Administrator instructions

Before proposing or creating a new type of stub, please read How to propose a new stub type.

This page only deals with the deletion and renaming 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 or renaming have to be put on Templates for discussion or Categories for discussion, respectively.

About this page

This page is for the proposal, discussion, and voting on deletion or renaming of stub categories, stub templates, and stub redirects. Centralizing the vote on these three closely related matters on one page reduces the need for repeating identical arguments on several different Wikipedia deletion pages (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion) and also reduces the workload on those pages.

This page is still named "Stub types for deletion" for two reasons. Firstly, many of the stub types brought here arrive here after rudimentary discussion has already taken place at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries. Secondly, renaming automatically implies some form of deletion. The renaming of a stub category leads to the replacement and deletion of the older category, and the renaming of a stub template usually (but not always) leads to the deletion of the previous template name, as stub template redirects are rarely used (for the reasons for this, see the stub naming guidelines).

Putting a stub type on Stub types for deletion (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
    • Put {{sfr-r|New name}} (parameter optional) on stub redirects (Redirects should be nominated for renaming only as part of a mass renaming that includes templates that share the name element to be renamed that the redirect uses.)
• 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!
• It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors to the stub that you are nominating the stub. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the stub.
• 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.

Putting {{sfd-r}} or {{sfr-r}} on redirects

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

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

{{sfd-r}}{{Example-stub}}

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
• Their scope is too ambiguous or vague - in these cases, renaming may be more appropriate than outright deletion
• 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

What this page is not for

• Stub templates that were not approved by the WikiProject and/or created through the proposal process (unless other reasons apply) — list those on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries. From there, they may later be taken to this page
• 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 Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (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 categories that are too large — these are not deleted, even if they get subdivided.

Typical opinion 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 stub type, typically by keeping the template but redirecting it to the parent stub category for potential re-splitting later)
• Change scope (reword the template, typically giving it either a larger or more precise scope. Usually also means renaming the category)

When expressing an opinion, 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".

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)

• DO NOT rename any stub type that has been nominated here while discussion is still in progress. Any necessary renaming will be done when the discussion is closed.

• 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.

Note to non-administrators

If a category and/or stub deletion is agreed upon and you're helping to change the stubs on those pages: Once you've emptied the category, please note the category on this page under the "To Delete" section that the stub category section is empty ("orphaned") and "ready to be deleted" to the administrators.

Listings

November 21

{{SouthAfrica-media-stub}}

I can only assume this was a misinterpretation of the discussion at WP:WSS/P, which IMO clearly supports a category for South African media stubs, but with separate templates for the different media type. Delete this, and create separate {{SouthAfrica-tv-stub}} and {{SouthAfrica-film-stub}} (and any others which might be necessary, if any) in its place, to accompany the existing ones for newspapers and radio stations. Grutness...wha? 12:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I forgot not to create it. Anyway, I support deletion if the necesscary templates are made.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

November 16

Cat:Montserratian people stubs

Unproposed, but more importantly never likely to get anywhere near threshold. It would require almost 1.5% of Montserrat's population to each have stub articles for this to get to threshold. Currently contains three articles. For some reason, the creator also seems to assume that Cat:North American football (soccer) biography stubs would be the most sensible parent for this category. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Old business

November 13

Cat:Stub parent categories

Created by someone who is not clear on its scope ("stub categories which have a whole cohesive range of smaller categories") nor its usefulness; see discussion here. I suggest we either delete it, or re-scope and rename it as Cat:Top-level stub categories as suggested by others. Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Rename as first choice - it does seem like it would have some use, as long as its purpose is "what it says on the can". Would be quite open to an outright deletion, though. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This category takes the current Category:Stub categories which contains over 6,000 entries and refines that down to 46 items. To me, it seems to be of such obvious usefulness and benefit, that i'm a bit surprised it is being proposed for deletion. This is not a "stub type." it is a category. i would like this matter to be addressed in a broad discussion with the Wikipedia community. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • So far, the only person to whom its use seems clear is you. What exactly are the criteria for including a category in Cat:Stub parent categories? Here's some speculation on my part:

• Possibility #1: To include top-level stub categories, i.e. those which are not parented? I'm looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/List of stubs and seeing the top-level categories, which don't align to your selections for this category, so that's not the current scope of it.
• Possibility #2: To include stub categories which serve only as parents with no corresponding stub template? (See here for a list of examples.) Those don't align with your selections either.

