Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/December/30
December 30
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
Relisted from WP:TfD. Duplicate of {{anime-stub}} with no consensus to create/split. (One people proposing and one agreeing with no other discussion does not form a consensus.) It is also unused after existing for over a month. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I don't believe that this was ever proposed as a stub type in the first place. --Squilibob 22:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per reasons mentioned above. -- 9muses 23:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and populate. Cat:Anime and manga stubs is a very large stub category that needs splitting and Cat:Anime series enough to suggest that this is a useful split if it were actually done that is. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unneeded -- Ned Scott 03:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. NRV. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 09:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and populate. See also this proposal. If "unanimity" isn't "consensus", beats me what is... Alai 03:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It was proposed, just needs populating. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 03:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Numerous Hong Kong redirects
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 "Hong Kong-", "Hong-Kong"; keep "HongKong-, "HK-"
The naming guidelines make it fairly clear - full name, CamelCase, or abbreviations if they're widely enough used to be unambiguous. No gaps, and no hyphens unless a subtype is implied.
So why does HongKong-geo-stub not only have a fairly acceptably named redirect at HK-geo-stub, but also unacceptably named ones at {{Hong Kong-geo-stub}} and {{Hong-Kong-geo-stub}}? Does it really need so many redirects?
And why is there also a redirect to {{HongKong-stub}} at {{Hong Kong-stub}}?
And, since "Hong-Kong-xxx-stub" is unacceptable (after all, it's not a subtype of Kong-xxx-stub), what about these redirects: {{Hong-Kong-bio-stub}}, {{Hong-Kong-edu-stub}}, {{Hong-Kong-gov-stub}}, {{Hong-Kong-road-stub}}, {{Hong-Kong-tv-stub}}?
I'd like to propose keeping the HongKong-xxx-stub styled templates, and any HK-xxx-stub redirects, but deleting all the Hong-Kong-xxx-stub and Hong Kong-xxx-stub redirects. Grutness...wha? 05:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: They were created before the CamelCase rule was put in placed and strictly enforced (and some of the newer ones were created following the old ones as examples). Their existence is useful merely for checking edit history, iff they were not relocated by using the move button. — Instantnood 12:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and delete per Grutness. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What Grutness said (is this better, G.?) Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 10:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all the real templates, change the inscription of articles that uses redirects, and delete all the redirects. --Deryck C. 10:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I will also go with what Grutness said, or in other words, per nom. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete of any space-filled templates, weak delete of the Hong-Kong- and HK- versions, as respectively technically-but-not-necessarily-widely-understood-to-be against the NGs, and much too cryptic and ambiguous. Alai 18:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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 so, we move into "wtf?" territory, with a fork of a template. Unused, unexplained, unnecessary. Delete, please! Grutness...wha? 05:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 01:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the sole difference between the two is that {{Hungary-geo-stub}} uses a flag colored cutout of Hungary while this one uses a topographic map of Hungary. Would be useful if we split stub types between physical and political geology, but we don't and I can't see us as being likely to any time soon. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 10:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. NRV. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 09:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.