Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/December/30

Greater-Manchester-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 renamed

Unproposed and misnamed - the template should be at GreaterManchester-stub. May be worth having as such, so I'd suggest a rename (with deletion of the old name as non-standard). The category is another matter. It was a bit of a mess, with Stub-Class categories as subtypes (a no-no for stub categories, since the two systems are independent), and with as an incorrect parent. Even cleaned up as it is now, there's no guarantee it will meet threshold; unless it does, it will need upmerging. Grutness...wha?  01:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support renaming and deletion and upmerger if necessary. Waacstats (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support renaming. I didn't know I had to propose stubs before adding them. The purpose of this one is because there is no generic stub covering the Greater Manchester region - only some subject-specific ones so it's really worth having. I'm fine with renaming if I've broken naming conventions but would be sad to see it deleted as it's useful. 11:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PS I don't understand the problem with the category - comparing it to, say, Category:London stubs or other similar ones, it has the same approach.Wikidwitch (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Main problem is the size - to be truly useful to stub sorters and editors alike there needs to be at least a minimum number of stubs in the category - for most purposes we've set this to 60 stubs, to stop the proliferation of tiny stub categories which would be impossible to patrol. If you can find 60 general stubs on Greater Manchester and add them to the category, then there's no problem with it. if not, it should be upmerged until there are 60 (see Stub). Grutness...wha?  22:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood, but I haven't got around to populating it yet!Wikidwitch (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you've got until the end of this SfD process - and even if it's upmerged then through lack of numbers, it would be a fairly straightforward "speediable" nomination if and when it does get round to having enough stubs. Grutness...wha?  04:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, well I don't know how speedy I'm going to be! Anyone know, is there a rapid way of searching for stub articles within a category with AWB? Might help me along. Wikidwitch (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure about AWB, but this tool may help, looking for intersections between, say and . Grutness...wha?  20:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way - bio-stubs are not normally given subnational region stubs of any kind except in unusual circumstances (people move around too much and many of them could get several regional stubs otherwise). I've started the ball rolling on this by transferring the template over to the new name and adding a dozen or so stubs. With any luck 60 won't be too hard. Grutness...wha?  06:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

OK - that's got it to 60 stubs! The category's full, the template's been changed... this can probably be safely closed now :) Grutness...wha?  07:46, 12 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.