Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/January/4

Iceland-eco-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

Unproposed. Only one stub and little indication there'd be a viable number of stubs for this. Normally, that would mean an upmerge, but there's problems with the name of the template, too (is "eco" economy or ecology?). Rename template (don't keep current name as redirect), upmerge. Grutness...wha?  00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for creating this stub type without a proposal. On second thoughts, I agree that the name of the stub is ambiguous and probably unnecessary. Delete if you wish. Max Naylor (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2008 (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.

Mining 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/upmerge

Unproposed, incorrectly named, and ambiguously scoped (the category claims its for mines and mining, and its suggests the emphasis is on the latter; the template claims that it's only for mines). Mines are normally given whatever the local geo-stub type is, though I can envisage a stub type for mining technology, albeit likely an upmerged one. Rename and rescope template (don't keep current non-standard name as a redirect), upmerge. Grutness...wha?  00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename & don't redirect - The stub is incorrectly named (should be Mining-stub, correct?), however DuncanHill has revamped the wording to make it more appropriate. I am sure the stub template will be used for both mines and mining, (i.e. Birchtree Mine will have both a Mining stub and Manitoba-geo-stub attached to it, although gettign rid of the later might be an idea too.)--Kelapstick (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2008 (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.