Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/August/8

Nicaraguan-protected-area-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

Unproposed and - given that there are only some 210 Nicaraguan geography stubs - not likely to come within a bull's roar of threshold. Template is misnamed, too - should be Nicaragua-protected-area-stub. The two most obvious options are renaming/upmerging or simply deleting. The latter is probably the better option - though is a candidate for splitting, splitting out larger regions and those which actually have a large number of stubs would make far more sense than starting with ones which have very few. An upmerged CentralAm-protected-area-stub might be a viable compromise. Grutness...wha?  01:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not too sure of the rules for creating stub templates for protected areas. I followed the style of both CostaRica-protected-area-stub and . I was planning on starting (stub) pages for the list of protected areas of Nicaragua, but ill hold out on some and tag them with Protected-area-stubs.  LaNicoya    •TALK•  02:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Check WP:STUB - this gives the details about how to create stub types, when they should be created, and how they should be proposed beforehand. One usual rule is 60 currently existing stubs on a subject - though you may have good intentions to create more, often such intentions are not carried through on and we're left with near-empty stub categories. And even if all the redlinks on the page you mention became stub articles, there still wouldn't be 60 stubs on the subject - which is why a more widely-scoped category such as one for Central America in general might be more useful. The stub-type naming conventions are also useful to check - that would have told you that - like the Costa Rica stub template, it should have had the noun form rather than the adjective form of the country's name. Grutness...wha?  01:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If we're going to split into something smaller, a CentralAm-protected-area-stub will certainly be useful. The growth potential seems fair given the many redlinks on Protected areas of Nicaragua, so I don't have any problem with an upmerged Nicaragua- template, but a distinct Nicaraguan category should wait till we have 60 stub articles. Valentinian T / C 21:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And contrariwise, if we're going to split out a, let's populate it from by-country templates, if at all possible, in preference to from CentralAm-protected-area-stub. Alai 05:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Closing note: I didn't not take into consideration the creation of CentralAm-protected-area.  Please take that to /P. You will have to recreate Nicaragua if it is deemed necessary.  ~ Amalas  rawr  =^_^=  16:19, 23 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.