Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September

< Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion‎ | Log




September 23 edit

Portugal geography by District/Region 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 discussion was:

Category:Autonomous Region of Madeira geography stubs → Category:Madeira geography stubs
Category:Bragança District geography stubs → Category:Bragança geography stubs
Category:Faro District geography stubs → Category:Faro geography stubs
Category:Lisbon District geography stubs → Category:Lisbon geography stubs
Category:Braga District geography stubs → Category:Braga geography stubs

-- DQ (t) (e) 09:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Autonomous Regions

Rename

Category:Autonomous Region of Madeira geography stubs → Category:Madeira geography stubs

or conversely rename

Category:Azores geography stubs → Category:Autonomous Region of Azores geography stubs

for consistency as both are (all the) Autonomous Regions

Districts

Rename

Category:Bragança District geography stubs → Category:Bragança geography stubs
Category:Faro District geography stubs → Category:Faro geography stubs
Category:Lisbon District geography stubs → Category:Lisbon geography stubs
Category:Braga District geography stubs → Category:Braga geography stubs

or conversely rename

Category:Porto geography stubs → Category:Porto District geography stubs

for consistency as all are Districts

I'd prefer the first (and shorter) suggestion for each of the cases. For most Portuguese readers it will be obvious that, e.g., "Braga geography stubs" include the whole district, as typically we use simply "Braga" to refer both to the town and district, whenever context is clear. I guess it is not too likely that we'll need to split stub categories to have only town related articles (Lisbon has almost enough, but the cat is not large); and if we do, then we'll need to fix the templates themselves (currently {{Lisbon-geo-stub}}, etc.). Anyway, the main point is consistency, so whatever way is fine. - Nabla (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2011 (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.

September 22 edit

rail station -> railway station 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 discussion was rename – Nabla (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I propose renaming the following:

Rationalle: Per all related permcats, as well as the base stub category in this tree - according to this scan, the only other categoires containing the string "rail station" refer to stations of monorail, light rail or commuter rail, or to specific railway companies which end with the word "rail". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per permcats. SeveroTC 12:13, 22 September 2011 (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.



September 16 edit

'Pre-' category maintenance 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 discussion was Split and reorganize, per Grutness & common sense here. – -- DQ (t) (e) 09:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Propose the following changes:

  1. Delete these categories as undersized. Upmerge all templates to the parent category:
  2. Rename the following categories, to reflect current use:

Dawynn (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from beyond... there are over 100 pre-1920 comedy film stubs, but most of them are marked with silent-comedy-film-stub. Never really seen the need for the "silent" film-stub types, especially since all pre-1920 films are guaranteed to be silent, but perhaps double-stubbing would save the pre-1920 film category at least. Grutness...wha? 04:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Got it up to 63 just by going through the letter C. That "over 100" is likely a gross underestimate. BTW, I notice that these categories don't seem to be marked with the SFD template... Grutness...wha? 04:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cat:American basketball biography, pre-1910 birth stubs has also passed 60. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:12, 9 October 2011 (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.

September 15 edit

Cat:American football offensive lineman, pre-1900 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 discussion was Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Propose renaming this category to Cat:American football offensive lineman, 1890s birth stubs. Reason: The category is large enough to keep, and the only template contained here is for the 1890s. Dawynn (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2011 (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:Pre-1960 science fiction novel 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 discussion was Create category for {{1950s-sf-novel-stub}}, upmerge remainder of category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Propose deletion of this category. The 1950 template has 75 articles, so propose raising it to a full category (Cat:1950s science fiction novel stubs). Once that's done, there will be only about 35 article left in this category. Propose upmerging all remaining templates. That will still leave the parent category with less than 200 stubs. Dawynn (talk) 09:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some special watershed that happened in 1960 to make it a meaningful distinguishing point? I really can't think of any offhand. In some cases a pre-xxx distinction makes sense, combustion engines prior to 1900, or nuclear science prior to 1940, for instance. But in this case I'm not sure. If anyone could enlighten me I'd appreciate it. HominidMachinae (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2011 (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.

September 14 edit

Ivory Coast sport templates 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 discussion was Renamed the later to Côted'Ivoire- (ô) as it seems to be the standard for Côted'Ivoire stubs and following the country name spelling. Kept the redirects as they'll cause no confusion and are likely to be useful


Propose renaming {{Côted'Ivoire-footy-bio-stub}} to {{Coted'Ivoire-footy-bio-stub}}. (Both exist, its just a matter of which should be primary, and which should be redirect). Reason: Parallelism -- all other sport templates for the Ivory Coast use {{Coted'Ivoire-foo-bio-stub}}.

Alternate proposal: If we choose not to do the first proposal, I propose changing the other 5 sport templates for Ivory Coast to {{Côted'Ivoire-foo-bio-stub}}. One way or the other, they should all match. Dawynn (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • closer further comment As the nominator accepts it both ways and as have been no suggestion either way, I'll boldly close the way I think best.
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.

Template:China-road-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 discussion was Delete -FASTILY (TALK) 08:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Delete - marked as depricated, no longer used. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:32, 14 September 2011 (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.

