Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/June

June 30 edit

{{Hockey-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 make similar to {{football-stub}}. -Mairi (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to {{icehockey-stub}}. Unfortunately, for most of the woprdld, hockey means field hockey (even the IOC calls this form of the sport simply "hockey"), and as such this template redirect is very ambiguous (something we tend to avoid with stub template names wherever possible. The redirect is used on a large number of articles, so will probably need a bot to depopulate it... I've retemplated a number of field hockey stubs that were marked with it (a clear indication of why it shouldn't exist). Delete. Grutness...wha? 07:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Is there a field hockey stub type? I don't see one over on the stub types list (maybe I'm blind). I would have thought to see a general hockey stub type, with subtypes of field/ice/etc, but looking at the obvious "coded" sport example - football - I notice that soccer, rugby, AFL, grid iron etc all have their own type directly nested under the sports type... so I am a little confused as to what to do. The article that brought this about is Floor hockey, which is not (in my opinion) an ice hockey stub, but certainly not a field hockey stub either. It is - as far as I can figure - just a hockey stub. But if it is the only hockey stub, there shouldn't be a template for it... Metao (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{fieldhockey-stub}} is used for (field) hockey. As for floor hockey, the article clearly says that it's a variant of ice hockey, and as such, icehockey-stub is the most sensible stub type for it. As you say, it makes little sense to have a general hockey-stub if only one or two stubs would use it rather than falling into one of the other two types. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what would road/street hockey go under? Does it have its own? or would it then have to settle for Sports-stub? CaribDigita (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, street hockey isn't a stub. But yes, I imagine it would have to go under sports-stub... although, street hockey is also (technically) a variant of ice hockey... Metao (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think CaribDigita meant articles relating to Street Hockey rather than the article itself but yes it could be tagged {{Sport-stub}} or possibly {{ball-sports-stub}}.Waacstats (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs deleting, I had never heard of the term Field Hockey till I came to wikipedia, I always heard the two sports called hockey and Ice hockey. Waacstats (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that the same's true with me, despite both ice hockey and "field" hockey being popular locally. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not many know the difference ice hockey and field hockey. NoseNuggets (talk) 2:55 AM US EDT Jul 11 2009
- You sure about that? I'd say that anyone who knows anything about either sport knows there are two separate sports. The problem is that different people refer to one or the other as "hockey" pure and simple (in North America it's ice hockey; elsewhere it's field hockey), and as such this template is confusing and ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal. It is clearly out of place, but it clearly should exist. Lets make it the similar to {{Football-stub}}. Metao (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could live with that. We do the same sort of thing with stub templates like {{China-geo-stub}} for the same reasons. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done! (for hockey, anyway). Do be so kind as to make sure I didn't stuff it up! Metao (talk) 10:51, 26 July 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.

June 25 edit

{{Japan-food-stub}} and Cat:Japan food 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.

Would it be OK if I moved this stub template to {{Japan-cuisine-stub}} and have it record stubs to Cat:Japanese cuisine stubs? This would be to bring their naming structure into line with the other national cuisine related stub templates and categories. This is part of a housekeeping move for the WP:Food project in regards to our naming guidelines. --Jeremy (blah blah) 05:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me -it would also allow for a wider scope (covering drink and other cuisine-related topics). Support. Grutness...wha? 08:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with renaming as both stub templates (one as a redirect) already exist and the wording in the stub itself already reflects the coverage of both food and drink (it uses the word "cuisine"). I don't think the {{Japan-food-stub}} template should be deleted, but instead made into a redirect (basically switching how it is now). And for the record, Jeremy, I didn't create this stub. I only created a category for it to dump into due to how many articles were tagged with it. Accusing me of not proposing the stub before creating it is disingenuous since I didn't create it in the first place. Incidentally, it was actually proposed before creation, as seen here (both food and cuisine). ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been bold and moved the stub and corrected the category as I don't see any reason why anyone would object. It may take a few hours for the category to reflect the change since the server has to catch up with where the template is pointing now. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I posted the note on your talk page because the creator of the template is no longer active, but you were a major contributor. I informed you using the template provided on the SfD page. I believe you misunderstood the intent behind the template I used, it was only the boilerplate template that is on the SfD page. It was not an accusation of any misanthropy or incompetence; please read through to the end of it and you will see a disclaimer stating such: This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. I am sorry if it upset you. --Jeremy (blah blah) 18:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Generally, for long time users, it's best not to use templated messages. You can also edit templated messages once posted to reflect actuality (I've done that many times myself). No worries. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:52, 25 June 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.

