Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/August/13

California-county-route-stub / Category:California County Route stubs / California-County-Route-stub (redirect)

 * 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 due to WikiProject

Delete and merge to California-road-stub, which has been expanded to accomodate the new articles. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, only 31 articles are tagged with this template - not enough to warrant a separate stub now that California-road-stub exists. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom  master son T - C 23:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, IF changes are made to the California road stub template that make the shield route neutral or include all California road types (ie:County, US Highway and Interstate). Otherwise, Keep. Gateman1997 02:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Interstate and U.S. Route articles are addressed by other stubs. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why are we covering county routes with the state route stub? Gateman1997 02:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it's not the state route stub anymore. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we should remove the state route shield ;). Or add the signage for all the routes it covers. Gateman1997 03:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering that this will also be covering roads that are not numbered, this is not practical. Considering that every other state route stub is named -road-stub and has a state route shield, California is fully capable of having just a state route shield on its template. I don't see any other states complaining about this. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Stubs aren't meant to be overly specific - the shield here is unique to CA and is only an example to identify to the state. whereas the county sheild is a national standard.  master son T - C 03:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well we could always put something that's not a shield in it like a state outline or something similar. Or just leave it blank. And though no other states have complained, I am. So now someone has complained. Gateman1997 03:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments: as an arch-"too-small stub type deletionist", I must in conscience point out that this is just about big enough, given that it's the "main stub type" of a WPJ.  (Why we need multiple Wikiprojects for "Californian roads" is, I must admit, much less clear to me, but not really my concern.)  I don't really understand the 'image' objection, though.  The point is for images to be recognisable and illustrative, not that they represent all possible instances.  (Otherwise we'd tie ourselves in knots trying to work out how to choose an image for, say, scientist-stub, worrying whether a male German-American physicist can ever be used on, let's say, an article about a female Peruvian botanist, say.)  In any case, that's a matter for content editing, not for a deletion process (though I have to admit to many a tangential mid-SFD rant myself, it must be said).  Alai 04:05, 15 August 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.

Category:Narnia stubs

 * 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


 * rename Category:Narnia stubs to Category:The Chronicles of Narnia stubs per Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_5.--Mike Selinker 15:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * rename per nom. Makes sense to keep this consistent with the permcats. Grutness...wha?  00:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename. I think this could well be speedied, given the otherwise all-embracing CFR.  Alai 00:11, 17 August 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.