Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/June

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 3[edit]

{{London river stub}}[edit]

Unproposed, and a problem on several counts. It defies naming conventions, and worse, it isn't "what it says on the can". This is not a stub type for rivers in london, it's for London River Services. Given that there are only some 20 unsubcatted items in Cat:London Transport stubs and only 33 items in Cat:London River Services as a whole, this seems thoroughly unnecessary. If kept, this will need upmerging as well as a change of name (possibly to {{LondonRiverServices-stub}} or similar), but as it stands it doesn't seem worth having at all - delete. Grutness...wha? 05:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 5[edit]

{{E.tiaratum-stub}}[edit]

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

A textbook example of an unproposed and overspecialised stub type. Stubs by family or even genus may be acceptable, but stub types for an individual species? Consider two questions: a) howe many articles could be stubbed with this? b) How many stub types would this form a precedent to, in terms of stub types for individual species? As it is, this ewas used on one article, probably the only one it could ever be used on (one which was also happily stubbed with two adequate stub templates). It also has no category link, which, in a way, is just as well, since it's one less thing to consider deleting. Grutness...wha? 01:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Tho we do have a few stubs dedicated to a single species – {{dog-stub}}, {{cat-stub}}, {{horse-stub}}, and {{bio-stub}} – except for bio-stub, they're for domesticated species. ;) Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - but that last one's so dangerous it's worth keeping a close eye on ;) More seriously, unless there are as many breeds and strains of E. tiaratum as there are for cats or dogs, it seems unnecessary. Grutness...wha? 06:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to limited scope.--Lenticel (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • update - to confuse matters further, the creator of this has now moved it to Wikipedia:E.tiaratum-stub. It was an unlikely stub, but its a totally inappropriate WP-space page! Grutness...wha? 10:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: editor has now been indef blocked for vandalism threats, and per nom. ~~ [Jam][talk] 20:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and also {{Wikipedia:Phasmatodea-stub}} and {{Wikipedia:Mantodea-stub}} per nom.
You want those tagged and nommed as well? Alai (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that is OK. I figured that I could just add them on the end of this nom, since they are by the same editor and probably fall under the same deletion descriptions. ~~ [Jam][talk] 10:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection. However, these are for entire insect orders -- I'm guessing they're populable, and in spades. OTOH, there seems to be no actual pressing need for them either, and they're unused and uncategorised, so perhaps we should err on the side of just cleaning up the current mess. Alai (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me, too, but note that this now needs to be kept open for a few more days (until the 17th) to allow a week for the new nom. Grutness...wha? 01:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've no issue with that :). I think the only objector would be the original creator (although they already said on their talk page that I could delete on of the templates if I wished) but they've been indefinitely blocked (as I said earlier). ~~ [Jam][talk] 07:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given all of the above it seems a bit excessive to throw this into the backlog just for the sake of running out the clock, so I've deleted them all. (Not closing this immediately lest anyone wish to comment further, approvingly, on my rougeishness, or otherwise, but I'll do so tomorrow.) Alai (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well do it now. Since the creator of those two has an indef block and you've deleted the templates it seems moot. Grutness...wha? 01:44, 13 June 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.


Cat:Pittidae stubs[edit]

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 upmerge


An upmerger candidate, per discussion at WSS/D. Unlikely to get close to 60 stubs any time soon, though the template is fine as an upmerged type, per similar precedents. Grutness...wha? 01:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Anytime soon" seems to be something of an understatement, even if adaptive radiation were somehow outpacing extinction. Inherently undersized, upmerge. Alai (talk) 18:17, 10 June 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.

June 6[edit]

{{User:Willisis2/football_stub}} / Cat:Football player stubs[edit]

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

Need I say more? Oh, all right. We don't have user-specific stub types (imagine trying to patrol stub types if every user had their own specific stub templates! Aaargh!). We don't use ambiguous terms like "football" for specific sports - it explains why on the "proper" {{Football-stub}}. The template and category have names that do not indicate their relationship. Even if we igore that it's a user template, the name "Football stub" is against stub naming conventions. And in any case, we already have a host of established stubs for soccer players. All of thse are reasons why these should be deleted. Grutness...wha? 01:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bear in mind that this is actually in the template NS, not the user one: it's accordingly very badly named indeed. It's borderline speediable on that basis, but since it might have to be hand-emptied, and there's the category too, I'll be satisfied with deletion at any temporal progression. Alai (talk) 16:15, 6 June 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.

