Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/January/9

Philippine Movie 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

Not proposed and, frankly, quite a mess. The template: uses the adjectival form; uses spaces rather than hyphens; capitalises all words; useds the term movie rather than film - all counter tol standard stub naming. The category: capitalises all words; uses the singular "stub"; uses the term movie rather than film; has no stubcat parents; has inappropriate permcat parents (one of which is a redlink). The stub type overall: is not assured of reaching the required threshold. The template should be either deleted orrenamed and upmerged - the current name should definitely not be kept as a redirect. Grutness...wha?  01:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For the most part, we're not splitting by country of origin, so delete. If there's a strong case to do so here, which I must say is not immediately clear to me, rename and upmerge.  Alai (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename Philippines-film-stub and upmerge for now. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 05:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Renameper above, there are enough in the category to justify its existence. Delete. Per Alai, who has brought to my attention policy which states that there should be a minimum of 60 articles in the category, this one only has 14. --Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 17:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there are not. Alai (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename Philippines-film-stub per Japan-film-stub. Meets minimun of 60 artciles per CatScan. -- bluemask (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Populated the category. As of 01/25/2008, there are 71 articles. -- bluemask (talk) 08:03, 25 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.

UK-Olympic-medalist-stub -> GB-Olympic-medalist-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 keep

The United Kingdom does not field a team nor compete at the Olympics, Great Britain does and we should reflect that properly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Partial support - if changed, GreatBritain-Olympic-Medalist-stub would be preferable for the template. Ideally, though, the template could remain at the current naming (or at the very least the current name should be left as a redirect). The category though probably should be changing. Grutness...wha?  23:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Alai raises some good points, though there are counterbalanced by the team name actually used. Changing to neutral (no !vote) Grutness...wha?  23:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose any rename of the template. The UK(oGB&NI) does field an Olympic team, with precisely that scope.  (Well, given or take some NIers who can choose to represent either the UK, or the Republic.)  What you mean is that it's called "Great Britain" for said purposes, obviously using the principle of maximum confusion.  To quote the very first sentence of Great Britain at the Olympics:  "Great Britain is the name used by the United Kingdom at the Olympic Games."  Given that the scope is "the UK", it would cause untold confusion to have the "UK-" template not sort here, and indeed, further confusion if a "GB-" or "GreatBritain-", which is only used on a very few templates where the scope actually is Great Britain.  The category name I'm easy either way with, given that the permcats have already moved to the "official" name.  Alai (talk) 23:17, 10 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.