Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/September/16
September 16 edit
{{Delaware-Route-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
Redundant to {{Delaware-road-stub}}. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - must have been one we forgot ;) master sonT - C 01:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also a redlink category, and apparently long-standing unused. Could be speedied, especially given the earlier "umbrella" deletion. Alai 05:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Slash and burn with a stick...er, delete per nom. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:59, 17 September 2007 (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.
{{Castile and León-geo-stub}} (redirect); Cat:Castile-Leon geography stubs -> Cat:Castile and León 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 delete spacey redirect; rename cat
Two different naming issues here. Firstly, the template has been on a spurious journey to non-NG names, and I've moved it to {{CastileLeón-geo-stub}}, keep the original name at {{CastileLeon-geo-stub}} (now a cut'n'paste move over yet another redirect). It's currently unused, but admittedly only because the category is now almost empty: one bot populated it heavily, and another user went on a spree of twiddling transclusions from one form to the other. But I doubt the general populace will miss it, at least if a version with the correct spellng exists. If anyone wants to insist on {{CastileandLeón-geo-stub}}, perhaps fair enough, but a move towards dropping lower-case non-substantiative words from camel-case templates would seem like a good idea to me. At any rate, delete the spacey version. Secondly, rename the category to follow the permcat, Cat:Castile and León. Alai 05:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The spacey redirect should definitely go, and yes, the cat should follow the permcat name. I think a reasonable case could be made for a redirect at {{Castile-geo-stub}} (per the likes of {{Newfoundland-geo-stub}} and {{Trinidad-geo-stub}}), but doubt that CastileandLéon-geo-stub would be a goer. Grutness...wha? 23:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Castile-geo-stub}} would be somewhat confusing, given {{CastileLaMancha-geo-stub}} -- which is another biggie, to boot. Alai 15:02, 19 September 2007 (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.
{{Subdwarf-star-stub}} / Cat:Subdwarf star 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
Unproposed, and hopelessly tiny. The parent category (Cat:Subdwarf stars) has only six articles. If it can be populated to threshold, fine - if not, then at the very least it needs upmerging. Grutness...wha? 01:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, subdwarf stars is becoming more common as more subdwarf stars are discovered and known, and hence more articles are made about subdwarf stars. For example, I just created V391 Pegasi with a discovered planet. Subdwarf are not the same as main-sequence stars. I saw that under Groombridge 1830 article, I see {{main-star-stub}} instead of {{subdwarf-star-stub}}. Groombridge is not a luminosity type V, but of luminosity type VI. BlueEarth 02:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Populate or upmerge. BlueEarth, I see you're able to use a lot of bold, but what I'm not getting is any actual response to the central point about current population, vis the stub size guidelines. Alai 05:31, 17 September 2007 (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.