Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/March/26
March 26 edit
{{industrial-design-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
Propose to restub them with the new {{civil-engineering-stub}} as discussed in "proposals" as an idea. I was the original proposer, no more than 10 despite a good faith effort on my part to find some. Goldenrowley 00:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As this is upmerged, if the only issue is size, is it really necessary to delete this, though? Alai 00:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, someone redirected it to the generic "engineering stubs" today, commenting they are not all civil-e's. I think it just caused duplicate. I think they can be remapped amongst the engineering categories.Goldenrowley 01:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After having gone through the items tagged with this, I noticed that most are either not civil engineering related at all, or are cross-disciplinary enough that marking them as civil engineering stubs would be incorrect. Since there are only 10, I'd say upmerge to {{engineering-stub}} (I've already edited it so that the category went there) and delete the industrial design stub template and category. Αργυριου (talk) 05:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can agree to delete it and replace it with "engineering stub" instead for that reason. Thanks Argyriou. Goldenrowley 15:22, 28 March 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.
Cat:Industrial design 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 delete
Someone apparently not knowing the procedure created this week, even though we were proposing to merge these to Cat:Civil engineering stubs. No more than 10. Propose to (speedy?) delete category. Goldenrowley 04:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
p.s. I emptied it already. Goldenrowley 04:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a comment we changed gears we now propose to rename the 10 as engineering-stubs, still, we should delete this empty category. Goldenrowley 19:08, 1 April 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.
{{General-church-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
Duplicate (not a redirect) of {{Church-stub}}. Entirely unnecessary. Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree delete. I suspect it was trying to say something like a non-demoninational church. Although I won't try to guess the real reason it can be mistaken as such. Goldenrowley 01:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redundant. Delete. Valentinian T / C 19:45, 29 March 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.
{{Erie-stub}} / no cat 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
Unproposed, uncategorised stub type for a small-to-medium sized city in Pennsylvania. Will there be enough stubs for this template? Hardly likely - the equivalent permcat has only 41 non bio articles. Is it useful to have stub types for cities this size? No - especially since far larger or more notable cities (e.g., Los Angeles, Boston, Miami) don't have them. Is Cat:Pennsylvania stubs in need of splitting? No - it currently has only some unsubcategorised 190 stubs. Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delte - naming is unclear. There is an Erie canal in another state. Goldenrowley 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment300,000 people in the metro is small sized city?Ttttrrrreeeeyyyyyy
- 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.
{{Kurdistan-sport-bio-stub}} / Cat:Kurdish sportspeople 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 delete
Strong delete. Yet another unproposed attempt to split by a non-sovereign nation type. There is no {{Kurdistan-stub}}, and no permcat Cat:Kurdish sportspeople, for the simple reason that we split by recognised sovereign nations and/or their official subregions - not unrecognised "nations" which cross internationally accepted national boundaries. Grutness...wha? 06:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. Valentinian T / C 07:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per above.. Just as is the case for TRNC stub et al, we cannot be burdened by the ramifications of complex unresolved political issues in real life if we want to have an efficient encyclopedia. The day there is an official country, I will be the first to create it.. Unless the God will descend from the heavens and decide for us, the UN borders are the best thing that we have got... :) Baristarim 09:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If God exists, I hope he uses his time on something more important than deciding details on Wikipedia :) Valentinian T / C 20:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Recognition by sovereign nations aside - stub type is underpopulated (empty). We group multiple sovereign countries in Africa for being underpopulated. -- Cat chi? 10:03, 26 March 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.