• Corollary: If your intention was to create a separate category for stub cats that are parents only (with no template), you have not explained this either as your rationale or in the scope of the category. In the permcat realm, Cat:Parent categories features a template that makes it clear that "Due to the scope of this category, it should contain only subcategories and a limited number of directly-related pages." This template may appear on stub categories, thus adding it to Cat:Parent categories, but that is not apparently the scope of Cat:Stub parent categories.

Also, the heading on this page does say that stub categories without templates should be discussed here, so the lack of a dedicated template is not cause for change of venue. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I mean all significant parent categories which encompass a single topic, without any subsidiary divisions based on criteria such as time, geographical location, etc etc. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Rename to Cat:Top-level stub categories, ie those stub categories which are not children of any other stub category, so that looking at this whole group gives an ancestor for every recognised stub category. This is not immediately visible from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/List of stubs: Cat:Music stubs is not a child of any other category, but appears in that listing as a subsection of "Culture". But the category as it exists, with a subjective listing of "significant" parent categories, is not useful. PamD (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose rename. I feel that providing a convenient place to find such high-level groupings easily in one convenient place will be somewhat beneficial to readers and users. Clearly, almost all topics there constitute a significant topic area in their own right. the general scope of this category can emerge from a broad consensus-driven group effort, and the broad consensus on what categories a number of people would like to see here, and what they might find convenient. it does not have to be set in stone in this manner right at the outset. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

How will renaming it to something more accurate hinder that? In any case, where are all these people who find it useful? So far you appear to be the only person supporting this being kept in its current form. Those who regularly use stub types so far seem to think that it would not be useful under the current name but might be if effectively rescoped. Grutness...wha? 20:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

dude your continual references to me personally are not considered to be proper Wikpedia etiquette. please stop doing them. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

All I have done is ask questions in response to statements you have made. I don't see how you could consider that these questions are "continual references to you personally". I would suggest that - rather than suggesting that my comments in some way encroaches on wikiquette - you actually attempt to answer the points I have raised. Grutness...wha? 05:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

where are all these people who find it useful? So far you appear to be the only person supporting this being kept in its current form.

that is not a phrasing which is ever used, ever, in a discussion of wikipedia policy. if a person is a minority of one, their views are still given some validity. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It is used, where such wording is appropriate, such as here. The point here is that you do indeed seem to be a minority of one, but yet keep suggesting that there are more people who find it useful - in your own words, it is useful "to users of Wikipedia and readers". Yet none of these users and readers have indicated that it is of any use to them in its current form. Proof by assertion is not a valid argument, and neither is WP:ILIKEIT, which seems to be the other main argument being put forward. If it is as useful; as you maintain, there should be many !votes here to keep the category in its current form. So far, you have created a category in a form that everyone who seems to have an opinion on other than you finds to be at the very least incorrectly titled.

When discussion took place as to its usefulness, you decided that it needed to be taken to WP:AN, of all paces (hardly the most appropriate forum). When an uninvolved admin checked out the discussions/he concluded that you weren't being helpful and key questions were remaining unaddressed as to the category's usefulness. In response, rather than answering the concerns raised, you stated that the category "spoke for itself" - something it clearly does not do - and hinted that there had been an assumption of bad faith by those of us who had taken part in the discussion process. If there had been any assumption of bad faith at all, it was not by those wishing to find out what the use of the category was and - once having done so - wished to see it renamed to reflect its purpose. In this deletion process discussion, your first comments were to suggest that this was the wrong forum (it is not, as the page's instructions make clear) and that this matter needed a broad discussion within the wikipedia community - well, this page should give that - it's perfectly wide open for anyone who wishes to discuss it, yet you are still the only person speaking up in support of it at its current name.

