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

December 3[edit]

{{Tanakh-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 as revised

Proposal: Rename {{Tanakh-stub}} to ~~{{HebrewBible-stub}}~~ {{Hebrew-Bible-stub}} and Category:Tanakh stubs to Category:Hebrew Bible stubs.

Nominator's rationale: to match parent Category:Hebrew Bible, which is readily understandable to both Jews and Christians (the most likely constituencies to expand these 500 stubs). The stub template was renamed in Jan 2007 from {{HeBible-stub}} to Tanakh-stub mainly to match the head category, named Tanakh at the time - see the SFD discussion and this earlier discussion. Subsequently, most other Tanakh categories were renamed as Hebrew Bible, see CFD June 2007. This one should now follow.

Categorisation as Hebrew Bible eliminates duplication between Tanakh and Old Testament categories. Some Hebrew Bible categories have corresponding Old Testament head categories; these also include articles of solely Christian interest or sub-categories on the Apocrypha.

It would also be useful to reach a conclusion here on whether a separate stub category for Old Testament Apocrypha is desirable. The number of stubs in the category on Apocryphal subjects is relatively small. Fayenatic (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both, though whether the template should be at {{HebrewBible-stub}} or {{Hebrew-Bible-stub}} under standard stub naming may be open to a little debate. At the time this stub type was made, it linked with the permanent category Cat:Tanakh, now long since gone. Ironically, the original name of this template was {{HeBible-stub}}, but it was renamed because that name was a little ambiguous and the permcat was at Tanakh. The SFD on that subject from early last year may be informative. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Hebrew-Bible-stub}} would be fine by me. I've changed the nomination accordingly. - Fayenatic (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both - The word "Tanakh" isn't really used in English; and the permcat has been renamed accordingly - should have been renamed at the same time as these. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I've just stub-sorted Heptateuch but had never come across the word "Tanakh" before; "Hebrew bible" is much more informative. PamD (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above - Epson291 (talk) 12:00, 18 December 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.

December 4[edit]

{{NorthWestProvince-geo-stub}} / Cat:North West Province geography stubs (rename)[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

Unproposed, but seems a perfectly reasonable addition to the other provincial splits for South Africa that seems to have been missed when we split the others. May need upmerging if it doesn't get to 60 stubs, but it will be close to it at least. The major problem with it is that the province isn't "North West Province", it's "North West", and all categories and articles relating to it seem to be in the process of being moved accordingly. There's also a Northwest Province in Cameroun, which would cause further possible confusion. As such, this should probably be at {{NorthWestZA-geo-stub}} and either Cat:North West (South Africa) geography stubs or Cat:North West (South African province) geography stubs, dependent upon whatever final name the permcat gets. Rename. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – I'll be adding the other North West cities and towns and it will easily reach 60 uses. Just discovered Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, will follow it next time I need to create a stub template. --NJR_ZA (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers - as someone working "on the ground" with SA articles, which do you think would be the better name for the category? Grutness...wha? 05:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think North West (South Africa) will do. Adding province will probably be redundant as the term is only used in the sense of province. When referring to the geographic north west of the country, people generally use Northern Cape --NJR_ZA (talk) 09:05, 4 December 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.

December 6[edit]

{{Micro-stub}} → {{Microbiology-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 with no redirect.

Don't know how this one ever got made with such an ambiguous name, but it did. "Micro" could refer to just about anything (anything not macro, anyway), and to be honest microbiology wouldn't have been my first guess for what this referred to. Rename, and don't keep the current name as a redirect. Grutness...wha? 09:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename with no redirect. Waacstats (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and delete redirect - too ambiguous a name. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, with no redirect. It could so easily get misconstrued. Silver seren^C 02:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename with no redirect. Twirligig (talk) 21:22, 24 December 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.

December 7[edit]

{{Asm-film-stub}}/Cat:Assamese-language 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

Unproposed, very poorlly named template, and distinct size concerns about the category (parent permcat has only seven articles). If the template is kept, it will need renaming (probably to {{Assamese-film-stub}}) and upmerging. Outright deletion may be a preferable option. Grutness...wha? 22:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

template could be useful upmerged but it may be easier to delete and wait for more articles. Waacstats (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion just got more convoluted - the same user has just created {{Assamese-film-stub}}, which I'm including with this now, since it'ss basically the same template with a new name. We really should add a note to the sfd-t template to stop people from confusing matters like that (would still favour Delete, BTW). Grutness...wha? 23:38, 9 December 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.