June 7[edit]

{{2000s-emo-album-stub}}[edit]

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

Unproposed, unused, and pretty much unusable in its current form anyway. If kept it will need a serious overhaul (and a category) to makee it useful, but I suspect that deletion may be the better option. Grutness...wha? 02:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete and if needed start again. Waacstats (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one makes me nervous, since the application of the term "emo" seems to precede an "oh no they're not!" - "oh yes they are!" war of flames and reverts. OTOH, in theory it is following a permcat, which is how we're splitting up the alts, indies, etc, which are getting big, and will be where the potential population will be getting dumped otherwise... Alai (talk) 10:46, 9 June 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.

June 9[edit]

{{com-stub}}, redirect[edit]

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


Excessively terse and ambiguous redirect to {{telecomm-stub}}, which happens to have a fair few others, too. Orphan and delete. Alai (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too ambiguous. Telecommunications? Computers? Companies? Communism? Combinatiroal analysis? Comedy? Comets? Commerce? Comics? Commonwealth? Compounds? Feh. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, this was the original name for {{telecomm-stub}} until December 2006. [1] Worse, despite it having been some 18 months since then, it hasn't been depopulated and replaced with {{telecomm-stub}} in the stubs it marked. So orphan to {{telecomm-stub}}, but keep with notice of what it has been renamed for a while. Suggested code for the notice:
{|
| style="color:red;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger" | The stub template com-stub is deprecated. Please use telecomm-stub instead.
| {{telecomm-stub}}
|}
Unless you'd rather we not have com-stub feed into the category or there's a template to give the warning notice a standard garish look, I think this would work best. Give the notice about a year to percolate through infrequent stub sorters and then delete it. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm. Nothing garish (I could do with a nice garish notice on the frequently (mis)used {{china-geo-stub}}. Perhaps the same sort of message as is on there will do for now until we come up with something louder. Grutness...wha? 01:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be fine, tho since we don't need for people to think which is replacement to use, I could live with something more garish here. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so hot on this idea. Bear in mind that it's not been the "advertised" name for the stub type all that while (I don't believe, at least), so anyone still using it is doing so out of force of habit, or having seen it on another stub, rather than having been "told" it was the thing to be doing. I'd rather cut the Gordian knot now, on that basis. There's also the question of just how "deprecated" something has to be to get auto-depopulated, but not deleted: it's not really in our usual practice, and I can just see someone deciding to complain about it. But if that option's the flow, I shall try going with it... Alai (talk) 09:46, 11 June 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.

June 13[edit]

{{Stub Category Group}}[edit]

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 whisked off to tfd per Alai


Delete. Created in 2005, used in one instance [2], but I'm not sure why. I'm fairly sure we don't need it though. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't see why anyone would want to use this - seems redundant to the whole stub system as used. Grutness...wha? 23:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible wrong venue. This is not a stub template. It looks to me like an attempt to have a version of {{Stub Category}} for "containers", which may or may not be necessary/desirable. You're looking for WP:TFD. Alai (talk) 12:31, 16 June 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.

June 14[edit]

Cat:Germany film stubs[edit]

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 cat, upmerge template


An unproposed new template and category ({{Germany-film-stub}} is the template) were created recently. While I've no qualms about the template, there's no indication that the category would reach threshold (though it seems likely, given the size of the permcat parent), but even if it does it's misnamed. If this can be populated, it should be renamed to Cat:German film stubs, per the standard for all other Cat:Fooian film stub types and also per the permcat Cat:German films. If not, then the template should be upmerged and the category deleted. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it should be easy to populate this, seeing as most existing German film stubs are sorted into genre film stubs cats. Nevertheless, sorry for not proposing this first, I thought it should obviously exist. dorftrottel (talk) 05:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify: I don't feel strongly either way, merely created the cat and template because I felt it should be there and could easily be populated. dorftrottel (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I agree that it's likely to reach the normal stub-splitting threshold, and if it can, that's fine, but as I pointed out, if it's to exist it needs renaming to the standard pattern - it would have saved work if it had been proposed initially, since then we'd know whether it was populable and if it was we'd have a correctly named category. Grutness...wha? 08:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did actually create the category with the correct name, initially. Somehow I then got the idea that the correct name would be the current one. Don't ask me how or why... Anyway, can't it be simply renamed, i.e. if it is decided to keep it? dorftrottel (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or upmerge, depending on prospects of it being populated. Alai (talk) 12:33, 16 June 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.