Category:Pakistan rail 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 discussion was already renamed and upmerge, see: Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/October/1#Rail stubs → Rail transport stubs


Upmerge - scan only finds 21 stubs for this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment Category was renamed but the process of moving entries has not yet finished. Agathoclea (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

question Upmerge where? Pakistan stubs? Asia rail stubs? Asia rail transport stubs? Taking a look it looks like a bit of a mess, as we have several CAT:XXX_rail_stubs and CAT:XXX_rail_transport_stubs. Which to use? - Nabla (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll place the remainder of categories and templates that have been missed in the nomination of 18 August into a new nomination tonight unless someone beats me to it. More than likely they will be speedied through to match the rest. That would make it Asia rail transport stubs. As such this nomination should stay on hold until the rest is resolved. Agathoclea (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. (And I forgot we may upmerge to several cats... so ignore the first half of the question - as you already did) - Nabla (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2011 (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.

September 13 edit

Cat:Pre-20th century play 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 discussion was Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Since both the 19th and 18th centuries now have full categories, propose rename to Cat:Pre-18th century play stubs. Dawynn (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2011 (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.

{{human eye-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 discussion was Rename, de;ete redirect. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Malformed. Unproposed. Suggest moving any tagged articles over to {{eye-stub}}, raising the eye-stub template back to full template status, and removing {{human eye-stub}}. Dawynn (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. No need to separate out a human-specific template, when we already have one for eyes in general. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2011 (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.

{{Signaltransduction-stub}} / Category:Signal transduction 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 discussion was Delete both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Contains a rather arbitrary collection of only 13 pages, most of which could go into Category:Receptor stubs or Category:Transmembrane receptor stubs. See also Portal:Gene Wiki/Discussion#Signaltransduction-stub. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - though we'll probably need help from your project to know which of the other stub types would be best for those articles. Grutness...wha? 10:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. When should I empty the category, as soon as this proposal is approved? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Alternatively, you could make a list at the template's already existing talk page, and then we can work from there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2011 (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.

September 12 edit

{{WestBosniaCanton-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 discussion was Redirect. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Propose changing {{WestBosniaCanton-geo-stub}} to a template redirect for {{Canton10-geo-stub}}. See Canton 10 for more details about how these two terms are used. Dawynn (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - not to mention that the permcat is Cat:Canton 10. SeveroTC 09:41, 13 September 2011 (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.

Empty redirect 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 discussion was Delete both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


These two are just redirect categories. Please deleete.

Dawynn (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2011 (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.

Diatom 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 discussion was Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Cat:Diatom stubs. Undersized, and other editors have indicated this will not grow. Upmerging to parent will still keep parent under 200. Dawynn (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2011 (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.

Horaiclavidae 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 discussion was Keep now, given that it already has 73 articles. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:Horaiclavidae stubs. Severely undersized. Delete category, upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Explanation is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2011/August. --Snek01 (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, the story is the same. The category was created prematurely and not needed yet. Once the articles get tagged with the template, then we'll be ready for the category. I see we've gone half a month with no activity on this template / category. Any hope of seeing this filled in sometime soon? Dawynn (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2011 (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.

September 11 edit

Tv 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 discussion was Rename all - retain TV- names as redirects, delete the last. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Three differently named TV stubs I found for renaming:

Standard naming for TV stubs is -tv- so this is just a case of putting all the ducks in line. First two were moved from the proposed name to the current name and the final one I created a redirect for in January but for some reason I don't remember, didn't bring it here. Rename, leaving redirects. SeveroTC 20:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. No opinion either way as to whether to keep the "TV-" ones as redirects, but having a "television-" redirect may be overkill. Grutness...wha? 23:33, 11 September 2011 (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:Baseball pitcher, 1990s births stubs and Cat:American baseball pitcher, 1990s births 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 discussion was Upmerge, without prejudice against recreating once there are enough stubs (current policy says 60). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Two unproposed and seriously undersized categories (less than ten stubs between them. While we will eventually need these, no doubt, we certainly don't need them yet, so upmerge, with no prejudice against re-creation once they reach the 60-stub threshold. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have categories like this for every decade. Only a few players from the 1990s have made their MLB debuts at this point, but many more will in the coming years, as you say. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly my point. There aren't the required threshold number of articles yet for these two stub types - which is why one of them had an upmerged template (the other, the template was created at the same time as the categories). Until there are that required number, they need to be upmerged, as explained at WP:Stub and WP:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub rationales. Grutness...wha? 03:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - no harm in having the templates, but no point in having seriously undersized categories so they can be deleted but without prejudice on recreation when proposed when they eventually reach threshold (i.e. 60 articles). SeveroTC 08:10, 11 September 2011 (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.

September 10 edit

Rename of football templates 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 discussion was Rename all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Per the discussion at yesterday's nomination, the following oddly-named templates need renaming to the standard form:

Grutness...wha? 02:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – the stub types should be renamed to the correct format. Delusion23 (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2011 (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.