June 22 edit

{{Lviv-oblast-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. -Mairi (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discovered this listed in Category:Stubs. Nothing links to it (yet).
— Ω (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now one article links to it and more articles will also link to it. I remove the deletion template from the stub template. Kubek15^{T CS} 11:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It does not appear to be correctly formed, and new stub types are supposed to be approved by WP:WSS before being introduced. In fact it is so mal-formed that it seems impossible to clear it out of Category:Stubs, so I have stuck "nowiki" tags around it until someone can mend it and resolve that problem. PamD (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly made stub that doesn't work for what it's trying to do, and what it's trying to do goes against the normal split of stubs. This is a prime example of why proposing stub types is so strongly encouraged. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and start again, UKraine is going to need splitting soon but I would expect Lvivoblast-geo-stub. Waacstats (talk) 14:40, 23 June 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.

June 16 edit

various sports cats to 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 speedied.

following recent new creations the following categories could do with renaming due to a chnge in the years.

Waacstats (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This sort of change really should be speediable. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPeedily renamed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:39, 22 June 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.

Cat:Tokelau 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 keep. -Mairi (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Accidentally de-upmerged from Cat:Oceania stubs. There are a grand total of 26 stubs relating to Tokelau-far below the threshold for a separate category. Reupmerge.~~ Grutness...wha? 02:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn- see below. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't look like it will get over 60 just yet so support re upmerging. Waacstats (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woap hang on a bit. We should find 44 stubs! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can, that's fine (and it's only 34) - and if it gets to 60, I'd definitely support it being kept - but remember I sweep through the permcats and continent-specific cats looking for extra stubs for the tiny geo/generic national types every now and again, and it took a lot of work to get this one up to 25 stubs. Tokelau is tiny. Grutness...wha? 02:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's now at 70 stubs. :-) --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK -I'm impressed! Want to try your hand at any of the others on User:Grutness/Geo-stub tallying? :) Grutness...wha? 01:22, 19 June 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.

June 14 edit

Category:Soviet Union canoeist stubs -> Category:Soviet canoeist 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.

I would like have approval for category change after originally placing this was placed originally in the WP:CFD. This is done in maintaining consistency with other professions from people who lived in the former Soviet Union. Chris (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

support. Sounds reasonable -all the others are at "Adjective canoeist stubs": (except the Czech one, which possibly should also be but which might cause problems with "Czech" also sometimes referring to the old Czechoslovakia). Grutness...wha? 00:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. "Soviet" is the standard adjective in other (non-stub) categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which causes sometimes funny, sometimes bitter, collisions when people notable for anti-soviet activities (or simply treated as such by the govt) fall under the "Soviet" blanket (Ludmila Belousova etc.). Alternative? replacing historical citizenship with some invented bogus (Mikhail Baryshnikov). "Adjective" convention saves screen space, good, but it also may be regarded as a statement of political affiliation. NVO (talk) 11:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is unfortunate for the people involved, but I don't think this is a problem category names should attempt to resolve. A citizen of the United States (such as Timothy McVeigh, for example) might be virulently anti-American, but it doesn't change the fact that his nationality is American. People generally don't get to "pick" their nationality, so it's inevitable that there will be instances where people of certain nationalities oppose the country that they are a national of. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who created the category I support this, my mistake originally. Waacstats (talk) 07:53, 16 June 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.

11 June edit

Category:Chicago transit authority stubs —> Category:Chicago Transit Authority 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. -Mairi (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm just seeking approval for this category change. I've already moved this one after a request was made at WP:CFD but was then told that I should have come here, which is correct, the category is included in Template:Chicago-metro-stub. If you decided this shouldn't have been moved, then I will move everything back, but otherwise I will leave it as it is, thanks Spitfire^Tally-ho! 05:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Assuming that the permcat is at - or has been moved to - Cat:Chicago Transit Authority, I can't see any reason why this shouldn't be moved to match it. Grutness...wha? 10:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to match parent. Waacstats (talk) 07:55, 16 June 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.

June 6 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. -Mairi (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Judaism-stub/doc}} edit

Speedy keep. No rationale given for deletion. Used on many articles. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Apologies for the misunderstanding. I was reading top down. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 02:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is giiven below this group nomination - which is for six doc files. No-one is suggesting deletion of the stub templates themselves. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Islam-stub/doc}} edit

Speedy keep. No rationale given for deletion. Used on many articles. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Apologies for the misunderstanding. I was reading top down. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 02:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is giiven below this group nomination - which is for six doc files. No-one is suggesting deletion of the stub templates themselves. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Gospel-music-stub/doc}} edit

Speedy keep. No rationale given for deletion. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Apologies for the misunderstanding. I was reading top down. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 02:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is giiven below this group nomination - which is for six doc files. No-one is suggesting deletion of the stub templates themselves. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Christianity-stub/doc}} edit

Speedy keep. No rationale given for deletion. Used on many articles. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Apologies for the misunderstanding. I was reading top down. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 02:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is giiven below this group nomination - which is for six doc files. No-one is suggesting deletion of the stub templates themselves. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Geology-stub/doc}} edit

