Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Not deleted/October 2005

October 2ndEdit

{{Emulation-stub}}Edit

Rather more specific than our current software stubs. And given that Category:Emulation software has 71 articles, probably not enough use for it, unless there's alot of uncategorized articles on the topic. Currently used on only 4 articles, altho it was created 3 days ago. Delete. --Mairi 04:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. There are many emulation articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Many...71. And since there need to be 50-60 stub articles for a stub category to be really viable, then either someone needs to do some work on the Emulation category in general or this is simply not worthwhile. Many of the items in the Emulation software category relate specifically to cvg anyway and are stubbed accordingly. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Eh? What's there isn't necessarily what there is. I mean, when someone said there wasn't enough articles in the company stubs, I doubled the Namco and Capcom ones.
      • That actually works directly against what we're trying to achieve with stub sorting. Categories are created because there are already enough stubs, so as to encourage editors to reduce the number of stubs by turning them into full articles. They don't exist so as to get editors to write more stubs. We're trying to reduce the number of stubs, not increase it! You'd have probably been better employed by writing fewer large articles than more tiny ones. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • FWIW, that category includes all the articles listed at List of emulators and List of NES emulators (I went through both those lists before putting it up for deletion). --Mairi 00:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep good precedent. Will undoubtedly increase...unfortunatley. --Herzog 01:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Will grow with time, and there is absolutely no harm in it being here. Havok (T/C) 10:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

October 8Edit

{{Washington-Metro-stub}}Edit

Pretty much limited scope. Only has (count em) 3 articles. And it dosen't see mlike it gets much activity. Delete. Pacific Coast Highway 02:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. A Wikiproject is in the process of being started for the Washington Metro, and this stub type will be better utilized once the project is underway. Schuminweb 21:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Many stations can be included in this. Also a stub for a wikiproject doesn't save it from deletion. Although this stub template should be kept. JobE6 Flag of Peru (state).svg 03:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Washington Metro system will clearly generate a lot of stubs as each station is added to Wikipedia. A2Kafir 17:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The wikiprojectexists, and all the stations already have articles. However, alot of them are stubs, altho not necessarily marked as such. --Mairi 23:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I just added an article today for which this stub is handy. Isn't it better to start with a stub category in anticipation of its use, rather than waiting until there are tons of articles in one huge category?Massysett 20:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually no - quite the opposite is the better way, which is why we use it at WP:WSS. Otherwise you end up with hundreds of virtually or completely unused stub templates annoying editors who want to expand articles, many of the templates linking with categories meeting the specifications for speedy deletion. Mind you, this stub does look like its in use, so I'll vote a weak keep on this one. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - in use, should get more populated --Alynna 00:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Almost a week after its nomination, the category has actually gone down to only one article. This, despite comments that the stub is in use, or could be applied to many articles. --TheParanoidOne 21:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Actually, if you look at what links to the stub template, there are currently fourteen articles linking to it. Why the stub category doesn't reflect this, I am not sure. SchuminWeb | Talk 03:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
True, indeed. I have made the relevant null edits to push them into the category. --TheParanoidOne 10:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

October 13Edit

{{Swedish-politician-stub}} → {{Sweden-politician-stub}}
Cat:Swedish politician stubsCat:Sweden politician stubs
Edit

We definitely follow a standard of always using a national noun rather than a national adjective in the stub template. The consensus seems that it would be a good idea to do the same with the categories, and since changing the stub will require restubbing anyway, it would be best to change the category at the same time if it is to be done. Caerwine 16:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

A definite rename for the template. A weaker one for the category - we've got an awful lot of categories named like this, and "Sweden politician stubs" does sound a little stilted. Nouns seems a good way to go, though - although we also need to keep in mind the names of the main categories they're based on. I'm...just unsure. Grutness...wha? 23:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I suppose we could always follow the single example of Cat:People from Quebec stubs and go for something like Cat:Politicians from Sweden stubs if we value euphony over brevity. Caerwine 20:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Definitely rename the template, but the category doesn't seem to do much harm as it is, and personally, I'd try to stay consistent with Category:Swedish politicians. Robert 00:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

{{Swedish-politician-stub}} has been orphaned. Consensu semmed to be to keep Cat:Swedish politican stubs so I left it alone. Caerwine 03:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The category was not renamed; only the template was. --Mairi 18:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

