Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/December

< Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion‎ | Log

December 3

edit

{{Tanakh-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 rename as revised


Proposal: Rename {{Tanakh-stub}} to {{HebrewBible-stub}} {{Hebrew-Bible-stub}} and Category:Tanakh stubs to Category:Hebrew Bible stubs.

Nominator's rationale: to match parent Category:Hebrew Bible, which is readily understandable to both Jews and Christians (the most likely constituencies to expand these 500 stubs). The stub template was renamed in Jan 2007 from {{HeBible-stub}} to Tanakh-stub mainly to match the head category, named Tanakh at the time - see the SFD discussion and this earlier discussion. Subsequently, most other Tanakh categories were renamed as Hebrew Bible, see CFD June 2007. This one should now follow.

Categorisation as Hebrew Bible eliminates duplication between Tanakh and Old Testament categories. Some Hebrew Bible categories have corresponding Old Testament head categories; these also include articles of solely Christian interest or sub-categories on the Apocrypha.

It would also be useful to reach a conclusion here on whether a separate stub category for Old Testament Apocrypha is desirable. The number of stubs in the category on Apocryphal subjects is relatively small. Fayenatic (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2008 (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.

December 4

edit

{{NorthWestProvince-geo-stub}} / Category:North West Province geography stubs (rename)

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 rename

Unproposed, but seems a perfectly reasonable addition to the other provincial splits for South Africa that seems to have been missed when we split the others. May need upmerging if it doesn't get to 60 stubs, but it will be close to it at least. The major problem with it is that the province isn't "North West Province", it's "North West", and all categories and articles relating to it seem to be in the process of being moved accordingly. There's also a Northwest Province in Cameroun, which would cause further possible confusion. As such, this should probably be at {{NorthWestZA-geo-stub}} and either Category:North West (South Africa) geography stubs or Category:North West (South African province) geography stubs, dependent upon whatever final name the permcat gets. Rename. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 4 December 2008 (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.

December 6

edit

{{Micro-stub}} → {{Microbiology-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 Rename with no redirect.


Don't know how this one ever got made with such an ambiguous name, but it did. "Micro" could refer to just about anything (anything not macro, anyway), and to be honest microbiology wouldn't have been my first guess for what this referred to. Rename, and don't keep the current name as a redirect. Grutness...wha? 09:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename with no redirect. Waacstats (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and delete redirect - too ambiguous a name. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, with no redirect. It could so easily get misconstrued. SilverserenC 02:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename with no redirect. Twirligig (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2008 (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.

December 7

edit

{{Asm-film-stub}}/Category:Assamese-language film 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


Unproposed, very poorlly named template, and distinct size concerns about the category (parent permcat has only seven articles). If the template is kept, it will need renaming (probably to {{Assamese-film-stub}}) and upmerging. Outright deletion may be a preferable option. Grutness...wha? 22:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

template could be useful upmerged but it may be easier to delete and wait for more articles. Waacstats (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion just got more convoluted - the same user has just created {{Assamese-film-stub}}, which I'm including with this now, since it'ss basically the same template with a new name. We really should add a note to the sfd-t template to stop people from confusing matters like that (would still favour Delete, BTW). Grutness...wha? 23:38, 9 December 2008 (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.

December 10

edit

{{footballer-unknown-status}} / Category:Footballers with an unknown status

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, but reformat to make more obviously not a stub template


This one has been around for over a year and while it has the requisite 60 stubs, it is improperly formed and unclear on use. Does anyone know anything about this?--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

works like a stub template and category pairing but Reading it an article of any length could be tagged with the template and not necessarily be out of place so I don't know that we can deal with it here or wether it needs to go to TFD/CFD. May be worth contacting the creators/relevent wikiproject. Waacstats (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This template seems to be attempting to do two things at once - stub articles and indicate that they have unknown status. The stub part of that work is already covered by {{footy-bio-stub}} (as with anything of "unknown status", the base stub type is used); the tagging as 'unknown status" is better dealt with by a different form of cleanup template (such as {{Missing information}}). Also, as pointed out, there's nothing in the template that says that it is actually for stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 11 December 2008 (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-Atlantic-stub}} and {{UK-Atlantic-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 debate was delete both


