Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/September/20

RC-dioc-org (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 delete

Redirect to the (sensibly-named, if wackily-coded) RC-diocese-stub. Delete due to NG issues. Alai 18:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. I've cleaned up the code for RC-diocese-stub. Switches is a bad idea on stub templates. Valentinian T / C 18:59, 20 September 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.

UK-pop-band-stub / Category:United Kingdom pop musical group 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 do not rename

Listing here on behalf of a user who brought it to CfD. Original nomination text follows. the wub "?!"  18:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:United Kingdom pop musical group stubs to Category:UNKNOWN
 * Nominator's rationale: I don't know exactly who must be renamed where, but there is a kind of disagreement: wikipedia has Category:British pop music groups but no corresponding stub. Alternatively, there is a stub categry, but no Category:United Kingdom pop musical groups. Is this intentional? Laudak 23:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No !vote from me. the wub "?!"  18:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So that's a !!vote, then? This is getting almost as bad as linear logic (or maybe chess notation, or something like that).  Anyhoo, I'd strongly favour taking this to CFR, and renaming the permcat (and its various siblings).  It's not usual practice for non-bios to use demonyms or toponyms, and much more so for them to use the noun and a preposition of some sort, which we then "minimally mangle" into the above form for the stub type.  Of course, this might mean that some Stub Grammarians will want non-standard usages when we come to create, , etc, but we can burn that bridge when we come to it.  At any rate, accordingly oppose renaming of the stub category.  Alai 00:36, 21 September 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.