Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/April/26

KurdistanIran-geo-stub &rarr; KurdistanIR-geo-stub

 * 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 as is, create redirect from xxIR-geo-stub

As per stub naming guidelines. A slight slip, by the looks of it. Grutness...wha?  06:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? Why?  I accidentally spelt Iran as Iran?  If you really thought so, why's this at SFD, rather than on my talk page?  Wherein do the naming guidelines mandate abbreviating countries?  Add a redirect if you really want to save the extra two characters.  Alai 19:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well... see my note on the proposal page. Re the naming guidelines, that's interesting, I thought it had been put in there, per the discussion here. But in any case, don't we want consistency? We don't have LimburgNetherlands-geo-stub or CanterburyNewZealand-geo-stub, or PunjabIndia-geo-stub or any of the others which need dabbing by country - we use the digraph. For consistency surely it's better to use IR. As for your talk page, last time I did that it blew up out of all proportions, so I though things would be calmer and simpler if I just took it here. Grutness...wha?  00:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Bit odd to characterise it in the way you did, then. CanterburyNewZealand-geo-stub would be inconsistent indeed:  NZ seems to have elevated itself to the august (?) company of "US" and "UK" (and erstwhile wannabe "HK") that use a digraph in all stub template names.  But every other "Iran" template uses "Iran", no other province is proposed to use "IR", or any such variation, so as consistency goes, it's very much a special case.  I certainly don't want to end up with digraphs as "root" template names, and I equally don't want to have to explain to people why digraphs are Forbidden in one context, and Compulsory in another.  I'd in fact strongly prefer to see this sort of usage restricted to cases where length is a fairly pressing concern, and/or where there's some general "pattern of use" (like all those US counties with deeply unoriginal names that rather cry out of it).  So I'm having my doubts about LimburgNL- and PunjabIN, too, and suspect a non-redirect-removing move to Limburg(-)Netherlands-geo-stub and Punjab(-)India-geo-stub would be pretty sensible.  Alai 05:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't the abbreviation "IR" slightly problematic given that we also have Iraq? Valentinian T / C 22:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Using the alpha-2 codes does present the problem of ambiguity. Perhaps the less ambiguous alpha-3 code instead? Caerwine Caer’s whines  02:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea. KurdistanIRN sounds like a workable solution. Valentinian T / C 15:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes but it is one letter short of the whole thing... :) -- Cat chi? 15:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, lucky us that we don't have to fear a KurdistanVeryLongCountryName-geo-stub :) Valentinian T / C 18:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh. Btw I recall provinces name being "Kordestan". According to the article Kurdistan province (Iran) "Kordestan" seems to be the UniPersian spelling and was the original title of the article. It was moved at a point but I see no log for the move. -- Cat chi? 19:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmmm. That might solve things - though there may be objections if the page is moved back. Not that it really needs to be - one or two of the other termplates are at fractionally different names to the pages due to the problems with the transliteration in general (Hamadan/Hamedan, Esfahan/Isfahan, Baluchistan/Balochestan etc). And at Kordistan it wouldn't need any dabbing, any more than the Azarbaijan templates do. Grutness...wha?  23:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In the case of Iran I think spelling out the counties name should be preferable. With weird (wired?) provinces like Kordestan and Azerbaijan they make disambiguation a nightmare. -- Cat chi? 02:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Another one for the possible-redirect list, then; the ghost of SPUI is bound to be pleased (in a week with another "process page" on MFD, yet).  I'd tend to think that it's a bit of a subtle distinction for the canonical name, but I'd not be opposed, at least if the article is moved.  Alai 05:41, 29 April 2007 (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.

Tennessee-media-stub /

 * 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, send Florida media to its own SFD

We split media primarily by type, and only then by country and - later - subnational region. tehre is absolutely no need for an overarching media-stub for a single US state - we don't even have a US-media-stub. Never proposed, and if it had been it would have almost certaily been rejected for exactly those reasons. The category also contains two other templates Tennessee-newspaper-stub and Tennessee-radio-station-stub), both of which had been deliberately left pointing to standard upmerged categories. Delete. Grutness...wha?  06:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do whatever you feel you need to do, I'm not familiar with stub guidelines to be honest (wasn't even aware there was a WikiProject devoted to them. I was just trying to create a logical tree for the existing media stubs to work around, with the intent to populate it as time permitted.  WP:Tennessee is new, so we haven't had time to really flesh out what everything will fit in...heck, haven't even had time to fully assess and tag all of the Tennessee articles.  Chalk it up to unfamiliarity.  As for "deliberately left pointing", I simply left alone those categories that already existed in the stub templates. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 07:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that has existed for some time.  Ideally, we'd keep or get rid of both on a consistent basis (I'm inclined towards deletion).  Alai 19:05, 26 April 2007 (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.