June 16[edit]

{{Riotcontrol-stub}} and redirect {{Riot-control-stub}}[edit]

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


Unproposed, and no clear indication that there would be many (or any!) stubs which could use this. There is a redlinked stub category, and no equivalent permcat (either Cat:Riot control or Cat:Riot-control, which is the naming as in the stub category link). Delete. Grutness...wha? 02:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I upmerged this, on the basis of the redlink, and the utter lack of any evidence of populability, and pointed out the non-NG nature of the hyphenated version, and was reverted for my trouble. Given the lack of availability of this enlightened compromise, and the scoping issues, delete. Alai (talk) 12:27, 16 June 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.

{{Element-arch-stub}}[edit]

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 to architecturalelement-stub
Proposed, but awkwardly named. These aren't elements of arches, or anything to do with chemical elements, they are architectural elements, and as such this is a child type of {{Architecture-stub}}. propose renaming to {{Architecture-element-stub}}, in line with the various {{Foo-term-stub}} types. And deletion of the current name, for reasons of its ambiguity (this probably does contain items about elements of arches, but it's not its primary purpose!) Grutness...wha? 02:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose deletion of redirect. It's a subtype of {{arch-stub}}, not of {{element-stub}}: if we're going to tell people to follow the logic of the naming guidelines, in particular with respect to the hierarchical components, we might want to try following them ourselves. Alai (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And stronger still opposition to elimination of the "arch" component as an abbreviation: {{arch-stub}} is a redirect to {{architecture-stub}}, while {{arch-style-stub}} exists only in that form, there being no {{architecture-style-stub}} whatsoever. You're arguing on the basis of non-existent practice. Alai (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Arch-style-stub seems to negate your argument about using arch(itecture)-element-stub as a format, though, doesn't it? Or are you suggesting we rename it to style-arch-stub? Personally, I think it should be renamed to architecture-style-stub - it should never have been named arch-style-stub in the first place since arch-stub is not and was not then the standard template name. It is worth spelling out at this point, BTW, that at no point in the naming conventions does it say that the major component is the last part before -stub. This is understandable, since it isn't always the last component: geo-term-stub (a subtype of geo-stub); tv-station-stub and tv-prog-stub (subtypes of tv-stub) and arch-style-stub (which you have pointed out) are all examples where the major component comes earlier in the template. There are good reasons for this in all cases, as there is with this one. Element-arch-stub is a clumsy name. it isn't for elements of arches. it isn't for anything to do with elements, either. it is for Cat:Architectural element stubs, and as such, Architecture-element-stub is the only name really worth considering. Given that Arch-stub is a redirect to architecture-stub, arch- shouldn't be used as a major component for any stub template name. A redirect, I hasten to add that you !voted to delete as "horribly ambiguous" when it came up for deletion a couple of years ago (funny story that - it was deleted at SFD, then re-created from outside WP:WSS a few months later - and now you're arguing that it's the logical term to use!). I think we were right the first time. It is horribly ambiguous, and it's no surprise that it is not used as the main template name. Similarly, neither should anything be that uses -arch- as part of its name. Grutness...wha? 13:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmmm. Correction. It does say that the major component forms the middle element of stub names. However, either this is looong out of date (along with several other parts of the NG page, such as the bit which says EXAMPLE HERE is a good example of a compound stub, that subdivisional components are usually geographical, and that stub types can be formed using the country components BritOT-, Kiwi-, Uk-, NI-, Salvador-, and BiH-) or we need to change other stub types to term-geo-stub, style-arch-stub, prog-tv-stub and the like. Personally, I favour updating the NGs to reflect how we've been doing things over the last few years. Grutness...wha? 13:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I keep summoning up the will to response to this in in horrifying detail, but it's just too, well, horrifying. Kafkaesque, really. Just ask yourself this though: how many times have you sarcastically remarked of someone's else's creation of an "X-Y-stub" (generally when strictly speaking they wanted something along the lines of XY-stub, in all likelihood) that "there's no Y-stub, and if there were, this wouldn't be a subtype of it"? You're recommending we not only do we create something for which exactly that same objection stands, but that we delete the form that does follow the (actual) pattern! The "-term-" canard I've already dealt with, and don't proposed to repeat the exercise every time we change venues; and we can deal with OTHERCRAPTHATHAPPENSTOEXIST in the fullness of time, once we've established some actual coherence to what we're doing. I'll accept a redirect-preserving rename to either {{element-architecture-stub}} or to {{architecturalelement-stub}}. Oppose any other action whatsoever (including another other move, any systematic transclusion-replacements, and most certainly any deletions). Alai (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, that's happened frequently. But as you point out, it happens when someone wants XY-stub - not when someone is unambiguously splitting along two axes. Examples would be such things as Sri-Lanka-stub (we don't have a Lanka-stub - we also don't have a Sri-stub), or San-Francisco-stub, or Doctor-Who-stub, or Rock-and-roll-stub - or any other stub where someone has taken a compound noun and hyphenated it in such way. It doesn't happen (and to the best of my knowledge I have never said it) when someone has taken two logical subtypes and slapped them together in one order of another to form a compound stub type. There is no similarity between the two cases and this current example is clearly of the latter type. In those cases, the problem is only to keepm the two parts in an order that makes sense and is consistent with other similar splits (there's no point in having a university-France-stub, for instance). I repeat, we don't always keep the main element of a compound stub in the middle - often, in fact, it's difficult to figure out exactly what the major element would be. is a US-geo-stub primarily a geo-stub or a US-stub? Personally, i don't know, however it makes sense to talk about US geography, and that is the order the stub type is in. it's also logical to talk about other stub types in a specific order - you are usually the one who insists on grammatical niceties about such things. I've already mentioned the various -term- stub types and you've dismissed them as "canards" and "othercrapexists" - though we try as much as possible not to allow other crap to exist in stub naming terms. We also have other examples, as I have mentioned: tv-prog-stub, art-movement-stub, art-display-stub, fict-location-stub, fict-char-stub, StarTrek-episode-stub, film-genre-stub, money-unit-stub, and many many others. In every single one of these cases, the order of parts has reflected the order they would normally be said, not the primary axis of split. Even within the realms of Architecture we have arch-style-stub. There is no reason whatsoever not to use exactly the same order for an arch-element-stub as for that. Also, a question - why are you so fired up about keeping this in this specific order? The only argument you seem to have made for it being this way is on the basis of a standard we don't keep to regularly (and possibly IDONTLIKEIT), and reversing the order would make it more like other arch(itecture)-stub types and more in line with normal speech. Grutness...wha? 07:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither oppose nor support just registering the depths of my indifference. Don't we have better things to do? --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - I think it is an important stub, as it goes to Category:Architectural elements. If you propose renaming it to {{Architecture-element-stub}}, shouldn't it be {{architecture-element-stub}}?) (I can't really follow the arguments above, pro and con.) I don't think anyone seriously thinks it only applies to arches. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Context: Here is the discussion over creation of this template/cat. I closed it myself, thinking that some kind of consensus about the creation of the template as {{architecture-element-stub}} had been reached. The {{arch-stub}} template redirects to {{architecture-stub}}, so personally I think that makes the use of the full word "architecture" logical. What remains to be settled is (apparently) in which order the template words should go. I have a mild opinion that {{architecture-element-stub}} is more likely to be the stubber's "intuitive" choice -- and these arguments, while important to the fine-tuners, are admittedly a bit esoteric. So, what'll it be? {{architecturalelement-stub}}, {{architecture-element-stub}}, or {{element-architecture-stub}}? Her Pegship (tis herself) 06:05, 5 August 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.

