The result of the debate was close for the time being. The renaming of the state appears to be under consideration rather than finalised. A new SfD nomination should be opened if the new name is accepted and becomes widely used.
State's name has officially changed to
Odisha. Template and category should be renamed to {{Odisha-geo-stub}} and
Cat:Odisha geography stubs to match. Propose keeping current template name as a redirect.
Grutness...
wha? 00:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Rename.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu 18:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Rename to
Cat:Astronomical observatory stubs to match permcat.
Grutness...
wha? 00:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
Unproposed, badly named stub template with its own category despite severe size problems - it currently contains nine stubs (less that 1/6 of the threshold number), and those that it does contain are mostly, well, at best somewhat esoterically related to Canadian royalty, shall we say. I can see no reason why
a horse race in Hong kong even counts as a Canada-stub, let alone a Canada-royal-stub, and of the remaining eight stubs, two are only tangentially Canada-specific and five are not about royalty. Royal-stub tyles are generally for biographies of members of royal families and for descriptions of specific royal titles. For the most part, Canadian royalty is identical to UK royalty, and as such almost all relevant stubs are correctly and more effectively marked with UK-royal-stub. Only one current stub seems to qualify for this template and is Canada-specific:
Canadian Secretary to the Queen. One stub which could use a correctly-named {{
Canada-royal-stub}} is far, far too few to make such a template worthwhile. Delete, or, failing that, rename and upmerge the template, losing the current name.
Grutness...
wha? 22:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename
This one may rely on the outcome of a current CFR, but we have a mismatch between
West Midlands (county),
West Midlands (region), and the stub category names. The current permcats are
Cat:West Midlands (undergoing CFR) and
Cat:West Midlands (region). I'd like to suggest the following renames:
Grutness... wha? 00:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename
The result of the debate was Speedy delete
Delete. Faulty on many levels:
Grutness... wha? 23:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment Sorry for the fuss :(. I'm inexperienced with templates in general, and although I tried to research them before creating, I will support the delete because:
I guess the PJTF will have to stick with the more general {{ Fantasy-stub}} for the time being. Airplaneman talk 23:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I'll certainly consider that. Thanks for your help! Airplaneman talk 00:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I guess we can go ahead with the delete :(. Airplaneman talk 03:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete
Appears to have been created as a "wanted category" after being redlinked from a discussion at WP talk:WikiProject Green Day. No template, either, so it's not used in its current form - no sign that it's ever been used, in fact, other than for the talk page discussion, and given that there are only some 80 articles listed by WPGD as being within their scope, it's definitely a case where a talk-page banner would make far more sense (in any case, we don't generally split music stubs by individual artists). Delete
Grutness...
wha? 23:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Rename.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu 08:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Pakistan is a Commonwealth country which generally uses UK English - as such the permcat parent for this is - correctly - at
Cat:Organisations based in Pakistan. The stub cat should be spelt with an -s- to match.
Grutness...
wha? 23:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Rename . עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming
Both pending the outcome of related CFR nominations. Grutness... wha? 23:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC) reply
UPDATE: CFR was closed as a rename to Foo Region, so the current proposal would agree with that. Grutness... wha? 23:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete
Unproposed, with redlinked category,. If it had been proposed, it would undoubtedly have been firmly rejected asa n idea - we have deleted similar stubs based on Tatarstan in the past, for the same reason that stubs are not made for other similar regions. Not generally helpful as a stub type (and decidedly unhelpful as a precedent). Delete.
Grutness...
wha? 00:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
But can't there be one stub for all Tatar writers, which can unite all of them?-- 94.180.162.57 ( talk) 08:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Addendum: Cat:Tatar writer stubs - created since the template was nominated for deletion - is now also included in this nomination. Further note that even if every one of the 29 articles in Cat:Tatar writers were a stub (which is not the case - only some eleven are of stub size), it would fall short of the required threshold for a separate category by a considerable distance. Indeed, some of the articles which had been added to the stub category were not stubs. Grutness... wha? 00:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry, I didn't new that. If it's so necessary, delete it.-- YildizTat ( talk) 11:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu 15:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Unproposed, and with a
distinctly ambiguous name. The stbcat is not attached anywhere to the stub category tree. Used on 17 articles, all but one of which are actually bio-stubs (the remaining one should probably have listdev rather than a stub template). The associated permcat has fewer than 50 articles in total (including its subcat), so there's no chance of this having 60 current stubs. Upmerge would be an option if (a) the template had been named correctly and (b) it was actually used for things which should be using it rather than bio-stubs. As it is, it seems less than useful even as a redirect. Delete.
Grutness...
wha? 00:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
Unproposed stub type for a tennis tournament. Currently used on two articles, and the associated permcat only has fifteen articles in total - even if all of them were stubs (which they aren't) it would only get 25% of the way to being viable as a separate stub category. Probably not even that useful as an upmerged template -
Cat:Tennis competition stubs is fairly large, but splitting it by decade or era would probably make more sense. Delete.
Grutness...
wha? 00:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu 11:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Appears to be a misguided attempt to create a "not-quite-a-stub template". Unused - as are its redirects at {{
Hamburg-geo-small}} and {{
Hamburg--small}} (!). Unneeded - either something is a stub or it isn't, and if it isn't it uses {{
expand}}. I really, really doubt anyone would think it was a good idea to create a parallel system to the stub system to sort articles which aren't quite stubs. If there's enough interest in grading all hamburg articles, a talk page assessmrent template is a much more sensible option. Delete.
