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

November 28 edit

{{IhlenCountyMN-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 Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC) – עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as there is no Ihlen County in Minnesota. The template is unused, and for good reason. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 08:33, 28 November 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.

November 2 edit

Template:LondonTransport-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. Ruslik_Zero 18:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC) – Ruslik_Zero 18:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LondonTransport-stub → Template:London-transport-stub (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Delete as not a standard tag name - sections are marked using dashes, not CamelCase. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as stub tag refers to transport in London, not London Transport. Severo^TC 20:01, 18 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.

Category:London Transport 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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 14:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:London Transport stubs to Category:London transport stubs

Rationalle: This stub category is for any trnasport-related articles in London, not for some entity called "London Transport". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is an entity named "London Transport", it is the marketing name of various bodies going back to 1933. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see there is no Category:London Transport. What would the basis for a stub category of "London Transport" be? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Although there is an entity called London Transport, this stub is about transport in London in general, so transport should take lower case. Severo^TC 13:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. At this time, the category is nicely filled, but not near overflowing. There's no need to break down the London transport articles according to governing bodies. Dawynn (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This needs to be understood in context of [this rename which seems to have caused the confusion. Many of the items would belong in Category:London railway station stubs‎ under the proposed scheme. Rich Farmbrough, 14:11, 25 January 2012 (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 appropriate discussion page.

Category:Soria province geography 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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 14:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Soria province geography stubs to Category:Province of Soria geography stubs

Rationalle: Per renaming of permcat at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 25#Category:Soria Province. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. I like parallelism. Personally, I question why Soria was singled out in the permcats. I would change my vote to agree if all the Spanish province permcats were changed to Province of Foo. But I would ask that all the Spanish province stub categories change at once. Dawynn (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change my vote to Support. Now that all the permcats have changed, I'll gladly support, as long as we change all the existing categories:

Dawynn (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support all (as per Dawynn). If this hasn't been closed because not enough people have weighed in then I will weigh in :) I support all of Dawynn's proposals here so that they match the permcats. Severo^TC 07:49, 31 January 2012 (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.