June 17[edit]

{{Messianic Judaism-stub}} / Cat:Messianic Judaism stubs[edit]

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, don't upmerge for now


Noticed this when it was added to the stub list. Besides the space that needs removing from the template to make it conform to the naming guidelines for stub templates, there is the fact that despite having an associated WikiProject and having been available for over a year. it doesn't meet the 30 article threshold for a stub category of its own. As it has its own WP assessment template, I see no need to ignore the threshold here, so rename to {{MessianicJudaism-stub}} as an upmerged template of Cat:Christian denomination stubs. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've found some more stubs for this Category which now brings it up to 26 stubs. Kathleen.wright5 14:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, more than 30+ articles have had the stub. Second, a Messianic Jewish article is not a Christian article, thus a Christian stub would be inappropriate as a replacement. inigmatus (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, alot of articles have stubs, at least of one of them per subject. Why should we delete it.--Freewayguy Msg USC 00:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to conform with stub naming standards, and upmerge unless the number of stubs reaches threshold - though surely to Cat:Judaism stubs, not Cat:Christian denomination stubs? Inigmatus and Freewayguy, it looks like you both need to read the nomination again - no-one is talking about deleting or replacing the template (other than by fixing the name of it to MessianicJudaism-stub), only upmerging it. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Messianic Jews believe in Jesus as the Messiah and Savior, so they definitely are at least as much a Christian denomination as the Latter Day Saints. Whether they are also Jews is unfortunately a point of controversy, and depends at least in part on how broad a scope Judaism stubs has. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per guidelines above, "keep" is the same as voting in favor of keeping the status quo, even if this only a name change and category upmerge request. Thus "keep" votes should be understood as keeping the status quo and thus no change at all. I lean in favor of changing the stub name to meet stub naming conventions, but I disagree with upmerging the stub to the Christian category and believe in the interest of keeping the peace, that it remain apart from it. inigmatus (talk) 06:44, 22 June 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.