October 15Edit

{{Netherlands-school-stub}}Edit

Created today, no category (well it links to a non-existing category) and only used in one article. --Sherool 19:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

couldnt this one be useful? how many stubs are there in the school catagory from holland? BL kiss the lizard 08:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Just a note that we already have Category:Universities in the Netherlands and Category:Education in the Netherlands Sherurcij 04:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Neither of which are stub cats, but... yeah, this one might be useful. Keep it for now - if it doesn't fill we can always reconsider it later. Grutness...wha? 13:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

October 17thEdit

Irregularly named US-road-stub sub-catsEdit

The following were all created via process, it must be said, but are nonetheless erratically named (routes, roads, highways? Caps? Hyphens?), inconsistently used (non-highways in titular "highway" categories, and where only one "road" category exists per state), and in several cases, well below the usual creation theshold (supposedly 60ish ordinarily, somewhat less with WP).

Alai 01:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Rename to {{Kentucky-road-stub}}. Audubon Parkway, Louie B. Nunn Parkway, Wendell H. Ford Western Kentucky Parkway and William H. Natcher Parkway are officially designated Kentucky State Highway 9005, Kentucky State Highway 9008, Kentucky State Highway 9002 and Kentucky State Highway 9007, respectively. There are currently only 10 as the project is just getting started. We had new members join this past week to help out. Once underway, there is the potential for approximately 120 stubs at even given time--but once the project has accomplished its goals, I would see that the stub wouldn't necessarily be needed as {{US-road-stub}} could be used for any new highways created by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet--which doesn't happen often. Renaming to {{Kentucky-road-stub}} will follow stub hyphenation presedence, alleviate confusion on the Parkway vs. Highway naming convention and provide for the segregation of KY road stubs from other state projects. Thanks for pointing out the naming convention disparity. I agree it needs to be cleaned up. >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist • E@ 02:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete {{Nhroute}}, {{Missouri-State-Highway-Stub}} as they are not used. As for the ones with stubs but no WikiProject, a move was underway to build a "catchall" project for roads that didn't have a state-related WikiProject. >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist • E@ 02:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I created it, see below. I did populate the missouri stub today. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename for consitency. They were created as part of the state highways wikiproject I do believe. I'd say "highway", "route", "road" etc should stay the way they are as long as they are consistent with the way the respective states name them. Different states have different conventions on how to name their state highways and that should be reflected in these stub names. However the capitalization needs to be changed. An example is {{Maryland-State-Highway-Stub}} which should be capatalized {{Maryland-state-highway-stub}} since it is not a proper noun, the others should have thier capatalization changed accordingly as well. Also "stub" should be lowercase and hyphens should be used to be consistent with the way other stubs are named.

My exact votes are:

(Changed to {{xx-road-stub}} see below)

-Jeff 02:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Maryland State Highway is a proper noun, see Talk:List of California State Routes/Archive2 for a similar discussion. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

*See my votes below I realize how weird that sounds but here is the breakdown:

See my new votes below. All of these stubs DO have a WP- Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads. Also, {{US-road-stub}} has over 500 pages, something needs to be done...

Eventually there will be WPs for all 50 state highway systems, so we will need stubs for these projects... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I think these ought to have been proposed individually; this discussion is getting far too confusing. Delete the mostly unused ones without WikiProjects. Rename {{Washington-State-Highway-Stub}} to {{Washington-road-stub}}, {{New-Hampshire-State-Highway-Stub}} to {{NewHampshire-road-stub}} and {{Massachusetts-State-Highway-Stub}} to {{Massachusetts-road-stub}}; as they don't have specific wikiprojects, there's no reason to make them overly specific. At the very least, rename all other kept ones to StateName-state-highway-stub (or StateName-statehighway-stub). --Mairi 04:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the unused ones. No opinion on {{Nhroute}} stub until someone tells me what a "Nh route" is (some weird abbreviation of north?) Rename all the others to either Statename-road-stub or Statename-state-highway-stub (preferably the former, as it's more all-inclusive - and there's a proposal at WSS/P to create some regional US-road-stub types anyway, so it would make a lot of sense (Highway wikiprojects notwithstanding) to combine what would be pairs of fairly small categories into larger (but still not huge) categories. Grutness...wha? 04:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment It should be noted that these stubs are not for roads in these states but specifically for their state highways. Like I said before we should be using whatever convention each individual state uses for its state highways such as {{Maryland-state-highway-stub}} and not {{Maryland-road-stub}} for Maryland state highways and {{Arizona-state-route-stub}} for Arizona state routes. As for {{Nhroute}}, it belongs in tfd but I say we cut out the middle man and just get rid of it.