Yes, your views are valid as one person's views, and I have never suggested otherwise. The views of myself and others are also equally valid, and given that it appears that those taking part in this debate seem- with one exception - to consider this at the very least needing a rescope, these views must be taken into consideration. This is not in any way bad wikiquette - it is simply a statement of the state of the debate. I would like to ask you to keep to wikiquette yourself, and to assume good faith on those taking part in this debate, whose aims are simply to make the current ambiguously-scoped category something that is useful and appropriately named if possible, or else to get rid of it. Grutness...wha? 22:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, i do not find the approach you display in this discussion to be overall in keeping with the more appropriate, customary or best ways for resolving these issues. I really hope the rest of the discussion here conforms with appropriate Wikipedia procedures. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

by the way, for the record, here is the text of the request which i made at WP:AN. thanks.

Hi. I need some help. I started a new category related to stubs which we sorely need. now someone has instituted a request for deletion. various editors admit the need for this category, but they seem to want to delete it over minute differences. Can some admins please help and provide an opinion? I appreciate it.

the category is: category: stub parent categories. It is being proposed for deletion at: Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2008/November/13. there is also a major discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#parent_categories. please feel free to provide some input. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that you don't find reasoned, level debate to be the best way of resolving these issues. Unfortunately, that is the way that these issues are resolved on Wikipedia. You've been here a while - you should know that. And there was no need to repeat here what you said at WP:AN - as has been pointed out to you by two of the administrators who regularly patrol that page (myself and Alai), it was an inappropriate use for that forum. Now, please will you try to conform to the usual Wikipedia standards of debate as expected in these pages, rather than continuing with this seeming assumption that those who disagree with this category are somehow in violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? So far, you have argued via proof by assertion and by WP:ILIKEIT, and have continued from there to argue ad hominem. None of these arguments are helping the category, and none of them belong in the sort of debate which these pages require. Please argue to the points raised, rather than countering them with unrelated suggestions as to the motives or methods of the asker. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. i have posted a reply to Pegship below, (starting with "Ok, I do appreciate...") which might respond equally well to your legitimate concerns. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion or renaming, actually. It's not so much everyone else being picky and minute as it is you being vague and obtuse. Your opinion, lone though it may be, would carry more weight and be more convincing if you could be more specific as to the purpose of this category. And you're welcome. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

hi. ok. thanks for your feedback. actually, i'm not really concerned about how weighty or convincing my opinion is, as long as I've had the chance to be heard. so i appreciate the chance to be heard on this. thanks (again). --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

by the way, I'm ignoring your desciption of me being vague and obtuse. sorry, but some here seem to exhibit some of the rudest behaviors I've seen at such forums. i have not made a single personal comment about anyone personally. that seems to occur habitually here. apparently some here have no idea of the ways that contentious issues are settled here at Wikipedia.

Sorry. I guess I meant to say that your statements are vague and obtuse. I'm sure your language in person is delightfully understandable. (And no, I'm not being sarcastic, just earnest). Meanwhile, would you mind addressing the unclear scope of the category? Thanks. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I do appreciate your very helpful answer, in that case. Truthfully, I don't have much more specific ideas on this category than what I've already stated. I will gladly yield to whatever consensus is reached here through this discussion. i greatly appreciate your extremely helpful and constructive desire to seek out my views, and to make sure that all of my views are heard. that's very helpful of you. thanks again. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

again, the fact I'm saying these words should not drive you to post further denigrating posts. don't let things get to you so much. also, learn to distinguish between someone who is making entirely legitimate comments about how they feel affected by the tone of the process, and people who make needless comments about the personality, trustworthiness or quality of other people.--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Rename to Cat:top-level stub categories per above. Current name and scoping statement are hopelessly open-ended, but a well-defined umbrella would actually be quite useful, especially as in past discussions there's been a complete lack of enthusiasm for top-high level "containers" that would group these. I'm somewhat boggled that this has been listed on WP:AN, which strikes me as a wildly inappropriate venue. Alai (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

