Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/March/22

rename to... something

 * 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

I seem to have accents, diacritics, and other ext-Latin matters on the brain at the moment... But that aside, this is wholly inconistent with both the permcat, perhaps somewhat tersely at, and the article, which is at Centre, France. I'm not sure any of these are ideal, but let's either bring the stub cat somewhat more in line with the other two, or take one or both of those off for renaming, then revisit this. Alai (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is probably a case where the stub template name is right and the permcat is wrong - that's a mighty ambiguous cat name. Grutness...wha?  20:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The stub template name (element) and the permcat are the same... Alai (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhhh. Need more coffee. Make that stub category :) I've taken the permcat to CFD, BTW. Grutness...wha?  22:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: Permcat is now at - suggest the stubcat should follow suit. Grutness...wha?  23:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename as per G. Her Pegship  (tis herself)  17:20, 16 April 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.

Torchwood-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 Upmerge to 

Unproposed, though well formed, but hardly necessary. Yes, there is a Torchwood WikiProject, but there is also a hardly-overtaxed Doctor Who stub type which all these articles could easily be marked with, and given the size of the Torchwood permcat (which, with all its article subcats, barely scrapes to 60 articles, many of which cover both Torchwood and Doctor Who), it seems to be redundant to separate this out as a separate stub type. Delete, or at the very least upmerge into. Grutness...wha?  23:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe the contents are bigger on the inside th-- OK, never mind. Upmerge on size, seems relatively well-scoped and sensible otherwise.  Alai (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Already well-covered by Doctor Who stub and project. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 15:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose as Torchwood is a series which is still airing new episodes, the articles will likely increase. - LA @ 19:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ...in which case it would be a simple case to propose the category at that time. Stub category thresholds are based on current stub numbers, not possible future stubs (it's possible to make 60 stubs on anything... but that doesn't mean that those stubs will be made). An upmerging until that time means that the stubs are ready sorted for any future split - if it's required. Grutness...wha?  00:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Upmerge; the project it belongs to is also proposed to be upmerged. Sceptre (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Upmerge SeveroTC 22:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Upmerge: It sounds like a reasonable way to deal with the situation.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose as per say LA. 81.86.68.253 (talk) 16:44, 2 April 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.