December 10[edit]

{{footballer-unknown-status}} / Cat:Footballers with an unknown status[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 keep, but reformat to make more obviously not a stub template

This one has been around for over a year and while it has the requisite 60 stubs, it is improperly formed and unclear on use. Does anyone know anything about this?--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

works like a stub template and category pairing but Reading it an article of any length could be tagged with the template and not necessarily be out of place so I don't know that we can deal with it here or wether it needs to go to TFD/CFD. May be worth contacting the creators/relevent wikiproject. Waacstats (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This template seems to be attempting to do two things at once - stub articles and indicate that they have unknown status. The stub part of that work is already covered by {{footy-bio-stub}} (as with anything of "unknown status", the base stub type is used); the tagging as 'unknown status" is better dealt with by a different form of cleanup template (such as {{Missing information}}). Also, as pointed out, there's nothing in the template that says that it is actually for stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reformat. Actually, on second glance, this doesn't really appear to be a stub template at all. I'd recommend reformatting it slightly to make it clear that it's not a stub type - making it look more like {{Missing information}} or other similar cleanup templates. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 11 December 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.

{{UK-Atlantic-stub}} and {{UK-Atlantic-geo-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 both

Both created a long time ago (by me, IIRC) as stopgap measures. All of the UK's Atlantic territories have their own templates now, and - in the case of the geography ones - have had for a long time. Neither of these is used any more, and the term "United Kingdom Atlantic territory" was largely a fudged one - there's no formal grouping of these territories, and no permcat equivalents. Will be worth keeping the categories for a while longer, as there are a couple of upmerged templates in each, but the templates have now outlived their usefulness and can go. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 10 December 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.

December 11[edit]

{{Mobile}}[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

Suggesting deletion per this. I came across the template hitting random article. It is currently used in 3 articles.--Rockfang (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A stub template in everything but name (the name is certainly not stub convention standard), and already covered by other templates. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reason not to use the (already existing) {{mobile-stub}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{mobile-stub}} for the sake of transclusion. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 20:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

{{FR-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

We don't use ISO 2-letter codes for country names in stub types, and this redirect... isn't for France at all. It's a dangerously and deceptively ambiguous redirect to {{ForgottenRealms-stub}}, in fact. It was renamed through this page back in September 2005, but for some reason the deletion of the misnamed redirect wasn't done - so this is probably speediable on those grounds, though it will need to be emptied first. (Speedy) delete Grutness...wha? 09:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. The articles that already have this stub template will need updating. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - that's done as part of the closure of deletion decisions on SFD. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 16 December 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.

{{Forgotten Realms-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

Another misnamed redirect of {{ForgottenRealms-stub}}, though at least this one isn't so ambiguous. Delete. Grutness...wha? 09:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Stubs typically use dashes. The articles that already have this stub template will need updating. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:20, 11 December 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.

December 12[edit]

Cat:Guam radio station 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

This category has existed for over a year and has acquired a grand total of 17 stubs - not even 1/3 of the way to threshold. Givedn that that's pretty much a stub for every radio station on Guam, chances of it reaching threshold are slim, to say the least. Can't see any reason why this shouldn't be upmerged into the appropriate Cat:Guam stubs and Cat:Oceania radio station stubs. Grutness...wha? 11:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More stubs may come soon. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 20:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

{{Salcette-geo-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 stub type, with the only category link being to a permcat, and to a more general one at that. Salcette, BTW, is a place in Goa, India. Salcette itself is a stub, and has no permcat of its own, unsurprisingly. Given that the number of articles in Cat:Goa geography stubs isn't exactly huge (there are 99 of them), this is - to put it bluntly - massive hyperspecification overkill. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:53, 12 December 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.

December 15[edit]

{{PokemonGame-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, unnecessary and malformed. New, so not used yet, but there's no real reason why it should be used. Given the worryingly small size of Cat:Pokémon stubs (more about which below), there's simply no reason at all for a separate stubb type for the games, even upmerged. Couple that with the fact that the naming is non-standard and there's no category link at all (not even a redlink), and this becomes a firm candidate for deletion. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not really needed. Waacstats (talk) 09:32, 15 December 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.

Pokémon problems[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 Grutness, keep cat for now

There are problems with Cat:Pokémon stubs and - more specifically - its template. Firstly, there are a mere 28 stubs - not even enough to support a stub type for a WikiProject main stub category. There's also an empty (except for one user page) subcategory which isn't for stubs, so shouldn't be there. On top of that, for unknown reasons {{pokemon-stub}} is only a redirect; the actual stub is at the ambigguously named {{poke-stub}}. There's also a clearly substandardly-named redirect at {{pokestub}}. ideally, the template should actually be at {{pokémon-stub}}, but there's nothing there, not even a redlink.