November 11

{{Stargate-stub}} / Category:Stargate stubs

November 10

More footy cleanup

November 7

Cat:South Africa rugby union biography stubs → Cat:South African rugby union biography stubs

{{Macedonia (region) -stub}}

Very oddly-named stub type (in terms of naming conventions for stub templates), which has no category link (not even a redlink), and was used on one article already correctly marked with {{RMacedonia-geo-stub}}. Can't see any real purpose for this other than to confuse and conflate stubs which are already marked appropriately. If kept, it will need a major overhaul, but Deletion is a far better idea. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a stub that notes that the article is Macedonia related. People that know little history understand it.

keep it because it points Macedonia as a whole not as divided.Vlatko (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a stub template that is very badly formed and which would require considerable effort to get it corrected - and when it was it would duplicate existing templates for both areas ({{RMacedonia-stub}} and {{Greece-stub}}, along with all their subtypes) which refer to themselves by the name Macedonia. As such, there is no purpose for it. As for referring to Macedonia as a whole, regions which cross current national borders usually get both stub types. I realise there's not always the friendliest of feelings across this particular border, but that shouldn't cause problems with double-stubbing here when necessary. Grutness...wha? 22:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete. -geo-stubs use the present borders of modern political entities. Varying from this practice would be gratuitous edit-war fodder, especially in cases like this, of well-known contentiousness. Alai (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Do I have to point that Macedonia through history was whole, it is divided in the last century. No matter the political view. Everything regarding Macedonia should include this stub.Vlatko (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't have to point that out at all. There are large numbers of countries that were whole at some point in their history and are not now - and they don't have stub types. With a few very rare exceptions, stub types relating to countries use current national boundaries, as explained above by both me and Alai. Grutness...wha? 22:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if so, as you are saying, still every article regarded that is connected with Macedonia is also related, with, and for the stub should stayVlatko (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be an assertion without apparent foundation, and frankly a pretty unlikely one. Your favoured scope would against all current practice, as you've been told repeatedly, and it would blatantly provocative of flames and revert wars, as would any number of "X region" of "Greater Y" scopings of (alleged) historical entities, or ought-to-have-been-entities, that take "bites" out of recognised present-day countries. Alai (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia has its own history, it's not up to anyone's belief to create a new point of view, only because someone has romantic-history points, not real ones. Propagandas should be stopped in any form, the stub is a real one and you know it. Vlatko (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia has its own -geo-stub type. It's not up to anyone's POV-pushing (and IMO borderline trolling) to create a new one, which, if it were to ever be used, would instantly create a furore on the affected article, by carving out chunks of neighbouring countries (which all also have their own -geo-stub types, which would be correctly used. I see only one person pushing "propaganda" here, and I strongly urge you to stop. Alai (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You are pushing the propaganda for Macedonia deconsolidation. In which way did I create a propaganda, here I have no intentions. It is you who stops a true connection. I do not have to point how petty your jokes are (non consensual voting). Vlatko (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Deconsolidation"? What the heck? Is there some part of "current political boundaries" that's unclear to you? Or do you simply think that this "definition-defying" region is some sort of exception to the practice we follow everywhere else? If at some point you chose to address the point about the massive scope for disruption if someone were so reckless as to start tagging places in Greece or Bulgaria as being part of the "Macedonian region", please let me know. Otherwise, just knock it off: I personally see absolutely nothing in the least funny here. Alai (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - there's nothing that can't be covered in RMacedonia, Greece or Bulgaria geo-stubs. I see no reason for it. --Laveol ^T 00:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This stub is a general abbreviation for all articles related to Macedonia as a term. The meaning is obvious not implicative. Ehat are you so afraid of? Vlatko (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No one is mentioning fear, humor, or any other emotional or political implication, except you. If you are not willing to discuss this stub type on its merits as a technical component of Wikipedia, not a national or regional political or historic issue, then you need to find another forum. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