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

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


At first glance, this one appears fine, but there are problems with it, brought up during discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. It has between 30 and 60 stubs but is linked to a WikiProject - BUT that WikiProject has been moribund for several months. Also, of the 55 stubs using this stub type, 52 should actually should be using {{Trail-stub}}! Remove them and you're left with a bio-stub, Hydration pack, and Protractor compass - hardly enough to warrant a separate stub type. Given such a large overlap in a borderline-sized category, it may be better to do away with this one altogether and reduce redundancy by one, possibly turning hiking-stub into a redirect to trail-stub as we go. Grutness...wha? 02:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and don't keep as a redirect. Even if we were to keep it as a redirect or upmerge, Trail stubs would not be my first choice of where to graft it to, despite the overlap. A recreation-stub, if we had it, would be my first choice. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why delete it? Is the stub template still use at least one page?--Freewayguy Msg USC 00:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would remain on three pages, and in each of those cases a more appropriate stub type exists (as I pointed out in my nom, one of them is even a bio-stub, which should never have got this stub type to start with). In any case, having a stub type for only three stubs is hardly viable in most cases - and certainly isn't viable for a category! This is the second SFD that you seem to have failed to have understood fully, BTW - perhaps you need to reread the top of WP:SFD and also WP:STUB? Grutness...wha? 01:02, 21 June 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.

June 19[edit]

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 cat, upmerge template. Note - it appears that neither cat nor template had an sfd notice on them... please be careful when nominating!

{{Phenol-stub}} / Phenol stubs[edit]

Per this discussion at Discoveries, this has only been used on 4 items for over a year. Permcat has 159 articles; Cat:Aromatic compound stubs (its next higher stubcat) has 77 articles, so I don't think this one is needed too badly. I propose we delete the category and either delete or upmerge the template. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sensibly scoped, but undersized. Upmerge. Alai (talk) 20:42, 29 June 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 nom withdrawn

{{Afghanistan-newspaper-stub}}[edit]

Permcat has only 4 articles; creator agrees the template may be deleted. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well formed as an upmerged template that eliminates a potential double stubbing (admittedly in very few articles). While I don't think it needed to be created, neither do I think it needs to be deleted, as there is a definite need for this variety of stub for other countries. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I didn't notice that it was upmerged. My bad. I withdraw the nomination. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:57, 20 June 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.

June 22[edit]

{{Boys Love-stub}} / Cat:Boys Love stubs[edit]

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


Unproposed and unused stub type for a subtype of a subtype of a subtype of anime and manga stubs. There isn't even an article for Boys Love - it's a redirect to Yaoi - and Yaoi wouldn't have near enough stub articles for a separate stub category. preposterously over-specific - and that's without even mentioning the non-standard template name. (this, BTW, was created by a "repeat offender" who has had unproposed and unnecessary stub templates deleted in the past. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Can I see the template link, to be certain, its unuse please? Thanks.--Freewayguy Msg USC 04:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to see the template link - just look at the category. The only thing in it is the template. Since the template automatically puts things in the category, it can't be in use on any articles. If you want to double-check, then use the template's "what links here" link in the toolbox - which will link here and to the creator's user talk page (I notified him of the SfD) but to no articles - but the empty category is plenty of evidence for the lack of use. Grutness...wha? 01:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say Delete. Totally useless even in the scope of anime/manga.--Atlantima (talk) 20:43, 28 June 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.

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

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


Unproposed and unused stub type for a make of computer, and specifically designated as a subtype of Cat:Computer stubs. I mention that because, while an MSX-stub is not viable, an MSX-game-stub might conceivably be useful in upmerged form (there are some 260 articles on MSX games, but only about 20 articles on MSX itself). So there are really two plausible options: either delete outright or rename, rescope, and upmerge. (FWIW, this was made by the same "repeat offender" as the one above, BTW). Grutness...wha? 01:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely dubious of the usefulness of a MSX-game-stub. I looked at a few of the articles in the MSX game category, and they all seemed to be multi-platform games. Given the nature of the MSX system, I can't see where it would have any exclusive games except maybe some flops that no one bothered to port to another system anyway. Upmerge template to Cat:Computer stubs, if a few articles that would use it can be found that is. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing with the one above.--Freewayguy Msg USC 04:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same response as above. Grutness...wha? 01:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out (as much as I like video-game-stubs) that this type could never be needed. {{Computer-stub}} and {{Computer-game-stub}} would work fine, if the articles that need it even exist. Don't even bother upmerging, nothing uses it now. JohnnyMrNinja 04:55, 30 June 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.