September 9 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 discussion was Rename, leaving the last one as is. -- DQ (t) (e) 11:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC) – -- DQ (t) (e) 11:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Several new English football stub types edit

A new set of unproposed and misnamed stub types appeared today:

and

The last one is thin, at 50 stubs, and may need upmerging - and also needs renaming ("footyclub" is standard, not "footy-club")... the top three need both upmerging (the category has only some 30 stubs) and renaming to Foo-footyclub-stub, per stub standard naming. Grutness...wha? 08:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – I created the top three stub types as a gradual sorting of the stubs in the english football stubs category that had already started. I based them on five stub types that exist in Cat:Southern Football feeder league team stubs as a northern premier league version of the same, so I assumed that as these ones were there that the process could continue to the other level 7–8 leagues (maybe an incorrect assumption i admit).
The season stub type was made as there were many season stub articles with football club stub tags, so I wanted to separated them out so that people would know they were football club season stubs instead. I support renaming to any naming conventions of which I was not previously aware. Delusion23 (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Just to say that if a stub category were made for the Midland Alliance the stub category for the northern premier league would have way over 60 articles in it. It now has 53 with the addition of the United Counties League team stubs (another league which feeds the NPL). The southern league category has already been brought over the 60 articles threshold with the addition of the United Counties League teams. This would be increased further with the Midland Alliance teams too. Delusion23 (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmm. I take it you mean a template for the Midland Alliance.... well, if so, then a category seems reasonable. Should still have been propose, though. As for the template naming, the Southern ones look very odd as well, so I'll nominate them for renaming, too. Grutness...wha? 02:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment/question. Is it a good idea to have stub templates by division? At first glance looks like teams are bound to promote or demote and change division, and thus change in the stub categorisation. Is there some other possible splitting criterion? Maybe geographical? - Nabla (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May be a good idea. What do you have in mind? When I came across the Southern League ones I simply thought I may as well extend it to the Northern Premier League so I have no attachment to these stub types that I created. Whichever way is best to categorise them I'm happy with. So long as it's easy for me to go through them as I'm gradually trying to bring as many to start class as possible. Cheers. Del♉sion23 (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing, really... Only hoping for something more lasting, not terribly important though, as we do not expect stubs to last for years (yet, some do). Something like splitting by County FA, regardless of league level? The above templates look like that already, it is roughly by "set of counties", as in File:Levels_9–10_Football_League_areas_in_England.png. So, if it is possible to have a rule that is clear, which apparently is _not_ the case of the previous map, and of use for level 7-8 as much as _any_ other, I'd say it would be better. - Nabla (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose upmerging of {{England-footy-club-season-stub}}. There is a lack of explicit identification, but certainly not a lack of stubs. A significant proportion of the ~6,000 stubs here are on English football club seasons. —WFC— 06:10, 7 December 2011 (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.

September 8 edit

Madagascar province 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 discussion was Delete -FASTILY (TALK) 07:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Evidently, Madagascar no longer uses provinces as a governmental division. There has been an effort from some stub sorters to clean out the province categories. Looks like the following are now empty and may be deleted:

I would also suggest that the 17 articles in these other province categories would not overflow the main Madagascar geo cat. Suggest removing these categories, and turning the templates into redirects for {{Madagascar-geo-stub}} (so that we don't confuse these obsolete templates with valid templates):

Dawynn (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2011 (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.

Old German district 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 discussion was Delete all, already done by Agathoclea. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basic housekeeping - per WP:WSS/P - Mecklenburg-Vorpommern's districts have recently been renamed, and new stub types made, rendering these categories empty and redundant. Can be speedied:

There's one more, Cat:Demmin geography stubs, which has yet to be re-sorted and which I'll add to SFD once it's empty. Grutness...wha? 08:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete including the now empty Cat:Demmin geography stubs. SeveroTC 11:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and the associated {{Demmin-geo-stub}}, which is now unused. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 9 September 2011 (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.

September 6 edit

{{Arminianism-stub}} / Cat:Arminianism 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 discussion was Delete -FASTILY (TALK) 07:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


New unproposed stub type which seems highly unlikely to reach threshold. Currently not used for sorting any articles, it is a subtype of a category with fewer than 120 unsorted stubs, meaning that if it did reach the 60-stub threshold it would reduce its parent to below threshold levels. At the very least the template needs upmerging, though I seriously doubt we have current need for the template either. First option, delete, second option upmerge. Grutness...wha? 05:33, 6 September 2011 (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.


September 2 edit

Template:Coted'Ivoire-tennis-bio-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 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 discussion was Keep -FASTILY (TALK) 07:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


One page has this template. Parent categories (Africa tennis, Ivorian sports) have low population. Not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Doesn't seem much wrong in having a template, as long as it's upmerged. Grutness...wha? 03:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the template is being used; and the fact that it's only on one article is probably not due to lack of people who fit into this category, but systemic bias - meaning that this tag may eventually be used on 60 stubs. Given that, it should be kept. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:37, 5 September 2011 (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.

Platforma Obywatelska to Civic Platform 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 discussion was Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move and leave template redirect in place – The stub category and template is out of line with the rest of Wikipedia on this one: Civic Platform is used for the article and categories so the stub category should match. SeveroTC 11:40, 2 September 2011 (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/2011/September&oldid=448154641"