine finding 60 articles that will fit here (I would love if it were the case though). Alas, Delete unless it grows massively in size. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 00:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old business

[edit] October 13

[edit] Ancient Rome

[edit] October 12

[edit] Cat:Hyogo geography stubs / Cat:Kochi geography stubs /Cat:Hokkaido geography stubs

[edit] September 24

[edit] Cat:Hong Kong sportspeople stubs

[edit] August 24th

[edit] To orphan

Stub types in this section have been deemed deletable and have to be removed from all articles using them, so that they can be deleted.

• {{Ancient-Rome-geo-stub}}/Cat:Ancient Rome geographic stubs
• {{Ancient-Rome-town-stub}}/Cat:Ancient Rome town stubs
• {{Ancient-Rome-arch-stub}}/Cat:Ancient Roman building stubs
• {{Ancient-Rome-reli-stub}}/Cat:Ancient Roman religion stubs
• {{Roman-Britain-stub}}/Cat:Roman Britain stubs
• {{Rome-ethno-group-stub}}/Cat:Roman ethnic group stubs
• {{Ancient-Rome-law-stub}}/Cat:Ancient Rome law stubs
• {{Ancient-Rome-lit-stub}}/Cat:Latin literature stubs
• {{AncientRome-war-stub}}/Cat:Ancient Roman war stubs

I suggest we hold off from deletion of these, as a number of (re-)proposals relating to this material are pending, and it would be a bit pointless, and make things unnecessarily difficult, for these to go, and then be replaced by much the same thing, or a somewhat related type. Alai 05:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To delete

Stub types in this section have been orphaned and can be deleted.

• Cat:Hong Kong sportspeople stubs

[edit] Listings to log

Stub types with completed discussions which have not yet been logged; remove from this page entirely when logged. Anyone can do this, not just an admin; please see the directions at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log.