Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/December/23

Indian divisional geography categories

 * 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

India's geography stubs are being split by division, and it'd be as well to get our ducks in a line naming-wise ASAP. In most cases so far, we have categories of the form, but Foo is simply the largest city in Foo division (and yes, the lower case "d" seems to be standard). I'd like to propose standardising on (most of those which exist already follow this format), with the following changes: Grutness...wha?  00:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * &rarr;
 * &rarr;
 * &rarr;
 * &rarr;
 * &rarr;
 * &rarr;

--  Tinu  Cherian  - 08:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I am confused. Alappuzha, Ernakulam etc said above are districts of kerala --  Tinu  Cherian  - 07:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support : District wise stub cats are needed like for
 * Though I agree, that's hardly the point being debated here. And may I ask why you changed the categories over before this process debate was closed? Grutness...wha?  23:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, We had already done this exercise for some of the other states ( per suggestion of Grutness) and you had already closed the discussion of WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals as "create per district". This discussion also went ahead with no objections over a week ( 7 day review period ) . And that is why I went ahead and created the new cats --  Tinu  Cherian  - 04:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the new Karnataka ones, which had been closed - I'm talking about the six nominated for renaming on this page - discussion of which has not yet been closed.BTW, if you're going to cite WP:BOLD ("why I did"), please make sure you read that page to understand why it is primarily for articles, and why more caution is needed for categories and templates. Grutness...wha?  23:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Btw, that was me who closed that discussion. Sorry for any ambiguity; I thought it was pretty clear. Cheers, Her Pegship  (tis herself) 05:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I acted upon this discussion which was closed for kerala stubs --  Tinu  Cherian  - 07:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The discussion was on Kerala stub types. None of those in this nomination are Kerala stub types. Grutness...wha?  23:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Missed a couple of words - sorry. The discussion was on Kerala stub types, but none of those in this nomination were among those Kerala stub types. Though the categories in this nomination were mentioned in passing in that proposal, they weren't actually part of it - that is, there was no proposal there to make, and the others. In fact, rather than just changing them over, I made it clear that I'd take those categories to SFD. that way, we could check for any objections before changing them. All in all though it probably makes no real difference - no-one's objected to the changes, so whether they were changed early or late doesn't really matter. Grutness...wha?  10:39, 13 January 2009 (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.