Both created a long time ago (by me, IIRC) as stopgap measures. All of the UK's Atlantic territories have their own templates now, and - in the case of the geography ones - have had for a long time. Neither of these is used any more, and the term "United Kingdom Atlantic territory" was largely a fudged one - there's no formal grouping of these territories, and no permcat equivalents. Will be worth keeping the categories for a while longer, as there are a couple of upmerged templates in each, but the templates have now outlived their usefulness and can go. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 10 December 2008 (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.

December 11

edit

{{Mobile}}

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


Suggesting deletion per this. I came across the template hitting random article. It is currently used in 3 articles.--Rockfang (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A stub template in everything but name (the name is certainly not stub convention standard), and already covered by other templates. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reason not to use the (already existing) {{mobile-stub}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:55, 15 December 2008 (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.

{{FR-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 delete


We don't use ISO 2-letter codes for country names in stub types, and this redirect... isn't for France at all. It's a dangerously and deceptively ambiguous redirect to {{ForgottenRealms-stub}}, in fact. It was renamed through this page back in September 2005, but for some reason the deletion of the misnamed redirect wasn't done - so this is probably speediable on those grounds, though it will need to be emptied first. (Speedy) delete Grutness...wha? 09:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. The articles that already have this stub template will need updating. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup - that's done as part of the closure of deletion decisions on SFD. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 16 December 2008 (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.

{{Forgotten Realms-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 delete


Another misnamed redirect of {{ForgottenRealms-stub}}, though at least this one isn't so ambiguous. Delete. Grutness...wha? 09:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Stubs typically use dashes. The articles that already have this stub template will need updating. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2008 (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.

December 12

edit

Category:Guam radio station 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 upmerge


This category has existed for over a year and has acquired a grand total of 17 stubs - not even 1/3 of the way to threshold. Givedn that that's pretty much a stub for every radio station on Guam, chances of it reaching threshold are slim, to say the least. Can't see any reason why this shouldn't be upmerged into the appropriate Category:Guam stubs and Category:Oceania radio station stubs. Grutness...wha? 11:46, 12 December 2008 (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.

{{Salcette-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 debate was delete


Unproposed stub type, with the only category link being to a permcat, and to a more general one at that. Salcette, BTW, is a place in Goa, India. Salcette itself is a stub, and has no permcat of its own, unsurprisingly. Given that the number of articles in Category:Goa geography stubs isn't exactly huge (there are 99 of them), this is - to put it bluntly - massive hyperspecification overkill. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:53, 12 December 2008 (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.

December 15

edit

{{PokemonGame-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


Unproposed, unnecessary and malformed. New, so not used yet, but there's no real reason why it should be used. Given the worryingly small size of Category:Pokémon stubs (more about which below), there's simply no reason at all for a separate stubb type for the games, even upmerged. Couple that with the fact that the naming is non-standard and there's no category link at all (not even a redlink), and this becomes a firm candidate for deletion. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not really needed. Waacstats (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2008 (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.

Pokémon problems

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 rename per Grutness, keep cat for now


There are problems with Category:Pokémon stubs and - more specifically - its template. Firstly, there are a mere 28 stubs - not even enough to support a stub type for a WikiProject main stub category. There's also an empty (except for one user page) subcategory which isn't for stubs, so shouldn't be there. On top of that, for unknown reasons {{pokemon-stub}} is only a redirect; the actual stub is at the ambigguously named {{poke-stub}}. There's also a clearly substandardly-named redirect at {{pokestub}}. ideally, the template should actually be at {{pokémon-stub}}, but there's nothing there, not even a redlink.