~~Speedy keep.~~ "Keep" because it is a highly used and useful general stub for those articles that don't fit into a more specific geology stub category. "Speedy" because no one bothered to give a rationale for deletion. Awickert (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is giiven below this group nomination - which is for six doc files. No-one is suggesting deletion of the stub templates themselves. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, delete sounds good. Sorry about the confusion; as I noted on my talk page the WikiProject's article alerts said that the stub itself was being deleted. Sorry to bother ya, Awickert (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S'alright-easy mistake to make. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Soft-drink-stub/doc}} edit

Looks like the deluge has begun... Delete all - none of them are needed, and all of them are already covered by the link to WP:STUB. Stub templates do not have /doc files, per long-standing precedent. Grutness...wha? 13:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a customized notice about where to use the stub as it relates to the subject is perfectly valid reason for the inclusion of a documents page. This appears to a personal preference of the nominator, as there is no policy-based reason for its deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs)
- Not a personal preference at all - rather a continuation of the long-standing non-use of /doc pages with stub templates. /doc pages have been discussed and rejected several times in the past by WP:WSS as they are of no use beyond that offered by WP:STUB and would require enormous amounts of extra work for the project to keep them all saying the same thing as each other 9which they would need to do, since stub templates are all used in exactly the same way - the way explained at WP:STUB). Grutness...wha? 02:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Grutness. There seems to be a precedent not to use docs for stub types. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, per my rationale at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/June/2. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...rationale which I've already pointed out goes against standard practice, adds an extra level of unnecessary work, and would cause considerable problems for WP:WSS. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no need, no use, and in most cases no content. There is enough documentation at WP:STUB. PamD (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Grutness. While it may make sense to have documentation for stub templates, such documentation should be located at one centralized location: either WP:STUB or Template:Stub/doc. There is no reason to have virtually-identical but separate /doc pages for every stub template, thereby increasing the workload for stub sorters and increasing the likelihood of errors and inconsistencies. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, possibly convert to soft redirects to WP:STUB . All templates should have documentation, and some of these pages also have categorization and interlang information. 76.66.203.200 (talk) 04:34, 26 June 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.

{{Home and Building Maintenance-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. -Mairi (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bering unproposed is the least of the problems for this new stub template, which doesn't actually do anything and has a pretty awful non-compliant name. Created by a new editor in good faith, but hardly needed even if it was named properly and did what it was supposed to. Grutness...wha? 02:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete as unused. Waacstats (talk) 08:01, 16 June 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.

{{Home-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. Mairi (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, another editor created this today, unproposed. It works, but the subject is so vague and already well covered by numerous stub types, so it's not needed. Redlinks to a badly named category, too. Grutness...wha? 02:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. Waacstats (talk) 08:01, 16 June 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.

{{Appliance 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. -Mairi (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As above - vague (home appliance? Fire appliance? Something to do with applying things?), with a convention-defying name. If there is a need for a stub for household appliances (something which hasn't been shown), then this is not the template for it. Delete, with no prejudice against a proper proposal for a better-named stub later, if needed. Grutness...wha? 02:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. Waacstats (talk) 08:01, 16 June 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.

{{Florida-Hospital-stub}} / Cat:Florida Hospital stubs / {{Florida-Hospital-stub/doc}} 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 template renamed, cat & /doc deleted. -Mairi (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I feared, the /doc problem has started (see the sfd for {{stub/doc}}, below). unproposed template and category. If they'd been proposed, someone would surely have pointed out that "Hospital" is not a proper noun, so has a lower case "h". They'd also have pointed out that 60 stubs are required for a separate category, and that stub templates don't hav /doc files. I do wish that when people created new categories, complete with {{WPSS-cat}} at the top, that they'd actually read the template they're copying across - it would save a lot of effort. Rename and upmerge the template, delete both the category and /doc file. Grutness...wha? 02:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename template, delete cat and /doc per G. Waacstats (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, upmerge template; delete the category (recreate if/when it reaches 60 articles) and the /doc page per my rationale in the PRChina-stub/doc discussion below. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Parker1297 (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the /doc subpage and category has been deleted upon author request. JamieS93 17:37, 29 July 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.

{{PRChina-stub/doc}} 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.

And another /doc file. This is going to be a case of trying to get a lid back on a can of worms, I'm afraid. Grutness...wha? 02:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, see below for rationale. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The rationale you mention doesn't hold water - it is disruptive to stub sorting, runs contrary to normal stubbing practice, and has been rejected on several occasions in the past. It might make sense to someone who uses templates in general that a /doc file is desirable, but for those of us who use and patrol stub templates on a regular basis, it adds a considerable amount of effort and work for no gain whatsoever. Grutness...wha? 13:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Since all stubs are used in the same manner, it does not make sense to have separate documentation pages for every stub template. The existence of so many /doc pages would only complicate the efforts of stub sorters and lead to inconsistencies. The goal of appending usage instructions to stub templates would be better achieved by linking to or transcluding a single, centralized page: either WP:STUB or Template:Stub/doc. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the 6 /doc group nomination. Possibly soft redirect to WP:STUB 76.66.203.200 (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Montemonte (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to what, and redirect to where? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:54, 28 June 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.