June 23[edit]

Cat:West Asian football biography stubs[edit]

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 explanatory text added to cat page


Unproposed category for Middle Eastern football biography stubs, and a subtype of Cat:Middle Eastern people stubs. Why, then use the non-standard "West Asian"? Rename to Cat:Middle Eastern football biography stubs. Grutness...wha? 23:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Western Asia is the name in current UN standard geoscheme. (Or were you complaining about the use of West instead of Western?) Still, I grant that Wikipedia generally prefers Middle East over Southwest Asia and doesn't use Western Asia save as a redirect to Southwest Asia. Unless someone wishes to propose replacing MEast-foo-stub with SWAsia-foo-stub, keeping things as Middle East for now makes sense. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFC sort them as Western Asia, but i agree that Middle East is better. Matthew_hk tc 03:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be an idea to atleast note on the Category that it is for countries in the West Asian Football Federation area to avoid ambiguity over which countries constitute Middle East (We have split other areas up by Federations leading to Israelis in the Euro cat and Aussues in the Asian), just to make things clear. Waacstats (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair. This is largely a "ducks in a line" exercise, and any reduction in confusion with adding explanatory notes is probably a good move. (FWIW - and not overly connected to this particular problem - I think that FIFA would be far better off splitting the Asian Confederation into West and East and merging East Asia and Oceania into an EAP region. It would make World Cup qualification less messy all round - especially for us in the Pacific!) PS: Sorry if I sounded grumpy on your talk page Matthew - it had been a bad day :) Grutness...wha? 13:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this should be list as CFD, this is for stubs, es we chould moving cats sounds like a good plan.--Freewayguy Msg USC 03:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a stub category, and as such is dealt with here at SFD. As I said on one of your comments the other day, you really need to read up about this page and stubs in general before you make too many comments on the individual nominations. Grutness...wha? 01:47, 25 June 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.

June 24[edit]

Turkish geo-stub cats[edit]

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 per nom


Moved from WP:CFD. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support all except the Mediterranean Region one. I'd support that too, but I'd first like it confirmed that the article is named in accordance with Turkish naming conventions (I would have thought Mediterranean Region (Turkey) would have been a more widely-accepted title). Grutness...wha? 00:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The corresponding article was created in Dec. 2006 as Mediterranean Sea Region, Turkey and them moved later that month to Mediterranean Region, Turkey where it has stayed since. Category:Mediterranean Region, Turkey is newly minted, but follows the article. This link [3] would seem to indicate that the Turkish government favors Mediterranean Region over Mediterranean Sea Region as the English translation. As for ", Foo" versus " (Foo)", if we go by interwiki links, it looks like two of one, a pair of the other, with quite a few not bothering to diambiguate. Mediterranean Region is a redirect to Mediterranean Basin that predates the Turkish region article by over a year. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should the article be moved to Mediterranean Region then? {{for}} template can be always used to point readers to the Mediterranean Basin. - Darwinek (talk) 08:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Cleaning up incoming redirects would be a hassle, especially if you also clean up Mediterranean region (note capitalization) which if Mediterranean Region were made the name of the article for the Turkish Region should be reset to point to the alternate capitalization, not Mediterranean Basin. Plus what about History of the Mediterranean region? It's doable, but would require a lot of work for what I see as little gain. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. So we are basically discussing only the issue, if we should use comma or parentheses in the disambiguation process here. - Darwinek (talk) 09:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It is the only one needing distinction as per above discussion. I think all categories here are ready for renaming. - Darwinek (talk) 23:21, 5 August 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.

June 25[edit]

{{Albania-basketball-bio-stub}} / Category:Albanian basketball biography stubs[edit]

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 upmerge


Created without being proposed at WP:WSS/P, consists of 2 stubs, which are the only two stubs in Cat:Albanian basketball biography stubs. Suggest upmerging template to Cat:European basketball biography stubs.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:36, 25 June 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.

Several Cape Cod stub types[edit]

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


One user has created several unproposed stubs for Cape Cod - all of them faulty by the naming guidelines and - since Cape Cod is neither a state or a county - contrary to the usual stub hierarchy.