I'd like to suggest the following:

Grutness...wha? 00:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with rename/delete templates. As for the category it is close to threshold for a wikiproject (I assume there is one) and where would we upmerge it to? Waacstats (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's one of the reasons it was only a weak delete suggestion. It is close to threshold and seems to be in use - I suspect it's decreasing as a consequence of work by the WikiProject. And there isn't one easy target for an upmerge. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 16 December 2008 (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.

December 17

edit

Category:Linebacker, 1990s 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 debate was upmerge


This category and the partnering {{Linebacker-1990s-stub}} have recently been made (unproposed). While I've no doubt the template is a reasonable aaddition to the series of stub types which exist of this type, the category is very unlikely to reach the required number of stubs, for a while at least. I'd like to propose upmerging this for now, with no prejudice against (re-)proposal and re-creation once we've got enough stubs for it (my guess, it'll take until about early 2010 - i.e., the first few 20-year-olds as well as the teenagers). Grutness...wha? 00:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion and upmerger till we get 60, once we get 60 it will of course be speedy-able. Waacstats (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2008 (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.

December 19

edit

Category:Defensive lineman, 1990s 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 debate was delete cat, upmerge tpl


Same as below. Used on only one stub with no room for expansion for at least a year. Suggest delete and redirect--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

support delete cat. Waacstats (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2008 (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.

{{roc-stub}} and {{ROC-stub}} (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


Two non-standard-name redirects to {{Taiwan-stub}} - both created (can you guess?) by one User:Instantnood, three years ago. Between them, used less than fifteen times overall - seemingly only by Instantnood and no-one else... and he's long been banned from editing. Since no-one's using them, and the names are opretty dodgy, to say the least (ROC is a dab page, and Roc most commonly means a large mythical bird), these should probably go. Delete. Grutness...wha? 11:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ambigous. Waacstats (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2008 (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.

December 21

edit

{{Outremer-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 debate was delete


File under "Seemed like a good idea at the time" - but now that all of France's overseas terrirories, regions, and départements have their own specific geo-stub types, this is unused and redundant. Delete (or failing that, turn into a redirect to France-geo-stub). Grutness...wha? 23:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused and not needed. Waacstats (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2008 (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.

{{medicalstub}}

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


Long-disused misnamed redirect to {{med-stub}}. Delete. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. Waacstats (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2008 (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.

{{Afghan-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


Incorrectly-named duplicate of {{Afghanistan-stub}}, with some clear confusion of its purpose. The template name and wording indicate this is for stubs, the category link indicates that it's for Stub-Class articles - something normally served by a parametrised talk-page banner template. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as confusing. Waacstats (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize we already had one! Sorry, please delete. --Enzuru 23:54, 21 December 2008 (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.

December 23

edit

Indian divisional geography 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 debate was rename


India's geography stubs are being split by division, and it'd be as well to get our ducks in a line naming-wise ASAP. In most cases so far, we have categories of the form Category:Foo geography stubs, but Foo is simply the largest city in Foo division (and yes, the lower case "d" seems to be standard). I'd like to propose standardising on Category:Foo district geography stubs (most of those which exist already follow this format), with the following changes:

Grutness...wha? 00:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karnataka geography stubs
Bangalore Division geography stubs
Belgaum Division geography stubs
Gulbarga Division geography stubs
Mysore Division geography stubs

-- Tinu Cherian - 08:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. Alappuzha, Ernakulam etc said above are districts of kerala -- Tinu Cherian - 07:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missed a couple of words - sorry. The discussion was on Kerala stub types, but none of those in this nomination were among those Kerala stub types. Though the categories in this nomination were mentioned in passing in that proposal, they weren't actually part of it - that is, there was no proposal there to make Category:Alappuzha district geography stubs, Category:Ernakulam district geography stubsand the others. In fact, rather than just changing them over, I made it clear that I'd take those categories to SFD. that way, we could check for any objections before changing them. All in all though it probably makes no real difference - no-one's objected to the changes, so whether they were changed early or late doesn't really matter. Grutness...wha? 10:39, 13 January 2009 (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.