-Jeff 12:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    • Except that firstly, that's unduly narrow: why are they restricted to state highways only? Surely this just makes an already fiddly split of US-road-stub even more so, and delays them getting over a reasonable threshold for sensible creation. Where they have WikiProjects specifically on the State Highways of that state (and I'm tempted to add, actual active ones with more than than just one member) that's partial justification, but stub categories for seven articles, is silly either way, and moreso with no WP. And secondly, they already contain more than just state highways, and Rschen (main perpetrator and defender of this naming scheme) has said he uses them that way anyway. So unless, as with California, more than one stub category can reasonably be created per state, inclusive is surely the way to go, and inclusive categories should have inclusive names.
    • You're right about Nhroute: I assumed it was intended to be a stub template of sorts, as it appears in the corresponding stub category. I'd move it to tfd, but if it gets "erroneously" deleted here first I won't be sad. :) Alai 16:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
      • There are no such state inactive ones with only one member. The only one is the US Highway one... people are working on the US Roads one. It's like the Highway one... it just holds things together, and sets a standard for things... like a Wikipedia namespace page for example. Also note that there are over 500 stubs in US-road-stub, and there are over 50 articles in a few of the categories above... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Please keep the threading intact, and in particular, don't post in the middle of two not-separately-signed paragraphs. I was actually thinking of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads, which has one (1) member, and has already been used by you as a justification for under-sized stub-categories. You've made the point about there being 500 road-stubs before, but how is that material to the proposal here? Firstly, that's not even "over-sized" by the usual metric: they only "have" to be split when they're over 800. Secondly, my proposal would make very little difference to this, as the only deletions I've proposed are for categories that are frankly tiny: a grand total of 28 between four categories at time of nomination. And thirdly, I've already proposed an alternative, here, which would clearly be much more effective in reducing this, and without the need for 50 separate Wikiprojects just to justify nearly as many tiny stub categories, and without have to "eject" non-state-highways back into US-road-stub, as is the logic of your scheme. Alai 17:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
          • The purpose of the state highway WPs are not just for the stub classifications. If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways, you will see that there is much more involved in a WP than just the stubs: a routebox, structure, state law, etc. And the purpose of the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads is to get these other WPs started using the same format as all the other ones, and to coordinate the launch of these separate WPs so we aren't overloaded (so we're not doing 50 WP's at once). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename all stubs using Jeff's outline above. --K1vsr (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to foo-road-stub. Someone interested in expanding an article about a state highway in a state should also be interested in other highways. Redirect the old names. Redirects won't kill you. --SPUI (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename all the ones requiring hyphens. Also keep the capitalization on them per the arguments previously held over whether is is a "California State Route" or the incorrect "California state route".Gateman1997 02:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to {{xx-road-stub}}. Per Alai's comments I change my vote to rename these to {{xx-road-stub}}, since the topics of state highways for each state are too narrow to have a stub category for, but as for all the roads in each state, that's a different story.
And since I've seen this mentioned a couple of times already I thought I'd just add that since California state route, Maryland state highway, etc. can be used as the subject of an indefinite article (California State Route 99 is a California state route) and can be pluralized (Ritchie Higway and Crain Highway are Maryland state highways) they can't possibly be refering to an individual person/place/thing, and therefore are not proper nouns. -Jeff 20:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Except for the fact that there are specific State Highway WPs... except for the county routes anything below a state highway gets sent to AFD (Ladner Trunk Road?) so I don't see the point in changing the templates... and some states don't have county routes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete stubs, per Alai. Lower case for state route, state highway, etc. per Jeff02. BlankVerse 00:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • California State Route is a specific type of highway. Just like U.S. Highway 101 is an interstate highway, but it is not an Interstate Highway. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
      • California state route is a specific type (or group) of highway, but it is NOT a specific thing, so it is still not a proper noun, no matter how much you think that it is. Go ask your English teacher if you don't want to listen to what anyone on the Wikipedia says. BlankVerse<;;font color=#2554C7> 02:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Naming conventions: "Convention: Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized (for example: John Wayne, but not Computer game)." Even if you do not consider California State Route a proper noun (which it is by the way), it is almost always capitalized, and this is why the Google test was performed on Talk:List of California State Routes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd say that we should close this debate and split things up, this is too confusing. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. It seems that some (myself included) have somewhat different stances on each one of these. --Chris 13:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Some people have managed to note their different stances fairly concisely. There may be a case for refactoring at least the discussion from the vote, and if strictly necessary, the votes themselves, but IMO that's hardly a justification for "closing" anything. Alai 17:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The Missouri stub now has 25 articles. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Since this is such a mess, let me quickly summarise my preferences in order now that there's been a load of discussion:

  1. delete any not used
  2. {{StateName-road-stub}} would be my first choice for all the rest - there is no need to restrict these to a specific type of road
  3. Failing that, {{StateName-state-highway-stub}} or StateName-state-route-stub, or whatever, depending on local usage. Hyphens,and all lower case except for state name.

(This also applies to the {{California dusty trails stub}} or whatever it's called, further up the page). Grutness...wha? 07:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm slightly changing my votes:

  • Nhroute delete
  • KY- rename to -road-stub... if the leader of the WP wants it then thats ok
  • Leave everything else as it is, with addition of hyphens. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • whatever happens they need a small s on stub and hyphens. same as all other stubs. This votes very confusing. Should it be splitted up? BL kiss the lizard 05:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment Per another user's request I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject New Hampshire State Highways. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC) Comment *WikiProject: Missouri State Highways has been created by another user. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep I can at least speak for Missouri's, it now has 52 and I plan on adding more as time permits. I started the Missouri WikiProject and am currently getting it off the ground; the stub should be tied into project. I think the name is fine personally: Missouri State Highway 1 is the official name of that road, the title of the stub should reflect that. Rt66lt 23:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment {{Washington-State-Highway-Stub}} is being proposed yet {{Washington State Highway Stub}} also exists and should be renamed and deleted if the properly-named one with hyphens is renamed. That said, they do seem to be all state highways in both categories so I'd say keep them. Tedernst 07:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The properly-named one? We'd have to find it first! How difficult is it to name one's stub types so that they end in "-stub", and use the same capitalisation as the articles on their referents? (He asked, seemingly rhetorically...) BTW, the former is a redirect caused by the latter, so they don't have separate categories; usage of the template just hasn't been updated. Alai 04:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
{{Washington State Highway Stub}} is a redirect... or it was last I checked. It's not needed if we use a bot to fix the articles that use the old redirect... I might have done it already. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
There's about 20 stubs that use this version of the template. While hardly a major chore, I wouldn't recommend rushing to empty it, since at a minimum this ought to be moving to the "-stub" version, as soon as someone attempts the thankless task of closing this puppy. Alai 03:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah... there isn't really a consensus for any specific way... what happens now? Also, State highway is capitalized that way because it isn't referring to any specific system of state highways. For example, a California state highway could be, say, Coast Highway in Oceanside- it is a California County Route, and it uses the word "Highway" in its name after all? Therefore the capitals are needed to diffrentiate, i.e. California State Highway 241. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Search me, I'm new to this. :) As the nominator, I'd rather not be the person to try to sort this one out. You keep claiming there's a distinction between "state routes" and "State Routes", but there's no evidence of this: List of California State Routes uses caps on a plural, but cites legislation that defines these, which uses the term uncapitalised. (Well, it capses "State", but not "route", to be precise.) As has been pointed out numerous times, there's a clear difference between a phrase being used in a proper noun (like California State Route 1) and being a proper noun. I have no idea whether your example is a state route within the meaning of California law, but I don't see how it's possible to argue that it (or anything else that actually is one) is a "state route", and therefore should be referred to as "State Route"; or that it's a "State Route" and not a "state route". (Or if it's possible, it's at any rate not been accomplished.) Alai 06:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Come to think if it... sorry, I forgot since I took a small wikibreak... we have agreed on {{Nhroute}} (for deletion) and {{Kentucky-road-stub}} (for renaming that has already been carried out). So I suppose that we could get that part out of the way. As for the capitals... we had a recent debate over at WP:CFD that involved the renaming of Category:U.S. highways in Alabama to Category:U.S. Highways in Alabama, and the same for the other ones that existed. This is because Interstate 5 is a highway that is in the United States... so it could be a U.S. highway right? Therefore the capital is needed. Also the... I think it's WP:MOS that says that if a subject is a proper noun or is almost always capitalized, then it should be capitalized in Wikipedia. A Google search shows that most results have "California State Route" or "California State Routes" capitalized (see Talk:List of California State Routes/Archive2.) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

