Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/2006/August/22

August 22nd 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 postpone

Cat:Central Africa geography stubs → Cat:Middle Africa geography stubs edit

I believe there's some general agreement to rescope the subregions of Africa to conform with the UN definitions. If so, we should clearly also rename to follow that terminology, in the interests of clarity. Alai 04:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postpone I have no objection to doing this, once the permanent cats are rescoped. But as of now, they haven't been and the relavant permanent cat is Cat:Central Africa not Cat:Middle Africa. Take the permanent cat to CFD first and rescope/rename the stub category so as to synchronize with the permanent category. Also, if we do rename, shouldn't we also move {{AfricaC-geo-stub}} to {{AfricaM-geo-stub}}? Caerwine Caerwhine 06:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We should, but I'm in no hurry to do a "destructive" template move. Alai 00:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Postpone. The way things are going, most african countries will soon be split off with their own geo-stubs, and when that happens the regional African categories will be pretty much redundant. I don't see this as being a necessary move in the long run. What's more, the stub category's parent is, as Caerwine points out, Cat:Central Africa, which itself reflects the root article Central Africa. Grutness...wha? 09:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You know what they say about the long run. There also exists very similar scoping issues for comparable categories: for example, the politicians. Horizontal consistency seems like a plan. Alai 00:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mmm. Good point, but I'd still prefer to wait to see what happens with the permcat parent. Grutness...wha? 01:38, 23 August 2006 (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-railstation-stub}} / {{UK-station-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 keep template, delete redirect

Template (and its redirect) now unused, as all of its articles have been drained into subcats. Leave the category as a parent. --CComMack (tc) 23:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the redirect. I'm inclined to say keep the template, and annotate as "deprecated" (and the category as "to be diffused"). I don't think it's a good idea to potentially frustrate future stub-sorting (and stub-sorters) with unexpected redlinks, where there would logically be a valid template. Alai 00:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I guess I was misinterpreting what normal procedure is, after the discussion in passing here. Could this be clarified somewhere? --CComMack (tc) 08:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redirect and keep template per Alai. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redirect and keep template; I don't know what part of the UK any specific city is in without looking it up, so it's much easier for me to sort into UK-railstation-stub and let WikiProject UK Railways members further sort them. Slambo (Speak) 13:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both Many stations keep appearing which need to be expanded and some of these cannot be specialised, at the moment. The templates act as a good intermediate stage and so stations will constantly be linked to this template. Simply south 21:42, 26 August 2006 (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.

{{Canada-airport-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 keep

Again, an unused template, as all articles now tagged at the provincial/territorial level. Two templates still upmerged, so don't touch the category. --CComMack (tc) 23:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, confusing way to "enforce" category diffusion. Alai 01:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alai. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:42, 23 August 2006 (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.

{{US-depot-stub}} → {{US-railstation-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 move

Was never sure exactly why the UK- template got the renaming and the US- never did. "-railstation-" is much more obvious and less ambiguous than "-depot-". Note: new name is currently a redirect to the old, which is reflected on neither WP:WSS/ST nor WP:WSS/R. Rename and leave as redirect. --CComMack (tc) 23:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that be {{US-train-station-stub}}, per the article and also the stub category name? Redirect copiously. Alai 02:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the permanent cat is Cat:Railway stations in the United States I'd not be adverse to renaming the stub category to match as Cat:United States railway station stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd rather see {{US-trainstation-stub}} than {{US-train-station-stub}}, and would rather rename the category per Caerwine than either. --CComMack (tc) 08:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, my bad on the hyphen. Alai 14:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support either US-railstation-stub or US-trainstation-stub, preferably the former. I must admit I'm frankly amazed that the permcat isnt "Railroad stations in the United States", since that's what railways tend to be called there. Grutness...wha? 09:36, 24 August 2006 (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.