All bar one are redlinked, and most would in any case, fail threshold even if this was a sensible split (which it isn't). There is a new Wikipedia:WikiProject Cape Cod, the creators of which clearly didn't read {{Wikiproject}} or WP:STUB - a single talk-page banner template would be far more useful to them than a multitude of low-use stub templates. Delete all. Grutness...wha? 02:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will create them tomorrow. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all cats/Redir all templates, these can easily be merged into the state and county stub types. I don't have any objection to the templates remaining as redirects to the appropriate state or county stub template. The categories themselves have not been marked up. I took care of the school stub. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do have strong objections to this. All of them are misnamed (none of them pass muster according to the naming conventions for stubs. And since geography stubs are arranged by county, we already have a problem unless it is automatically agreed by all editors who are likely to use these templates that Cape Cod = Barnstable County. In any case, as I said, it makes far more sense to use a talk-page banner for a specific WikiProject - it's a more flexible system and can be used by that WikiProject to categorise and analyse all the articles relating to a project, not just the stubs. It is for that reason that most WikiProjects use that as their primary article analysis tool rather than relying on a stub template. There's certainly no need to go breaking the standard categorisations used for stubs across the entirety of Wikipedia just to allow one geographical entity which is not a top- or second-level administrative unit a separate stub type. Oh, and to both Jack and Ktr101, PLEASE - Don't "fix up" or "make new" parts of stub types while they're in discussion - it simply messes up the discussion process. Any new stub categories made of this type will simply need to have an additional listing here, delaying the whole process and creating more work if the outcome is deletion or redirection. Redirecting a stub type halfway through discussion may well mean extra work as well if the outcome of this discussion is to keep the stub types as is. And in both cases, a !vote of "leave them as is" becomes incredibly confusing if the status of the items has changed during the course of discussion! Grutness...wha? 03:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE We now, thanks to the "help" of the editors above, havbe two more items to discuss here - namely Cat:Cape Cod stubs and Cat:Cape Cod school stubs. Though Cat:Cape Cod stubs appears to have reached threshold, a quick scan through a sample of the stubs found that quite a few of the articles marked weren't actually stub articles. It alsostill crosses the hierarchy in a very poor way and sets a horrible precedent as regards other stub types - something which we have done our best to avoid. Cat:Cape Cod school stubs is only about 1/10 of the way to threshold. As such, my !vote is still deletion in both cases. Grutness...wha? 03:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The categories (main and school) were not marked for deletion, which I believe violates the general deletion guidelines. In general XfD discussions, it is expected that editors continue to improve the page, and that these improvements can change the result. Creating new category (pages) does create work, but fixing the categories and templates on existing pages does not. JackSchmidt (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough, it's extremely difficult to mark a page that doesn't exist for deletion! As I pointed out in my initial nomination, those category pages did not exist. I tagged them as soon as I saw that they had been created, which was at the time I added the update above. And you're right that in AfD discussions, it is expected that editors continue to improve the articles. The same is often true with TfD. In both cases, if the outcome is for deletion, the amount of work required by the people closing the process is identical, even if the article has been expanded from a stub to a 30+k article. It is not the case with SfD, since often the "improvements" does almost always end up creating considerably more work for anyone involved in closing the process (take it from someone who often closes such discussions - it increases the work involved by a considerable amount). Grutness...wha? 01:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need for separate Cape Cod categories for the reasons stated in the opening sentence. Also, some of the shields used to identify these categories are strange. For example, without having the actual shield show up in this text (my using single parentheses instead of the double brackets is intentional on my part), (Image:US 6.svg) is being used for Cape Cod Highways. This is a bad use of the shield as there is much more to US 6 than just the eastern end of the highway, over 3000 miles more! Another example, the shield showing a picture of Cape Cod is very dark, the green picture of the land mass seems to disappear into the background. Ed (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all These are unneeded. The state stub types are sufficient. For tagging Cape Cod specific articles, a project talk page banner is much better as mentioned above. --Polaron | Talk 23:06, 8 July 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.

June 26[edit]

{{Lauenburg-geo-stub}} / Category:Lauenburg district geography stubs[edit]

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 per nom


The name of the modern district is Herzogtum Lauenburg; it was named after the former principality of Saxe-Lauenburg (also known as Lauenburg). The stub is for geographical places relating to the modern district, and as such should use the modern name (Template:HerzogtumLauenburg-geo-stub; Category:Herzogtum Lauenburg geography stubs). There are 143 articles in the category right now. Olessi (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this change really necessary? As best I can tell, though it is hard to be certain. Standard practice for the English names of sub-national entities seems to be for article titles (and thus the corresponding categories) to ignore the references to types of political units such as Commonwealth and Hansestadt that appear in the names of such entities as Hansestadt Lübeck (which is just Lübeck) and the Commonwealth of Virginia (which is just Virgina. On the German language wiki Herzogtum Lauenburg is a redirect to Herzogtum Sachsen-Lauenburg. Frankly, without some evidence that it was nothing more than personal preference on your part, I'm leaning towards favoring reverting the page move you made back to Lauenburg (district). Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no common English name for this entity. Wikipedia:WikiProject German districts says

As the districts have no English names, we should use their German names. The district Nordfriesland is placed under Nordfriesland and not under Northern Frisia. Exception: If the district bears at least partially the same name as a town, then use the English name of that town. Example: The district Hameln-Pyrmont is placed under Hamelin-Pyrmont.

