Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/March/25

→

 * 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

Because of this discussion I've done a mass CFD nomination at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_25 suggesting a standardization on Luxembourgian. Assuming that the CFD goes as I've proposed, rename the stub category to match the new name of the parent permcat. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Valentinian T / C 20:08, 26 March 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.

→

 * 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 to "Pre-1940 baseball pitcher stubs"

To reflect change of scope implied by un-upmerging the 60s and 70s templates. Alai 18:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * rename per Alai. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the category 1950s-baseball-pitcher-stub has 50 articles and the 1940s-baseball-pitcher-stub has 100 articles, might it not be an idea to split these two out first then rename to which looking at the category we will hve to do shortly any way. Waacstats 21:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good plan. Alai 00:52, 28 March 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.

BR-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 rename to BluegrassKY-stub; upmerge to Kentucky stubs

Excessively cryptic. Possibly an upmerged Kentucky-Bluegrass-geo-stub or BluegrassKY-geo-stub since most of these are geo stubs and there is an associated WikiProject altho without the Wikiproject this is not large enough to warrant a stub type. Also ameniable to a Kentucky-Bluegrass-stub or BluegrassKY-stub on the same basis. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Something must be done per nom. Alai 02:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Either rename template and upmerge, or rename cat to, since, going by BR... um, no, that seems to be a dab page. Just rename/upmerge, then. Be very careful with the naming, though - for most of the world Bluegrass only means a form of music, so it could cause some confusion. Grutness...wha?  05:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Closing note: I chose BluegrassKY-stub because it seems the WikiProject encompasses more than just geo articles. Also, this would be similar to things like GeorgiaUS-blah-stub.  ~ Amalas  rawr  =^_^=  15:10, 2 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.

Gaelic-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

Never proposed and highly unlikely to reach threshold. There is little here that a Scotland-stub or an appropriate hist-stub, org-stub, or lang-stub wouldn't cover just as well. No such permcat as, either. Delete. Grutness...wha?  00:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering that Scottish Gaelic is only the 4th most used Gaelic language (Irish, Welsh, and Breton all claim more speakers) and only the third most used language in Scotland (after English and Scots), there's definitely a mismatch here between the template and the category. Delete per Grutness. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Welsh and Breton are Brythonic languages, not Gaelic (or even Goidelic); Irish is rarely called "Gaelic" in English, whereas Scottish Gaelic frequently is;  English and Scots are both dialects of the same language.  But Gaelic is still somewhat ambiguous, and it seems much too narrow, so indeed, delete.  Alai 02:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't forget Manx, either... Grutness...wha?  06:37, 26 March 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.

British-boxing-bio-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 rename & change wording to be more inclusive

Never proposed, but at least it's well populated. It has several problems, though: 1) The template should be UK-boxing-bio-stub; 2) The category should be (pace Alai - this comment is based entirely on the current standard stub category naming scheme); 3) The template states that it is for boxers, whereas it should actually be for anyone associated with the sport, including trainers and managers. As such, I suggest renaming both, and not keeping the "British" template as a redirect. Grutness...wha?  00:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As the template and category creator, I have no problem with renaming -- I didn't realize that either needed to be proposed (sorry!), but thought that having a separate category for UK boxers made logical sense, due to the popularity of boxing in the UK, and UK boxing's crossover appeal to the US, as well as the number of historical figures in boxing from the UK. I would, though, recommend keeping the "British" template as a redirect, at least temporarily, until the British-tagged biographies could be shifted over into a UK-named category, sort of how the category "Living People" (as opposed to the correct category of "Living people") is handled now.  My apologies for the confusion!  --Tthaas 02:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename, per nom. Weak preference for the more inclusive scope, can live with either.  Tthaas, don't worry about the shifting over, it can readily be done by 'bot.  (And you're right, this type does make perfect sense, I doubt anyone'll object in principle.)  Alai 02:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Whew, a load off my mind! One stupid question -- should I keep categorizing British boxers, and if so, should I do it with the British-boxing-bio-stub tag (my gut says yes, if it's going to be changed by 'bot anyhow, but I'd rather ask than commit another faux pas)?--Tthaas 02:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, or if you want to save the poor 'bot the work, just start using UK-boxing-bio-stub. Alai 18:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Tthaas - please note that my nomination was for renaming, not deleting. I agree that it is almost certainly a useful category, though renaming it to UK and changing the wording to allow for the inclusion of coaches, trainers, etc is more in line with other similar categories (have a look at the wording of Boxing-bio-stub). Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  06:41, 26 March 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.