Grutness...
wha? 23:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was close for the time being. The renaming of the state appears to be under consideration rather than finalised. A new SfD nomination should be opened if the new name is accepted and becomes widely used.
State's name has officially changed to
Odisha. Template and category should be renamed to {{Odisha-geo-stub}} and
Cat:Odisha geography stubs to match. Propose keeping current template name as a redirect.
Grutness...
wha? 00:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Rename.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu 18:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Rename to
Cat:Astronomical observatory stubs to match permcat.
Grutness...
wha? 00:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
Unproposed, badly named stub template with its own category despite severe size problems - it currently contains nine stubs (less that 1/6 of the threshold number), and those that it does contain are mostly, well, at best somewhat esoterically related to Canadian royalty, shall we say. I can see no reason why
a horse race in Hong kong even counts as a Canada-stub, let alone a Canada-royal-stub, and of the remaining eight stubs, two are only tangentially Canada-specific and five are not about royalty. Royal-stub tyles are generally for biographies of members of royal families and for descriptions of specific royal titles. For the most part, Canadian royalty is identical to UK royalty, and as such almost all relevant stubs are correctly and more effectively marked with UK-royal-stub. Only one current stub seems to qualify for this template and is Canada-specific:
Canadian Secretary to the Queen. One stub which could use a correctly-named {{
Canada-royal-stub}} is far, far too few to make such a template worthwhile. Delete, or, failing that, rename and upmerge the template, losing the current name.
Grutness...
wha? 22:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename
This one may rely on the outcome of a current CFR, but we have a mismatch between
West Midlands (county),
West Midlands (region), and the stub category names. The current permcats are
Cat:West Midlands (undergoing CFR) and
Cat:West Midlands (region). I'd like to suggest the following renames:
Grutness... wha? 00:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename
The result of the debate was Speedy delete
Delete. Faulty on many levels:
Grutness... wha? 23:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment Sorry for the fuss :(. I'm inexperienced with templates in general, and although I tried to research them before creating, I will support the delete because:
I guess the PJTF will have to stick with the more general {{ Fantasy-stub}} for the time being. Airplaneman talk 23:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I'll certainly consider that. Thanks for your help! Airplaneman talk 00:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I guess we can go ahead with the delete :(. Airplaneman talk 03:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete
Appears to have been created as a "wanted category" after being redlinked from a discussion at WP talk:WikiProject Green Day. No template, either, so it's not used in its current form - no sign that it's ever been used, in fact, other than for the talk page discussion, and given that there are only some 80 articles listed by WPGD as being within their scope, it's definitely a case where a talk-page banner would make far more sense (in any case, we don't generally split music stubs by individual artists). Delete
Grutness...
wha? 23:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Rename.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu 08:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Pakistan is a Commonwealth country which generally uses UK English - as such the permcat parent for this is - correctly - at
Cat:Organisations based in Pakistan. The stub cat should be spelt with an -s- to match.
Grutness...
wha? 23:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Rename . עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming
Both pending the outcome of related CFR nominations. Grutness... wha? 23:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC) reply
UPDATE: CFR was closed as a rename to Foo Region, so the current proposal would agree with that. Grutness... wha? 23:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete
Unproposed, with redlinked category,. If it had been proposed, it would undoubtedly have been firmly rejected asa n idea - we have deleted similar stubs based on Tatarstan in the past, for the same reason that stubs are not made for other similar regions. Not generally helpful as a stub type (and decidedly unhelpful as a precedent). Delete.
Grutness...
wha? 00:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
But can't there be one stub for all Tatar writers, which can unite all of them?-- 94.180.162.57 ( talk) 08:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Addendum: Cat:Tatar writer stubs - created since the template was nominated for deletion - is now also included in this nomination. Further note that even if every one of the 29 articles in Cat:Tatar writers were a stub (which is not the case - only some eleven are of stub size), it would fall short of the required threshold for a separate category by a considerable distance. Indeed, some of the articles which had been added to the stub category were not stubs. Grutness... wha? 00:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry, I didn't new that. If it's so necessary, delete it.-- YildizTat ( talk) 11:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu 15:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Unproposed, and with a
distinctly ambiguous name. The stbcat is not attached anywhere to the stub category tree. Used on 17 articles, all but one of which are actually bio-stubs (the remaining one should probably have listdev rather than a stub template). The associated permcat has fewer than 50 articles in total (including its subcat), so there's no chance of this having 60 current stubs. Upmerge would be an option if (a) the template had been named correctly and (b) it was actually used for things which should be using it rather than bio-stubs. As it is, it seems less than useful even as a redirect. Delete.
Grutness...
wha? 00:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete
Unproposed stub type for a tennis tournament. Currently used on two articles, and the associated permcat only has fifteen articles in total - even if all of them were stubs (which they aren't) it would only get 25% of the way to being viable as a separate stub category. Probably not even that useful as an upmerged template -
Cat:Tennis competition stubs is fairly large, but splitting it by decade or era would probably make more sense. Delete.
Grutness...
wha? 00:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu 11:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Appears to be a misguided attempt to create a "not-quite-a-stub template". Unused - as are its redirects at {{
Hamburg-geo-small}} and {{
Hamburg--small}} (!). Unneeded - either something is a stub or it isn't, and if it isn't it uses {{
expand}}. I really, really doubt anyone would think it was a good idea to create a parallel system to the stub system to sort articles which aren't quite stubs. If there's enough interest in grading all hamburg articles, a talk page assessmrent template is a much more sensible option. Delete.
Grutness...
wha? 23:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
reply