December 25

edit

{{Football-variant-stub}} / Category:Football variant 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; redundant to WP Football Project talk page assessment banner


Not proposed, not supported by an equivalent permcat, and, well, generally fairly ambiguous. The wording of the category makes it clear there's a fundamental misunderstanding here about the difference between stubs and Stub-Class articles, too. I can see the case for a possible template for futsal or for beach football, but not for this strange amalgamated form. Given that the word "footy" is that used for templates, to avoid the ambiguity of "football", this has problems from this regard as well. Delete all, but with the possibility of proposing separate templates for specific varieties of football. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete - DeMoN2008 11:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This can actually be quite helpful if it is used more. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
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.

December 29

edit

Category:Sex stubs → Category:Sex and sexuality 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 Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]


I feel that the current name doesn't quite reflect what the category is actually for. It should encompass articles on the sociological side of sexuality, not just the sex act(s) it/themself. It would also be a more appropriate name given some of the subcats - LGBT and BDSM (hm - is that a dom/subcat? :) The permcat parent is Category:Sexuality, the option of just making this Category:Sexuality stubs would also make some sense. Grutness...wha? 21:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Sexuality stubs" to match parent category. Sex is included in sexuality. --Alynna (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Redirect to "Sexuality stubs" per above. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
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.

December 30

edit

{{Greater-Manchester-stub}} / Category:Greater Manchester 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 renamed


Unproposed and misnamed - the template should be at {{GreaterManchester-stub}}. May be worth having as such, so I'd suggest a rename (with deletion of the old name as non-standard). The category is another matter. It was a bit of a mess, with Stub-Class categories as subtypes (a no-no for stub categories, since the two systems are independent), and with Category:England geography stubs as an incorrect parent. Even cleaned up as it is now, there's no guarantee it will meet threshold; unless it does, it will need upmerging. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming and deletion and upmerger if necessary. Waacstats (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming. I didn't know I had to propose stubs before adding them. The purpose of this one is because there is no generic stub covering the Greater Manchester region - only some subject-specific ones so it's really worth having. I'm fine with renaming if I've broken naming conventions but would be sad to see it deleted as it's useful. 11:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
PS I don't understand the problem with the category - comparing it to, say, Category:London stubs or other similar ones, it has the same approach.Wikidwitch (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Main problem is the size - to be truly useful to stub sorters and editors alike there needs to be at least a minimum number of stubs in the category - for most purposes we've set this to 60 stubs, to stop the proliferation of tiny stub categories which would be impossible to patrol. If you can find 60 general stubs on Greater Manchester and add them to the category, then there's no problem with it. if not, it should be upmerged until there are 60 (see Wikipedia:Stub#Creating_stub_types). Grutness...wha? 22:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but I haven't got around to populating it yet!Wikidwitch (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've got until the end of this SfD process - and even if it's upmerged then through lack of numbers, it would be a fairly straightforward "speediable" nomination if and when it does get round to having enough stubs. Grutness...wha? 04:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well I don't know how speedy I'm going to be! Anyone know, is there a rapid way of searching for stub articles within a category with AWB? Might help me along. Wikidwitch (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about AWB, but this tool may help, looking for intersections between, say Category:England stubs and Category:Greater Manchester. Grutness...wha? 20:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way - bio-stubs are not normally given subnational region stubs of any kind except in unusual circumstances (people move around too much and many of them could get several regional stubs otherwise). I've started the ball rolling on this by transferring the template over to the new name and adding a dozen or so stubs. With any luck 60 won't be too hard. Grutness...wha? 06:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - that's got it to 60 stubs! The category's full, the template's been changed... this can probably be safely closed now :) Grutness...wha? 07:46, 12 January 2009 (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/2008/December&oldid=261186116"