An archaic English name of the city is "Lauenburg on the Elbe", but that is rarely used. As far as I can tell, the district website always uses "Herzogtum Lauenburg" or the Kreis when discussing the modern entity. In contrast, the websites for Virginia and Lübeck use the shortened names as common usage. Olessi (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I scanned the websites of a few German newspapers (Kieler Nachrichten, Lübecker Nachrichten, Hamburger Abendblatt, Die Welt), and they overwhelmingly use "Kreis Herzogtum Lauenburg" and not "Kreis Lauenburg" to refer to the district. The English translation of the name would be "Duchy of Lauenburg District", but that is not actually used in English, and the aforementioned WikiProject only encourages translations for city names with widely accepted English names. The historical state was the Duchy of (Saxe)-Lauenburg, while the modern district is "Herzogtum Lauenburg". Olessi (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found the reason for the added Herzogtum. Historically there was a Kries Lauenburg from 1845-1945 centered around what is now Lębork, Poland, so the added Herzogtum, while not needed today to disambiguate the two, no longer is. I withdraw my objections, since I doubt that the Germans will simplify the name anytime soon. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. The other district in question was de:Landkreis Lauenburg i. Pom., for those interested. Olessi (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Practically all districts in German begin with Kreis/Landkreis, but that system is not used on the English WP; instead we only include "district" in the article title for disambiguation purposes and in the manner "Foo (district)". Compare, for instance Uckermark (region) & Uckermark (district) / Oberspreewald-Lausitz (no corresponding main article) / Kamenz (city) & Kamenz (district). The German phrase "Herzogtum Lauenburg" is probably not going to be used in the search box to find the Duchy of Saxe-Lauenburg on the English Wikipedia, so the district is fine at Herzogtum Lauenburg; a hatnote at the beginning of the article mentions the duchy. Olessi (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that does seem to be the current practice. As you were, then. Alai (talk) 14:39, 28 June 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.

June 27[edit]

{{Nepal Police-stub}}[edit]

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


Unproposed and non-naming convention compliant. It was only used on one article (coincidentally, Nepal Police). There is no parent permcat Cat:Nepal Police), nor, with only 240 stubs, does it appear like Cat:Nepal stubs is in any need of splitting - and certainly not along such an unconventional line - we don't even have a generic {{Police-stub}}! This really is a copybook example of an unnecessary stub type. Delete. Grutness...wha? 02:08, 27 June 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.

{{Republic of Macedonia-bio-stub}} (redirect)[edit]

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


Seems that when a bio-stub page was made for the Republic of macedonia, it was made at {{Macedonia-bio-stub}}, rather than the usual stub-naming of {{RMacedonia-bio-stub}}. At some point, someone came along and moved it to the above non-NC name. I've moved it to {{RMacedonia-bio-stub}} (a form we usually use to avoid just this sort of unilateral move), but the spacey redirect - which is unused - should be deleted. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the redirect is really unnecessary. --iNkubusse? 19:55, 27 June 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.

June 29[edit]

{{computer science-stub}} redirect[edit]

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


Spacey redirect, small number of transclusions. Delete as confusingly non-NG and non-Occamish, per copious precedents. Alai (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also sped {{cs-stub}} as a recreation. {{CS-stub}} would have been bad enough, but a lower case version is excessively obscure. Alai (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 30 June 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.

June 30[edit]

Cooks Islands stubs[edit]

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 move


Using the standard naming protocol for islands, the Cook Islands produce stubs such as {{Cooks-xxx-stub}}. This can be confusing as it looks as though it should refer to cooking rather than the island set. Hence, rename the existing stubs {{Cooks-geo-stub}} and {{Cooks-rugbyleague-bio-stub}} to {{CookIslands-geo-stub}} and {{CookIslands-rugbyleague-bio-stub}} respectively, on the same basis to how {{ChannelIslands-geo-stub}} is written, leaving redirects from Cooks-. SeveroTC 22:32, 30 June 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.

wonky US-company-stub redirects[edit]

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


Third time wasn't the charm: {{UnitedStates-company-stub}} would have been technically correct, but needlessly multiplying entities. Two usages between the three. Delete as non-NG. Alai (talk) 19:05, 30 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2008/June&oldid=222608923"