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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply

This category is empty and is found under ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Pokémon stubs. Although it thus classifies itself amongst the stub categories, it indicates it is not itself a stub category. Its stated intent is to group non-stub documents which need expansion in specific sections. It does not indicate an associated template. I nominate this for deletion. Dawynn ( talk) 15:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete Empty category with no foreseeable use. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 18:55, 6 April 2010 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply

This is currently an unpopulated category, although I can see a few articles in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Nintendo stubs that belong here. As ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Nintendo stubs really does not need breaking yet (less than 200 articles), I would vote for deleting ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Pokémon stubs, but keeping the template {{ Pokémon-stub}}, allowing it to upmerge to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Nintendo stubs. If we ever reach 60 Pokémon stubs, then we can consider rebuilding a category. Dawynn ( talk) 15:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Nintendo stubs, as I highly doubt that there are enough Pokemon stubs to make this a reasonable stubcat. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 18:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Further investigation reveals that {{ pokémon-stub}} and {{ pokemon-stub}} are currently only redirects to {{ Nintendo-stub}}. So, there is no true template for this category. Dawynn ( talk) 11:51, 7 April 2010 (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 per similar discussion at CFD and no objections here. RL0919 ( talk) 13:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Rename to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Football clubs in Northern Ireland stubs - to match the permcat, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Football clubs in Northern Ireland, renamed per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 2#Northern Irish xxx to xxx of Northern Ireland. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:40, 25 March 2010 (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 Keep. Ruslik_ Zero 19:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Åland Islands stubs, per main article/category. Currently 77 pages, including the templates above.

• Completed incomplete nom. —  Train2104 ( talk • contribs • count) 00:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• Oppose, but with comment. All other categories relating to the islands are simply in the form ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Åland (e.g., ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Communications in Åland, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Economy of Åland). I do note, however, that the key article is Åland Islands. Either it should be renamed to Åland or some more widespread move should be proposed for the permanent categories at WP:CFD. If such a proposal is made and accepted there, then it would be natural for the stub category to follow suit. Unless that happens, though, it should stay where it is. And given that all other articles relating to the place simply use the form Åland - and even sections of the article Åland Islands are headed just as Åland - it would seem to make more sense to simply rename the key article. Grutness... wha? 03:08, 19 September 2010 (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 category per below and previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 41#British football bio stub. Note that I am only renaming this one category. If there are several very similar categories to be renamed, I would suggest a single group nomination for them. -- RL0919 ( talk) 18:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I would like to rename the above category to something like Category:English football, defender, 1880s birth stubs in order to not try and infer nationality when it may not be known, having already changed the explanatory text at the associated template ( Template:England-footy-defender-1880s-stub) and the explanatory text at the top of the category page. If this is deemed acceptable I would then be looking to similarly rename the other English football bio categories, and then other countries. I would welcome any thoughts on an alternative rename. Thanks. Eldumpo ( talk) 09:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Reposted here per request from Eldumpo. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• This was discussed at WT:FOOTY#British football bio stub, with a general consensus that renaming the category would be the correct approach. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:33, 6 March 2010 (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. Even with 15 articles, this is still well below the usual threshold for creating a stub type subcategory. I intend to replace the template with {{ Anime-series-stub}} on the articles where it appears, so if there is any objection to that, either let me know or just update the articles after me. -- RL0919 ( talk) 18:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Seems excessively narrow, and is used on only two articles. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment I've gone through and populated Category:Anime episode list stubs with the list stubs that were in Category:Anime and manga stubs. That makes 15 articles altogether. The stub's text should be reworded if it is to be kept. — Farix ( t |  c) 12:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete for the most part, there should never be such a think as an "episode list stub". If it truly is a stub, it shouldn't even exist and needs to just be redirect back to the main article until such time as an actual list is available. List of Project ARMS episodes for example should either be redirected or deleted. It pretty much has no content at all other than fansub titles. List of Soul Link episodes is badly formatted, but it isn't a stub. It has the entire episode list. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 14:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete for the reasons given by Collectonian. There shouldn't be any episode list stubs, and any that exist should be merged/redirected back to the main article until there is enough information to split them off into a non-stub list. ··· 日本穣 ^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment Yes, I (partially) agree with that. It's a better idea to keep the episode list on the main page and then create another page after enough information is available. However, Doing so might require cleanup which means that all the summaries might need to be deleted to remove clutter. For example, 50% of a large episode list is completed but will take too much space off the main page. This is however rather problematic as the information is enough to move it from the main page to a new one but that new page may still be a stub. Please reconsider this or at the very least, provide a better solution. Rather offtopic: As for the previous mention of 'fansub titles', that page should not even exist with such little information being available. It has a poorly formatted table too. It needs to be merged with the main page. At least the Kanji titles and some summaries should be provided with before creating such episode lists. (This is a rather easy thing to do: any TV channel which airs said series and has a showtime list can be used as a reference) Salmankhanpisces ( talk) 20:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Episode lists don't have to be complete to be separated from the main series article. List of Cross Game episodes is a good example of this as the series is still airing. The episode list shouldn't be separated until there is enough material for it to not be a stub (say 8-10 episodes or so). This is why there should never be an episode list stub. ··· 日本穣 ^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment note that stub-class isn't determined solely by article length - an article could be two or three pages long, but if it isn't wikified at all and is otherwise poorly formatted, I would still assess it as a stub. Similarly, if a chapter list is nothing but a list of titles or a badly formatted, hard-coded table, it would be a stub-class list (I am assuming, for the sake of argument, that there are simply too many episodes to just merge the list back to the main article, otherwise it should be merged until properly formatted and expanded). -- Dinoguy1000 ( talk · contribs) as 66.116.30.195 ( talk) 19:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment What was the original intent of this? Right now it looks identical to {{anime-stub}} -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 14:32, 18 March 2010 (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.