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

Hanging around since February; upmerges to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Mixed drink stubs, but only used on 3 items. Delete. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Why's this a problem? Alai 06:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Not a problem for me. I'm just tidying up WP/D, which seems to indicate that this is not wanted. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Having looked at it again, I'm very much inclined to say delete any stub template that "needs" its own transcluded documentation. (And if it doesn't need the /doc sub-template, then cry "Occam!", and get rid of that, at least.) Alai 10:32, 26 October 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

For stub articles related to video game company SNK Playmore. Last I heard, you had to be Disney to get your own branded stub type. Unproposed, contains 32 items, which is probably the sum total of the parent cat and its sub-cats. Delete. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:58, 19 October 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 see closing note below

I propose we delete these categories and upmerge the templates. Per previous discussion, the categories would need renaming at any rate, and all of them have fewer than 40 articles, most fewer than 30.

• {{ Gisborne-geo-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Gisborne, New Zealand geography stubs
• {{ Nelson-geo-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Nelson, New Zealand geography stubs
• {{ Tasman-geo-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Tasman, New Zealand geography stubs
• {{ HawkesBay-geo-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Hawke's Bay geography stubs
• {{ Taranaki-geo-stub}} / ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Taranaki geography stubs
  

And I propose we rename this one:

• ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Marlborough, New Zealand geography stubs → ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Marlborough Region geography stubs
  

Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Agree on all fronts. Mind you, it'll make my daily sorting of what's new in the NZ geo category harder :/ One option could be to redirect them to new "no-template" North and South Island categories. If I had some more time, I'd start filling them all up to get them closer to target. If kept, three of the others would need renaming in a similar way to the Marlborough one, too. I'm surprised that the Hawke's Bay and Taranaki ones are still small, though - they could easily get up to 60 - I'll try to expand at least one of those in the next few days. BTW, "less than 40" is incorrect for the Tasman one - it has exactly 40 :) Grutness... wha? 23:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC) reply

  (update) The Taranaki one's now up to 60 stubs, and Hawke's Bay's approaching 45. Grutness... wha? 06:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

  Hawke's Bay is also now at 60 stubs. So that's two of them saved, anyway. Grutness... wha? 02:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Tasman and Nelson are an absolute nightmare, that I will try to explain simply. At one time, there was a Nelson Region, containing Tasman District and Nelson City. It was split into two unitary authorities, which are still usually referred to as District and City respectively, though having the same standing as the other regions. So the main categories are at ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Nelson, New Zealand (with a parent, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Nelson Region, which is largely empty) and a misnamed ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Tasman, New Zealand (which makes it sound like a town). Articles are seemingly randomly assigned to these categories. It's made worse by the fact that one of the main geography features of Tasman is the Nelson Lakes National Park. I've managed to get ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Tasman, New Zealand geography stubs up to almost 60, but in doing so, I've reduced ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Nelson, New Zealand geography stubs to under 20 stubs. It may well be worth combining these into one category as something like ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Nelson and Tasman geography stubs - a little unorthodox, but there is a strong historical link between them, as I've explained. As for Gisborne, its permcat is ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Bay of Plenty-East Coast, which it shares with ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Bay of Plenty geography stubs. A similar upmerging with the stubcats might be useful, although the permcat should really be changed to match the real regions. Grutness... wha? 06:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not opposed to such a merger, as long as the separate templates are kept separate, obviously, and they're re-split if and when again separately viable; logic would seem essentially similar to using other less-than-formal or less-than-current regions (such as abolished German Regierungsbezirk, groupings of PRCese provinces, etc). Alai 11:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• CLOSING NOTE There's a lot going on, so here's the closing summary:
  • Keep Nelson and Tasman templates as is, both feeding into Category:Nelson and Tasman geography stubs
  • Keep Gisborne template and feed into Category:Bay of Plenty-East Coast geography stubs
  • Feed Bay of Plenty template into Category:Bay of Plenty-East Coast geography stubs
  • Rename Malborough cat
  • Keep Taranaki and Hawkes Bay templates and cats

~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:24, 29 October 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 rename to Mississippi-tv-station-stub

Unproposed creation part-way through a debate on Mississippi-media-stub, a debate where the creator presumably took my own personal opinion on the viability of a naming-guideline compliant stub type as an overall endorsement by the stub-sorting community (which it wasn't) of one with a different non-standard name. Though I personally think that such a stub type would be useful, it certainly should have a uniform name with other such templates, and should be correctly formatted as regards parent categories (a stub template shouldn't have permcat links, to start with). Rename this to the standard {{ Mississippi-tv-station-stub}} and fix it up, at the very least. Grutness... wha? 00:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment So why not just rename it, fix the cats issue in the template and redirect the television version to the newly renamed tv version rather than nom it for total deletion?? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 00:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I didn't nominate it for total deletion. This page is where renames are discussed as well, since that generally includes the deletion of the original template name. Grutness... wha? 01:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh OK. So we couldn't just renamed it without having to wait for a consensus? Or create TV and redirect Television since there's quite a few articles that are using the Television version? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 03:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Moved and fixed. BTW, you did tag it with {{ sfd-t}}, and "at the very least" seems to imply possible deletion, so some confusion on that front does seem understandable. We do have some redirects from -television- to -tv- templates, so it's not entirely unreasonable to have that... on the other hand, it seems fairly unreasonable to type anything that long. :) (It's also currently used on all of two articles, btw.) Tag the redirect if you especially want rid of it. Alai 04:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC) reply

No, that's fine. I didn't realise we had other x-television-station-stub redirects. Given that we do, there's no harm in it. BTW, I tend to use sfd-t since it "covers all bases" - it does say "deleted or renamed", and it allows for the possibility that someon will be more anti keeping a stub type than I am. Given that it's being kept as a redirect, this can probably be pretty much wrapped up straight away and closed as a simple redirecttion. Grutness... wha? 22:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I was thinking of {{ television-bio-stub}}, to be precise. I don't know if we have any other -station- ones, but it seems difficult to argue too strenuously for "mandatory abbreviation" in such cases. I wasn't suggesting you shouldn't have used sfd-t, just pointing out that you by doing so had nominated it for total deletion (among other possible outcomes). Alai 06:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• And may I suggest that Allstar take a look at the stub sorting guidelines, so that the mysteries of stub sorting procedures may be revealed. We're just trying to do things, as the Presbyterians say, "decently and in good order". :P Her Pegship (tis herself) 14:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Close Would an admin please close this? It's already been redirected and taken care of. Thanks. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 03:58, 25 October 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.