So, is this closed yet? karmafist 03:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Except for the deletion of {{Nhroute}} and the renaming of the Kentucky stub (the latter having been done) there is no real consensus... I would leave it a bit. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that that's probably the right thing to do; because regardless of all the other issues, I think almost all people would agree that they ought to end in -stub, not -Stub. --Mairi 02:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
As nominator I don't plan to touch this with a ten-foot pole (well, maybe if it's still here after Christmas...), but I'd suggest the following: if there's a consensus for a rename to "-stub", as above, I'd perform a move to whatever name there's even so much as a plurality for; but if there's not a 2:1 consensus for that name, leave (at least) the existing name as a redirect, however badly-formed. It can always be re-nommed later. Probably also worth creating a "-stub"ified version of the current name, if that's different from the most-popular-option. On a case by case basis, what's worse. :( Alai 03:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I am fine with -stub and the hyphens... maybe let's get the {{Nhroute}} and {{Kentucky-road-stub}} out of the way. Then um... well I believe that road and highway articles are among the most controversial things to do on Wikipedia. We've had all sorts of debates and other stuff with this topic. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Kentucky one is done already, right? Yup, moved, and redirect deleted several weeks ago by Mairi (thanks). Unless I'm missing something. Maybe not among the most controversial, but a strong contender for the award of "Most Surprisingly Controversial". Alai 05:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah... with that one I decided that if the WP was okay with it then it was fine... and that's why I pulled away from the WV one too. However, since a) there isn't a major presence of roadgeeks from the states above or b) I'm involved with the roadgeeks in Washington I have a concern about the renaming of these stubs. I'd like for there to be some consistency... I don't want to have to remember all these codes every time I want to do a highway article. But yup... we have California State Route 16, California State Highway 17, California State Route 18, California State Route 19, and California State Route 20. Yet we don't want to touch the 17 article so we don;t spark up another debate. But yup I'm just explaining where I'm coming from on this one. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
It wasn't for nothing that I said "at least" the redirect from the existing template name; given the profusion of not-especially-consistent names, additional redirects would be a strong possibility. We can be as consistent as we like about the our naming conventions, but if the US states can't manage it among themselves, we're somewhat swimming against the tide on trying to regularise "state highway" vs. "state route" and vice versa. (To say nothing of "state route" vs. "State route" vs. "State Route"...) Alai 06:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

This has been going on for over a month when it should have been done in a week. Make all of them "state name"-State-Highway-Stub considering that most of the state highways have that format. I'm being bold and taking the sfd tag off the New Hampshire State Highway Stub now considering strides towards consensus on anything don't really seem to be getting anywhere here and no end seems to be in sight. karmafist 06:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't. The lack of said strides is neither here or there; actually most of this discussion is moot as it was technically closed weeks ago. However, the existing template name isn't a viable option, doesn't adhere to the naming conventions, and is supported by approximately no-one, so removing the tag solves nothing. Alai 06:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Please give me an option then. The stub is posted on WP:NH(kind of as a point of pride), and that little "This Stub Is Up For Deletion" makes our state's transportation network to seem not worthy of its own stub despite the fact that there are nearly 100 in that stub cat. People looking at that little template on top of the stub may decide not to use it in the belief that it's temporary even though the worst possible thing that would happen here is that another, almost identical one would take its place. If SfD can't resolve this issue, i'm tempted to send SfD to MfD. karmafist 08:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a hilarious prank. :-| Other than a possible case for having separate templates for deletion and renaming nomination, I don't see any point here other than "it'd be nice if someone actually closed this properly" (as opposed to simple tag-removal). BTW, had your WPJ turned out to vote on this, we might have had a more clear-cut outcome, so I can't imagine anyone there is that concerned about this. Alai 13:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
That's no prank, and quite frankly, the reason why I said that is most likely the reason you put closing the discussion in hyphens(the rules for closing seem conspicuously absent in comparison to afd). No progress has been made in two months. The average afd takes a week, and has clear rules on closing. I'm moving over to the log now, that discussion has gone on for too long and somebody has to be bold here, I'll go to the village pump later to ask in a change of policy, but that rarely does anything, so I might have to still pull an Ed Poor and do what I said before.

By the way, our wikiproject just started halfway through this discussion, and we've already added 5 members and tagged around 3 dozen articles. We all have better things to do than deal with stub bureaucracy cruft. karmafist 16:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No Consensus apparently...karmafist 16:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)