I'd like to suggest the following:

A rename of the template to {{pokémon-stub}}, keeping the redirect at {{pokemon-stub}} but deleting {{poke-stub}} and {{pokestub}}
A possible upmerge of the category.

Grutness...wha? 00:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with rename/delete templates. As for the category it is close to threshold for a wikiproject (I assume there is one) and where would we upmerge it to? Waacstats (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the reasons it was only a weak delete suggestion. It is close to threshold and seems to be in use - I suspect it's decreasing as a consequence of work by the WikiProject. And there isn't one easy target for an upmerge. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 16 December 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.

December 17[edit]

Cat:Linebacker, 1990s birth 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

This category and the partnering {{Linebacker-1990s-stub}} have recently been made (unproposed). While I've no doubt the template is a reasonable aaddition to the series of stub types which exist of this type, the category is very unlikely to reach the required number of stubs, for a while at least. I'd like to propose upmerging this for now, with no prejudice against (re-)proposal and re-creation once we've got enough stubs for it (my guess, it'll take until about early 2010 - i.e., the first few 20-year-olds as well as the teenagers). Grutness...wha? 00:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion and upmerger till we get 60, once we get 60 it will of course be speedy-able. Waacstats (talk) 11:21, 17 December 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.

December 19[edit]

Cat:Defensive lineman, 1990s birth 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 tpl

Same as below. Used on only one stub with no room for expansion for at least a year. Suggest delete and redirect--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

support delete cat. Waacstats (talk) 23:45, 21 December 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.

{{roc-stub}} and {{ROC-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

Two non-standard-name redirects to {{Taiwan-stub}} - both created (can you guess?) by one User:Instantnood, three years ago. Between them, used less than fifteen times overall - seemingly only by Instantnood and no-one else... and he's long been banned from editing. Since no-one's using them, and the names are opretty dodgy, to say the least (ROC is a dab page, and Roc most commonly means a large mythical bird), these should probably go. Delete. Grutness...wha? 11:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ambigous. Waacstats (talk) 23:40, 21 December 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.

December 21[edit]

{{Outremer-geo-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

File under "Seemed like a good idea at the time" - but now that all of France's overseas terrirories, regions, and départements have their own specific geo-stub types, this is unused and redundant. Delete (or failing that, turn into a redirect to France-geo-stub). Grutness...wha? 23:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused and not needed. Waacstats (talk) 23:47, 21 December 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.

{{medicalstub}}[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

Long-disused misnamed redirect to {{med-stub}}. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. Waacstats (talk) 23:47, 21 December 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.

{{Afghan-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

Incorrectly-named duplicate of {{Afghanistan-stub}}, with some clear confusion of its purpose. The template name and wording indicate this is for stubs, the category link indicates that it's for Stub-Class articles - something normally served by a parametrised talk-page banner template. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as confusing. Waacstats (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize we already had one! Sorry, please delete. --Enzuru 23:54, 21 December 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.

December 23[edit]

Indian divisional geography categories[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

India's geography stubs are being split by division, and it'd be as well to get our ducks in a line naming-wise ASAP. In most cases so far, we have categories of the form Cat:Foo geography stubs, but Foo is simply the largest city in Foo division (and yes, the lower case "d" seems to be standard). I'd like to propose standardising on Cat:Foo district geography stubs (most of those which exist already follow this format), with the following changes:

Grutness...wha? 00:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support : District wise stub cats are needed like for Cat:Karnataka geography stubs

Karnataka geography stubs

Bangalore Division geography stubs

Belgaum Division geography stubs

Gulbarga Division geography stubs

Mysore Division geography stubs

-- Tinu Cherian - 08:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Though I agree, that's hardly the point being debated here. And may I ask why you changed the categories over before this process debate was closed? Grutness...wha? 23:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Sorry, We had already done this exercise for some of the other states ( per suggestion of Grutness) and ~~you had already closed~~ the discussion of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals#Split_of_Cat:Kerala_geography_stubs as "create per district". This discussion also went ahead with no objections over a week ( 7 day review period ) . And that is why I went ahead and created the new cats -- Tinu Cherian - 04:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not talking about the new Karnataka ones, which had been closed - I'm talking about the six nominated for renaming on this page - discussion of which has not yet been closed.BTW, if you're going to cite WP:BOLD ("why I did") , please make sure you read that page to understand why it is primarily for articles, and why more caution is needed for categories and templates. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Btw, that was me who closed that discussion. Sorry for any ambiguity; I thought it was pretty clear. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes. I acted upon this discussion which was closed for kerala stubs -- Tinu Cherian - 07:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Exactly. The discussion was on Kerala stub types. None of those in this nomination are Kerala stub types. Grutness...wha? 23:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. Alappuzha, Ernakulam etc said above are districts of kerala -- Tinu Cherian - 07:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missed a couple of words - sorry. The discussion was on Kerala stub types, but none of those in this nomination were among those Kerala stub types. Though the categories in this nomination were mentioned in passing in that proposal, they weren't actually part of it - that is, there was no proposal there to make Cat:Alappuzha district geography stubs, Cat:Ernakulam district geography stubsand the others. In fact, rather than just changing them over, I made it clear that I'd take those categories to SFD. that way, we could check for any objections before changing them. All in all though it probably makes no real difference - no-one's objected to the changes, so whether they were changed early or late doesn't really matter. Grutness...wha? 10:39, 13 January 2009 (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.