My intention is not to make or do some political conflict :), I simply think that is good the stub to be used as general abbreviation for Macedonia related articles. Isn't that obvious?Vlatko ^T 18:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Oookay. Vlatkoto - firstly, as already explained, the stub type is already covered by other stub types, and is not needed for that reason. If, however, you wish to consider it from the the political viewpoint, consider how many problems it is likely to cause as a stub type. Consider an analogy. for much of its recent history, Pakistan was part of British India. Once the region won its hard-fought-for independence from Britain, it engaged in a series of bloody wars with India, and even today there is only an uneasy peace between the two nations, and decidedly mixed feelings towards the UK. Consider if you were a Pakistani, how would you feel if someone created a {{BritishIndia-stub}} template and added it to the article on your home town. Would you be likely to leave it there, or would you remove it? Would you feel inclined to leave a heated comment on the user page of the editor who had added the template? A similar problem exists here. As you are no doubt only too aware, the relationship between the Former Yugoslav Republic, Greece, and Bulgaria is not entirely friendly. The use of a template which attempts to indicate that the articles for the entire region belong together is not likely to do anything except engender edit wars and heated arguments. So the stub type isn't useful from the point of view of stub sorting, and would be detrimental to cooperation on Wikipedia in terms for its potential as an edit-war magnet. Grutness...wha? 23:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that you said above, but here the case is different, the region represents a whole, it is divided between four states, it is still just a pointer. None will be offended.Vlatko ^T 01:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Alai. Icewedge (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

{{China-health-stub}} / Cat:Chinese health stubs

{{China-university-stub}} / Cat:China university stubs

November 4

baseball pitcher

November 3

{{Manchester-railstation-stub}} and {{Manchester-geo-stub}}

Cat:Football (soccer) stubs etc.

October 31

Cat:European organization stubs, and subcats

• Cat:German organization stubs: doesn't follow spelling of permcat, rename to Cat:German organisation stubs
• Cat:Italian organization stubs: undersized, upmerge
• Cat:Norwegian organization stubs: doesn't follow spelling of permcat, rename to Cat:Norwegian organisation stubs
• Cat:Spanish organization stubs: highly undersized, upmerge

Lastly, given that English-speaking nations in Europe use the "organisation" spelling, and that all the subcats ought to be at the "organisation" spelling, rename Cat:European organization stubs to Cat:European organisation stubs. Alai (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support changes to international English. Also support upmerging, though of course would recommend trying to fill them first (less than 60 Italian or Spanish org-stubs? I would have expected there to be far more...) Grutness...wha? 22:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I've no idea; the European cat is hardly huge itself, so finding them would be the usual magical mystery tour through the <country>-stubs (and perhaps elsewhere). Obviously if someone expends the effort in populating them, I'd be fine with renaming instead. Alai (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I've gone through the first 1/3 of Cat:Italy stubs (which is grossly undersorted, BTW); the Italy-org-stub category's gone from 26 stubs to 51 so far - and that's despite the fact that I've ignored sports teams and companies. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Italy's up to 60 now, so keep but rename that one, too. Grutness...wha? 22:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
        • I've done the same with Spain, and that too is now up to 60 stubs - keep but rename that one too. Cat:Spain stubs, BTW, was almost enough to make a stub-sorter week. Grossly undersorted, some 50% of it wis geo-stubs, and that's nopthing compared to one or two of its subcats. Cat:Cantabria stubs would from from 80 to about 10 stubs if all the geo-stubs in it were correctly stubbed. Massive work needed here, methinks. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose We have explicitly allowed for this non-consistency between English and American spelling. In particular, with respect to the Norwegian category, it should be noted that a perusal of Category:Organisations based in Norway shows there is no preference for one variant or the other. We should not attempt to streamline Wikipedia on an issue where consensus is not to do so. __meco (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • That's per Cat:Organisations based in Norway, not per Cat:Organizations based in Norway. Stub templates, wherever possible, follow permcat names (as is implied in the nomination). Grutness...wha?