Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/June/16

Napoleonic-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 all

Even if you disregard for a moment the ridiculous category name, there's no denying that this unproposed stub type does little more than duplicate the long-established NapoleonicWars-stub and. Delete. Grutness...wha?  02:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Napoleonic Wars stub cat is wrong the Napoleonic war were from 1805-1815, not 1792-1815. My cat, is intended for the French Revolutionary Wars, therefore it should be renamed to French Revolutionary Wars stubs.--Bryson109 02:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me guess, to ? That's also not NG-compliant (or proposed, or needed, given the type Grutness mentions...)  Alai 03:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Cat:Napoleonic-stubs" should be deleted; however. --Bryson109 03:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * At the risk of sounding like a dime-store Solomon, I have to say delete 'em all, and merge to, following the permcat (unless subcats specifically for the component conflicts are feasible and desirable).  Keep the templates that follow the NGs, and renaming or deleting thems that don't.  Alai 03:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the newcomers. The scope and name used for NapoleonicWars-stub and  were both vetted with the Military History project before they were created.  (I know it seems amazing, a stub actually being proposed and the opinion of knowledgeable Wikipedians working on the articles consulted before being created.)  If they wish to change the scope or name, I have no objection, but that does not seem to be the case here.  Furthermore, there are not enough stubs to warrant different stubs for both.  Indeed, now that the battles have been separated out into a separate stub type (Napoleonic-battle-stub ), there's barely enough for one stub type. Caerwine Caer’s whines  06:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't just seem amazing, frankly it is amazing. :) I've already dropped a line at the WikiProject Military history/Napoleonic era task force and asked them to comment on the name issue.  Alai 16:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the new duplicates. Not needed. Valentinian T / C 22:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Agree completely that this material doesn't live up to the size criterion for two categories. It doesn't even live up to the criterion for one template (= c. 60 stub articles). Unless more stub articles exist, this material should be upmerged. Valentinian T / C 11:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I agree with Bryson. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk  -- (dated 09:48, 17 June 2007 UTC)
 * Delete, my money is with Grutness. No need to have a redundent stub class which seemingly is intended to do the same thing. It was rencently renamed to French Revolutionary Wars-stub and has a ridiclous number of 13 articles. Thats too few. Thats not even a quarter way to 70. -- Cat chi? 21:04, 23 June 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.