December 25[edit]

{{Football-variant-stub}} / Cat:Football variant 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; redundant to WP Football Project talk page assessment banner

Not proposed, not supported by an equivalent permcat, and, well, generally fairly ambiguous. The wording of the category makes it clear there's a fundamental misunderstanding here about the difference between stubs and Stub-Class articles, too. I can see the case for a possible template for futsal or for beach football, but not for this strange amalgamated form. Given that the word "footy" is that used for templates, to avoid the ambiguity of "football", this has problems from this regard as well. Delete all, but with the possibility of proposing separate templates for specific varieties of football. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete - DeMoN2008 11:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This can actually be quite helpful if it is used more. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 20:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

December 29[edit]

Cat:Sex stubs → Cat:Sex and sexuality 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I feel that the current name doesn't quite reflect what the category is actually for. It should encompass articles on the sociological side of sexuality, not just the sex act(s) it/themself. It would also be a more appropriate name given some of the subcats - LGBT and BDSM (hm - is that a dom/subcat? :) The permcat parent is Cat:Sexuality, the option of just making this Cat:Sexuality stubs would also make some sense. Grutness...wha? 21:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Sexuality stubs" to match parent category. Sex is included in sexuality. --Alynna (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and Redirect to "Sexuality stubs" per above. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 20:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

December 30[edit]

{{Greater-Manchester-stub}} / Cat:Greater Manchester 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 renamed

Unproposed and misnamed - the template should be at {{GreaterManchester-stub}}. May be worth having as such, so I'd suggest a rename (with deletion of the old name as non-standard). The category is another matter. It was a bit of a mess, with Stub-Class categories as subtypes (a no-no for stub categories, since the two systems are independent), and with Cat:England geography stubs as an incorrect parent. Even cleaned up as it is now, there's no guarantee it will meet threshold; unless it does, it will need upmerging. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming and deletion and upmerger if necessary. Waacstats (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming. I didn't know I had to propose stubs before adding them. The purpose of this one is because there is no generic stub covering the Greater Manchester region - only some subject-specific ones so it's really worth having. I'm fine with renaming if I've broken naming conventions but would be sad to see it deleted as it's useful. 11:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

PS I don't understand the problem with the category - comparing it to, say, Category:London stubs or other similar ones, it has the same approach.Wikidwitch (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main problem is the size - to be truly useful to stub sorters and editors alike there needs to be at least a minimum number of stubs in the category - for most purposes we've set this to 60 stubs, to stop the proliferation of tiny stub categories which would be impossible to patrol. If you can find 60 general stubs on Greater Manchester and add them to the category, then there's no problem with it. if not, it should be upmerged until there are 60 (see Wikipedia:Stub#Creating_stub_types). Grutness...wha? 22:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but I haven't got around to populating it yet!Wikidwitch (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've got until the end of this SfD process - and even if it's upmerged then through lack of numbers, it would be a fairly straightforward "speediable" nomination if and when it does get round to having enough stubs. Grutness...wha? 04:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I don't know how speedy I'm going to be! Anyone know, is there a rapid way of searching for stub articles within a category with AWB? Might help me along. Wikidwitch (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about AWB, but this tool may help, looking for intersections between, say Cat:England stubs and Cat:Greater Manchester. Grutness...wha? 20:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - bio-stubs are not normally given subnational region stubs of any kind except in unusual circumstances (people move around too much and many of them could get several regional stubs otherwise). I've started the ball rolling on this by transferring the template over to the new name and adding a dozen or so stubs. With any luck 60 won't be too hard. Grutness...wha? 06:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - that's got it to 60 stubs! The category's full, the template's been changed... this can probably be safely closed now :) Grutness...wha? 07:46, 12 January 2009 (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.