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

The result of the debate was rename

Noticed this one today - all the other RU bio-stub cats are in the form "Fooian..." - somehow this one slipped through without the "n" on the end. "Rename' to match the others. Grutness... wha? 00:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Straightforward, speedy as such. Alai ( talk) 03:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

• 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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 stay Vlatko ( talk) 15:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

"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) reply

• 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

• Delete per Alai. Icewedge ( talk) 07:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete as being against longstanding precedent for stub types. Nyttend ( talk) 22:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

An unproposed mishmash - mainly of of PRChina-hospital-stub and {{ China-university-stub}} articles and with a few culture-stub articles thrown in for good measure - using the ambiguous term "China" where the term PRChina is more appropriate ("China" is only used on stub template names where there's likely to be a clear bias towards pre-1949 subjects. In fact, {{ China-university-stub}} probably need renaming for this reason - sdee below). No other country has a specific health-stub subtype - the only such subtypes are related to specific topics of health study or concern (e.g., Cat:Dentistry stubs). I will note that there is currently no {{ PRChina-hospital-stub}} type - this should probably be rectified (and I'll propose same at WP:WSS/P). Delete. Grutness... wha? 00:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename

Given that we have a separate {{ Taiwan-university-stub}}, I'm not entirely sure why this template isn't at {{ PRChina-university-stub}}, as is usual for stub types relating primarily to the PRC. Propose renaming to {{ PRChina-university-stub}} and Cat:People's Republic of China university stubs respectively. Grutness... wha? 01:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

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