Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/March/7

Several Texas city templates

 * 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 Austin-TX-stub, keep others as is

Following debate on category names at Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2008/February/7, I'm moving this to a separate section (the categories were pretty straightforward, this may need more discussion).

Currently we have templates at:
 * Austin-TX-stub
 * Houston-stub and
 * Dallas-stub

At the very least, the Austin one needs moving, but should it be moved to Austin-stub, or should it be moved to AustinTX-stub (since Austin is a dab page)? And if the latter, is it worth moving the other two at the same time? Dallas-stub could refer to the 80s TV series, for instance. At the very least, AustinTX-stub seems logical, though the others may be worth changing as well. Grutness...wha?  00:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename all three to CitynameTX-stub for clarity and consistency with other US city stubs. - Dravecky (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per Dravecky. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 21:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename just the the first to Austin-stub. We've been using stubs of the form XX-* to refer to counties in state XX and there exists an Austin County, a Dallas County, and a Houston County in Texas, of which only Dallas County has anything to do with the city of the same name. Caerwine Caer’s whines  23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Erg - hadn't realised that. That would indeed cause problems. A rename simply to Austin-stub doesn't seem so bad in that case, though it'd be nice if a better long-term solution were possible. Grutness...wha?  02:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Erg, indeed. Perhaps (the admittedly longish) Dallas-Texas-stub, Houston-Texas-stub, and Austin-Texas-stub?  - Dravecky (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That would still leave room for confusion with the counties. Perhaps a more general renaming of them as well, so that we have AustincityTX-stub and AustincountyTX-stub or similar? Grutness...wha?  21:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On the whole I'm inclined to bend the "ambiguity" rule, and rename to Austin-stub, since the other alternatives seem on the whole worse. Strong oppose to TX-stub -- that's entirely the wrong convention, as CW says.  The likes of city- -stub (or indeed, -city-stub!) would remove the ambiguity, but would be horribly confusing (and indeed, generally horrible) for other reasons.  Alai (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * After much consideration (and my realization that I have no better idea to offer) I rescind my earlier rename suggestion and instead wholeheartedly support Alai's suggestion above to rename to Austin-stub and leave the others alone (for now). - Dravecky (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy enough with a move to Austin-stub. Hopefully they won't cause too much of a problem with ambiguity - the risk is there, but isn't huge. This solution seems to be the lesser of two (or least of more than two) evils. Grutness...wha?  06:35, 15 March 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.