Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/November/2

Various templates

 * 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 and upmerge - the dist-stub types may need further debate later

From Discoveries: There are 46 templates which are of the form Ohio-countyname-NRHP-struct-stub and 8 of the form Ohio-countyname-NRHP-dist-stub for structures and districts respectively in Ohio. These should be renamed to countynameOH-NRHP-struct-stub to conform to the precedent set by the split of Ohio-school-stub, Florida-NRHP-struct-stub and vaious other splits of US states. Note when announced at discoveries I did not realise that some were for districts do we split these out in any other state. (PS I think I tagegd them all 54 with sfd-t.) Waacstats 14:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Districts of what sort? Which templates would those be?  Alai 01:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The district ones worry me a little, too... certainly go ahead and rename the others to standard form, though. Grutness...wha?  01:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The district ones appear to be for places on the NRHP list and designated as districts, but I'don't know much about the NRHP.Waacstats 12:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example? Alai 19:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ohio-Ashtabula-NRHP-dist-stub. Waacstats 20:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Aaaaah. OK, that does seem a little wonky:  it doesn't appear to be a B&S type, so it should be upmerged to, or else perhaps to a , if there's the numbers for it.  Perhaps the templates should also be -geo- ones, though having them on a per-county basis looks like massive overkill, at this point.  Alai 21:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For that matter, the parent category should be renamed Ohio-NRHP-stub / (it's currently Ohio-NRHP-struct-stub / ). Do we need to nominate that separately or can it be addressed here? Her Pegship  (tis herself)  17:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, I get it now. It wouldn't need renaming, but we could certainly create Ohio-NRHP-stub and to house the district/county/non-B&S types. Her Pegship  (tis herself)  20:00, 12 November 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.

1948s-novel-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

Novel stubs are divided by decade, and as far as I know the 1948s isn't a decade. There's certainly no need to split them up by year, and if there were, then a proposal for 1948-novel-stub would have been the way to go, not this. Delete. Grutness...wha?  00:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. On a semi-related note, why are all the "novel-stub" templates repeatedly made to look like a dog's dinner with pointless includeonly spam?  Alai 13:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Couldn't say it any better. Icestorm815 03:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - no need as of yet to split novels by year! SkierRMH 02:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - As SkierRMH said, there is no need to split novels by year. Neran e i   (talk) 04:00, 6 November 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.